# Dish Retrans Dispute with Fox over 50% Hike (Closed Thread)



## RasputinAXP

Well, it's time for another round of retransmission fighting.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/special/FOX-on-DISH-Network
http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishfox090810.htm

Rumors are indicating October 1st as a drop date for Fox Sports channels, FX and NatGeo with November 1st a drop date for some local Fox affiliates. Anyone else heard anything about it?


----------



## la24philly

i think dish network should do us all a favor and just file for chapter 11. they are in my opnion the worst tv provider ever. [Redacted]


----------



## lparsons21

Since you don't have them, why do you care if they are bad/good/indifferent?


----------



## habsfan66

RasputinAXP said:


> Well, it's time for another round of retransmission fighting.
> 
> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/special/FOX-on-DISH-Network
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishfox090810.htm
> 
> Rumors are indicating October 1st as a drop date for Fox Sports channels, FX and NatGeo with November 1st a drop date for some local Fox affiliates. Anyone else heard anything about it?


So would this mean that any NHL games carried by these stations would not be in the Center Ice package?


----------



## SDWC

Highly unlikely IMO this will happen. The phones will be ringing off the hook if even one minute of an NFL game on a Sunday is not carried by E* due to renewal disagreements.

If it were not this time of year I could see it lingering for awhile but with season premieres and NFL I expect this to be resolved.


----------



## epokopac

SDWC said:


> Highly unlikely IMO this will happen. The phones will be ringing off the hook if even one minute of an NFL game on a Sunday is not carried by E* due to renewal disagreements.
> 
> If it were not this time of year I could see it lingering for awhile but with season premieres and NFL I expect this to be resolved.


I agree, SDWC. E* would be commiting suicide by losing FOX. If that "does" happen, E* "WILL" be filing for Chapter 11 due to the enormous loss of subscribers.


----------



## tsmacro

We have until Oct 1st before anything happens? Shoot until then it's still all posturing and negotiating, it's not a dispute until channels are actually pulled and money stops being paid.


----------



## lparsons21

Yep, that is all it is. But it does seem that the posturing is starting earlier and getting dirtier more quickly than in the past.


----------



## phrelin

I expect the cost of my Top 200 package to rise at least 10% a year for the next decade as the media conglomerates exert their power - which means I expect it to double while the inflation rate hovers around 1%-2% a year.

I'm pretty sure most here understand the nature of the negotiations that are going on. It had already become pretty clear to me that we would soon see one of the broadcast networks tied into cable channel negotiations and it doesn't surprise me that it is Rupert Murdoch's operation.

Here's a list published by the research firm SNL Kagan showing what a typical cable carrier paid for channels in 2009:








How much of an increase do you want to pay News Corp? Taking only the News Corp channels in the first two columns and including a low number for the Fox Broadcast Network channel in your area not owned by News Corp, here's examples of possible increases you might be asked to pay by News Corp, the company that talks many in the nation into believing government regulation is bad:








Assuming Dish passes through an increase, what seems fair to you? My guess is that Murdoch will ask for $2.59 plus whatever he wants for network affiliate channels Fox owns. Charlie will offer something like 3% which would be $0.16 and everything will depend on who blinks enough.

If you think what Dish does isn't important, the stakes are simply that Charlie will hold out if he thinks it is too much. Whatever he finally agrees to will become the starting point in the future for any other cable or satellite provider. It will also become the starting point for future negotiations with the NBCU-Comcast group, Showtime/MTV group, Disney/ABC group, etc.

It will be interesting to see if Charlie can handle the threats many of his customers will make like some of you here. If he can't, you should expect your TV costs to double while your income stagnates.

And don't start chatting about breaking up the packages into a la carte. Murdoch knows that won't work for him and it's what he thinks that counts, thinking that does not include the best interest of 100,000,000 American households.

This situation makes me angry as it was predictable. I think regulations create the monopolies (particularly at the broadcast network level) for the owner of Fox News which he successfully lobbies to keep in place, along with the other media conglomerates. But the rates he can extort won't be regulated - they are left to the "marketplace" as his shills would proudly proclaim.


----------



## Paul Secic

SDWC said:


> Highly unlikely IMO this will happen. The phones will be ringing off the hook if even one minute of an NFL game on a Sunday is not carried by E* due to renewal disagreements.
> 
> If it were not this time of year I could see it lingering for awhile but with season premieres and NFL I expect this to be resolved.


Agree! They'll settle this quickly. Too much riding on it.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> I expect the cost of my Top 200 package to rise at least 10% a year for the next decade as the media conglomerates exert their power - which means I expect it to double while the inflation rate hovers around 1%-2% a year.


I could chart it over the course of a decade, but isn't that pretty much how it has gone so far? Even with some type of variance, the package pricing has gone up 5 to 10 percent yearly, no?


phrelin said:


> I'm pretty sure most here understand the nature of the negotiations that are going on. It had already become pretty clear to me that we would soon see one of the broadcast networks tied into cable channel negotiations and it doesn't surprise me that it is Rupert Murdoch's operation.


I could swear Dish Network had a dispute with Viacom when Viacom had CBS under it's belt, and all Viacom programming was pulled. So this certainly isn't a first.


phrelin said:


> If you think what Dish does isn't important, the stakes are simply that Charlie will hold out if he thinks it is too much. Whatever he finally agrees to will become the starting point in the future for any other cable or satellite provider. It will also become the starting point for future negotiations with the NBCU-Comcast group, Showtime/MTV group, Disney/ABC group, etc.


I'm not trying to be condescending, but I would think that DirecTV has carriage contracts, no? Why is Charlie "the most important man in the world", when everyone has contracts coming up for renewal? Is it because we on these forums hear about these programming disputes over and over again, but mainly from the Dish Network camp? After all, there has never been a proven argument one way or another that "what Charlie does" actually helps, except for when he caught the green (as in new) negotiating team of Lifetime flat-footed and Lifetime signed off on a deal that hurt them.

It's a bunch of sabre-rattling.

And before I forget, Fox doesn't own every "Fox Regional Sports Net". They own quite a few of them, but not all of them, and their reach is not national, in the sense that I believe they are missing RSN's in 3 of the five largest markets.


----------



## James Long

epokopac said:


> I agree, SDWC. E* would be commiting suicide by losing FOX. If that "does" happen, E* "WILL" be filing for Chapter 11 due to the enormous loss of subscribers.


I expect that FOX will settle and there won't be an outage. If there is one I expect it will be short.

As for the predictions of the death of DISH should the channels be dropped? Yeah, we've heard that before. The death of DISH is often held up as "certain" if they do not do something someone wants. And yet DISH survives.

If DISH ever gets to the point where the carriage of one channel or group of channels is life or death for the company the provider could demand anything they want. $100 per month per subscriber for the FOX signals pay it or go out of business!

Exaggerated hyperbole is possible on both sides of the argument ... and those who fall for the "you're going to lose your channels" web threats to get all hot and bothered don't help the situation. Somewhere in the middle is a point where FOX and DISH will end up. A little more than $0.00 per month per subscriber and a lot less than $100 per month per subscriber. Let those who are doing the deals do the deals.


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> I expect that FOX will settle and there won't be an outage. If there is one I expect it will be short.
> 
> As for the predictions of the death of DISH should the channels be dropped? Yeah, we've heard that before. The death of DISH is often held up as "certain" if they do not do something someone wants. And yet DISH survives.
> 
> If DISH ever gets to the point where the carriage of one channel or group of channels is life or death for the company the provider could demand anything they want. $100 per month per subscriber for the FOX signals pay it or go out of business!
> 
> Exaggerated hyperbole is possible on both sides of the argument ... and those who fall for the "you're going to lose your channels" web threats to get all hot and bothered don't help the situation. Somewhere in the middle is a point where FOX and DISH will end up. A little more than $0.00 per month per subscriber and a lot less than $100 per month per subscriber. Let those who are doing the deals do the deals.


Maybe that's what happened to my package.Had to call in to get off of the .01 cent Cinemax deal,went ahead and cancelled all my other Premium Movie services,HBO,Showtime,Starz.Got rid of the SuperStations,told the CSR wanted AT250 only.
Now at the bottom of my AT250 it says"No sports" online so I don't have FSW,CSW and Prime.The CSR even quoted me a cheaper price for AT250 than I was paying before.Which to me is no big deal I don't care for sports anyways.Heck they can take all the sports out of my package and give me the cheaper price,I'll be happy.


----------



## Jhon69

Jhon69 said:


> Maybe that's what happened to my package.Had to call in to get off of the .01 cent Cinemax deal,went ahead and cancelled all my other Premium Movie services,HBO,Showtime,Starz.Got rid of the SuperStations,told the CSR wanted AT250 only.
> Now at the bottom of my AT250 it says"No sports" online so I don't have FSW,CSW and Prime.The CSR even quoted me a cheaper price for AT250 than I was paying before.Which to me is no big deal I don't care for sports anyways.Heck they can take all the sports out of my package and give me the cheaper price,I'll be happy.


Correction: just checked my AT250,it's still $64.99.


----------



## biz

This is why I retain my outdoor HD antenna. With HD Absolute, I don't get FX, or FSN anyhow. 

Agree, in football season, and baseball playoffs..no Fox = ticked off subscribers!


----------



## Willh

well i click the link in the opening post of this thread, the Fox 4 link (the local fox station here in the DFW area, which is my TV Market, living in Campbell, just Northeast of Dallas) sent me to an error message

here's what the error message says: 


> Uh oh... that page could not be found.
> 
> You wound up here, so obviously something went wrong. Either the page you were looking for does not exist or there was an error processing your request.
> 
> Please double-check the URL that brought you here and try again. You can also try using the site navigation or search tool to look for the content you were trying to find.
> 
> Click here to return to the home page.


so there could be two things,
a.) the page is not yet fully created as we are entering the second weekend of this month, and the contract ends at 11:59:59 PM on September 30th (not sure which time zone it would be ending at), so it would be a little early for a dispute headup page to be posted, those usally come out the week of the pending contract expiration.

or

b.)they signed a new deal in advance to prevent to pulling of channels or made a deal to keep the channels on while they work on a deal to keep them on long term for years to come.

let's hope the dispute doesn't result in more channels lost on Dish, Dish made the mouse mad and the Dolan's hate Dish with a passion. we lost a few HD feed of Disney owned networks this year as well as MSG's Fuse. and not to mention, despite the dispute over The Weather Channel, we were lucky that Dish and NBC-Universal were on good terms right now, but it won't be if the comcast take over is approved by the Department of Justice and the SEC (not the NCAA conference one but the stocks one).


----------



## projectorguru

i'm still upset about the disney channels, if they aren't on soon, time to move on, loosing fox would be the nail in the coffin


----------



## TulsaOK

I wonder if, and that's a big if, Dish drops Fox affiliates will the EPG have data for those of us who receive it OTA?


----------



## Paul Secic

Kent Taylor said:


> I wonder if, and that's a big if, Dish drops Fox affiliates will the EPG have data for those of us who receive it OTA?


Thankfully I don't watch FOX that much.


----------



## wolfjc

With all the noise about the fight with Dish and FOX.
What do you folks think will happen to CI if the FOX sports channels go away?


----------



## wolfjc

Willh said:


> well i click the link in the opening post of this thread, the Fox 4 link (the local fox station here in the DFW area, which is my TV Market, living in Campbell, just Northeast of Dallas) sent me to an error message
> 
> here's what the error message says:
> 
> so there could be two things,
> a.) the page is not yet fully created as we are entering the second weekend of this month, and the contract ends at 11:59:59 PM on September 30th (not sure which time zone it would be ending at), so it would be a little early for a dispute headup page to be posted, those usally come out the week of the pending contract expiration.
> 
> or
> 
> b.)they signed a new deal in advance to prevent to pulling of channels or made a deal to keep the channels on while they work on a deal to keep them on long term for years to come.


News Digest
Fox Pulls Dish Network Warning
TVPredictions.com

Washington, D.C. (September 10, 2010) -- Fox has pulled a warning notice at a local station's web site suggesting that Dish Network could lose all Fox programming over the next two months.

Earlier this week, WDFW-TV, the Dallas affiliate for Fox, posted a page at MyFoxDFW.com that said Dish may stop carrying Fox Sports, FX and National Geographic on October 1. And the satcaster could stop carrying the local Fox affiliates on November 1, the notice said.

The notice was picked up by Google News, and subsequently, written about here at TVPredictions.com. However, yesterday, the Dallas station pulled the warning notice page without comment.

It's possible that Fox and Dish Network have made some progress in talks to reach a new programming agreement before October 1. However, it's also possible that the Fox station in Dallas posted the warning notice prematurely and then pulled it when TVPredictions.com published an article about it.

If an agreement is not reached, it would mean that Dish viewers would lose everything from Fox's new fall season to regional sports broadcast by Fox Sports channels to Sons of Anarchy on FX.

Battles between TV providers and programmers have escalated in recent months with programmers asking for increases to carry their lineups. In June, Dish was forced to drop four Disney high-def 
channels when it could not reach a new carriage agreement with the programmer; the channels are still off the air.
The warning notice for WDFW said Dish subscribers should go to getwhatIpaidfor.com to get more information about the programming dispute. However, as of this morning, the web site had not been established.

The notice also said viewers could call 1-877-99-I-PAID for more information. The line was busy when called several times this week by TVPredictions.com.


----------



## James Long

Kent Taylor said:


> I wonder if, and that's a big if, Dish drops Fox affiliates will the EPG have data for those of us who receive it OTA?


That depends on what they do with the pulled station. If they just send it back to engineering but leave the EPG intact one would still get the OTA EPG data. But DISH has a history of replacing the OTA feed with a slate and ruining the EPG data ... so if the channel ceases to be available via satellite don't expect the EPG to be available. (Subchannel EPG would continue to work.)

BTW: FOX doesn't negotiate for every local channel in every market. This would only affect the FOX stations that are under the contract that is up for renewal.


----------



## tommiet

Save us all some money and drop Fox Sports.


----------



## Jhon69

tommiet said:


> Save us all some money and drop Fox Sports.


Mine was already dropped and I have AT250(when I checked my locals it says I should have those),not only that but I can't find FSW,CSW,and Prime listed in my All Channel guide on my 625?.Well guys I'm cornfused?(I have the WA/MPEG2).

I don't remember watching those channels I would just breeze by them while scrolling so I'm not leaving because of this issue or any other.


----------



## jsk

One big note to mention is that only 44.707% of us will lose our Fox and/or My Network affiliates if this falls through. Only the local stations owned and/or operated by Fox are affected.

The stations affected are listed here.

In the Baltimore market, I would lose the My Network affiliate (I don't think I would miss it at all). In the DC market, they will lose both their Fox and My Network affiliates.


----------



## la24philly

to everyone affected by this would it be easier to switich to directv or cable provider if it meant keeping the channels u want.

I wonder if directv sitting in the wings will try and market this and make a stab at getting viewers to switch


----------



## lparsons21

I doubt D* will try to use it much if any at all as they have their own little local battles going on now and then.


----------



## jsk

E* has to fight these battles to keep our prices down. If I lose some channels for a month, then so be it. Providers know that sometimes the consequences of these disputes is that E* adds a competitor's channel (e.g. they added WE after the dispute with Lifetime).


----------



## pitflyer

This initially looked like a big deal for me as I plan to sign up for a higher package so I can get Fox Sports Pittsburgh. However, from the earlier PDF doesn't look they'll be affected. So I'm lucky. But for hockey or basketball fans, a lot of times the local Fox Sports affiliate is your source for watching the games.


----------



## Paul Secic

jsk said:


> One big note to mention is that only 44.707% of us will lose our Fox and/or My Network affiliates if this falls through. Only the local stations owned and/or operated by Fox are affected.
> 
> The stations affected are listed here.
> 
> In the Baltimore market, I would lose the My Network affiliate (I don't think I would miss it at all). In the DC market, they will lose both their Fox and My Network affiliates.


I thought My Network went off, They lost Smackdown. KRON doesn't promote My Network now.


----------



## domingos35

will we lose FSC ?


----------



## coolman302003

la24philly said:


> I wonder if directv sitting in the wings will try and market this and make a stab at getting viewers to switch


Well they have done this a little if you go to there comparison page: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/competition/dish/hd

It says: 
Popular Channels No Longer Available: DISH Network may offer free HD, but they've taken away such popular channels as Disney Channel HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD and ESPN News HD.


----------



## James Long

la24philly said:


> to everyone affected by this would it be easier to switich to directv or cable provider if it meant keeping the channels u want.


Well since you said "everyone" I assume you're forgetting customers under contract who would have to pay an ETF or those who don't have line of sight to DirecTV's satellites. Switching isn't trivial for "everyone".



> I wonder if directv sitting in the wings will try and market this and make a stab at getting viewers to switch


Yeah, they'll use it. DirecTV is almost like a troll on the Internet when it comes to the misfortunes of others. There are several examples of DirecTV.com using their home page and other locations on their site for negative advertising when something bad was reported about a competitor.

Nevermind the months that DirecTV went without Versus.  And nevermind that the one piece of evidence that there is a potential dispute between Fox and DISH was removed by Fox from their website. Mr Swann has fed the trolls.

Perhaps we should wait until there is a problem to discuss the problem?


----------



## Jim5506

The title is a little misleading, since negotiations are on-going, there is no dispute until they publicly start jerking or dropping channels.

Don't borrow trouble, there's enough to go around now.


----------



## jsk

pitflyer said:


> This initially looked like a big deal for me as I plan to sign up for a higher package so I can get Fox Sports Pittsburgh. However, from the earlier PDF doesn't look they'll be affected. So I'm lucky. But for hockey or basketball fans, a lot of times the local Fox Sports affiliate is your source for watching the games.


Just to clarify, I was only talking about the local OTA Fox/My Network stations and not the other Fox owned cable networks listed below:

FOX Business Network
Fox Movie Channel
FOX News Channel 
FOX College Sports 
FOX Sports Enterprises 
FOX Sports En Espanol
FOX Sports Net 
FOX Soccer Channel 
Fuel TV 
FX
Nat Geo Wild
National Geographic Channel United States 
National Geographic Channel Worldwide 
Speed 
STAR

These disagreements aren't always 100% about money. Sometimes they want E* to change channel numbers, sometimes they want E* to carry additional networks, sometimes they could want E* to add interactive content.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Jim5506 said:


> The title is a little misleading, since negotiations are on-going, there is no dispute until they publicly start jerking or dropping channels.
> 
> Don't borrow trouble, there's enough to go around now.


I'd edit the title but in the past that's only worked to change the thread title, not in the actual forum list.


----------



## domingos35

jsk said:


> Just to clarify, I was only talking about the local OTA Fox/My Network stations and not the other Fox owned cable networks listed below:
> 
> FOX Business Network
> Fox Movie Channel
> FOX News Channel
> FOX College Sports
> FOX Sports Enterprises
> FOX Sports En Espanol
> FOX Sports Net
> FOX Soccer Channel
> Fuel TV
> FX
> Nat Geo Wild
> National Geographic Channel United States
> National Geographic Channel Worldwide
> Speed
> STAR
> 
> These disagreements aren't always 100% about money. Sometimes they want E* to change channel numbers, sometimes they want E* to carry additional networks, sometimes they could want E* to add interactive content.


are these the channels that we stand to lose ?
not good


----------



## MilFan

Would this take off all Fox Sports programming (I currently have Fox Sports North)? If so, would things such as NBA League Pass still be available to catch in market teams?


----------



## nmetro

domingos35 said:


> are these the channels that we stand to lose ?
> not good


Add Big ten Network which is 49% owned by FOX.


----------



## James Long

nmetro said:


> Add Big ten Network which is 49% owned by FOX.


That does not mean it is part of the discussion or the dispute.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishfox090810.htm


> Some local Fox affiliates are now posting notices at their web sites saying that Dish may stop carrying Fox Sports, FX and National Geographic on October 1. And the satcaster could stop carrying the local Fox affiliates on November 1, the notices say.


The notice has been pulled from the one site referenced but note the channel list ... not all Fox channels. Just a couple.

If anyone has a reputable list of channels actually threatened by this alleged dispute it would be a good addition to the discussion. Listing every channel that is in any way related to Fox is just spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.


----------



## MilFan

A few questions:

1. Does this affect Big Ten Network or not?
2. Is there a definitive date on when this will either happen or not happen that people looking to switch can wait on, or is this an ongoing battle that has no resolution date?
3. If FS North is indeed affected, could a person living in Madison still subscribe to NBA League Pass and get the games he wants, or will that also be affected since it is pulling from FS channels?

Thanks.


----------



## MilFan

Can anyone respond to the questions in post #41? This will probably determine whether or not I switch. Sports are uber important to me, just liked the package deals set up by Dish Network right now.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> A few questions:
> 
> 1. Does this affect Big Ten Network or not?
> 2. Is there a definitive date on when this will either happen or not happen that people looking to switch can wait on, or is this an ongoing battle that has no resolution date?
> 3. If FS North is indeed affected, could a person living in Madison still subscribe to NBA League Pass and get the games he wants, or will that also be affected since it is pulling from FS channels?
> 
> Thanks.


no, it hasn't even 'started' yet and it's not likely to happen, and no because if they have no FS feed they can't give it to you.


----------



## Jim5506

All this angst, I'm glad I bought an HDTiVo!


----------



## MilFan

"Not likely to happen" isn't good enough when I'm talking about getting locked into a two year commitment, especially when games on FS are the primary thing I watch (and in addition, from the other thread it appears all the games won't in HD, where DirecTV's all are-channel 669-1).


----------



## James Long

If you're looking for HD sports go to DirecTV ... they are more expensive but they carry HD feeds for more games. You can check on their site to see what RSNs are available to you in Choice ... a subscription to their version of Multi-Sport (included in Premier) may be needed to get some local RSN coverage. Too many people are disappointed with DISH's HD sports offerings to recommend DISH for sports.

As far as this thread ... we're still looking at rumor with no real channel list to back it up and no proof that anything will be pulled or not pulled. I wouldn't make a decision based on a rumor.


----------



## dbspr

phrelin said:


> I expect the cost of my Top 200 package to rise at least 10% a year for the next decade as the media conglomerates exert their power - which means I expect it to double while the inflation rate hovers around 1%-2% a year.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most here understand the nature of the negotiations that are going on. It had already become pretty clear to me that we would soon see one of the broadcast networks tied into cable channel negotiations and it doesn't surprise me that it is Rupert Murdoch's operation.
> 
> Here's a list published by the research firm SNL Kagan showing what a typical cable carrier paid for channels in 2009:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much of an increase do you want to pay News Corp? Taking only the News Corp channels in the first two columns and including a low number for the Fox Broadcast Network channel in your area not owned by News Corp, here's examples of possible increases you might be asked to pay by News Corp, the company that talks many in the nation into believing government regulation is bad:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming Dish passes through an increase, what seems fair to you? My guess is that Murdoch will ask for $2.59 plus whatever he wants for network affiliate channels Fox owns. Charlie will offer something like 3% which would be $0.16 and everything will depend on who blinks enough.
> 
> If you think what Dish does isn't important, the stakes are simply that Charlie will hold out if he thinks it is too much. Whatever he finally agrees to will become the starting point in the future for any other cable or satellite provider. It will also become the starting point for future negotiations with the NBCU-Comcast group, Showtime/MTV group, Disney/ABC group, etc.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if Charlie can handle the threats many of his customers will make like some of you here. If he can't, you should expect your TV costs to double while your income stagnates.
> 
> And don't start chatting about breaking up the packages into a la carte. Murdoch knows that won't work for him and it's what he thinks that counts, thinking that does not include the best interest of 100,000,000 American households.
> 
> This situation makes me angry as it was predictable. I think regulations create the monopolies (particularly at the broadcast network level) for the owner of Fox News which he successfully lobbies to keep in place, along with the other media conglomerates. But the rates he can extort won't be regulated - they are left to the "marketplace" as his shills would proudly proclaim.


you haave a similar table but for premiuns?


----------



## dogs31

If I was a DISH sub, I would be calling both Jack Bauer and John McClain to force Charlie to resolve this dispute. :lol:


----------



## Willh

and the source of the rumor, the site kept getting my local Fox station aka the Dallas-Ft. Worth Fox station's calls wrong. it's KDFW, not WDFW. there's no such station. plus the only stations of the DFW TV & Radio market is WFAA 8, WBAP 820 AM/96.7 FM, and of course the classical music station owned by the City of Dallas WRR 101.1 FM.


----------



## pitflyer

I will be unhappy if Fox Sports Pittsburgh is cut off due to the dispute as I am upgrading to AT200 just for it. So I hope they work it out. I am not under contract so worst comes to worse.. I will go to Comcast (which is pretty much worse).


----------



## MilFan

The amount of sports fans affected by this would be huge. I doubt Dish wants to deal with all the negative backlash this would cause.


----------



## Greg Bimson

From what I've seen, the bigger dispute with Fox is from cablevision.


pitflyer said:


> I will be unhappy if Fox Sports Pittsburgh is cut off due to the dispute as I am upgrading to AT200 just for it.


Fox Sports Pittsburgh is not owned by Fox. It is owned by...

DirecTV

...along with FS Rocky Mountain and FSN Northwest.


----------



## Michael P

RasputinAXP said:


> Well, it's time for another round of retransmission fighting.
> 
> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/special/FOX-on-DISH-Network
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishfox090810.htm
> 
> Rumors are indicating October 1st as a drop date for Fox Sports channels, FX and NatGeo with November 1st a drop date for some local Fox affiliates. Anyone else heard anything about it?


NatGeo is a FOX channel??? I thought it was a Discovery Network.


----------



## Willh

well it's confirm now, the local fox station here in North TX, KDFW played an ad regradding the pending dispute during the Sunday 5 PM news. so that means it's now confirmed

here's the site
http://www.getwhatipaidfor.com

the site has gone live and the comments are interesting.


----------



## pitflyer

That website lists these affected networks

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO DISH NETWORK CUSTOMERS?

Unless an agreement is reached by September 30, 2010, DISH Network will no longer carry some of America’s most popular cable channels, including FX, National Geographic Channel, and 19 Fox regional sports networks. 

FOX Sports Arizona
FOX Sports Carolinas
FOX Sports Detroit
FOX Sports Florida
FOX Sports Houston
FOX Sports Indiana
FOX Sports Kansas City
FOX Sports Midwest
FOX Sports North
FOX Sports Ohio
FOX Sports Oklahoma
FOX Sports Southwest
FOX Sports South
FOX Sports Tennessee
FOX Sports West
FOX Sports Wisconsin
Prime Ticket
SportSouth
Sun Sports

(As posted earlier, my local RSN is not affected. But I feel for sports fans in other markets listed there!)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't know what will or will not happen...

But people pitch a fit when Dish raises rates and doesn't add new channels... but then many of those same people pitch fits if Dish risks losing (or actually loses) a channel that wanted more money.

IF all Dish customers wanted to pay through the nose all the time... then I'm sure Dish wouldn't fight the channel price increases when contract time comes.

Somehow it seems no matter what Dish does, people find a reason to complain.

I, for one, would rather risk losing channels because Dish is trying to reign in the prices than have the yearly increase be even higher because Dish always pays out anytime asked.


----------



## Dish97

dogs31 said:


> If I was a DISH sub, I would be calling both Jack Bauer and John McClain to force Charlie to resolve this dispute. :lol:


Forcing one party to resolve a two party dispute does not result in a dispute being resolved. It's a resolution being forced on one party.


----------



## habsfan66

pitflyer said:


> That website lists these affected networks
> 
> WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO DISH NETWORK CUSTOMERS?
> 
> Unless an agreement is reached by September 30, 2010, DISH Network will no longer carry some of America's most popular cable channels, including FX, National Geographic Channel, and 19 Fox regional sports networks.
> 
> FOX Sports Arizona
> FOX Sports Carolinas
> FOX Sports Detroit
> FOX Sports Florida
> FOX Sports Houston
> FOX Sports Indiana
> FOX Sports Kansas City
> FOX Sports Midwest
> FOX Sports North
> FOX Sports Ohio
> FOX Sports Oklahoma
> FOX Sports Southwest
> FOX Sports South
> FOX Sports Tennessee
> FOX Sports West
> FOX Sports Wisconsin
> Prime Ticket
> SportSouth
> Sun Sports
> 
> (As posted earlier, my local RSN is not affected. But I feel for sports fans in other markets listed there!)


I asked this once before but didn't get a definitive answer so I'll try again. If this isn't settled and these channels are lost, how will it affect something like NHL Center Ice if some of these are the channels carrying the games in that package?


----------



## Hoosier205

habsfan66 said:


> I asked this once before but didn't get a definitive answer so I'll try again. If this isn't settled and these channels are lost, how will it affect something like NHL Center Ice if some of these are the channels carrying the games in that package?


If that happens, no games which are broadcast on those networks will be available.


----------



## habsfan66

Hoosier205 said:


> If that happens, no games which are broadcast on those networks will be available.


So how on earth can Dish ligitimately be offering Center Ice right now if they might not even have half of the games available?


----------



## SDWC

If it happens then E* will still have enough to effectively market the CI product.

All Canadian teams via Rogers, HNIC, Leafs TV, etc. will be available.

All Pens games via Fox Sports Pittsburgh wil be available. All CI carriage on Comcast Sports Net will be available. All games on MSG (albeit not in HD) will be available.

What would happen is that many of the home & away multiple feeds would be missing until the resolution.


----------



## habsfan66

SDWC said:


> If it happens then E* will still have enough to effectively market the CI product.
> 
> All Canadian teams via Rogers, HNIC, Leafs TV, etc. will be available.
> 
> All Pens games via Fox Sports Pittsburgh wil be available. All CI carriage on Comcast Sports Net will be available. All games on MSG (albeit not in HD) will be available.
> 
> What would happen is that many of the home & away multiple feeds would be missing until the resolution.


Losing multiple feeds would be little problem to me as I'm a Hab's fan so I never get their home feed (RDS) anyway. But if the list of Fox channels I saw is wiped out then it looks to me like many games could be gone altogether which I can't agree would be effective unless they offer a huge discount which, in my opinion, they already should due to the MSG issue. I guess without seeing an actual schedule as to who's carrying what games, it's too early to tell what would be lost.


----------



## Hoosier205

habsfan66 said:


> So how on earth can Dish ligitimately be offering Center Ice right now if they might not even have half of the games available?


I am sure that if it happens and enough people complain, they will be offered something to appease them. Last season, many DirecTV customers received Center Ice for free when they called in to complain during the Versus/DirecTV dispute. Dish Network will find a way to keep enough people happy if they lose these channels.


----------



## epokopac

MilFan said:


> The amount of sports fans affected by this would be huge. I doubt Dish wants to deal with all the negative backlash this would cause.


Great point MilFan. MLB, NHL, NBA, College Sports, etc. . Quite a bit of programming to lose on all those RSNs. The only reason to subscribe to the Multi Sports Pack would be for NFL Red Zone (for only 4 months). Hope cool heads (on BOTH sides) prevail.


----------



## Paul Secic

Michael P said:


> NatGeo is a FOX channel??? I thought it was a Discovery Network.


NatGeo & NatGeo Wild are owned by FOX.


----------



## phrelin

This is a dispute between Forbes World's Billionaires list #148(at $5.2 billion), Charles Ergen, and #117 (at $6.3 billion), Rupert Murdoch.

It is only business, not about public or fan interest. And it is _*all about next year's price increase*_ for Dish (and perhaps other cable and satellite system) customers as these two billionaires argue over maintaining their personal wealth.

And, if you are not aware of it, the headlines are not just about Dish and Fox. In last week's _Wall Street Journal_ article News Corp., Cablevision Square Off we learned:


> News Corp.-which is seeking higher fees for its channels in negotiations with Cablevision- on Sunday began running ads addressed to the cable-TV company's subscribers, warning that if a new TV-rights deal isn't struck soon, viewers could lose Fox shows including football games and "Glee."
> 
> ...Carriage contract talks have become more bruising as TV companies push for the first time to land monthly cash fees for broadcast networks. Cable- and satellite-TV operators say they try to withstand fee demands to avoid passing on costs to their customers' bills. As contract deadlines creep closer, each side blames each other for possible losses of favorite shows.
> 
> Ultimately, deals often are struck without programming interruptions. But this year, Cablevision customers lost the Food Network and HGTV cable channels for several weeks after a rough-and-tumble fee dispute with Scripps Networks Interactive Inc. In March, Cablevision lost access to ABC and some other Walt Disney Co. channels for nearly 24 hours, including during the first few minutes of ABC's Academy Awards telecast.


Cablevision is owned by Charles Dolan & Family ranked #367 at a paltry $2.6 billion.

And we all wouldn't want the FCC to be able to intervene, as the free market is the best way to resolve disputes between egocentric billionaires in a manner that serves the public interest.


----------



## James Long

habsfan66 said:


> I asked this once before but didn't get a definitive answer so I'll try again. If this isn't settled and these channels are lost, how will it affect something like NHL Center Ice if some of these are the channels carrying the games in that package?


The question is who has the rights for those games and if Fox can legitimately withhold the feeds when the NHL is the ones with the rights (and a contract with DISH) to air the games.

My guess is the games will be available via CI everywhere except their home market (where the RSN would retain rights). To know for sure one would have to have the contract in hand and permission to disclose it's content ... or check back after the stations go off the air (assuming no last minute reprieve).

BTW: No changes in the uplinks to have a "we're sorry your FX/NatGeo/FSports is missing" channel.


----------



## DodgerKing

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know what will or will not happen...
> 
> But people pitch a fit when Dish raises rates and doesn't add new channels... but then many of those same people pitch fits if Dish risks losing (or actually loses) a channel that wanted more money.
> 
> IF all Dish customers wanted to pay through the nose all the time... then I'm sure Dish wouldn't fight the channel price increases when contract time comes.
> 
> Somehow it seems no matter what Dish does, people find a reason to complain.
> 
> I, for one, would rather risk losing channels because Dish is trying to reign in the prices than have the yearly increase be even higher because Dish always pays out anytime asked.


Why is it that Dish is the one that is almost always involved in these disputes, and way much more so than any other provider? When they are involved, they are usually very big. Yet, their prices with comparable channels and setups are not that much different than other providers


----------



## DodgerKing

SDWC said:


> If it happens then E* will still have enough to effectively market the CI product.
> 
> All Canadian teams via Rogers, HNIC, Leafs TV, etc. will be available.
> 
> All Pens games via Fox Sports Pittsburgh wil be available. All CI carriage on Comcast Sports Net will be available. All games on MSG (albeit not in HD) will be available.
> 
> What would happen is that many of the home & away multiple feeds would be missing until the resolution.


Good point about CI, but what about LP, where a much higher percentage of games are carried on FSN affiliates?


----------



## DodgerKing

Hoosier205 said:


> I am sure that if it happens and enough people complain, they will be offered something to appease them. Last season, many DirecTV customers received Center Ice for free when they called in to complain during the Versus/DirecTV dispute. Dish Network will find a way to keep enough people happy if they lose these channels.


And that was only one channel. Imagine multiple channels


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DodgerKing said:


> Why is it that Dish is the one that is almost always involved in these disputes, and way much more so than any other provider? When they are involved, they are usually very big. Yet, their prices with comparable channels and setups are not that much different than other providers


I don't know that it doesn't happen with other providers... but the Dish disputes do seem to be more public. Then again, I'm a Dish subscriber so I pay more attention. I don't really read the DirecTV or Time Warner (cable in my area) info as much to know what goes on there.


----------



## lparsons21

DodgerKing said:


> Why is it that Dish is the one that is almost always involved in these disputes, and way much more so than any other provider? When they are involved, they are usually very big. Yet, their prices with comparable channels and setups are not that much different than other providers


Maybe because you're reading here? 

These disputes are with more than just Dish and will continue as long as the greed keeps both Dish and the program providers ever looking for more, as in more of our money!

In case you hadn't noticed, they are getting very contentious too, and not just with Dish. Just some different channels.


----------



## brewster57

Dish Network doesn't care about it's customers in some regards. I have been a Dish customer for 25 yearsand they don't raise prices very often. I live near St. Louis, Mo. Last year Fox Sports Midwest had a money dispute with Dish Network for coverage of the games of The St. Louis Blues hockey team. The first game of the season they blacked out the game after 4 minutes. They ended up blacking out half the games last year. This happened in Dallas with the Stars. Both teams sold the tv rights of their games to the Fox affiliates in that area. Dish Network wouldn't pay more money to show the games on Fox. So both cities didn't get to see half the games. But Direct Tv and the local cable companies both paid the increase. Emails, letters and phone calls to Dish and Fox Sports Midwest went unanswered. All Dish did was issue a form letter responce. Nothing else. So don't be so sure they won't turn off those stations. They don't care what customers think. It's nothing but rich companies fighting amongst themselves. If they cared about the customers they would at least ask us what we want to be done. I'm changing providers to either Direct Tv or cable. Screw Dish Network!!!


----------



## Slamminc11

brewster57 said:


> Dish Network doesn't care about it's customers in some regards. I have been a Dish customer for 25 yearsand they don't raise prices very often. I live near St. Louis, Mo. Last year Fox Sports Midwest had a money dispute with Dish Network for coverage of the games of The St. Louis Blues hockey team. The first game of the season they blacked out the game after 4 minutes. They ended up blacking out half the games last year. This happened in Dallas with the Stars. Both teams sold the tv rights of their games to the Fox affiliates in that area. Dish Network wouldn't pay more money to show the games on Fox. So both cities didn't get to see half the games. But Direct Tv and the local cable companies both paid the increase. Emails, letters and phone calls to Dish and Fox Sports Midwest went unanswered. All Dish did was issue a form letter responce. Nothing else. So don't be so sure they won't turn off those stations. They don't care what customers think. It's nothing but rich companies fighting amongst themselves. If they cared about the customers they would at least ask us what we want to be done. I'm changing providers to either Direct Tv or cable. Screw Dish Network!!!


BYE! :wave: :wave: :wave:


----------



## brewster57

Slamminc11 said:


> BYE! :wave: :wave: :wave:


If you're a Dish Network customer you'll be saying bye bye too if they shut off your channels won't you???????????:eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2:


----------



## Davenlr

Personally, I wish all the providers would take the DISH lead, and tell the programmers wanting to extort money for advertiser supported channels to take a hike. I mean really, these channels sell commercials. The fewer customers viewing, the less money they make on commercials. If they want to extort money, then drop the commercials, and make their channels premium. I am really getting tired of having to pay more and more money for less and less programming. Bravo to DISH for standing up, be it cuz they are cheap and dont care about their customers, or because they are trying to keep the customers money in their pockets and not the programmers. 

The mere fact DISH and DIRECTV have to pay local network affiliates money to carry their FREE OTA signal is totally ridiculous. 

And I lay all the blame for this mess directly on the deregulation policies of the FCC.


----------



## Dario33

Unfortunate news. Hopefully something good happens by Sept. 30th.


----------



## brewster57

Now I will give Dish credit for one thing. They don't raise their rates very often. I got Dish when my cable bill was going up a dollar every month for a year. Over 25 years my bill has gone up about $10 a month. I had a $12 a month increase in one years time with cable. I'll keep Dish if they stop shutting off channels. They could at least ask the customers about this instead of no reply like they do now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

brewster57 said:


> Dish Network doesn't care about it's customers in some regards. I have been a Dish customer for 25 years and they don't raise prices very often.


Is it even possible to have been a Dish Network customer for 25 years?

Also... "they don't raise prices very often"?? They do it almost every year, that seems kind of often.


----------



## comizzou573

why dish being such an ass turning these channels off, they a bunch of idioits, if these channels are going to be turned off for good i am going to directv **** dish already if this is their attitude


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Davenlr said:


> The mere fact DISH and DIRECTV have to pay local network affiliates money to carry their FREE OTA signal is totally ridiculous.


This comes up a lot... but the fact is that OTA is given free via OTA only. IF you want it via some other method, you have to pay. IF you have to pay Dish, DirecTV, or cable then why shouldn't they have to pay for permission to retransmit?

OTA isn't in the public domain... you don't have the right to re-transmit and especially not to sell those re-transmissions without explicit permission.

Some channels opt for "must carry" which means they cannot charge for re-transmission. Others opt to get a piece of the pie that the SAT/cable companies are charging.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

comizzou573 said:


> why dish being such an ass turning these channels off, they a bunch of idioits, if these channels are going to be turned off for good i am going to directv **** dish already if this is their attitude


So how would your (or any other customer) threatening to leave Dish if they don't do exactly what you want be any different than Dish dropping a channel because they don't want to pay more for it?

It's the exact same thing!

You have the right to leave and go elsewhere.

I hate when channels are lost... but I also hate when my bill goes up... and I also don't run the company.


----------



## Davenlr

Stewart Vernon said:


> Is it even possible to have been a Dish Network customer for 25 years?


Doggie years  DirecTv went live in 1994 I believe. Now, he may have HAD a dish for 25 years. I cant remember when I got my first BUD, but it was in that timeframe.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Davenlr said:


> The mere fact DISH and DIRECTV have to pay local network affiliates money to carry their FREE OTA signal is totally ridiculous.
> 
> And I lay all the blame for this mess directly on the deregulation policies of the FCC.


The SHVA in 1988 wasn't created and mandated by the FCC. Neither was the Cable Act of 1992 nor the SHVIA of 1999.

The "deregulation" was caused by Congress and the President.


----------



## James Long

comizzou573 said:


> why dish being such an ass turning these channels off, they a bunch of idioits, if these channels are going to be turned off for good i am going to directv **** dish already if this is their attitude


For good? Probably not. The channels may be turned off for a while but we're talking about decent channels. Eventually a deal will be made for their return.



Davenlr said:


> Doggie years  DirecTv went live in 1994 I believe. Now, he may have HAD a dish for 25 years. I cant remember when I got my first BUD, but it was in that timeframe.


Perhaps it feels like 25 years?


----------



## Davenlr

Stewart Vernon said:


> This comes up a lot... but the fact is that OTA is given free via OTA only. IF you want it via some other method, you have to pay. IF you have to pay Dish, DirecTV, or cable then why shouldn't they have to pay for permission to retransmit?


I remember when "Cable" was a big tv tower at some high point in town, feeding OTA tv to people who couldnt get it with antennas on their roof. You paid for the infrastructure and maintainance, or you put up your own antenna. Then came HBO, and competition on the free cable systems. I dont know at what point the FCC mandated that locals could charge for carriage on those systems, but it has really thrown a monkey wrench into the whole distribution system. Then the FCC protects the local affiliates by not allowing out of market reception thanks to the NAB lobbyists.

In any case, instead of paying $50 a month for tv, we now pay $100 a month for tv because if the costs involved in providing duplicates of the same programming in all those LIL markets, and having to pay hundreds of stations across the country money to transmit their commercials.

Just my personal opinion, but I think its a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Ohioankev

I've paid FOX enough for their channels and now they want to pull them ? I'll just go "elsewhere" to watch Sons of Anarchy. There are multiple choices, to name two, my mom has cable, hulu has a two week wait period. BTW in my area FOX Sports OH, FX and NatGeo are the affected channels.


----------



## kenglish

Man...if the Government would just pay for ALL the expenses of running a local TV station, instead of stopping with just "Free Spectrum", there's be no need for commercials or retransmission payments, at all.

I mean, How expensive can it be to run a station? A few salaries, some taxes, electricity, some taxes, equipment and maintenance costs, some government imposed fees, some taxes, property taxes, programming costs, some taxes, replacement costs for last year's obsolete equipment, some fees and taxes, gas for the cars and helicopter, some taxes,........



Oops, I almost forgot COPYRIGHT FEES. :eek2:


----------



## projectorguru

www.getwhatipaidfor.com

Check it out, Fox is now telling, Dish, you have 3 days left, you can put in your zip and find what channels you will loose, hopefully I'll still be with Dish after Friday


----------



## scooper

Well - my current programming package doesn't include Fox Sports Net South or FX or Nat Geo


----------



## TulsaOK

brewster57 said:


> I have been a Dish customer for 25 years...



I subscribed to Dish Network in early 1996, which, by the way, was their first year to be in business.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Davenlr said:


> I remember when "Cable" was a big tv tower at some high point in town, feeding OTA tv to people who couldnt get it with antennas on their roof. You paid for the infrastructure and maintainance, or you put up your own antenna.


So "Cable" back then was non-profit?


Davenlr said:


> Then came HBO, and competition on the free cable systems. I dont know at what point the FCC mandated that locals could charge for carriage on those systems, but it has really thrown a monkey wrench into the whole distribution system.


The FCC never mandated locals could charge for carriage. That would be Congress and the President. It was the Cable Act of 1992.


Davenlr said:


> Then the FCC protects the local affiliates by not allowing out of market reception thanks to the NAB lobbyists.


That would be Congress and the President. It was also the Cable Act of 1992. Additionally, it was the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act of 1999.


Davenlr said:


> In any case, instead of paying $50 a month for tv, we now pay $100 a month for tv because if the costs involved in providing duplicates of the same programming in all those LIL markets, and having to pay hundreds of stations across the country money to transmit their commercials.


If the subscription price doubled because of "costs involved in providing duplicates of the same programming in all those LIL markets," then why are the satellite companies setting record profits for their sector?


----------



## olguy

This has probably been asked in this thread but I'm old and forgetful . But where are you folks who are threatening to leave Dish over this dispute with Fox going? Last year Fox and Time-Warner, currently Fox vs Dish and Cablevision, currently Belo vs Time-Warner and on and on. And just prior to threatening to pull their channels from a provider Fox puts up another web page for that specific provider.

This seems to have become the norm for conducting business between broadcasters and providers. So, if you find a haven with none of this retransmission negotiation going on let us know.


----------



## Dario33

If anything, I'll be downgrading my service to America's Top 120 from America's Top 200. 

Only reason I have 200 now is for FX and FSN.


----------



## lparsons21

I for one, won't be dropping Dish if this happens. FX would be missed, but right now there are only 2 programs on there that I'm interested in, and those aren't the best they've had. My son would be ticked about the RSN, but he doesn't pay the bill so he has no input and I don't watch the rest.

My local Fox affiliate is not corporate owned and I can get it just fine OTA in any case.

I may adjust what package I have if this happens, but most likely won't.


----------



## OrangeandBlue33

The following is what I posted at Fox's site ( http://getwhatipaidfor.com/ )

_"I am a big sports fan and enjoy the Cardinals on Fox Sports Midwest. I also enjoy the show on FX called Terriers. However, I am opposed to Fox Networks Group holding these channels hostage to Dish Network Customers. Every year our TV watching costs go up and up. Why is that? Much of it has to do with Networks asking for more and more money from TV providers. Last time I checked there were a bunch of commercials running during the programming I was watching on these FOX Channels. Why don't you pass the costs on to those people and not the viewers. If you were a premium channel without commercials, I could understand. But to make Dish Network look like the bad guy here is comical. Stand your ground Dish! - we'll find something else to watch if they want to "take their ball and go home"!"_

I encourage anyone else who is fed up with constant rate hikes and holding channels hostage to do the same.


----------



## Paul Secic

lparsons21 said:


> I for one, won't be dropping Dish if this happens. FX would be missed, but right now there are only 2 programs on there that I'm interested in, and those aren't the best they've had. My son would be ticked about the RSN, but he doesn't pay the bill so he has no input and I don't watch the rest.
> 
> My local Fox affiliate is not corporate owned and I can get it just fine OTA in any case.
> 
> I may adjust what package I have if this happens, but most likely won't.


This happens from time to times when contracts run out. I'm used to it. If a channel that I like goes dark, I watch something else until a contract is reached. Besides I don't have anywhere to go, U-verse sucks here, Comcast is high.


----------



## ggotch5445

I never cease to be amazed at the internet hoopla over these kinds of things.

Both sides of this debate have way too much to lose if an agreement is not reached. As others have stated, negotiation is good, and a little saber rattling will help keep these cost hikes down somewhat.

The local Fox affiliate, in my Cleveland market, is a longtime staple station here. If it was to disappear, even on satellite- for a micro-second, Dish AND Fox would both be mud in Cleveland. 

But I am sure that no one really needs to worry about this. There will be a resolution. If I am wrong, I will start wearing a hat so I can eat it!


----------



## Jim5506

Dish will not turn the channels off.

Fox may pull a Disney and pull some channels.

I might miss National Geo, but not much.


----------



## Shades228

Jim5506 said:


> Dish will not turn the channels off.
> 
> Fox may pull a Disney and pull some channels.
> 
> I might miss National Geo, but not much.


About 4.5 years ago Dish lost many local channels for over a year if I remember correctly. Do not understimate Charlie's stubborn side when it comes to retrans disputes.


----------



## GrumpyBear

I don't see any locals being effected in the zip codes I live in, San diego and Spokane. This is very similar to Fox and a few cable companies back in 2006. Lots of people in the NW lost Fox, all fall and they didn't work it out until just before the Superbowl. Even then that was a work around.

Sucks losing FX while this is going, Sons of Anarchy just kicked off. Net Geo is a nice channel we don't watch as much, but do keep an eye on it.

I do have a question about the Multi-sports package. Looks like those Fox stations are the hardest hit. Will Dish be dropping/waiving the fee as we wont be recieving those channels?
I don't want to just go and drop the MSP, as it has the NFL Redzone, but I don't want to have to pay for something when all but a few channels are gone.


----------



## cloudy

The way I see it, screw Fox.
Would this suck? Yes.
Can I live without these channels? Yes.
Is this just moving me one step closer to "cutting the cables" all together and relying 100% on Internet services? Yes.
If these company's want to continue playing this game, they're going to do nothing but give us a reason to say "goodbye for good".


----------



## dakeeney

Our local Fox affiliate is not owned by Fox. I don't watch the Fox sports channels. I rarely watch Nat Geo and only record Terriers on FX. I feel for all the sports fans and those that depend on the Fox owned networks. Would it bother me to have the plug pulled on those channels.....NO! If Fox wants to pull them I say go ahead. That is a whole lotta lost revenue for Fox.
If I don't like it I can switch back to Directv. If this happens to other channels every time contracts come up and we lose more stations I will most
likely switch back to DTV. Like it has been stated before....both sides have way too much to lose.:nono2:


----------



## MilFan

I just signed up for a 2 year agreement with Dish and the Bucks/Brewers channels are my #1 channel I watch. When I called about this before, the rep talked to a manager and assured me these channels would not be lost. Needless to say I will be IRATE if this happens. Right now, FS North is blacked out, but I watch all the alternate channels for Brewers/Bucks. By what I'm reading here, I lose all those games, is that accurate?

Is there any rumor on how long this dispute is supposed to last?


----------



## RasputinAXP

The only rumor right now is that it might happen, or it might not; and then it may come back quickly, or it may not.


----------



## Hoosier205

Dish needs to stand their ground if possible. Otherwise, it will negatively impact their future negotiations with other content providers...as well as any upcoming Fox negotiations with other service providers industry wide. Unfortunately, Fox probably has the upper hand here.


----------



## MilFan

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know what will or will not happen...
> 
> But people pitch a fit when Dish raises rates and doesn't add new channels... but then many of those same people pitch fits if Dish risks losing (or actually loses) a channel that wanted more money.
> 
> IF all Dish customers wanted to pay through the nose all the time... then I'm sure Dish wouldn't fight the channel price increases when contract time comes.
> 
> Somehow it seems no matter what Dish does, people find a reason to complain.
> 
> I, for one, would rather risk losing channels because Dish is trying to reign in the prices than have the yearly increase be even higher because Dish always pays out anytime asked.


One of the worst posts I've ever seen. I'm guessing you're not a die hard sports fan that watches roughly 250 games a year on the possible channels effected. I'm supposed to feel bad for these multi billion dollar companies? F that.


----------



## MilFan

Here is the game finder for my area for football this weekend:

http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx

The Packers vs. Lions game is on Fox, and I do not see it listed for Sunday. I also don't see Brewers games listed on the Alt channels past 09/29 here:

http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx

I hope Dish is ready for a ****storm in Wisconsin if this actually happens. We watch a ton of sports here in the winter.


----------



## Paul Secic

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish needs to stand their ground if possible. Otherwise, it will negatively impact their future negotiations with other content providers...as well as any upcoming Fox negotiations with other service providers industry wide. Unfortunately, Fox probably has the upper hand here.


Charlie will get the best deal.


----------



## TulsaOK

But will we?


----------



## MilFan

Kent Taylor said:


> But will we?


Exactly. What channels I'm receiving are a little higher on my priority list than what "deal" a company swimming in money receives from another company swimming in money.


----------



## TulsaOK

This is the end of MLB regular season. I'm sure more than a few of us would like to see the final games of our favorite teams on Fox Sports stations. Fortunately, my Braves will be broadcast on Big Fox on Saturday but we may miss the Friday and Sunday games. I may have to actually attend the games to see them.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> Here is the game finder for my area for football this weekend:
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx
> 
> The Packers vs. Lions game is on Fox, and I do not see it listed for Sunday. I also don't see Brewers games listed on the Alt channels past 09/29 here:
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx
> 
> I hope Dish is ready for a ****storm in Wisconsin if this actually happens. We watch a ton of sports here in the winter.


Doesn't show my early Sunday game on Fox, either. Fox Philly isn't affected by this, so I'd be willing to bet it's a fluke.


----------



## MilFan

RasputinAXP said:


> Doesn't show my early Sunday game on Fox, either. Fox Philly isn't affected by this, so I'd be willing to bet it's a fluke.


Well, it's also not showing the Brewers games that are on Fox Sports 09/30, 10/01, and 10/02.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan said:


> I
> 
> Is there any rumor on how long this dispute is supposed to last?


Knowing how stingy E* is and their past history with retrans agreements, who knows. One thing i'm willing to bet money on is that FSN will go dark on Friday.

During my time with E*, probably in the 2003 or 2004 timeframe, there was a very bitter retrans dispute with CBS/Viacom that resulted in networks like Nickelodeon, Nick Jr. (then called Noggin), TV Land etc. being taken down for an extended period, but for the life of me, I cann't recall how they were dark.

Question that I cann't find the answer to, does this retrans dispute include Big 10 Network?

Edit: After doing some googling, the CBS/Viacom networks were off of E* for 4 days.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> Well, it's also not showing the Brewers games that are on Fox Sports 09/30, 10/01, and 10/02.


Hey, I'm not doubting the Fox Sports Net stuff. I'm just saying my local Fox affiliate isn't showing up on the gamefinder either.


----------



## MilFan

RasputinAXP said:


> Hey, I'm not doubting the Fox Sports Net stuff. I'm just saying my local Fox affiliate isn't showing up on the gamefinder either.


Wouldn't this dispute affect both local affiliate Fox/FSN or neither though? That is the way I'm understanding this.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Is there any rumor on how long this dispute is supposed to last?


Nope. Disputes last until there is an agreement. The dispute may end before Oct 1st and we'll not see any outage or it may stretch on months ... it all depends on how outrageous the demands of each side is in the other side's opinion.



garn9173 said:


> Question that I cann't find the answer to, does this retrans dispute include Big 10 Network?


Big 10 is not one of the networks listed on Fox's special website.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan said:


> Wouldn't this dispute affect both local affiliate Fox/FSN or neither though? That is the way I'm understanding this.


If your local Fox was owned & operated by the Fox "mothership", then yes your local Fox is effected and FSN as been discussed, your regional FSN is very much effected by this.


----------



## MilFan

garn9173 said:


> If your local Fox was owned & operated by the Fox "mothership", then yes your local Fox is effected and FSN as been discussed, your regional FSN is very much effected by this.


That is what I figured. Unreal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MilFan said:


> One of the worst posts I've ever seen. I'm guessing you're not a die hard sports fan that watches roughly 250 games a year on the possible channels effected. I'm supposed to feel bad for these multi billion dollar companies? F that.


You're kidding, right?

You don't "feel bad" for multi-million dollar companies but you sure seem to be picking one multi-million (FOX in this case) to feel sorry for!

You do know that any price increase due to FOX or other channel providers asking for more will just be passed on directly to you by Dish... so while Dish might increase prices for other reasons, there is 100% chance they will increase due to a channel increase.

I watch lots of sports, and I would miss channels if they go away... but I also don't want to keep paying more and more especially these days when I can afford less and less.

I like that Dish tries sometimes to stand up and keep the cost of the channels down. Whereas you seem to be cheering for the inevitable price increase to follow.


----------



## MilFan

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> You don't "feel bad" for multi-million dollar companies but you sure seem to be picking one multi-million (FOX in this case) to feel sorry for!
> 
> You do know that any price increase due to FOX or other channel providers asking for more will just be passed on directly to you by Dish... so while Dish might increase prices for other reasons, there is 100% chance they will increase due to a channel increase.
> 
> I watch lots of sports, and I would miss channels if they go away... but I also don't want to keep paying more and more especially these days when I can afford less and less.
> 
> I like that Dish tries sometimes to stand up and keep the cost of the channels down. Whereas you seem to be cheering for the inevitable price increase to follow.


Where did I say I felt bad for Fox? I said I expect Dish Network to get this done for their customer's sake. Don't give me the price thing, Dish Network is ROLLING in money.

You're acting like Dish Network is some sort of victim here. Would you mind telling me how much the company is worth, and how much profit they made last year? Exactly. Do you think people that are already paying a pretty hefty price to watch TV care about Dish Network's "financial issues"? If so, you need a wake up call to what is going on around this country.

All I care about is that I get the channels I signed up for. Otherwise, the company should READILY expect backlash and anger and people asking them for lower rates. But I'm guessing you'll come back with some crap like "but it's in your contract they can remove channels at any time".


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> You're acting like Dish Network is some sort of victim here. Would you mind telling me how much the company is worth, and how much profit they made last year?


What you're missing is the irony that Fox is also a company worth millions who made a tidy profit last year.

Stewart's point is that all you are doing is choosing the millionaire you're supporting.

How about directing some of that anger about higher prices toward Fox for wanting to raise their prices?


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> What you're missing is the irony that Fox is also a company worth millions who made a tidy profit last year.
> 
> Stewart's point is that all you are doing is choosing the millionaire you're supporting.
> 
> How about directing some of that anger about higher prices toward Fox for wanting to raise their prices?


I never said Fox was innocent in this, nor do I support them or feel sorry for them. I expect my TV carrier that is rolling in money to honor the packages their customers signed up for, and do what needs to be done in negotiations to accomplish that. They sure as hell aren't going to lower my rate for removing programming.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> I expect my TV carrier that is rolling in money to honor the packages their customers signed up for ...


Once you find a carrier "rolling in money" let us know. Marginally profitable would be more accurate.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Would you mind telling me how much the company is worth, and how much profit they made last year? Exactly.


At the end of 2009 DISH was worth -$2,092,171,000 ... yes, negative two billion. Rolling in debt.

DISH made $635.545 million net profit on 14.1 million subscribers for the year. Or $45 net profit on an average $840.48 annual bill, per subscriber. In 2008 DISH made $66 net profit per subscriber ... so they are made 32% LESS in 2009 than 2008, per subscriber. The average customer bill went up 1.1% between 2008 and 2009.

DISH's closest competition, DirecTV, made $129.85 per subscriber net profit and are worth +$2.911 million. Their average bill for 2009 was $1025.76 annually, which is a 1.8% increase from 2008. Their profit went up 3.4%. Not exactly returning their profits to subscribers. If you want to support a company that makes nearly three times more profit per customer while having a net worth of $5 billion more I suggest you switch immediately.

As for me, I'll continue to support DISH with my subscription dollars. They at least seem to be trying not to succeed at my expense.


----------



## MilFan

If a yearly profit of $636 million in 2009 is what you'd define as "marginally profitable", I'd love to see your definition of "very profitable".


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James is making my point better than I was!

I hate these disputes too... and if Dish was demanding a price cut, then I'd be more critical of them probably... but in this case IF it is FOX asking for more money for the same channels in a bad economy, then I'll side with Dish trying to stand their ground and not take a pay increase.

I'm not crying for Dish... but recognizing that IF Dish capitulates, then it directly translates into an increase in my bill... and that I might cry over!

This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. When one multi-million dollar company raises prices on another multi-million dollar company, then you and I pay that cost in our monthly bills.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MilFan said:


> If a yearly profit of $636 million in 2009 is what you'd define as "marginally profitable", I'd love to see your definition of "very profitable".


$636 million is nothing to sneeze at... but divided over 14 million subscribers it isn't such a great thing either... so it wouldn't be accurate to say Dish Network is rolling in dough right now.


----------



## swallman

Just spent some time reading the comments over on the GetWhatIPaidFor website - the problem that Dish really has with this is that the majority of the general public think it is entirely Dish's fault (even though Fox is probably trying to play hardball on pricing). It puts Dish into a really bad place from a customer service POV. Consumers just want their programming and don't understand why they will no longer receive it.


----------



## swallman

Stewart Vernon said:


> $636 million is nothing to sneeze at... but divided over 14 million subscribers it isn't such a great thing either... so it wouldn't be accurate to say Dish Network is rolling in dough right now.


That comment really doesn't make much sense - who cares how many subs it took to get to that amount - 14 million or 100 million. Yes, the amount per sub seems low, but that is a nice amount of money.

Wal-Mart has gotten by for years on making a small amount of money (due to low margins) from a large amount of customers.


----------



## James Long

swallman said:


> That comment really doesn't make much sense - who cares how many subs it took to get to that amount - 14 million or 100 million. Yes, the amount per sub seems low, but that is a nice amount of money.


$45 per customer per year where the competition made $130 per customer in the same year. Yes, having millions of customers helps turn less than $4 per month in to real money but channel providers who want to take all of the profits for themselves doesn't help.

Then again DirecTV with their positive net worth and $10+ per month per subscriber net profit can't seem to shake loose the cash to commit to the new HD their customers are demanding. I don't see why DISH should cave to every demand. Not unless the customers are willing to pay.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

swallman said:


> That comment really doesn't make much sense - who cares how many subs it took to get to that amount - 14 million or 100 million. Yes, the amount per sub seems low, but that is a nice amount of money.
> 
> Wal-Mart has gotten by for years on making a small amount of money (due to low margins) from a large amount of customers.


Well... if I could make a $1 profit per sale and sell 1 million items then I'd have a million dollars! But that would take a long time... and it'd be hard to run the day to day operations on such a slim profit margin per sale.

That $45 per subscriber profit would be gone in a hurry if Dish caved for every channel that wanted to charge more... and then Dish would go out of business... and nobody would cry about it, but then you'd be left with less options.

I wish ALL the providers would fight harder to keep prices from going up so much.


----------



## olguy

Yes, Fox is playing hardball. Just like they have for several retrans negotiations with TW, Cablevison, etc. And the web sites they establish for each provider is just a part of it. I just watched this weeks Sons of Anarchy and there was a scroll on the bottom of the screen telling Dish subscribers what we might lose and telling us to contact Dish. Like I'm gonna call Dish and tell them to settle this and the price increase be damned. I say hang in there Charlie. I can get the 2 FX programs I watch on DVD from my local library.


----------



## lparsons21

swallman said:


> Just spent some time reading the comments over on the GetWhatIPaidFor website - the problem that Dish really has with this is that the majority of the general public think it is entirely Dish's fault (even though Fox is probably trying to play hardball on pricing). It puts Dish into a really bad place from a customer service POV. Consumers just want their programming and don't understand why they will no longer receive it.


You are making an assumption based on comments at that site? I just did a sampling of their comments over many pages and not one single comment telling Fox to quit being so greedy. And I know of at least 3 people that submitted comments just like that.

It is a heavily 'moderated' comment list to say the least. And your assumption may not be correct at all.

For me, it isn't a big deal. FX currently has only one show I'm interested in, the Fox Sports networks mean even less than that, and I don't watch Nat Geo. I probably won't even notice when they are gone. I don't want my bill going up to feed the greed at News Corp!


----------



## MilFan

lparsons21 said:


> For me, it isn't a big deal. FX currently has only one show I'm interested in, the Fox Sports networks mean even less than that, and I don't watch Nat Geo. I probably won't even notice when they are gone. I don't want my bill going up to feed the greed at News Corp!


That's fine, but for many it is. For me, the games on Fox Sports are the #1 thing I watch, and I did a lot of checking before moving to Dish Network. I even talked to a manager when I called asking about this dispute, and he assured me they would not lose stations that affect this many people. We'll see if he was lying.


----------



## dakeeney

I guess I've just recorded and watched the last episode of Terriers. Oh well.


----------



## Hoosier205

dakeeney said:


> I guess I've just recorded and watched the last episode of Terriers. Oh well.


It's a great show! One of my favorites now.


----------



## MilFan

Well, pretty sure it is official. Brewers game on FS for today not listed for area code 53719.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx

Thanks for your dishonesty when attracting a new customer, Dish.


----------



## dakeeney

I will have to stand with Dish on this one. Corporate greed is the norm now.
When Fox loses millions of dollars by not agreeing to a little lower asking price
we'll see what their advertisers say when there are 14 million plus viewers gone. It would be in Fox's best interest to drop their asking price. I believe that it's better to lose a little bit of income than to lose it all.


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> Well, pretty sure it is official. Brewers game on FS for today not listed for area code 53719.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx
> 
> Thanks for your dishonesty when attracting a new customer, Dish.


Well, pretty sure it's NOT official. Braves game for Sunday is still showing for *zip code* 30064.


----------



## siwsiw

Just out of curiousity, I've just added the multi sports pack to see what will Dish say to me when they drop more than half of its content tomorrow and keep charging me the same amount! 
I am with Dish in their fight with the various networks to protect the prices. But I'm against holding the same price when these channels are droped.
I see a lot of people that are happy thinking that Dish is protecting them. 
In reality they are being ripped off. Is having less content of the programming for the same price something to cheer about?
Only Dish will cheer about this situation, and they will reach the $130 Direct TV is making per customer easily by going with the trends of dropping channels under the name of "price protection"


----------



## Dario33

^ Still showing for my zip code as well. Holding out a kernel of hope...


----------



## PBowie

IS the Fox soccer channel involved???????
If so im gonna be very slighty ticked off !!


----------



## James Long

*Fox vs. Dish: It's Not Their Fault*
By Swanni
http://www.tvpredictions.com/foxdishfault093010.htm

Normally I pass on what Swanni says, but today's article contains a few common misconceptions that I believe should be corrected.


> Today is the last day that Fox and Dish Network can negotiate a new programming agreement allowing the satcaster to carry FX, National Geographic and 19 Fox regional sports networks. If a new agreement is not reached, Dish will be forced to remove the channels, both HD and SD, from its lineup.


Today is _NOT_ the last day a deal can be reached. A deal could also be reached tomorrow ... or next week ... or next month ... or (considering it is only three months away) next year. Today _IS_ the last day a deal could be reached without removing channels but too many are looking at this issue as one of "if DISH doesn't sign an agreement they will never have these channels again". That is simply not true.

DISH has, over the years, decided not to continue carrying certain channels. Recent examples include The Smithsonian Channel and Fuse. Those are channels that should be "gone forever" - although forever is a long time and as long as the channels exist there is a chance they will return. But most channel disputes end with a carriage agreement ... not a lose forever situation.



> Well, they're both wrong. Neither Fox or Dish should be blamed for the disagreement which is likely to deny Dish's 16 million viewers the right to watch some of their favorite channels.


DISH has just over 14 million customers ... unless the average household size is 1 1/7th Mr Swan's estimation of viewers is incredibly low.



> In June, Dish was forced to drop four Disney high-def channels when it could not reach a new carriage agreement with the programmer; the channels are still off the air.


DISH never had an agreement to carry those channels. They were forced to drop them when the receivers they were using were disabled by ABC/Disney. There was no new carriage agreement that couldn't be reached. DISH assumed that they had an agreement by piecing together three contracts and carried the channels without an agreement. The ABC/Disney situation is not one of contract expiration.



> The FCC should force TV programmers and TV providers to enter arbitration if they can not reach an agreement one week prior to the end of a carriage agreement.
> 
> The arbitrator would determine how much the TV provider should pay for the programmer's channel after hearing arguments from both sides. And the channels would stay on the air until the arbitrator's decision is handed down.


It sounds interesting but I'm not one that likes further government interference in private business relationships. If this was something important, like food or gas I could see the government getting involved. But this is television. Despite the claims of some, no one is going to die if NatGeo, FX and their local FSN is replaced by a slate tonight.

These are major channels ... a deal will be worked out. We just don't know when. If it isn't by midnight and there is no extension then there will be channels turned off. DISH cannot carry a channel they don't have permission to carry (or at least, they should not). But that's not the end of the story. A deal can be reached at any time.


----------



## MilFan

> These are major channels ... a deal will be worked out. We just don't know when. If it isn't by midnight and there is no extension then there will be channels turned off. DISH cannot carry a channel they don't have permission to carry (or at least, they should not). But that's not the end of the story. A deal can be reached at any time.


The "don't know when" is the problem. Dish can just say, "we're working to get it resolved" without giving any details on it, which really doesn't help the customer. Meanwhile, fans sit in the dark. From what I've read, these disputes are RARELY if ever resolved quickly. NBA season starts in one month, so that is all I give a damn about, not the politics of two multi million dollar companies wanting more money.


----------



## lparsons21

dakeeney said:


> I guess I've just recorded and watched the last episode of Terriers. Oh well.


I'll keep watching it, only now using my HTPC and Hulu...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Answering the question "Why doesn't Dish drop prices if they lose channels?"

Do you give back money to your employer when you don't work as hard one day as the day before?

IF you take a longer lunch or other break so you actually work less than 8 hours that day, do you give your employer credit back for that?

I'm going to assume not...

While it would be honest and nice... nobody ever gives money back when it is an already agreed upon regular fee.

I won't defend Dish for cutting ties and not dropping rates, but I won't chastise them either. I will chastise FOX and Disney and anybody else that wants to raise rates in this economy and is willing to take nothing at all via cancellation rather than accept their current terms.


----------



## MilFan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Answering the question "Why doesn't Dish drop prices if they lose channels?"
> 
> Do you give back money to your employer when you don't work as hard one day as the day before?
> 
> IF you take a longer lunch or other break so you actually work less than 8 hours that day, do you give your employer credit back for that?
> 
> I'm going to assume not...
> 
> While it would be honest and nice... nobody ever gives money back when it is an already agreed upon regular fee.
> 
> I won't defend Dish for cutting ties and not dropping rates, but I won't chastise them either. I will chastise FOX and Disney and anybody else that wants to raise rates in this economy and is willing to take nothing at all via cancellation rather than accept their current terms.


When I sign up for a listing called "America's top 200" and agree to a price for said package, I expect to get ALL those channels for my entire contract. I also expect that when I speak to a manager for said company I'm about to agree to a contract with, said manager is upfront with me regarding possibly losing service, ESPECIALLY when I made it clear that FS is the #1 channel I watch.

Oh but let me guess what's next, "it says in the contract they can remove channels at any time, and you signed it". Well, that's fine then. Put anything in small print and it makes it OK to bend the customer over.

I expect to get the programming I paid for when I signed up. Unreasonable? Hell no.


----------



## swallman

Stewart Vernon said:


> Answering the question "Why doesn't Dish drop prices if they lose channels?"
> 
> Do you give back money to your employer when you don't work as hard one day as the day before?
> 
> IF you take a longer lunch or other break so you actually work less than 8 hours that day, do you give your employer credit back for that?
> 
> I'm going to assume not...
> 
> While it would be honest and nice... nobody ever gives money back when it is an already agreed upon regular fee.
> 
> I won't defend Dish for cutting ties and not dropping rates, but I won't chastise them either. I will chastise FOX and Disney and anybody else that wants to raise rates in this economy and is willing to take nothing at all via cancellation rather than accept their current terms.


Ummm...actually, for those people that are hourly employees, you do give your employer credit back (since they don't pay if you work for a shorter time).

I imagine it is a small amount of money that Dish is paying for these channels, but maybe if Dish took the hit in their pocketbook of giving X dollars back to their customers (due to loss of channels they once had), things would be different. For example, if it was $ .50/month X 14 million subs = $ 7 million hit to Dish. Of course they won't do that (but they should!)


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> When I sign up for a listing called "America's top 200" and agree to a price for said package, I expect to get ALL those channels for my entire contract.


America's Top 200 contains 217 channels _plus_ any RSNs that are local to the customer. One of those 217 channels will be removed at midnight (FX). You're still getting more than 200 channels.

DISH doesn't promise an exact listing of channels. They may do some channel shifting during the dispute (they have done this before). Keep watching for updates.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> America's Top 200 contains 217 channels _plus_ any RSNs that are local to the customer. One of those 217 channels will be removed at midnight (FX). You're still getting more than 200 channels.
> 
> DISH doesn't promise an exact listing of channels. They may do some channel shifting during the dispute (they have done this before). Keep watching for updates.


I'm losing FX and (slightly relevant), the #1 channel I watch, Fox Sports. There is no relevance to "only two channels" when one of them is the channel I watch most. It's not like losing the Home Shopping Network and Lifetime.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan said:


> Well, pretty sure it is official. Brewers game on FS for today not listed for area code 53719.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx
> 
> Thanks for your dishonesty when attracting a new customer, Dish.


These retrans agreement battles happens all the time, happens with cable, as been noted it has happened with E*, and it even happens with D* (VERSUS was off of D* from the end of August 2009 through late winter/early spring 2010).

I highly doubt that your salesperson had any idea what's going on with retrans agreements, which the details are always private between the provider and network and we normally don't hear about retrans agreements until the talks enter the 11th hour.

If an agreement isn't reached tonight by midnight and if FX and the regional FSN's as well as the Fox O&O local affiliates go dark on E*, my money is that they'll be dark for a few days, if that long because as been noted, FX is a major cable network.


----------



## scooper

MilFan said:


> I'm losing FX and (slightly relevant), the #1 channel I watch, Fox Sports. There is no relevance to "only two channels" when one of them is the channel I watch most. It's not like losing the Home Shopping Network and Lifetime.


Contrary to your belief - it's exactly like that...


----------



## MilFan

scooper said:


> Contrary to your belief - it's exactly like that...


You think those two channels being wiped out would have the same negative backlash as losing FX, Fox local, and/or Fox Sports? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## dewzan

SDWC said:


> Highly unlikely IMO this will happen. The phones will be ringing off the hook if even one minute of an NFL game on a Sunday is not carried by E* due to renewal disagreements.
> 
> If it were not this time of year I could see it lingering for awhile but with season premieres and NFL I expect this to be resolved.


I've never seen an NFL game on these channels so whom will be disrupted?


----------



## garn9173

scooper said:


> Contrary to your belief - it's exactly like that...





MilFan said:


> I'm losing FX and (slightly relevant), the #1 channel I watch, Fox Sports. There is no relevance to "only two channels" when one of them is the channel I watch most. It's not like losing the Home Shopping Network and Lifetime.


I recall the uproar when E* was in a retrans dispute with Lifetime in the mid 2000's and was off the lineup for a few days, that wasn't pretty around here.

FYI MilFan, the home shopping channels will never go away because they pay E* and others to be carried.


----------



## garn9173

dewzan said:


> I've never seen an NFL game on these channels so whom will be disrupted?


Those who have their local Fox affiliates that are owned & operated by the Fox "mothership". Thankfully, there are none in Iowa.


----------



## dakeeney

I read earlier that Dish would have alternate programming should we lose these channels as it looks as if we will. Just don't give me crappy Showtime as a way to appease me. I guess it will have to be reuns of Bonanza and Gilligans Island while they duke it out.:lol:


----------



## MilFan

dewzan said:


> I've never seen an NFL game on these channels so whom will be disrupted?


I think he's referring to the local Fox affiliate.



> I recall the uproar when E* was in a retrans dispute in the mid 2000's and was off the lineup for a few days, that wasn't pretty around here.
> 
> FYI MilFan, the home shopping channels will never go away because they pay E* and others to be carried.


I was more just making a parallel. James Long was acting like all channels are equal if it is one channel. The 19 Fox Sports affiliates affects MILLIONS of sports fans. Between basketball and baseball, you're looking at around 230 games per year there for die hard fans. Now, maybe that means they get a resolution faster, but it still means a lot more people are affected initially.


----------



## jpd31

dakeeney said:


> I read earlier that Dish would have alternate programming should we lose these channels as it looks as if we will. Just don't give me crappy Showtime as a way to appease me. I guess it will have to be reuns of Bonanza and Gilligans Island while they duke it out.:lol:


Dish will offer there own local sports channel. They will show reruns of the XFL and American Gladiators.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Do you give back money to your employer when you don't work as hard one day as the day before?


Do that too often and the employer notices ... and the employee gets fired.
Some here would like to fire DISH. 

I expect there will be some credit - but expect it in the form of free access to channels. For example, an SD version of Sony Music Channel or opening up Epix channels for people who lose FX (AT200). If there are replacement channels available DISH often makes substitutions.

It doesn't help the AEP+Platinum HD subscriber who already pays for everything.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan said:


> IThe 19 Fox Sports affiliates affects MILLIONS of sports fans. Between basketball and baseball, you're looking at around 230 games per year there for die hard fans. Now, maybe that means they get a resolution faster, but it still means a lot more people are affected initially.


I realize that, i'm a sports nut too and sports is the biggest reason why I have D*, however the baseball season ends on Sunday, so at the most, you may miss is 3 games (my Royals have been out of since Opening Day and really haven't paid attention since football started) and basketball is still a month away. If FX and FSN goes dark on October 1, i'm willing to bet that they'll be dark for only a few days.

I went through this same crap when I was on Mediacom. The local Fox affiliate was off of Mediacom for nearly 3 weeks due to a retrans dispute which wasn't settled until days prior to the Super Bowl. Not to mention as a huge Nebraska football fan, I missed a Husker game last fall that was on VERSUS because of the feud that D* & VERSUS was having, so I know what you are going through and the anger that you are having.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> I'm losing FX and (slightly relevant), the #1 channel I watch, Fox Sports. There is no relevance to "only two channels" when one of them is the channel I watch most. It's not like losing the Home Shopping Network and Lifetime.


In your home ... but there are those who would prefer the other channels. And yes, I would put those channels on the same level ... among different interest groups.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Everybody has there favorite channels, not belittling anybody's favorite. I just don't understand, the Dish just needs to pay no matter how much extra Fox wants, mentality.


Even Direct has played hardball recently, now that NFL Sunday Ticket isn't racking in all the extra money that allows them to just pay what the broadcaster wants. We have seen a rash of this all year, between carriers(Cable, SAT, Telco) and broadcasters. ABC wanted to jack up the price of some of its channels with some cable companies to make up for lost revenue from movies and theme parks. You can blame Charlie all you want you need to put just as much blame on Fox as well, for trying to make up money from one source to cover the loss from somewere else.

Losing FX sucks, will have to see what they plan on doing with the Mulit-Sports package, you know this is going to be resolved, its just a matter of time. Just glad Dish didn't raise the prices this year 20 times for each new channel they added. Its hard enough to figure things out in Feb, and the change in June. Still don't see how it will effect a baseball/basketball fan, as one season has ended and the other hasn't even started.


----------



## MilFan

GrumpyBear said:


> Losing FX sucks, will have to see what they plan on doing with the Mulit-Sports package, you know this is going to be resolved, its just a matter of time.


How long have other disputes taken to resolve?


----------



## inazsully

Perhaps nobody here knows this answer but is Fox asking more from Dish than it asks and gets from D? How about Cox and Comcast?


----------



## DodgerKing

FYI, the deadline is midnight pacific, not eastern. So those on the east coast will find out by 3:00am at the latest


----------



## GrumpyBear

inazsully said:


> Perhaps nobody here knows this answer but is Fox asking more from Dish than it asks and gets from D? How about Cox and Comcast?


I would like to know about that too. Some how it always seems to be Dish being the 1st up for the new agreement.

As for how long it takes to resolve retrans/renewing fee's. I have seen it fixed the day before, to several days, to weeks, to Months, to never being resolved, see you in court. Considering this is the NFL season, and some my lose thier local Fox station, not just local RSN Fox Sports station, this will be one of those few days to weeks issues. Wont take long to fix, both have lots of money to lose.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MilFan said:


> How long have other disputes taken to resolve?


I believe it has been everything from 1 day to infinity! I'm pretty sure at least once the channels came back within a day... and then some others (like Smithsonian) are still gone... and some channels (Voom) won't ever be coming back because they essentially were cancelled as a result of their only major carrier (Dish) dropping them.


----------



## coldsteel

OK, no local channels are affected, just some RSNets, FX and Nat Geo...


----------



## lparsons21

coldsteel said:


> OK, no local channels are affected, just some RSNets, FX and Nat Geo...


That's not entirely correct. I believe that the Fox stations that are corporate owned are also on the block. Fortunately for many of us, most of them aren't.


----------



## Dave

So will FOX take off there news and business channels also?


----------



## GrumpyBear

Dave said:


> So will FOX take off there news and business channels also?


Different contracts, so no those wont be going off line.


----------



## Slamminc11

Dave said:


> So will FOX take off there news and business channels also?


now that would be a take down I could get behind! :up: :up: :up: :up:


----------



## am7crew

Dave said:


> So will FOX take off there news and business channels also?


one can wish


----------



## James Long

A note from the Uplink Report ...
DISH mirrored all of the sports channels except those in question to the 9600 range.
They are "not available" but my hunch is that those that lose their Fox will get these channels during the outage. Those who already have Multi-Sport??? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## MilFan

http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/WheresMyGame/default.aspx (area code for me is 53719)

Everything black for me for tomorrow and Saturday for baseball, and no Alt channels listed anywhere (my area gets FS North but Brewers/Bucks games carried by FS Wisconsin are always on the RSN's).


----------



## James Long

I would not trust the game finder. It wasn't right last week. There are several channels that it doesn't seem to know about and does not show channels that are out of market (Multi-Sport).


----------



## RasputinAXP

There's rumblings on the Dish Facebook page that an agreement in principle has been reached regarding FSN and its ilk but that FX/Natgeo are holding the rest up.


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> A note from the Uplink Report ...
> DISH mirrored all of the sports channels except those in question to the 9600 range.
> They are "not available" but my hunch is that those that lose their Fox will get these channels during the outage. Those who already have Multi-Sport??? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.


Well ... they became available, but with a regional restriction that made them unavailable in most of the country. Probably not there for the purpose that I thought (unless they change the regions on our receivers overnight or change the mask at 3am).


----------



## phrelin

I'm sure it will all work out. In passing, it is worth noting the list of broadcast stations owned by Fox:








Of course, they are all not up for negotiations right now. And given Fox's ratings the first two weeks of this fall season they really can't afford to have some taken down. But it gives one a feel for the level of [strike]extortion possible[/strike] pressure they could bring when one adds it together with the fanaticism of the sports fans.

Figure $250 for a decent package in a few years.


----------



## Eksynyt

Looks like it went dark after all. We lost MSG as well.

LOL their loop saying sorry says that they are providing the sports pack as a compensation...too bad they just lost most of the channels in the sports pack too lol. If this isn't resolved within a couple weeks, Dish is going to go bankrupt.


----------



## Willh

and it's official Dish has lost more channels, all in a span of a year, way to go Dish.


----------



## James Long

Sports Pack Channels now available ...
9660 CSNCA CSN California
9661 ALTUD Altitude
9664 FOXRM FOX Rocky Mountain
9665 CSNBA CSN Bay Area
9666 FOXNW FOX NorthwestChanged
9667 CSNMA CSN Mid AtlanticChanged
9668 FOXPT FOX PittsburghChanged
9669 CSNCH CSN Chicago
9670 STO Sports Time OhioChanged
9671 MASN Mid-Atlantic Sports Net
9672 MASN2 Mid-Atlantic Sports Net 2
9673 NESN New England Sports Network
9674 CSNNE CSN New England
9676 SNY Sports Net NY
9677 BIG10 Big Ten Sports Network
9678 ESPCL ESPN Classic
9679 NFL NFL Network
9681 NHLN NHL Network
9682 NBATV NBA TV

My local Fox Sports is still under a blackout restriction for a game replay, but the EPG says:
"FOX has pulled this channel after demanding an outrageous rate increase from DISH Network. Call FOX and ask for your channel back! 310-369-1000."

FX, NATGEO, FX HD and NATGEO HD are still there at the moment.


----------



## James Long

Video loop up on the twelve removed Fox channels with Charlie explaining things.
Does not affect Fox News or Fox business.
Gives Fox phone number and email addresses as well as Charlie's email address.
The 20 channels available are in the 9660-9682 range (as noted).

http://www.JoinTheFightAgainstFox.com/

The website is currently broken ...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Eksynyt said:


> If this isn't resolved within a couple weeks, Dish is going to go bankrupt.


Somehow I doubt this.

Even though I hate losing channels... FX and National Geographic are not the jewels in the crown that people couldn't adapt to do without.

The sports channels might cause more revolt, actually... but then the huge sports fans should probably already be DirecTV subscribers anyway.

I like sports, but I'd like to see Dish fighting price increases more right about now.


----------



## Eksynyt

Time to switch to the much better satellite provider...the one that can actually keep the channels on (except Versus...Comcast owned, they hate each other).


----------



## grog

Saw that;;;; My wife is going to hit the roof tomorrow!

Oh.. Nothing on Dish website yet but this is on the main page. 



One side note here: We pay for programming. While the comments on the block out seem logically they just don't hold water. We already have to watch MLB via computer which was not a cheap setup.

I am now checking the foxnews website to see if they offer subscription video feed like MLB. Damn if they do I will get it but this is not going to save me money! 



James Long said:


> Video loop up on the twelve removed Fox channels with Charlie explaining things.
> Does not affect Fox News or Fox business.
> Gives Fox phone number and email addresses as well as Charlie's email address.
> The 20 channels available are in the 9660-9682 range (as noted).
> 
> http://www.JoinTheFightAgainstFox.com/
> 
> The website is currently broken ...


----------



## James Long

grog said:


> Saw that;;;; My wife is going to hit the roof tomorrow!
> 
> Oh.. Nothing on Dish website yet but this is on the main page.


Referring to ATT UVERSE dropping the Hallmark Channels.

BTW: FX is airing the HD Net Movies feed. NatGeo is airing the HD Theater feed. Channels normally available only in Platinum HD.


----------



## grog

That's just fine and dandy for those who are not paying for Platinum HD... what about us who already have it? We are just screwed!

This may very well be the last straw and I know it will cost to change but screw it!



James Long said:


> Referring to ATT UVERSE dropping the Hallmark Channels.
> 
> BTW: FX is airing the HD Net Movies feed. NatGeo is airing the HD Theater feed. Channels normally available only in Platinum HD.


----------



## Willh

well i just did a whois search on Godaddy.com and yes, the site jointhefightagainstfox.com is in fact owned by Dish Network, so it's there counter site against Fox's getwhatipaidfor.com


----------



## grog

Sorry; this sounds like a court case ready to happen. I expect we won't see Fox sports for many years to come on Dish.

This is one fight I just don't want any part of.

So far I have not found any way around the problem other than changing carriers. I may give Fox a phone call tomorrow to see if they offer network video feeds but right now it does not look good.

For the record: If FoxSport offered a network video feed for the FOX Sports channels I would be fine with paying the same rates I do for MSN right now..... Just need the channels!

Personally; if it was not for the sports I would be fine with just OTA.

Good news: U-verse carries the networks and they have coverage in my neighborhood.  At least there is a solution.



Willh said:


> well i just did a whois search on Godaddy.com and yes, the site jointhefightagainstfox.com is in fact owned by Dish Network, so it's there counter site against Fox's getwhatipaidfor.com


----------



## James Long

grog said:


> That's just fine and dandy for those who are not paying for Platinum HD... what about us who already have it? We are just screwed!


DISH can't "compensate" by adding channels that it doesn't have permission to carry. HD Movies and HD Theater are easy targets.

Giving Multi-pack to all subscribers (including AT120 subscribers, if I read the uplink data correctly) doesn't compensate those who already pay for Multi-Sport ... but it is what they can do for most of their customers - those who just lost their one local Fox channel who can watch the Fox shows on other RSNs.

The channels have been out an hour. There is no telling how DISH will compensate those who already have Platinum or Multi-Sport. They usually do something.

DISH cannot deliver channels without a contract ... that WILL get them to court and possibly a long term outage. For now, they are doing what they can.

BTW: The DISH vs Fox website is running now:


> We regret that FOX Networks, the owner of FX and National Geographic Channel, has removed their channels from the DISH Network line-up effective October 1.
> 
> FOX has demanded a rate increase of more than 50%. An increase this large would force DISH Network to pass these costs on to our customers, which we are unwilling to do during these tough economic times.
> 
> DISH Network will continue to work for a fair agreement. Feel free to share your thoughts and concerns by e-mailing us at [email protected]. We assure you that we will read every e-mail we receive.


----------



## CarolinaGuy79

It does not look good imo, yesterday I got a inbox message on Facebook from a guy who said he was a Dish rep and since I was being very vocal on Facebook cause I am on Dish's side, and he asked could I help voice my opinion on the matter, I sent him a message back and said I would help anyways possiable. he then asked for my e mail address in which I gave him, I then get an e mail last night from a lady from the public relations department at Dish (I did call to check it out cause her office number was in the e mail and it indeed went to have office) and she asked the same questions ect... about if I could help out I said sure then she sent me an e mail back and asked for my phone number in which I gave her, she then e mailed me back and said she would be in touch.

IMO I just don't think the first guy I spoke with or this lady would be going to so much trouble to get my opinion on this unless it was going to be a long term outage thats just what I think.

Andy


----------



## Willh

now that we know that we lost these channels, the bigger question is, How long until they resolve the dispute, and will it lead to a lawsuit for there refusal to keep carrying these channels.


----------



## Eksynyt

I'm guessing these channels will never come back. Dish is going to lose a TON of subscribers for being this cheap. I admire what Dish is trying to do and their efforts but it has been a colossal failure. I don't see how they can stay afloat in this economy. I predict they will be bankrupt and selling to DirecTV within a few years.


----------



## adkinsjm

If you really think the channels won't come back, you are uninformed on how the business works and have no business posting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

*Programmer Seeks to Shake Down DISH Network and its Customers with Massive Rate Increase*

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Oct 01, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- (Nasdaq: DISH) -- DISH Network L.L.C. reports today that FOX Networks is blocking DISH Network's access to 19 FOX Regional Sports Networks and other programming. FOX is demanding a new contract with an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent. FOX's removal of the channels follows the programmer's national TV, print and web advertising campaign designed to intimidate DISH Network and its customers into paying the rate increase. FOX has flatly refused DISH Network's request to allow customers to continue to watch these FOX channels during the negotiations.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100611/LA19624LOGO) 
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20100611/LA19624LOGO)

These negotiations with FOX do not affect local FOX TV stations, FOX News or FOX Business News.

"DISH Network is not going to allow FOX or any programmer to bully our customers into paying such an unconscionable price increase," said Dave Shull, senior vice president of Programming for DISH Network. "FOX has a long history of trying to shake down pay TV providers, including Cablevision, Time Warner, and Bright House."

Shull continued, "Our customers should not be held hostage in order to finance FOX's irresponsible acquisition of sports rights. Consumers are already burdened enough in this challenging economy."

DISH Network will continue to negotiate in good faith for a fair deal with FOX to help restore the sports programming and prevent outrageous rate increases in this challenging economic environment. In the meantime, during the FOX lockout, DISH Network will make the following channels available to all affected customers at no additional charge: HD Net Movies, HD Theater, NBA TV, New England Sports Network, NFL Network, NHL Network, Altitude Sports, Big Ten Network, Comcast SportsNet California, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, Comcast Sports Network Mid-Atlantic, Comcast Sports New England, ESPN Classic, FOX Sports Northwest, FOX Sports Pittsburgh, FOX Sports Rocky Mountain, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network, Mid-Atlantic Sports Network2, SportsNet New York, and SportsTime Ohio.

DISH Network has created a series of websites to help inform consumers about the nature of this dispute: 
www.FoxShakedownDISH.com, 
www.WeOfferedFoxAFairDeal.com, 
www.FoxRefused.com, 
www.HowMuchMoreCanWeTake.com.

For additional information about DISH Network's fight for consumer choice, visit 
www.DISHWillContinueToFightForCustomers.com, 
www.ForceFedChannels.com, 
www.JoinTheFightAgainstFox.com.

*About DISH Network* 
DISH Network L.L.C., a subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH), provides more than 14.3 million satellite TV customers, as of June 30, 2010, with the highest quality programming and technology at the best value, including HD Free for Life. Subscribers enjoy the most national HD channels, the most HD local coverage in the U.S., the most international channels, and award-winning HD and DVR technology including the ViP 922, the world's only DVR with built-in Sling functionality and PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice." DISH Network is first in Customer Satisfaction among all cable and satellite providers according to the 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index survey results for the U.S. largest cable and satellite TV providers. DISH Network Corporation is included in the Nasdaq-100 Index (NDX) and is a Fortune 200 company. Visit  www.dish.com.

SOURCE DISH Network Corporation


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Eksynyt said:


> I'm guessing these channels will never come back. Dish is going to lose a TON of subscribers for being this cheap. I admire what Dish is trying to do and their efforts but it has been a colossal failure. I don't see how they can stay afloat in this economy. I predict they will be bankrupt and selling to DirecTV within a few years.


Since this happened sometime after midnight... and most folk aren't even aware yet that it has happened... there's still a possibility for the channels to come back on before anyone even knows!

But I think it will take longer than that... probably at least until Monday... and yes, it may go longer.

This is not the thing that will drive Dish into bankruptcy, though. Not by a long shot. Heck, we barely even discuss the Disney channel HD feeds that were dropped several weeks ago... or several other channels dropped months or a year+ ago... and while these channels have their fans (as do many others), this doesn't feel "last straw"-like to me.


----------



## CarolinaGuy79

Stewart Vernon said:


> Since this happened sometime after midnight... and most folk aren't even aware yet that it has happened... there's still a possibility for the channels to come back on before anyone even knows!
> 
> But I think it will take longer than that... probably at least until Monday... and yes, it may go longer.
> 
> This is not the thing that will drive Dish into bankruptcy, though. Not by a long shot. Heck, we barely even discuss the Disney channel HD feeds that were dropped several weeks ago... or several other channels dropped months or a year+ ago... and while these channels have their fans (as do many others), this doesn't feel "last straw"-like to me.


Stewart I was up when it happened and it happened at 3:01am est!


----------



## RasputinAXP

*sigh* there go my Rangers games. http://www.greedymsg.com/

Finally watched the video; MSG's trying to bundle MSG and MSG+ with Fuse. Unsurprised.


----------



## l8er

Did I miss something? It's 6:15 AM Central time and I'm watching FX HD on my VIP922.

Edit: Oops. Never mind. Looks like Dish Network is remapping HDNet Movies to the FX HD slot for now.


----------



## Parrothead

7:52am here on the east coast and all fox channels (including FX) are on the air.


----------



## RasputinAXP

They're running HDNET MOVIES on FX.


----------



## Parrothead

You're right!!!!!


----------



## DodgerKing

Eksynyt said:


> Looks like it went dark after all. We lost MSG as well.
> 
> LOL their loop saying sorry says that they are providing the sports pack as a compensation...too bad they just lost most of the channels in the sports pack too lol. If this isn't resolved within a couple weeks, Dish is going to go bankrupt.


How can that be compensation? If you live in an area that lost their local RSN, you will still be blacked out from the broadcast of the other team playing your local team. Either way, you lost your local teams broadcasts


----------



## MilFan

Well Dish/Fox, you have 26 days to get this resolved, after that I can't promise I won't go postal. I would have never switched if I knew I'd miss even one day of NBA season.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> DISH can't "compensate" by adding channels that it doesn't have permission to carry. HD Movies and HD Theater are easy targets.
> 
> *Giving Multi-pack to all subscribers (including AT120 subscribers, if I read the uplink data correctly) doesn't compensate those who already pay for Multi-Sport ... but it is what they can do for most of their customers - those who just lost their one local Fox channel who can watch the Fox shows on other RSNs.*
> 
> The channels have been out an hour. There is no telling how DISH will compensate those who already have Platinum or Multi-Sport. They usually do something.
> 
> DISH cannot deliver channels without a contract ... that WILL get them to court and possibly a long term outage. For now, they are doing what they can.
> 
> BTW: The DISH vs Fox website is running now:


Who cares? They still lost the ability to watch their local games, and their local shows about their local teams. That is what they care about the most.


----------



## MilFan

DodgerKing said:


> Who cares? They still lost the ability to watch their local games, and their local shows about their local teams. That is what they care about the most.


Exactly. Watching some teams or show we don't care about is not going to compensate for watching the teams we specifically watch the FSN's RSN's for.

Really, I don't expect this to be a big issue for the first week. But as we get into the NBA season, you have markets like Miami (with their additions of LeBron and Bosh, huge fan interest) among others that are going to be affected, and they will be getting A TON of backlash.


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> Exactly. Watching some teams or show we don't care about is not going to compensate for watching the teams we specifically watch the FSN's RSN's for.
> 
> Really, I don't expect this to be a big issue for the first week. But as we get into the NBA season, you have markets like Miami (with their additions of LeBron and Bosh, huge fan interest) among others that are going to be affected, and they will be getting A TON of backlash.


Yep...

Since baseball season is pretty much done, with just about most teams already clinching (interest has died there), the next big issue will be the upcoming NBA and NHL season, along with the current college seasons. So they have a couple of weeks to get this resolved. If it is not resolved before the start of the NBA and NHL season, then you will see some angry sports fans


----------



## MilFan

From what I can see, this affects three baseball markets of teams with playoff implications:

Twins 
Devil Rays
Braves

Not sure if I'm missing any. I'm glad that this will get people calling in right from the get go.


----------



## projectorguru

this sucks, but Dish is giving alot of channels to us in return for now


----------



## GrumpyBear

So now that it has happened, can anybody confirm if the Local Fox station went off line or just the RSN, Plus FX and Net Geo?


----------



## hiero4life

Can I get my money back for Center Ice? I will be switching because I am not missing the NHL season.


----------



## TulsaOK

Response to GrumpyBear.
My local Fox is still there. I believe that's a November 1 cutoff date.


----------



## ycebar

hiero4life said:


> Can I get my money back for Center Ice? I will be switching because I am not missing the NHL season.


If Dish's policy is the same you get until the first day of the regular season too cancel the sports packages


----------



## mdavej

So what's the bottom line here? I still get NatGeo and FX (which is supposedly HDNet Movies) and my local Fox station. I only lost Fox Sports. Is that about right?

HDNet Movies for FX isn't a bad trade.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Kent Taylor said:


> Response to GrumpyBear.
> My local Fox is still there. I believe that's a November 1 cutoff date.


1. Glad to hear you didn't lose your local.
2. Not saying they wont be working hard on contracts, but with no NFL being effected, it maybe a little slower.


----------



## habsfan66

hiero4life said:


> Can I get my money back for Center Ice? I will be switching because I am not missing the NHL season.


Anybody know for sure yet if Center Ice will be affected? I've gotten a few different answers in this forum. I haven't called Dish because frankly, I'm betting whoever I talk with won't have a clue. I emailed NHL.com but God only knows if they'll actually reply. Might be a wait until the free preview starts to find out.


----------



## MilFan

With the amount of NBA/NHL markets affected by this, it affects millions of fans. Obviously NFL gets the most viewership, but NBA/NHL fans will all know about this as the preseason starts. I'm guessing Dish gets flooded with calls within the next two weeks or so.


----------



## MilFan

habsfan66 said:


> Anybody know for sure yet if Center Ice will be affected? I've gotten a few different answers in this forum. I haven't called Dish because frankly, I'm betting whoever I talk with won't have a clue. I emailed NHL.com but God only knows if they'll actually reply. Might be a wait until the free preview starts to find out.


All Fox Sports stations that carry the NHL teams are affected (can't get them locally or through NHL Center Ice).


----------



## habsfan66

MilFan said:


> All Fox Sports stations that carry the NHL teams are affected (can't get them locally or through NHL Center Ice).


Just wondering how you know that for sure - from Dish?


----------



## RasputinAXP

habsfan66 said:


> Just wondering how you know that for sure - from Dish?


Because Center Ice unlocks and unblackouts whatever feeds they have on the system. If we don't have feeds from Fox Sports, we can't have them on CI.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> From what I can see, this affects three baseball markets of teams with playoff implications:
> 
> Twins
> Devil Rays
> Braves
> 
> Not sure if I'm missing any. I'm glad that this will get people calling in right from the get go.


If you're referring to playoff games, those are on national stations not RSNs.


----------



## jeslevine

la24philly said:


> i think dish network should do us all a favor and just file for chapter 11. they are in my opnion the worst tv provider ever. [Redacted]


and for that reason, I want Dish to be around and viable

If Fox is increasing their fees by 50%, that is outrageous, and if that is so, a lot of it has to do with the mass media-merges, which is NOT good for consumers

The Comcast/NBC deal will make that quite evident:

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/why-a-comcastnbc-merger-is-bad-news.html


----------



## Hoosier205

As I have family members who subscribe to Dish Network, I hope this is worked out quickly. 

I am confused about the HDNet Movies bit of this though. You already had it, do you just have it on two channels now?


----------



## MilFan

I was referring to the final three regular season games, which have playoff implications, those are on the RSN's. My father in law is a Twins fan and he's irate about this.


----------



## mdavej

HDNet Movies was in a premium package (like HD Extra), but now you get it in whatever package had FX.

But I'm still confused about Nat Geo. I still had it when I turned on my TV this morning.

EDIT: Never mind. Nat Geo was replaced by Nat Geo Wild.


----------



## bobukcat

MilFan said:


> From what I can see, this affects three baseball markets of teams with playoff implications:
> 
> Twins
> Devil Rays
> Braves
> 
> Not sure if I'm missing any. I'm glad that this will get people calling in right from the get go.


You can add Cincinnati to that list, although they've clinched there are still 3 games left.

This is really going to cause me pain in a few weeks when College b-ball starts though - in fact if this isn't fixed it may make me seriously consider switching providers - something I haven't done in 10 years!!


----------



## DodgerKing

jeslevine said:


> and for that reason, I want Dish to be around and viable
> 
> If Fox is increasing their fees by 50%, that is outrageous, and if that is so, a lot of it has to do with the mass media-merges, which is NOT good for consumers
> 
> The Comcast/NBC deal will make that quite evident:
> 
> http://consumerist.com/2009/12/why-a-comcastnbc-merger-is-bad-news.html


Does anyone know what they are currently paying? Is it a few cents per sub or a few dollars? If it is only a couple of cents, then 50% increase would be just one more penny, which is not that bad. If it is a few dollars, then that is a different story all together


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> I was referring to the final three regular season games, which have playoff implications, those are on the RSN's. My father in law is a Twins fan and he's irate about this.


I'm a Braves fan and I feel your Father-in-Law's pain. Of course, I can get off my butt and drive 27 miles to Turner Field. Hopefully, the Saturday game will be on my local Fox affiliate.


----------



## levibluewa

Eksynyt said:


> I'm guessing these channels will never come back. Dish is going to lose a TON of subscribers for being this cheap. I admire what Dish is trying to do and their efforts but it has been a colossal failure. I don't see how they can stay afloat in this economy. I predict they will be bankrupt and selling to DirecTV within a few years.


I don't see Directv as a diamond in the rough. Aside from their full-time HD RSNs they are at least 30 national HD channels behind DISH. I for one got tired of their promises and turned them off a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## RAD

DodgerKing said:


> Does anyone know what they are currently paying? Is it a few cents per sub or a few dollars? If it is only a couple of cents, then 50% increase would be just one more penny, which is not that bad. If it is a few dollars, then that is a different story all together


I found a pricing charge with 2009 pricing, FX was $0.42, Nat Geo was $0.20, the RSN's weren't listed so don't know. But for reference some other sports channels are ESPN2 $0.54, Big Ten $0.36, NHL $0.035, Fox College Sports $0.34, Versus $0.26, Golf $0.25, MLB $0.24, NBA $0.22, Speed $0.20.

So maybe guess a RSN is $0.50 so that would be $1.12, a 50% increase would add $0.56 to $1.68.


----------



## DodgerKing

RAD said:


> I found a pricing charge with 2009 pricing, FX was $0.42, Nat Geo was $0.20, the RSN's weren't listed so don't know. But for reference some other sports channels are ESPN2 $0.54, Big Ten $0.36, NHL $0.035, Fox College Sports $0.34, Versus $0.26, Golf $0.25, MLB $0.24, NBA $0.22, Speed $0.20.
> 
> So maybe guess a RSN is $0.50 so that would be $1.12, a 50% increase would add $0.56 to $1.68.


Thanks...

If that is the case, then this is very significant


----------



## RAD

DodgerKing said:


> Thanks...
> 
> If that is the case, then this is very significant


Plus I would think it would also have a big impact on the pricing for their RSN sports package, multiply that increase buy all the Fox owned FSN channels that are in the package.


----------



## stevied

I have a question about the blackout rules for the RSNs. The main reason I get Center Ice is to watch the Sharks. If I'm getting Comcast's California channels for free now will I be able to see the shark games without getting Center Ice, or will they be blacked out. I'm located in Idaho.

Thanks,


----------



## kariato

Given that the rating on the FX channel are below a lot of other channels similar (USA,TNT) and NatGeo is a niche channel the timing on this one is strange. Terriers rating are horrible and "Son Of A.." is there only highly rated current show. Given that this is when the broadcast nets are launching new shows and the cable viewership is at a lull. Sport is focused on NFL not a MLS (except for the Playoffs which in on broadcast). This is terrible timing to have this fight for Fox. They don't have a strong hand to play hard ball. Interesting


----------



## garn9173

stevied said:


> I have a question about the blackout rules for the RSNs. The main reason I get Center Ice is to watch the Sharks. If I'm getting Comcast's California channels for free now will I be able to see the shark games without getting Center Ice, or will they be blacked out. I'm located in Idaho.
> 
> Thanks,


It'll be blacked out. The NHL determines the blackouts and they could probably care less about the carriage dispute between E* & Fox.


----------



## sigma1914

stevied said:


> I have a question about the blackout rules for the RSNs. The main reason I get Center Ice is to watch the Sharks. If I'm getting Comcast's California channels for free now will I be able to see the shark games without getting Center Ice, or will they be blacked out. I'm located in Idaho.
> 
> Thanks,


You need CI.


----------



## MilFan

One would think if these channels are not back by the time NBA starts, Dish would let me cancel without any early termination fees, since:

1. I was told by a manager this would not happen when I signed up
2. I'm not getting the channels I am paying for

Granted, I've heard Dish is a POS when it comes to this, but they are going to be hearing from one irate MFer if this is not resolved by late October. I don't like missing my games and I HATE being lied to.


----------



## sigma1914

MilFan said:


> One would think if these channels are not back by the time NBA starts, Dish would let me cancel without any early termination fees, since:
> 
> 1. I was told by a manager this would not happen when I signed up
> 2. I'm not getting the channels I am paying for
> 
> Granted, I've heard Dish is a POS when it comes to this, but they are going to be hearing from one irate MFer if this is not resolved by late October. I don't like missing my games and I HATE being lied to.


:lol:Better read the TOS. I bet they have the same statement most providers have about being able to change programming at any time.


----------



## Young C

Utterly horse ****.

**** Charlie. lol @ the billionaire being broke.

Recession treatin ya hard, pal?


----------



## RAD

MilFan said:


> One would think if these channels are not back by the time NBA starts, Dish would let me cancel without any early termination fees, since:
> 
> 1. I was told by a manager this would not happen when I signed up
> 2. I'm not getting the channels I am paying for
> 
> Granted, I've heard Dish is a POS when it comes to this, but they are going to be hearing from one irate MFer if this is not resolved by late October. I don't like missing my games and I HATE being lied to.





sigma1914 said:


> :lol:Better read the TOS. I bet they have the same statement most providers have about being able to change programming at any time.


As said the TOS has got you. MAYBE you'd have a chance if that manager put that in writing but a verbal is worth nothing.


----------



## Codfishjoe

Directv still has those channels.....


----------



## lparsons21

kariato said:


> Given that the rating on the FX channel are below a lot of other channels similar (USA,TNT) and NatGeo is a niche channel the timing on this one is strange. Terriers rating are horrible and "Son Of A.." is there only highly rated current show. Given that this is when the broadcast nets are launching new shows and the cable viewership is at a lull. Sport is focused on NFL not a MLS (except for the Playoffs which in on broadcast). This is terrible timing to have this fight for Fox. They don't have a strong hand to play hard ball. Interesting


Yep for FX, this isn't the time to start playing hard ball. Little on it that is compelling although I do like Son of A. and Terriers. I can watch them on the computer though, so that isn't a huge loss.

As to the RSN's. If Fox wants to increase the price, then Dish should let them, BUT put them in a sports package and let those that don't mind their bill increasing because of them pay for it. I don't care if any RSN is on, so I sure don't want to pay an increase to have them.


----------



## lparsons21

Codfishjoe said:


> Directv still has those channels.....


...but is missing a slew of other national HD channels... Just sayin' !!


----------



## RAD

Codfishjoe said:


> Directv still has those channels.....





lparsons21 said:


> ...but is missing a slew of other national HD channels... Just sayin' !!


Yea, but the way Charlie's been dropping channels lately Dish may be catching up to DirecTV in what they don't have. Just sayin'


----------



## joshjr

Codfishjoe said:


> Directv still has those channels.....


I seem to recall a few (tons) of E* customers that were happy when we D* customers lost the Vs channel and could not rub it in our face enough. I think this is way more serious then that. Now that being said I dont agree with a 50% increase either but I also am suprised that E* was not able to come to some terms. I will guess that it gets resolved before they lose FOX lol. I cant imagine a Sunday during NFL season that all E* customers have not FOX NFL games.


----------



## plasmacat

This morning as of 9:15PT in the Bay Area, I still have FX.


----------



## joshjr

plasmacat said:


> This morning as of 9:15PT in the Bay Area, I still have FX.


Care to try a reboot and see if you can still say that?


----------



## RAD

joshjr said:


> I cant imagine a Sunday during NFL season that all E* customers have not FOX NFL games.


Dish hasn't lost any local Fox channels yet, that drop dead date is 11/1/10 for that agreement.


----------



## sigma1914

plasmacat said:


> This morning as of 9:15PT in the Bay Area, I still have FX.


Are you sure it's not the HD Net Movies feed?


----------



## lparsons21

RAD said:


> Yea, but the way Charlie's been dropping channels lately it Dish may be catching up to DirecTV in what they don't have. Just sayin'


Bite your tongue!! :lol:


----------



## joshjr

RAD said:


> Dish hasn't lost any local Fox channels yet, that drop dead date is 11/1/10 for that agreement.


I know. Thats why my post says I bet they get this fixed before that happens.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> plasmacat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This morning as of 9:15PT in the Bay Area, I still have FX.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to try a reboot and see if you can still say that?
Click to expand...

No need to reboot ... just look for the logo in the corner or read posts made during the 3am hour ET this morning.

FX and NatGeo have been replaced by HDNet Movies and HD Theater, respectively.

Sony Movie Channel on 386 looks good.


----------



## epokopac

Kent Taylor said:


> I'm a Braves fan and I feel your Father-in-Law's pain. Of course, I can get off my butt and drive 27 miles to Turner Field. Hopefully, the Saturday game will be on my local Fox affiliate.


Or take in the remaining games the old-fashioned way, on the radio; exactly what I plan to do. The Saturday game "will' be on Fox 5 here in Atlanta.


----------



## plasmacat

sigma1914 said:


> Are you sure it's not the HD Net Movies feed?


You are right - it is the HD Net Movies feed. My apologies.


----------



## jefbal99

RAD said:


> I found a pricing charge with 2009 pricing, FX was $0.42, Nat Geo was $0.20, the RSN's weren't listed so don't know. But for reference some other sports channels are ESPN2 $0.54, Big Ten $0.36, NHL $0.035, Fox College Sports $0.34, Versus $0.26, Golf $0.25, MLB $0.24, NBA $0.22, Speed $0.20.
> 
> So maybe guess a RSN is $0.50 so that would be $1.12, a 50% increase would add $0.56 to $1.68.





DodgerKing said:


> Thanks...
> 
> If that is the case, then this is very significant


RSN's are more expensive than regular channels, ~$2-$3 or more in region, however, typically pennies for out of region viewers...


----------



## habsfan66

RasputinAXP said:


> Because Center Ice unlocks and unblackouts whatever feeds they have on the system. If we don't have feeds from Fox Sports, we can't have them on CI.


Just got off the phone with Dish. I asked about NHL CI, the rep put me on hold and after talking with her super said that CI will NOT be affected as these are, according to her, the same as buying a pay-per-view movie. If you pay for the package, you get the content regardless of the dispute. Time will tell.


----------



## phrelin

For those of you who may have missed my post (#9):


phrelin said:


> Here's a list published by the research firm SNL Kagan showing what a typical cable carrier paid for channels in 2009:


ESPN and Fox Sports Net represent $6.45± out of my monthly package. I don't watch sports. I pay for HBO and Showtime packages which cater to my particular interests.

If I have to give up a few shows on FX and ABC Family to avoid this extortion, so be it. As far as I'm concerned Disney and News Corp are dangerous to my way of life.

Go get 'em Charlie.:joy:


----------



## Hoosier205

habsfan66 said:


> Just got off the phone with Dish. I asked about NHL CI, the rep put me on hold and after talking with her super said that CI will NOT be affected as these are, according to her, the same as buying a pay-per-view movie. If you pay for the package, you get the content regardless of the dispute. Time will tell.


That just doesn't sound right. Not that you weren't told that, but the response you received just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## RAD

phrelin said:


> For those of you who may have missed my post (#9):


It says those rates are for the typical cable carrier, what's typical I guess, Cablevision or Mediacom size carrier? I'd be willing to guess that what a Comcast, DirecTV or maybe even Dish pay are less then that since the larger the customer base for a carrier the lower the per channel rate usually is. IIRC one of Dish's law suites is because they believe that Disney is not offering them the same rates based on their subscriber base as other carriers are paying.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> That just doesn't sound right. Not that you weren't told that, but the response you received just doesn't make any sense.


DISH's contract to carry NHL games is with the NHL, not with Fox.
It is the same as when DISH had MLB a few years ago and carried YES games.
As long as DISH pays the NHL for the games they still have the right to carry those games.


----------



## phrelin

RAD said:


> It says those rates are for the typical cable carrier, what's typical I guess, Cablevision or Mediacom size carrier? I'd be willing to guess that what a Comcast, DirecTV or maybe even Dish pay are less then that since the larger the customer base for a carrier the lower the per channel rate usually is. IIRC one of Dish's law suites is because they believe that Disney is not offering them the same rates based on their subscriber base as other carriers are paying.


The chart is what it is, some kind of averaging. It gives you a sense of what was going on in 2009 relative to pricing.

With regard to what you are noting about how many subscribers are involved, my belief is that packages and tiers enter into the negotiations as well because those determine the number of households involved for DirecTV and Dish. We Dish subscribers who are not sports fans are stuck with ESPN beginning in America's Top 100 and Fox Sports beginning in America's Top 200. My guess is that those are far and away the two most expensive channels in my Top 200.

And while I'm sure Cablevision and Mediacom are factored into the chart, I'd guess that Comcast and Time Warner Cable are included also.


----------



## GrumpyBear

James Long said:


> DISH's contract to carry NHL games is with the NHL, not with Fox.
> It is the same as when DISH had MLB a few years ago and carried YES games.
> As long as DISH pays the NHL for the games they still have the right to carry those games.


Thats what I was going to post, about the CI agreement.

Still not sure why everybody blames Charlie. Board people like Charlie at Dish and those over at Fox are always going to get paid. Price agreements like this one are all about profitablity of service over user, for stock prices were the Chumps even make more money, and nothing to do with Salaries of the chumps at the top. Losing FX sucks, Sons of Anarchy fan, but its not the end of the world. Only channels I have seen Dish lose on a perm basis, were the Rainbow channels, a all HD group that was so good, that NOBODY picked them up, and the Smithsonian channel. Fox and ABC have many contract renewal issues this year, Dish is just the latest and wont be the last. Hope Dish holds and gets a decent price vs just paying to pay, really tired of Companies like ABC and Fox, covering up for the loses for bad movies, bad TV shows, and even amusement park loses, with trying to stick the carriers with larger prices to cover up the loses in other parts of the company. Since January, Dish has added around 15-20 new National HD channels vs losing 6 National HD channels, still way up in the additions this year as well.


----------



## TBoneit

So far for me I've seen nothing dropped that matters. OTOH if it goes on and impacts the Local NYC Fox station, then I'll have to go to alternative means. That would be either record them to the hard drive in a DVD Recorder from a SD basic cable feed and watch them from there. Or record them to the other DVD recorders hard drive from the clear QAM HD feed which converts them to a sharp SD capture. Both DVD Recorders are connected to the TV via Component cables so that they look decent. Since I only watch two shows a week from Fox and then only when they are New shows, no biggie to me.

MY suspicion is I'm in the majority with regards to the drops by Fox. Sports fans are more vocal than the silent majority.

Cheers


----------



## dakeeney

I have to say that I stand behind Dish on this one. If all the providers would get the guts to stand up to big networks and say they are not going to pay
outrageous prices then you would see the big boys back off a little. Plus, as
the providers drop channels, viewers disappear then advertisers start taking their business elsewhere and the networks are in a hurt.


----------



## CoolGui

I can't say it really bothers me that much since they haven't carried my full time RSN since it spun off Fox Sports Southwest... And I've already given up trying to watch the last few baseball games in HD. As long as they get it worked out by the time NBA season starts, I wish them the best on their negotiations, hopefully we will net a full time Fox Sports Houston channel out of it.


----------



## mdavej

Why not put all sports in a package and let them charge whatever the market will bear without affecting everyone else? That way, there are never any disputes and the consumer decides when the price is too high by dropping the package. I imagine this extortion will quickly come to an end when nobody subscribes.

Since the 2 most expensive channels in phrelin's list cost nearly the same as the bottom 90 channels on the list combined, they should be in a premium class by themselves.


----------



## russ9

mdavej said:


> Why not put all sports in a package and let them charge whatever the market will bear without affecting everyone else? That way, there are never any disputes and the consumer decides when the price is too high by dropping the package. I imagine this extortion will quickly come to an end when nobody subscribes.
> 
> Since the 2 most expensive channels in phrelin's list cost nearly the same as the bottom 90 channels on the list combined, they should be in a premium class by themselves.


I agree!


----------



## James Long

mdavej said:


> Why not put all sports in a package and let them charge whatever the market will bear without affecting everyone else?


Great idea ... except providers such as Fox will never go for it. Channel providers like bundling. Then they can hold channels like FX and NatGeo hostage to FoxSports carriage. And vice versa.


----------



## kariato

I'm sad that VOOM did not launch now. If you excluded the sports channels you and just an mpeg4 & 64QAM at a much lower cost. You could launch a decent package with a pretty small bandwidth if you delivered the broadcast networks OTA. Focusing on movies, women's programming and family programming excluding Disney.


----------



## TulsaOK

epokopac said:


> Or take in the remaining games the old-fashioned way, on the radio; exactly what I plan to do. The Saturday game "will' be on Fox 5 here in Atlanta.


My EPG still shows the game being broadcast on 437. Have you checked? I'm not counting on it but ....


----------



## Stewart Vernon

At least 3 people in this very thread didn't even notice that their FX feed was not HD Net. Please note, I'm not insulting these posters! Rather, it demonstrates to me that for them, FX wasn't popular or distinctive enough that they noticed when it was replaced.

Like those coffee commercials... "Today, we have replaced the gourmet coffee with Folgers crystals, let's see if anyone notices" 

These threads are always crazy to me because:

IF Dish loses a channel because they don't want to pay more, people scream.
IF Dish raises prices to keep a channel, people scream.

Every time Dish raises rates and doesn't add new channels, people say "why are we paying more and not getting anything new"... but people also seem to want Dish to pay whatever a channel asks.

Some think we are feeling sorry for Dish or Charlie... I'm not sure how that correlates. This isn't about Charlie's pocket. This is about OUR pockets. IF FOX raises rates, and Dish accepts, then our bill will go up... so no skin off Charlie's backs.

Sure Dish might lose subscribers due to lost channels... but the people who stay will be staying because he kept the bill down. IF he raises rates, then people might leave because of that too... I'm sure someone at Dish is calculating which decision carries the most risk.

Meanwhile, Dish did add a new channel (Sony Movie channel) and didn't raise rates yet to carry it... but I'm pretty sure I don't see a flood of "thank you" and praise for Dish for adding a channel without charging us more to get it.

So these threads just drive me crazy with hypocrisy.


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> For those of you who may have missed my post (#9):
> ESPN and Fox Sports Net represent $6.45± out of my monthly package. I don't watch sports. I pay for HBO and Showtime packages which cater to my particular interests.
> 
> If I have to give up a few shows on FX and ABC Family to avoid this extortion, so be it. As far as I'm concerned Disney and News Corp are dangerous to my way of life.
> 
> Go get 'em Charlie.:joy:


+1 AMEN Brother I agree...Go get'em Charlie!!!:joy:


----------



## wilssm

Big deal with sony movie channel 20 to 30 year old movies


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> At least 3 people in this very thread didn't even notice that their FX feed was not HD Net. ... FX wasn't popular or distinctive enough that they noticed when it was replaced.


I initially didn't notice ... something was still there. The EPG doesn't match the content and only after watching for a few minutes I noticed the logo.

Any news increases viewership. When Smithsonian Channel was added I watched it ... then forgot it by the time that it was dropped. I've watched a few movies (DVD on TV?) on FX but not many. There are better channels. Nat Geo was impressive years ago and I've seen a few shows but it isn't a regular channel. I'm sure most people watch FX and NatGeo more than me ... but I've only looked at the channel lately to see what was there. I won't call that watching. More of a investigation than enjoyment.

As for Fox Sports ... the games I might care about are blacked out because I'm not officially in the coverage area of the team. My "FS Midwest" lost teams to CSN Chicago a few years ago. In my area it is mostly between game filler and blackouts.


----------



## kariato

Some people like these movies, some people like sports to each his own. In the UK the sport package is separated in cost. I think that people are getting tired that a large percentage of our ever rising sat/cable bill is because of Sports. I know bundling is mean't to keep costs lower for all but when ESPN is five to ten times the cost of other channels. It begins to sound like a premium package.


----------



## JcT21

mdavej said:


> Why not put all sports in a package and let them charge whatever the market will bear without affecting everyone else? That way, there are never any disputes and the consumer decides when the price is too high by dropping the package. I imagine this extortion will quickly come to an end when nobody subscribes.
> 
> Since the 2 most expensive channels in phrelin's list cost nearly the same as the bottom 90 channels on the list combined, they should be in a premium class by themselves.


i overwhelmingly agree!!!


----------



## satexplorer

Official press release from DISH: http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=513082


----------



## slickshoes

I just posted this on Fox's anti Dish wall, if you love Dish for sticking up to these greedy aholes, then I encourage you to do the same. (kinda vulgar, sorry)
http://www.facebook.com/GetWhatIPaidFor

What all you people don't realize is that these huge mega greedy corporate *******s like Disney and FOX are screwing YOU the consumer. An increase of over 50%??? FU Fox...and thank you Dish network for not rolling over and paying for their bull****, like the other providers have. Now FOX is scaring you into thinking that they are right, and telling you to switch providers!? Well go right ahead, and you are all just like the sheep they hope we would be, paying out the nose for entertainment that the other providers happily pay and don't give a **** about the consumer and just want to wipe their ass with more 100's. I'm so sick of this **** happening, and the FCC and the government won't do a damn thing about it, they are too busy doubling your healthcare.


----------



## bones boy

slickshoes said:


> What all you people don't realize is that these huge mega greedy corporate *******s like Disney and FOX are screwing YOU the consumer. An increase of over 50%??? FU Fox...and thank you Dish network for not rolling over and paying for their bull****, like the other providers have. Now FOX is scaring you into thinking that they are right, and telling you to switch providers!? Well go right ahead, and you are all just like the sheep they hope we would be, paying out the nose for entertainment that the other providers happily pay and don't give a **** about the consumer and just want to wipe their ass with more 100's. I'm so sick of this **** happening, and the FCC and the government won't do a damn thing about it, they are too busy doubling your healthcare.


:ramblinon:ramblinon:ramblinon:ramblinon


----------



## tonyd79

Good luck to you guys. Hope it gets resolved. Dish without these channels could get hammered and that is not good for anyone. Nor is a massive rights fee hike. 

Of course, as a Directv customer who watched the Versus debacle on our system, you learn that most often neither side (in this case Dish or Fox and Disney) tells the whole unspun truth. I'm sure they are asking for a lot of money but 50% sounds like hyperbole or, at least, a spin on the numbers.


----------



## phobos512

I'd love to post on Fox's wall but unfortunately you have to "like" them to post. So F that. Since there're likely Fox personnel following this discussion, it's unfortunate that I won't be able to watch SOA anymore but you can GO F*** YOURSELVES!



slickshoes said:


> I just posted this on Fox's anti Dish wall, if you love Dish for sticking up to these greedy aholes, then I encourage you to do the same. (kinda vulgar, sorry)
> http://www.facebook.com/GetWhatIPaidFor
> 
> What all you people don't realize is that these huge mega greedy corporate *******s like Disney and FOX are screwing YOU the consumer. An increase of over 50%??? FU Fox...and thank you Dish network for not rolling over and paying for their bull****, like the other providers have. Now FOX is scaring you into thinking that they are right, and telling you to switch providers!? Well go right ahead, and you are all just like the sheep they hope we would be, paying out the nose for entertainment that the other providers happily pay and don't give a **** about the consumer and just want to wipe their ass with more 100's. I'm so sick of this **** happening, and the FCC and the government won't do a damn thing about it, they are too busy doubling your healthcare.


----------



## rstewart

This goes to show that it is long past time to unbundle channels. I used to agree that bundling cost less overall but I'm in the opposite camp now. The way that all of the major media conglomerates have raised their pricing proves that it's time for them to unbundle so that we (the consumers!) can decide what price we're willing to pay for their content. The way they're currently going is driving people away from satellite and cable to the internet. I'm willing to pay for content if I think the price is fair but they need to unbundle so I can make that determination.

If a network overprices their offerings and no one buys them then they deserve go under.

Yes this will lead to a smaller number of channels but isn't that the point of a fair and open market? The good channels that people are willing to pay for survive and the weak die?

I believe that cable/satellite providers should have a base fee that includes the cost of providing service and the public interest type channels (public access, c-span, etc) then all other channels (including local stations!) should be priced a la carte and may the best channels/media companies compete for our business.


----------



## joshjr

rstewart said:


> This goes to show that it is long past time to unbundle channels. I used to agree that bundling cost less overall but I'm in the opposite camp now. The way that all of the major media conglomerates have raised their pricing proves that it's time for them to unbundle so that we (the consumers!) can decide what price we're willing to pay for their content. The way they're currently going is driving people away from satellite and cable to the internet. I'm willing to pay for content if I think the price is fair but they need to unbundle so I can make that determination.
> 
> *If a network overprices their offerings and no one buys them then they deserve go under.*
> Yes this will lead to a smaller number of channels but isn't that the point of a fair and open market? The good channels that people are willing to pay for survive and the weak die?
> 
> I believe that cable/satellite providers should have a base fee that includes the cost of providing service and the public interest type channels (public access, c-span, etc) then all other channels (including local stations!) should be priced a la carte and may the best channels/media companies compete for our business.


It wouldnt be a matter of if. All stations would overprice. They would have to in order to start out that way not knowing how many people would jump on the wagon. Do you really see any station lowering the price later on because more subs are on board? I highly doubt it. Its still cheaper to offer channels together in bundles. Thats the facts.


----------



## BigRedFan

James Long said:


> At the end of 2009 DISH was worth -$2,092,171,000 ... yes, negative two billion. Rolling in debt.
> 
> DISH made $635.545 million net profit on 14.1 million subscribers for the year. Or $45 net profit on an average $840.48 annual bill, per subscriber. In 2008 DISH made $66 net profit per subscriber ... so they are made 32% LESS in 2009 than 2008, per subscriber. The average customer bill went up 1.1% between 2008 and 2009.
> 
> DISH's closest competition, DirecTV, made $129.85 per subscriber net profit and are worth +$2.911 million. Their average bill for 2009 was $1025.76 annually, which is a 1.8% increase from 2008. Their profit went up 3.4%. Not exactly returning their profits to subscribers. If you want to support a company that makes nearly three times more profit per customer while having a net worth of $5 billion more I suggest you switch immediately.
> 
> As for me, I'll continue to support DISH with my subscription dollars. They at least seem to be trying not to succeed at my expense.


Hi James.... These are very impressive numbers you've posted (about DISH's negative net worth)...

Is it public knowledge what constitutes the majority of this debt ? (ie. capital expenditures for new satellites, TIVO lawsuits ,etc. )

It's puzzling to see how DirecTV's business model (theoretically the same as DISH's) can prevent such a massive debt and DISH's cannot....

I truly hope DISH can improve their balance sheet dramatically since it does no one any good to lose a healthy competition between the 2 satellite providers (if DISH is weakened substantially) ...

Moreover, the DirecTV numbers (ridiculous profit and net worth) are nauseating given Satellite Racer's continuous tango excuses for not adding all the new HD which D12 was expected to deliver...

Your financial comparison (between the 2 companies) speaks louder than any new excuse we may hear from DTV (about new HD investments)... Great post!


----------



## Eksynyt

DirecTV is already smoking Dish money-wise and this will be the final nail. If local Fox channels in New York and LA go out for a significant length of time, Dish will be gone. They will lose millions of subscribers.


----------



## Satelliteracer

JcT21 said:


> i overwhelmingly agree!!!


Good luck with that. Someone like ABC who owns "Non sports" content as well as sports content (ESPN, etc) and FOX (same situation) basically won't allow that. It''s how they get such great distribution on their sports channels by leveraging their other content.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> At the end of 2009 DISH was worth -$2,092,171,000 ... yes, negative two billion. Rolling in debt.
> 
> DISH made $635.545 million net profit on 14.1 million subscribers for the year. Or $45 net profit on an average $840.48 annual bill, per subscriber. In 2008 DISH made $66 net profit per subscriber ... so they are made 32% LESS in 2009 than 2008, per subscriber. The average customer bill went up 1.1% between 2008 and 2009.
> 
> DISH's closest competition, DirecTV, made $129.85 per subscriber net profit and are worth +$2.911 million. Their average bill for 2009 was $1025.76 annually, which is a 1.8% increase from 2008. Their profit went up 3.4%. Not exactly returning their profits to subscribers. If you want to support a company that makes nearly three times more profit per customer while having a net worth of $5 billion more I suggest you switch immediately.
> 
> As for me, I'll continue to support DISH with my subscription dollars. They at least seem to be trying not to succeed at my expense.


I'll support the company that makes a better profit and cost me less money for the channels, packages, and setup I want. That company is DirecTV. When a company profits, that means they are doing something right. After all, customers choose to support said company; said company does not force customers to join them

Not only does Dish not even offer what I watch, EI and MLBNetwork, to get the same channels (minus those of course since Dish does not offer them) and the same setup, I would need to pay about $3 more for Dish.

Coincidentally, the topic of discussion I had with my students today in my Stats class was, "Do the Number Lie?". One thing we discussed is how individuals post honest numbers, but do so in a misleading way, often by leaving out important information out. This is an example of such.

What you failed to include in your annual profit per customer comparison is the breakdown of specific package which increases average cost, and are not even offered by Dish. Sure the average Direct sub pays more, because included in this average are a lot of subs that pay $300 annually for ST, and $100+ annually for EI and other sports packages (both ST and EI, the two most expensive one are not even offered on Dish). We can also add, that a much larger proportion of Direct subs pay for additional expensive sports packages than those with Dish. This alone will move the mean annual payment up.

If you want to do an honest comparison, compare the price the average sub pays annually without the addons (which are optional) that the other provider does not even offer. Or simply compare comparable setups.

This here is a more accurate comparison. When all things are equivalent, the difference in price is not all that great, particularly when you add additional equipment. Keep in mind, in order to get the same channels one gets on Choice Extra, they must go up to the higher AT250, because the AT200 does not have many of the channels included in Choice Extra

Excel Spreadsheet Download (Comparing all prices for all setups between Dish and Direct)

I am including the HD fee even though both providers offer it for free to some


----------



## DodgerKing

BigRedFan said:


> Hi James.... These are very impressive numbers you've posted (about DISH's negative net worth)...
> 
> Is it public knowledge what constitutes the majority of this debt ? (ie. capital expenditures for new satellites, TIVO lawsuits ,etc. )
> 
> It's puzzling to see how DirecTV's business model (theoretically the same as DISH's) can prevent such a massive debt and DISH's cannot....
> 
> I truly hope DISH can improve their balance sheet dramatically since it does no one any good to lose a healthy competition between the 2 satellite providers (if DISH is weakened substantially) ...
> 
> Moreover, the DirecTV numbers (ridiculous profit and net worth) are nauseating given Satellite Racer's continuous tango excuses for not adding all the new HD which D12 was expected to deliver...
> 
> Your financial comparison (between the 2 companies) speaks louder than any new excuse we may hear from DTV (about new HD investments)... Great post!


Impressive when the numbers are spun


----------



## James Long

BigRedFan said:


> Hi James.... These are very impressive numbers you've posted (about DISH's negative net worth)...


Yes ... but it isn't the topic of this thread. Those figures were presented as a reply to a specific post that claimed DISH was rolling in the dough and could afford to pay any price a provider demanded for channels without passing the price on. Now we have an actual channel outage to discuss we should discuss the real topic of the thread.


----------



## James Long

Guys, if you have a problem with the moderation of the forum please send a PM (per forum rules).

A post was made that violated forum rules and it was taken care of. That is all that needs to be said in public on the topic. Any further questions? Please PM a moderator.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Guys, if you have a problem with the moderation of the forum please send a PM (per forum rules).
> 
> A post was made that violated forum rules and it was taken care of. That is all that needs to be said in public on the topic. Any further questions? Please PM a moderator.


PM sent thanks.


----------



## xzi

You can defend either side all you want, but none of it changes that fact that they don't get the deal done far enough ahead of time that it doesn't screw the customer and that's unacceptable. This is old hat with DISH, and something DIRECTV works very hard to prevent--it just shows where their priorities are. They run the risk of being worse than Time Warner Cable at this rate with negotiations and that's not easy to do!

Consumers should be putting up 15 websites with URLs like www.wedontcarewhosfaultitis.com and www.justgetthedealsdone.com. It's a joke.


----------



## tsmacro

Eksynyt said:


> DirecTV is already smoking Dish money-wise and this will be the final nail. If local Fox channels in New York and LA go out for a significant length of time, Dish will be gone. They will lose millions of subscribers.


You realize of course every time there's a channel dispute someone predicts it's the final straw for Dish and now they will surely go bankrupt right? People have been posting pretty much the same thing as you for years. Guess what it's never happened I don't see it happening this time either. But I suppose if you want to be right bad enough you could just post that over and over again for years on end and maybe eventually you'll be right, but that would be just kind of silly.


----------



## DodgerKing

PM sent 1/2 ago


----------



## Willh

well i wonder if there's any lawyers who have Dish Network, if so, i wonder when we will see the Lawyers stand up for customers of Dish for years of deception with there customers and years of carriage disputes.

and my best advice, instead of sending messages to the companies involved of the disputes, bring in a third party, a politician

send a e-mail to those in charge of the FCC, you state senator or congressman/congresswoman. that's the perfect way to let our voices be heard on this cable/satellite industry wide problem of carriage disputes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm just amazed that people think Dish should pay whatever FOX or anyone else wants... and somehow those people don't grasp the concept that WE subscribers would end up paying the cost.

Charlie isn't being "cheap"... WE ARE! IF we stopped complaining about price increases and all went to auto-pay and said to Dish "take whatever you need"... then there would never be a dispute again.

So please don't complain about prices AND complain when Dish tries to keep the prices down. Pick a side, and then at least you would be consistent.


----------



## chum76

If Murdock wants to play hardball Dish will either pay up or lose alot of subscribers. If Fox holds tough and wins you can bet the others will be right in line when their contracts are up. These companies are going to price TV right out of everyones homes.


----------



## tonyd79

tsmacro said:


> You realize of course every time there's a channel dispute someone predicts it's the final straw for Dish and now they will surely go bankrupt right? People have been posting pretty much the same thing as you for years. Guess what it's never happened I don't see it happening this time either. But I suppose if you want to be right bad enough you could just post that over and over again for years on end and maybe eventually you'll be right, but that would be just kind of silly.


The difference this time is that this is a very large situation that has been brewing with Disney and Fox. These are the giants in the industry and can hurt your business far more than a string of local affiliates in Iowa.

I'm not saying bankrupt but if they try to take a tack that says that sports becomes even less important and let a lot of channels drop plus lose local Fox affiliates plus Disney, that is a pretty big hit. DirecTV has been living on sports and this would widen that gap tremendously.

This is not good for Dish or for anybody, really. It is good to have solid providers and choices for us all.

(And don't forget that the Tivo War is not over yet.)

I cannot fault Charlie or Fox or ABC/Disney. I know little about the actual situation. I do know that all parties in this are pretty much hard-asses, so we will see what happens.

Right now, I assume that Charlie pretty much caves in the end but wins enough concessions to save face and to survive financially. That is pretty much what happened with the DirecTV/Versus deal from what an outsider can tell no matter what either side says.


----------



## DodgerKing

It looks like it is more than just fee increase. Perhaps Dish is spinning this more than Fox? Fox seems to want Dish to make these channels available in the lower packages, like they are with most other providers



> A sticking point in negotiations has been the channels' positioning in Dish Network's programming levels. Dish does not make FX, National Geographic or Fox's sports networks available to customers who buy a basic programming package. Rather the channels are available only in more expensive packages.


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1002-ct-dish-20101002,0,896521.story


----------



## lparsons21

DodgerKing said:


> It looks like it is more than just fee increase. Perhaps Dish is spinning this more than Fox? Fox seems to want Dish to make these channels available in the lower packages, like they are with most other providers
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1002-ct-dish-20101002,0,896521.story


Which would have the effect of raising the rates on those lower tiers if they go along with that. It is all about the money, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> It looks like it is more than just fee increase. Perhaps Dish is spinning this more than Fox? Fox seems to want Dish to make these channels available in the lower packages, like they are with most other providers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sticking point in negotiations has been the channels' positioning in Dish Network's programming levels. Dish does not make FX, National Geographic or Fox's sports networks available to customers who buy a basic programming package. Rather the channels are available only in more expensive packages.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1002-ct-dish-20101002,0,896521.story
Click to expand...

A few years ago DISH had the three levels divided at about 4 million customers each. Their "basic" programming package (currently AT120) had 4 million customers, their second level (currently AT200) had 4 million customers and their third level (currently AT250) had 4 million with about a million in either AEP, Family or other levels of programming. (This based on the complaints of a programmer who had a channel in AT200 who thought they had a contract for placement in AT120 - the language specified was referred to having their feed delivered to most customers. When they found out that 4 million basic customers couldn't see them they realized what level they were at. IIRC: DISH won that one, since the channel was delivered to 9 million customers.)

In any case ... DISH keeps the cost of that base package low by not including ANY of the regional sports channels. One's own local RSNs can be bought for $5 extra. 37 more channels (usually including FX) plus the Sirius music channels are added for $10 more ($15 more than the base package). 41 more channels (usually including Nat Geo) plus mono Musak channels are added for another $10 more.

Moving a channel down a package adds 4 million customers ... so I can see where Fox would want FX and NatGeo moved down ... an instant increase in subscribers and a huge increase in payments even if the cost per subscriber stays the same. FX moving from AT200 to AT120 would be 50% increase in subscribers ... NatGeo moving from AT250 to AT200 would be a 100% increase in subscribers (using the old estimates).

Good channels in low packages doesn't help DISH upsell to the higher packages. Bad channels in low packages means DISH is paying too much for the content. The low end package needs to remain at the basic level.

Fox Sports at the AT120 level? Forget it. That is what YES was demanding and despite the "critical need" for YES that is expressed on this forum ("DISH will die without YES") DISH has held out for years.

BTW: DirecTV has avoided these problems by not having a low end package. Choice is comparable to AT200 in price and channel selection. Perhaps some day DISH will be forced into ditching the AT120 package completely ... but for now they are trying not to do that. Part of that effort includes keeping RSNs where they belong (in AT120 Plus) and not moving channels down from higher packages unless they are worth the money.

If I were DISH moving Fox Sports would be a non-starter ... moving FX or NatGeo would require a reduction in per subscriber fees. I really don't see any way of Fox getting all of the channels in AT120. It isn't the way DISH operates. They need that "basic" level of programming for advertising a low rate and serving the millions of customers who want a basic non-RSN subscription.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> BTW: DirecTV has avoided these problems by not having a low end package.


They have Family, and Select...both low end packages...just not advertised.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> They have Family, and Select...both low end packages...just not advertised.


DISH also has Family and other off the books packages. As with DirecTV, these special packages are not part of the tier system. (Family is not a subset of AT120 like AT120 is a subset of AT200.)


----------



## Davenlr

So if they got rid of the Tier system, they could put the channels in any package they wanted?

Ive always wished they had a Sports Pack (with ALL the sports channels), a Earth Pack (Nat Geo, Discovery, etc), a Oldies package, a Kids package, a God package, etc. Charge whatever they want for each one. Let the customers pick which ones they want. Not exactly ala carte, but better than the current system. And how could Fox demand Fox News be in the Sports package? (As an example)...


----------



## levibluewa

Nice analysis James! Very nice! I'd just add that as an old HD Absolute sub I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 for my local RSN via the Sports Pack (I realize it's now at $7 for a "qualifying package")..........

Oh, and I'll bring up the dead horse...the reason I switched to DISH from Directv in the 1st place back in 1997.....the Superstation Package...I'd love it if Charlie would give us the HD feed.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> So if they got rid of the Tier system, they could put the channels in any package they wanted?


Only if they could get the channel providers to agree. The trouble is programmers (like Fox) who look at the now 14 million customers and want all of their channels delivered to all of the customers ... whether they are watched or not. I suspect that if one took away the tier system we wouldn't end up with Canadian style theme packages, we'd end up with provider based packages ... all of the Viacom channels for $$$, all of the Fox channels for $$$, all of the ESPN/Disney channels for $$$, all of the NBC Universal channels for $$$. Although that sounds appealing (support your favorite channel provider) I believe we are better off with a tiered system where people can make a choice to cut back their channel selection to save money and still get some variety. Even with that setup channel providers still would be vying for satellite space. Demands for a carrier to make a channel available for subscription would still exist ... and we could end up with losing all of a provider's channels if a carrier refuses to add a new channel to the lineup. There will always be disputes.

As long as channel providers refuse to sell their channels unbundled we're stuck with the system we have. Far from perfect but workable. It could be worse!


----------



## grog

I did notice that come November 1 it could be worse. Since I am in St. Louis area and live far enough out that channel 2 is not 100% for OTA.

I know 'American Idol' just won't be the same without ......BUT I LIKE IT!
I know 'Glee' is just not that good.....OK>
I know 'House' is not as good... BUT I LIKE IT!
I know 'The Simpsons' is pure crap....OK>
I know 'Football' We don't need no stinking football... 
I know 'World Series' If it was not for Dish removing the channel you would not have had time to go to Walmart!

I think it may be much worse... I don't see FOX playing nice for the next table sessions...

VOOM ===> FOX be gone!

http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home/story/view/359

On November 1, 2010 DISH Network may also no longer carry the Fox Broadcasting Company, which includes some of America's most popular broadcast programming, including American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, National Football League games, and the World Series because DISH's contract with Fox's television stations is expiring in the following markets.

* Atlanta
* Austin
* Boston
* Chicago
* Cleveland/Akron
* Dallas
* Denver
* Detroit
* Gainesville, FL
* Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC
* Houston
* Kansas City 
* Los Angeles
* Memphis
* Minneapolis
* Milwaukee
* New York
* Orlando
* Philadelphia
* Phoenix
* St. Louis
* Salt Lake City
* Tampa
* Washington D.C.
* Baltimore (MyNet 24)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> The trouble is programmers (like Fox) who look at the now 14 million customers and want all of their channels delivered to all of the customers ... whether they are watched or not.


This is an interesting point to expand upon to me... because when FOX or anyone demands to be in the lowest tier package, that is exactly what it means... that they want everyone to be required to subscribe to their channel.

I think a lot of people miss that, or because they like the channel they are ok with it.

Even if they didn't get a direct rate increase, moving to the lowest tier would result in more revenue... which in turn would mean Dish would need to raise their price on the lower tier.

The more channels move down, the less incentive and value there would then be in the higher tier and thus harder for Dish to sell those.

I hope this gets resolved positively and quickly... but I don't have a feeling yet. Neither this nor the Disney dispute really has made big public news... In fact, I don't see quite the outcry that I remember during the LifeTime negotiations a couple of years ago... which is interesting to me.

FOX and Disney are big names... and sports is big... but not nearly the publicity or online forum outcry for these recent channel losses as compared to supposed lesser channels. Heck, people were madder about losing the Voom channels and nobody other than Dish customers had those to even offer.

So it might be a while... but I doubt it will cost Dish in the long run. I really think FOX and Disney are in for a rude awakening that the channels they are fighting over here are just not going to be missed as much as they think.


----------



## grog

I 100% agree and feel the lack of Fox Sports only effects a few sports fans.

The removal of FOX in 31 days if that happens would be a different matter. The point as I see it is FOX is using the removal of FOX network in 31 days as the pressure method to resolve the current dispute and as I see it if they don't get what they want we may see this go to court.

It is VOOM all over again.

I could be wrong but that is how it is looking to me.



Stewart Vernon said:


> This is an interesting point to expand upon to me... because when FOX or anyone demands to be in the lowest tier package, that is exactly what it means... that they want everyone to be required to subscribe to their channel.
> 
> I think a lot of people miss that, or because they like the channel they are ok with it.
> 
> Even if they didn't get a direct rate increase, moving to the lowest tier would result in more revenue... which in turn would mean Dish would need to raise their price on the lower tier.
> 
> The more channels move down, the less incentive and value there would then be in the higher tier and thus harder for Dish to sell those.
> 
> I hope this gets resolved positively and quickly... but I don't have a feeling yet. Neither this nor the Disney dispute really has made big public news... In fact, I don't see quite the outcry that I remember during the LifeTime negotiations a couple of years ago... which is interesting to me.
> 
> FOX and Disney are big names... and sports is big... but not nearly the publicity or online forum outcry for these recent channel losses as compared to supposed lesser channels. Heck, people were madder about losing the Voom channels and nobody other than Dish customers had those to even offer.
> 
> So it might be a while... but I doubt it will cost Dish in the long run. I really think FOX and Disney are in for a rude awakening that the channels they are fighting over here are just not going to be missed as much as they think.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> As long as channel providers refuse to sell their channels unbundled we're stuck with the system we have. Far from perfect but workable. It could be worse!


Sort of the same thing the providers are doing to US. Only thing in our favor is we can switch providers. Gosh I miss C band ala carte programming.


----------



## James Long

The removal of Fox TV in those selected but populous markets will probably be the end of the dispute. If we don't see resolve by Monday I won't expect resolve until November. (I am willing to be surprised.) Although I wonder if these are two separate contracts ... there may be agreement on the NatGeo/FX/FoxSport contract and not the Fox TV contract or vice versa. Or will Fox hold up a perfectly agreeable contract renewal for Fox TV as leverage to get extra money out of NatGeo/FX/FoxSport?

If it is all one big happy contract then we need to redo "the math" (so to speak) as to what a 50% increase actually is. Both sides seem to be saying what they need to to push their side of the argument. I suppose it is a waste of time trying to understand it ... but if there is nothing on TV.


----------



## adkinsjm

Dish or any provider forced to pull channels loses the PR war. Customers don't care about hyperbole on dozens of websites, they just want to watch certain channels, something that can't happen with Dish right now.


----------



## Davenlr

grog said:


> http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home/story/view/359


Is it just my imagination, or are the comments being left on this site rather, oh, one sided in favor of FOX? I am sure out of all those comments, someone would be on DISH Networks side. Could they be editing them, and only leaving the ones that favor FOX?


----------



## phrelin

grog said:


> On November 1, 2010 DISH Network may also no longer carry the Fox Broadcasting Company, which includes some of America's most popular broadcast programming, including American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, National Football League games, and the World Series because DISH's contract with Fox's television stations is expiring in the following markets.
> 
> * Atlanta
> * Austin
> * Boston
> * Chicago
> * Cleveland/Akron
> * Dallas
> * Denver
> * Detroit
> * Gainesville, FL
> * Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC
> * Houston
> * Kansas City
> * Los Angeles
> * Memphis
> * Minneapolis
> * Milwaukee
> * New York
> * Orlando
> * Philadelphia
> * Phoenix
> * St. Louis
> * Salt Lake City
> * Tampa
> * Washington D.C.
> * Baltimore (MyNet 24)


Hmmm. Well I posted this earlier:


phrelin said:


> I'm sure it will all work out. In passing, it is worth noting the list of broadcast stations owned by Fox:


I find it hard to believe that investors in Oak Hill Capital Partners which in 2008 acquired for $1.1 billion eight Fox network affiliates from News Corp are going to be thrilled to endanger the stations' ratings further so Rupert Murdoch can make more money on the regional sports networks. Those stations are:








Investors include Bill Gates and Nike founder Phil Knight who aren't stupid. Stupid would be being dragged into this dispute.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Sort of the same thing the providers are doing to US. Only thing in our favor is we can switch providers. Gosh I miss C band ala carte programming.


They are just passing on what they can get.

Major channel providers are not selling channels a la carte to carriers. They are selling packages. It reminds me of the difference between a "buy one get one free" sale and a "half off" sale. On a bogo one has to buy two to get the discount ... one is full price. On a half sale one can buy one at half price.

Fox is offering NatGeo, FX and the FoxSports channels (and possibly Fox TV OTA) as a bundle. A bundle that they are not willing to break ... although the expired contract did allow DISH to place the three channels in different programming tiers, delivered to a different number of customers.

If DISH offered the three channels a la carte carriage with each customer deciding if that channel was worth paying for do you think Fox would accept carriage? I think not. And that is where the root of the problem is.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Is it just my imagination, or are the comments being left on this site rather, oh, one sided in favor of FOX? I am sure out of all those comments, someone would be on DISH Networks side. Could they be editing them, and only leaving the ones that favor FOX?


You think?  Who is paying the bill for that server?


----------



## l8er

I for one, am glad that Dish Network said no to a 50% rate hike. The country is in a major recession and has been for two years. Retail businesses are closing right and left because people don't have any extra cash to spend on non-essentials.

You've got to remember - it's only television.

The sky won't fall because we don't have a few rarely watched channels that aren't really worth paying more for. 

Fox makes a boatload of money off of the advertising they sell on their channels. Hitting up the end user with rate hikes is just being greedy.


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> This is an interesting point to expand upon to me... because when FOX or anyone demands to be in the lowest tier package, that is exactly what it means... that they want everyone to be required to subscribe to their channel.
> 
> I think a lot of people miss that, or because they like the channel they are ok with it.
> 
> Even if they didn't get a direct rate increase, moving to the lowest tier would result in more revenue... which in turn would mean Dish would need to raise their price on the lower tier.
> 
> The more channels move down, the less incentive and value there would then be in the higher tier and thus harder for Dish to sell those.
> 
> I hope this gets resolved positively and quickly... but I don't have a feeling yet. Neither this nor the Disney dispute really has made big public news... In fact, *I don't see quite the outcry that I remember during the LifeTime negotiations a couple of years ago... which is interesting to me.*
> 
> FOX and Disney are big names... and sports is big... but not nearly the publicity or online forum outcry for these recent channel losses as compared to supposed lesser channels. Heck, people were madder about losing the Voom channels and nobody other than Dish customers had those to even offer.
> 
> So it might be a while... but I doubt it will cost Dish in the long run. I really think FOX and Disney are in for a rude awakening that the channels they are fighting over here are just not going to be missed as much as they think.


I agree but also feel that part of that is due to sports lovers being with D* and not E*. Lets face it that is most of what was cut was FSN channels. I would be disappointed if D* cut my FSN (FSSW) but I would get over it. I dont sub to the other ones so no big loss to me. All I am saying is that maybe the outcry is not a loud this time because like I said sports lovers are with D* and not E*.


----------



## joshjr

From a broadcaster perspective I would think that they dont care about E* having their channels. If they over value their product then they probably feel people will go elsewhere to get the content. While that is true, part of the people would get it free off the internet and some would not leave E*.

Its a risky game to play to find out who needs who more. All the while the customers are the ones losing out. I am glad that E* did not just role over and take it. I highly doubt FOX wants to lose the ratings or the lost revenue. There should be some sort of cap that these companies can ask for as a increase. No more then 10% increase each renewal or something. Im not sure if that figure would be fair but there could definately be some rules as far as what the channels have to meet in order to qualify for a 10% increase. Im sure the negotiations are much more complex then that but this is getting out of hand. 

One thing this reminds me of is Sprint Wireless stepping out there and going with a unlimited voice, text, and data package lower then everyone else on the market as far as top level carriers go. Its a bold move but could very well pay off in the long run. I have always liked the companies that offer more for less. Is it better to make less off of more people or more off less people? I wonder if we will see one of the television providers go with the same concept and step on there to take a chance to succeed. It would be interesting to say he least.


----------



## dakeeney

I know this is old hat but like I've stated before that it would be better for Fox to get maybe a 25% hike than to lose 100% of the revenue. As of now the idiots at Fox have lost just about all the revenue from Dish, and we all wonder why the bussiness world is such a mess. Right now I believe that the Fox network name is MUD.


----------



## EW800

I'm in the camp of being pleased that DishNetwork is not just rolling over on this, however from what I understand DishNetwork is not totally a victim in this either. It sounds like most other carriers have these channels in the lower-end packages, whereas Dish requires a higher priced package. I would guess this means fewer people are watching these channels through Dish, with Dish making more money, so Fox wants a piece of that pie. Am I close? 

I would be curious about how important it is to Fox to get this resolved. I would think their advertisers would be concerned that the potential number of viewers is now less. Could the advertisers force Fox to resolve this or would there be any reason that they would not care?


----------



## Yes616

Davenlr said:


> Is it just my imagination, or are the comments being left on this site rather, oh, one sided in favor of FOX? I am sure out of all those comments, someone would be on DISH Networks side. Could they be editing them, and only leaving the ones that favor FOX?


You bet. It tried to leave a comment siding with Dish and it doesn't show up.


----------



## Santi360HD

Lost in the mix here is Dish also yanked the MSG Network channels...as a New Yorker...getting Dish in NYC is not an option FOR ANYONE at all since they ALREADY do not carry the YES Newtork and now MSG....I am so happy i do not have DISH...I have my Directv and Time Warner available if i needed. Good luck to those affected...


----------



## dakeeney

EW800 said:


> I'm in the camp of being pleased that DishNetwork is not just rolling over on this, however from what I understand DishNetwork is not totally a victim in this either. It sounds like most other carriers have these channels in the lower-end packages, whereas Dish requires a higher priced package. I would guess this means fewer people are watching these channels through Dish, with Dish making more money, so Fox wants a piece of that pie. Am I close?
> 
> I would be curious about how important it is to Fox to get this resolved. I would think their advertisers would be concerned that the potential number of viewers is now less. Could the advertisers force Fox to resolve this or would there be any reason that they would not care?


You just about hit the nail right on the head. Advertisers are indeed worried about the total number of viewers. The less viewers the less their product is seen by the age group they're targeting. When you lose 14 million viewers then that's alot of dollars the ad agency is missing out on. I suspect some of the advertisers are urging Fox to get a grip and do whatever they have to do to get this thing settled. As a former broadcaster I know first hand that if you don't have the audience then you are not going to get the best ads, and folks that translates into lost money!


----------



## Greg Bimson

dakeeney said:


> When you lose 14 million viewers then that's alot of dollars the ad agency is missing out on. I suspect some of the advertisers are urging Fox to get a grip and do whatever they have to do to get this thing settled.


Ah, but therein lies the rub...

FX, NatGeo and the FSN's aren't getting to 14 million subscribers. Dish Network doesn't provide any of them in their lowest programming tier, which at last last count is take by 4+ million subscribers. So technically, this dispute only affects just under 10 million subscribers, and those are the higher paying subscribers.


----------



## inazsully

Greg Bimson said:


> Ah, but therein lies the rub...
> 
> FX, NatGeo and the FSN's aren't getting to 14 million subscribers. Dish Network doesn't provide any of them in their lowest programming tier, which at last last count is take by 4+ million subscribers. So technically, this dispute only affects just under 10 million subscribers, and those are the higher paying subscribers.


The impact of FSN channels is under valued here. Perhaps only 4 million subscribers buy the package that includes these channels but local MLB games and NBA games and NHL games and college football games constitute multiple viewing each week and often several viewings each day. I would also say that the passion for your local teams far outweighs the passion for missing "Sons of Anarchy". It's also a marketing fact the the age demographic of passionate sports viewers are above average spenders. Now if the lose of NFL Sunday games is thrown into the mix?????


----------



## Boston_bill

I know some people in AZ are not pleased that they are losing Fox Sports Arizona especially with the NBA season starting soon. They say they'll switch to DirecTV to watch the Suns. I'm glad I have D*


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> Sports Pack Channels now available ...
> 9660 CSNCA CSN California
> 9661 ALTUD Altitude
> 9664 FOXRM FOX Rocky Mountain
> 9665 CSNBA CSN Bay Area
> 9666 FOXNW FOX NorthwestChanged
> 9667 CSNMA CSN Mid AtlanticChanged
> 9668 FOXPT FOX PittsburghChanged
> 9669 CSNCH CSN Chicago
> 9670 STO Sports Time OhioChanged
> 9671 MASN Mid-Atlantic Sports Net
> 9672 MASN2 Mid-Atlantic Sports Net 2
> 9673 NESN New England Sports Network
> 9674 CSNNE CSN New England
> 9676 SNY Sports Net NY
> 9677 BIG10 Big Ten Sports Network
> 9678 ESPCL ESPN Classic
> 9679 NFL NFL Network
> 9681 NHLN NHL Network
> 9682 NBATV NBA TV
> 
> My local Fox Sports is still under a blackout restriction for a game replay, but the EPG says:
> "FOX has pulled this channel after demanding an outrageous rate increase from DISH Network. Call FOX and ask for your channel back! 310-369-1000."
> 
> FX, NATGEO, FX HD and NATGEO HD are still there at the moment.


My FOX affiliate is owned by COX, but I go to bed by 8PM just to get out of my wheelchair. I hope this dispute is over cheaply for the ones who watches FOX channels. I dabble with NATGEO now & then.


----------



## James Long

Santi360HD said:


> Lost in the mix here is Dish also yanked the MSG Network channels...as a New Yorker...getting Dish in NYC is not an option FOR ANYONE at all since they ALREADY do not carry the YES Newtork and now MSG....I am so happy i do not have DISH...I have my Directv and Time Warner available if i needed. Good luck to those affected...


Yep ... they have their own announcement video with Ira Bahr ...
www.GreedyMSG.com has the details - and there is another thread here about it.

BTW: Channels 136 and 186 have been renamed ... that should help with the confusion over what is airing there.


----------



## ehren

Next year Dish will just raise rates again anyways?


----------



## joshjr

ehren said:


> Next year Dish will just raise rates again anyways?


At some point that is going to change. Probably later rather then sooner but people will not always be willing to pay $3 more a month year after year especially those of us that have not had a raise in 3.5 years. While I am not looking to drop anything I have with D* anytime soon, I dont want to continue to pay more and more each year or I might have to look into dropping some programming or receivers or something.

It was hard to swallow that we (D* Subs) paid a rate increase and then lost VS for awhile. It happens. Dont think it wont be the same for E* even if this dispute dont get settled.


----------



## James Long

ehren said:


> Next year Dish will just raise rates again anyways?


Probably ... a dollar or two on most packages seems standard. AT120 didn't see an increase this year (other than in name). It doesn't include the RSNs.

If rates go up it certainly wouldn't do well to send that increase to one provider. The way things are going it seems all the providers want a raise.


----------



## phrelin

As we discuss this whole retrans fee dispute, keep in mind that News Corp and Rupert Murdoch taking on Dish and Charlie is changing the scope and focus of the legal landscape.

The well-publicized recent battle between News Corp and Time Warner Cable (along with Bright House) and the ongoing battle with Cablevision were ...well... affecting local cable service. Dish, on the other hand, puts the issue instantly at the nationwide regulatory level.

It will be interesting to see if News Corp will pull local Fox broadcast stations. Murdoch is simultaneously arrogant and politically aware.

His arrogance would require him to pull the stations if Charlie remains stubborn. But....

If his political awareness kicks in, he has to understand that pulling the "affiliate" in the five largest DMA's plus Washington D.C. would cause some consternation on Capitol Hill as many of the rules were revised over the years to allow the Australian company to get that big a share of American TV (yes, I know they "reincorporated in Delaware in 2004).

Then we had the big uproar in June 2003 over the FCC's move to increase by 10% the number of local TV affiliates a network could own - from 35% to 45%.

Even a Republican controlled Congress had trouble with that. After first voting to keep the ownership cap at 35%, both the House and Senate raised the aggregate cap to 39% by attaching a rider to a massive funding bill. The 39% cap allowed News Corp/FOX to keep all their stations.

(I won't even bore you with the problems of the June 2003 rule change regarding ownership in one market of TV stations/radio stations/newspapers/cable system subsequently overturned in the courts. Just keep in mind how much of American broadcast and print news media is owned by News Corp.)

What's more interesting is what appears to be a significant coincidence (or timing error by News Corp) to the benefit of Dish Network. The Cablevision contract is set to expire on October 15th. If Fox doesn't reach an agreement with Cablevision, New York City and Philadelphia stations will be pulled along with some cable channels. If that happens, is News Corp going to also pull the New York City and Philadelphia local channels on Dish???

The World Series on Fox is scheduled to begin October 27 with the 5th Game November 1, assuming there is one. Do News Corp execs really think they could pull local stations off of cable and Dish Network right before a Congressional election without repercussions?

Does Murdoch think he has enough clout to ignore a potential backlash in Congress and pull his owned broadcast stations to force an increase in pricing on his regional sports cable channels?

Up to this point, the feds have not intervened in retransmission disputes. But if billionaire Charlie and Cablevision billionaire owner Charles Dolan hang tough, billionaire Rupert might precipitate federal action.


----------



## A2736

Are they planning to drop FSC , FSC+ and FSC Espanol. I am still getting them


----------



## TBoneit

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm just amazed that people think Dish should pay whatever FOX or anyone else wants... and somehow those people don't grasp the concept that WE subscribers would end up paying the cost.
> 
> Charlie isn't being "cheap"... WE ARE! IF we stopped complaining about price increases and all went to auto-pay and said to Dish "take whatever you need"... then there would never be a dispute again.
> 
> So please don't complain about prices AND complain when Dish tries to keep the prices down. Pick a side, and then at least you would be consistent.


Reminds me of States bond issues. They almost always pass. I remember one that failed to pass in recent years. They seem to always get enough votes to pass since it's found money. No one seems to think they'll have to be repaid in the future.


----------



## E91

Hoosier205 said:


> That just doesn't sound right. Not that you weren't told that, but the response you received just doesn't make any sense.


Yup. Back when I had Dish, I called a few times to find out why there was so little HD coverage of my favorite team (Islanders). The real reason was that DISH does not have access to MSG HD and, thus, does not have the right to broadcast any of the games carried by MSG in HD.

The Center Ice package gives you the access to games that the provider already owns the rights to WITHIN market. You're simply buying access out of market.

This was the only real reason I dropped DISH. I loved the product overall, but was sick of watching games in SD on my glorious Samsung LCD.

I hate to say it but if I was Charlie I'd probably tell Fox to screw themselves - at least with regard to the sports channels. Dish doesn't compete well with D* when it comes to sports - so why bother? IMO, Dish generally beats D* with regard to overall pricing and many prefer their DVRs and receivers. So, why not just specialize - focus on those potential viewers who aren't all that interested in sports coverage?

I personally don't watch any sports regularly except the NHL and maybe college football. So, if I wasn't fired up about getting CI this season, I'd probably prefer DISH over D*.


----------



## TBoneit

Santi360HD said:


> Lost in the mix here is Dish also yanked the MSG Network channels...as a New Yorker...getting Dish in NYC is not an option FOR ANYONE at all since they ALREADY do not carry the YES Newtork and now MSG....I am so happy i do not have DISH...I have my Directv and Time Warner available if i needed. Good luck to those affected...


Good for you having DirecTV, I dropped them when I decided they would do whatever the Programmers wanted and too bad for their subscribers. Their recent HD DVRs have not changed my mind either.

Getting Dishnetwork in the NY DMA is indeed an option. Everyone is not a Yankee fan. I viewed the YES network as a insult to fans when it was started. I believe in the future it'll come back and bite them as the fan base erodes due to their being a high priced package. When they disappeared off of free TV I stopped watching.

My one brothers wife would have paid anything to get them of course. However not everyone has what my Brother refers to as the "Yankee Shrine". IOWs a whole room devoted to the Yankees, Yankees curtains etc. To me that isn't a fan, that's a fanatic.


----------



## Santi360HD

TBoneit said:


> Good for you having DirecTV, I dropped them when I decided they would do whatever the Programmers wanted and too bad for their subscribers. Their recent HD DVRs have not changed my mind either.
> 
> Getting Dishnetwork in the NY DMA is indeed an option. Everyone is not a Yankee fan. I viewed the YES network as a insult to fans when it was started. I believe in the future it'll come back and bite them as the fan base erodes due to their being a high priced package. When they disappeared off of free TV I stopped watching.
> 
> My one brothers wife would have paid anything to get them of course. However not everyone has what my Brother refers to as the "Yankee Shrine". IOWs a whole room devoted to the Yankees, Yankees curtains etc. To me that isn't a fan, that's a fanatic.


a fellow tri state DBS poster...a few things to comment from your fellow Manhattanite..

in 5 years of having DirecTV I've been very happy...could they have more HD channels, have they sucked in adding more HD channels after the recent wave, did the issue of them dropping Versus for a while pi$$ me of...absolutely yes!

Speaking of myself having had Time Warner alot longer than I have had satellite I saw cable grow from a 36 channel offering to a 99 channels then digital and VOD. WHT : Wometco Home Theater wasn't available to us here in Manhattan, so Cable TV it was..Satellite was a luxury back then but when Cable started with digital boxes while the offerings were available for many channels, we then started to learn why certain channels dont make the cut, and lo & behold it was what is clear as day today but was not back then...IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!and the lame excuse for not having enough channel capacity is no longer valid, or amongst the intellectuals here not tolerable. Yes fellow satellite guru's I'm well aware a satellite has to be launched to expand channel capacity on D* or E*. It was already done..I'm saying when Time Warner became digital is when you saw the ruse of their CSR's saying there just arent enough channels to put on what you are asking for sir...is no longer valid!

In 2005 when I left Time Warner for less than exceptional Scientific Atlanta DVR's, regular digital boxes always booting. No NFL Network..I weighed both options E* & D*. I chose DirecTV cause they had YES and NFL Network & NFL Sunday Ticket. Dish did not have YES nor NFL Sunday Ticket. While I dont agree with you not liking YES cause you're not a Yankees fan, I am a Yankees fan but i'd be upset if they took off SNY or MSG, more so I want those channels, living in NYC I am due those..Why would I limit myself living in NY without one of those 3.

I have Directv with my HD ...NON DVR box...and Time Warner's Road Runner for my internet..I could hook up a digital Time Warner box if needed but I aint paying 2 high bills, I was doing that for a while but I have since returned my Cable Box and just pay for internet. We all have reasons for choosing our methods of TV and those are mine...game on..


----------



## Satelliteracer

joshjr said:


> At some point that is going to change. Probably later rather then sooner but people will not always be willing to pay $3 more a month year after year especially those of us that have not had a raise in 3.5 years. While I am not looking to drop anything I have with D* anytime soon, I dont want to continue to pay more and more each year or I might have to look into dropping some programming or receivers or something.
> 
> It was hard to swallow that we (D* Subs) paid a rate increase and then lost VS for awhile. It happens. Dont think it wont be the same for E* even if this dispute dont get settled.


The reality, however, is that one VS channel is only one channel. The costs for content are driven by almost every channel. I know folks like to point to one channel and say why are prices going up when we didn't get X channel. But almost all of them go up and usually at a HIGHER clip than the rate increases.


----------



## xzi

TBoneit said:


> Good for you having DirecTV, I dropped them when I decided they would do whatever the Programmers wanted and too bad for their subscribers. Their recent HD DVRs have not changed my mind either.
> 
> Getting Dishnetwork in the NY DMA is indeed an option. Everyone is not a Yankee fan. I viewed the YES network as a insult to fans when it was started. I believe in the future it'll come back and bite them as the fan base erodes due to their being a high priced package. When they disappeared off of free TV I stopped watching.
> 
> My one brothers wife would have paid anything to get them of course. However not everyone has what my Brother refers to as the "Yankee Shrine". IOWs a whole room devoted to the Yankees, Yankees curtains etc. To me that isn't a fan, that's a fanatic.


Yet, ironically, the Yankees are one of the few MLB teams left with an OTA outlet still in place for watching games on My9, so while yes they started a cable-only exodus which made huge financial sense (for them) they still have 1 or 2 OTA games a week on when most teams are now cable-only.

Imagine that.


----------



## Santi360HD

xzi said:


> Yet, ironically, the Yankees are one of the few MLB teams left with an OTA outlet still in place for watching games on My9, so while yes they started a cable-only exodus which made huge financial sense (for them) they still have 1 or 2 OTA games a week on when most teams are now cable-only.
> 
> Imagine that.


I prefer the Yankees on YES.. Their OTA HD is real pixelated...That would be WWOR channel 9 here in NYC..and it is a very small handfull of games they have. But you're correct...yes we still have both our baseball teams on OTA.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo

I got news of this FOX dust-up thru a link on a Tweet which took me to a FAQ of Myths and Truths about this issue. The FAQ was apparently put out by FOX, and I must say, I found their Truths to be total BS. One such point that was made was that the broadcast networks don't get as much advert money because they're not sponsored by multiple sponsors or some such thing. It didnt make much sense, but whatever the case, it didn't make sense to ask for mroe money from DISH to offset this. Another claim was that DISH makes a lot of profit due to its lost cost to customer plans, so why shouldn't DISH pay more for FOX programming. First of all, what is it to FOX how much DISH makes in profits? Sounds like class warfare to me. "DISH makes huge profits...so they should be able to afford more per subscriber." BS. It's none of FOX's business what DISH's profit margin is. (Yeah, I can't stand Obama's class warfare either.) Oh, and speaking of which, FOX also claims that that the 50% hike in fees is also false...so which is it? Who's lying here?


----------



## A2736

Are they dropping FSC . FSC+ and FSESPANOL .

Anybody please? Mr James Long ?


----------



## GrumpyBear

A2736 said:


> Are they dropping FSC . FSC+ and FSESPANOL .
> 
> Anybody please? Mr James Long ?


Those channels aren't listed now or even in the Nov 1st date. Pretty safe for Soccer season.


----------



## A2736

Thank You Grumpy bear


----------



## DodgerKing

xzi said:


> Yet, ironically, the Yankees are one of the few MLB teams left with an OTA outlet still in place for watching games on My9, so while yes they started a cable-only exodus which made huge financial sense (for them) they still have 1 or 2 OTA games a week on when most teams are now cable-only.
> 
> Imagine that.


One of the few? Out here in CA alone, 4 of our 5 teams have OTA broadcast: Dodgers (KCAL 9), Angels (KCOP - My13), Giants (KNTV - NBC 11), A's (KRON - My4).


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I know this will never happen, but maybe its time to change the way channels are delivered and go back to the days of a C-Band type system where you could aim a dish at the sky and order the channels you want directly from the channels themselves, get rid of the "middle man". I don't know, but somethings got to change.


----------



## Dave

I am very happy that Charlie is taking on Rupert. Now to the brass tacks. If we are now in the age of must carry. If some lose there locals Nov. 1. With the FCC being involved with the must carry rules. Where does this leave the broadcasters with this war going on? Hopefully in the end they (congress or the FCC) will set rate hikes for the stations. If the FCC decides enough is enough, you can not have must carry if the cost is to prohibitive. Maybe the FCC will say !0% max that's it. Then on the other side they (congress) go back and look very closely about how much or how many stations a corp or individual can own. If some congress members miss the World Series because of Foxes greed there will be changes made. Some of the congress members will be unhappy tomorrow if they miss some of those NFL games on Fox stations. Lets just hope that congress and the FCC finally say enough is enough. The only happy thing this mess good for is my computer doing all this live streaming going to take place now. Some of you may even want to get you a TV video card to watch your big screens through your computer streaming. I am a very happy Dish subscriber!!!


----------



## shadough

I'm assuming this will NOT affect the All AMerican Direct channels? Even though these channels ARE delivered via Dish Network, I would assume the re-trans aggreements for those 4 FOX stations are w/ AAD. So even If I lose FOX dc, I'll still be able to watch any of the other 4 FOX stations from AAD, as well as watching FOX dc OTA.

However, this FSN issue really sucks. It would appear to be affecting other channels as well as creating blackouts. Comcast sportsnet DC was SOPPOSED to show 2 FSN broadcasts today and we didnt see a single one of them. Plus all the FSN broadcasts on the few remaining RSN's were BLACKED OUT. That has never happened before! Right now in fact, we're sopposed to be seeing the FSN game GA/Colorado on CSN but instead we saw a tape delayed William an Mary game, and all the program guide says is "To be announced". The GA/Colo game in the ALT channels is blacked out, allthough I guess now that its after 10, the black out was lifted. Hooray, I can watch the END of the game, and they just thru an AD for NatGeo on an put a disclaimer on the bottom "watch this channel on Directv".


The deciding factor in me choosing Dish Network over Directv was because Dish had FX and Directv did not (at that time). However now, I rarely watch the channel so no big loss.

UPDATE: It appears CBS College sports has been added to AT120 to compensate for the FSN loss. I swear that channel wasnt there last week.


----------



## xzi

DodgerKing said:


> One of the few? Out here in CA alone, 4 of our 5 teams have OTA broadcast: Dodgers (KCAL 9), Angels (KCOP - My13), Giants (KNTV - NBC 11), A's (KRON - My4).


Yup, and add in the Mets and maybe the Cubs(?) and you now have the "few" I was referring too.


----------



## sigma1914

xzi said:


> Yup, and add in the Mets and maybe the Cubs(?) and you now have the "few" I was referring too.


Texas Rangers & Twins. We're up to 7.


----------



## DodgerKing

xzi said:


> Yup, and add in the Mets and maybe the Cubs(?) and you now have the "few" I was referring too.


And the Phils, and many many other teams. Trust me, it is much more than a few


----------



## GrumpyBear

You can have OTA and every single Fox sports channel there is, and not see a Padres game. Cable and Cable only for the Padres.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> Texas Rangers & Twins. We're up to 7.


Both the Cubs and ChiSox broadcast games on WGN 9 OTA in Chicago.

This will make 9 counting the Rangers and Twins. You can also add the Phils on My17, making 10

There are many many others. I watch just about every team and I watch games every day. Most teams put up TV schedules for an upcoming series and most broadcast on OTA channels as well as their RSNs


----------



## sigma1914

DodgerKing said:


> And the Phils, and many many other teams. Trust me, it is much more than a few


Yeah...I don't think xzi realizes how many. A few...16. :lol:

O's
Chi Sox
Tribe
Angels
Twins
Yanks
A's
Rangers
Braves
Cubs
Astros
Brewers
Mets
Phills
Giants
Nats


----------



## satgeek550

I am going to raise some hell on Monday. It was probably a good thing I couldn't see UGA lose again, again, and again.


----------



## SayWhat?

To be honest, I hadn't really even noticed any of this. I don't want, need or watch any sports channels at all. I have them all blocked out anyways. Never understood the obsession.

I watch a few things on FX, but I can see the same reruns on other channels. NatGeo is OK, but not anything I can't do without. Still have FoxMo for now it appears, but I really wouldn't miss that either.

I'm in the bunch that would prefer a non-sports group of channels. Let the sports hounds pay more if they want those channels.

I get a few OTA channels via antenna if there is something on Fox I want, which is rare.

Stick it to'em Chuckie.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> Yeah...I don't think xzi realizes how many. A few...16. :lol:
> 
> O's
> Chi Sox
> Tribe
> Angels
> Twins
> Yanks
> A's
> Rangers
> Braves
> Cubs
> Astros
> Brewers
> Mets
> Phills
> Giants
> Nats


You forgot the Dodgers


----------



## goblazers_6

:lol:

I am so glad I have DirecTV.

I know it's been said on here before, but sports fans are the ones who are going to be the most vocal about a channel loss.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I hate to say it... but if I weren't on this forum, I wouldn't have even noticed the RSNs gone yet, nor FX or National Geographic.

I only barely would have noticed the ABC family, ESPNNews, Disney, and DisneyXD... and that's only barely.

I think it is worth mentioning that neither Disney NOR FOX is pulling this with their more popular channels at this time.... perhaps because they know it won't work.

Oddly, they seem to be demanding price increases on their less desired channels at the moment. I'm sure more people would notice FOX News being gone than the channels thus far... and certainly more people would notice if ESPN and ESPN2 went away... but those are not being held hostage.

I remember reading that ESPNNews wasn't actually doing well in the ratings... and that Disney/ESPN was actually considering dropping it entirely OR remodeling it into a game channel like ESPN3 or something to carry more sports and less news... so seems to me that also was a point in Dish's favor not to want to pay more.


----------



## Greg Bimson

shadough said:


> I'm assuming this will NOT affect the All AMerican Direct channels? Even though these channels ARE delivered via Dish Network, I would assume the re-trans aggreements for those 4 FOX stations are w/ AAD. So even If I lose FOX dc, I'll still be able to watch any of the other 4 FOX stations from AAD, as well as watching FOX dc OTA.


Other than the fact that no retrans agreement exists between AAD and Fox, this is correct.


----------



## Lakers_Fan_24

On one hand, I applaud Dish for what there doing; however, being a NBA freak, I need to see every Laker game.

I joined Dish in March and if this doesn't get resolved quickly, I'm gonna have to cancel and subscribe to another company. Shame since Dish has much more HD channels than everyone else and the ability to add an external hard drive.


----------



## kucharsk

Personally, I think all the sports channels, not to mention the games on Sunday, are a waste of bandwidth, but that's just me. 

Seriously, though, I wish I could drop *all* sports channels, including ESPN, and save myself however much $$$ Rupert is asking for plus the confiscatory rates Disney charges for the ESPN networks.


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> I hate to say it... but if I weren't on this forum, I wouldn't have even noticed the RSNs gone yet, nor FX or National Geographic.
> 
> I only barely would have noticed the ABC family, ESPNNews, Disney, and DisneyXD... and that's only barely.
> 
> I think it is worth mentioning that neither Disney NOR FOX is pulling this with their more popular channels at this time.... perhaps because they know it won't work.
> 
> Oddly, they seem to be demanding price increases on their less desired channels at the moment. I'm sure more people would notice FOX News being gone than the channels thus far... and certainly more people would notice if ESPN and ESPN2 went away... but those are not being held hostage.
> 
> I remember reading that ESPNNews wasn't actually doing well in the ratings... and that Disney/ESPN was actually considering dropping it entirely OR remodeling it into a game channel like ESPN3 or something to carry more sports and less news... so seems to me that also was a point in Dish's favor not to want to pay more.


True. But if Fox and Disney come out ahead in their negotiations with DISH the next time they will hold the channels you mentioned hostage. Successful aggression breeds more aggression.


----------



## crockett_18

I didn't read all 11 pages, but what does Fox charge Directv by comparison, one would think that would be the starting point.


----------



## mattsarz

According to some, Fox pulled their FSN content from the Comcast SportsNets and the DirecTV owned FSNs that were opened up by Dish so that no one could see the college football national games that they were carrying. Yesterday that would have been Kansas-Baylor and Georgia-Colorado.

Fox didn't want Dish to provide an end-around for that programming.

Also told that this issue affected Comcast SportsNet regardless of provider.


----------



## EW800

crockett_18 said:


> I didn't read all 11 pages, but what does Fox charge Directv by comparison, one would think that would be the starting point.


I am far from an expert in this area, however I believe the issue goes deeper than what DirecTV pays compared to what Dish does or wants to pay. DirecTV includes all or most of these channels in their low-end package, while Dish includes them in the higher price packages. This has caused Fox some anxiety, as it means that fewer Dish customers have access to the channels and those that do are paying more - so Fox probably wants part of those higher fees as well.


----------



## epokopac

mattsarz said:


> According to some, Fox pulled their FSN content from the Comcast SportsNets and the DirecTV owned FSNs that were opened up by Dish so that no one could see the college football national games that they were carrying. Yesterday that would have been Kansas-Baylor and Georgia-Colorado.
> 
> Fox didn't want Dish to provide an end-around for that programming.
> 
> Also told that this issue affected Comcast SportsNet regardless of provider.


Thanks for the info! That sure explains why the Georgia game was unavailable even though the local paper said it would be on FOXRM, etc. .
No great loss. The Bulldogs are having a terrible year. Lost "again" last night.


----------



## scooper

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread - DirectTV's lowest tier is more compareable to AT200, not AT120.


----------



## AMike

mattsarz said:


> According to some, Fox pulled their FSN content from the Comcast SportsNets and the DirecTV owned FSNs that were opened up by Dish so that no one could see the college football national games that they were carrying. Yesterday that would have been Kansas-Baylor and Georgia-Colorado.
> 
> Fox didn't want Dish to provide an end-around for that programming.
> 
> Also told that this issue affected Comcast SportsNet regardless of provider.


In this part of the country, it is a huge deal since Georgia was impacted. Here's a story in the local paper about this:

http://www.ajc.com/news/bulldogs-fans-blacked-out-654403.html


----------



## JWKessler

crockett_18 said:


> I didn't read all 11 pages, but what does Fox charge Directv by comparison, one would think that would be the starting point.


I don't have that information, but remember that Rupert Murdoch owns both Fox and 34% of DirecTV. I would imagine DirecTV gets some special treatment in this case. Another reason we peons should fear single ownership of so many different distribution channels. Murdoch also owns a number of print news papers, including the NY Post and Wall Street Journal so it is likely you will see his views spun positively on any news you may be exposed to and he has a lot of influence in the halls of congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch


----------



## RAD

JWKessler said:


> I don't have that information, but remember that Rupert Murdoch owns both Fox and 34% of DirecTV.


Not any longer, he sold his stake to Liberty/Dr. Malone a couple years ago.



> In late 2003, News Corp acquired a 34% stake in DirecTV Group, (formerly: Hughes Electronics), from General Motors for Electronics, operator of the largest American satellite TV system, for US$6 billion. DirecTV Group sold in 2008 to Liberty Media's Malone, in exchange to his News shares.


from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation


----------



## JcT21

SayWhat? said:


> To be honest, I hadn't really even noticed any of this. I don't want, need or watch any sports channels at all. I have them all blocked out anyways. Never understood the obsession.
> 
> I watch a few things on FX, but I can see the same reruns on other channels. NatGeo is OK, but not anything I can't do without. Still have FoxMo for now it appears, but I really wouldn't miss that either.
> 
> I'm in the bunch that would prefer a non-sports group of channels. Let the sports hounds pay more if they want those channels.
> 
> I get a few OTA channels via antenna if there is something on Fox I want, which is rare.
> 
> Stick it to'em Chuckie.


your post sounds like something i would've written myself. i got'em blocked out too. my brother n law thinks im crazy for blocking espn but like you, i never understood the obsession.

as long as my kid has nick jr and my wife has hgtv & food network, my house is a happy house


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mattsarz said:


> According to some, Fox pulled their FSN content from the Comcast SportsNets and the DirecTV owned FSNs that were opened up by Dish so that no one could see the college football national games that they were carrying. Yesterday that would have been Kansas-Baylor and Georgia-Colorado.
> 
> Fox didn't want Dish to provide an end-around for that programming.
> 
> Also told that this issue affected Comcast SportsNet regardless of provider.


IF true (and I'm not doubting you, but I have no way to verify myself)... this would tend to indicate further that FOX is the bad guy in this dispute.

IF FOX is willing to punish paying Comcast and DirecTV customers over their dispute with Dish... what recourse does Comcast and DirecTV have? They supposedly are in good with FOX, but their customers are also losing content.

Wow.


----------



## E91

JcT21 said:


> your post sounds like something i would've written myself. i got'em blocked out too. my brother n law thinks im crazy for blocking espn but like you, i never understood the obsession.
> 
> as long as my kid has nick jr and my wife has hgtv & food network, my house is a happy house


You guys are great examples of what I was discussing earlier. DISH, IMO, does a fantastic job of providing a low price product, with good equipment. If they scrimp on things like sports coverage, that may drive some viewers to other providers. But, there is a big TV pie there to be divided. I think DISH is smart in keeping their costs low, and focusing on what their buying public wants.


----------



## DodgerKing

E91 said:


> You guys are great examples of what I was discussing earlier. DISH, IMO, does a fantastic job of providing a low price product, with good equipment. If they scrimp on things like sports coverage, that may drive some viewers to other providers. But, there is a big TV pie there to be divided. I think DISH is smart in keeping their costs low, and focusing on what their buying public wants.


People keep commenting on low costs, but the difference in price between them and other providers for comparable setups and packages is not all that much lower.


----------



## TulsaOK

mattsarz said:


> According to some, Fox pulled their FSN content from the Comcast SportsNets and the DirecTV owned FSNs that were opened up by Dish so that no one could see the college football national games that they were carrying. Yesterday that would have been Kansas-Baylor and Georgia-Colorado.
> 
> Fox didn't want Dish to provide an end-around for that programming.
> 
> Also told that this issue affected Comcast SportsNet regardless of provider.


I'm not sure when you suggest they did this but I watched the Braves on SportSouth/Comcast on Friday.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> People keep commenting on low costs, but the difference in price between them and other providers for comparable setups and packages is not all that much lower.


The average DISH customer pays 17% less than the average DirecTV customer. Part of DISH's battle is to keep a low end package customers CAN (and do) choose to save money.

I'm sure one can mock up a high end setup where a DISH customer pays more ... but DISH serves their entire customer base - including those who decide not to subscribe to RSNs and AT200. Eliminating 1/3rd of DISH's customers (or more, depending on what level is chosen) to make a comparison isn't a fair comparison.


----------



## RAD

DodgerKing said:


> People keep commenting on low costs, but the difference in price between them and other providers for comparable setups and packages is not all that much lower.





James Long said:


> The average DISH customer pays 17% less than the average DirecTV customer. Part of DISH's battle is to keep a low end package customers CAN (and do) choose to save money.
> 
> I'm sure one can mock up a high end setup where a DISH customer pays more ... but DISH serves their entire customer base - including those who decide not to subscribe to RSNs and AT200. Eliminating 1/3rd of DISH's customers (or more, depending on what level is chosen) to make a comparison isn't a fair comparison.


I think part of the problem is that Dish and others make is sound like DirecTV is soooo much more expensive, like when Dish says that all DirecTV customers are paying for NFL Sunday Ticket even when they don't subscribe to it. Yes, when you look at the lower end packages between Dish and DirecTV there is a larger difference but go higher and it's not as bad as many make it out.

Compare America's Top 250 at $64.99 to DirecTV's Choice Ultimate at $68.99, four dollars more. Guess I don't see $4 more per month or $48 per year that big of an issue. With all the contract disputes that Dish has with their provides and channels shut down I would have expected the difference to be much larger due to all the money Dish is saving by fighting providers for lower costs.


----------



## ehren

RAD said:


> I think part of the problem is that Dish and others make is sound like DirecTV is soooo much more expensive, like when Dish says that all DirecTV customers are paying for NFL Sunday Ticket even when they don't subscribe to it. Yes, when you look at the lower end packages between Dish and DirecTV there is a larger difference but go higher and it's not as bad as many make it out.
> 
> Compare America's Top 250 at $64.99 to DirecTV's Choice Ultimate at $68.99, four dollars more. Guess I don't see $4 more per month or $48 per year that big of an issue. With all the contract disputes that Dish has with their provides and channels shut down I would have expected the difference to be much larger due to all the money Dish is saving by fighting providers for lower costs.


Especially getting your local RSN in HD 24/7.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> The average DISH customer pays 17% less than the average DirecTV customer. Part of DISH's battle is to keep a low end package customers CAN (and do) choose to save money.
> 
> I'm sure one can mock up a high end setup where a DISH customer pays more ... but DISH serves their entire customer base - including those who decide not to subscribe to RSNs and AT200. Eliminating 1/3rd of DISH's customers (or more, depending on what level is chosen) to make a comparison isn't a fair comparison.


Which is why I said, "Comparable setup and package". The mean (average) gets shifted due to the skew in the bell shaped curve. Dish has a low end package that Direct does not have (like you mentioned) and this pulls the mean a little further to the left (lower end). Direct has expensive sports packages that Dish does not have and this pulls the mean to the right (higher end).

When you simply compare comparable packages and setups, then the difference is not that great.


----------



## E91

DodgerKing said:


> People keep commenting on low costs, but the difference in price between them and other providers for comparable setups and packages is not all that much lower.


YMMV depending on your particular programming packages. However, I had an HD only package when I was with DISH. Along with the fact that I only needed one DVR for two TVs, it wound up being about $20 - $30 a month cheaper than what I have with D*.

The savings wasn't worth it to me, because there was so little hockey in HD (which is basically the main reason I even have satellite). But, it was a much better deal.


----------



## DodgerKing

RAD said:


> I think part of the problem is that Dish and others make is sound like DirecTV is soooo much more expensive, like when Dish says that all DirecTV customers are paying for NFL Sunday Ticket even when they don't subscribe to it. Yes, when you look at the lower end packages between Dish and DirecTV there is a larger difference but go higher and it's not as bad as many make it out.
> 
> Compare America's Top 250 at $64.99 to DirecTV's Choice Ultimate at $68.99, four dollars more. Guess I don't see $4 more per month or $48 per year that big of an issue. With all the contract disputes that Dish has with their provides and channels shut down I would have expected the difference to be much larger due to all the money Dish is saving by fighting providers for lower costs.


Once you add extra equipment with these comparable packages, then Direct becomes the less expensive choice.

The other problem is, Choice Ultimate and AT250 are about the only comparable packages between the two providers. Choice Extra has channels that AT200 does not have, and Direct does not have an equivalent to AT120


----------



## DodgerKing

E91 said:


> YMMV depending on your particular programming packages. However, I had an HD only package when I was with DISH. Along with the fact that I only needed one DVR for two TVs, it wound up being about $20 - $30 a month cheaper than what I have with D*.
> 
> The savings wasn't worth it to me, because there was so little hockey in HD (which is basically the main reason I even have satellite). But, it was a much better deal.


If you wanted an HD DVR for two TVs, then the additional equipment fees will nearly half that $30 savings


----------



## E91

DodgerKing said:


> Which is why I said, "Comparable setup and package". The mean (average) gets shifted due to the skew in the bell shaped curve. Dish has a low end package that Direct does not have (like you mentioned) and this pulls the mean a little further to the left (lower end). Direct has expensive sports packages that Dish does not have and this pulls the mean to the right (higher end).
> 
> When you simply compare comparable packages and setups, then the difference is not that great.


I don't think you are wrong. But, the point is that DISH has those lower end packages. To me, that was a great advantage. I hate that I have to pay for a slew of channels (everything from Logo to a bazillion learning channels) that I virtually never watch.

To me, DISH's options, however they go about ensuring low costs, made a lot of sense.

Oh, and another comment is that I found the service and support to be a bit easier with DISH. So, maybe they are putting some of that savings into getting somebody to actually answer a phone (rather than making you go through an ultra-irritating phone menu system).

If I was not a hockey nut, I'd still be with DISH now. I found it to be a better value.


----------



## inazsully

It seems like the sports haters abound here. Not just I really don't care about sports but died in the wool haters. You are in such a huge minority it staggers the imagination. Baseball fans, college football fans, NFL fans, NBA fans, NHL fans are everywhere. When the NBA season starts in a couple of weeks and local team broadcasts are blacked out the ___ will hit the fan. There are articles in local papers today about ticked off college football fans. There may be folks that actually dislike sports but you better believe the die hard sports fans are in abundance.


----------



## E91

DodgerKing said:


> If you wanted an HD DVR for two TVs, then the additional equipment fees will nearly half that $30 savings


I have one HD set in my main entertainment room, and one smaller SD set in my dinning area. I just use that second set to watch the news while I eat. I had zero desire to pay a mirroring fee for another DVR.

DISH's system let me avoid that - D*'s does not. With D*, I'm not only paying an extra $5 a month to mirror, I'm paying $3 a month so the DVRs can talk to each other, and I paid $99 up front for a second DVR. I would rather have the single DVR setup I had with DISH.

Again, I realize it is an apples to oranges comparisons - I paid less for DISH and basically got less. The point, however, is that DISH's options are more flexible. If you don't need multiple DVRs, a billion channels, etc, DISH lets you spend a lot less.


----------



## E91

inazsully said:


> It seems like the sports haters abound here. Not just I really don't care about sports but died in the wool haters. You are in such a huge minority it staggers the imagination. Baseball fans, college football fans, NFL fans, NBA fans, NHL fans are everywhere. When the NBA season starts in a couple of weeks and local team broadcasts are blacked out the ___ will hit the fan. There are articles in local papers today about ticked off college football fans. There may be folks that actually dislike sports but you better believe the die hard sports fans are in abundance.


So, the diehard sports fans can go to D*, and E* can serve the larger number of households that aren't that focused on sports. Big enough pie for everybody.


----------



## SayWhat?

> When the NBA season starts in a couple of weeks and local team broadcasts are blacked out the ___ will hit the fan.


Well, maybe they can go outside and get some exercise or do something constructive.



> and E* can serve the larger number of households that aren't that focused on sports.


And provide a better entertainment package without the inflated rates to cover the sports channels.


----------



## DodgerKing

E91 said:


> I don't think you are wrong. But, the point is that DISH has those lower end packages. To me, that was a great advantage. I hate that I have to pay for a slew of channels (everything from Logo to a bazillion learning channels) that I virtually never watch.
> 
> To me, DISH's options, however they go about ensuring low costs, made a lot of sense.
> 
> Oh, and another comment is that I found the service and support to be a bit easier with DISH. So, maybe they are putting some of that savings into getting somebody to actually answer a phone (rather than making you go through an ultra-irritating phone menu system).
> 
> If I was not a hockey nut, I'd still be with DISH now. I found it to be a better value.


I understand. Since Dish does keep costs down, they are able to offer a low end package that other providers may not be able to do (since the profit off of these packages is minimal at best).

And yes, the DirecTV phone menu thing annoys the hell out of me. The few times I call I want to speak to a person and not have to spend 10 minutes pressing 10 different digits and going through 5 different departments


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> I think part of the problem is that Dish and others make is sound like DirecTV is soooo much more expensive, like when Dish says that all DirecTV customers are paying for NFL Sunday Ticket even when they don't subscribe to it.


They are. When one looks at it all the money collected goes in to a big pot to be given to all of the programmers supplying channels and to the operation of the company. The dollars may appear to be designated to be going toward one offering or another - but look at DirecTV's current new customer offer where the allege to give the customer "Premiere" for free for five months while spending $60 per month on Sunday Ticket. Does anyone think that $300 will only go to Sunday Ticket and the other channels won't get paid? It is just marketing.



DodgerKing said:


> Dish has a low end package that Direct does not have (like you mentioned) and this pulls the mean a little further to the left (lower end).


They have the package ... they should get credit for having the package. Intentionally eliminating millions of customers when doing a comparison skews the way DISH does business. I don't believe anyone should be comfortable comparing one company to the other without looking at ALL of their customers. If one only cares about the AT250 level customer one is ignoring *8 million customers* who have lesser packages.

Part of DISH's battle to keep the price down is serving the 4 million customers that didn't lose a single channel in this dispute.


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> They are. When one looks at it all the money collected goes in to a big pot to be given to all of the programmers supplying channels and to the operation of the company. The dollars may appear to be designated to be going toward one offering or another - but look at DirecTV's current new customer offer where the allege to give the customer "Premiere" for free for five months while spending $60 per month on Sunday Ticket. Does anyone think that $300 will only go to Sunday Ticket and the other channels won't get paid? It is just marketing.


So then I guess that's just like Dish when they were giving subs Cinemax $0.01/month for a year, Dish subs with America's Top XXX package were paying for those customers Cinemax programming? Or for the current situation Dish customers that are paying for the sports package or the HDNet channels are not paying for all those subs that are getting it for free?


----------



## inazsully

E91 said:


> So, the diehard sports fans can go to D*, and E* can serve the larger number of households that aren't that focused on sports. Big enough pie for everybody.


The larger number of households? That's funny. It's not just the diehard sports fans but the casual sports fans that primarily only support their local teams or almamater's. Continue playing keep away with subscribers sports fix and "E" will see what a small piece of pie is left. Of course "E", unlike you, is well aware of that. Like it or not, in the 18-50 year old market sports television is the driving force. Even including women.


----------



## GrumpyBear

RAD said:


> So then I guess that's just like Dish when they were giving subs Cinemax $0.01/month for a year, Dish subs with America's Top XXX package were paying for those customers Cinemax programming? Or for the current situation Dish customers that are paying for the sports package or the HDNet channels are not paying for all those subs that are getting it for free?


You could go on forever like that. Like Direct giving discounts to NFL Sunday Ticket for some users for $150, still stick it to others for $300. Or giving Directs Redzone for Free, while forcing others to spend $300 to get that same channel. With Dish they at least open it up to all for deals like Cinemax for .01, were Direct keeps it a close guarded secert that forces you to work the sysytem to get a break.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> It seems like the sports haters abound here. Not just I really don't care about sports but died in the wool haters. You are in such a huge minority it staggers the imagination. Baseball fans, college football fans, NFL fans, NBA fans, NHL fans are everywhere. When the NBA season starts in a couple of weeks and local team broadcasts are blacked out the ___ will hit the fan. There are articles in local papers today about ticked off college football fans. There may be folks that actually dislike sports but you better believe the die hard sports fans are in abundance.


I actually like basketball and football... but it hasn't affected me yet. Basketball season will be more noticeable not to have my local FOX RSN than right now since there are a couple of Sunday night ACC games on FOX Sports South.

I haven't seen/heard any mass exodus of subscribers yet... and to be fair, only a handful of people in this thread are really complaining.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter to those people... just that apparently there aren't that many people in an uproar.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Stewart Vernon said:


> I actually like basketball and football... but it hasn't affected me yet. Basketball season will be more noticeable not to have my local FOX RSN than right now since there are a couple of Sunday night ACC games on FOX Sports South.
> 
> I haven't seen/heard any mass exodus of subscribers yet... and to be fair, only a handful of people in this thread are really complaining.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't matter to those people... just that apparently there aren't that many people in an uproar.


You may hear a little more grumbling, when the 1st episodes of Sons of Anarchy are missed. FX will be the more missed channel. There are others I would miss much more. Nat Geo, has issues competing with Discovery, Nat Geo Wild, and others, its a full market, missing one isn't a big deal. 
Here in San Diego the RSN is only good for College games, its totally useless for any Pro sports, as the RSN's are LA based, and the Padres are in the Comcast loophole, so you can't watch a Baseball or Basketball game on the RSN's as they are always blacked-out.


----------



## phrelin

inazsully said:


> It seems like the sports haters abound here. Not just I really don't care about sports but died in the wool haters. You are in such a huge minority it staggers the imagination. Baseball fans, college football fans, NFL fans, NBA fans, NHL fans are everywhere. When the NBA season starts in a couple of weeks and local team broadcasts are blacked out the ___ will hit the fan. There are articles in local papers today about ticked off college football fans. There may be folks that actually dislike sports but you better believe the die hard sports fans are in abundance.


Die hard sports fans are indeed in abundance. I used to be one. Got turned off over the years by the amount of money involved. Which is my big complaint here.

Someone decided to tax me so that die hard sports fans get ESPN and the Fox RSN group. Instead of die hard sports fans paying $15 a month for these sports channel packages, I and millions of other non-fans are forced to subsidize the fans by paying $5 for ESPN and $3 for Fox RSN in our "cable" package.

That might be ok, if they also were paying $5 in their packages for HBO, for instance ...well... actually it wouldn't be ok. These are special interest channels and when the cost rises much above 30¢ a month, they need to be in packages of their own, not in the general packages.

For instance, if the AT200 package dropped $5-$6 a month and the ESPN channel group and the various Fox sports channels were in packages at $15 a piece, then things would be fine. I'd subscribe to HBO and Showtime, my neighbor could subscribe to two sports packages.

My guess is that much like Showtime includes the Sundance Channel in their package, we'd start seeing MSG and YES in one of the sports packages.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> So then I guess that's just like Dish when they were giving subs Cinemax $0.01/month for a year, Dish subs with America's Top XXX package were paying for those customers Cinemax programming? Or for the current situation Dish customers that are paying for the sports package or the HDNet channels are not paying for all those subs that are getting it for free?


Yep. One big pot of money. I'm sure there are some pass throughs and incentives from the programmers (such as free HBO weekends) but it would be short sighted to think every penny paid went specifically to the named content.

With the deep discount on Cinemax I expect that was one where the programmer shared in the discount.


----------



## Willh

i bet the reason why this dispute is continuing and not resolved is because Dish and Fox don't agree and also the negotiators for both sides are off for the weekend. maybe this could be resolved later this week, but i think this could last a few months, just like the Fuse and Disney HD dispute, as well as the length of the DirecTV/Versus dispute.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Yep. One big pot of money. I'm sure there are some pass throughs and incentives from the programmers (such as free HBO weekends) but it would be short sighted to think every penny paid went specifically to the named content.


The issue is not so much the big money pot, but whether or not each of these separate things brings a profit or extra costs.

Does ST bring DirecTV a profit, or do they lose money? Even if the lose money, do the extra subs they pick up as a result offset the loss?

Does Dish make a profit of their low cost packages or their low cost premium services, or do they lose money? If they lose money directly off these packages, do the extra subs they pick up as a result of having these low costs packages offset the loss?


----------



## James Long

Fox wants 50% ... DISH has offered less but still "double digits" (10% is the smallest double digit I know). Somewhere in the middle a deal will be struck.

Fox wanted "lowest package carriage" according to one report ... that isn't going to happen. No need to meet until Fox is willing to accept their placement along with the other RSNs on DISH. An early rumor was that the parties had agreed on Fox Sports but were still in disagreement over FX and NatGeo. I have not seen that supported by either side's websites or media reports. I have also not heard (in media or from the parties) of any other demands such as 24/7 HD carriage that could theoretically be holding up a deal.


----------



## DodgerKing

Could they reach an agreement on some channels, get those up and running, and leave the others channels up for a separate agreement, or is it an all or nothing deal?


----------



## BenJF3

The programmer ALWAYS lose this argument as far as I'm concerned because they always say "the carrier refuses to pay fair market value".

Ok, fine then - offer the channel in it's own package or ala carte and charge what you think is "fair value". That will quickly determine if the PEOPLE, not the provider are willing to pay what the programmer *THINKS* fair market value is. 

The FCC needs to step up here and regulate this crap. At least allow for Tier based offerings!


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> Fox wants 50% ... DISH has offered less but still "double digits" (10% is the smallest double digit I know). Somewhere in the middle a deal will be struck.


Where is the 50% number coming from? I ask since all I've seen is that number from Dish. From Fox they say:



> Fact: We are not seeking a 50 percent increase for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. And we are not asking you for any more money. We are simply asking DISH to compensate us fairly out of their massive profits for Fox's entertainment and sports programming services they sell to their subscribers. We have made what we believe are fair and reasonable proposals to DISH - ones that are consistent with our agreements with the hundreds of other cable and satellite companies with whom DISH competes for your business. To date, DISH has not responded with a proposal that is reasonable by comparison to the hundreds of other deals we have in place for these same channels.


So who's fibbin'?


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Does Dish make a profit of their low cost packages or their low cost premium services, or do they lose money? If they lose money directly off these packages, do the extra subs they pick up as a result of having these low costs packages offset the loss?


Yes.

Overall both companies are turning a profit ... DISH seems to do better profit wise when they lose net customers (not paying for installations and equipment saves money) but over time it is better to have the customers.

That is why it is best to look at the WHOLE picture ... not just the high end packages or some combination of services and equipment that I would pick or anyone else would pick. The best way to look at the whole is to average ALL customers ... and those numbers are conveniently provided as "average revenue per subscriber" every three months. It is what the average subscriber pays for their service.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> Where is the 50% number coming from? I ask since all I've seen is that number from Dish. From Fox they say:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: We are not seeking a 50 percent increase for FX, National Geographic Channel, and our 19 regional sports networks. And we are not asking you for any more money. We are simply asking DISH to compensate us fairly out of their massive profits for Fox's entertainment and sports programming services they sell to their subscribers. We have made what we believe are fair and reasonable proposals to DISH - ones that are consistent with our agreements with the hundreds of other cable and satellite companies with whom DISH competes for your business. To date, DISH has not responded with a proposal that is reasonable by comparison to the hundreds of other deals we have in place for these same channels.
> 
> 
> 
> So who's fibbin'?
Click to expand...

I'd say Fox ... the use of the term "massive profits" when referring to DISH is not true.


----------



## GrumpyBear

RAD said:


> Where is the 50% number coming from? I ask since all I've seen is that number from Dish. From Fox they say:
> 
> So who's fibbin'?


Would be easier to figure out if Fox was more forth coming. Fox implies, that they are asking for profits from a previous deal? That just doesn't sound right at all. You don't hear Fox saying Dish didn't pay what was previously negotiated. So looks like Fox is fibbing the most.

Now as far as Dish goes, you can't bet they twisting the numbers some. It could be 50%, but thats based on Fox probably trying to get Dish to include the RSN's into all packages, even those that don't really want a sports channel, and just want family entertainment. Fox just wants more the most amount of Subs it can get. Dish has many lower tiered advertised packages that other carriers don't offer.


----------



## DodgerKing

RAD said:


> Where is the 50% number coming from? I ask since all I've seen is that number from Dish. From Fox they say:
> 
> So who's fibbin'?


The both are to a certain extent


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> I'd say Fox ... the use of the term "massive profits" when referring to DISH is not true.


So then it could be Dish since they say:



> FOX BLOCKS REGIONAL SPORTS CHANNELS FROM DISH NETWORK VIEWERS
> Programmer Seeks to Shake Down DISH Network and its Customers with Massive Rate Increase


As for Fox's statement, it could be making a narrow reference to the profits that Dish makes just from the channels that they offer which could be massive, before they take those profits and use them to offer Cinemax for $0.01/month and other promotions, or before the money they spend on converting folks to EA setups, like how you say DirecTV spreads charges around.


----------



## RAD

GrumpyBear said:


> Would be easier to figure out if Fox was more forth coming. Fox implies, that they are asking for profits from a previous deal? That just doesn't sound right at all. You don't hear Fox saying Dish didn't pay what was previously negotiated. So looks like Fox is fibbing the most.


Don't know if I'd buy into that, hasn't Dish pulled something similar with Disney, not paying for programming being sold, which is why they pulled some of their channels from Dish?

Hey, not saying that Fox is an angle and Dish is the bad guy, both companies and having their spin doctors working overtime on this. Just trying to figure out who is really the bad guy based on the limited info, and once it's done we'll probably never know since they don't make the terms of the contract public once completed.


----------



## GrumpyBear

RAD said:


> Don't know if I'd buy into that, hasn't Dish pulled something similar with Disney, not paying for programming being sold, which is why they pulled some of their channels from Dish?


ABC has been loud and vocal about just that, on the HD feeds. You can't tell me Fox wouldn't be just as loud and vocal if that was the case.

Fox wants the RSN's included in all packages. Dish doesn't want that. Dish has packages that they market that are much more affordable to those that want them. 
Trying to force Dish, to include the RSN in those packages, to increase the Sub base for Fox Sports is just wrong. That would be like ABC Family trying to force Direct and or Cable companies that only had family content packages, to help increase the subs for thier channels.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> As for Fox's statement, it could be making a narrow reference to the profits that Dish makes just from the channels that they offer which could be massive, before they take those profits and use them to offer Cinemax for $0.01/month and other promotions, or before the money they spend on converting folks to EA setups, like how you say DirecTV spreads charges around.


There is likely a thread of truth behind both statements ... how much truth we'll never know. The truth is, negotiations are done in secret and those who know the facts don't speak those facts due to confidentiality agreements.

We don't know how much of the penny a month DISH ate and how much was done in cooperation with Cinemax. If it were DISH eating the whole cost why Cinemax? Why not Starz! or HBO or Showtime? Most likely subscribers to Cinemax were down and they worked with Cinemax to get a good rate that would give Cinemax more subscribers to brag about when they do business with others. The promotion has gone on for it to be a complete loss for DISH.

Then again, 3 months of free HBO and Showtime for new customers is $66 not collected while providing those services. At least with HBO/Showtime there is a chance that people will continue their subscription after the three months and put extra money into the pot that balances out the discount (and, depending on accounting, that $66 may be part of the $743 DISH claims as the cost of subscriber acquisition).

Fox just wants what they believe is their part of the pie ... but there isn't as much pie in the dish as they claim. Let them run through their financials and prove that they are not making massive profits off of their channels before they complain about the profits of others.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> Don't know if I'd buy into that, hasn't Dish pulled something similar with Disney, not paying for programming being sold, which is why they pulled some of their channels from Dish?


DISH believed that their contract to carry the SD versions of those channels also included the HD versions of the channels. According to the court, DISH assumed wrong. The channels were on until ABC/Disney physically pulled them (deauthorized the receivers DISH was using).

I didn't read a similar claim in what you quoted from Fox ... what I read was Fox comparing the deal with DISH with "hundreds" of deals with other cable systems. Hundreds seems like a stretch ... certainly NOT the same level of deal as when you're dealing with the #3 satellite/cable system in the country. What small cable providers pay to deliver to a few thousand customers each shouldn't leverage what a major provider pays. If they referenced Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV as accepting the deal they are offering DISH it would be a more impressive statement.


----------



## MilFan

2 days until NBA preaseason, NHL preaseason already underway. I expect the heat to get turned up mid week this week. From my count, roughly half of the NBA teams are affected by this. That essentially kills all those markets fans and makes NBA League Pass an irrelevant purchase.


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> 2 days until NBA preaseason, NHL preaseason already underway. I expect the heat to get turned up mid week this week. From my count, roughly half of the NBA teams are affected by this. That essentially kills all those markets fans and makes NBA League Pass an irrelevant purchase.


How does your count work? Is NBA league pass, different than NHL's CI deal?


----------



## MilFan

I was just eyeballing it, but I could be wrong. But I was under the impression that if you have NBA League Pass, you don't get any of the channels effected by the dispute, which would be a significant amount of teams. To me, that means anyone who had already purchased League Pass would call in to get a refund, and they would sell no new subscriptions. I don't know a lot of the financial details but my guess is that the profit margin on things like Center Ice and League Pass are high, and they will lose that revenue. 

I know sports isn't big to many on this forum, but I have to think calls and complaints are going to skyrocket mid to end of this week. I'm calling Fox and Dish tomorrow to voice my displeasure. I haven't missed a Bucks game in years, I just switched to Dish, and I've been looking forward to this season for months.


----------



## James Long

GrumpyBear said:


> How does your count work? Is NBA league pass, different than NHL's CI deal?


On a local level he's right. If a Fox RSN holds rights to the broadcast in their region it should be blacked out on league pass. People outside of the region shouldn't be affected. So the temporary loss of Fox isn't an issue for NBA league pass as much as it is for in market viewers.


----------



## MilFan

Well, a local fan wouldn't ever get to see his team, as the local broadcast always gets broadcast rights, so even if it was on out of market it would be blacked out. An out of market fan would get to see his team 50% of the time, roughly, since Dish isn't carrying half the channels that carry NBA ball. Either way, screwed.


----------



## tommiet

The cost of sports programming has been going crazy the last few years. Time for the "All Sports Package" so the folks that don't want to pay big bucks for sports don't have too.

No different that HBO. Let the folks who want it PAY for it!


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Well, a local fan wouldn't ever get to see his team, as the local broadcast always gets broadcast rights, so even if it was on out of market it would be blacked out. An out of market fan would get to see his team 50% of the time, roughly, since Dish isn't carrying half the channels that carry NBA ball. Either way, screwed.


Outside of that RSN's area the Fox issue should not affect the NBA package. If there is a local broadcaster carrying the game that just makes the outage less important. It is ONLY in the specific area where each of the RSNs holds the rights where anyone will miss a game.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> Outside of that RSN's area the Fox issue should not affect the NBA package. If there is a local broadcaster carrying the game that just makes the outage less important. It is ONLY in the specific area where each of the RSNs holds the rights where anyone will miss a game.


If I was a Bucks fan living out of state, and I wanted to watch the Bucks on one of the FS channels affected by the outage, I would not get to watch the game, from my understanding. That wouldn't be every night, but it would be a significant period of the time. A local fan misses 100% of the games because the RSN's get broadcasting rights, and ANY other feed is blacked out.

Either way, doesn't matter for me. This is preventing me from watching any and all games and that is why I am so pissed.


----------



## cartrivision

RasputinAXP said:


> If you're referring to playoff games, those are on national stations not RSNs.


Playoff games and the World Series are broadcast on local network affiliate TV stations, not national stations. Some of those local affiliate stations are owned by the national network, and those are in danger of going dark too, but not until November 1st, so it won't affect playoff coverage, but games 5, 6, and 7 of the World Series are scheduled to be broadcast on those Fox stations after the November 1st deadline.

Also, NFL games on any of the local Fox affiliates would be lost in many local markets if and when the carriage dispute is not settled with the Fox owned & operated local affiliates by November 1st.


----------



## farmerdave4

I have never had anything other than dish and usually back them with disputes, but this is way over the edge and don't want too wait more than two weeks before making to the switch to d* if they don't fix this issue. I am sure D* will be backloged with new installs this month. I hope there new DVR is as good as the 722.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> If I was a Bucks fan living out of state ...
> 
> Either way, doesn't matter for me. This is preventing me from watching any and all games and that is why I am so pissed.


http://www.nba.com/bucks/schedule/index.html

The first Bucks game on that list with ANY potential of being missed is October 27th ... 
Tuesday's preseason game is on CSN Chicago, if you get it.

The question of "out of state" will be easier to answer when the games actually begin. I expect that the games will still be part of the NBA package.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> [re: all DirecTV customers are paying for NFL Sunday Ticket] They are. When one looks at it all the money collected goes in to a big pot to be given to all of the programmers supplying channels and to the operation of the company. The dollars may appear to be designated to be going toward one offering or another - but look at DirecTV's current new customer offer where the allege to give the customer "Premiere" for free for five months while spending $60 per month on Sunday Ticket. Does anyone think that $300 will only go to Sunday Ticket and the other channels won't get paid? It is just marketing.


Your argument above is complete nonsense. What determines if NFLST is subsidized by non-subscribers or not is if the the aggregate amount paid for the package (minus any "incentive costs"... i.e. temporary waving other subscription charges for new NFLST customers) is more than what DIRECTV has to pay for the rights to the NFLST package.

If you don't know what ALL of the numbers in that equation are... and you don't... your statement that all DIRECTV subscribers have to pay more in order to subsidize NFLST is nothing but unsupported speculation.


----------



## GrumpyBear

James Long said:


> http://www.nba.com/bucks/schedule/index.html
> 
> The first Bucks game on that list with ANY potential of being missed is October 27th ...
> Tuesday's preseason game is on CSN Chicago, if you get it.
> 
> The question of "out of state" will be easier to answer when the games actually begin. I expect that the games will still be part of the NBA package.


Thats the site I was looking at. Trying to get an idea of what teams are effected vs those that wouldn't be. Bucks are one of those that are effected, thats for sure. Lots of teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Trailblazers, Heat aren't effected as much or at all. Don't follow basketball much until April. Season is just so long, and drawn out, and to many teams make the playoffs as it is.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> If you don't know what ALL of the numbers in that equation are... and you don't... your statement that all DIRECTV subscribers have to pay more in order to subsidize NFLST is nothing but unsupported speculation.


I didn't say that. I pointed out that the average DirecTV customer pays 17% more than the average DISH customer. I didn't say that without NFLST DirecTV's average charge would drop to where DISH is ... those 4 million DISH customers paying $15 less for AT120 than AT200 are doing more to keep DISH's average price down than not having NFLST.

But considering that DirecTV can't seem to separate NFLST from their other programming offerings (offering five months free Platinum service for new customers taking NFLST), I believe their marketing demonstrates the "one big pot" theory quite well.


----------



## John W

cartrivision said:


> Playoff games and the World Series are broadcast on local network affiliate TV stations, not national stations. Some of those local affiliate stations are owned by the national network, and those are in danger of going dark too, but not until November 1st, so it won't affect playoff coverage, but games 5, 6, and 7 of the World Series are scheduled to be broadcast on those Fox stations after the November 1st deadline.
> 
> Also, NFL games on any of the local Fox affiliates would be lost in many local markets if and when the carriage dispute is not settled with the Fox owned & operated local affiliates by November 1st.


No, all four MLB Division Series and the American League Championship Series are on TBS, a national station. The National League Championship Series and World Series are on the Fox Television Network.


----------



## Eksynyt

Trailblazers aren't on Dish anyway for those of us in Oregon since Comcast refuses to negotiate with either satellite provider.

The NBA will be essentially gone from Dish with this dispute:

here we go:

Blazers - CSNNW, not on Dish
Jazz - Fox Sports Utah, not on Dish
Nuggets - Altitude, Dish has it *
Thunder - Fox Sports Oklahoma, not on Dish
Timberwolves - Fox Sports North, not on Dish
Lakers - Fox Sports West, not on Dish
Clippers - Fox Sports Prime Ticket, not on Dish
Suns - Fox Sports Arizona, not on Dish
Warriors - CSN Bay Area, Dish has it *
Kings - CSN California, Dish has it *
Mavericks - Fox Sports Southwest, not on Dish
Spurs - Fox Sports Southwest, not on Dish
Rockets - Fox Sports Houston, not on Dish
Hornets - Cox Louisiana, Dish has it but only available in the state of LA *
Grizzlies - Fox Sports Tennesse, not on Dish
Heat - Sun Sports, not on Dish
Magic - Sun Sports, not on Dish
Hawks - Fox Sports South, not on Dish
Bobcats - Fox Sports Carolinas, not on Dish
Wizards - CSN Mid Atlantic, Dish has it *
Pacers - Fox Sports Indiana, not on Dish
Bulls - CSN Chicago, Dish has it *
Pistons - Fox Sports Detroit, not on Dish
Bucks - Fox Sports Wisconsin, not on Dish
Cavaliers - Fox Sports Ohio, not on Dish
Knicks - MSG, not on Dish
Nets - YES Network, not on Dish
Celtics - CSN New England, Dish has it *
Raptors - TSN, not on Dish
76ers - CSN Philadelphia, not on Dish

So that's 7 available team feeds they can use. Dish is as good as gone with no NBA coverage. Already 2 billion in debt and they will lose every single one of their NBA, NHL, and NFL fans if this drags through November. DirecTV is so much better it's not even funny.


----------



## John W

Eksynyt said:


> DirecTV is so much better it's not even funny.


For whom?


----------



## GrumpyBear

Eksynyt said:


> Trailblazers aren't on Dish anyway for those of us in Oregon since Comcast refuses to negotiate with either satellite provider.
> 
> The NBA will be essentially gone from Dish with this dispute:
> 
> here we go:
> 
> Blazers - CSNNW, not on Dish
> Jazz - Fox Sports Utah, not on Dish
> Nuggets - Altitude, Dish has it *
> Thunder - Fox Sports Oklahoma, not on Dish
> Timberwolves - Fox Sports North, not on Dish
> Lakers - Fox Sports West, not on Dish
> Clippers - Fox Sports Prime Ticket, not on Dish
> Suns - Fox Sports Arizona, not on Dish
> Warriors - CSN Bay Area, Dish has it *
> Kings - CSN California, Dish has it *
> Mavericks - Fox Sports Southwest, not on Dish
> Spurs - Fox Sports Southwest, not on Dish
> Rockets - Fox Sports Houston, not on Dish
> Hornets - Cox Louisiana, Dish has it but only available in the state of LA *
> Grizzlies - Fox Sports Tennesse, not on Dish
> Heat - Sun Sports, not on Dish
> Magic - Sun Sports, not on Dish
> Hawks - Fox Sports South, not on Dish
> Bobcats - Fox Sports Carolinas, not on Dish
> Wizards - CSN Mid Atlantic, Dish has it *
> Pacers - Fox Sports Indiana, not on Dish
> Bulls - CSN Chicago, Dish has it *
> Pistons - Fox Sports Detroit, not on Dish
> Bucks - Fox Sports Wisconsin, not on Dish
> Cavaliers - Fox Sports Ohio, not on Dish
> Knicks - MSG, not on Dish
> Nets - YES Network, not on Dish
> Celtics - CSN New England, Dish has it *
> Raptors - TSN, not on Dish
> 76ers - CSN Philadelphia, not on Dish
> 
> So that's 7 available team feeds they can use. Dish is as good as gone with no NBA coverage. Already 2 billion in debt and they will lose every single one of their NBA, NHL, and NFL fans if this drags through November. DirecTV is so much better it's not even funny.


I already looked at alot of those, you really need to double check. Lets take the Lakers as an example from your list. Were Fox Sports West is currently off, KCAL has as many if not more games than Fox Sports West, so its not like you are going to miss the season if your local, or have a really good OTA antenna and bring in LA stations that way. Lots of teams have no broadcast no matter what unless you have the local cable company, so there goes alot of the list as well. Plus you don't have to worry about any of it come playoff's or final's anyways, as the Local RSN's have no control over that, and for Basketball and its extremely long season, with all the teams that make it. The Playoffs are a season in there own right.

Granted the NBA is so popular, that a NBA Playoff's can't even beat the NFL draft in TV ratings.


----------



## TulsaOK

cartrivision said:


> Playoff games and the World Series are broadcast on local network affiliate TV stations, not national stations.


Aren't the playoffs being broadcast on TBS? That's not a local station where I live. At least not any more.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Kent Taylor said:


> Aren't the playoffs being broadcast on TBS? That's not a local station where I live. At least not any more.


Most of the games are on your local Fox or on TBS. Granted TBS is in most packages.


----------



## MilFan

Apparently some of the people here think that THEIR OPINION of the NBA is what matters. It's irrelevant to people who actually care about it and want to watch ALL THE GAMES. I switched to Dish with the understanding I could watch my games and now I can't. That is all I care about. This affects 70 of the 82 games for me.

The NBA right now is actually at its highest popularity point since the mid 90's. This will affect a ton of fans, and you can bet money Dish will be hearing about in droves if not resolved by late October.


----------



## sigma1914

Kent Taylor said:


> Aren't the playoffs being broadcast on TBS? That's not a local station where I live. At least not any more.





GrumpyBear said:


> Most of the games are on your local Fox or on TBS. Granted TBS is in most packages.


Every Division Series (1st round) game is on TBS. The ALCS is on TBS, too. The NLCS & World Series are on Fox.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/ps.jsp?y=10&tcid=mm_mlb_schedule


----------



## James Long

Kent Taylor said:


> Aren't the playoffs being broadcast on TBS? That's not a local station where I live. At least not any more.


http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/ps.jsp
(Bottom of the page.)

TBS is in AT120 ... making it more available than any of the Fox stations pulled (so far).

FOX for the playoffs beyond that is broadcast. No FX involved.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> I already looked at alot of those, you really need to double check. Lets take the Lakers as an example from your list. Were Fox Sports West is currently off, KCAL has as many if not more games than Fox Sports West, so its not like you are going to miss the season if your local, or have a really good OTA antenna and bring in LA stations that way. Lots of teams have no broadcast no matter what unless you have the local cable company, so there goes alot of the list as well. Plus you don't have to worry about any of it come playoff's or final's anyways, as the Local RSN's have no control over that, and for Basketball and its extremely long season, with all the teams that make it. The Playoffs are a season in there own right.
> 
> Granted the NBA is so popular, that a NBA Playoff's can't even beat the NFL draft in TV ratings.


 Riiiight, the NBA is so unpopular. 

http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010/08/demo-reel-how-major-events-did-in.html#more


> The NBA Finals had the largest proportion of adults 18-49, with the demographic accounting for 51% to 55% of the audience for each game. The series as a whole averaged a 7.3 rating and approximately 9.6 million viewers in the demo, topping the World Series (6.2, appx. 8.2 mil) and Winter Olympics (6.5, appx. 8.5 mil).
> 
> The NBA Finals also drew the single largest non-NFL audience in the demographic, as Game 7 scored an 11.4 rating and 15.036 million viewers (53% of the game's total audience). The second most-viewed non-NFL telecast was the BCS National Championship Game, which drew a 10.5 and 13.380 million in the demo (43% of the audience).


----------



## MilFan

sigma1914 said:


> Riiiight, the NBA is so unpopular.
> 
> http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010/08/demo-reel-how-major-events-did-in.html#more


Exactly. The people that think this isn't going to be a huge backlash issue once late October hits are delusional. It's going to be heavy if it isn't resolved by then. The market sizes affected are enormous.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Exactly. The people that think this isn't going to be a huge backlash issue once late October hits are delusional. It's going to be heavy if it isn't resolved by then. The market sizes affected are enormous.


Ratings for the finals are not the same as regular games. As for the "huge backlash" ... we've heard that before. The last big "killer" issue was CBS/Viacom. Somehow DISH survived.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> Ratings for the finals are not the same as regular games. As for the "huge backlash" ... we've heard that before. The last big "killer" issue was CBS/Viacom. Somehow DISH survived.


You really think Dish would be ok if local Fox stations get pulled? Dallas is one market in trouble. Try telling Cowboys fans they can't watch their 'Boys. :lol:


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> Riiiight, the NBA is so unpopular.
> 
> http://www.sportsmediawatch.net/2010/08/demo-reel-how-major-events-did-in.html#more


Game 7 had great ratings. The Celts vs Lakers had pretty decent ratings. The rest of the of the playoff's didn't fair nearly as well. Cavaliers-Bulls game had a 2.1 rating, and the later Lakers-Thunder playoff earned a 3.0. NFL Draft pulled in a 6.42 So even Lebron and Kobe outside of a Game 7 can't do much with nationwide ratings, and lose out to the NFL Draft

None of those Basketball games were on a RSN though, and really shouldn't factor in. RSN ratings during the season is whats important.

Now how about that regular season on the Fox Networks. 
Fox Sports Ohio led the way with a 8.53 rating(130k veiwers) Lebron is gone lets see how that one holds up. The Lakers were 4th highest Fox Sports Station with a 3.84 rating(197k) per game for the regular season. Granted when you get down to the bottom of the list with Charlotte, they averaged 10,000 viewers per game. They actually had more paying to go see the game than to watch it.

Sorry I don't see a huge veiwership on the Fox Regionals in the Millions here.
TNT/TBS was up a few points and ESPN was totally flat.
Sucks to lose any channel, Sucks to lose a sports team you follow. NO DOUBT about it. As I said several times earlier, not belittling anybodies feelings over losing something personal. 
Its the end of the world attitudes about it, and how Dish is screwing somebody over during this money matters. Next year if we have a lockout in the NFL, it will be Dish's fault for not paying enough for the carriage rights as the reason for the lockout.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> Ratings for the finals are not the same as regular games. As for the "huge backlash" ... we've heard that before. The last big "killer" issue was CBS/Viacom. Somehow DISH survived.


From all your posts, you sound like someone that is far more concerned about Dish than Dish's customers being happy. Wonder if the corporate office stashed you on this site.

Customers don't care about the political BS of two multi-million dollar companies arguing over who gets more millions. They care about getting the channels they signed up for. That's it. None of this political BS interests me at all when I sit down in front of the TV and see an "Off Air" listing on my #1 channel.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> You really think Dish would be ok if local Fox stations get pulled? Dallas is one market in trouble. Try telling Cowboys fans they can't watch their 'Boys. :lol:


When and if it gets to the point of the Local Fox station being involved, you will see plenty of movement on both sides.


----------



## zinger1457

Eksynyt said:


> The NBA will be essentially gone from Dish with this dispute:


TNT and ESPN more than fill my NBA fix.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> You really think Dish would be ok if local Fox stations get pulled? Dallas is one market in trouble. Try telling Cowboys fans they can't watch their 'Boys. :lol:


Why would Fox be any more important than CBS a few years ago or ABC years before that? There is always some crisis that will be the doom of DISH. No Distants? TiVo Lawsuit? No NFLST or MLBEI? Pick your favorite reason DISH will be doomed. DISH is still here.



MilFan said:


> From all your posts, you sound like someone that is far more concerned about Dish than Dish's customers being happy. Wonder if the corporate office stashed you on this site.


You haven't read enough of my posts! What could be said about someone who joined a couple of weeks ago and has posted only on one issue? One could wonder if Fox stashed them on the site. But I prefer to think that it is just a coincidence.

I just see no reason to get bent out of shape today about something that won't really take effect until the end of the month (when the first local RSN games are missed and potentially Fox/MyTV stations are pulled in the O&O markets).

If you want to switch call DirecTV at 1-888-777-2454 or visit http://www.directv.com/


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> If you want to switch call DirecTV at 1-888-777-2454 or visit http://www.directv.com/


I just switched from DirecTV hoping to get a similar value TV wise for less (plus the ability to bundle in my area). Would Dish do the RIGHT thing if they don't have this fixed and let me out of their early cancellation fees if this isn't resolved by the end of the month and I'm not getting the channels I signed up for? Yeah, that is about what I thought....

So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> I didn't say that. I pointed out that the average DirecTV customer pays 17% more than the average DISH customer. I didn't say that without NFLST DirecTV's average charge would drop to where DISH is ... those 4 million DISH customers paying $15 less for AT120 than AT200 are doing more to keep DISH's average price down than not having NFLST.


Well that was my point. That 17% number is completely meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not a non-NFLST subscriber is paying more to subsidize the cost that DIRECTV pays for NFLST.

DIRECTV customers don't pay 17% more on average per month because the cost of the exact same programming is 17% more on DIRECTV compared to DISH, they pay more because the average DIRECTV customer subscribes to and pays for *more* programming (including, but not limited to NFLST) than the average DISH customer does.

If three times as many DIRECTV subscribers were NFLST subscribers, that number might be 40% instead of 17%, but that would mean nothing in terms of how expensive DIRECTV programming is to non-NFLST subscribers.



James Long said:


> But considering that DirecTV can't seem to separate NFLST from their other programming offerings (offering five months free Platinum service for new customers taking NFLST), I believe their marketing demonstrates the "one big pot" theory quite well.


This "one big pot" theory of your is completely nonsensical. There are specifically identifiable revenues that come from NFLST subscription charges and there are specifically identifiable costs (such as temporary freebes on other programming packages) that DIRECTV incurs in the process of selling the NFLST subscriptions, but just because DIRECTV doesn't disclose to the public what those identifiable revenues and costs are, does not mean that "it's all just one big pot" and every subscriber's bill is higher because a NFLST customer was given a discount on another programming package as an incentive to subscribe to NFLST.

If the NFLST subscription revenues minus the cost of the freebes and other incentive costs are greater than what DIRECTV pays for rights to NFLST, then non-ST subscribers bill are not paying more for their programming to subsidize the cost of NFLST. It's that simple, and it's irrelevant whether or not it appears to you or anyone else as "one big pot".


----------



## SayWhat?

sigma1914 said:


> You really think Dish would be ok if local Fox stations get pulled?


If they cut their rates accordingly, Dish might actually thrive.


----------



## GrumpyBear

It would be interesting to know how many Sunday Ticket Subs, Direct has. Would be interesting to see how it has climbed or fallen, the last 2 years. Considering the price tag, of $1 Billion a year Direct pays to the NFL, thats over 8 million Direct Sunday Ticket subs.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> It would be interesting to know how many Sunday Ticket Subs, Direct has. Would be interesting to see how it has climbed or fallen, the last 2 years. Considering the price tag, of $1 Billion a year Direct pays to the NFL, thats over 8 million Direct Sunday Ticket subs.


Most reports say 2 million. The real money is made off ST from commercial accounts (bars, casinos, etc). Their prices are high!



RobertE said:


> ...
> From the commerical accounts pdf found here: http://www.directv.com/images/Direc..._and_Restaurants_Public_Viewing_Paperwork.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Fire Code Occupancy|2009 Season Rate| 2009 New Customer Offer
> 1-50|$945.99|$599.97
> 51-100|$1,049.97|$789.99
> 101-200|$2,519.97|$1,889.97
> 201-350|$3,464.97|$2,597.97
> 351-500|$3,884.97|$2,912.97
> 501-750|$4,199.97|$3,149.97
> 751-1,000|$5,249.97|$3,936.99
> 1,001-1,500|$8,399.97|$6,299.97
> 1,501-2,000|$10,499.97|$7,874.97
> 2,001-5,000|$19,949.97|$14,961.99
> 5,001-10,000|$39,899.97|$29,924.97
> 10,001+|$48,089.97|$36,066.99
> 
> There are a good number of national chains that have DirecTv, such as Hooters, Buffalo Wild Wings, etc. All those franchises add up in a hurry.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Ratings for the finals are not the same as regular games. As for the "huge backlash" ... we've heard that before. The last big "killer" issue was CBS/Viacom. Somehow DISH survived.


There is something you are not taking into account. Alot of people go to E* to save and because they can get a little sports with that as well. You take what little sports they have away and you have alot more pissed off people. Believe it or not Sports are very important. I dont think that E* can afford to let the NBA regular season start or the the World Series start without having this setteled.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> Well that was my point. That 17% number is completely meaningless and irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not a non-NFLST subscriber is paying more to subsidize the cost that DIRECTV pays for NFLST.


Since this thread is about DISH's dispute with Fox that isn't the topic at all. If you want to argue whether NFLST raises DirecTV's rates perhaps you should find an appropriate forum on this site. It is NOT the topic of this thread.



> This "one big pot" theory of your is completely nonsensical.


It makes more sense than thinking that every line item on the bill goes solely to the cost of that line item.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> I just switched from DirecTV hoping to get a similar value TV wise for less (plus the ability to bundle in my area). Would Dish do the RIGHT thing if they don't have this fixed and let me out of their early cancellation fees if this isn't resolved by the end of the month and I'm not getting the channels I signed up for? Yeah, that is about what I thought....
> 
> So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes.


Letting you out of your contract isn't "the right thing," it's "what you want."

It's OK, I have to explain the difference to my 3 year old all the time.


----------



## GrumpyBear

joshjr said:


> There is something you are not taking into account. Alot of people go to E* to save and because they can get a little sports with that as well. You take what little sports they have away and you have alot more pissed off people. Believe it or not Sports are very important. I dont think that E* can afford to let the NBA regular season start or the the World Series start without having this setteled.


How does this effect Baseball Playoff's or World Series? Some locals maybe effected, but thats next month, and not the current problem


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> There is something you are not taking into account. Alot of people go to E* to save and because they can get a little sports with that as well. You take what little sports they have away and you have alot more pissed off people. Believe it or not Sports are very important. I dont think that E* can afford to let the NBA regular season start or the the World Series start without having this setteled.


Are you taking it to account the 4 million customers who CHOOSE not to subscribe to the channels that are missing in this dispute? Their idea of "a little sports" is ESPN and what TNT and TBS carry. These are the people saving the most money with DISH. (And many of them may not even subscribe to locals ... saving another $5 and not being affected by the potential loss of Fox.)

As for when Fox locals are dropped I refer you to the CBS/Viacom and ABC/ESPN issues of years gone by. The forum will be filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth (likely led by DirecTV customers ) but DISH will still be around for the issue to be resolved.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> Most reports say 2 million. The real money is made off ST from commercial accounts (bars, casinos, etc). Their prices are high!


2 million Direct Subs? Plus x amount of commerical accounts? It would just be interesting to see total number of both. When I put out the 8million, I was thinking that would be total of Direct Subs and the veiwership at the commerical accounts.
Looking at the commerical rates they aren't that bad. Typical Bar would be spending anywhere from $12-$15 a head. I know what my bill is like on MNF at Hooters or at Rookies.


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes.


And doing just that about how it effects *you* is totally in your right, correct thing to do, and perfectly understandable.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Are you taking it to account the 4 million customers who CHOOSE not to subscribe to the channels that are missing in this dispute? Their idea of "a little sports" is ESPN and what TNT and TBS carry. These are the people saving the most money with DISH.
> 
> As for when Fox locals are dropped I refer you to the CBS/Viacom and ABC/ESPN issues of years gone by. The forum will be filled with wailing and gnashing of teeth (likely led by DirecTV customers ) but DISH will still be around for the issue to be resolved.


That may be the case but I it can not be good for a large satellite provider that offers very little sports to lose more of what little it actually had. If you throw in any kind of local FOX affiliate especially in a large city we will see what happens. Im not saying this will make E* go under but it wont be good for them either. With D* offering what they do for ST each year that is the perfect reason for someone not able to see the local game on FOX to switch. Yes I know that hasnt happened yet but it could be right around the corner.

Personally my thoughts were E* could not really afford to lose any more sports coverage to consider them as even providing any period. Its one thing to not have certain channels and another to not have major sports league packages. E* just seems to tell all sports fans we are not the provider for you but if you want to save a little money and can be happy with us dropping channels then you can be our customer. Thanks but no thanks.

What happens if this does not get resolved and next year E* has another rate increase? Do you think people will do more then get mad then? I know a few E* subs here that plan to leave over this already.


----------



## SayWhat?

joshjr said:


> There is something you are not taking into account. Alot of people go to E* to save and because they can get a little sports with that as well. * You take what little sports they have away and you have alot more pissed off people. * Believe it or not Sports are very important. I dont think that E* can afford to let the NBA regular season start or the the World Series start without having this setteled.


You'd probably have a lot of happy people if they didn't have to pay for a bunch of channels they never watch.

Once again, let us choose a general entertainment package and let those who want a sports add-on pay extra for it.


----------



## James Long

It is kinda funny ... I picked DISH Network over DirecTV because of their low end priced package but I've never subscribed to it. I had an apartment with cheap private cable providing the basic channels. I moved to a house that had a cable service drop installed (but not connected to wall jacks?). The lowest basic cable bill was too high so I picked the system that was the least expensive.

Even though I've never subscribed to it having that low end package sold me on DISH being the low cost option. (The same could be said about sports and DirecTV but this isn't a DirecTV thread, is it?) I made the decision to pay more to get the channels I get ... and I can always go to AT120 if I need to (although I'd probably drop receivers first).

I've watched channels go and come (yes, in that order) but mostly they come (and my increasing bill reflects that). I do not expect channels like these to be off for more than a couple of months at the most. I do expect that this won't be resolved until November (if it isn't resolved in the next week). Both sides seem to be too stubborn.


----------



## E91

inazsully said:


> The larger number of households? That's funny. It's not just the diehard sports fans but the casual sports fans that primarily only support their local teams or almamater's. Continue playing keep away with subscribers sports fix and "E" will see what a small piece of pie is left. Of course "E", unlike you, is well aware of that. Like it or not, in the 18-50 year old market sports television is the driving force. Even including women.


First of all, I meant "large" not "largeR." Typo.

Second, E*, is probably quite well aware of their target audience. E* has never optimized sports coverage. They lose some of their audience as a result - I"m a case in point. I jumped ship to D* because I wanted hockey in HD. Still, there are plenty of people who stick with E* despite the lack of sports because they don't care either way.

Believe it or not, a sizable percentage of the US population is female and women ON AVERAGE are less interested in sports than men. And, you've also got a good chunk of men who don't give a rat's a about sport's coverage.

I agree that the RSN is going to be a necessity for all carriers, including E*, but I think they'll do fine under emphasizing sports. They always have.


----------



## inazsully

E91 said:


> First of all, I meant "large" not "largeR." Typo.
> 
> Second, E*, is probably quite well aware of their target audience. E* has never optimized sports coverage. They lose some of their audience as a result - I"m a case in point. I jumped ship to D* because I wanted hockey in HD. Still, there are plenty of people who stick with E* despite the lack of sports because they don't care either way.
> 
> Believe it or not, a sizable percentage of the US population is female and women ON AVERAGE are less interested in sports than men. And, you've also got a good chunk of men who don't give a rat's a about sport's coverage.
> 
> I agree that the RSN is going to be a necessity for all carriers, including E*, but I think they'll do fine under emphasizing sports. They always have.


Yep, I kind of figured that a sizable percentage of the US population is female and I agree that ON AVERAGE women are less interested in sports than men. But not by as large a margin as you might think. When the camera pans the crowd at a MLB, NFL, NBA. NHL, WNBA, WPGA, or any college game you'll see a huge number of women cheering for their team. Men think they rule but women know better. I wonder what Mrs. Charlie thinks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

MilFan said:


> I just switched from DirecTV hoping to get a similar value TV wise for less (plus the ability to bundle in my area).


Ok... let me be sure I'm understanding.

You switched from DirecTV to Dish to save money...

Now FOX wants more money, which would translate to Dish charging more money...

And you are taking the side of FOX?

Can you see why that doesn't make sense?

IF Dish raises rates (and they will at some point anyway), will you forget all about how you now want your channel more than you wanted to save money?

You left DirecTV to save money... Dish let FOX take some channels away to save money... that seems like the same thing to me!


----------



## BigRedFan

In today's (Sunday) Miami Herald, FOX purchased a full-page full color advertisement which will probably cost DISH alot of South Florida subscribers if this dispute is not settled soon. 

The ad is made up of a large color photo of the new Miami Heat superstars trio in their Heat jerseys (LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh) and over the large photo is the SUN SPORTS logo plus the following message:

"Attention DISH NETWORK Customers !.... Watching the New Big 3's debut may not matter to Dish Network, BUT IT MATTERS TO YOU.... Pre-Season: October 5, HEAT vs. PISTONS.... October 8, HEAT vs. THUNDER...."

"DISH NO LONGER CARRIES: FX, SUN SPORTS, FS FLORIDA, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL"

"Don't wait, there are other providers that will give you what you paid for:
AT & T U-verse, Comcast, DirecTV..."

Given the fever pitch/excitement/massive publicity that the new Heat team has reached here in South Florida, there will be many non-hardcore sports fans (who chose DISH instead of DTV) who will expect to find the Heat playing on DISH as part of their "basic" channel package, as it is on cable, etc. .... 

Come Tuesday it may not be a pretty picture for DISH down here (once subs tune in to SUN SPORTS expecting to see LeBron/Dwayne/Chris and find Charlie instead)...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Both and neither probably.

Dish says "FOX wants a 50% increase"

FOX says "No, we just want some of the massive Dish profits"

Maybe they aren't explicitly asking for a 50% increase per channel, but rather placement in a lower tier. Two ways for FOX to get more money: Charge more per channel OR charge the same (or marginal increase) BUT get more subscribers.

So... maybe FOX isn't asking for 50% more per channel... but the result of being in a lower tier would represent a 50% increase in what Dish currently pays for FOX programming.

Meanwhile... IS Dish making massive profits? Their reported numbers don't seem to support that... also doubtful they are making "massive profits" on FOX channels IF you believe FOX when they say they aren't asking for much per channel. How can the profits be "massive" if FOX isn't charging much?

Also... IF FOX decides to hold local-FOX-owned channels hostage over this when those contracts expire... then THAT just nails the coffin to me in favor of supporting Dish because clearly FOX would be less concerned about their viewers (YOU and I) than they are about squeezing every penny out of a down economy... and honestly for as hard as it is for me to cut back sometimes IF FOX cuts it back for me, then I can adapt to that.

Just ask the NHL about its year-long strike where the owners said they lost less money during the strike than they would have playing the season... and when they came back, they didn't get all the fans back... because many NHL fans learned how to live without hockey and didn't miss it after it stayed away too long.

In the short run is where Dish will be hurt IF they are hurt at all. The longer the dispute goes on, the more it hurts FOX (and Disney for their dispute)... because if people haven't left Dish over this in the next week or two, then people won't be leaving Dish over it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

BigRedFan said:


> In today's (Sunday) Miami Herald, FOX purchased a full-page full color advertisement which will probably cost DISH alot of South Florida subscribers if this dispute is not settled soon.


Here's a thought... How about FOX save that money they spent on the full-color full-page advertisement and put that towards the money they aren't getting from Dish since they decided to take their football and run home!



IF FOX cared about viewers, they could easily have agreed to keep their channels online during the negotiations process. Dish might be playing pricing hardball, but FOX is the one who chose to cut the feed and get no money instead of taking the current rates while negotiating for a new price.


----------



## Chihuahua

Actually, the NHL had a year-long lockout, not a strike.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Stewart Vernon said:


> Here's a thought... How about FOX save that money they spent on the full-color full-page advertisement and put that towards the money they aren't getting from Dish since they decided to take their football and run home!
> 
> 
> 
> IF FOX cared about viewers, they could easily have agreed to keep their channels online during the negotiations process. Dish might be playing pricing hardball, but FOX is the one who chose to cut the feed and get no money instead of taking the current rates while negotiating for a new price.


Because if they can drive DISH customers to a competitor that carries their services, FOX increases their revenue.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> Because if they can drive DISH customers to a competitor that carries their services, FOX increases their revenue.


So ... does that mean that the revenue Fox is turning down by not being on DISH is less than they would make via another carrier? IE: Fox charges other carriers more than DISH? That sounds like DISH's past negotiations have been able to keep the prices down, as DISH claims.

If the amount Fox charges every carrier is the same then a subscriber via DISH is just a subscriber. They might as well be carried.

If the amount Fox charges DISH isn't a lot less than other carriers it seems that they would lose more viewers (and revenue) by choosing not to be on DISH than they gain in viewers (and revenue) they attract to other services. And if one believes the higher rate they want from DISH is the same as they are charging others it would have to be a lot higher to make up for the viewers (and revenue) lost completely.

Is it a point of pride? Knowing that there is a base level of subscriber that CHOOSES not to subscribe to their channels? Those people will likely continue to choose to not subscribe to their channel ... so there is no conversion unless the whole company fails. I don't believe Fox wants that.


----------



## damondlt

MilFan said:


> From all your posts, you sound like someone that is far more concerned about Dish than Dish's customers being happy. Wonder if the corporate office stashed you on this site.
> 
> Customers don't care about the political BS of two multi-million dollar companies arguing over who gets more millions.  They care about getting the channels they signed up for. That's it. None of this political BS interests me at all when I sit down in front of the TV and see an "Off Air" listing on my #1 channel.


 100% agree


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> If the amount Fox charges DISH isn't a lot less than other carriers
> .


 Doesn't have to be much when your talking about 14 million viewers .
Why should Dish network get to pay less?
They have over 4 million less subscribers then D* 
And most likely 5-10 million less then comcast.

Sorry , but Dish should be forced to pay atleast the same rate if not more then D* and comcast.


----------



## Slamminc11

MilFan said:


> ...Customers don't care about the political BS of two multi-million dollar companies arguing over who gets more millions. They care about getting the channels they signed up for. That's it...


As a customer, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't speak for me. I am all for Dish standing up to Murdoch and Fox for as long as it takes.


----------



## MilFan

BigRedFan said:


> In today's (Sunday) Miami Herald, FOX purchased a full-page full color advertisement which will probably cost DISH alot of South Florida subscribers if this dispute is not settled soon.
> 
> The ad is made up of a large color photo of the new Miami Heat superstars trio in their Heat jerseys (LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh) and over the large photo is the SUN SPORTS logo plus the following message:
> 
> "Attention DISH NETWORK Customers !.... Watching the New Big 3's debut may not matter to Dish Network, BUT IT MATTERS TO YOU.... Pre-Season: October 5, HEAT vs. PISTONS.... October 8, HEAT vs. THUNDER...."
> 
> "DISH NO LONGER CARRIES: FX, SUN SPORTS, FS FLORIDA, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL"
> 
> "Don't wait, there are other providers that will give you what you paid for:
> AT & T U-verse, Comcast, DirecTV..."
> 
> Given the fever pitch/excitement/massive publicity that the new Heat team has reached here in South Florida, there will be many non-hardcore sports fans (who chose DISH instead of DTV) who will expect to find the Heat playing on DISH as part of their "basic" channel package, as it is on cable, etc. ....
> 
> Come Tuesday it may not be a pretty picture for DISH down here (once subs tune in to SUN SPORTS expecting to see LeBron/Dwayne/Chris and find Charlie instead)...


Good. I hope other markets follow suit. Florida alone is going to kill Dish on this, they lose two title contending teams feeds, Heat and Magic. I doubt too many Heat fans who have been waiting months to see LeBron, Wade, and Bosh in action are going to stay with Dish if they have to miss games. Same with Magic fans.


----------



## zimm7778

Pro sports...in Florida....they really have fans???????


----------



## SayWhat?

> Florida alone is going to kill Dish on this,


Not likely. Despite your bias, the world does not eat, drink and sleep sports.

I'd be quite happy if there was never another sporting event televised at all.


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes.


If that's your only option, that's just sad.


----------



## zimm7778

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Letting you out of your contract isn't "the right thing," it's "what you want."
> 
> It's OK, I have to explain the difference to my 3 year old all the time.


So, if someone researches channel offerings and sees a channel that sells him on switching because he likes them and can get the service cheaper, signs a contract based on knowing those channels are there, then they are taken off in a channel dispute leaving the consumer without what he signed up for, then somehow it's "not getting what you want." Dish most certainly should do right by him and let him and anyone else who loves these channels out of their contract to go elsewhere if these negotiations drag on. In fact, on top of that I think Dish should do right by everyone. They want "fair rates" for everyone, so if this dispute continues they should DROP their prices since they are no longer paying "Greedy MSG" and FOX.

What if you had termite protection on your house? You contract with those companies in my experience on a yearly basis. You contract for Terminix. Then 4 months into the contract, "oh I'm sorry sir, we are no longer providing Terminix protection. In a month or two we will revisit this option and might bring it back. In the meantime you remain under contract with us at the price you paid because even though you signed up based on this offering of service, you actually just contracted with our company for termite protection." Would you be the 3 year old they were explaining that it's "not what you want" then?


----------



## grog

I am one customer who is mad about the lack of FOX sports channels.

Here is the deal; I don't watch sports, my wife and mother-in-law do and they do so with a great amount of commitment to their teams which Kansas is one of them.

So when you have your wife and mother-in-law up in arms over the loss of the games they want to see you try to get the issue resolved. We get almost all the major sports packages. We even pay for MLB over the net just so they can watch those games as well. I don't mind, it keeps them happy. 

As it turns out I looked at both U-Verse and DirecTV and found we would lose more in the change then we would like. U-Verse for example is about to lose carriage deals with the 'Food Channel'. I think my wife and mother-in-law would hate to see the 'Food Channel' gone more than loss of the Kansas game.

The other thing is my wife does not like FoxNews '205' but my mother-in-law wants to watch it all day long.

So my wife is saying: 'Well if we lose 'FoxNews' it will be worth it!

So let's go for the long haul.. were in! 

Yep; we are staying put!



Slamminc11 said:


> As a customer, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't speak for me. I am all for Dish standing up to Murdoch and Fox for as long as it takes.


----------



## GrumpyBear

grog said:


> I am one customer who is mad about the lack of FOX sports channels!


I am one that isn't happy about this either. Only reason I pay for the MultiSports Package this time of year is for the College football season. Granted I am still keeping the MSP, for the NFL Redzone. I am just not getting that flustered about this as its just not the end of the world, and its something that going to be worked out.

Way to many other heavily watched stations, that I would lose if I went to another provider. Way to many useful DVR features, would be lost as well. I have only 1 timer effected. They idea of not being able to record 2 OTA and 1 or even 2 sat channels at the same time, is just a no go this time of year.
I understand people being upset, but what they are upset about really hasn't even happened yet, as Baseball is over, and on channels they get, and Basketball season is still weeks away.


----------



## scooper

MilFan said:


> I just switched from DirecTV hoping to get a similar value TV wise for less (plus the ability to bundle in my area). Would Dish do the RIGHT thing if they don't have this fixed and let me out of their early cancellation fees if this isn't resolved by the end of the month and I'm not getting the channels I signed up for? Yeah, that is about what I thought....
> 
> So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes.


Shut up and put up with it or eat your ETF and go back to DirectTv. I don't care either way except that you're beginning to annoy me with your constant bleating of "this is bad for Dish / their sports fans".

And yes - with times being tough - I'm one of those that has dropped down from AT200 to AT120. About the only thing in "sports" that I miss from that is Speed (yes, that is a FOX channel also) (for NASCAR prerace).


----------



## MysteryMan

:nono2: Tempers flaring.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan, far more people appreicate what E* is doing rather than just bending over and accepting whatever price increase that Fox wants to give to E* who will turn right around and pass that increase on to their customers, regardless if they watch sports or not.

We as sports junkies are in the minority when it comes to these battles. Sports fees are the single biggest reason why cable & satelite fees are through the roof and there are far more people who would love nothing more than to see all sports programming be ala-carte (which will never happen) rather than having their bills constanly go up.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

MilFan asks, "So what the hell are my options? You guessed it, ***** and moan until something changes."

What about going outside to play soccer, instead of watching sports on TV?

I emphatically support any PayTV co which resists the sports content provider's annual rate hikes. Why should anyone have to pay ESPN 4.50 a month? You want to watch sports, have a separate sports tier that includes ESPN and Fox Sports channels, for 30 dollars a month. Take it or leave it.

Since 1995, the average PayTV bill has gone up 122%. TV consumption per household has only increased 13% during that same time frame.

Yet, some of you are siding with the sports programmers, knowing full well that if D* accommodates them, your monthly bill will continue to increase 6% a year when the CPI is increasing 0.9%.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> I've watched channels go and come (yes, in that order) but mostly they come (and my increasing bill reflects that). I do not expect channels like these to be off for more than a couple of months at the most. *I do expect that this won't be resolved until November *(if it isn't resolved in the next week). Both sides seem to be too stubborn.


I agree here. The worst part is the loss to begin with. Once they are gone, the damage is pretty much done. It will not hurt them much more to be down one month or 2 months. The key is to get a deal before they have to be taken down


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> So ... does that mean that the revenue Fox is turning down by not being on DISH is less than they would make via another carrier? IE: Fox charges other carriers more than DISH? That sounds like DISH's past negotiations have been able to keep the prices down, as DISH claims.
> 
> If the amount Fox charges every carrier is the same then a subscriber via DISH is just a subscriber. They might as well be carried.
> 
> If the amount Fox charges DISH isn't a lot less than other carriers it seems that they would lose more viewers (and revenue) by choosing not to be on DISH than they gain in viewers (and revenue) they attract to other services. And if one believes the higher rate they want from DISH is the same as they are charging others it would have to be a lot higher to make up for the viewers (and revenue) lost completely.
> 
> Is it a point of pride? Knowing that there is a base level of subscriber that CHOOSES not to subscribe to their channels? Those people will likely continue to choose to not subscribe to their channel ... so there is no conversion unless the whole company fails. I don't believe Fox wants that.


Not necessarily. Many other providers have these channels in lower packages, thus more subs and more money. Many other providers also have more total subs, which means more money as well.


----------



## BigRedFan

zimm7778 said:


> Pro sports...in Florida....they really have fans???????


Actually, yes we do !... Unlike some other NFL cities, all Dolphins games have been all sell-outs for at least the last 15 years (no black-outs ever) and the Miami Heat sold out ALL season tickets a week before LeBron even announced he was coming here... And the Marlins are building a state-of-the art $700 million new baseball stadium opening in 18 months...

What escalates the DISH-FOX dispute here to a much higher level is that the acquisition of LeBron James and Chris Bosh (joining Dwayne Wade) has made the upcoming Miami Heat games go beyond the hard-core sports fan interest level and reach the average casual non-sports viewers of every ethnicity and age group... Since all games are sell-outs, SUN SPORTS is a must-have channel in every home...

The local media Miami Heat hype is stratospheric and around-the-clock; thus, SUN SPORTS is now poised to become the highest-rated channel (cable or broadcast) during every Heat game... No matter how reasonable DISH's arguments are regarding FOX's price increases, I doubt many DISH subs here will even listen to the merits once they see SUN SPORTS is blacked-out....

Given SUN SPORTS' huge statewide following (Heat, Magic, Marlins, Panthers, Devil Rays), this is potentially one of the most serious issues confronting DISH as they weigh the thousands of DISH subs disconnecting in Florida (4th largest state) vs. holding their ground against FOX....

I'd hate to be a DISH phone rep answering calls from Florida (after tomorrow's Heat pre-season opener)...


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Not necessarily. Many other providers have these channels in lower packages, thus more subs and more money. Many other providers also have more total subs, which means more money as well.


One still has to get the subs to leave DISH for the other service for such a scheme to work. The people who didn't lose channels (1/3 of DISH customers based on the estimates) are not going to go to another provider to get Fox's channels. The people who support DISH or have an ETF pending won't go. We're talking about the specific income to Fox based on subscribers to their channels. They are giving up all DISH revenue ... in order to break even millions would have to switch to a provider selling Fox channels and they would have to charge more via the other carrier to compensate for those who didn't switch.

For example: Assuming Fox charges DISH $1 and the other provider $1. Fox needs every AT200 and above subscriber they are being paid for to change to the other provide for them to break even. That's "optimistic". Every subscriber? In order to break even they would have to charge more via the other provider. Say Fox had one million subscribers via DISH at $1 and half of them moved to another provider. Fox is losing $1 million by not being on DISH and only gaining half a million dollars via the other provider. To break even they would have to charge $2 via the other provider. (A half million people paying $2 = one million people paying $1.) The other subscribers to the other provider are irrelevant as they are already paying $2 or whatever the going rate is via that carrier.


----------



## James Long

BigRedFan said:


> Given SUN SPORTS' huge statewide following (Heat, Magic, Marlins, Panthers, Devil Rays), this is potentially one of the most serious issues confronting DISH as they weigh the thousands of DISH subs disconnecting in Florida (4th largest state) vs. holding their ground against FOX....
> 
> I'd hate to be a DISH phone rep answering calls from Florida (after tomorrow's Heat pre-season opener)...


They can just route the calls to the CSRs who take complaints over not having MSG in HD (and now not at all) and not having YES (at all). Years of demands by YES for AT120 carriage have not got that channel added. I doubt Fox will win on that battle.


----------



## sigma1914

Man, I thought Directv's forum here had some huge defenders...There's some hardcore Dish ones here.


----------



## MilFan

BigRedFan said:


> Actually, yes we do !... Unlike some other NFL cities, all Dolphins games have been all sell-outs for at least the last 15 years (no black-outs ever) and the Miami Heat sold out ALL season tickets a week before LeBron even announced he was coming here... And the Marlins are building a state-of-the art $700 million new baseball stadium opening in 18 months...
> 
> What escalates the DISH-FOX dispute here to a much higher level is that the acquisition of LeBron James and Chris Bosh (joining Dwayne Wade) has made the upcoming Miami Heat games go beyond the hard-core sports fan interest level and reach the average casual non-sports viewers of every ethnicity and age group... Since all games are sell-outs, SUN SPORTS is a must-have channel in every home...
> 
> The local media Miami Heat hype is stratospheric and around-the-clock; thus, SUN SPORTS is now poised to become the highest-rated channel (cable or broadcast) during every Heat game... No matter how reasonable DISH's arguments are regarding FOX's price increases, I doubt many DISH subs here will even listen to the merits once they see SUN SPORTS is blacked-out....
> 
> Given SUN SPORTS' huge statewide following (Heat, Magic, Marlins, Panthers, Devil Rays), this is potentially one of the most serious issues confronting DISH as they weigh the thousands of DISH subs disconnecting in Florida (4th largest state) vs. holding their ground against FOX....
> 
> I'd hate to be a DISH phone rep answering calls from Florida (after tomorrow's Heat pre-season opener)...


You are correct.


----------



## BigRedFan

James Long said:


> They can just route the calls to the CSRs who take complaints over not having MSG in HD (and now not at all) and not having YES (at all). Years of demands by YES for AT120 carriage have not got that channel added. I doubt Fox will win on that battle.


James, this is a much much different situation.... DISH subs in Florida have never had MSG-HD nor YES ever available .... However, they HAVE had SUN SPORTS always available and in HD for Heat and Magic games (since SUN SPORTS is part of the "basic" packages)...

The upcoming avalanche of screaming calls from Florida cannot be compared to past complaints about channels they've never had and that do not carry the local teams (MSG-HD, YES)... It seems to me that losing something you've always had (especially local) carries much greater weight...


----------



## MilFan

That was my point earlier. If you're used to being able to always follow your team, and all of a sudden you cannot, that is a much bigger issue than NEVER having been able to follow your team but hoping something gets worked out in the future so that you can.

I get it that some people just don't understand rabid sports fandom. That's fine. But it's out there and it's very big in this country. To me, right now is the quiet before the storm on the Fox/Dish dispute. As more people read about this and we get closer and closer to NBA/NHL season, there will be droves of very pissed of sports fans.


----------



## inazsully

BigRedFan said:


> James, this is a much much different situation.... DISH subs in Florida have never had MSG-HD nor YES ever available .... However, they HAVE had SUN SPORTS always available and in HD for Heat and Magic games (since SUN SPORTS is part of the "basic" packages)...
> 
> The upcoming avalanche of screaming calls from Florida cannot be compared to past complaints about channels they've never had and that do not carry the local teams (MSG-HD, YES)... It seems to me that losing something you've always had (especially local) carries much greater weight...


You are 100% correct and trust me, this situation goes far beyond Florida. Major ads in all big city newspapers plus actual commercials on several TV channels. Many here seem to think that sports is not a major driving factor with Dish customers but all of these ads are primarily aimed at sports viewers. It's all about RSN's and the treat of losing FOX after November 1st.


----------



## RasputinAXP

zimm7778 said:


> So, if someone researches channel offerings and sees a channel that sells him on switching because he likes them and can get the service cheaper, signs a contract based on knowing those channels are there, then they are taken off in a channel dispute leaving the consumer without what he signed up for, then somehow it's "not getting what you want." Dish most certainly should do right by him and let him and anyone else who loves these channels out of their contract to go elsewhere if these negotiations drag on. In fact, on top of that I think Dish should do right by everyone. They want "fair rates" for everyone, so if this dispute continues they should DROP their prices since they are no longer paying "Greedy MSG" and FOX.
> 
> What if you had termite protection on your house? You contract with those companies in my experience on a yearly basis. You contract for Terminix. Then 4 months into the contract, "oh I'm sorry sir, we are no longer providing Terminix protection. In a month or two we will revisit this option and might bring it back. In the meantime you remain under contract with us at the price you paid because even though you signed up based on this offering of service, you actually just contracted with our company for termite protection." Would you be the 3 year old they were explaining that it's "not what you want" then?


Straw man. You're comparing apples and oranges. We're paying for a channel package of 120, 200, or 250 channels for a set price. The number of channels is what has been agreed to, not the content.

In comparison, the Terminix contract you're trying to use as the counterexample is null because the service that you're contracting is for termite protection. Once the primary service is discontinued then the contact is void.

In this case, the contract to deliver 120, 200 or 250 channels has not been breached and the customer is still responsible for disconnect charges.

I miss MSG. I do. But if in the long run this gets me MSG HD because Cablevision has finally been plinked in the head and falls from its high horse, I'll be happier in the long run.


----------



## MilFan

RasputinAXP said:


> Straw man. You're comparing apples and oranges. We're paying for a channel package of 120, 200, or 250 channels for a set price. The number of channels is what has been agreed to, not the content.


While that may be CONTRACTUALLY correct based on what Dish sets up and what is signed, there is no way you can honestly believe that losing your local sports team station and having it replaced with a non-regional sports station should be viewed in a parallel light. You're basically arguing loosely based on what Dish's technical terms are. In terms of what the customer is expecting to get when they sign up, it's nowhere close.

It's like me, signing up for Dish, knowing that I get FS Wisconsin, FS Wisconsin going black, and them giving me a Nascar channel I don't care about. Do you think the customer even cares that they are technically still getting 200 channels?

You're debating like a lawyer for Dish Network instead of opening your eyes and seeing what Dish customers ACTUALLY care about.


----------



## lparsons21

MilFan said:


> I get it that some people just don't understand rabid sports fandom. That's fine. But it's out there and it's very big in this country. To me, right now is the quiet before the storm on the Fox/Dish dispute. As more people read about this and we get closer and closer to NBA/NHL season, there will be droves of very pissed of sports fans.


I think you overestimate the fans of sports by quite a bit. Yes, lots of us like sports and watch them all the time, but most of us probably get enough of our sports fix taken care of without the RSNs. It isn't like all the sports aren't being shown on other channels that we do get you know.

Take my son for instance. He's considers himself a rabid sports fan, but yet he has still not noticed that the RSNs are gone. He's finding all he wants without ever tuning to one of them. I was actually surprised, I thought he'd be complaining when the channels went black, but he hasn't.


----------



## RasputinAXP

And yet you're still responsible for what you signed. I'm not arguing the metaphysical angst of losing access to your sports team. I'm arguing that you have to honor your contract. 

The rest is just window dressing.


----------



## MilFan

lparsons21 said:


> Take my son for instance. He's considers himself a rabid sports fan, but yet he has still not noticed that the RSNs are gone. He's finding all he wants without ever tuning to one of them. I was actually surprised, I thought he'd be complaining when the channels went black, but he hasn't.


It's probably due far more to the fact that baseball is over and NHL and NBA aren't in regular season yet. If he is truly a "rabid sports fan" and one of his teams he follows is affected by the outage, he will notice. And so will many others.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> Man, I thought Directv's forum here had some huge defenders...There's some hardcore Dish ones here.


Yep, there are a number of fanbois for each service.

I could live with either, but prefer Dish as it provides me the national HD I care about and plenty of movies too. Sports are not as big a deal to me, and the 2 sports I follow, boxing and golf, are well covered by both SAT providers.


----------



## James Long

RasputinAXP said:


> And yet you're still responsible for what you signed. I'm not arguing the metaphysical angst of losing access to your sports team. I'm arguing that you have to honor your contract.


And DISH has to honor theirs ... which DOES NOT require them to deliver any particular channel to any particular subscriber.

Some people seem to want to write in terms that are not part of the contract they agreed to with DISH.


----------



## RasputinAXP

James Long said:


> RasputinAXP said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you're still responsible for what you signed. I'm not arguing the metaphysical angst of losing access to your sports team. I'm arguing that you have to honor your contract.
> 
> The rest is just window dressing.
> 
> 
> 
> And DISH has to honor theirs ... which DOES NOT require them to deliver any particular channel to any particular subscriber.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.


----------



## sorentodd45

One of my relatives has Dish, so I tried to check out the "free preview" of the sports channels that are *not* FSN owned. Well, they remapped them to the 9000 level, so I had to search high and low to find them. What a joke.

And we are still not getting HD Net or whatever they replaced FX with. Joke #2.

Thank God I have Verizon as my provider.


----------



## MilFan

RasputinAXP said:


> And yet you're still responsible for what you signed. I'm not arguing the metaphysical angst of losing access to your sports team. I'm arguing that you have to honor your contract.
> 
> The rest is just window dressing.


Which is exactly what I just said. You seem to be far more concerned about what is contractually provable by Dish than what Dish's real customers actually want.

"I'm sorry you can't watch your favorite team sir, but we are going to follow our contractual agreement and give you the Basket Weaving Channel at no cost. You still have 200 channels!!"



> And DISH has to honor theirs ... which DOES NOT require them to deliver any particular channel to any particular subscriber.


Did you really just say Dish has to 'honor theirs' when we're referencing pulling channels? Unbelievable. How honorable of them to drop my Bucks/Brewers coverage.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I think you overestimate the fans of sports by quite a bit.


Sports fans tend to do that.

As for the Dish CSRs taking calls, I'd suggest they give out Murdoch's direct private office phone number. Dish was providing a service and would prefer to continue to do so. Fox is the one mucking up the works.


----------



## GrumpyBear

lparsons21 said:


> I think you overestimate the fans of sports by quite a bit. Yes, lots of us like sports and watch them all the time, but most of us probably get enough of our sports fix taken care of without the RSNs. It isn't like all the sports aren't being shown on other channels that we do get you know.
> 
> Take my son for instance. He's considers himself a rabid sports fan, but yet he has still not noticed that the RSNs are gone. He's finding all he wants without ever tuning to one of them. I was actually surprised, I thought he'd be complaining when the channels went black, but he hasn't.


I think alot of people are overestimating and the sky is falling attitudes, and Dish is doomed is pretty funny.

Multisports Package hits its high mark during the College football season. Blackout this weekend, yet...... Very few, as a matter of a fact ZERO threads on all the lost football games, were even started. Threads didn't even have to closed as duplicate.

Fox Sports RSN channels are great, but they really are small potatoes, in the long run. LA with the largest TV market, had a blazing 3.5 and was the 4th best rated Fox sports station. I totally understand the frustration of those who may miss some basketball, its your sport, its your team, you want to watch what you want to watch. The DOOM and GLOOM over this is way over blown, and the proof is right hear and at other sites with the total lack of outrage over all the missed college football games. You just aren't seeing it.

As for Local Fox stations, they hasn't happened and if it does, we will have to wait and see. I live in Spokane area as well as San Diego, local Cable company battled Fox over its broadcast rights in 2005, and the entire area lost Fox for the entire Football season, and it wasn't resolved until just before the SuperBowl. It was the year the Hawks made a run and landed in the Superbowl, and people didn't leave, the Cable company and most supported the Cable company over Fox's demands the entire blackout period. They didn't just miss out on Hawk games they missed out on all Fox football games.


----------



## Joe Diver

I've been a Dish subscriber for 7 years.

I was annoyed with the Disney thing, but no big deal since the SD channels are still there and its on the kid's tv anyway.

Last year they had a spat with Fox and 20 Dallas Stars games were dropped. This really pissed me off, but I understood and gave them a pass hoping they'd work it out for this year.

Work it out? Now 62 of 82 games are GONE. Not to mention some of my favorite shows on FX and NatGeo. This is simply unacceptable to me. I don't care where the problem is or what the problem is, I'm going where my channels are. I don't care if they work it out. The channels are gone now and it's stressing me out. I'm done. Season starts Friday.

DirecTV is coming Thursday. I'll have all my Stars games, plus my shows on FX and NatGeo. Plus, for this fall, I get NFL Sunday Ticket AND NHL Center Ice for less than I was paying monthly for Dish. I'm going to be in football and hockey heaven this fall....and the new HR24 DVR....


----------



## projectorguru

Direct tv just gave me a great offer,hmmmmmmmmmmm.......


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> Which is exactly what I just said. You seem to be far more concerned about what is contractually provable by Dish than what Dish's real customers actually want.
> 
> "I'm sorry you can't watch your favorite team sir, but we are going to follow our contractual agreement and give you the Basket Weaving Channel at no cost. You still have 200 channels!!"


You said that the right thing to do was for Dish to release you from your contract because they were no longer providing channels.

I said the right thing was actually that you needed to honor your contract.

If it's that important to you, you can pay your early termination fee that you agreed to, leave and get D*.

You said it yourself: it's what you "actually want." Not what's right, or correct. You paid for your package, you receive the package, but the channels have changed, as contractually allowed (and what's more, beyond their control) and you still need to pay your bill, or your ETF.


----------



## MilFan

So your argument is that it is right for a customer to sign up, lose his #1 channel, and pay over $400 in ETF because that is what Dish put in their contract? You have to be a Dish Network lawyer. 

Yes, the RIGHT thing to do would be to give me a grace period and be able to cancel since I just signed up and was TOLD I would not lose FS. Told by a manager, and a representative of the GD company. You seem to have a hard time separating what is right, and what is contractual. The two don't have the same definition.

You make it seem like paying a ****load of ETF is just no big deal for a customer. Are you kidding me here?


----------



## scooper

The grace period is 72 hours.


----------



## SayWhat?

> You seem to have a hard time separating what is right, and what is contractual.


You seem to be having a hard time understanding who is at fault. Your venom should be directed at Fox for trying to change the terms of their contract with Dish.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> You seem to be having a hard time understanding who is at fault. Your venom should be directed at Fox for trying to change the terms of their contract with Dish.


I blame both. I've never backed Fox in this, and still don't. I just don't believe a word of what Dish is saying or posting on their site either. It's two companies that made nine digits or more of profit last year fighting over who gets more millions.

Until we get the details on what each side is asking for from an unbiased source, nobody should believe anything stated by either Fox or Dish.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> So your argument is that it is right for a customer to sign up, lose his #1 channel, and pay over $400 in ETF because that is what Dish put in their contract?


That sounds about right since those are the terms the customer agreed to. Customers are not promised a specific channel. They are promised a service which includes various channels, but which channels are offered is subject to change.


----------



## fl panthers

zimm7778 said:


> Pro sports...in Florida....they really have fans???????


yep did you not hear the heat fired ALL of their sales staff since they were no longer needed since season tickets are sold out and the staff would have nothing to do.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> One still has to get the subs to leave DISH for the other service for such a scheme to work. The people who didn't lose channels (1/3 of DISH customers based on the estimates) are not going to go to another provider to get Fox's channels. The people who support DISH or have an ETF pending won't go. We're talking about the specific income to Fox based on subscribers to their channels. They are giving up all DISH revenue ... in order to break even millions would have to switch to a provider selling Fox channels and they would have to charge more via the other carrier to compensate for those who didn't switch.
> 
> For example: Assuming Fox charges DISH $1 and the other provider $1. Fox needs every AT200 and above subscriber they are being paid for to change to the other provide for them to break even. That's "optimistic". Every subscriber? In order to break even they would have to charge more via the other provider. Say Fox had one million subscribers via DISH at $1 and half of them moved to another provider. Fox is losing $1 million by not being on DISH and only gaining half a million dollars via the other provider. To break even they would have to charge $2 via the other provider. (A half million people paying $2 = one million people paying $1.) The other subscribers to the other provider are irrelevant as they are already paying $2 or whatever the going rate is via that carrier.


Maybe FOX has decided they can live with this. Of course they know not everyone will jump ship. It will have to have some kind of lasting affect if they lose FOX though. Not just for the sports content. If it was gone for very long there are alot of other shows AI for one that is big ratings. I hate to say it but in the end I think FOX has the upper hand in this one. If people want the content they will find a way to get it. If E* wants the content they will find a way to get it as well.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> And DISH has to honor theirs ... which DOES NOT require them to deliver any particular channel to any particular subscriber.
> 
> *Some people seem to want to write in terms that are not part of the contract they agreed to with DISH*.


Thats not really fair to say James. When you look at a content provider do you not look at what channels are available in what packages? They sell the packages and yes they change once in awhile but not much usually. People dont sign with E* because they have a 200 channel package. They sign with them because that package has what they want. I understand what E* is obligated to but I also understand people do purchase tv that way either.


----------



## RasputinAXP

MilFan said:


> So your argument is that it is right for a customer to sign up, lose his #1 channel, and pay over $400 in ETF because that is what Dish put in their contract? You have to be a Dish Network lawyer.
> 
> Yes, the RIGHT thing to do would be to give me a grace period and be able to cancel since I just signed up and was TOLD I would not lose FS. Told by a manager, and a representative of the GD company. You seem to have a hard time separating what is right, and what is contractual. The two don't have the same definition.
> 
> You make it seem like paying a ****load of ETF is just no big deal for a customer. Are you kidding me here?


:uglyhamme:uglyhamme:uglyhamme:uglyhamme

that's about all I can say at this point. You *want *to be released from your contract.


----------



## joshjr

SayWhat? said:


> Sports fans tend to do that.
> 
> As for the Dish CSRs taking calls, I'd suggest they give out Murdoch's direct private office phone number. Dish was providing a service and would prefer to continue to do so. Fox is the one mucking up the works.


Funny you say that because everything has a price and if E* was willing to pay that price they could have the channels back. Now while I dont think they should based on your lame argument here it would be E*'s fault for not having the channels. You imply there is no offer for them. As I udnerstand it thats not true, just not an offer E* wants to accept. Might want to read more on here before posting.


----------



## joshjr

Joe Diver said:


> I've been a Dish subscriber for 7 years.
> 
> I was annoyed with the Disney thing, but no big deal since the SD channels are still there and its on the kid's tv anyway.
> 
> Last year they had a spat with Fox and 20 Dallas Stars games were dropped. This really pissed me off, but I understood and gave them a pass hoping they'd work it out for this year.
> 
> Work it out? Now 62 of 82 games are GONE. Not to mention some of my favorite shows on FX and NatGeo. This is simply unacceptable to me. I don't care where the problem is or what the problem is, I'm going where my channels are. I don't care if they work it out. The channels are gone now and it's stressing me out. I'm done. Season starts Friday.
> 
> DirecTV is coming Thursday. I'll have all my Stars games, plus my shows on FX and NatGeo. Plus, for this fall, I get NFL Sunday Ticket AND NHL Center Ice for less than I was paying monthly for Dish. I'm going to be in football and hockey heaven this fall....and the new HR24 DVR....


Glad you found a provider that would take care of your tv needs. Welcome aboard. I dont think you will be disappointed.


----------



## joshjr

RasputinAXP said:


> You said that the right thing to do was for Dish to release you from your contract because they were no longer providing channels.
> 
> I said the right thing was actually that you needed to honor your contract.
> 
> If it's that important to you, you can pay your early termination fee that you agreed to, leave and get D*.
> 
> You said it yourself: it's what you "actually want." Not what's right, or correct. You paid for your package, you receive the package, but the channels have changed, as contractually allowed (and what's more, beyond their control) and you still need to pay your bill, or your ETF.


That might be correct but I am betting if alot of the channels you watch just got dumped you would be singing a different tune yourself.


----------



## phrelin

joshjr said:


> It will have to have some kind of lasting affect if they lose FOX though. Not just for the sports content. If it was gone for very long there are alot of other shows AI for one that is big ratings. I hate to say it but in the end I think FOX has the upper hand in this one. If people want the content they will find a way to get it. If E* wants the content they will find a way to get it as well.


Again, yes the loss of Fox broadcasts stations would hurt Dish. But keep in mind that all the deregulation notwithstanding, broadcast stations are a federal issue from the get-go. As I said in an earlier post:


> ...[Murdoch] has to understand that pulling the "affiliate" in the five largest DMA's plus Washington D.C. would cause some consternation on Capitol Hill....
> 
> ...The Cablevision contract is set to expire on October 15th. If Fox doesn't reach an agreement with Cablevision, New York City and Philadelphia stations will be pulled along with some cable channels. If that happens, is News Corp going to also pull the New York City and Philadelphia local channels on Dish???
> 
> ...The World Series on Fox is scheduled to begin October 27 with the 5th Game November 1, assuming there is one. Do News Corp execs really think they could pull local stations off of cable and Dish Network right before a Congressional election without repercussions?
> 
> ...Up to this point, the feds have not intervened in retransmission disputes. But if billionaire Charlie and Cablevision billionaire owner Charles Dolan hang tough, billionaire Rupert might precipitate federal action.


If the two Charles in charge hang tough and Rupert doesn't blink, we might very well see a post election review of this whole broadcast station retransmission fee issue with a number of lame duck and comfortably reelected members of Congress participating.


----------



## zimm7778

MilFan said:


> I blame both. I just don't believe a word of what Dish is saying or posting on their site either.


You mean sites. They decided to register 7 of them for this issue.


----------



## Greg Bimson

There may be other ways out of the contract; specifcally, there may be state laws on the books that make parts of the subscriber contract void.

I seem to recall a material change in service offering may be invalid in some states; in many instances a material change in service must be provided to the customer in writing. If anyone wishes to take that tact, a call should be placed to the state's consumer protection department or to the state's Attorney General.


----------



## lparsons21

joshjr said:


> Funny you say that because everything has a price and if E* was willing to pay that price they could have the channels back. Now while I dont think they should based on your lame argument here it would be E*'s fault for not having the channels. You imply there is no offer for them. As I udnerstand it thats not true, just not an offer E* wants to accept. Might want to read more on here before posting.


Maybe you should too. Yes, Fox has put a price out there, but not only doesn't Dish want to pay that huge increase, neither do I! And you know that whatever increase they get, it WILL be passed right along to us subscribers.

And that is just as true for D* as it is for E*. So if you don't mind rates going up, encourage your provider to pay whatever is asked for. But don't talk to mine!


----------



## joshjr

phrelin said:


> Again, yes the loss of Fox broadcasts stations would hurt Dish. But keep in mind that all the deregulation notwithstanding, broadcast stations are a federal issue from the get-go. As I said in an earlier post: If the two Charles in charge hang tough and Rupert doesn't blink, we might very well see a post election review of this whole broadcast station retransmission fee issue with a number of lame duck and comfortably reelected members of Congress participating.


It needs to be regulated in some way. This is getting out of hand. I mean there has to be less of an affect on us the customers in my opinion. Like someone said earlier, its hard to have just signed for 2 years thinking that you were going to get what you wanted because E*'s page said so and then find out that the contract for those channels is up and they are not resigning for them. We as customers done know when the contracts are up and we have no say in any of that either. Like I said earlier we sign up for the advertised content. Its kind of not fair that these companies have power over changing that when its all based on perception. If we pay this we get this. I think that if customers lose channels there should be a window of opertunity to cancel without paying a fee. I mean lets face it that is a good reason to want to cancel.

What if out of the 200 channels they replaced all of them with crap no one would watch? Should we all still feel obligated to pay the ETF? There should be some lines drawn here that protect the customer as well as protect the provider. Im not just out for my own concerns here.

I think there should be laws on how much a retrans fee can be raised. It should be a standard and there are criteria that channels have to meet to consider themselves available for a full XXX amount of increase. If not then if falls in a lower level of possible increase. The stations have way to much power over their content. While I understand its their content, if they have no way of getting it out then its kind of useless. That being said rules on both sides of things could help us all.


----------



## GrumpyBear

phrelin said:


> If the two Charles in charge hang tough and Rupert doesn't blink, we might very well see a post election review of this whole broadcast station retransmission fee issue with a number of lame duck and comfortably reelected members of Congress participating.


With the all the mergers on the verge as well, I for one wouldn't mind seeing this happen at ALL! Broadcasters wont like being under the microscope about this issue at all. Dish and Fox sports is just the latest issue this year alone. Bring in the Locals into the mix, and Fox and other Broadcaster wont like the extra attention.


----------



## joshjr

lparsons21 said:


> Maybe you should too. Yes, Fox has put a price out there, but not only doesn't Dish want to pay that huge increase, neither do I! And you know that whatever increase they get, it WILL be passed right along to us subscribers.
> 
> And that is just as true for D* as it is for E*. So if you don't mind rates going up, encourage your provider to pay whatever is asked for. But don't talk to mine!


Your statement said that E* wants to provide the channels but FOX is mucking it up. That is actually incorrect. FOX has made an offer to keep the stations on. Like I said, I dont think that E* should pay the money but I also dont think FOX deserves all the blame either. That was my argument.


----------



## chum76

MilFan said:


> So your argument is that it is right for a customer to sign up, lose his #1 channel, and pay over $400 in ETF because that is what Dish put in their contract? You have to be a Dish Network lawyer.
> 
> Yes, the RIGHT thing to do would be to give me a grace period and be able to cancel since I just signed up and was TOLD I would not lose FS. Told by a manager, and a representative of the GD company. You seem to have a hard time separating what is right, and what is contractual. The two don't have the same definition.
> 
> You make it seem like paying a ****load of ETF is just no big deal for a customer. Are you kidding me here?


My only advice is if you do cancel with them and they have your credit card on file cancel that card BEFORE or they will bill it right away. Also send back all the equipment and put tracking on it. If they send boxes put tracking on it anyway. You can always dispute the early termination fees with the collection agency and most likely pay much less the longer you fight it.


----------



## joshjr

GrumpyBear said:


> With the all the mergers on the verge as well, I for one wouldn't mind seeing this happen at ALL! Broadcasters wont like being under the microscope about this issue at all. Dish and Fox sports is just the latest issue this year alone. Bring in the Locals into the mix, and Fox and other Broadcaster wont like the extra attention.


For once I agree with you. If the affiliates and the provider can not play nice then lets have it all regulated alot more.


----------



## joshjr

chum76 said:


> My only advice is if you do cancel with them and they have your credit card on file cancel that card BEFORE or they will bill it right away. Also send back all the equipment and put tracking on it. If they send boxes put tracking on it anyway. You can always dispute the early termination fees with the collection agency and most likely pay much less the longer you fight it.


While that may be one of his options that is a horrible thing to have to do. Everyone goes with a provider due to content provided. This is no different. I understand that E* did an install and needs to recover money. That being said its not okay in my book to make drastic changes after you have someone on the hook and just say like it or pay us and leave. If FOX is removed as well I can see some people taking E* to court over this.


----------



## lparsons21

joshjr said:


> Your statement said that E* wants to provide the channels but FOX is mucking it up. That is actually incorrect. FOX has made an offer to keep the stations on. Like I said, I dont think that E* should pay the money but I also dont think FOX deserves all the blame either. That was my argument.


I think you've got it backwards. E* offered to keep the channels on at the current rates/subscription levels but Fox said no to that idea. The only way Fox wants them on is at a newer and higher rate and in a lower tier.

In this case, I think Fox is the bad actor. In the previous one (ABC/Disney), I think Dish was the bad actor.

But in both cases, I'm actually less worried about the channel loss than I am not seeing a new programming charge that reflects the losses of those high priced channels.


----------



## joshjr

lparsons21 said:


> I think you've got it backwards. E* offered to keep the channels on at the current rates/subscription levels but Fox said no to that idea. The only way Fox wants them on is at a newer and higher rate and in a lower tier.
> 
> In this case, I think Fox is the bad actor. In the previous one (ABC/Disney), I think Dish was the bad actor.
> 
> But in both cases, I'm actually less worried about the channel loss than I am not seeing a new programming charge that reflects the losses of those high priced channels.


I think both are at fault in this case as well. Its not unreasonable for the FOX sports channels to want a increase. Its also not unreasonable for E* to want that increase to be within reason. Both are at fault. E* could have then on today if they wanted to & FOX could lower their expectations and have the stations back on today as well if they wanted to. Its hard to say which one is being more greedy. In this case its not really a matter of who is more greedy. They are both trying to say you need me more and we are the ones left in the middle. I hope it gets sorted out. All I was trying to say to that individual was that FOX is not the only one to blame here. E* should of been talking to them months in advance to assure that there was not an interrtuption of this kind. Maybe they were but it wasnt enough.


----------



## GrumpyBear

joshjr said:


> I think both are at fault in this case as well. Its not unreasonable for the FOX sports channels to want a increase. Its also not unreasonable for E* to want that increase to be within reason. Both are at fault. E* could have then on today if they wanted to & FOX could lower their expectations and have the stations back on today as well if they wanted to. Its hard to say which one is being more greedy. In this case its not really a matter of who is more greedy. They are both trying to say you need me more and we are the ones left in the middle. I hope it gets sorted out. All I was trying to say to that individual was that FOX is not the only one to blame here. E* should of been talking to them months in advance to assure that there was not an interrtuption of this kind. Maybe they were but it wasnt enough.


I know its cool an rainy here in San Diego, but it must be snowing somewere today, as Joshjr and I are in complete agreement.


----------



## phrelin

I'm not really sure how significant Dish's "greed" is in this picture. Dish will increase rates in February and would likely recover whatever out-of-pocket costs they would incur from that point on.

My guess is that if Charlie said to Rupert "whatever you want, just so its effective February 1," Rupert would go along. I really do believe Charlie is irked at the demands on his customers sports channel and broadcast station owners are making.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> I think both are at fault in this case as well. Its not unreasonable for the FOX sports channels to want a increase. Its also not unreasonable for E* to want that increase to be within reason. Both are at fault. E* could have then on today if they wanted to & FOX could lower their expectations and have the stations back on today as well if they wanted to.


DISH absolutely CANNOT have the channels back on today without an agreement from Fox. No one party is in complete control of the negotiation unless the other party simply chooses to cave in to the demands on the table. Neither party will do that so ... negotiations continue.



> All I was trying to say to that individual was that FOX is not the only one to blame here. E* should of been talking to them months in advance to assure that there was not an interrtuption of this kind. Maybe they were but it wasnt enough.


"Maybe they were?" Just because they didn't make announcements that they were in negotiations does not mean they have not been in negotiations for months.


----------



## tsmacro

It seems that i'm one of the few people that this has worked out for the better so far. Since I basically almost never watch FX and i'm prone to actually watch the channel they've substituted it for, HDNet Movies and since I wasn't currently subscribing to the Platinum package to get it, it's like a little bonus for me!  As far as i'm concerned HD Theater for Nat Geo is a wash, no biggie either way there and I never watch the Fox Sports until basketball season and considering how bad the Pacers have been the last few years the wife and I might not even care about that unless they start having a good season by some miracle! In any case personally I think it's bad form for them to be asking for a rate increase at all considering the economy and all. They should be happy with what they're getting and hope that more people just don't cancel their service all together because it becomes one more optional service they choose to get rid of because finances are tight.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Let me try something different with a bit of old mixed in...

Dish is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you are going to get.

A box of assorted chocolates has a list of what it might contain inside with no guarantee of any quantity of a particular flavor OR guarantee of at least 1 of all possible flavors. So IF you buy a box and it has your favorites, then you sign up to be sent a box each month for a year... you can't complain if the assortment stops having a particular flavor.

Dish channel packages work pretty much the same way. For a variety of reasons there's no way they can guarantee the content of those packages forever. There are mitigating circumstances where Dish would make restitution to customers.

For example... IF you subscribe to HBO, and HBO went away... you would no longer pay for HBO. BUT if one of the 11 (random guess) HBO channels goes away and you still have 10 of them... then you'd keep paying.

You agree to buy a package each month and also agree that the contents of that package might change for any of a number of reasons. You don't have to agree to that... you could pay up front for the install and not have a 2-year commitment... but most people choose the commitment rather than pay more money up front.

People generally choose "free" over paid... less money over more money... and are willing to sign risks to do so... even if later they decide to complain IF those risks happen.

Do you want knee pads for $25 or do you want to skate without them and save money? IF you choose to save money, and you scrape your knee... you can't complain since YOU chose not to get the knee pads.

In this very thread we have a customer who left DirecTV who had all his sports channels and supposedly never has channel disputes or loses channels... and he went to Dish who doesn't have all the sports and does lose channels sometimes to disputes... Why? He did so to save money!

He weighed his options... and decided saving money was more important... and I'd do the exact same thing! But I wouldn't then complain later about the choice I'd made.


----------



## Joe Diver

joshjr said:


> Glad you found a provider that would take care of your tv needs. Welcome aboard. I dont think you will be disappointed.


Thanks. I was on hold for about 15 minutes until a rep came on to help me. He said their call center is experiencing a 10 fold increase in calls, and they're all Dish customers upset about Fox Sports.

My buddy, also a Dish subscriber, just signed up with D* for the same package as me.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Joe Diver said:


> Thanks. I was on hold for about 15 minutes until a rep came on to help me. He said their call center is experiencing a 10 fold increase in calls, and they're all Dish customers upset about Fox Sports.
> 
> My buddy, also a Dish subscriber, just signed up with D* for the same package as me.


 :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## MilFan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let me try something different with a bit of old mixed in...
> 
> Dish is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you are going to get.
> 
> A box of assorted chocolates has a list of what it might contain inside with no guarantee of any quantity of a particular flavor OR guarantee of at least 1 of all possible flavors. So IF you buy a box and it has your favorites, then you sign up to be sent a box each month for a year... you can't complain if the assortment stops having a particular flavor.
> 
> Dish channel packages work pretty much the same way. For a variety of reasons there's no way they can guarantee the content of those packages forever. There are mitigating circumstances where Dish would make restitution to customers.
> 
> For example... IF you subscribe to HBO, and HBO went away... you would no longer pay for HBO. BUT if one of the 11 (random guess) HBO channels goes away and you still have 10 of them... then you'd keep paying.
> 
> You agree to buy a package each month and also agree that the contents of that package might change for any of a number of reasons. You don't have to agree to that... you could pay up front for the install and not have a 2-year commitment... but most people choose the commitment rather than pay more money up front.
> 
> People generally choose "free" over paid... less money over more money... and are willing to sign risks to do so... even if later they decide to complain IF those risks happen.
> 
> Do you want knee pads for $25 or do you want to skate without them and save money? IF you choose to save money, and you scrape your knee... you can't complain since YOU chose not to get the knee pads.
> 
> In this very thread we have a customer who left DirecTV who had all his sports channels and supposedly never has channel disputes or loses channels... and he went to Dish who doesn't have all the sports and does lose channels sometimes to disputes... Why? He did so to save money!
> 
> He weighed his options... and decided saving money was more important... and I'd do the exact same thing! But I wouldn't then complain later about the choice I'd made.


I moved to Dish Network because DirecTV's internet bundler (Verizon) does not supply service to my neighborhood. I loved DirecTV but using them and a separate internet carrier was too much. When I DO SWITCH to a TV provider, I expect to get the channels I sign up for. When you pick a package, generally you're focusing on a few big time channels, not the number of channels you get. If you lose one, it's irrelevant that is is ONLY ONE if that is the one you moved for in the first place. As I've already mentioned, I also spoke with a manager before switching about the Fox/Dish dispute. He assured me it was garbage, and two weeks later I'm out of my #1 channel. But according to the people on this site, BECAUSE it was in the contract, I should just be fine with it. The fact that I just switched (and would get raped in ETF fees), and spoke to a Dish employee about it means nothing, IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.


----------



## Hoosier205

GrumpyBear said:


> :lol::lol::lol:


I don't see why that would be funny.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> One of the worst posts I've ever seen. How many Dish employees have been planted on this site?


Just because you don't agree with the posts, please don't insult the posters.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> *DISH absolutely CANNOT have the channels back on today without an agreement from Fox.* No one party is in complete control of the negotiation unless the other party simply chooses to cave in to the demands on the table. Neither party will do that so ... negotiations continue.
> 
> "Maybe they were?" Just because they didn't make announcements that they were in negotiations does not mean they have not been in negotiations for months.


Thats the entire point. If E* wants them back on today there is a way to do that.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Thats the entire point. If E* wants them back on today there is a way to do that.


Cave in to Fox? No thanks.


----------



## joshjr

tsmacro said:


> It seems that i'm one of the few people that this has worked out for the better so far. Since I basically almost never watch FX and i'm prone to actually watch the channel they've substituted it for, HDNet Movies and since I wasn't currently subscribing to the Platinum package to get it, it's like a little bonus for me!  As far as i'm concerned HD Theater for Nat Geo is a wash, no biggie either way there and I never watch the Fox Sports until basketball season and considering how bad the Pacers have been the last few years the wife and I might not even care about that unless they start having a good season by some miracle! *In any case personally I think it's bad form for them to be asking for a rate increase at all considering the economy and all. They should be happy with what they're getting and hope that more people just don't cancel their service all together because it becomes one more optional service they choose to get rid of because finances are tight*.


Well I dont know about you but I would like a raise this year. Why is it unreasonable that FOX wants one as well? So in your opinion its okay that E* will want a raise early next year but its not okay that FOX is asking for one now?


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> One of the worst posts I've ever seen. How many Dish employees have been planted on this site?
> 
> I moved to Dish Network because DirecTV's internet bundler (Verizon) does not supply service to my neighborhood. I loved DirecTV but using them and a separate internet carrier was too much. When I DO SWITCH to a TV provider, I expect to get the channels I sign up for. When you pick a package, generally you're focusing on a few big time channels, not the number of channels you get. If you lose one, it's irrelevant that is is ONLY ONE if that is the one you moved for in the first f'ing place. As I've already mentioned, I also spoke with a manager before switching about the Fox/Dish dispute. He assured me it was garbage, and two weeks later I'm out of my #1 channel. But according to the people on this site, BECAUSE it was in the contract, I should just be fine with it. The fact that I just switched (and would get raped in ETF fees), and spoke to a Dish employee about it means nothing, IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.


Provide proof that you were promised by a Dish Network employee that you would not lose these channels and I am sure they will be willing to part ways with you. You do have proof, don't you?

Regardless of what wanted to do, you did not subscribe to a service for a select few channels. You subscribed to a service with programing packages that provide various channels, all of which are subject to change.

Here is the parts of the agreement that relate to your complaints:


> B. Cancellation Policies. You may cancel your Services for any reason at any time by notifying us at the phone number, e-mail address or mailing address set forth at the top of this Agreement. Please be aware that certain promotions have an optional or mandatory term commitment period and if you cancel your Services prior to the expiration of an applicable optional or mandatory term commitment period, certain early termination or cancellation fees may apply.





> I. Changes in Services Offered. We may add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, as well as the prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services, at any time, including without limitation, during any term commitment period to which you have agreed. If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, we have no obligation to replace or supplement such programming, programming packages or other Services. You are not entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change of any programming, programming packages or other Services.


----------



## Darcaine

MilFan said:


> So your argument is that it is right for a customer to sign up, lose his #1 channel, and pay over $400 in ETF because that is what Dish put in their contract? You have to be a Dish Network lawyer.
> 
> Yes, the RIGHT thing to do would be to give me a grace period and be able to cancel since I just signed up and was TOLD I would not lose FS. Told by a manager, and a representative of the GD company. You seem to have a hard time separating what is right, and what is contractual. The two don't have the same definition.
> 
> You make it seem like paying a ****load of ETF is just no big deal for a customer. Are you kidding me here?


I remember reading awhile back, and I'm not sure how accurate it was, that Directv would actually buy out your contract from Dish/Comcast etc.

Basically, you cancel Dish, pay the ETF, sign up with Directv, and fill out the proper application or talk to the proper CSR, and they will send you a rebate for the price of the ETF.

It's at least worth a call to Directv to find out if they'll do it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Hoosier205 said:


> I don't see why that would be funny.


Lets just say I doubt that its that busy, nor that many Dish people are jumping today. Were this site is a very small fraction of users its a pretty good barometer, several other sites just like this one as well. Sorry there is just a lack of posts and threads about this issue. 
Now if the Local Fox stations get involved I could believe more users. This thread has really only a handful of people involved. Sorry I just don't see enough postings or comments from people, to not cast some personal doubt on a user account with just 2 posts, one of which is just a followup. Not saying its not on the up and up, personally I am just not seeing it. This thread alone is pretty evident of how things look.


----------



## chum76

Darcaine said:


> I remember reading awhile back, and I'm not sure how accurate it was, that Directv would actually buy out your contract from Dish/Comcast etc.
> 
> Basically, you cancel Dish, pay the ETF, sign up with Directv, and fill out the proper application or talk to the proper CSR, and they will send you a rebate for the price of the ETF.
> 
> It's at least worth a call to Directv to find out if they'll do it.


That is a very good point. Atlantic Broadband had a promo like this before as well.


----------



## swallman

joshjr said:


> Thats not really fair to say James. When you look at a content provider do you not look at what channels are available in what packages? They sell the packages and yes they change once in awhile but not much usually. People dont sign with E* because they have a 200 channel package. They sign with them because that package has what they want. I understand what E* is obligated to but I also understand people do purchase tv that way either.


EXACTLY! Dish's contract is probably so vague that they could take away all of your current 200 channels, replace it with 200 "shopping" channels and they would still be honoring their contract (which is a bunch of BS!)


----------



## Darcaine

chum76 said:


> That is a very good point. Atlantic Broadband had a promo like this before as well.


Yeah, I just did a google search and found the rebate for it, but am reluctant to post here. Just google it or call Directv.


----------



## GrumpyBear

swallman said:


> EXACTLY! Dish's contract is probably so vague that they could take away all of your current 200 channels, replace it with 200 "shopping" channels and they would still be honoring their contract (which is a bunch of BS!)


That would go for any service provider that has a 2yr(or any length) contract, not just Dish.


----------



## Hoosier205

swallman said:


> EXACTLY! Dish's contract is probably so vague that they could take away all of your current 200 channels, replace it with 200 "shopping" channels and they would still be honoring their contract (which is a bunch of BS!)


...those portions of the customer agreements are basically identical among all television service providers in this country and always have been. This is not a new development. You do not subscribe to certain channels. You simply subscribe to a service which offers various packages. What is in those packages is up to the service provider, not you. If you want to change the way it works, start your own company. Good luck.


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> Let me try something different with a bit of old mixed in...
> 
> Dish is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you are going to get.
> 
> A box of assorted chocolates has a list of what it might contain inside with no guarantee of any quantity of a particular flavor OR guarantee of at least 1 of all possible flavors. So IF you buy a box and it has your favorites, then you sign up to be sent a box each month for a year... you can't complain if the assortment stops having a particular flavor.
> 
> Dish channel packages work pretty much the same way. For a variety of reasons there's no way they can guarantee the content of those packages forever. There are mitigating circumstances where Dish would make restitution to customers.
> 
> For example... IF you subscribe to HBO, and HBO went away... you would no longer pay for HBO. BUT if one of the 11 (random guess) HBO channels goes away and you still have 10 of them... then you'd keep paying.
> 
> You agree to buy a package each month and also agree that the contents of that package might change for any of a number of reasons. You don't have to agree to that... you could pay up front for the install and not have a 2-year commitment... but most people choose the commitment rather than pay more money up front.
> 
> People generally choose "free" over paid... less money over more money... and are willing to sign risks to do so... even if later they decide to complain IF those risks happen.
> 
> Do you want knee pads for $25 or do you want to skate without them and save money? IF you choose to save money, and you scrape your knee... you can't complain since YOU chose not to get the knee pads.
> 
> In this very thread we have a customer who left DirecTV who had all his sports channels and supposedly never has channel disputes or loses channels... and he went to Dish who doesn't have all the sports and does lose channels sometimes to disputes... Why? He did so to save money!
> 
> He weighed his options... and decided saving money was more important... and I'd do the exact same thing! But I wouldn't then complain later about the choice I'd made.


Stewart, I expect better from you. This still isnt fair to people. You sign up with the understanding you will get X. So if you agree with the current rules then you would not be mad if every channel in your current package was removed and replaced with garbage no one would watch?

At some point it has to be about the people. If E* cant keep them happy then there wont be any subs. Granted this is only a few stations and I expect it to be resolved before to long its the principal behind it. We choose providers because of stations offered not station count. Go ahead and try to tell me otherwise.

Thats like saying okay you have 450 minutes this month on your cell phone bill that are anytime minutes. Next month we are going to chage that to where it is 250 minutes anytime and the other 200 are going to be overnight and weekend. If you dont like it then you can cancel and pay us the termination fee. How is that any better? People signed up for the cell plan with the understand of 450 anytime minutes. They change it to have same minutes but at different times. This attitude get over it or cancel is hogwash. If these companies were to get in the practice of doing this very often it would affect their sub count dramatically.

Now from E*'s point they have a channel count to meet and they have, but they know their customers are not happy about it. I have another question though no one has seemed to ask. James, you kept saying that if they added those stations into a lower package then that would raise the amount paid for said channels. That being said how are they getting around doing that exact same thing right now with the channels that are currently subbing?


----------



## MilFan

swallman said:


> EXACTLY! Dish's contract is probably so vague that they could take away all of your current 200 channels, replace it with 200 "shopping" channels and they would still be honoring their contract (which is a bunch of BS!)


Exactly.


----------



## James Long

GrumpyBear said:


> Lets just say I doubt that its that busy, nor that many Dish people are jumping today.


Perhaps DirecTV is just terribly understaffed? 



swallman said:


> EXACTLY! Dish's contract is probably so vague that they could take away all of your current 200 channels, replace it with 200 "shopping" channels and they would still be honoring their contract (which is a bunch of BS!)


Find a better contract. One can find the same language that makes it clear that the content of the package is subject to change at any time. "BS" or not, it _is_ the industry standard.


----------



## Hoosier205

joshjr said:


> You sign up with the understanding you will get X.


No. You sign up with the understanding that you are subscribing to a service, not specific channels. What channels are provided as a part of that service have always been and will always be, subject to change. You may have misunderstood what you were agreeing too or you did not read/hear the constant disclaimers about the channels offered being subject to change.


----------



## Chihuahua

This Saturday, it looked like Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, which I get on Dish Network (along with FSN Northwest which has been unaffected by the removal of those other RSNs) canceled a couple of College Football games that they had been scheduled to carry.

Could this be a product of the ongoing DISH-Fox dispute?


----------



## EW800

Darcaine said:


> Yeah, I just did a google search and found the rebate for it, but am reluctant to post here. Just google it or call Directv.


Bingo! I did a Google search and immediately found the DirecTV rebate form for rebates of ETF's. Thanks!


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> No. You sign up with the understanding that you are subscribing to a service, not specific channels. What channels are provided as a part of that service have always been and will always be, subject to change. You may have misunderstood what you were agreeing too or you did not read/hear the constant disclaimers about the channels offered being subject to change.


And I think you're misunderstanding that people aren't debating what the contract is, they are debating whether the contract is ethical or right. There's a difference. You act like Joe Six Pack is supposed to out-legal a billion dollar company. Or record phone calls to prove neglect. That's really how you want business to go for TV providers?


----------



## garn9173

Chihuahua said:


> This Saturday, it looked like Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, which I get on Dish Network (along with FSN Northwest which has been unaffected by the removal of those other RSNs) canceled a couple of College Football games that they had been scheduled to carry.
> 
> Could this be a product of the ongoing DISH-Fox dispute?


It's possible. Saturday afternoon's Kansas/Baylor game was not shown on Comcast SportsNet Chicago despite it being shown on D*'s EPG (taped basketball and some sort of racing was shown in it's place). All CSN Chicago's website stated was that the Kansas/Baylor game wasn't available to CSN Chicago, same goes for CSN DC.

Speculation is abound on other message boards that Fox is withholding programming from all regional Comcast SportsNet's, regardless of provider, until E* & Fox come to an agreement.


----------



## joshjr

Hoosier205 said:


> *No. You sign up with the understanding that you are subscribing to a service, not specific channels.* What channels are provided as a part of that service have always been and will always be, subject to change. You may have misunderstood what you were agreeing too or you did not read/hear the constant disclaimers about the channels offered being subject to change.


So when you called to get E* you just said yes I would like 200 channels of what ever you have and didnt even look at the channels did you? I didnt think so! Its not a misunderstanding. People are just not gonna lay down if this kind of thing continues to happen, plain and simple.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Stewart, I expect better from you. This still isnt fair to people. You sign up with the understanding you will get X. So if you agree with the current rules then you would not be mad if every channel in your current package was removed and replaced with garbage no one would watch?


Did he say the loss of a favorite channel wouldn't anger him? No. Only that he understands the contract he agreed to and, like it or not, DISH (and other providers) retain the right to change package content as needed.



> Thats like saying okay you have 450 minutes this month on your cell phone bill that are anytime minutes. ....


My cell phone contract specifies the number of anytime minutes and the inclusion of unlimited night and weekend minutes. DISH's contract does not include a channel list nor count.


> Now from E*'s point they have a channel count to meet and they have, but they know their customers are not happy about it.


Not really. There is no count in the contract. They DO NOT guarantee 120 channels to AT 120 subscribers or 200 channels to AT 200 subscribers. These are marketing names not promises.



> I have another question though no one has seemed to ask. James, you kept saying that if they added those stations into a lower package then that would raise the amount paid for said channels. That being said how are they getting around doing that exact same thing right now with the channels that are currently subbing?


Most likely they are paying HDNet Movies and HD Theater for the additional distribution. They are not paying Fox for FX and NatGeo so they can afford to pay for the replacement content. The same goes for the Multi-pack ... not paying FoxSports gives DISH money to pay the other RSNs for their out of market feeds.

I doubt if any channel would complain about extra paid distribution.


----------



## joshjr

Hoosier205 said:


> *No. You sign up with the understanding that you are subscribing to a service, not specific channels.* What channels are provided as a part of that service have always been and will always be, subject to change. You may have misunderstood what you were agreeing too or you did not read/hear the constant disclaimers about the channels offered being subject to change.


If thats really the case then I guess you are saying E* misleads customers on a daily basis? I mean when people see an add or call it has said channels with said packages. Then the change section you speak of is in the fine print. Not even E* fully agrees with you or else their adds would just say 200channels for this price and guess what, THEY DONT!!!


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> And I think you're misunderstanding that people aren't debating what the contract is, they are debating whether the contract is ethical or right. There's a difference. You act like Joe Six Pack is supposed to out-legal a billion dollar company. Or record phone calls to prove neglect. That's really how you want business to go for TV providers?


Then you're debating the contract of every single television provider in the country over the last 20+ years. Understanding that you aren't subbing to a particular channel, but to a service should common knowledge and common sense at this point. Arguing that you want out of a contract without having a legitimate excuse is ridiculous.

The bottom line is that you agreed to a commitment. Now you want out and do not want to pay the money you agreed to pay for the services you subscribed to for an agreed-upon term. Obviously, the answer is no. Dish Network is in the business of making money...not allowing people to void contracts as they please.


----------



## TBoneit

xzi said:


> Yet, ironically, the Yankees are one of the few MLB teams left with an OTA outlet still in place for watching games on My9, so while yes they started a cable-only exodus which made huge financial sense (for them) they still have 1 or 2 OTA games a week on when most teams are now cable-only.
> 
> Imagine that.


I'll give you that, They do have a free game or two.

However how much cost to watch all the Yankees games if you only use a antenna as many still do. People are cutting the cable & satellite cord and going back to an antenna and Netflix and streaming video.


----------



## Hoosier205

joshjr said:


> So when you called to get E* you just said yes I would like 200 channels of what ever you have and didnt even look at the channels did you? I didnt think so! Its not a misunderstanding. People are just not gonna lay down if this kind of thing continues to happen, plain and simple.


Yes, I look to see which channels are included in that package when choosign a package or provider...knowing full-well that the placement/inclusion of those channels is subject to change. People are not just just gonna lay down? You think this is new? This has been going on for many, many, many years.


----------



## Hoosier205

joshjr said:


> If thats really the case then I guess you are saying E* misleads customers on a daily basis? I mean when people see an add or call it has said channels with said packages. Then the change section you speak of is in the fine print. Not even E* fully agrees with you or else their adds would just say 200channels for this price and guess what, THEY DONT!!!


No, I would not say that.


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> Then you're debating the contract of every single television provider in the country over the last 20+ years. Understanding that you aren't subbing to a particular channel, but to a service should common knowledge and common sense at this point. Arguing that you want out of a contract without having a legitimate excuse is ridiculous.
> 
> The bottom line is that you agreed to a commitment. Now you want out and do not want to pay the money you agreed to pay for the services you subscribed to for an agreed-upon term. Obviously, the answer is no. Dish Network is in the business of making money...not allowing people to void contracts as they please.


Well, obviously they are in the business of making money. Judging from my experiences so far, they care very little about the customer. I've only had two conversations with them and have been lied to blatantly once. But hey, it's in the contract so I should just bend over huh?


----------



## swallman

Hoosier205 said:


> Provide proof that you were promised by a Dish Network employee that you would not lose these channels and I am sure they will be willing to part ways with you. You do have proof, don't you?
> 
> Regardless of what wanted to do, you did not subscribe to a service for a select few channels. You subscribed to a service with programing packages that provide various channels, all of which are subject to change.
> 
> Here is the parts of the agreement that relate to your complaints:


Quote:
I. Changes in Services Offered. We may add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, as well as the prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services, at any time, including without limitation, during any term commitment period to which you have agreed. If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, we have no obligation to replace or supplement such programming, programming packages or other Services. You are not entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change of any programming, programming packages or other Services.

Well, this says - "If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date."

Apparently they can just remove the channels and they consider that notification ? I didn't get any emails, letter in the mail, phone call, nothing...


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Did he say the loss of a favorite channel wouldn't anger him? No. Only that he understands the contract he agreed to and, like it or not, DISH (and other providers) retain the right to change package content as needed.
> 
> My cell phone contract specifies the number of anytime minutes and the inclusion of unlimited night and weekend minutes. DISH's contract does not include a channel list nor count.Not really. There is no count in the contract. They DO NOT guarantee 120 channels to AT 120 subscribers or 200 channels to AT 200 subscribers. These are marketing names not promises.
> 
> Most likely they are paying HDNet Movies and HD Theater for the additional distribution. They are not paying Fox for FX and NatGeo so they can afford to pay for the replacement content. The same goes for the Multi-pack ... not paying FoxSports gives DISH money to pay the other RSNs for their out of market feeds.
> 
> I doubt if any channel would complain about extra paid distribution.


James, James, James

I understand your wanting to stick up for your provider as I stick up for D* but there is a time to admit partial fault on your beloved provider. D* was not innocent in the VS dispute either. They could and should of came to terms much sooner then they did. I think you E* lovers are just taking us D* subs as saying E* is at fault. That is not the case here. I actually think E* is right for not agreeing to the demands but I also dont think it should of ever got this far and further more if FOX gets pulled then I think E* has alot of explaining to do.

You remind me of how a bunch of E* lovers stood behind E* when Clark Howard fired them as well. I kept being told over and over that Clark violated the agreement buy not having phone lines connected to his receivers and I kept pointing out that if you were gonna hold him liable for not following the terms then explain why E* was willing to turn his recievers back on for him knowing he was not following the terms?

E* is not perfect, just like every other provider as well. I just find it odd that some will stand behind them so much no matter what the cost or how it affects subs. Guess what, if it wasnt for subs then it wouldnt matter how much any channel wanted to be paid. At some level its about the customer. All you seem to want to say is E* is in the right or not doing anything wrong. Maybe they are following terms but that does not mean that is right. Just wait and see. Im telling you if FOX gets pulled this thing will blow up big. I am guessing court action, BB complaints, attorney generals getting involved and potential for alot more things to happen as well.

If you feel comfortable standing behind a company that advertises this channel in this package via tv, flyer, newspaper, phone and then says if you dont like it cancel and pay us then more power to you. I for one do not agree with that. While I am with a provider I am human and I actually pay for channels I want and not channel count. I dont think you will find many people that pay for channel count. I understand that E* is in a very difficult position but we as customers should not always be the one that just has to take it. We should have the option to take it or not without having to be subject to heavy fee's from our provider that is not providing what was advertised in the first place.

Can you also tell me that E*'s website is updated to reflect those channels out of those packages and there there has been no false flyers or newspaper addes for E* telling what channels are in what packages? I dont think so. You guys can say its channel count all you want but its not true. Like I said if it was E* would advertise 200 channels and it wouldnt matter what was in it.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Did he say the loss of a favorite channel wouldn't anger him? No. Only that he understands the contract he agreed to and, like it or not, DISH (and other providers) retain the right to change package content as needed.
> 
> My cell phone contract specifies the number of anytime minutes and the inclusion of unlimited night and weekend minutes. DISH's contract does not include a channel list nor count.Not really. There is no count in the contract. They DO NOT guarantee 120 channels to AT 120 subscribers or 200 channels to AT 200 subscribers. These are marketing names not promises.
> 
> Most likely they are paying HDNet Movies and HD Theater for the additional distribution. They are not paying Fox for FX and NatGeo so they can afford to pay for the replacement content. The same goes for the Multi-pack ... not paying FoxSports gives DISH money to pay the other RSNs for their out of market feeds.
> 
> I doubt if any channel would complain about extra paid distribution.





Hoosier205 said:


> Then you're debating the contract of every single television provider in the country over the last 20+ years. Understanding that you aren't subbing to a particular channel, but to a service should common knowledge and common sense at this point. Arguing that you want out of a contract without having a legitimate excuse is ridiculous.
> 
> The bottom line is that you agreed to a commitment. Now you want out and do not want to pay the money you agreed to pay for the services you subscribed to for an agreed-upon term. Obviously, the answer is no. *Dish Network is in the business of making money*...not allowing people to void contracts as they please.


Wrong! They are in the business of providing content to customers for profit. This happens to be the sticking point. They are not providing said content. So there is a loop in their agreement. You still think that is okay for someone who just signed with them to be SOL and have to pay that big fee to leave when content was changed on them so fast? Surely you think there should be some rules like if more then 15 stations are removed or if you have only been with E* for 2 months or less maybe. I dont know what would be fair but there should be a few things that qualify dony you think?


----------



## joshjr

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, I look to see which channels are included in that package when choosign a package or provider...knowing full-well that the placement/inclusion of those channels is subject to change. People are not just just gonna lay down? You think this is new? This has been going on for many, many, many years.


Yes and guess what, it seems to be happening more and more often now dont it?


----------



## GrumpyBear

joshjr said:


> Yes and guess what, it seems to be happening more and more often now dont it?


Fox and ABC have had problems with mulitple carriers this year already. Comcrap Merger will lead to even more.


----------



## James Long

swallman said:


> Apparently they can just remove the channels and they consider that notification ? I didn't get any emails, letter in the mail, phone call, nothing...


Tune to your local Fox owned RSN channel and Charlie will explain it to you. As for FX and NatGeo ... yeah, they could handle that better.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> James, James, James


Josh, Josh, Josh

When one starts a post in a condescending tone it is easy to skip to the next post ...



joshjr said:


> Wrong! They are in the business of providing content to customers for profit.


They are providing content to customers for a profit ... just not the content the customers expected.


----------



## swallman

I find it interesting that Dish is still advertising FX as being part of the AT250 package on their website.


----------



## GrumpyBear

swallman said:


> I find it interesting that Dish is still advertising FX as being part of the AT250 package on their website.


I see that Dish is offering up all the Non Fox RSN, plus NBA TV and NHL Network, and the NFL channel to all at no cost during this. Wonder if the Redzone will be included for no extra cost?


----------



## TBoneit

RAD said:


> Where is the 50% number coming from? I ask since all I've seen is that number from Dish. From Fox they say:
> 
> So who's fibbin'?


My guess is that the 50% increase is if they want to be included in the lowest tier.

I'll speculate that Charlie would pay the per subscriber raise as long as he did not have to start paying for four million more subscribers.

If they have to add 4 million subscribers to the 8 million already getting those channels then that is where a substantial portion of the 50% comes from. The additional subscribers + the raise in rates = a 50% increase over the money paid last year.


----------



## inazsully

Hoosier205 said:


> No. You sign up with the understanding that you are subscribing to a service, not specific channels. What channels are provided as a part of that service have always been and will always be, subject to change. You may have misunderstood what you were agreeing too or you did not read/hear the constant disclaimers about the channels offered being subject to change.


That's so untrue. Granted the contract we sign has all of these out clauses but since all providers contracts are basically the same, what dam choice do we have? Either sign or go the OTA route. Nobody, NOBODY signs with the understanding that they are subscribing to a service. Why do you think they offer different packages in the first place. Nobody misunderstood what they signed. They, unlike the Big $$$ companies that drew it up, don't have a attorney to unravel the nuances in the contract for them. Have you ever heard the term, "theft by deception"?


----------



## TBoneit

chum76 said:


> My only advice is if you do cancel with them and they have your credit card on file cancel that card BEFORE or they will bill it right away. Also send back all the equipment and put tracking on it. If they send boxes put tracking on it anyway. You can always dispute the early termination fees with the collection agency and most likely pay much less the longer you fight it.


Great advice, Not. Have a bill sent to collection and take that hit to your credit rating? A lower credit rating can affect the rates you pay for many things. Car insurance, Credit card interest rates, Availability or interest rate for a mortgage or car loan etc.


----------



## festivus

Well, I'm not really "missing" any of the missing content yet. Not a big watcher of any of the channels they've yanked so far. But if the dominos continue to fall I'll have to switch no matter whose fault it is.

This happened when I left Time Warner cable a few years back. I wanted the NFL Network even though I hated the idea of an NFL Network. I wanted to see the games. So I left TWC.

Dish needs to understand that this will happen.

Question: Doesn't Fox own DirecTV? Or are they both owned by Newscorp? I wonder if this rate hike is being forced only on Dish? It just sounds fishy.

By the way, I think that I've fulfilled my commitment with Dish and can leave anytime without penalty. To me, the worst part about switching is losing all of my saved dvr content. It would take a lot to make me switch.


----------



## olguy

For those planning to dump Dish and go to D* (with the same terms of service regarding what you get, service or channels) for some kind of rebate good luck with that. Consumer Complaints About DirecTV Rebates And it looks like more folks complaining about not getting their rebate than are complaining here about the current Dish - Fox standoff. Even including the DirecTV subs over here just stirring the pot and beating a dead horse.


----------



## Jhon69

I'm enjoying watching HD Net Movies and HD Theater.Being SD only with Dish's 625 the most awesome DVR I had had the pleasure to use, I give my full support to Charlie Ergen.

In fact I would like to see all the HD channels that are not also in SD made available for SD subscribers.I would buy them.


----------



## chum76

TBoneit said:


> Great advice, Not. Have a bill sent to collection and take that hit to your credit rating? A lower credit rating can affect the rates you pay for many things. Car insurance, Credit card interest rates, Availability or interest rate for a mortgage or car loan etc.


What I gave is a last resort method, but as others mentioned some pay TV companies offer rebates to change providers.


----------



## CoolGui

I have been seeing messages about people being upset that they have to pay $4 a month for ESPN and $2+ a month for RSNs.

I am a sports fan, and I agree. I would pay pay 6-7, maybe even up to 10 if they included my real RSNs (CSS and FSHOUSTON). But that would assume that $7 would be coming off the original price of the package.

But I would also like to stop paying the $20 or so that I spend on rubish channels such as fox news/business, spanish language channels, kids channels (I loathe the disney channesl). So your arguments for all sports channels are no more fair than that, really we are talking about more ala carte options.


----------



## Hoosier205

joshjr said:


> Wrong! They are in the business of providing content to customers for profit. This happens to be the sticking point. *They are not providing said content.*


Yes, they are. Once again, you are not paying for specific content. You are paying for access to packages of content...packages with content subject to change. You are wrong, again. The vast majority of people understand this. I have no idea why you do not.


----------



## joshjr

James Long said:


> Josh, Josh, Josh
> 
> When one starts a post in a condescending tone it is easy to skip to the next post ...
> 
> They are providing content to customers for a profit ... just not the content the customers expected.


How can you say that? Do you really think most people will stay with a provider if they switch up content very much? People go with a provider because they have the chahnels they want not because they hope they will change content later on. Its perception. E* gets its customers based on channels provided. If you think that is not a factor then your wrong I dont know what else to tell you. It might not be the way E* does business but that is the way people do business. We dont chose a provider based on channel count or anything else along those lines. Would you go with a provider that did not have the channels you want?


----------



## MilFan

You're not getting what you sign up for, but since Dish says they can change anything they want at any time, the customer should just nod their head and be OK with it because it is in writing. Don't question the fine print authority of the Dish lawyers!!

What are people having a hard time understanding here? Has anyone questioned WHAT is in the contract? No, they are questioning whether that is right. And if your response is, "they are all like that", then what the hell option does a customer have? 

I'd love to see what this forum would look like if every Dish subscriber lost their #1 most frequently watched channel this second. I'm guessing the "citing Dish contract language" type posts would be few and far between.


----------



## joshjr

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, they are. Once again, you are not paying for specific content. You are paying for access to packages of content...packages with content subject to change. You are wrong, again. The vast majority of people understand this. I have no idea why you do not.


If thats how you look at it then E* should not advertise that they offer any specific channels or maybe the end of the commercial should say subject to be yanked tomorrow at our discression.


----------



## Joe Diver

GrumpyBear said:


> ... to not cast some personal doubt on a user account with just 2 posts, one of which is just a followup.


Yeah...I registered here a few years ago but just never posted. I use the same account on Scubaboard, HDForums, Corvette Forums...where my post counts are 1k+ and on a few others where I'm around 500 or so.

Just relating my experience today getting new service. Called the 877 number, went into the queue and waited about 15 minutes for some dude named "Vince" in the Philippines. There was alot of activity in the background so I asked him where the call center was....and he also then told me about the call volume and alot of folks pissed with Dish. Sure, he could have been telling me fibs...but why?

Anyway...I'm excited about my new service....and the fact that i WILL see the season opener for the Stars....which is on FSSW.....


----------



## Jhon69

festivus said:


> Well, I'm not really "missing" any of the missing content yet. Not a big watcher of any of the channels they've yanked so far. But if the dominos continue to fall I'll have to switch no matter whose fault it is.
> 
> This happened when I left Time Warner cable a few years back. I wanted the NFL Network even though I hated the idea of an NFL Network. I wanted to see the games. So I left TWC.
> 
> Dish needs to understand that this will happen.
> 
> Question: Doesn't Fox own DirecTV? Or are they both owned by Newscorp? I wonder if this rate hike is being forced only on Dish? It just sounds fishy.
> 
> By the way, I think that I've fulfilled my commitment with Dish and can leave anytime without penalty. To me, the worst part about switching is losing all of my saved dvr content. It would take a lot to make me switch.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV


----------



## Slamminc11

Guys, I think if you ignore them (and it probably isn't hard to figure out which ones I am talking about) maybe they will go away and we won't have to read their drivel anymore! Just a thought.


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> You're not getting what you sign up for, but since Dish says they can change anything they want at any time, the customer should just nod their head and be OK with it because it is in writing. Don't question the fine print authority of the Dish lawyers!!
> 
> What are people having a hard time understanding here? Has anyone questioned WHAT is in the contract? No, they are questioning whether that is right. And if your response is, "they are all like that", then what the hell option does a customer have?
> 
> I'd love to see what this forum would look like if every Dish subscriber lost their #1 most frequently watched channel this second. I'm guessing the "citing Dish contract language" type posts would be few and far between.


You will see lots of noise when and if the Local Fox stations get involved. Right now you just don't see much noise. No Baseball is currently being missed, and no Basketball is being missed. Lots of College football is being missed and hardly a peep about all the College games not being carried.

I understand that your RSN is your #1 TV station, and its very important to YOU, its just not that important to lots of others and the doom and gloom about the demise of Dish over this is a little over the top. What do you watch rest of the week or for the next few weeks with none of your baseball or basketball on? As for Hoosier, he is just pointing out it doesn't matter what Carrier you have they all do it, even the Telco's do this. What is kind of funny but its at least following along with the theme of the thread is watching Joshjr and Hoosier two Direct subs argue this out, in a Dish thread.

Times are rough all over and this is going to happen more and more with the Broadcasters and Carriers. ABCand Fox have had multiple problems already this year, with several Cable companies. With the upcoming Comcrap merger it wont be getting any better either. Everybody should realize this as well.


----------



## Jhon69

MilFan said:


> You're not getting what you sign up for, but since Dish says they can change anything they want at any time, the customer should just nod their head and be OK with it because it is in writing. Don't question the fine print authority of the Dish lawyers!!
> 
> What are people having a hard time understanding here? Has anyone questioned WHAT is in the contract? No, they are questioning whether that is right. And if your response is, "they are all like that", then what the hell option does a customer have?
> 
> I'd love to see what this forum would look like if every Dish subscriber lost their #1 most frequently watched channel this second. I'm guessing the "citing Dish contract language" type posts would be few and far between.


Well awhile back DirecTV lost Versus during contract negotiations and alot of DirecTV subscribers went to Dish network.Now Dish network lost channels and alot of Dish network subscribers are leaving for whoever.The moral of the story is this is starting to happen more and more with all providers.So those that go elsewhere may find themselves in the same boat with another provider.

I already went to another provider once,never again.I have AT250 I can find something to watch especially since Dish network has given us HD Net Movies,HD Theater,and several channels in the Multi Sports package.

Curious to know whose service you have?.If it upsets you so much maybe it's time for a change?.Just a suggestion.


----------



## MilFan

Jhon69 said:


> Well awhile back DirecTV lost Versus during contract negotiations and alot of DirecTV subscribers went to Dish network.Now Dish network lost channels and alot of Dish network subscribers are leaving for whoever.The moral of the story is this is starting to happen more and more with all providers.So those that go elsewhere may find themselves in the same boat with another provider.
> 
> I already went to another provider once,never again.I have AT250 I can find something to watch especially since Dish network has given us HD Net Movies,HD Theater,and several channels in the Multi Sports package.
> 
> Curious to know whose service you have?.If it upsets you so much maybe it's time for a change?.Just a suggestion.


I have Dish, and I just switched two weeks ago so I am SOL in terms of switching, plus TV is not the only service I get. Previously with DirecTV, happy with the service and channels, but the internet provider they bundle with did not service my neighborhood. Saw that Dish was cheaper for TV/phone/internet than I was paying for just DirecTV/internet currently, so I decided to switch. The most ironic thing about this is that there was only one channel I checked on in my first call to make sure it was available, Fox Sports. I made a 2nd call to a manager two days before installation asking about the Fox vs. Dish dispute after seeing it here. He assured me it was just a rumor and there was no way they would lose channels affecting that many sports fans. So then I decided to get it done. You know the rest.

But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> What are people having a hard time understanding here? Has anyone questioned WHAT is in the contract? No, they are questioning whether that is right. And if your response is, "they are all like that", then what the hell option does a customer have?


That's the problem. Too many are ignoring the contract (easily found on DISH's website and quoted in this thread) that clearly states that the package content is subject to change and are going off the reservation into the land of what is fair.

The contract is the contract ... and the irony of "what is fair" _is_ that every television provider has the same language in their contracts. Those who are writing 1000 word essays on fairness have agreed to the same language from their own provider (unless they don't pay for TV).



joshjr said:


> If thats how you look at it then E* should not advertise that they offer any specific channels or maybe the end of the commercial should say subject to be yanked tomorrow at our discression.


Perhaps one needs to look at the small print already on commercials? It is covered. They have lawyers for that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> Well I dont know about you but I would like a raise this year. Why is it unreasonable that FOX wants one as well?


Ok... so to make your scenario of wanting a raise from your job like the Dish/FOX dispute...

You would need to ask for a raise, and then your employer denies it. So you then quit your job, start a campaign asking other people to also quit their jobs and come join you wherever you decide to work next AND also demand that your employer doesn't get your assignments done by anyone else.

Then you'd be doing the same thing FOX is doing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> Stewart, I expect better from you. This still isnt fair to people. You sign up with the understanding you will get X. So if you agree with the current rules then you would not be mad if every channel in your current package was removed and replaced with garbage no one would watch?


There's a big difference between losing a few channels and losing an entire package.

Consider the RSNs here. IF you subscribe to multi-sport then you lost all 19 of those! In that case you absolutely have a right to complain to Dish and cancel the multi-sport package.

Dish would let you do this... and you wouldn't be paying for something you can't get anymore.

But if 1 or 2 channels from AT200 are dropped... that isn't the same thing. Yes, it bites if those are your favorite channels. I get that... but that fits within the "channel offerings are subject to change".

Which reminds me... People raise holy heck if a channel is dropped... but if Dish adds a channel, I don't hear anyone saying "why did Dish add this channel? I signed up for a package that didn't contain that new channel and I don't want it.. Cancel my Dish account because they gave me something that wasn't there when I signed up"...


----------



## MilFan

Stewart Vernon said:


> Which reminds me... People raise holy heck if a channel is dropped... but if Dish adds a channel, I don't hear anyone saying "why did Dish add this channel? I signed up for a package that didn't contain that new channel and I don't want it.. Cancel my Dish account because they gave me something that wasn't there when I signed up"...


The slight difference here is that if you get a channel you don't care about, you're not forced to watch it. If you lose a channel you do care about, it affects you negatively.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> The slight difference here is that if you get a channel you don't care about, you're not forced to watch it. If you lose a channel you do care about, it affects you negatively.


You're forced to pay for it, watch it or not. That is usually expressed as a negative.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The box of chocolates didn't work... so how about this...

Dish is a buffet.

You can pay for the salad buffet
You can pay for the salad + dinner buffet
You can pay for the salad + dinner + dessert buffet

Usually there are gummy bears on the dessert buffet... but if they stop having them, you can't complain because there is never a guarantee of what will or will not be on the buffet tomorrow. You are only guaranteed to get what is on the buffet that day.

I'll say it again... Dish only has a 2-year contract for people that choose to take free installation + free equipment. IF you don't like the terms of the contract, you can pay for your install and equipment up front and then you have no commitment if Dish changes policies later.

IF you take the freebies. then you are doing so knowingly and accepting the terms of the contract that say they are not guaranteeing the content beyond what is available on the day you get your installation.

Look at your bank contract... you'll see that many banks do not guarantee any particular interest rate OR even any rate at all in some cases.

There are lots of contracts that allow for things to change that are hard to predict far out into the future.

Now... James and I are often accused of being "in bed" with Dish... but I've seen James be critical of Dish and I know I have as well. I don't like Dish's misleading advertising or their lack of informing customers about things. I don't even like many of their policies, including the one about not guaranteeing particular channels!

Dish did issue a Press Release announcing the pulling of these channels due to dispute. That's how they "inform" people according to the contract. They are consistent in this way, as it is also the only way they let customers know when a new channel is added! (Anyone get an email or call or anything to tell them Sony Movie Channel was on last week? I didn't think so)...

Dish needs to do a better job of communicating with its customers... especially in cases like this where many customers might be on their side of the pricing dispute if they knew what was going on.

I have no doubt that both Dish and FOX are being less than truthful... that's business as usual.


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> There's a big difference between losing a few channels and losing an entire package.
> 
> Consider the RSNs here. IF you subscribe to multi-sport then you lost all 19 of those! In that case you absolutely have a right to complain to Dish and cancel the multi-sport package.
> 
> Dish would let you do this... and you wouldn't be paying for something you can't get anymore.
> 
> But if 1 or 2 channels from AT200 are dropped... that isn't the same thing. Yes, it bites if those are your favorite channels. I get that... but that fits within the "channel offerings are subject to change".
> 
> Which reminds me... People raise holy heck if a channel is dropped... *but if Dish adds a channel, I don't hear anyone saying "why did Dish add this channel? I signed up for a package that didn't contain that new channel and I don't want it.. Cancel my Dish account because they gave me something that wasn't there when I signed up"*...


Thats becaus people dont sign up for future channels. They sign up because a provider has what they want at that time.


----------



## chum76

MilFan said:


> The slight difference here is that if you get a channel you don't care about, you're not forced to watch it. If you lose a channel you do care about, it affects you negatively.


Dont worry Dish will suck up and pay because Murdock wont budge. All they are doing is prolonging the agony. Supply and demand.


----------



## CoolGui

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF you take the freebies. then you are doing so knowingly and accepting the terms of the contract that say they are not guaranteeing the content beyond what is available on the day you get your installation.....


I really don't think this is much of an issue if you really want to change. The early termination fee is really not that bad and it's prorated pretty fairly so if something bothers you that bad, just bite the bullet, pay the few bucks and move one.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> Thats becaus people dont sign up for future channels. They sign up because a provider has what they want at that time.


I know that isn't true, though, because people complain all the time about why doesn't Dish add such-and-such channel... or why did my bill go up and no channels added... and some have said they were promised certain channels were "coming soon" as a reason why they signed with Dish.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

CoolGui said:


> I really don't think this is much of an issue if you really want to change. The early termination fee is really not that bad and it's prorated pretty fairly so if something bothers you that bad, just bite the bullet, pay the few bucks and move one.


True...

And while some are vocal in every dispute... I honestly haven't seen evidence of large numbers of people switching because of these issues.

When Dish reports their numbers, the churn rate seems to be as bad in a quarter when they lost no channels as one in which they lose some.


----------



## MilFan

CoolGui said:


> I really don't think this is much of an issue if you really want to change. The early termination fee is really not that bad and it's prorated pretty fairly so if something bothers you that bad, just bite the bullet, pay the few bucks and move one.


If I'm remembering correctly, through my bundle package, 2-year agreement, it is around $18/month to early terminate. Since I just joined, that is $432.


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> The box of chocolates didn't work... so how about this...
> 
> Dish is a buffet.
> 
> You can pay for the salad buffet
> You can pay for the salad + dinner buffet
> You can pay for the salad + dinner + dessert buffet
> 
> *Usually there are gummy bears on the dessert buffet... but if they stop having them, you can't complain because there is never a guarantee of what will or will not be on the buffet tomorrow. You are only guaranteed to get what is on the buffet that day.*
> .


Thats not a far comparison either, if you dont eat the buffet but go elsewhere instead you dont get charged an arm and a leg. If they dont have what you want you are free to go where they might at no cost to you other then the gas you wasted to get there. Thats all people are asking for here as well.

You also said something about not being under contract. I completely agree with that but its hard not to be these day with almost everything starting a new contract with the providers. I have mostly owned equipment with D* and I have no intention on adding anything that is going to renew me for 2 years unless the new TiVo blows me away or something like that. I think more people should go owned and get out from under the boot of the provider. Does E* even have owned equipment? Thats a real questions because I dont know the answer to it. I dont really see people on here selling owned E* receivers.


----------



## joshjr

CoolGui said:


> I really don't think this is much of an issue if you really want to change. The early termination fee is really not that bad and it's prorated pretty fairly so if something bothers you that bad, just bite the bullet, pay the few bucks and move one.


Its fair for the most part but I think there could be room for improvement onlong the lines of if X amount of stations are dropped within a package or any major local broadcast stations either within the first few months of being with them.

The provider could not he happy gaining a new customer and pissing them totally off 1-3 months later. That can not be good for business. Overall its a decent fee but could be improved just like everything else in life.


----------



## CoolGui

MilFan said:


> If I'm remembering correctly, through my bundle package, 2-year agreement, it is around $18/month to early terminate. Since I just joined, that is $432.


It's 17.50 x month remaining in contract, but the maximum fee is $240 $420

http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/DHA_Agreement.pdf


----------



## Jhon69

MilFan said:


> I have Dish, and I just switched two weeks ago so I am SOL in terms of switching, plus TV is not the only service I get. Previously with DirecTV, happy with the service and channels, but the internet provider they bundle with did not service my neighborhood. Saw that Dish was cheaper for TV/phone/internet than I was paying for just DirecTV/internet currently, so I decided to switch. The most ironic thing about this is that there was only one channel I checked on in my first call to make sure it was available, Fox Sports. I made a 2nd call to a manager two days before installation asking about the Fox vs. Dish dispute after seeing it here. He assured me it was just a rumor and there was no way they would lose channels affecting that many sports fans. So then I decided to get it done. You know the rest.
> 
> But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.


Nothing wrong with being on the soap box I have been there myself with both Dish network and DirecTV.Hopefully you will find something to watch in the 9000s in the guide.Heck I remember when I was first with Dish we lost the Viacom channels and all we got was 1 PPV credit,so it would look like that's improving with HD Net Movies and HD Theater and several channels in Dish network's MultiSports package.


----------



## Santana

CoolGui said:


> I really don't think this is much of an issue if you really want to change. The early termination fee is really not that bad and it's prorated pretty fairly so if something bothers you that bad, just bite the bullet, pay the few bucks and move one.


I agree. No one is being held hostage by their contract. I was fed up with DISH a couple of years ago, paid my ETF and left.

I do feel for those of you who just entered into contracts though. It'd be nice if either satellite provider offered a 30-day trial to figure out if you like the product first.


----------



## fatpug

Is Dish offering any credit to sports package subscribers?


----------



## VDP07

CoolGui said:


> It's 17.50 x month remaining in contract, but the maximum fee is *$240*
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/DHA_Agreement.pdf


Actually it is $420


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Thats becaus people dont sign up for future channels. They sign up because a provider has what they want at that time.


:icon_lol::rolling::rolling::rolling::icon_lol:

Perhaps they SHOULDN'T sign up for future channels but you know as well as anyone else here that people DO sign up for future channels all the time. DirecTV users keep a list in the HD anticipation thread.

The same mentality as people who assume a channel will never be removed from the service or (as both DISH and DirecTV have done) moved to a higher package level.

People who know better know that no channel in your package is guaranteed to stay there and no channel not in your package is guaranteed to be added. That's life. There are no guarantees.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Jhon, you say, 

But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.

I would argue that it goes beyond the integrity of the contract. It's about the average PayTv bill having gone up 122% since 1995, while Household TV consumption has gone up only 13% during that time frame.

If Fox is able to extract a significant rate hike this week, why won't another network, let's say Galavision, be able to ask for 400% more next time around. And wouldn't the Spanish-speaking audience have a right to complain, as you are now. And let's say that the Carrier acquiesces, and pays' Galavision its 400% more. Should you have to pay 1 dollar a month more (or whatever the number is) for a channel you don't watch?

I support E*, and I would support D* as well.


----------



## Cable Lover

As long as they have Fox News Channel, I'm a happy camper. I miss the FSN's, but they produce so little HD content, I rarely watch it anyway.


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Jhon, you say,
> 
> But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.
> 
> I would argue that it goes beyond the integrity of the contract. It's about the average PayTv bill having gone up 122% since 1995, while Household TV consumption has gone up only 13% during that time frame.
> 
> ...


Gloria, 2 things. The quote button is your friend. Also, just put the stat in your signature because you use it all the time...10 times out of your 98 posts. :nono2:


----------



## CoolGui

VDP07 said:


> Actually it is $420


Yeah I must have dyslexia.


----------



## James Long

VDP07 said:


> Actually it is $420


And considering it cost DISH $743 to acquire the customer asking for some of it back makes sense.


----------



## CoolGui

sigma1914, a bit off topic but why do you have the anti BBC America HD and AMC HD avatar? Piqued my curiosity I guess because I watch a ton of BBCA HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> You also said something about not being under contract. I completely agree with that but its hard not to be these day with almost everything starting a new contract with the providers. I have mostly owned equipment with D* and I have no intention on adding anything that is going to renew me for 2 years unless the new TiVo blows me away or something like that. I think more people should go owned and get out from under the boot of the provider. Does E* even have owned equipment? Thats a real questions because I dont know the answer to it. I dont really see people on here selling owned E* receivers.


I assume DirecTV works the same way as Dish here, but I could be wrong.

With Dish, you can pay full price for the install up front and not have any commitment at all. This means you pay more to start with Dish but have no obligation at all should you choose to leave at any point.

Same thing applies for upgrades. You are eligible for reduced-price upgrades after a while if your account is in good standing.. but taking those requires a commitment. Once again, you can choose to pay more and have no commitment.

For all of that, I am talking lease scenarios.

You can always buy your own equipment and have no commitment that way either... but that costs even more of course.

The point still remains, though, that most customers choose the equipment discounts and don't think about the commitment... then if something goes wrong somehow they forget that they willingly committed to receive an up-front discount.

Same thing happens with smartphones like the iPhone. I hear people complaining about AT&T not letting them upgrade early and how mad they are about it... except they didn't want to pay full price and they accepted the subsidized phone and agreed to the commitment. As with Dish, your cellphone provider will let you pay full price at any time you want in lieu of a commitment.

Some folk just want their cake and a treat to eat too... they want their discounts and free install or free equipment or temporary account credits but then conveniently forget about that agreement and commitment.


----------



## SayWhat?

inazsully said:


> Nobody, NOBODY signs with the understanding that they are subscribing to a service.
> 
> Why do you think they offer different packages in the first place.
> 
> Nobody misunderstood what they signed.


I did.

Flexibility in the amount one wants to pay.

I didn't. I understood it could change periodically.



joshjr said:


> How can you say that? Do you really think most people will stay with a provider if they switch up content very much?


I've been on Dish since the mid 90s. Channel lineup has changed quite a few times. Channels come, channels go. No problem for me.


----------



## inazsully

CoolGui said:


> It's 17.50 x month remaining in contract, but the maximum fee is $240 $420
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/DHA_Agreement.pdf


Why do people keep bringing up the termination fee? It's been mentioned here several times that "D" will pay for the termination fee. Not sure about other cable companies.


----------



## phrelin

The truth of the matter is that a lot of folks have no idea what the implications are in the paper they sign. If they did, we wouldn't have had The Great Recession because everyone would have understood that a $0 down payment to buy a home with a first year interest only mortgage is an impossible trap.

So I believe people when they tell us they "didn't sign up for this." There's no excuse for being so unaware, not even "it was so cheap," but I believe them.


----------



## James Long

inazsully said:


> Why do people keep bringing up the termination fee? It's been mentioned here several times that "D" will pay for the termination fee. Not sure about other cable companies.


The rulez:Early Cancellation Fee (ECF) offer for customers in a commitment with another television provider, who add advanced DIRECTV equipment and who follow the instructions on the ECF offer form provided at directv.com/rebate. Form must be completed and mailed with customer's original final bill which includes applicable ECF charge(s). Postmarked no greater than 90 days from the date of last activation with DIRECTV. Final ECF fee will be reimbursed in the form of a DIRECTV Visa® Prepaid Card up to $200 mailed to active DIRECTV account. DIRECTV Visa Prepaid Cards are issued by MetaBank™ pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. This card does not have cash access and can be used at any merchants that accept Visa debit cards. Card valid through expiration date shown on front of card. High-Speed Internet and Voice ECF charges are not eligible.​They will send you a card that gives you $200 in merchandise (no cash access) if you qualify and follow the rules. The card is supposed to arrive in 8-12 weeks (that's 2-3 months).

It is funny ... searching for the rebate on the internet I found mostly complaints about people not getting the rebates DirecTV promised.


----------



## Eksynyt

DirecTV will clean up on this if local Fox stations go out for months, which I guarantee will happen because Charlie is just gonna go down with the ship. We will all be D* subscribers within a year at this rate.


----------



## Cable Lover

I just realized I'm getting the SD feed of NFL Network. That's better then FSN during football season. :righton:


----------



## SergeantPinback

Jhon69 said:


> Nothing wrong with being on the soap box I have been there myself with both Dish network and DirecTV.Hopefully you will find something to watch in the 9000s in the guide.Heck I remember when I was first with Dish we lost the Viacom channels and all we got was 1 PPV credit,so it would look like that's improving with HD Net Movies and HD Theater and several channels in Dish network's MultiSports package.


I don't have the sports channels. I lost FX and NATGEO and got two channels, (HDNET Movies and HD Theater), that I already pay for. So, no compensation for me at all. If Dish knocked a couple of bucks off a month until they get those two channels back, that would show me something.

I've been reading post after post about early termination fees and one question keeps coming to me. If you're cancelling Dish and never want anything more to do with them, exactly how are they going to get money out of you? I mean, if they start losing channels to the point that I have to go elsewhere, contract or not, I'm gonna tell them to go fish. Not there yet and I'm not sure that I would even care that much about losing my local FOX, if that happens November 1st, but I'm just saying. Are they gonna send a goon to my house to break my legs? Well, I guess they could sue, although they'd be out of luck trying to collect anything from someone who gets a retirement and/or Social Security. Also, that would make for a nice little PR nightmare for them.


----------



## tsmacro

Since I work for a call center that sells Dish I was really expecting this whole thing to be kind of a PITA figuring i'd be getting fairly regular calls about this. So far I've taken one call about it, not exactly an uproar. We'll see what happens once the regular seasons of hockey and basketball start.


----------



## Jhon69

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Jhon, you say,
> 
> But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.
> 
> I would argue that it goes beyond the integrity of the contract. It's about the average PayTv bill having gone up 122% since 1995, while Household TV consumption has gone up only 13% during that time frame.
> 
> If Fox is able to extract a significant rate hike this week, why won't another network, let's say Galavision, be able to ask for 400% more next time around. And wouldn't the Spanish-speaking audience have a right to complain, as you are now. And let's say that the Carrier acquiesces, and pays' Galavision its 400% more. Should you have to pay 1 dollar a month more (or whatever the number is) for a channel you don't watch?
> 
> I support E*, and I would support D* as well.





MilFan said:


> I have Dish, and I just switched two weeks ago so I am SOL in terms of switching, plus TV is not the only service I get. Previously with DirecTV, happy with the service and channels, but the internet provider they bundle with did not service my neighborhood. Saw that Dish was cheaper for TV/phone/internet than I was paying for just DirecTV/internet currently, so I decided to switch. The most ironic thing about this is that there was only one channel I checked on in my first call to make sure it was available, Fox Sports. I made a 2nd call to a manager two days before installation asking about the Fox vs. Dish dispute after seeing it here. He assured me it was just a rumor and there was no way they would lose channels affecting that many sports fans. So then I decided to get it done. You know the rest.
> 
> But I'll get off my soap box, it appears most people are more concerned about integrity of Dish contract language than customers being happy with their service. Didn't know that was the purpose of this forum.





Jhon69 said:


> Nothing wrong with being on the soap box I have been there myself with both Dish network and DirecTV.Hopefully you will find something to watch in the 9000s in the guide.Heck I remember when I was first with Dish we lost the Viacom channels and all we got was 1 PPV credit,so it would look like that's improving with HD Net Movies and HD Theater and several channels in Dish network's MultiSports package.


Gloria?.It wasn't me that said I will get off my soapbox it was MilFan.I support Dish network.

P.S. That's 1 click each on Multi Quote and 1 click on Quote for the last quote.


----------



## Jhon69

SergeantPinback said:


> I don't have the sports channels. I lost FX and NATGEO and got two channels, (HDNET Movies and HD Theater), that I already pay for. So, no compensation for me at all. If Dish knocked a couple of bucks off a month until they get those two channels back, that would show me something.
> 
> I've been reading post after post about early termination fees and one question keeps coming to me. If you're cancelling Dish and never want anything more to do with them, exactly how are they going to get money out of you? I mean, if they start losing channels to the point that I have to go elsewhere, contract or not, I'm gonna tell them to go fish. Not there yet and I'm not sure that I would even care that much about losing my local FOX, if that happens November 1st, but I'm just saying. Are they gonna send a goon to my house to break my legs? Well, I guess they could sue, although they'd be out of luck trying to collect anything from someone who gets a retirement and/or Social Security. Also, that would make for a nice little PR nightmare for them.


Your problem with not having the sports channels puzzles me,is your guide on "All Channels" at the top of the guide?.If so they should be listed in the 9000 range in "All Channels".What receiver do you have?.I have the 625 and they are there.


----------



## Jhon69

Eksynyt said:


> DirecTV will clean up on this if local Fox stations go out for months, which I guarantee will happen because Charlie is just gonna go down with the ship. We will all be D* subscribers within a year at this rate.


If that happens I will be OTA and a Roku box subscriber.


----------



## Darcaine

James Long said:


> The rulez:Early Cancellation Fee (ECF) offer for customers in a commitment with another television provider, who add advanced DIRECTV equipment and who follow the instructions on the ECF offer form provided at directv.com/rebate. Form must be completed and mailed with customer's original final bill which includes applicable ECF charge(s). Postmarked no greater than 90 days from the date of last activation with DIRECTV. Final ECF fee will be reimbursed in the form of a DIRECTV Visa® Prepaid Card up to $200 mailed to active DIRECTV account. DIRECTV Visa Prepaid Cards are issued by MetaBank™ pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. This card does not have cash access and can be used at any merchants that accept Visa debit cards. Card valid through expiration date shown on front of card. High-Speed Internet and Voice ECF charges are not eligible.​They will send you a card that gives you $200 in merchandise (no cash access) if you qualify and follow the rules. The card is supposed to arrive in 8-12 weeks (that's 2-3 months).
> 
> It is funny ... searching for the rebate on the internet I found mostly complaints about people not getting the rebates DirecTV promised.


You may still be able to take it to a bank and get cash out of it. I've gotten those prepaid visa debit card rebates before that claimed no cash access, and they still let me cash it at my local bank. But even if you couldn't, you can use it anywhere visa is excepted, so it's not like you are required to spend it at bed bath and beyond or something.

Anyway, I've never had any troubles getting Directv rebates...but then, everyone's experience in life is different.

I'm just glad I left Dish years and years ago. This would be very disheartening to lose 2 of the channels I originally signed up for (FX, NatGeo) and still be under contract and having to do business with the company screwing me from behind (glad my contract with D* ends next month, so if they tried pulling this I could turn tail and run).


----------



## sigma1914

CoolGui said:


> sigma1914, a bit off topic but why do you have the anti BBC America HD and AMC HD avatar? Piqued my curiosity I guess because I watch a ton of BBCA HD.


It's kind of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm for all the whining for addition of the 2 stations in HD on the DirecTV side.


----------



## James Long

Darcaine said:


> You may still be able to take it to a bank and get cash out of it. I've gotten those prepaid visa debit card rebates before that claimed no cash access, and they still let me cash it at my local bank.


Something they should not have done.


> (glad my contract with D* ends next month, so if they tried pulling this I could turn tail and run).


To whom? Every provider has their own problems.



sigma1914 said:


> It's kind of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm for all the whining for addition of the 2 stations in HD on the DirecTV side.


I look at it as a status report on two channels that DISH customers somewhat enjoy (although happy threads about channels people get are not the norm on either side of the site).


----------



## HobbyTalk

SergeantPinback said:


> I've been reading post after post about early termination fees and one question keeps coming to me. If you're cancelling Dish and never want anything more to do with them, exactly how are they going to get money out of you? I mean, if they start losing channels to the point that I have to go elsewhere, contract or not, I'm gonna tell them to go fish. Not there yet and I'm not sure that I would even care that much about losing my local FOX, if that happens November 1st, but I'm just saying. Are they gonna send a goon to my house to break my legs? Well, I guess they could sue, although they'd be out of luck trying to collect anything from someone who gets a retirement and/or Social Security. Also, that would make for a nice little PR nightmare for them.


They will just turn it over to a collection agency. It's up to you to decide if you want to pay the commitment you agreed to or shuck your responsibilities. Of course your dodging payment means others will pay for your bills through higher subscription fees.... I'm sure that will make you feel good about not paying


----------



## CoolGui

Darcaine said:


> ...glad my contract with D* ends next month, so if they tried pulling this I could turn tail and run...


Right into another 24 month contract?  Even Comcast was doing them here for a while, they used to brag about "No contracts" but I guess they wanted to be competitive with the satellite promotional pricing. A quick look at their site now and they seem to be gone... Guess cable is your only choice?

More Info: To be clear, I'm not completely being funny here.. Now that those Ceton InfiniTV 4 tuners are shipping, if I ever get one I will be jumping back to cable to get my local RSNs, using win 7 media center and an Xbox 360 in the back room as an extender for MRV


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> I look at it as a status report on two channels that DISH customers somewhat enjoy (although happy threads about channels people get are not the norm on either side of the site).


I promise it's in no way relating to Dish or this side...I rarely post here on this side, but this topic is interesting. It's really a joke for those who put the channel they want as their avi on the Directv side. I like AMC's original programs a lot.

I'd love every HD channel on every provider...It'd drive prices down.


----------



## CoolGui

sigma1914 said:


> I promise it's in no way relating to Dish or this side...


I did not take it that way, I just did not catch on. For some reason I thought DirecTV had those, I thought the HD was pretty even these days. I guess there are channel here and there that are off though.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> I'd love every HD channel on every provider...It'd drive prices down.


Or up as our carriers pay for the channels and pass that charge on to us, the consumer. Even "free" (no extra charge for HD) channels cost the satellite company in bandwidth ... increasing bandwidth requires increasing the number of expensive satellites. Receivers, encoders and transport at the uplink. Every channel added costs money. They even have to pay the guys who negotiate the best deals for the company.

We'll have every HD channel eventually ... likely via channel providers who will (if they do not already) require HD carriage to get the existing SD channels. But it won't come "free".


----------



## Hoosier205

I have posted a question, which involves this topic, in the "lineup comparison" thread. It would be helpful if a few Dish subs could chime in with their thoughts. Thank you.


----------



## jerbear4

Do I think Dish will suffer as a result of not carrying most Fox stations at the moment? Actually no because if you look other providers go through a struggle with providers wanting to raise their rates and the channels being pulled. I mean look at the VS situatin for Direct customers. Sure some say they will switch providers but in all reality that is just too much bother for most people including myself. For me I actually am not going to miss some of those Fox channels especially FX which I really never watched. Although I do know that most now are probably complaining about missing some motorcycle gang show. Besides, I think that the situation will be resolved as well. So sure Fox is raising the rates and Dish will not pay. However the ones suffering now are the sponsors on the Fox networks. For now there are all those dish subscribers not watching their ads. So if I was a sponsor I would look elsewhere simply to reach all customers I could. Look back to the Viacom situation where I think sponsors were hurting and they came to an instant agreement. For now though by missing a few fox stations is not going to take Charlie down as some may think. If that was the situation then the Viacom fiasco back in 2004 would have taken him down.


----------



## Darcaine

CoolGui said:


> Right into another 24 month contract?  Even Comcast was doing them here for a while, they used to brag about "No contracts" but I guess they wanted to be competitive with the satellite promotional pricing. A quick look at their site now and they seem to be gone... Guess cable is your only choice?
> 
> More Info: To be clear, I'm not completely being funny here.. Now that those Ceton InfiniTV 4 tuners are shipping, if I ever get one I will be jumping back to cable to get my local RSNs, using win 7 media center and an Xbox 360 in the back room as an extender for MRV


I will most likely just forgo a provider and switch to OTA/Hulu+/Netflix.

Won't get all the shows I would want, but then again, I wouldn't be paying out the nose and not getting the channels I care about.

That's where it's headed for me anyway, I already use Hulu for half of my TV viewing, I've just not been ready to give up my HD DVR.


----------



## Paul Secic

DodgerKing said:


> One of the few? Out here in CA alone, 4 of our 5 teams have OTA broadcast: Dodgers (KCAL 9), Angels (KCOP - My13), Giants (KNTV - NBC 11), A's (KRON - My4).


KRON doesn't carry A's, never dd. They just have lots of news, infomercials ETC.


----------



## chum76

Darcaine said:


> I will most likely just forgo a provider and switch to OTA/Hulu+/Netflix.
> 
> Won't get all the shows I would want, but then again, I wouldn't be paying out the nose and not getting the channels I care about.
> 
> That's where it's headed for me anyway, I already use Hulu for half of my TV viewing, I've just not been ready to give up my HD DVR.


I have been doing it for months. OTA + Internet. I just got done watching hoarders on A&E.com..........next thing on my list is FTA.


----------



## TBoneit

I'll speculate that we need to see how Cablevision makes out with Fox NYC & Phila. locals on the 16th. Then we can see where Dishnetwork may be going. It kind of kaboshes my plan to record the Local Fox channel if E* lost them however:shrug:. I've been wanting to get a OTA antenna anyway. If it weren't for the foil sided foam under the siding I'd probably be OK with Rabbit ears. I put a link to the whole article below as well as an excerpt.

From Here:
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/pr...me-for-ny-giants-and-philadelphia-eagles-fans

On October 16th, Murdoch's WNYW and WWOR in New York along with Philadelphia's WTXF could disappear from Cablevision's lineup which would deprive Cablevision subscribers of New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles and NFL games


----------



## VDP07

James Long said:


> And considering it cost DISH $743 to acquire the customer asking for some of it back makes sense.


Agree completely, and a new customer if they choose, can avoid any ETF by paying a $99.00 activation fee to avoid any term commitment. They would not recieve the current $15.00 mo. discount or the $6"Service Plan" however.


----------



## Paul Secic

sigma1914 said:


> Most reports say 2 million. The real money is made off ST from commercial accounts (bars, casinos, etc). Their prices are high!


And Golden Gate Field in San Mateo, ponies


----------



## 63thk

will this affect NHL Center ICE since many of the game feeds come from the RSNs. Also I hear the 1st month of Center Ice will be a free preview.


----------



## 63thk

Anyone have any insight into what the next DirecTV deal will be? The Sunday ticket ends deal ends in a few days. If they happen to have a Center Ice deal coming up I may just make the move. I have been with DISH for many years ,but I am getting tired of the endless disputes. I know all providers have carriage problems,but it certainly seems the DISH leads the pack in that area.


----------



## zimm7778

You can call and ask, but I don't believe they do any sign up deals with any other sports package, at the very least I don't remember them advertising one.


----------



## Michael P

How come FSN Pittsburgh is not only still on but now available to everybody?


----------



## James Long

Michael P said:


> How come FSN Pittsburgh is not only still on but now available to everybody?


FS Pittsburgh is not part of the dispute.
DISH has opened up all the remaining RSNs to those who lost Fox or MSG, plus a few other sports channels.


----------



## sorentodd45

> _Do I think Dish will suffer as a result of not carrying most Fox stations at the moment? Actually no because if you look other providers go through a struggle with providers wanting to raise their rates and the channels being pulled. I mean look at the VS situation for Direct customers._


I don't think that's a fair comparison. Versus's main selling point are the out of market NHL games. And we all know what a niche sport hockey is.

With FSN, you have Fox Sports West (huge Lakers fanbase), Sun Sports Florida (Heat with LeBron), and Fox Sports North (the Wild, which have great local ratings).

Kind of like comparing apples and oranges.

Personally, I think Dish is going to take a *huge* PR hit over this whole mess. And if they lose the regular FOX network on 11-1, that may be something that they will never recover from.


----------



## weirdude2304

FSN Pittsburgh is one of several RSNs that DirecTV bought out a year or two ago.



* DIRECTV Sports Networks
* FSN Northwest
* FSN Pittsburgh
* FSN Rocky Mountain


----------



## SayWhat?

sorentodd45 said:


> Personally, I think Dish is going to take a *huge* PR hit over this whole mess.


Other way around. Fox is the villan here.


----------



## phrelin

sorentodd45 said:


> Personally, I think Dish is going to take a *huge* PR hit over this whole mess. And if they lose the regular FOX network on 11-1, that may be something that they will never recover from.


Unless, of course, the Fox channels disappear off Cablevision in New York City and Philadelphia at the same time over the same issue - a price increase. At that point, the PR badness would clearly and permanently accrue to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.


----------



## DodgerKing

SayWhat? said:


> Other way around. Fox is the villan here.


No matter if they are the villain or not, it will be Dish that will suffer more in the PR department. Customers pay Dish directly, they do not pay Fox directly. Plus, Dish represents only a very very small percentage of all paying TV subs. Therefor all others subs are not affected and do not care. Most of those concerned are the Dish subs paying for TV. When they see a channel not on Dish but yet still on other providers, they get upset at Dish, not the company supplying said channels


----------



## DodgerKing

phrelin said:


> Unless, of course, the Fox channels disappear off Cablevision in New Your City and Philadelphia at the same time over the same issue - a price increase. At that point, the PR badness would clearly and permanently accrue to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.


Yep

If it were to occur on multiple providers at the same time or one after another, then Fox would look more like the bad guy. Since it is Dish that is having disputes with 3 companies (Disney, Fox, MSG) at the same time currently, it is Dish that is viewed as more of the bad guy by most people (even if they do not deserve it)


----------



## kariato

People keep forgetting the Times (UK) pay-wall fiasco. Rupert Murdoch put a subscription pay-wall around on leading UK and its been a total failure on almost epic proportions. He keeps trying to increase revenue but his greed may get the better of him. Remember there is no love lost between Dish and NewsCorp over the failed direct tv takeover and even further back. Seems like both sides are digging in.


----------



## festivus

Is this still true? From wikipedia:

"In 2003, a merger with EchoStar, owner of Dish Network, fell through. On December 22, 2003, General Motors sold controlling interest in Hughes Electronics to News Corporation, forming the DirecTV Group. Certain conditions exist, however, in that News Corp must solve disputes with companies that carry its broadcast and cable channels. The corporation must treat all stations equally, not favor the Fox Network and FX.[9]

The arbitration was to alleviate concerns that Fox would pull its network programming, which includes professional baseball and football, off cable systems to encourage viewers to subscribe to DirecTV.

*News Corp. agreed not to pull either the network programming or its regional sports networks while a dispute was being arbitrated."*

Then I see this:

"In November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its managing interest in The DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's shares in News Corp., giving the Murdoch family tighter control of the latter firm. On February 29, 2008, after receiving FCC approval, Liberty completed its acquisition of News Corporation's shares of DirecTV. "

So even though Murdoch may not own DirecTV now, he still must have some type of stake in it. Seems like he got around any conflict of interest by sellling out to Liberty.

Murdoch really is something. You know that he considered any PR ramifications ahead of time. He knows that the uninformed public will blame Dish, not Fox, and will jump ship to DirecTV or some other provider. No matter who is really to blame for this. He's a brilliant man.

I get locals OTA so I wouldn't care if Dish lost all Fox stations. That is, if Dish gave me a price cut in turn. I see what's going on here and really don't care to pad the pockets of the likes of Murdoch. I hope that Charlie stands firm and does his best to educate the public. But I have a feeling that it would end badly for him.

10/16 should be interesting.


----------



## kariato

Agreed RM is a very skilled man and not to be underestimated. Does this still take effect after DirectTv was sold by NewsCorp to Liberty Media.


----------



## MilFan

The worst part is that there is no updates anywhere on this. Fox can say whatever, Dish can say whatever, and nobody knows when they get their channels back. 

Day one of NBA preseason tonight. I'm sure many will find out for the first time. Get this done Dish and Fox!!


----------



## bnborg

My local Fox station is advertising that Dish Network subscribers will lose the station as provided by Dish November 1. It goes on to list Direc-TV and cable providers that will have it and posts a phone number and web site for more info.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> The worst part is that there is no updates anywhere on this. Fox can say whatever, Dish can say whatever, and nobody knows when they get their channels back.


At this point the Fox says/DISH says is the only update to expect. When a deal is cut the channels will be back before any announcement. They don't sign a deal then wait to return channels.



> Day one of NBA preseason tonight. I'm sure many will find out for the first time. Get this done Dish and Fox!!


Do you get CSN Chicago? Looks good at halftime ... for the Bulls.


----------



## MilFan

Don't you mean "if a deal is cut"? I've come to expect the worst at this point because that is how my luck rolls. It would be awesome to get the addition of losing Packer games on top of this as well.

Why would I get CSN Chicago in the Madison, WI market?


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Don't you mean "if a deal is cut"? I've come to expect the worst at this point because that is how my luck rolls.


It is not all about you. The worst would be if you went back to DirecTV, ate $220 of the $420 ETF ($200 rebated by DirecTV, maybe) and a deal was signed the day after you were back at DirecTV.

Major channels come back. There is no "if" there is just a "when". As previously stated my expectation is early November if this week passes without resolution. It is just the ebb and flow of such things. Last minute deals - or a couple days off - or the next major event - or a long battle. At some point a deal WILL be made.



> Why would I get CSN Chicago in the Madison, WI market?


I get it in the South Bend Market ... and you might get it on 9669 if the game isn't blacked out in your area.


----------



## packerfan31

Is our local fox channels affected or just the sports regional and fx


----------



## James Long

packerfan31 said:


> Is our local fox channels affected or just the sports regional and fx


Today: Just sveral local FoxSports, FX and NatGeo
Nov 1st: O&O Fox TV stations (a list was posted earlier in the thread).

If your local Fox isn't owned by Fox (just an affiliate) it will not be lost.


----------



## mnassour

Well, it looks like I've chosen a heck of a time to consider coming back to Dish!:lol:

At any rate, I can live without FoxSports for a while, especially given what's happened to UT (Texas) Football this year.:ramblinon But can I assume that if I have either a 722/612 or 612/612 combo WITH the internal off-air tuner, that I will still be able to get my local channels off air? I would THINK that any retransmission shutoff would affect only the sat-delivered signals, and NOT what the receivers would pick up off air.


----------



## Hoosier205

This dispute will hurt a bit, but Nov. 1st is certainly the date to watch. The primary Fox network yields more power and visibility than these others. These are the types of disputes that can really set the market for other negotiations.


----------



## James Long

mnassour said:


> I would THINK that any retransmission shutoff would affect only the sat-delivered signals, and NOT what the receivers would pick up off air.


Correct. OTA reception of a local Fox will not be stopped.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Correct. OTA reception of a local Fox will not be stopped.


So only those owned stations and it affects only those who cannot get OTA.

And if Cablevision loses the Fox stations in New York and Philadelphia, what percentage could buy a decent set top antenna and get the channel? These are fairly densely packed urban areas.

I wonder how many customers we're talking about here? And I wonder how the Nielsen folks will handle the ratings for Fox?


----------



## RasputinAXP

phrelin said:


> So only those owned stations and it affects only those who cannot get OTA.
> 
> And if Cablevision loses the Fox stations in New York and Philadelphia, what percentage could buy a decent set top antenna and get the channel? These are fairly densely packed urban areas.
> 
> I wonder how many customers we're talking about here? And I wonder how the Nielsen folks will handle the ratings for Fox?


Well, Fox 29 in Philly is pretty easy to pick up since it's on UHF 42. If it were ABC VHF-6, we'd be up a creek.


----------



## SergeantPinback

HobbyTalk said:


> They will just turn it over to a collection agency. It's up to you to decide if you want to pay the commitment you agreed to or shuck your responsibilities. Of course your dodging payment means others will pay for your bills through higher subscription fees.... I'm sure that will make you feel good about not paying


I've got no problem with that.

I'm on the hook for a 350K mortgage for a home that I've watched slip in value over the last four years, to about 175K, because the rich and powerful in this country decided to screw with the economy.

The way I figure it, I've got a lot more coming to me before I even break even and anyone who wants money out of me is gonna have to fight hard to get it, especially when they go back on the service they are supposed to provide.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Festivus said:


> Is this still true? From wikipedia:
> 
> "In 2003, a merger with EchoStar, owner of Dish Network, fell through. On December 22, 2003, General Motors sold controlling interest in Hughes Electronics to News Corporation, forming the DirecTV Group. Certain conditions exist, however, in that News Corp must solve disputes with companies that carry its broadcast and cable channels. The corporation must treat all stations equally, not favor the Fox Network and FX.[9]
> 
> The arbitration was to alleviate concerns that Fox would pull its network programming, which includes professional baseball and football, off cable systems to encourage viewers to subscribe to DirecTV.
> 
> *News Corp. agreed not to pull either the network programming or its regional sports networks while a dispute was being arbitrated."*
> 
> Then I see this:
> 
> "In November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its managing interest in The DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's shares in News Corp., giving the Murdoch family tighter control of the latter firm. On February 29, 2008, after receiving FCC approval, Liberty completed its acquisition of News Corporation's shares of DirecTV. "
> 
> So even though Murdoch may not own DirecTV now, he still must have some type of stake in it. Seems like he got around any conflict of interest by sellling out to Liberty.


It is true in the sense that it is a fairly decent timeline. The missing component is what happened after Liberty took over DirecTV...

NewsCorp does not have a stake in DirecTV. John Malone and Liberty Media had about a 17 percent stake in NewsCorp, and to get John Malone out of that stake, Murdoch traded DirecTV for that stake. That firmly made Liberty the largest stakeholder.

Sometime last year, NewsCorp addressed the conditions set forth by the FCC regarding the merger. Because NewsCorp no longer had a stake in DirecTV, the arbitration rule was voided, because NewsCorp is no longer distributing multichannel programming.

Liberty then had to divest DirecTV for some reason. What was once a 40 percent controlling stake has been reduced to a pile of common stock that only controls about 6 percent of the company. DirecTV is now an independent company, just like Dish Network.

BTW, Comcast has that same provision regarding all of its RSN programming except for CSN Philadelphia. During the Versus dispute, the remaining CSN sports nets were on DirecTV during the arbitration process.


----------



## Hoosier205

SergeantPinback said:


> I've got no problem with that.
> 
> I'm on the hook for a 350K mortgage for a home that I've watched slip in value over the last four years, to about 175K, because the rich and powerful in this country decided to screw with the economy.
> 
> The way I figure it, I've got a lot more coming to me before I even break even and anyone who wants money out of me is gonna have to fight hard to get it, especially when they go back on the service they are supposed to provide.


Who went back on the service they are supposed to provide? Dish Network certainly didn't. They are still providing you with the same service you have been paying for.


----------



## mnassour

Hoosier205 said:


> Who went back on the service they are supposed to provide? Dish Network certainly didn't. They are still providing you with the same service you have been paying for.


Wellllll......I think his view is that if Dish cuts off any channels (for any reason whatsoever) then he is not getting the service for which he signed up. Yes, I know Dish reserves the right to change programming, blah, blah, blah, but tell that to someone who's just been denied their football game.

I'm thinking of jumping back on the Dish train from Direct myself. But fiascoes like this certainly don't make it any easier.


----------



## Hoosier205

Some people refuse to accept that they subscribe to a service which provides various channels which are subject to change. Customers were not promised these channels when they signed up. They were included then, they are not included now, and they were always subject to change. If a customer fails to understand that...we can only help so much.


----------



## levibluewa

Greg Bimson said:


> NewsCorp does not have a stake in DirecTV. John Malone and Liberty Media had about a 17 percent stake in NewsCorp, and to get John Malone out of that stake, Murdoch traded DirecTV for that stake. That firmly made Liberty the largest stakeholder.


Directv crashed and burned after Liberty and John Malone took over and it shows no sign of improvement...they're sucking the $$$ out of the operation and ignoring the subs.

RE: DISH and FOX...AAD (Sobongo) offers WNYW 5 (NYC sd), WFLD 32 (Chicago hd), KTVU 2 (Oakland sd), and KTTV 11 (LA hd). AAD is "not" suppose to be DISH, so it may be an alternative for some...that is if you're not on EA (Eastern Arc) !!!


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> Some people refuse to accept that they subscribe to a service which provides various channels which are subject to change. Customers were not promised these channels when they signed up. They were included then, they are not included now, and they were always subject to change. If a customer fails to understand that...we can only help so much.


How many times can you say the same thing over and over? The above doesn't help ease the burden of people losing their favorite channels. When people come on this forum they are looking for a little empathy AS A CUSTOMER. It's like we have Dish Network lawyers all over this site.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> How many times can you say the same thing over and over? The above doesn't help ease the burden of people losing their favorite channels. When people come on this forum they are looking for a little empathy AS A CUSTOMER. It's like we have Dish Network lawyers all over this site.


So you'd rather lie to them in order to make them feel better? These are adults and they should be able to handle the truth...the reality of the situation. The dispute over these channels isn't a free ticket out of a customer's agreement. We are all big boys and girls here. Either stay for the remainder of the commitment you agreed to or pay the ETF you agreed to. Those are the only options available. Someone saying that Dish Network isn't living up to their end of the agreement because of these channels is incorrect. It just isn't true and the sooner they figure that out, the better off they will be. There is no burden to ease. If you want the channels, get out of your commitment and sign on with a provider that offers them. If you don't want to do that then you'll just have to wait until this dispute has ended.

It is one thing to be upset by the dispute. That is understandable. What is ludicrous and just plain silly is the assertion that Dish Network should void their agreement with a customer because of this dispute.


----------



## MysteryMan

MilFan said:


> How many times can you say the same thing over and over? The above doesn't help ease the burden of people losing their favorite channels. When people come on this forum they are looking for a little empathy AS A CUSTOMER. It's like we have Dish Network lawyers all over this site.


Am not a lawyer but it's quite obivious DISH needs to spruce up their negotiating tactics. First Disney, then Fox, now MSG. All in a short span of time. Not a good batting average. But I am not without empathy. After all it is you, the "paying" subscribers who are suffering the loss. Not DISH or the three broadcasters.


----------



## MilFan

MysteryMan said:


> Am not a lawyer but it's quite obivious DISH needs to spruce up their negotiating tactics. First Disney, then Fox, now MSG. All in a short span of time. Not a good batting average. But I am not without empathy. After all it is you, the "paying" subscribers who are suffering the loss. Not DISH or the three broadcasters.


Bingo.


----------



## phrelin

MilFan said:


> How many times can you say the same thing over and over? The above doesn't help ease the burden of people losing their favorite channels. When people come on this forum they are looking for a little empathy AS A CUSTOMER. It's like we have Dish Network lawyers all over this site.


I'm extremely irked that I'm losing "Sons of Anarchy" and "Terriers" on FX. I'm a scripted drama series nut. But I'm not looking for empathy, I'm looking for a way to do something about it by effecting change in the system.

As a viewer, my frustration is directed at the media conglomerates and Congress when these negotiations fall apart, not the signal providers.

You see, Dish and its competition appear not to be working in collusion.

On the other hand, the media conglomerates Disney, Fox, and NBCU in the past three decades have created vertical structures from production to channel, pushing out independent content creators, buying up channels, and acquiring key DMA broadcast stations. Note that these are the three media conglomerates now involved with HULU.

For the sports nuts, I don't understand why you aren't at least puzzling over the fact that this crap is going on after Congress exempted the leagues from anti-trust laws and at the same time deregulated to a significant degree those who control television.

As a scripted drama nut, I am furious that broadcast television was significantly deregulated and no one in Congress seemed to have the fortitude to stand up when the independent content producers were put out of business.

How can I be mad at Dish? At least Charlie is trying to keep these monopolistic thieves from picking my pocket further, a job Congress should be doing.


----------



## MysteryMan

phrelin said:


> I'm extremely irked that I'm losing "Sons of Anarchy" and "Terriers" on FX. I'm a scripted drama series nut. But I'm not looking for empathy, I'm looking for a way to do something about it by effecting change in the system.
> 
> As a viewer, my frustration is directed at the media conglomerates and Congress when these negotiations fall apart, not the signal providers.
> 
> You see, Dish and its competition appear not to be working in collusion.
> 
> On the other hand, the media conglomerates Disney, Fox, and NBCU in the past three decades have created vertical structures from production to channel, pushing out independent content creators, buying up channels, and acquiring key DMA broadcast stations. Note that these are the three media conglomerates now involved with HULU.
> 
> For the sports nuts, I don't understand why you aren't at least puzzling over the fact that this crap is going on after Congress exempted the leagues from anti-trust laws and at the same time deregulated to a significant degree those who control television.
> 
> As a scripted drama nut, I am furious that broadcast television was significantly deregulated and no one in Congress seemed to have the fortitude to stand up when the independent content producers were put out of business.
> 
> How can I be mad at Dish? At least Charlie is trying to keep these monopolistic thieves from picking my pocket further, a job Congress should be doing.


Congress: The opposite of progress!


----------



## Hoosier205

Oh lord...please don't get Congress involved more than they already are.


----------



## puckhead

phrelin said:


> ...At least Charlie is trying to keep these monopolistic thieves from picking my pocket further, a job Congress should be doing.


The same Congress whose campaigns are funded by said monopolistic thieves? Pass.


----------



## Joe Diver

For me, it was simple: I want my programming and I will go where it is offered.

I really don't care where the problem is. I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care who is blaming who. I just want my channels.

Fox and Dish look like a couple of kids in the playground who got mad at each other and threw their toys down on the ground...now won't talk to each other and just call names and "nya nya" taunts. All the while, the customer suffers.

I know for many the loss of FX, NatGeo and the Fox RSN's isn't a big deal, but it is for me. It is a "deal breaker". Not being able to see 62 of 82 Dallas Stars games this season is simply unacceptable....along with a few of my favorite shows on FX and NatGeo. They just shut off 30% of my TV watching.


----------



## swallman

Joe Diver said:


> For me, it was simple: I want my programming and I will go where it is offered.
> 
> I really don't care where the problem is. I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care who is blaming who. I just want my channels.
> 
> Fox and Dish look like a couple of kids in the playground who got mad at each other and threw their toys down on the ground...now won't talk to each other and just call names and "nya nya" taunts. All the while, the customer suffers.
> 
> I know for many the loss of FX, NatGeo and the Fox RSN's isn't a big deal, but it is for me. It is a "deal breaker". Not being able to see 62 of 82 Dallas Stars games this season is simply unacceptable....along with a few of my favorite shows on FX and NatGeo. They just shut off 30% of my TV watching.


This is EXACTLY the problem and looks terrible from a customer service standpoint for both companies.

From a customer's viewpoint, they really don't care who is at fault - they just want both side to get together and fix the problem. These contracts shouldn't be waiting until the last minute to get resolved - they should've been resolved months ago.

I love the Dish hardware/software and programming, but this is the #1 thing that really irks me about Dish - they just don't seem to have it together from a negotiating standpoint.


----------



## Hoosier205

Joe Diver said:


> For me, it was simple: I want my programming and I will go where it is offered.
> 
> I really don't care where the problem is. I don't care whose fault it is. I don't care who is blaming who. I just want my channels.
> 
> Fox and Dish look like a couple of kids in the playground who got mad at each other and threw their toys down on the ground...now won't talk to each other and just call names and "nya nya" taunts. All the while, the customer suffers.
> 
> I know for many the loss of FX, NatGeo and the Fox RSN's isn't a big deal, but it is for me. It is a "deal breaker". Not being able to see 62 of 82 Dallas Stars games this season is simply unacceptable....along with a few of my favorite shows on FX and NatGeo. They just shut off 30% of my TV watching.


Now that's what I like to hear. Either you put up with the issue until it is resolved or you are upset enough to go elsewhere. Where are you going for programming and when? Good luck.


----------



## Greg Bimson

levibluewa said:


> Directv crashed and burned after Liberty and John Malone took over and it shows no sign of improvement...they're sucking the $$$ out of the operation and ignoring the subs.


Hmm. Let me ponder this...

Liberty took over DirecTV in February, 2008. So let's do this comparasion...

In the 10 quarters reported since the takeover (the start of 2008 to the end of second quarter, 2010):

DirecTV: 2 million net new subscribers
Dish Network: 538,000 net new subscribers

In taking only financials from 2009, Liberty's only full year:

DirecTV revenues: $21.6 billion
Dish Network revenues: $11.6 billion

Or a reflection of the stock price:
January, 2008: DISH $33.48
Today: DISH $19.33 (down 42 percent)

January, 2008: DTV $21.58
Today: DTV $41.72 (up 93 percent)

DirecTV crashed and burned? You must be talking about someone else!


----------



## E91

Hoosier205 said:


> Now that's what I like to hear. Either you put up with the issue until it is resolved or you are upset enough to go elsewhere. Where are you going for programming and when? Good luck.


While I agree with you general sentiment, there is a problem here. Some are probably bound to E* through contractual agreements for a 2 year period. They signed up expecting to get all the channels that E* was advertising. Then, partway through the deal, they are told that they are not going to get one of the primary features they signed up for (namely sports coverage) but are still expected to honor their contracts. To me, that just seems plain unfair.

I'm fine with letting market forces dictate everything - if you don't like the programming choices offered by your provider then you hit the road. But, in that case, the 2-year commitment stuff should be flat-out illegal.

I'm sure E* and D* cover their butts in this situation, with fine print in the agreements. But, its a bait and switch thing and that just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## paja

MilFan said:


> Bingo.


All these recent loss of channels makes me extremely happy I dumped DISH some time ago. I left shortly after the VOOM debacle( still smarting over the loss of MONSTERS HD) and I figured that this sort of nonsense would continue. When they tried to get me to commit for 2 years for an upgrade, I dumped them and am now with a provider in which I have ZERO commitment.I knew back then getting locked in with DISH would be a disaster. Thank god for providers that give you the equipment with NO COMMITMENT!!


----------



## Joe Diver

Hoosier205 said:


> Now that's what I like to hear. Either you put up with the issue until it is resolved or you are upset enough to go elsewhere. Where are you going for programming and when? Good luck.


Tomorrow between Noon and 4:00....hello DirecTV! I will NOT miss the season opener Friday night.

I signed up for the NFL deal....so I get Sunday Ticket, plus Center Ice for less than I was paying a month for Dish. After all the promos my bill will be within $10 of what I was paying for Dish...I had everything with them and got the same with DirecTV.

My buddy, also a Dish subscriber, got the same package. He gets his DirecTV tomorrow too. There are a ton of folks on the Stars web who are switching, plus thousands of posts on the various FaceBook pages that have been setup who are saying the same. Considering the number as a percentage of the total subscriber base, it's barely even measurable...but hey...there are folks jumping ship over this.

Even the Dallas Stars are telling people to switch....maybe in not so many words...but they are.


----------



## Joe Diver

Dallas Stars and Dish <-- Link


----------



## Hoosier205

Joe Diver said:


> Tomorrow between Noon and 4:00....hello DirecTV! I will NOT miss the season opener Friday night.
> 
> I signed up for the NFL deal....so I get Sunday Ticket, plus Center Ice for less than I was paying a month for Dish. After all the promos my bill will be within $10 of what I was paying for Dish...I had everything with them and got the same with DirecTV.
> 
> My buddy, also a Dish subscriber, got the same package. He gets his DirecTV tomorrow too. There are a ton of folks on the Stars web who are switching, plus thousands of posts on the various FaceBook pages that have been setup who are saying the same. Considering the number as a percentage of the total subscriber base, it's barely even measurable...but hey...there are folks jumping ship over this.
> 
> Even the Dallas Stars are telling people to switch....maybe in not so many words...but they are.


Well that sounds like a great deal for you! Let us know on the DirecTV side of the forum if you need anything. We'll be glad to help.


----------



## Joe Diver

Hoosier205 said:


> Well that sounds like a great deal for you! Let us know on the DirecTV side of the forum if you need anything. We'll be glad to help.


Thanks...already added to my CP...I'm looking forward to that call to Dish Thursday afternoon.....


----------



## Hoosier205

E91 said:


> While I agree with you general sentiment, there is a problem here. Some are probably bound to E* through contractual agreements for a 2 year period. They signed up expecting to get all the channels that E* was advertising. Then, partway through the deal, they are told that they are not going to get one of the primary features they signed up for (namely sports coverage) but are still expected to honor their contracts. To me, that just seems plain unfair.
> 
> I'm fine with letting market forces dictate everything - if you don't like the programming choices offered by your provider then you hit the road. But, in that case, the 2-year commitment stuff should be flat-out illegal.
> 
> I'm sure E* and D* cover their butts in this situation, with fine print in the agreements. But, its a bait and switch thing and that just doesn't seem right to me.


Of course they should be expected to honor their contracts. They are still receiving exactly what was promised. Individual channels are not part of the agreement. Regardless, those people who are still bound by a commitment can choose to pay the ETF and opt out. I see no reason why anyone should be let out of their commitments.


----------



## HobbyTalk

SergeantPinback said:


> I've got no problem with that.
> 
> I'm on the hook for a 350K mortgage for a home that I've watched slip in value over the last four years, to about 175K, because the rich and powerful in this country decided to screw with the economy.
> 
> The way I figure it, I've got a lot more coming to me before I even break even and anyone who wants money out of me is gonna have to fight hard to get it, especially when they go back on the service they are supposed to provide.


I guess that is up to you if you want a "ding" on your credit record for non-payment. Personally, $200 isn't worth what it could cost me in the future on higher loan interest rates and auto/home insurance costs.


----------



## ggotch5445

I have to say, that I AM surprised that this whole Fox thing has gone this far. But I still believe that the parties involved will come to an agreement soon, as too much revenue is being lost every day that this lockout continues. Though I suspect that it is getting harder and harder for professional sports organizations to keep pressing networks and signal providers for more cash. Time will tell on how long that will continue.

It may well be marketing, but I do tend to believe however, that Dish has our best interests at heart, by virtue of this tough negotiation. 

It surprises me how many folks are so quick to jump to another provider (though I can appreciate what season it is!) when Dish seemingly is out to help keep costs down. So many individuals make it sound that Dish is purposely playing hardball, or antagonize subscribers. 

One could take the viewpoint that Dish is actually doing something HONORABLE, and very un-corporate-creed-like, by taking a stand against unreasonable upward price spiraling.

You know, Dish could have just agreed to whatever Fox demanded, and then simply passed it along to us. 

Of course, then there would be the new thread about leaving Dish due to unreasonable price hiking.........


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> How many times can you say the same thing over and over? The above doesn't help ease the burden of people losing their favorite channels. When people come on this forum they are looking for a little empathy AS A CUSTOMER. It's like we have Dish Network lawyers all over this site.


You are getting a little empathy from those who agree with you ... and some pity from those who don't agree but feel sorry for you anyways. But our purpose here is to discuss the topic, not to be digital Mydol.



ggotch5445 said:


> Of course, then there would be the new thread about leaving Dish due to unreasonable price hiking.........


I believe that is scheduled for January or February ... as soon as someone posts retailer information about what the February price increase will be. This year (2010) the largest price increase was given to customers with multiple receivers, but one can expect a dollar or three increase from year to year. And a thread to complain about it. Considering there are 200 channels wanting price increases each year a dollar or three to the subscriber is probably just keeping up with their charges and paying their employees a living wage.


----------



## TBoneit

Unless Dishnetwork (Nov.1) And Cablevision (Oct.16) sign agreements with Fox locals.. It seems to me that Fox Locals in NYC and Philadelphia stand to lose significant viewer count.

This could get interesting if neither signs and instead virtually thumbs their noses at RM saying we want a price cut. My feeling is that between Dishnetwork & Cablevision that is a high percentage of The Fox stations in NYC & Phila. viewers.


----------



## TBoneit

ggotch5445 said:


> I have to say, that I AM surprised that this whole Fox thing has gone this far. But I still believe that the parties involved will come to an agreement soon, as too much revenue is being lost every day that this lockout continues. Though I suspect that it is getting harder and harder for professional sports organizations to keep pressing networks and signal providers for more cash. Time will tell on how long that will continue.
> 
> It may well be marketing, but I do tend to believe however, that Dish has our best interests at heart, by virtue of this tough negotiation.
> 
> It surprises me how many folks are so quick to jump to another provider (though I can appreciate what season it is!) when Dish seemingly is out to help keep costs down. So many individuals make it sound that Dish is purposely playing hardball, or antagonize subscribers.
> 
> One could take the viewpoint that Dish is actually doing something HONORABLE, and very un-corporate-creed-like, by taking a stand against unreasonable upward price spiraling.
> 
> You know, Dish could have just agreed to whatever Fox demanded, and then simply passed it along to us.
> 
> Of course, then there would be the new thread about leaving Dish due to unreasonable price hiking.........


My guess is that Fox will be losing more if the locals are pulled


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> But our purpose here is to discuss the topic, not to be digital Mydol.


Alright, now that one I like. :lol:


----------



## domingos35

Joe Diver said:


> Tomorrow between Noon and 4:00....hello DirecTV! I will NOT miss the season opener Friday night.
> 
> I signed up for the NFL deal....so I get Sunday Ticket, plus Center Ice for less than I was paying a month for Dish. After all the promos my bill will be within $10 of what I was paying for Dish...I had everything with them and got the same with DirecTV.
> 
> My buddy, also a Dish subscriber, got the same package. He gets his DirecTV tomorrow too. There are a ton of folks on the Stars web who are switching, plus thousands of posts on the various FaceBook pages that have been setup who are saying the same. Considering the number as a percentage of the total subscriber base, it's barely even measurable...but hey...there are folks jumping ship over this.
> 
> Even the Dallas Stars are telling people to switch....maybe in not so many words...but they are.


buh bye don't let the door hit u in the ass


----------



## MysteryMan

:nono2: Maybe digital Mydol isn't such a bad idea!


----------



## sigma1914

domingos35 said:


> buh bye don't let the door hit u in the ass


Classy. 

The OP wasn't even rude about it.


----------



## lparsons21

While I think Dish is the relative good guy in this dispute, I'm not particularly happy about it either. I like FX, so it being gone bothers me. But I also don't like my bill increasing too much. It is a bit of a quandry.

And of course, Dish isn't all that innocent in this. It seems a bit specious to me for Dish to tell me they are holding the line on costs after they had the huge fee increases this year. They don't seem bothered about that much, do they?

But who could I switch to and keep the channels important to me? The answer, no one! I don't care a whit about the RSNs, and I can get the local Fox station OTA (I do that a lot now anyway). D* doesn't have the national HDs that I want, and my local cable company only has a total of about 25 stations in HD including the locals. They are missing a whole lot more that both D* and E* have to offer.

So I guess I'll grumble a bit, but I won't lose sleep. I can get the series from FX or Hulu online.

But one of the things all this has done is make me think about my bill and subscriptions a bit more. For instance, for $24/month I get HBO and Showtime. I only watch boxing on both of them, and Boardwalk Empire on HBO. Their movies are available all over the place. So I'm leaning heavily on dropping them because the per show cost is outrageous!


----------



## Jhon69

Well I think it's comical the Dish subscribers leaving for DirecTV.All the providers are dropping channels due to channel price disputes even DirecTV!!.:eek2::lol:


----------



## JackBauer112

Paul Secic said:


> KRON doesn't carry A's, never dd. They just have lots of news, infomercials ETC.


Actually, they did carry A's games on KRON 4 from 1993-1998 along with BAY TV (folded in 2001) but it moved to KICU 36 in 1999 and stayed there 'til 2008 when CSNCA took the broadcasting rights exclusively.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> Well I think it's comical the Dish subscribers leaving for DirecTV.All the providers are dropping channels due to channel price disputes *even DirecTV*!!.:eek2::lol:


...such as?


----------



## sigma1914

Jhon69 said:


> Well I think it's comical the Dish subscribers leaving for DirecTV.All the providers are dropping channels due to channel price disputes even DirecTV!!.:eek2::lol:


Please share, what's Directv dropping?


----------



## MysteryMan

Hoosier205 said:


> ...such as?


+1


----------



## garn9173

sigma1914 said:


> Please share, what's Directv dropping?


Comcast & D* are locked in a retrans battle over the highly watched G4 channel.


----------



## Jhon69

sigma1914 said:


> Please share, what's Directv dropping?


Well they dropped OLN(Versus) for awhile(like Dish network).So all those that think channels are safe better guess again when it comes around to contract time.It will be a growing trend with all providers.


----------



## MysteryMan

garn9173 said:


> Comcast & D* are locked in a retrans battle over the highly watched G4 channel.


G4 is still up and running on my system!


----------



## sigma1914

garn9173 said:


> Comcast & D* are locked in a retrans battle over the highly watched G4 channel.


Highly watched? :lol:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/0...ineas-and-ferb-top-week’s-cable-viewing/66700

Zero shows in top 25.


----------



## garn9173

Jhon69 said:


> Well they dropped OLN(Versus) for awhile(like Dish network).So all those that think channels are safe better guess again when it comes around to contract time.It will be a growing trend with all providers.


There was much more to the D* vs Comcast battle over VERSUS than just the carriage fee that made it drag on for as long as it did.



MysteryMan said:


> G4 is still up and running on my system!


They must have gotten a deal worked out then. I wouldn't even have known about it if it wasn't for the thread about it in the D* Programming forum.


----------



## Jhon69

garn9173 said:


> There was much more to the D* vs Comcast battle over VERSUS than just the carriage fee that made it drag on for as long as it did.
> 
> They must have gotten a deal worked out then. I wouldn't even have known about it if it wasn't for the thread about it in the D* Programming forum.


Well you can see it coming DirecTV can't afford to price itself too much higher than Dish network when it comes to programming.It will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> Well you can see it coming DirecTV can't afford to price itself too much higher than Dish network when it comes to programming.It will be interesting to watch.


We're still waiting for your examples.


----------



## MysteryMan

Hoosier205 said:


> We're still waiting for your examples.


+1


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ggotch5445 said:


> You know, Dish could have just agreed to whatever Fox demanded, and then simply passed it along to us.
> 
> Of course, then there would be the new thread about leaving Dish due to unreasonable price hiking.........


That's what bugs me about a thread like this... you know that what you said is 100% true... IF Dish immediately passed on a new rate increase, the same people would freak out. When Dish waits and rolls it into a February increase, people freak out. When Dish tries to keep the prices down and risks losing channels, people freak out. If the sun comes up, people freak out.


----------



## Jhon69

Hoosier205 said:


> We're still waiting for your examples.


All you have to do is look up the regular prices between the two providers comparing programming?.


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's what bugs me about a thread like this... you know that what you said is 100% true... IF Dish immediately passed on a new rate increase, the same people would freak out. When Dish waits and rolls it into a February increase, people freak out. When Dish tries to keep the prices down and risks losing channels, people freak out. If the sun comes up, people freak out.


Maybe they have a alergy to sun light.


----------



## mrb627

Well, I pulled the trigger. Last night, I signed up for Direct TV. I was amazed to compare my Dish bill to Direct and found Direct to be 20+ dollars cheaper per month over the next two years. After being a loyal Dish customer for the last 12 years, it is my time to go. Funny, I am the only one in my Family that was still with Dish. But, Direct has a great deal going on and I jumped for it.


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's what bugs me about a thread like this... you know that what you said is 100% true... IF Dish immediately passed on a new rate increase, the same people would freak out. When Dish waits and rolls it into a February increase, people freak out. When Dish tries to keep the prices down and risks losing channels, people freak out. If the sun comes up, people freak out.


Face it,Dish network has too many people freaking out!.Maybe they will go to DirecTV and freakout over there?.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> All you have to do is look up the regular prices between the two providers comparing programming?.


What are you talking about?

You said:



Jhon69 said:


> Well I think it's comical the Dish subscribers leaving for DirecTV.All the providers are dropping channels due to channel price disputes *even DirecTV*!!.:eek2::lol:


...such as?


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...such as?


He means..."I'm pulling info out my bum & have no answer."


----------



## Jhon69

mrb627 said:


> Well, I pulled the trigger. Last night, I signed up for Direct TV. I was amazed to compare my Dish bill to Direct and found Direct to be 20+ dollars cheaper per month over the next two years. After being a loyal Dish customer for the last 12 years, it is my time to go. Funny, I am the only one in my Family that was still with Dish. But, Direct has a great deal going on and I jumped for it.


Good Luck!.

Make sure the D* installer installs the HR24 if your going for a HDDVR or you won't be happy,trust me.

After 2 years you can switch back,uh unless you find your 2 year contract has been extended somehow?.Hmmm...:eek2:


----------



## SayWhat?

> If the sun comes up, people freak out.


Dang UV rays.


----------



## Jhon69

sigma1914 said:


> He means..."I'm pulling info out my bum & have no answer."


Hey why don't all you DirecTV Trolls go back to your own forum?.Isn't that an original idea.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> Hey why don't all you DirecTV Trolls go back to your own forum?.Isn't that an original idea.


We were having a simple and civil discussion without anyone bashing either provider. You made the comment. We asked for examples. You are still dodging.


----------



## sigma1914

Jhon69 said:


> Hey why don't all you DirecTV Trolls go back to your own forum?.Isn't that an original idea.


I'm a troll because you can't back up your comments? I have seen more rude & troll-like posts from Dish subs than Directv subs in this thread.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> We were having a simple and civil discussion without anyone bashing either provider. You made the comment. We asked for examples. You are still dodging.


How about the current battle with G4? How do you think that will play out? And yes, D* has dumped channels in the past and you well know it. Don't put your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Now back to the topic, which ISN'T what D* does or doesn't do...


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> How about the current battle with G4? How do you think that will play out? And yes, D* has dumped channels in the past and you well know it. Don't put your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.
> 
> Now back to the topic, which ISN'T what D* does or doesn't do...


The last DirecTV/G4 deal ended in September. DirecTV still has G4. One member made a claim and then choose to dodge questions. You're right though, this thread isn't about DirecTV. Let's get back on topic.


----------



## James Long

How about everyone discuss Fox vs DISH and keep personal battles to themselves? This thread isn't a free for all.


----------



## Greg Bimson

lparsons24 said:


> How about the current battle with G4? How do you think that will play out? And yes, D* has dumped channels in the past and you well know it. Don't put your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.
> 
> Now back to the topic, which ISN'T what D* does or doesn't do...


Two paragraphs, and the second truly violates what was written in the first.

And since we are now on the "DirecTV drops channels" bandwagon...

Versus? Yes. For a slightly shorter amount of time than Dish Network.
FX, NatGeo and multiple RSN's? No.
Viacom? No.
Disney's HD Channels? No.

Oh yes, that's right. Because DirecTV has never actually dropped the channels that means they rolled over and took the deal.  Yet no one knows whether or not Dish Network actually had to eat crow and accept an offer no much different than what was offered before a cut-off.

Face it. It's said the channels are removed to save you money, yet you didn't receive a discount automatically. Dish Network would be much happier giving you replacement programming to keep their revenue higher and the cost of offering the replacement programming is negligible than what they were spending on the dropped channels.

I see who saved the money. Maybe Dish Network should also switch to Geico.


----------



## lparsons21

Greg Bimson said:


> Oh yes, that's right. Because DirecTV has never actually dropped the channels that means they rolled over and took the deal.  Yet no one knows whether or not Dish Network actually had to eat crow and accept an offer no much different than what was offered before a cut-off.
> 
> Face it. It's said the channels are removed to save you money, yet you didn't receive a discount automatically. Dish Network would be much happier giving you replacement programming to keep their revenue higher and the cost of offering the replacement programming is negligible than what they were spending on the dropped channels.
> 
> I see who saved the money. Maybe Dish Network should also switch to Geico.


I don't know what D* did or didn't do to keep the channels, but frankly I don't care either. It is a fact that D* still doesn't have the national HD I want and watch, with one exception FX at the moment.

I just chatted with E* about the issue and got an reasonable offer that reflects a valid credit for the current situation. I might have been able to dicker for more, but I felt the offer was appropriate and literally was what I had in mind.

For me, cost is not the main issue, if it was, I'd switch to the local cable company for $75/month for internet, phone and TV and be done with it. It is can I get to watch what I want to watch at a price I'm willing to pay. With Dish, I can. With cable or D*, I can't. Simple really!!


----------



## Joe Diver

sigma1914 said:


> Classy.
> 
> The OP wasn't even rude about it.


There's always a few in every forum. That's what the Ignore List is for. He just made slot #1.


----------



## fireballer44

Baseball season is over, so I don't really miss the FSN channels for the time being. Didn't watch FX or NatGeo anyway. So, I'm willing to give them some time now.

However, I keep seeing this about losing local Fox affiliate . If this happens for more than a day or so I'm sure I'll go from a huge Dish fan to the #1 Dish hater. The worst part is I'd still be stuck with them in their contract... I've been through the other Dish channel shutoffs and I don't recall any of them being so long and cutting off so many channels.

So, to Dish Network.....this has gone too long already...GET A DEAL DONE! I know you want to get the best price and that's great, but holding your customers hostage is not acceptable. I'm not saying pay them whatever they want, but a good business takes care of things seamlessly in the background.

I work for a phone company, how would you feel if we just came out and said, you can no longer call any numbers in California...and that we knew there was nothing you could do about it because a lot of the customers have a contract?


----------



## phrelin

Each time one of these discussions related to negotiations and costs starts up, somehow we see the "my service is better than your service" argument. I don't understand it and never have. If people have selected carefully for their own needs, it seems like an odd direction to take.

I know what channels and equipment I want and I think I'm getting the best pricing from a long term customer's standpoint. Nonetheless, doubts are raised by the arguments. So I pull up my Dish bill and price out an equivalent package at DirecTV ignoring the new customer discounts and I get this:








I know from these threads that there are some channels in HD on one that are not HD on the other. In either case I could survive. Because I'm not sure about DirecTV equipment, I'm assuming that this configuration will get me the ability to record four programs at the same time like I can with my 722 and 612.

Yes, I can't get "whole house" with Dish. But Dish's external hard drive system is more suitable to my needs.

Sooner or later I'm going to lose Cinemax for a penny and I'll drop it.

So if I eliminate the "whole house" charge and Cinemax, DirecTV would still cost me $18.97 a month more.

Yes, right now I'm not getting my FX shows at all nor my ABCFamily shows in HD. But I chalk that up to the need to try to keep the costs from going up $20 next year.

Being a customer who is frustrated by being deprived of some of his TV shows doesn't mean I'm blindly willing to let the media conglomerates do what they want.

I don't want it all now so badly I'll end up with almost nothing I can afford.

Keep the faith Charlie! Both Charlie's, actually. Don't capitulate to Rupert's demands.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Face it. It's said the channels are removed to save you money, yet you didn't receive a discount automatically. Dish Network would be much happier giving you replacement programming to keep their revenue higher and the cost of offering the replacement programming is negligible than what they were spending on the dropped channels.


Do you believe DISH gets a discount for the time the channels are not carried? If they are never carried again, yes, but I would not be surprised if the terms of the new deal started Oct 1st and DISH ends up paying for the time they could not carry the programs in order to get permission to carry the programs in the future.

Fox is the monopoly here ... DISH can't simply say "we'll get our sports from someone else" and with Fox's trick of pulling their content off of non-owned sports channels Fox has demonstrated that they are willing to hurt everyone ... regardless of how they subscribe to TV ... to keep their content off of DISH.

Fox is spewing a lot of big numbers in a misleading manner - I'd like to see the same numbers for Fox's operations. How much money did they make last year? Their funniest complaint relates to how Fox stations are not compensated in the same way as cable stations. Their spiel complains about cable channels are compensated twice ... once by advertisers and once by charging subscription fees while Fox stations only get paid by advertisers. Yet they DO charge subscription fees to cable and satellite providers ... so they are getting paid twice ... and they also own cable networks. The irony of Fox complaining about how cable networks are compensated when they own cable networks! I guess they are just in it for the money. Greedy? How much profit did Fox make last year? And they want to raise rates more?

I'd like to see Fox's claim about how much they are asking DISH for. So far DISH has provided numbers and Fox just cried about wanting something fair. DISH's numbers say Fox wants 50% and DISH is offering "double digits" (at least 10%). Why won't Fox say "the increase we have asked for is only xx%"? Probably because that number is damning to their argument. They can't say "we only want a 20% increase" because they would lose the public battle. So it is better for them to stay vague. Which is what they are doing.


----------



## davidmg1

mrb627 said:


> Well, I pulled the trigger. Last night, I signed up for Direct TV. I was amazed to compare my Dish bill to Direct and found Direct to be 20+ dollars cheaper per month over the next two years. After being a loyal Dish customer for the last 12 years, it is my time to go. Funny, I am the only one in my Family that was still with Dish. But, Direct has a great deal going on and I jumped for it.


I'm going to stick it out with Dish for a while longer, especially with their integration with Google TV...the specs were reviled today.

After being a D* customer for many years, I think Dish offers a comparable product, at a reasonable price and Dish seems to be on the leading edge of adding services that D* has not done yet, like Sling and Google TV.

This Fox issue will be cleared up soon. I'm glad that Dish is standing up to them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Greg Bimson said:


> Two paragraphs, and the second truly violates what was written in the first.
> 
> And since we are now on the "DirecTV drops channels" bandwagon...
> 
> Versus? Yes. For a slightly shorter amount of time than Dish Network.
> FX, NatGeo and multiple RSN's? No.
> Viacom? No.
> Disney's HD Channels? No.
> 
> Oh yes, that's right. Because DirecTV has never actually dropped the channels that means they rolled over and took the deal.  Yet no one knows whether or not Dish Network actually had to eat crow and accept an offer no much different than what was offered before a cut-off.
> 
> Face it. It's said the channels are removed to save you money, yet you didn't receive a discount automatically. Dish Network would be much happier giving you replacement programming to keep their revenue higher and the cost of offering the replacement programming is negligible than what they were spending on the dropped channels.
> 
> I see who saved the money. Maybe Dish Network should also switch to Geico.


Dish does things real cheap they take a dual tuner box and call it multi room. even when one tv is SD only.

They cheap out a RSN hd feeds and I don't thing the RSN like being muxed down to 1 HD feed for college football as the makeing it 1 feed cuts out the local ad's.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> Each time one of these discussions related to negotiations and costs starts up, somehow we see the "my service is better than your service" argument. I don't understand it and never have. If people have selected carefully for their own needs, it seems like an odd direction to take.
> 
> I know what channels and equipment I want and I think I'm getting the best pricing from a long term customer's standpoint. Nonetheless, doubts are raised by the arguments. So I pull up my Dish bill and price out an equivalent package at DirecTV ignoring the new customer discounts and I get this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know from these threads that there are some channels in HD on one that are not HD on the other. In either case I could survive. Because I'm not sure about DirecTV equipment, I'm assuming that this configuration will get me the ability to record four programs at the same time like I can with my 722 and 612.
> 
> Yes, I can't get "whole house" with Dish. But Dish's external hard drive system is more suitable to my needs.
> 
> Sooner or later I'm going to lose Cinemax for a penny and I'll drop it.
> 
> So if I eliminate the "whole house" charge and Cinemax, DirecTV would still cost me $18.97 a month more.
> 
> Yes, right now I'm not getting my FX shows at all nor my ABCFamily shows in HD. But I chalk that up to the need to try to keep the costs from going up $20 next year.
> 
> Being a customer who is frustrated by being deprived of some of his TV shows doesn't mean I'm blindly willing to let the media conglomerates do what they want.
> 
> I don't want it all now so badly I'll end up with almost nothing I can afford.
> 
> Keep the faith Charlie! Both Charlie's, actually. Don't capitulate to Rupert's demands.


Your list is not accurate.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> So I pull up my Dish bill and price out an equivalent package at DirecTV ignoring the new customer discounts and I get this:


So making a valid comparasion includes "ignoring the new customer discounts" with DirecTV but including the discounts you are getting with Dish Network now, like Cinemax for a penny and "HD for Life"?


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Your list is not accurate.


You're probably right.

He most likely could get HD Access for free (-$10), MRV not the same ( -$3), and one DVR lease (-$5), but the total at D* for his example would still be higher by about $18/month.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> You're probably right.
> 
> He most likely could get HD Access for free (-$10), MRV not the same ( -$3), and one DVR lease (-$5), but the total at D* for his example would still be higher by about $18/month.


There are other inaccuracies as well, but this isn't the best thread to discuss it.


----------



## mnassour

So has there been any word on any negotiations at all? Or are the lawyers just sitting in their offices throwing press releases at each other?


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> Your list is not accurate.


OK. Dish's is my bill, so I know that's what I'm paying. I went to DirecTV's web site and proceeded to seek service as a new customer. They seemed to be very clear on their web site in my cart listing:








I'm listing everything they list other than the "new customer" discounts. Are you saying that the $5 1st receiver discount and/or the $4.97 "Watch More Save More" discounts are normal for regular long-term customers? If so, that would drop the difference to $9.

I'm ok with any other corrections anyone else can offer.


----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> He most likely could get HD Access for free (-$10) ...


Not without Choice Ultimate or Platinum (we'll find out what the next offer is tomorrow). He listed Choice Xtra.

Adding in what people can get if they call in and beg for credits often is too complicated. Comparisons, if done, should be based on what everybody has available to them.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> I'm listing everything they list other than the "new customer" discounts. Are you saying that the $5 1st receiver discount and/or the $4.97 "Watch More Save More" discounts are normal for regular long-term customers? If so, that would drop the difference to $9.
> 
> I'm ok with any other corrections anyone else can offer.


Yes, those discounts are for the duration of the commitment. You probably would not be paying the $10 HD access fee either. Also, you would be able to get other discounts after your "new customer" discounts expired, which would keep your bill lower.


----------



## puckhead

James Long said:


> Fox is the monopoly here ...Fox's trick...Fox has demonstrated that they are willing to hurt everyone ... Fox is spewing a lot of big numbers in a misleading manner...Their spiel complains...so they are getting paid twice ...they also own cable networks...The irony of Fox complaining...just in it for the money...Greedy?...How much profit did Fox make last year?...they want to raise rates more?...Fox's claim...Fox just cried...that number is damning to their argument...stay vague...


You should be their paid spokesperson! Nicely done.


----------



## AMike

As a D* subscriber, I'm keeping my eye on this situation since there could be similar activities coming down the road for all providers. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon.

One of the things that has not been mentioned has been the rights fees that the RSNs pay for content. The Texas Rangers have are getting $1.6 billion over 20 years from FSNSouthwest for their broadcast rights. How are they going to pay for that? Advertising and increasing their carriage fees. I'm hardly saying that Fox is in the right for that, but that is going to be the case for every RSN as sports rights fees continue to increase. And as a result, similar battles between networks and distributors will likely occur.

Here's an article that dives deeper into the RSN rights fees from a baseball perspective: http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?...ports-southwest&catid=67:pete-toms&Itemid=155


----------



## Satelliteracer

Not sure if this was posted

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/finance/news/e3if40aadb1b179f42a96e6f92f1b2c2a9d


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> I'd like to see Fox's claim about how much they are asking DISH for. So far DISH has provided numbers and Fox just cried about wanting something fair. DISH's numbers say Fox wants 50% and DISH is offering "double digits" (at least 10%). Why won't Fox say "the increase we have asked for is only xx%"? Probably because that number is damning to their argument. They can't say "we only want a 20% increase" because they would lose the public battle. So it is better for them to stay vague. Which is what they are doing.


Oh, and with that, I agree...

However, one major issue would be something like FX. I wouldn't be surprised if they were asking for a 50 percent increase. I don't know when the last round of contracts were signed, but I assume it was during the timeframe DirecTV was owned by Fox. That means those contracts were negotiated during the mandatory arbitration timeframe, so the increases were most likely kept to a minimum. Add to the fact that four years or so ago, FX started broadcasting many shows that became quite highly watched, and maybe FX is asking for USA or TNT type money.

After all, there are four million-plus AT 120 customers that don't get FX, but do get TNT and USA...


----------



## phrelin

Satelliteracer said:


> Not sure if this was posted
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/finance/news/e3if40aadb1b179f42a96e6f92f1b2c2a9d


From that story:


> A Dish spokeswoman said in a response that programmers "are increasingly bullying pay TV companies into extraordinary rate increases in an effort to pay for expensive sports acquisition rights."
> 
> She said the Fox sports channels represent less than 2% of the content that Dish makes available in its most popular programming package. And of the hours that Dish customers spend on watching TV, less than 1% are spent on regional sports networks, she added.


Go get 'em Charlie and friends!


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes, those discounts are for the duration of the commitment. You probably would not be paying the $10 HD access fee either. Also, you would be able to get other discounts after your "new customer" discounts expired, which would keep your bill lower.


And with Dish over the years I've gotten various discounts such as premiums for free. And that Cinemax for a penny deal I've had for three years.

My original point was for most of us the reason to pick a provider should relate to:

Reception - in my case redwood trees make DirecTV problematic.
Desired programming, particularly sports and movies.
Equipment needs.
Pricing differences are minimal and not part of the issue. And neither is which corporation's shareholders are doing better.

I'm cheering for Dish and Cablevision. To me, this issue is about the future cost of satellite and cable service regardless of provider. It isn't about whether Dish or DirecTV or FIOS or U-Verse or a cable company is better. If Dish and Cablevision capitulate, all those providers will be charging more.


----------



## domingos35

davidmg1 said:


> I'm going to stick it out with Dish for a while longer, especially with their integration with Google TV...the specs were reviled today.
> 
> After being a D* customer for many years, I think Dish offers a comparable product, at a reasonable price and Dish seems to be on the leading edge of adding services that D* has not done yet, like Sling and Google TV.
> 
> This Fox issue will be cleared up soon. I'm glad that Dish is standing up to them.


+1


----------



## TBoneit

JoeTheDragon said:


> Dish does things real cheap they take a dual tuner box and call it multi room. even when one tv is SD only.
> 
> They cheap out a RSN hd feeds and I don't thing the RSN like being muxed down to 1 HD feed for college football as the makeing it 1 feed cuts out the local ad's.


That dual tuner box isn't cheap, The original has a RF modulator to feed a 2nd TV, and a OTA tuner to record three HD channels at a time vs the HR series 2 channels. E* 3 Tuners vs D* 2 tuners, whose cheap. Oh yeah and the VIP series are all fast vs the HR24 = fast and hr20 to HR23 = slow, Cheap?

The newer models using the add-on OTA tuner can record 2 Satellite channels and two OTA channels at once vs the HR series 2 channels total.

Note to self: Get VIP922 with sling and tuner module and antenna on roof


----------



## TBoneit

Which reminds me, Charlie could be doing what I used to do with the cable company. They raised their rates & I either dropped something or suspended service until the savings from the drop equaled the increase fee for a year.

Maybe he's not signing until the increased fees to Fox are wiped out by the lost revenue to Fox while they are off the system.


----------



## MysteryMan

If I remember correctly Fox pulled this same crap with TimeWarner last year.


----------



## Eksynyt

The clock is ticking. If this drags on for 2 months, Dish will lose an irreparable amount of subs. Looking good for DirecTV.


----------



## kcolg30

People who are in contracts and decide to leave will be FUBAR and will have to pay the penalty fee.


----------



## fatpug

Do you Dish Network fans really think it is fair for them to charge for the multi sport pack after losing so many channels?

I don't know if Dish or Fox is right on the contract issue but I do know it is NOT fair to charge full price for less channels.


----------



## mikeyinokc

Why should we have to pay to get out of the contract? Dish isn't providing the content we contracted for.


----------



## fireballer44

mikeyinokc said:


> Why should we have to pay to get out of the contract? Dish isn't providing the content we contracted for.


It's in big bold letters on their contract that they can change the price and channels you get at any time without letting you out of contract. It's actually a terrible incredibly one-sided contract and I feel like an idiot for having signed one.

I'm just going to hope Dish can take care of this, losing the FSN channels permanently is a deal breaker for me.


----------



## DodgerKing

phrelin said:


>


Keep in mind that the AT200 does not have all of the channels that Choice Extra has. Choice extra would be more equivilant to a package between AT200 and AT250. In order to get the same channels on Choice extra you would have to go up to the AT250


----------



## inazsully

Hoosier205 said:


> Well that sounds like a great deal for you! Let us know on the DirecTV side of the forum if you need anything. We'll be glad to help.


Hold on there Hoosier dude. Your use of the word WE is a bit out there. From what I've read here you are beating the Dish band like a true blue employee but don't include the vast, yes vast, majority of us in your WE grouping. The lawyer speak you keep referring to in the contract may indeed be right but that doesn't make it righteous. Maybe YOU'LL be glad to help but most of the WE's think the convoluted Dish contract is tantamount to theft by deception.


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> And with Dish over the years I've gotten various discounts such as premiums for free. And that Cinemax for a penny deal I've had for three years.
> 
> My original point was for most of us the reason to pick a provider should relate to:
> 
> Reception - in my case redwood trees make DirecTV problematic.
> Desired programming, particularly sports and movies.
> Equipment needs.
> Pricing differences are minimal and not part of the issue. And neither is which corporation's shareholders are doing better.
> 
> I'm cheering for Dish and Cablevision. To me, this issue is about the future cost of satellite and cable service regardless of provider. It isn't about whether Dish or DirecTV or FIOS or U-Verse or a cable company is better. If Dish and Cablevision capitulate, all those providers will be charging more.


I am too because if Dish network looses this I may have to readjust my date for going OTA and ROKU.


----------



## Hoosier205

inazsully said:


> Hold on there Hoosier dude. Your use of the word WE is a bit out there. From what I've read here you are beating the Dish band like a true blue employee but don't include the vast, yes vast, majority of us in your WE grouping. The lawyer speak you keep referring to in the contract may indeed be right but that doesn't make it righteous. Maybe YOU'LL be glad to help but most of the WE's think the convoluted Dish contract is tantamount to theft by deception.


I guess you didn't catch it, but I am a DirecTV sub. The "we's" I was referring to are my fellow DirecTV subs who will be more than willing to help any new customers on that side. The Dish agreement is easy to understand and available to you to read - hardly deceptive.

BTW...the Dish contract that you are so opposed to is basically the same customer agreement every provider has used for many, many years. So, you're a bit late to the party there.


----------



## Hoosier205

mikeyinokc said:


> Why should we have to pay to get out of the contract? Dish isn't providing the content we contracted for.


Yes they are.


----------



## EW800

mnassour said:


> So has there been any word on any negotiations at all? Or are the lawyers just sitting in their offices throwing press releases at each other?


I, too, would love to know if there has been any progress this week or if the phones have been quiet....


----------



## mikeyinokc

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes they are.


No they are not.


----------



## mnassour

mikeyinokc said:


> No they are not.


Unfortunately, the contract says they can change it at any time...and I think we all know that by now.


----------



## SayWhat?

Eksynyt said:


> The clock is ticking. If this drags on for 2 months, Dish will lose an irreparable amount of subs. Looking good for DirecTV.


Employed by DirecTV are you?


----------



## inazsully

Hoosier205 said:


> I guess you didn't catch it, but I am a DirecTV sub. The "we's" I was referring to are my fellow DirecTV subs who will be more than willing to help any new customers on that side. The Dish agreement is easy to understand and available to you to read - hardly deceptive.
> 
> BTW...the Dish contract that you are so opposed to is basically the same customer agreement every provider has used for many, many years. So, you're a bit late to the party there.


Not late at all. I was at these kind of parties before "D" and "E" were even thought of. I was not aware that you were affiliated with "D" but you come off as more than JUST a sub. Anyway, deceptive is in the eye of the beholder. It seems pretty obvious that many think the contract is unfair and too one way. It basically baits the new sub with multiple package offerings. It may say it can change whatever it wants whenever it wants but the average person unfamiliar with written contracts blindly believes in some kind of fair return for their investment. No doubt "E" is legally on solid ground. But morally, not so much. Just because you get away with something doesn't make it right.


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> It makes more sense than thinking that every line item on the bill goes solely to the cost of that line item.


As I tried to explain to you, and you still fail to comprehend, the fact that all subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind, doesn't mean that the DIRECTV accountants can't track whether or not the NFLST subscription revenues (minus the cost of any "giveaways" related to securing those NFLST subscriptions) reaches or exceeds a given dollar amount.

It might look like it to you, but the fact is it's not "just one big pot", and DIRECTV knows whether it pays for itself or it has to be subsidized with other revenue sources. I'll give you a clue.... when DIRECTV is negotiating for the NFLST rights, they aren't negotiating based on a guess of how much of some "big pot" of money is attributable to NFLST net subscription revenues.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> As I tried to explain to you, and you still fail to comprehend, the fact that all subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind, doesn't mean that the DIRECTV accountants can't track whether or not the NFLST subscription revenues (minus the cost of any "giveaways" related to securing those NFLST subscriptions) reaches or exceeds a given dollar amount.


Your statement here CONFIRMS that there is one pot. "All subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind." Thanks for agreeing with me. DirecTV's internal accounting is of no relevance to this thread.

Now can we talk about Fox vs DISH?


----------



## MysteryMan

Something Disney, Fox and MSG have learned and Charlie Ergen has not: Only negotiate from a position of strength!


----------



## cartrivision

James Long said:


> Your statement here CONFIRMS that there is one pot. "All subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind." Thanks for agreeing with me. DirecTV's internal accounting is of no relevance to this thread.
> 
> Now can we talk about Fox vs DISH?


Yikes!!!! You make zero sense. As much as you would like to stick your head in the sand and pretend that DIRECTV has no way of knowing if NFLST subscribers cover the cost that DIRECTV pays the NFL for the package rights, because "it's all one pot" of money :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:, that line of thinking is severely disconnected from reality.... and I suspect that you probably know that, which is why you have switched to arguing that the discussion (and the facts related to it) are OT instead of trying to support your obviously unsupportable statements.

If you really want to get back to topic.... perhaps with the money that DIRECTV makes with NFLST, it is subsidizing the cost of other programming such as all the high cost Fox owned channels that DISH has to drop in order to contain costs... but in your world of make believe, there would be no way for DIRECTV to know if that was true or not, because after all, it's just one big pot.!rolling!rolling!rolling!rolling

Let's take that nonsensical kind of thinking to it's next "logical" conclusion... DISH's programming costs all just go into one big expense pot, so it's foolish to try to consider or discuss some wacky internal DISH accounting practices which might lead them to claim that it's specific Fox owned channels that could be responsible for making the cost of programming too expensive. How could that possibly be? Isn't it all just one pot? And why are DISH subscribers so upset at the dropping of these channels when DISH is able to substitute other channels so that subscribers still get the same number of channels (so the pot of channels is still the same size, and subscribers wouldn't be able to tell the difference because it's just one big pot of channels!!!!!!) Problem solved by the wacky and nonsensical "one big pot" way of thinking!!!!


----------



## SergeantPinback

Hoosier205 said:


> Who went back on the service they are supposed to provide? Dish Network certainly didn't. They are still providing you with the same service you have been paying for.


WRONG!

If they were, I would have watched Terriers last night on FX and I'd be watching It's Always Sunny In Philladelphia tonight.

Your argument fails.


----------



## SergeantPinback

Hoosier205 said:


> So you'd rather lie to them in order to make them feel better? These are adults and they should be able to handle the truth...the reality of the situation. The dispute over these channels isn't a free ticket out of a customer's agreement. We are all big boys and girls here. Either stay for the remainder of the commitment you agreed to or pay the ETF you agreed to. Those are the only options available. Someone saying that Dish Network isn't living up to their end of the agreement because of these channels is incorrect. It just isn't true and the sooner they figure that out, the better off they will be. There is no burden to ease. If you want the channels, get out of your commitment and sign on with a provider that offers them. If you don't want to do that then you'll just have to wait until this dispute has ended.
> 
> It is one thing to be upset by the dispute. That is understandable. What is ludicrous and just plain silly is the assertion that Dish Network should void their agreement with a customer because of this dispute.


It would seem there are a number of bad lawyers roaming the internet giving out silly advice and making stupid statements.


----------



## lparsons21

MysteryMan said:


> Something Disney, Fox and MSG have learned and Charlie Ergen has not: Only negotiate from a position of strength!


Oh really?

The Disney/ABC/ESPN fiasco has kind of fizzled. Or hadn't you noticed the lack of real controversy or number of postings about it? What both sides discovered in it was that Disney et.al. isn't as important as they had thought they were.

And the Fox/Msg one going on now is a bit early to tell.


----------



## tsmacro

So how long has this been going on now? Almost a week. Gotta say I was expecting to hear more people calling me about it. I'm up to all of two calls and the second one wasn't because anyone was actually missing any of the channels pulled but because they saw a commercial run by their local Fox channel saying Dish might be losing it Nov 1.


----------



## SayWhat?

SergeantPinback said:


> WRONG!
> 
> If they were, I would have watched Terriers last night on FX and I'd be watching It's Always Sunny In Philladelphia tonight.
> 
> Your argument fails.


Incorrect. Dish is still providing the same service and number of channels. Fox cut certain ones off and Dish replaced those lost with something that would normally cost you more. If anything, Dish is providing BETTER service now.

Your gripe is with Fox.


----------



## MysteryMan

lparsons21 said:


> Oh really?
> 
> The Disney/ABC/ESPN fiasco has kind of fizzled. Or hadn't you noticed the lack of real controversy or number of postings about it? What both sides discovered in it was that Disney et.al. isn't as important as they had thought they were.
> 
> And the Fox/Msg one going on now is a bit early to tell.


Yes really......Thirty years ago the playing field was different, Broadcasters vs Cable. For the broadcasters it was come up with a deal because there was no other provider. Today there are several providers and they are not united. That is their weakness and the broadcasters know it. And the strong will always prey on the weak!


----------



## SergeantPinback

Hoosier205 said:


> Of course they should be expected to honor their contracts. They are still receiving exactly what was promised. Individual channels are not part of the agreement. Regardless, those people who are still bound by a commitment can choose to pay the ETF and opt out. I see no reason why anyone should be let out of their commitments.


You must be every crook's wet dream. Sounds like anyone could rip you off and you would happily bend over and take it.



HobbyTalk said:


> I guess that is up to you if you want a "ding" on your credit record for non-payment. Personally, $200 isn't worth what it could cost me in the future on higher loan interest rates and auto/home insurance costs.


You can't put a price on integrity. But that's ok if you don't get it. You've been brainwashed well. You're a good little consumer.



Jhon69 said:


> Hey why don't all you DirecTV Trolls go back to your own forum?.Isn't that an original idea.


:righton:



SayWhat? said:


> Incorrect. Dish is still providing the same service and number of channels. Fox cut certain ones off and Dish replaced those lost with something that would normally cost you more. If anything, Dish is providing BETTER service now.
> 
> Your gripe is with Fox.


You know, you guys who keep saying that just sound retarded. IF I was still recieving the SAME service I was paying for, I WOULD HAVE been able to watch those two shows I mentioned!


----------



## Hoosier205

SergeantPinback said:


> WRONG!
> 
> If they were, I would have watched Terriers last night on FX and I'd be watching It's Always Sunny In Philladelphia tonight.
> 
> Your argument fails.


You keep forgetting that you are not paying for specific channels. You are paying for a service which provides you access to content which is subject to change. Guess what...it changed.


----------



## Hoosier205

SergeantPinback said:


> You know, you guys who keep saying that just sound retarded.


Do you not realize just how offensive and inappropriate that term is?


----------



## david_jr

MysteryMan said:


> Yes really......Thirty years ago the playing field was different, Broadcasters vs Cable. For the broadcasters it was come up with a deal because there was no other provider. Today there are several providers and they are not united. That is their weakness and the broadcasters know it. And the strong will always prey on the weak!


And cable and satellite have been a boon to broadcasters by getting their programming in front of more eyes, all the while paying the broadcasters more and more to do it for them. Programmers seem to think that we the customers will pay any amount to keep their programming so they just keep raising the rates. How long before they kill the goose that's laying their golden eggs? My bill is already pushing the breaking point. I haven't had a raise in 4 years, but my programming bill seems to go up like clockwork.

As for contracts with fine print, most of us sign them without reading them even though we all KNOW the contracts favor the seller every time. Shame on us.


----------



## swallman

Hoosier205 said:


> Do you not realize just how offensive and inappropriate that term is?
> 
> That's what the rest of us are wondering as well. You were never promised specific content.


Then I think both D* and E* need to remove any mention of what channels are in what packages in their advertising. Let's see how many customers they get then!

They are pretty clear in on their websites, advertising, etc. that this package contains THESE channels. From a consumer standpoint, they need to be much more clear about the fact that the channels you get can change at any time at will (rather than burying it deep in a contract in fine print that probably 95% of the customers never read). I know - it's the consumer's fault for not reading that contract, but most consumer's probably couldn't understand a good portion of it because it was written up by lawyers.


----------



## MysteryMan

I agree david-jr. The solution to the problem will be the uniting of the providers when dealing with the broadcasters. If cable and satellite were on the same sheet of music when dealing with broadcasters the playing field would be reversed making the broadcasters weak. Until that happens the broadcasters will always have the upper hand.


----------



## Hoosier205

swallman said:


> Then I think both D* and E* need to remove any mention of what channels are in what packages in their advertising. Let's see how many customers they get then!
> 
> They are pretty clear in on their websites, advertising, etc. that this package contains THESE channels. From a consumer standpoint, they need to be much more clear about the fact that the channels you get can change at any time at will (rather than burying it deep in a contract in fine print that probably 95% of the customers never read). I know - it's the consumer's fault for not reading that contract, but most consumer's probably couldn't understand a good portion of it because it was written up by lawyers.


...it's only been the norm for past 30+ years, that's all.  It's listed routinely in television, print, and radio ads. Do you need someone to hold your hand and explain things which you should already be aware of? How often does it need to be repeated before you catch on? Products and services are subject to change. Products and services are subject to change. Products and services ares subject to change. Every provider basically rams it down our throats at every available opportunity.

Your suggestion that they remove any mention of what channels are listed in which package is ridiculous. You simply don't get it. You are paying for a service which provides you access to content. That content is "packaged" in differing program packages. The content in those packages is subject to change, as are any products and services. You are not promised that only those channels will be in that package. You are not promised that those channels will remain in that package. You are not promised that the package you are subscribing to will exist for the life of your agreement...it could be removed and replaced altogether. Once again, for all of you who for some unknown reason cannot grasp this, you are not paying for certain channels. You are paying for a service which provides you access to varying amounts of content. Get over it. That is just the way it is. That is the way it has been for a very, very long time. That is the way it will be for the foreseeable future. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. Good luck finding a cable or satellite television provider that does it differently anywhere in the world.

My best advice would be for you to gather enough investors to launch your own television provider. Then you can do things however you wish.


----------



## swallman

Hoosier205 said:


> ...it's only been the norm for past 30+ years, that's all.  It's listed routinely in television, print, and radio ads. Do you need someone to hold your hand and explain things which you should already be aware of? How often does it need to be repeated before you catch on? Products and services are subject to change. Products and services are subject to change. Products and services ares subject to change. Every provider basically rams it down our throats at every available opportunity.
> 
> Your suggestion that they remove any mention of what channels are listed in which package is ridiculous. You simply don't get it. You are paying for a service which provides you access to content. That content is "packaged" in differing program packages. The content in those packages is subject to change, as are any products and services. You are not promised that only those channels will be in that package. You are not promised that those channels will remain in that package. You are not promised that the package you are subscribing to will exist for the life of your agreement...it could be removed and replaced altogether. Once again, for all of you who for some unknown reason cannot grasp this, you are not paying for certain channels. You are paying for a service which provides you access to varying amounts of content. Get over it. That is just the way it is. That is the way it has been for a very, very long time. That is the way it will be for the foreseeable future. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. Good luck finding a cable or satellite television provider that does it differently anywhere in the world.
> 
> My best advice would be for you to gather enough investors to launch your own television provider. Then you can do things however you wish.


I just went through their website as a new customer to see where I would get this information. The only place they list that the channels can change is in the 2 page detailed agreement. Why not list it on the bottom of the channels listing (SINCE THAT IS WHERE THE CUSTOMER IS GOING TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT CHANNELS ARE IN THE PACKAGE!!) ?

You say they "ram it down" at every opportunity, but the only place I have ever seen this indicated is in the agreement that the customer has to sign. If its that GD important, why not list it all over the place ? For example, take a look at the channel listing for one of the packages. Why don't they CLEARLY indicate (right at the top of the list) that the channels can change ? I'll tell you why - because they would potentially lose customers!

God, you must be a lawyer.


----------



## koji68

Hoosier205 said:


> Some people refuse to accept that they subscribe to a service which provides various channels which are subject to change. Customers were not promised these channels when they signed up. They were included then, they are not included now, and they were always subject to change. If a customer fails to understand that...we can only help so much.


I guess you just like to argue this because you like to argue. Nobody subscribes to a package because of the number of channels. People want this channel and that channel and they subscribe to whatever package has them if they can afford it.

There is an implicit expectation from users that the channels that were there when they subscribed will continue to be available, specially channels that are widely available.

The fact that channels are missing doesn't relieve customers from their contract. However it is not unreasonable for customers to feel bait-and-switched when their favorite channel is gone. Dish should do something for those customers by the way of credits or releasing them from their contract. They may not be obligated but it makes good business sense.

And how about people that subscribe to the 120+ package? That's right the + means your regional sports network and $5 more to your bill. Have those people been given a credit because the channels are not available?


----------



## swallman

koji68 said:


> I guess you just like to argue this because you like to argue. Nobody subscribes to a package because of the number of channels. People want this channel and that channel and they subscribe to whatever package has them if they can afford it.
> 
> There is an implicit expectation from users that the channels that were there when they subscribed will continue to be available, specially channels that are widely available.
> 
> The fact that channels are missing doesn't relieve customers from their contract. However it is not unreasonable for customers to feel bait-and-switched when their favorite channel is gone. Dish should do something for those customers by the way of credits or releasing them from their contract. They may not be obligated but it makes good business sense.
> 
> And how about people that subscribe to the 120+ package? That's right the + means your regional sports network and $5 more to your bill. Have those people been given a credit because the channels are not available?


Agree completely - I've never actually looked at the "channel count" to determine the package I want to subscribe to. I look at the listing of actual CHANNELS to determine what channels I want to watch and then purchase the corresponding package.


----------



## mdavej

mnassour said:


> Unfortunately, the contract says they can change it at any time...and I think we all know that by now.


They can put whatever crazy stuff they want in the contract, but it won't hold up in court. Per the contract, they could remove every channel and leave you with nothing and you'd still be on the hook. Luckily, you have an implied contract where you are entitled to the services you paid for. As long as Hoosier isn't your lawyer, you'll win.


----------



## Hoosier205

I give up. My three year old could understand this, but a few grown adults cannot. Remember to breath in and out. I hope no one has to remind you of that as well.


----------



## SayWhat?

This is no different than what's going to happen next year when OprahNet comes on line and replaces an existing channel or when The Nashville Network morphed into The National Network and then SpikeTV or when CourtTV changed to TruTV or when Reality TV went away. How many other channels can we think of that have disappeared or changed names and content?

Channels come. Channels go. Dish doesn't create the content, they just pass on what's available to them Right now, Fox is not available to them, so they can't pass it on.


----------



## swallman

SayWhat? said:


> This is no different than what's going to happen next year when OprahNet comes on line and replaces an existing channel or when The Nashville Network morphed into The National Network and then SpikeTV or when CourtTV changed to TruTV or when Reality TV went away. How many other channels can we think of that have disappeared or changed names and content?
> 
> Channels come. Channels go. Dish doesn't create the content, they just pass on what's available to them Right now, Fox is not available to them, so they can't pass it on.


Different issue entirely. These channels are still available - content has not changed and the names have not changed. Its just that someone at Dish hasn't been very good at negotiating to keep them.

I believe most customers wouldn't have any issues with a channel that changes names, contents, goes off-air, etc. because it is entirely out of Dish's hands. In this instance however, it is not out of Dish's control.

And just so everyone knows - the loss of these channels doesn't really affect my viewing at all (I don't watch a lot of sports and didn't really watch F/X or NATGEO). It is more then principle of the matter.


----------



## SayWhat?

> These channels are still available -


No, they're not. Fox is not providing them to Dish.


----------



## mnassour

SayWhat? said:


> This is no different than what's going to happen next year when OprahNet comes on line and replaces an existing channel or when The Nashville Network morphed into The National Network and then SpikeTV or when CourtTV changed to TruTV or when Reality TV went away. How many other channels can we think of that have disappeared or changed names and content?
> 
> Channels come. Channels go. Dish doesn't create the content, they just pass on what's available to them Right now, Fox is not available to them, so they can't pass it on.


Well, double facepalms aside, that is about the size of it...but.....

Let's face it, there's a LOT of difference between a channel changing into something else and a channel not being available because Dish or DirecTV refused to pay what the programmer asked.

If as has been suggested, someone was to take this to court, I'd bet that there's no judge in the country who'd rule in favor of the consumer, given that both suppliers have absolute right (according to the contract the consumer agreed to) to change any programming at any time.

OTOH, taken the the absurd extreme, both suppliers could replace each and every channel with RFD-TV tomorrow and legally no one could do anything about it except pay the ETFs and sign up for cable. Would THAT hold up in court? I don't think so. But the judge's words would be drowned out by the sound of people disconnecting from both providers.

I'm just about to call Dish and postpone a switch from DirecTV to Dish due to the latest Fox fiasco. I figure that I'll give them 14 days to come to a conclusion. If it doesn't work in that time, I'll cancel the switch. People, it's only television. It's not a religion. No one called your momma a ***** (my asterisks).

It's pretty clear that Dish's track record with this kind of thing is...spotty, while DirecTV and most of the cable companies have generally been able to keep their channels on, with a few notable exceptions. That will hurt Dish in the long run.

After all, if the corner grocery doesn't carry Pepsi and you have to have Pepsi, you won't shop there, right?


----------



## swallman

SayWhat? said:


> No, they're not. Fox is not providing them to Dish.


Define "available". They are available to any provider that wants to negotiate a contract with Fox. You're telling me that they went from "available" to "unavailable" in a day ? Did Fox suddenly go out of business ? Did their broadcast and production facilities go down ? I don't think so.


----------



## nicshow

I'm thinking that eventually, assuming Fox is asking for the same kind of increase from everyone, that this will hit Direct and cable customers too? Direct or cable companies might choose to absorb this kind of increase I guess but my point is that while this is a Dish issue now it will be an issue for others as contracts come up for renewal?

Nic


----------



## dakeeney

My guess is that it's going down to the wire. By that I mean it will go down to the last day or two before local Fox channels are on the verge of being pulled then I believe we will see a new contract signed.


----------



## MysteryMan

dakeeney said:


> My guess is that it's going down to the wire. By that I mean it will go down to the last day or two before local Fox channels are on the verge of being pulled then I believe we will see a new contract signed.


Nothing like a cliffhanger!


----------



## Paul Secic

Jhon69 said:


> Well I think it's comical the Dish subscribers leaving for DirecTV.All the providers are dropping channels due to channel price disputes even DirecTV!!.:eek2::lol:


U-verse is warning their customers that all Scripts channels might go dark on October 31st if they don't reach an agreement.

From: Multichannel News.


----------



## Paul Secic

sigma1914 said:


> Highly watched? :lol:
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/0...ineas-and-ferb-top-week’s-cable-viewing/66700
> 
> Zero shows in top 25.


I blocked G4! Nothing but junk on it.


----------



## James Long

cartrivision said:


> Yikes!!!! You make zero sense. As much as you would like to stick your head in the sand and pretend that DIRECTV has no way of knowing if NFLST subscribers cover the cost that DIRECTV pays the NFL for the package rights ...


That is not what I'm saying. You AGREED with what I am saying. In your own words:"*All subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind.*"​
No insulting posts, no name calling, no of topic rants ... just agreement. "All subscription income of any kind goes to pay all programming (and other) costs of any kind."


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm not really missing anything that I notice. The only thing I watch on FX is all reruns that I can catch elsewhere. I might miss FoxMo if it goes, but not all that much.

If all the cost is in ESPN, I'd be content with leaving Fox out as long as we get a rate reduction.


----------



## Michael P

Moving on to the possibility of local FOX O&O stations being dropped. On of the markets mentioned as losing their FOX local station on on E* is "Cleveland/Akron" (everywhere I've seen the list our market shows up this way, which is unusual since Akron is never mentioned in the station ID's on any Cleveland station except for those that actually have Akron as the COL (The CW station and a PBS station are the only 2).

Anyway, while WJW FOX 8 _used to be_ a FOX O&O it was sold to "Community" (I'm not sure about the full name of the new owners i.e. Broadcasting, Partners, LLC etc.). Anyway why would this station get the hook on E* if it's no longer a par of the FOX O&O group.


----------



## James Long

SergeantPinback said:


> If they were, I would have watched Terriers last night on FX and I'd be watching It's Always Sunny In Philladelphia tonight.
> 
> Your argument fails.


The argument is over what is in the programming contract. FX is not offered a la carte. No one who subscribes to DISH or DirecTV is subscribing to FX or any particular program on the channel. Yes, your subscription normally delivers that channel and, when airing, that program. But this is real life. There are no guarantees.



Hoosier205 said:


> I give up. My three year old could understand this, but a few Dish subs cannot. Remember to breath in and out. I hope no one has to remind you of that as well.


It isn't just DISH subs that don't understand this nor non-DISH subs that do. Just call them people.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Michael P said:


> Anyway, while WJW FOX 8 used to be a FOX O&O it was sold to "Community" (I'm not sure about the full name of the new owners i.e. Broadcasting, Partners, LLC etc.). Anyway why would this station get the hook on E* if it's no longer a par of the FOX O&O group.


It was sold to Oak Hill Investment Partners, which operates their broadcast group as Local TV, LLC.

Think about it. Fox signed a master agreement for their owned-and-operated stations, then sold a few of those stations. Just because those stations are no longer owned by Fox doesn't mean the carriage agreement ceases. It is possible that Oak Hill wants Fox to manage their retransmission agreement, meaning Fox is responsible for signing carriage deals. The only way we'll know for certain is if WJW (and the rest of the Local TV-owned stations) goes off and then comes back on at the same time as the Fox O&O's.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> It isn't just DISH subs that don't understand this nor non-DISH subs that do. Just call them people.


You're absolutely right. I edited it, but chose "grown adults" instead of people.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Try #3?

I pay for internet access through AT&T... but that doesn't guarantee access to any particular Web site (including AT&T's own Web site sometimes as it happens).

IF all the Web sites that I want to visit (DBSTalk, AVSForum, Amazon, etc. etc.) crash, I don't get a refund from AT&T because my favorite Web sites are down... as long as I still am getting the internet access I pay for. AT&T doesn't control (though they'd probably like to) all the other Web sites.

I know this example doesn't hold up as 100% relevant... but some of the concept is similar.

We subscribe currently to tiers of packages and some a la carte programming. IF your a la carte channel is dropped, then you would not keep paying for that service. I also suspect if half of the channels in any given tier changed you'd have some recourse there as well. But a few channels? As much as none of us like it, it is a part of life that sometimes the things you want might be unavailable for a number of reasons.

I completely understand the frustration at the loss of channels... What I don't understand is how some people want to place the blame 100% at Dish's feet. I'm amazed that more people aren't siding with Dish against FOX. In fact, it could be argued that more public siding with Dish against FOX would help to resolve this conflict sooner and in all Dish customers' favor.

FOX is probably counting on some ranting to help push Dish to accept a higher increase than they otherwise would.


----------



## mnassour

Stewart Vernon said:


> Try #3?
> 
> IF all the Web sites that I want to visit (DBSTalk, AVSForum, Amazon, etc. etc.) crash, I don't get a refund from AT&T because my favorite Web sites are down... as long as I still am getting the internet access I pay for. AT&T doesn't control (though they'd probably like to) all the other Web sites.
> 
> I know this example doesn't hold up as 100% relevant... but some of the concept is similar.


Actually, I don't think it's the same at all.

Your ISP sells a lot more than a particular list of websites, whereas the DBS providers have a certain list of channels that they provide. Your ISP sells access, the DBS providers sell programming.

Now...when the day comes that I can turn on my DirecTV/Dishnetwork receiver and dial up RTE Ireland, ABC Australia, the BBC, *or any other broadcaster*, then the comparison is valid. Until then, I don't think so.

Regarding the current dispute, yes indeed, there's more than enough blame to go around. But I don't want to hear that the channels aren't "available" to Dish. They're available all right. All Dish has to do is agree to Fox's terms. I'm not saying that's what should happen. But let's not be disingenuous about it.


----------



## SayWhat?

> What I don't understand is how some people want to place the blame 100% at Dish's feet. I'm amazed that more people aren't siding with Dish against FOX. In fact, it could be argued that more public siding with Dish against FOX would help to resolve this conflict sooner and in all Dish customers' favor.
> 
> FOX is probably counting on some ranting to help push Dish to accept a higher increase than they otherwise would.


I wouldn't be too surprised if some of the posts here weren't made by Fox staffers or at least on their behalf.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> I wouldn't be too surprised if some of the posts here weren't made by Fox staffers or at least on their behalf.


Take off the tinfoil hat.


----------



## n0aaa

I haven't missed Fox yet, and I suspect I'm not going to.


----------



## sigma1914

n0aaa said:


> I haven't missed Fox yet, and I suspect I'm not going to.


Fox hasn't been removed, yet.


----------



## TBoneit

MysteryMan said:


> I agree david-jr. The solution to the problem will be the uniting of the providers when dealing with the broadcasters. If cable and satellite were on the same sheet of music when dealing with broadcasters the playing field would be reversed making the broadcasters weak. Until that happens the broadcasters will always have the upper hand.


I'm pretty sure that collusion between Cable, satellite & Fios like that is illegal


----------



## James Long

mnassour said:


> Actually, I don't think it's the same at all.


I agree with a different explanation.



> Your ISP sells access, the DBS providers sell programming.


Mosi ISPs sell blind access ... where you go is up to you. Few ISPs limit where you can go on the internet or provide content that is paid for via the ISP.

Exceptions would be AOL ... where they sold what would now be considered site access along with their general internet connectivity and some of the cable suppliers who bundle site access with connectivity. (Such as video download sites that are "free" if visited from certain ISPs but subscription visited from other ISPs.)

ISPs also get in to the content blocking business - I can't send an email without going through an ISPs subscription server. Other restrictions may be placed on uploads and downloads.

Perhaps that is what Stewart is really thinking? ISPs that bundle access to content sites along with connectivity? The sites specified don't support that argument but there are ISPs who sell content. THOSE ISPs would be comparable to any other content provider ...



> I don't want to hear that the channels aren't "available" to Dish. They're available all right. All Dish has to do is agree to Fox's terms. I'm not saying that's what should happen. But let's not be disingenuous about it.


Glasses free 3D TVs are available as well ... but not at a price that more than a few would pay for the level that the technology is at.

Not available without extraordinary cost.


----------



## adam1115

fireballer44 said:


> It's in big bold letters on their contract that they can change the price and channels you get at any time without letting you out of contract. It's actually a terrible incredibly one-sided contract and I feel like an idiot for having signed one.
> 
> I'm just going to hope Dish can take care of this, losing the FSN channels permanently is a deal breaker for me.


True, but that doesn't mean a judge would see it that way.

Say they took away all of the channels except shopping, do you think their contract would stand up? At some point the service has changed significantly from what was sold.


----------



## inazsully

To all the posters here that keep harping about how we're paying for a service and not specific channels and telling us to read the contract and that their 3 year old can understand it. A point was made earlier by someone regarding how often and how prominently these warnings about channel removal are stated. Dish's (or anybody else,"D") could very easily mention these facts at the start or end of the individual package content. Seriously, do have to wonder why they choose not to? We all know there is a method to their madness. It may be legal but it's legal deception.


----------



## swallman

inazsully said:


> To all the posters here that keep harping about how we're paying for a service and not specific channels and telling us to read the contract and that their 3 year old can understand it. A point was made earlier by someone regarding how often and how prominently these warnings about channel removal are stated. Dish's (or anybody else,"D") could very easily mention these facts at the start or end of the individual package content. Seriously, do have to wonder why they choose not to? We all know there is a method to their madness. It may be legal but it's legal deception.


That was myself who made that point. I was going to do an actual screenshot from Dish's website but couldn't figure out how to do that.

All providers need to be more up-front about this issue. As I stated earlier, the only place I could see this mentioned was in the 2 full pages of terms/conditions that most customers don't read anyways.


----------



## James Long

adam1115 said:


> True, but that doesn't mean a judge would see it that way.


Then tell it to a judge. By the time you get a court date the channels will be back.



> Say they took away all of the channels except shopping, do you think their contract would stand up? At some point the service has changed significantly from what was sold.


At some point? DISH has NOT taken away all channels except shopping. They have stopped rebroadcasting ONE channel normally delivered to about 8-10 million customers and a second channel normally delivered to 4-6 million customers. The sports channels are harder to track as they are regional but at least 4 million customers are not affected AT ALL by this issue. Their subscription remains intact.

What if a man with a six bullet gun walked in to a business employing 300 people. Would you claim that he was going to kill everybody? At best he could only kill six people (unless he could get them to line up and share bullets). Saying DISH not rebroadcasting a couple of channels is like them canceling all channels except shopping is the same level of exaggeration. They have not done that nor even threatened to do that.



swallman said:


> As I stated earlier, the only place I could see this mentioned was in the 2 full pages of terms/conditions that most customers don't read anyways.


Perhaps there should be a test like at the DMV to make sure people have read the terms before agreeing to them? Or a mortgage contract where the buyer has to initial every page and in some places specific paragraphs.


----------



## Hoosier205

It couldn't be more obvious if they stamped it on the back of your hand. There are groups of consumers out there who always want to place the blame on someone else. Take some responsibility and educate yourself before agreeing to something.


----------



## Jhon69

These threads are more proof that all sports needs to be in it's own package,just like High Definition needs to be in it's own package.Then the price of these packages will increase on it's own merit,with the core packages which would be standard definition would increase in costs only because of increased operating costs.


----------



## HobbyTalk

swallman said:


> All providers need to be more up-front about this issue. As I stated earlier, the only place I could see this mentioned was in the 2 full pages of terms/conditions that most customers don't read anyways.


The T&C you are talking about is the contract you sign when the system is installed. It is in quotes, bolded and underlined in that contract. If the customer does not read something that is bolded and underlined in a contract that they sign is it Dish's fault?


----------



## sigma1914

HobbyTalk said:


> The T&C you are talking about is the contract you sign when the system is installed. It is in quotes, bolded and underlined in that contract. If the customer does not read something that is bolded and underlined in a contract that they sign is it Dish's fault?


****It doesn't get more noticeable than that.****


----------



## Joe Diver

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm amazed that more people aren't siding with Dish against FOX.


I'm not taking either side in this. I don't care. It's between Fox and Dish. Let them hash it out and don't make it my problem.

However, now that it has affected me, the End User....I took my business elsewhere. Where it doesn't affect me.


----------



## phrelin

sigma1914 said:


> HobbyTalk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The T&C you are talking about is the contract you sign when the system is installed. It is in quotes, bolded and underlined in that contract. If the customer does not read something that is bolded and underlined in a contract that they sign is it Dish's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ****It doesn't get more noticeable than that.****
Click to expand...

Admittedly less noticeable but still there on the web site is the "All prices, packages and programming subject to change without notice."

DirecTV's agreement provides: "Accordingly, we must reserve the unrestricted right to change, rearrange, add or delete our programming packages, the selections in those packages, our prices, and any other Service we offer, at any time."

Neither company provides these terms in braille however, so I assume the complainers here either are all blind. Or they blindly sign contracts.


----------



## mdavej

Joe Diver said:


> I'm not taking either side in this. I don't care. It's between Fox and Dish. Let them hash it out and don't make it my problem.
> 
> However, now that it has affected me, the End User....I took my business elsewhere. Where it doesn't affect me.


But it will eventually when Fox tries to extort your new provider. Dish is doing everybody a favor by not caving in.


----------



## lparsons21

Joe Diver said:


> I'm not taking either side in this. I don't care. It's between Fox and Dish. Let them hash it out and don't make it my problem.
> 
> However, now that it has affected me, the End User....I took my business elsewhere. Where it doesn't affect me.


You are welcome to take your business to whichever service gives you what you want. That's the nice part about competition.

But you only know that it doesn't affect you today, you do not know what tomorrow brings. If Dish bends over for Fox, you can bet your bippy that the rates will increase more than they would have, and you can bet the other bippy that the same thing will happen to you with another provider.

BTW, by switching you gain sports and lose many national HD channels most likely. I assume you looked at that also?


----------



## Satelliteracer

lparsons21 said:


> You're probably right.
> 
> He most likely could get HD Access for free (-$10), MRV not the same ( -$3), and one DVR lease (-$5), but the total at D* for his example would still be higher by about $18/month.


All depends how many receivers are hooked up. What kind of experience you want (the two receivers feeding one tv for DISH is a LOT different experience than DIRECTV's receiver per tv), etc, etc.

The devil is in the details.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> All depends how many receivers are hooked up. What kind of experience you want (the two receivers feeding one tv for DISH is a LOT different experience than DIRECTV's receiver per tv), etc, etc.
> 
> The devil is in the details.


The details were specified as HE would want his system configured ... not the way you or I would configure it for our needs and desires, but his personal needs. That also explains the choice of Choice Xtra vs AT200 ... to get a channel he wanted via DirecTV he needed the Choice Xtra package but via DISH that particular channel was in AT200 (or perhaps lower ... the channel wasn't named).

We can all come up with our own way of spinning the price list but AS PRESENTED that comparison was of what fit his needs.

And the comparison could have been worse. Take a customer who ONLY wants ESPN and the multi-sports pack and doesn't care about anything else and compare that price. $51.99 vs $76.98 if bought today. At least the comparison was close.


----------



## Satelliteracer

swallman said:


> Then I think both D* and E* need to remove any mention of what channels are in what packages in their advertising. Let's see how many customers they get then!
> 
> They are pretty clear in on their websites, advertising, etc. that this package contains THESE channels. From a consumer standpoint, they need to be much more clear about the fact that the channels you get can change at any time at will (rather than burying it deep in a contract in fine print that probably 95% of the customers never read). I know - it's the consumer's fault for not reading that contract, but most consumer's probably couldn't understand a good portion of it because it was written up by lawyers.


And on both websites they clearly say channels are subject to change. Just like all car commercials say "mileage may vary" or broadband companies say "download speeds may vary", etc, etc. If you're a season ticket holder to the Dodgers and they trade Manny Ramirez mid season, do you get a refund? The "contents" of the package you bought changed, right? I'm not trying to be cute about it, just showing real world examples in other industries where by the very nature of the business, things do change.

It's a fluid business and MSO's try their level headed best to keep channels in certain packages without disrupting those packages. However, things do change from time to time and because there are so many channels those things will come up now and then.


----------



## adam1115

James Long said:


> Then tell it to a judge. By the time you get a court date the channels will be back.


I doubt they'd even sue, just harass you with a collection agency for years on end, or charge your credit card without permission.



phrelin said:


> Admittedly less noticeable but still there on the web site is the "All prices, packages and programming subject to change without notice."


Doesn't matter. They can put that, it doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.

They have a HUGE MARKETING campaign designed to get people to switch to Dish because they have the NFL Redzone channel. If in the middle of the season they dropped it, they aren't providing what they advertised and what may be the sole reason someone signed the contract.

There is a point that the service is completely different from the service that they advertised and you bought. I think one could make that argument if the rest of Fox disappears. It's egregious to offer a pay TV service without local channels and major cable stations that were advertised when you bought it. Yes, the programming is subject to change, meaning they can drop a channel without breaching the contract. But at some point they advertised a service that provided popular channels, and that clause isn't going to hold up in court.

Unfortunately it'd probably take a class action lawsuit from quite a few people who paid the ETF....


----------



## Satelliteracer

James Long said:


> The details were specified as HE would want his system configured ... not the way you or I would configure it for our needs and desires, but his personal needs. That also explains the choice of Choice Xtra vs AT200 ... to get a channel he wanted via DirecTV he needed the Choice Xtra package but via DISH that particular channel was in AT200 (or perhaps lower ... the channel wasn't named).
> 
> We can all come up with our own way of spinning the price list but AS PRESENTED that comparison was of what fit his needs.
> 
> And the comparison could have been worse. Take a customer who ONLY wants ESPN and the multi-sports pack and doesn't care about anything else and compare that price. $51.99 vs $76.98 if bought today. At least the comparison was close.


Fair point. I guess where I didn't explain as well as I should have is the experience you get as well. A two room setup for both companies may be an "apples to apples" comparison by some customers, but is it? When you use one box to feed service to two tv's (DISH scenario) is it the same experience even though you're saving on a mirroring \ lease fee? That's what I meant, it's more than just a side by side comparison but what you get for what you're paying for.

How good is the HD. Can you watch HD on both tv's. Is one room in Mono vs Dolby in the other? Can one person be watching something on one tv that prevents the other tv from being used to view anything? Etc.

The original comparison seemed to be a 2D flat comparison when maybe a deeper dive could be used. Of course, to be fair, it's all in what a person wants. If TV isn't that big a deal, then a quick side by side comparison may be all that is needed. If cost is the only issue, again...may be very relevant.

I've always said to my friends, family, etc....choose the service that fits your needs. If cost is a major issue, D* may not be your best spot to land, or a bundled package may make sense from a Telco. If you like sports, then you may consider something else. Etc, etc.


----------



## James Long

adam1115 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> adam1115 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fireballer44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in big bold letters on their contract that they can change the price and channels you get at any time without letting you out of contract. It's actually a terrible incredibly one-sided contract and I feel like an idiot for having signed one.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but that doesn't mean a judge would see it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then tell it to a judge. By the time you get a court date the channels will be back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt they'd even sue, just harass you with a collection agency for years on end, or charge your credit card without permission.
Click to expand...

I was referring to telling a judge that you were not getting the channels you paid for ... not defending against a claim of not paying your bill/ETF.

By the time you got a case organized and was in front of a judge I'd expect the channels to be back on.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> Fair point. I guess where I didn't explain as well as I should have is the experience you get as well. A two room setup for both companies may be an "apples to apples" comparison by some customers, but is it?


It depends. I only have one HDTV (and I have two HDTV receivers connected to it both DISH receivers just in case I want to record two things and watch a third live feed or compare reception between the receivers). Sending a SD signal to a second set (or in my case, every other SD set in my house via home distribution and an RF remote) works great. Two DISH HD receivers (which was what was quoted) could be two HD rooms and two SD rooms. He wanted HD in both rooms so two HD receivers were quoted.

The MRV charge could be debated since DISH doesn't offer that service ... but it is something he would buy if he could and it isn't a major cost like comparing DirecTV with NFLST (regular price) vs DISH.



> I've always said to my friends, family, etc....choose the service that fits your needs. If cost is a major issue, D* may not be your best spot to land, or a bundled package may make sense from a Telco. If you like sports, then you may consider something else. Etc, etc.


I agree.


----------



## Joe Diver

lparsons21 said:


> BTW, by switching you gain sports and lose many national HD channels most likely. I assume you looked at that also?


Of course. I spent hours doing side by side comparisons, and it turns out I'm only losing 2 HD channels I watch and have in my channel favorites. Everything else stays the same. The channels that were lost I didn't watch anyway, plus I've gained a few I will watch....and the SD feed is there if I'm desperate enough and simply "must" watch a show on one of those channels.

Besides...I'm a rabid hockey fan. I will not do without my Stars games. I was angry as hell last fall when they dropped 20 games due to a spat with Fox. Dropping 62 of 82 games is a no-go for me. I'll happily give up some national HD channels to get all my games...in glorious HD this season.

They're here now installing it....my buddy just called and he says his picture quality is noticeably better.....That HR24 is a great looking unit. It's replacing the VIP622 I've had forever.


----------



## phrelin

Joe Diver said:


> Of course. I spent hours doing side by side comparisons, and it turns out I'm only losing 2 HD channels I watch and have in my channel favorites. Everything else stays the same. The channels that were lost I didn't watch anyway, plus I've gained a few I will watch....and the SD feed is there if I'm desperate enough and simply "must" watch a show on one of those channels.
> 
> Besides...I'm a rabid hockey fan. I will not do without my Stars games. I was angry as hell last fall when they dropped 20 games due to a spat with Fox. Dropping 62 of 82 games is a no-go for me. I'll happily give up some national HD channels to get all my games...in glorious HD this season.
> 
> They're here now installing it....my buddy just called and he says his picture quality is noticeably better.....That HR24 is a great looking unit. It's replacing the VIP622 I've had forever.


Your research results represent what I've been puzzling over - why almost all rabid sports fans aren't on DirecTV? I think it speaks to the advantage of competition that you can get what you want. And as a "fallen-away" sports fan who loves scripted drama, having Dish works fine for me though, yes, I'm disappointed about FX. But I'm losing nothing important to me.


----------



## Davenlr

Local FM radio stations here (owned by the same company that owns the Fox television outlet, Clear Channel) is running twice hourly ads now, telling how DISH is dropping the channels, and giving examples of popular shows you cant watch now, then finishes with "What good is an EMPTY DISH", gives a website to go to, where they claim you can change to a provider that carries them.

Wonder if this advert is national?


----------



## Satelliteracer

Davenlr said:


> Local FM radio stations here (owned by the same company that owns the Fox television outlet, Clear Channel) is running twice hourly ads now, telling how DISH is dropping the channels, and giving examples of popular shows you cant watch now, then finishes with "What good is an EMPTY DISH", gives a website to go to, where they claim you can change to a provider that carries them.
> 
> Wonder if this advert is national?


We hear it daily out in Los Angeles. Yes, it's national.


----------



## cariera

James Long said:


> And the comparison could have been worse. Take a customer who ONLY wants ESPN and the multi-sports pack and doesn't care about anything else and compare that price. $51.99 vs $76.98 if bought today. At least the comparison was close.


Actually the Directv price for this given scenario would be $52.98 (Select plus the sports pack, $39.99 + $12.99)


----------



## cariera

James Long said:


> Perhaps there should be a test like at the DMV to make sure people have read the terms before agreeing to them? Or a mortgage contract where the buyer has to initial every page and in some places specific paragraphs.


However putting your initial on every page of a mortgage contract does not constitute reading the document. Hence one of the reasons we find ourselves in the housing mess we are in today, with some folks trying to blame everyone but themselves.


----------



## JackBauer112

So it looks as if this FOX situation for FOX O&O's will join in the FOX dispute for my own viewpoint RIP Dish Network (1996-2010)... Just may be the case. Because Dish seems to always be in these disputes, it's no wonder Charlie the cheapf** doesn't care about his customers. He hates YES network, MLB Network and he seems that all he cares about is the alternative. So basically, why doesn't he become An hero for his treatment for Dish Network. If E* only gets The company should just file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because all he cares about is pulling channels and lose subs to D*. What's the use of E* ever existing in the first place if this is the only thing they can offer and become a dumb dora of D*?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

mnassour said:


> But I don't want to hear that the channels aren't "available" to Dish. They're available all right. All Dish has to do is agree to Fox's terms. I'm not saying that's what should happen. But let's not be disingenuous about it.


IF we aren't being disingenuous... then the same should be said of FOX.

All FOX has to do is agree to accept the old contract rate while negotiating a new rate, and that too would put the channels back on air!

AND this is something FOX can do on their own as they control their channel feeds... whereas in your scenario it requires both FOX and Dish to do something.

Meanwhile, customers can also do as Joe Diver did... and change to DirecTV or some other provider that currently isn't having a dispute with FOX. That too would solve the problem for anyone currently missing a favorite show.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Satelliteracer said:


> And on both websites they clearly say channels are subject to change. Just like all car commercials say "mileage may vary" or broadband companies say "download speeds may vary", etc, etc. If you're a season ticket holder to the Dodgers and they trade Manny Ramirez mid season, do you get a refund? The "contents" of the package you bought changed, right? I'm not trying to be cute about it, just showing real world examples in other industries where by the very nature of the business, things do change.


IF you hadn't posted that... I would have posted a similar example but with Randy Moss being traded from New England to Minnesota in the NFL. Probably a much better example than some of the others I've tried that are less perfect in some ways.

Buying season tickets because you like a certain player... then that player gets traded... you don't get to return your tickets for a refund to the team ticket office.


----------



## James Long

cariera said:


> Actually the Directv price for this given scenario would be $52.98 (Select plus the sports pack, $39.99 + $12.99)


Life is easier when providers advertise all of their packages. 



cariera said:


> However putting your initial on every page of a mortgage contract does not constitute reading the document.


At least it makes you page through it - and unless your lender is a crook the right paragraphs are pointed out to you. Having customers initial the "we may change programming at any time" paragraph might cut down on some of the complaints from those who didn't ... but then they are kinda set in their non-reading ways.


----------



## HDlover

HobbyTalk said:


> The T&C you are talking about is the contract you sign when the system is installed. It is in quotes, bolded and underlined in that contract. If the customer does not read something that is bolded and underlined in a contract that they sign is it Dish's fault?


I would think a big change in price, channels etc. would void a commitment. A contract cannot be a one way street no matter what it says. Just because someone puts something in a contract, doesn't mean it is legal. A judge decides that. I wouldn't think twice about leaving Dish over this and not worry about them being able to enforce this clause. The more that do it, the harder for Dish to prevail. AFAIC. A renegotiation of the contract at minimum is required.


----------



## Joe Diver

Stewart Vernon said:


> Meanwhile, customers can also do as Joe Diver did... and change to DirecTV or some other provider that currently isn't having a dispute with FOX.


And now it is installed and configured....1080i to the TV and Dolby Digital to my AVR. The picture is beautiful and I think just a little bit better than Dish. Got all my favorites setup in my primary list and a sports list with NFL Sunday Ticket and NHL Center Ice. Watching the Hawks/Avs on VersusHD right now.

Very happy. Good choice.

And with that I no longer have a dog in this fight. Heading over to the DirecTV forums. Good luck to you all still with Dish!


----------



## SayWhat?

> Very happy. Good choice.


Until Fox or another provider gets into the same tiff with Direct.


----------



## meStevo

SayWhat? said:


> Until Fox or another provider gets into the same tiff with Direct.


That's a really paranoid view though. You can't blame people for fleeing a provider who almost seems to thrive on these conflicts due to the frequency they enter into these fights.

You can go into anything with the 'well it could happen there *someday* too' mentality... meanwhile every other service's customers are enjoying the content Dish isn't able to provide.


----------



## James Long

Looking ahead to tonight's games on Center Ice:
7pm Dallas at New Jersey (FS Southwest feed)
7:30 Anaheim at Detroit (FS Detroit feed)
7:30 Buffalo at Ottawa (Ottawa feed)
7:30 Washington at Atlanta (CSN DC feed)
Tomorrow:
7pm NY Rangers at Buffalo (MSG feed)
7pm Dallas at NY Islanders (MSG+ feed)
7pm Montreal at Pittsburgh (FS Pittsburgh)
7pm New Jersey at Washington (CSN DC feed)
7:30 Atlanta at Tampa Bay (SunSports feed)
8pm Philadelphia at St Louis (FS Midwest feed)
8pm Anaheim vs Nashville (FS Tennessee feed)

Blackouts apply. Only the St Louis game is blacked out for me. NHL Center Ice is in free preview so it is a good time to check the games.


----------



## MysteryMan

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF we aren't being disingenuous... then the same should be said of FOX.
> 
> All FOX has to do is agree to accept the old contract rate while negotiating a new rate, and that too would put the channels back on air!
> 
> AND this is something FOX can do on their own as they control their channel feeds... whereas in your scenario it requires both FOX and Dish to do something.
> 
> Meanwhile, customers can also do as Joe Diver did... and change to DirecTV or some other provider that currently isn't having a dispute with FOX. That too would solve the problem for anyone currently missing a favorite show.


True, but if they are still under contract there's that pesky termination fee!


----------



## RasputinAXP

JackBauer112 said:


> ...Charlie the cheapf**
> ...why doesn't he become An hero for his treatment for Dish Network.


You lost credibility there, and then zeroed it out with an ED reference.

Crawl back under the bridge, troll.


----------



## tommiet

ESPN and FOX are no different that HBO. It's time to move ALL sports programming into premium packages and let each customer make the call to pay or not. Don't force feed me ESPN and FOX sports.


----------



## Wilf

Strongly agree. According to the WSJ, 40 percent of our cable/satellite bill pays for sport channels. That means those of us that don't watch these channels are getting screwed.

Wilf


----------



## Greg Bimson

Wilf said:


> Strongly agree. According to the WSJ, 40 percent of our cable/satellite bill pays for sport channels. That means those of us that don't watch these channels are getting screwed.


Could you grab a link for that, please? Because I am having a hard time believing that of a $40 a month bill $16 of it goes to sports programming. ESPN around $4, RSN maybe around $2.50, and yes, there may be more than one depending on circumstances, but that doesn't get to $16.


----------



## david_jr

tommiet said:


> ESPN and FOX are no different that HBO. It's time to move ALL sports programming into premium packages and let each customer make the call to pay or not. Don't force feed me ESPN and FOX sports.


You do realize that this is the reason that YE$ is not on Dish. YE$ wants to be in the lowest teir of programming. Charlie said, no but we'll offer it ala cart at any price, you name and give you 100%. YE$ said No. It is the content providers that keep that from happening.


----------



## Greg Bimson

tommiet said:


> ESPN and FOX are no different that HBO. It's time to move ALL sports programming into premium packages and let each customer make the call to pay or not. Don't force feed me ESPN and FOX sports.





david_jr said:


> You do realize that this is the reason that YE$ is not on Dish. YE$ wants to be in the lowest teir of programming. Charlie said, no but we'll offer it ala cart at any price, you name and give you 100%. YE$ said No. It is the content providers that keep that from happening.


And from rumors, it may also be the reason both Fox and MSG cannot come to an agreement with Dish Network.

Dish Network has just over 14 milliion subscribers. Of those, just over 4 million do not get an RSN, FX or NatGeo, because those channels aren't available in AT120. Fox has every right to be upset when USA and TNT are in AT120, but the highly-rated programming on FX cannot even be seen by 4+ million subscribers.


----------



## SayWhat?

I have no problem with FX and NatGeo being in 120 along with FoxMo and a few others. Drop all sports out of it and all shopping channels while you're at it. Make 120 a package worthwhile. I hate having to take 250 because there are only a few channels in it that I want.


----------



## festivus

Those of you that think that Dish should just accept Fox's demands do realize that the cost will be passed on to Dish customers, right? I'm sure you do.

Greed, greed, greed. Why the heck does Fox need such a big hike in it's fees? I simply can't understand why they are forcing something like this down the throats of Dish in such a bad economy. Unless there is some type of vendetta against Dish left over from when Murdoch owned DirecTV and the merger didn't happen.

The only thing I'm going to miss is some local hockey coverage that I watch only now and then anyway. Maybe some pac10 football. I'll get my local fox via OTA and I really don't watch any of the other fox channels. As far as I'm concerned Murdoch can yank everything and I won't really care.


----------



## PBowie

Im angry at DISH for KEEPING fox news and business on the air !


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Looking ahead to tonight's games on Center Ice:
> 7pm Dallas at New Jersey (FS Southwest feed)
> 7:30 Anaheim at Detroit (FS Detroit feed)
> 7:30 Buffalo at Ottawa (Ottawa feed)
> 7:30 Washington at Atlanta (CSN DC feed)
> Tomorrow:
> 7pm NY Rangers at Buffalo (MSG feed)
> 7pm Dallas at NY Islanders (MSG+ feed)
> 7pm Montreal at Pittsburgh (FS Pittsburgh)
> 7pm New Jersey at Washington (CSN DC feed)
> 7:30 Atlanta at Tampa Bay (SunSports feed)
> 8pm Philadelphia at St Louis (FS Midwest feed)
> 8pm Anaheim vs Nashville (FS Tennessee feed)
> 
> Blackouts apply. Only the St Louis game is blacked out for me. NHL Center Ice is in free preview so it is a good time to check the games.


Quick question. I assume that CI is handles the same way on Dish...the RSN's carrying the games are mirrored to CI channels as well. When a customer is in this situation...are there any notifications from Dish to alert them that there is an alternative? Meaning that while their RSN is not available, the game is on a CI channel which is a free preview for the time being. I don't know how they would go about making this known to folks. If they don't...I wonder how many folks just give up when their RSN isn't available and believe they cannot watch the game.


----------



## habsfan66

Hoosier205 said:


> Quick question. I assume that CI is handles the same way on Dish...the RSN's carrying the games are mirrored to CI channels as well. When a customer is in this situation...are there any notifications from Dish to alert them that there is an alternative? Meaning that while their RSN is not available, the game is on a CI channel which is a free preview for the time being. I don't know how they would go about making this known to folks. If they don't...I wonder how many folks just give up when their RSN isn't available and believe they cannot watch the game.


One thing that might help would be to actually post the Center Ice schedule on the website. It's said to check back next season for the schedule since last season ended. DirecTV has had theirs for a month and even cable (INDemand) got theirs up this week. Not too impressive when cable outdoes you.


----------



## Hoosier205

habsfan66 said:


> One thing that might help would be to actually post the Center Ice schedule on the website. It's said to check back next season for the schedule since last season ended. DirecTV has had theirs for a month and even cable (INDemand) got theirs up this week. Not too impressive when cable outdoes you.


Yikes. You're right...very little information provided on the website.


----------



## bbexperience

Here's an amusing part from the Fox-sponsered getwhatipaidfor.com:

Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will “force” them to raise fees for consumers.

Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates.

Seems like they're more interested in riling up the customers than doing any negotiating.


----------



## lparsons21

while all of this is very big news and discussion here and in other sat TV sites, it seems locally to me, that it isn't such a big deal at all. I brought up the topic during the last couple of days on the golf course with my playing buddies and was surprised that only one of them was even aware that there was an issue. And that from the guy that describes himself as a sports nut.

That makes me wonder just how big a deal this is. Here we know it is, but in the general public? I guess it would in some areas. For us locally, the current issue seems to be much ado about little. And if the O&O local Fox channels go dark on Dish, it won't be noticed here, 'cause ours is not one of them.

From our local perspective, all of this is not much. Including the Disney et.al. issue, which doesn't seem to have kept traction.


----------



## bbexperience

> while all of this is very big news and discussion here and in other sat TV sites, it seems locally to me, that it isn't such a big deal at all. I brought up the topic during the last couple of days on the golf course with my playing buddies and was surprised that only one of them was even aware that there was an issue. And that from the guy that describes himself as a sports nut.
> 
> That makes me wonder just how big a deal this is. Here we know it is, but in the general public? I guess it would in some areas. For us locally, the current issue seems to be much ado about little. And if the O&O local Fox channels go dark on Dish, it won't be noticed here, 'cause ours is not one of them.
> 
> From our local perspective, all of this is not much. Including the Disney et.al. issue, which doesn't seem to have kept traction.


Frankly, I knew nothing about it until last night when a friend brought it up to me, and then I looked here for more info. I think it'll become a big deal to the general public if the locals go dark in all the areas that Fox is claiming Dish will "turn off". I'm telling you, if Glee can't be viewed they're gonna get calls from a couple million angry women. :lol:


----------



## festivus

bbexperience said:


> Here's an amusing part from the Fox-sponsered getwhatipaidfor.com:
> 
> Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will "force" them to raise fees for consumers.
> 
> Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates.
> 
> Seems like they're more interested in riling up the customers than doing any negotiating.


Very nice. If that's true then this is true:

Myth: If broadcasters like Fox receive fair value for the programming provided to TV providers, they should not have to raise rates on those providers.

Fact: Fox is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge TV providers to broadcast programming). But they're so greedy that they feel the need to raise rates even during rough economic times. Being successful and profitable is not enough for some companies.


----------



## MysteryMan

festivus said:


> Very nice. If that's true then this is true:
> 
> Myth: If broadcasters like Fox receive fair value for the programming provided to TV providers, they should not have to raise rates on those providers.
> 
> Fact: Fox is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge TV providers to broadcast programming). But they're so greedy that they feel the need to raise rates even during rough economic times. Being successful and profitable is not enough for some companies.


Quote by Gorden Gekko: "I once said greed is good. Now it seems it's legal!"


----------



## DodgerKing

SayWhat? said:


> I have no problem with FX and NatGeo being in 120 along with FoxMo and a few others. Drop all sports out of it and all shopping channels while you're at it. Make 120 a package worthwhile. I hate having to take 250 because there are only a few channels in it that I want.


The shopping channels reduce your monthly bill as they pay the provider to broadcast


----------



## DodgerKing

PBowie said:


> Im angry at DISH for KEEPING fox news and business on the air !


These two channels are under a different agreement and have nothing to do with the current channels in the dispute


----------



## DodgerKing

Since FS West was removed, if a Dish sub in the LA market (FS West market) wanted to watch the Kings, could they do so on CI through the FS West feed?

Asking because a colleague has Dish and is a huge Kings fan. He wants to know if he will be able to watch the Kings if he gets CI


----------



## garn9173

DodgerKing said:


> The shopping channels reduce your monthly bill as they pay the provider to broadcast


same goes for the God squad channels as well.


----------



## Greg Bimson

festivus said:


> Myth: If broadcasters like Fox receive fair value for the programming provided to TV providers, they should not have to raise rates on those providers.
> 
> Fact: Fox is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge TV providers to broadcast programming). But they're so greedy that they feel the need to raise rates even during rough economic times. Being successful and profitable is not enough for some companies.


What?

Fox "should not have to raise rates on those providers?". Fox shouldn't "raise rates even during rough economic times?" Dish raised rates to subscribers during the recession. They've raised rates this year, twice if one counts the new receiver fees.


----------



## adkinsjm

DodgerKing said:


> Since FS West was removed, if a Dish sub in the LA market (FS West market) wanted to watch the Kings, could they do so on CI through the FS West feed?
> 
> Asking because a colleague has Dish and is a huge Kings fan. He wants to know if he will be able to watch the Kings if he gets CI


Nope. Kings would be blacked out.


----------



## TBoneit

Greg Bimson said:


> And from rumors, it may also be the reason both Fox and MSG cannot come to an agreement with Dish Network.
> 
> Dish Network has just over 14 milliion subscribers. Of those, just over 4 million do not get an RSN, FX or NatGeo, because those channels aren't available in AT120. Fox has every right to be upset when USA and TNT are in AT120, but the highly-rated programming on FX cannot even be seen by 4+ million subscribers.


Greg
If that "Highly rated programming" were desired by the 4 Million customers they would have AT250 instead of AT120.

Not to mention that the same argument could be applied to all the other channels in AT250 that aren't in AT120.

As far as the highly rated Fox programming on those channels? I didn't watch any of them this summer whereas I did watch USA channel and once or twice TNT. They may be desirable programming in Foxes mind, not to me however.


----------



## TBoneit

adam1115 said:


> I doubt they'd even sue, just harass you with a collection agency for years on end, or charge your credit card without permission.
> 
> Snipped


You think DirecTV doesn't do that all the time then you need to read all the complaints posted by former DirecTV customers that had their bank accounts dinged.

I'll go one better, I've seen many complaints against DirecTV from non subscribers who had their cards or checking dinged. All because they did someone a favor by paying one bill for them. D* keeps all the payment info that was ever used and will take the money from whoever has it when they are owed.

And you did give them that right as DirecTV is quick to point out when you signed up.


----------



## grog

Well in the end we decided to jump ship.

At first I thought we could just wait and see how things so but my wife does not want to miss the games. So....

Ordered DirecTV and install will be next Friday.

Email confirms the commitment:

Your installer will arrive between 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM on Friday, October 15, 2010.​
It may be of interest that DirecTV normally can schedule installs in 24 to 48 hours from the order. That was on their FAQ's.

So I asked why so long....

The answer was 'We are right now flooded with customers moving from Dish to DirecTV due to loss of their sports packages'.

Got all the sports packages my wife wanted including 'NFL SUNDAY TICKET'.

YOUR EQUIPMENT SELECTION
2 DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR $398.00
2 DIRECTV® HD Receiver $198.00
1 DIRECTV® Slimline Dish $0.00
1 Instant Rebate -$100.00
1 Instant Rebate -$199.00
Equipment Total $297.00

Was with Dish for many years but with time things change. 

Will need to call Dish to start the equipment removal process. I am way passed any commitment dates by a long shot.


----------



## Hoosier205

grog said:


> Well in the end we decided to jump ship.
> 
> At first I thought we could just wait and see how things so but my wife does not want to miss the games. So....
> 
> Ordered DirecTV and install will be next Friday.
> 
> Email confirms the commitment:
> 
> Your installer will arrive between 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM on Friday, October 15, 2010.​
> It may be of interest that DirecTV normally can schedule installs in 24 to 48 hours from the order. That was on their FAQ's.
> 
> So I asked why so long....
> 
> The answer was 'We are right now flooded with customers moving from Dish to DirecTV due to loss of their sports packages'.
> 
> Got all the sports packages my wife wanted including 'NFL SUNDAY TICKET'.
> 
> YOUR EQUIPMENT SELECTION
> 2 DIRECTV Plus® HD DVR $398.00
> 2 DIRECTV® HD Receiver $198.00
> 1 DIRECTV® Slimline Dish $0.00
> 1 Instant Rebate -$100.00
> 1 Instant Rebate -$199.00
> Equipment Total $297.00
> 
> Was with Dish for many years but with time things change.
> 
> Will need to call Dish to start the equipment removal process. I am way passed any commitment dates by a long shot.


Did you get Whole-Home DVR (MRV) as well?


----------



## sigma1914

TBoneit said:


> ...
> As far as the highly rated Fox programming on those channels? I didn't watch any of them this summer whereas I did watch USA channel and once or twice TNT. They may be desirable programming in Foxes mind, not to me however.


FX was the 10th highest cable network of 2009.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

bbexperience said:


> Here's an amusing part from the Fox-sponsered getwhatipaidfor.com:
> 
> Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will "force" them to raise fees for consumers.
> 
> Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates.
> 
> Seems like they're more interested in riling up the customers than doing any negotiating.


Yeah, that's insanely absurd... One could just as easily say "FOX is a succesful and profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge companies like Dish for content they provide free over the air). It can surely afford to do business at the current rates and not unfairly ask viewers to pay more for the same programming".


----------



## Hoosier205

I can also understand why they are trying to get more money as well. Any successful business will do the same. Both content and service providers have seen various revenue streams struggle. Fox does significant business with advertising on their networks. I'm betting that it isn't bringing in the same rate of dough as it was several years ago. If they are in a position to ask for more, I'm not surprised that they are. We also have to remember that their COO (Chase Carey) knows the provider side of the business very, very well.


----------



## grog

Yes indeed. I know I only needed on DVR as the others can record as well using the Whole-Home-DVR Service but for the price... why not.. The lease is the same for DVR and non-DVR's. $5.00 for each additional receiver. So $15.00 a month for my equipment rental.


NFL SUNDAY TICKET 2010
ESPN GamePlan 2010
NBA LEAGUE PASS 2010-11
ESPN Full Court 2010-11
HD Access
DVR Service
DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service
DIRECTV HD EXTRA PACK
NFL SUNDAY TICKET To-Go 2010
DIRECTV on DEMAND
PREMIER



Hoosier205 said:


> Did you get Whole-Home DVR (MRV) as well?


----------



## Joe Diver

grog said:


> The answer was 'We are right now flooded with customers moving from Dish to DirecTV due to loss of their sports packages'.


My experience switching to DirecTV was the same. This morning when I called to cancel Dish, she had to go through her spiel trying to keep me, and actually said "we expect our subscribers to stand with us against Fox"....oh man....while she was processing the cancellation, there was a period of a few minutes when she wasn't talking and I could hear through the clamor in the background of all the other CSR's...and there were lots of "we anticipate getting Fox Sports back soon"...and "if you can just wait a little longer"...."we're sorry you're leaving Dish"....it was very busy indeed.

I also noticed this morning...the DirecTV installer was across the street replacing Dish on my neighbor's house.


----------



## Hoosier205

grog said:


> Yes indeed. I know I only needed on DVR as the others can record as well using the Whole-Home-DVR Service but for the price... why not.. The lease is the same for DVR and non-DVR's. $5.00 for each additional receiver. So $15.00 a month for my equipment rental.
> 
> 
> NFL SUNDAY TICKET 2010
> ESPN GamePlan 2010
> NBA LEAGUE PASS 2010-11
> ESPN Full Court 2010-11
> HD Access
> DVR Service
> DIRECTV Whole-Home DVR Service
> DIRECTV HD EXTRA PACK
> NFL SUNDAY TICKET To-Go 2010
> DIRECTV on DEMAND
> PREMIER


That's good. The more DVR's you have...the more capacity. You loaded up on the sports packages! Congratulations. While I hope this situation is resolved for Dish customers soon (lord knows it could be coming our way next), we look forward to seeing you in the DirecTV forums.


----------



## lparsons21

grog said:


> Well in the end we decided to jump ship.
> 
> At first I thought we could just wait and see how things so but my wife does not want to miss the games. So....
> 
> It may be of interest that DirecTV normally can schedule installs in 24 to 48 hours from the order. That was on their FAQ's.
> 
> So I asked why so long....
> 
> The answer was 'We are right now flooded with customers moving from Dish to DirecTV due to loss of their sports packages'.


I snipped a bit.

Their answer on the delay in installation may or may not be true, just a bit ago they were having this same problem, but then it was equipment shortages. I don't blame them for using this as a reason, it gives the impression that tons of people are changing over, even if that isn't the case.

But you are changing for the right reason, imo. You want the sports. That makes sense to me.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy them.


----------



## grog

We thought about the change and it was not an easy one.

The thing is I really see Dish and DirecTV offerings are to different target groups and there is nothing wrong with that.

Dish should be known as the best entertainment network for movies. Dish should also carry the crown for those who want basic service without all the baggage.

DirectTV should be the one stop sports authority.

I can live with that reality. 



Hoosier205 said:


> That's good. The more DVR's you have...the more capacity. You loaded up on the sports packages! Congratulations. While I hope this situation is resolved for Dish customers soon (lord knows it could be coming our way next), we look forward to seeing you in the DirecTV forums.


----------



## festivus

Stewart Vernon said:


> Yeah, that's insanely absurd... One could just as easily say "FOX is a succesful and profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge companies like Dish for content they provide free over the air). It can surely afford to do business at the current rates and not unfairly ask viewers to pay more for the same programming".


Exactly! It was the point of my earlier post. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Hey everyone, no matter who is at fault here the executives get their huge bonuses and the consumer pays in the end. I know it, you know it. Murdoch will buy another yacht and you'll give up an extra few bucks a month to pay for it.


----------



## mnassour

bbexperience said:


> Here's an amusing part from the Fox-sponsered getwhatipaidfor.com:
> 
> Myth: If TV Providers like DISH Network pay fair value for the programming provided by broadcasters and other content providers, it will "force" them to raise fees for consumers.
> 
> Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates.
> 
> Seems like they're more interested in riling up the customers than doing any negotiating.


That "fact" is the largest piece of dog crap that has ever been published on the net.

Shall we remember that FOX STATIONS GROUP is a vicious negotiator? Indeed, Fox is one of the reasons that over the air TV is no longer free to any provider AND IS ABOUT TO YANK THEIR OTA SIGNAL FROM DISHNETWORK?

Fox Television....liars all.


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> Your research results represent what I've been puzzling over - why almost all rabid sports fans aren't on DirecTV? I think it speaks to the advantage of competition that you can get what you want. And as a "fallen-away" sports fan who loves scripted drama, having Dish works fine for me though, yes, I'm disappointed about FX. But I'm losing nothing important to me.


Just maybe they switched from D* to E* when D* had problems with OLN(Versus)?.Now they are going home to D*, until the next problem D* has with the programmers?.


----------



## Hoosier205

Jhon69 said:


> Just maybe they switched from D* to E* when D* had problems with OLN(Versus)?.Now they are going home to D*, until the next problem D* has with the programmers?.


Programming disputes are much more frequent with one provider than the other. Play the odds I guess.


----------



## Jhon69

JackBauer112 said:


> So it looks as if this FOX situation for FOX O&O's will join in the FOX dispute for my own viewpoint RIP Dish Network (1996-2010)... Just may be the case. Because Dish seems to always be in these disputes, it's no wonder Charlie the cheapf** doesn't care about his customers. He hates YES network, MLB Network and he seems that all he cares about is the alternative. So basically, why doesn't he become An hero for his treatment for Dish Network. If E* only gets The company should just file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because all he cares about is pulling channels and lose subs to D*. What's the use of E* ever existing in the first place if this is the only thing they can offer and become a dumb dora of D*?


If it wasn't for E*,D* subscribers would be paying up the waazoo for programming.E* programming prices keeps D*'s programming prices lower to complete with E*.


----------



## sigma1914

Jhon69 said:


> If it wasn't for E*,D* subscribers would be paying up the waazoo for programming.E* programming prices keeps D*'s programming prices lower to complete with E*.


Cable companies play just a big of role. Dish isn't the main factor.


----------



## Jhon69

Hoosier205 said:


> Programming disputes are much more frequent with one provider than the other. Play the odds I guess.


That's true.I knew what I was getting into when I switched from D* back to E*.
Alot of the other's didn't.So much for going for a cheaper price.

At least the "special deals" that D* offers will help ease the pinch for a while.:grin:

As for me? I'm in it for the duration.


----------



## James Long

All just uplinked ... all sharing the same channel spaces ... none available.
Looks like DISH is preparing to share a video ... on channels near Fox owned stations.

*Channels NOT Available*
8312 (6) Atlanta, GA market
8255 (8) Austin, TX market
8737 (25) Baltimore, MD market
8057 (7) Birmingham, AL market
8769 (26) Boston, MA market
8508 (33) Chicago, IL market
8509 (51) Chicago, IL market
8518 (9) Cleveland, OH market
8418 (3) Dallas, TX market
8419 (28) Dallas, TX market
8209 (32) Denver, CO market
8029 (3) Detroit, MI market
7799 (52) Gainesville, FL market
7264 (9) Greensboro/Winston Salem, NC market
8368 (27) Houston, TX market
8369 (21) Houston, TX market
6686 (14) Jonesboro, AR market
8439 (3) Kansas City, MO market
8026 (12) Los Angeles, CA market
8027 (14) Los Angeles, CA market
7169 (12) Memphis, TN market
8578 (10) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
8579 (30) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
8098 (6) New York, NY market 
8099 (10) New York, NY market
8268 (36) Orlando, FL market
8269 (66) Orlando, FL market
8149 (30) Philadelphia, PA market
8318 (11) Phoenix, AZ market
8319 (46) Phoenix, AZ market
8529 (15) Salt Lake City, UT market
6755 (3) St Joseph, MO market
8589 (3) St Louis, MO market
8682 (14) Tampa, FL market
8078 (6) Washington, DC market
8079 (19) Washington, DC market


----------



## swallman

James Long said:


> All just uplinked ... all sharing the same channel spaces ... none available.
> Looks like DISH is preparing to share a video ... on channels near Fox owned stations.
> 
> *Channels NOT Available*
> 8312 (6) Atlanta, GA market
> 8255 (8) Austin, TX market
> 8737 (25) Baltimore, MD market
> 8057 (7) Birmingham, AL market
> 8769 (26) Boston, MA market
> 8508 (33) Chicago, IL market
> 8509 (51) Chicago, IL market
> 8518 (9) Cleveland, OH market
> 8418 (3) Dallas, TX market
> 8419 (28) Dallas, TX market
> 8209 (32) Denver, CO market
> 8029 (3) Detroit, MI market
> 7799 (52) Gainesville, FL market
> 7264 (9) Greensboro/Winston Salem, NC market
> 8368 (27) Houston, TX market
> 8369 (21) Houston, TX market
> 6686 (14) Jonesboro, AR market
> 8439 (3) Kansas City, MO market
> 8026 (12) Los Angeles, CA market
> 8027 (14) Los Angeles, CA market
> 7169 (12) Memphis, TN market
> 8578 (10) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
> 8579 (30) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
> 8098 (6) New York, NY market
> 8099 (10) New York, NY market
> 8268 (36) Orlando, FL market
> 8269 (66) Orlando, FL market
> 8149 (30) Philadelphia, PA market
> 8318 (11) Phoenix, AZ market
> 8319 (46) Phoenix, AZ market
> 8529 (15) Salt Lake City, UT market
> 6755 (3) St Joseph, MO market
> 8589 (3) St Louis, MO market
> 8682 (14) Tampa, FL market
> 8078 (6) Washington, DC market
> 8079 (19) Washington, DC market


The bad thing in these negotiations is that Fox really has the upper hand for the most part (especially when it comes to the Fox locals). Dish would be extremely hard-pressed to not come to terms with Fox on these. Fortunately our Fox affiliate is not O&O but the outcry in our area would be enormous (esp. on Sunday since most of the Packer games are carried on Fox) if we lost the Fox location station.

Many areas in Western Wisconsin are in areas where you can't get the local Fox affiliate due to terrain.


----------



## mnassour

OK, this is bad. Really, really, bad. It looks like Dish has dug in its heels and is preparing for outright war. This is a scenario where absolutely no one wins.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo

Yeah, thankfully our local FOX station isn't O&O either. It comes out of Cape Girardeau (KBSI-23). I know my dad is not happy about losing FSN-MW out of St. Louis. which of course carries the Cardinals and Blues games, but I could care less really about that RSN. Even though I am a Cubs fan, I kind of gave up on them these past 2 years. Start watching at the beginning of the season just to see how "next year" is gong to go, and then when it becomes apparent that they stink, I stop watching. However, I may watch Blackhawks and Bulls games on CSN.

Actually the channels I can't get over is FX and NatGeo. I don't watch Sons of Anarchy, but I did watch Justifed. I just hope that this is settled before the new season of that starts.

And let me quote this again:


> Fact: DISH Network is a successful, profitable business (thanks in part to the money they already charge subscribers for free, over-the-air broadcast programming). It can surely afford to fairly compensate broadcasters for that content without raising rates.


What a load of horse manure. It's like the same class warfare crap we hear from the politicians these days. "_Oh, because DISH makes so much money they should be able to afford paying our new outrageous feees._"

Hello Pot, Meet Kettle. Hey, FOX, who are you to decide how much some entity can afford?


----------



## DodgerKing

adkinsjm said:


> Nope. Kings would be blacked out.


That is what I thought. Thanks.

I know on EI, I can see the actual Dodgers and Angels feed on EI (the other team's feed is blacked out) or on the local RSN. I would assume if I lost the feed due to a program dispute, they would block it both ways or I would be able to get around the blockage by ordering EI. I can only assume the same is true for CI as well

He is now trying to get DirecTV hooked up ASAP, but the local dealers are backed up so the soonest he can get one is 3 weeks from now. He is on a cancellation list, so if someone in his area cancels they will contact him to see if he can do an earlier time. He is going to keep Dish until Direct is officially installed and if they bring back his King games on Dish before the installation, then he will cancel the Direct install.

I told him to try local cable since there is no contract. He can at least watch his Kings on cable until the Dish and Fox situation is worked out. He does not want to pay two bills, cable stinks, and he said it could take years (which I doubt) for them to settle


----------



## Wilf

"Could you grab a link for that, please? Because I am having a hard time believing that of a $40 a month bill $16 of it goes to sports programming. ESPN around $4, RSN maybe around $2.50, and yes, there may be more than one depending on circumstances, but that doesn't get to $16."

I don't have a link, but it was about last March I saw the article. I don't think it has been a secret that the sports channels are very, very pricey.

Wilf


----------



## Satelliteracer

lparsons21 said:


> I snipped a bit.
> 
> Their answer on the delay in installation may or may not be true.


It's true. A LOT of volume right now.


----------



## Eksynyt

mnassour said:


> OK, this is bad. Really, really, bad. It looks like Dish has dug in its heels and is preparing for outright war. This is a scenario where absolutely no one wins.


Dish is going to pay dearly for this. I don't like what either side is doing but Fox can hold out a lot longer than Dish. If Dish loses these local fox channels and these big markets lose NFL and top-rated shows for a significant length of time, Dish will fall into oblivion.


----------



## scooper

Eksynyt said:


> Dish is going to pay dearly for this. I don't like what either side is doing but Fox can hold out a lot longer than Dish. If Dish loses these local fox channels and these big markets lose NFL and top-rated shows for a significant length of time, Dish will fall into oblivion.


Ok - you made me break my self imposed silence -

You're exagerating.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

If Dish doesn't resolve this problem yesterday, then Dish and all people connected to Dish either as employee or as customer will simultaneously implode and create micro-black-holes that will all merge into a mega-black hole and result in the destruction of all reality by noon tomorrow.

Ok, now that we're done with hyperbole 

Back to the thread...



festivus said:


> Exactly! It was the point of my earlier post. It's the pot calling the kettle black.


Yeah, I saw your post on the page after I had replied... great minds think alike sometimes!


----------



## SDWC

Not sure if it's coincidence or related to the dispute, but the two NHL CI games broadcast Friday night fed from FSN channels are only being fed to CI in SD,no HD feed.

They are:

Channel 627 Dallas at NJ (FS Southwest)
Channel 628 Anaheim at Detroit (FS Detroit)

Will have to see if this pattern is consistent moving forward. The Comcast Sports Net game between Washington and Atlanta is displayed in the guide as channel 630 HD feed (as well as SD feed).


----------



## swallman

scooper said:


> Ok - you made me break my self imposed silence -
> 
> You're exagerating.


I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Dish will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands.

I don't have an issue with Dish picking a hard line on these negotiations, but honestly they shouldn't be getting to the point where channels are getting pulled - these contracts should've been resolved months ago.

I think eventually enough consumers are going to complain that Congress will end up stepping in.


----------



## Eksynyt

Center Ice games seem to be working.


----------



## sigma1914

Eksynyt said:


> Center Ice games seem to be working.


Yikes, only 1 HD feed (in bold)?
10/08	627	-	07:00	Dallas vs New Jersey (DAL)
10/08	628	-	07:30	Anaheim vs Detroit (DET)
10/08	629	-	07:30	Buffalo vs Ottawa (OTT)
*10/08	630	9546	07:30	Washington vs Atlanta (WSH)*


----------



## Greg Bimson

I'm waiting for someone to parody the "Let's Watch TV" commercials.

One of the harsh realities is that Dish Network will lose subscribers over this. The amount remains to be seen. The other reality is the more this plays out, especially if the Fox- and Local TV- O&O's are pulled, that Dish Network will have a difficult time signing up new subscribers _unless_ there is some kind of discount offered.

Like I've been saying in the a la carte threads, most people just want to watch television with the least amount of thought possible. If channels are missing from packages, then the least amount of thought is to go elsewhere to get what you want.


----------



## scooper

swallman said:


> I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Dish will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands.
> 
> I don't have an issue with Dish picking a hard line on these negotiations, but honestly they shouldn't be getting to the point where channels are getting pulled - these contracts should've been resolved months ago.
> 
> I think eventually enough consumers are going to complain that Congress will end up stepping in.


*WHO* will have the problem ?

*WHO* will not be getting the advertising they normally get due to lower viewers ?

Fox can fix this very quickly - but you don't push around Charlie Ergen. Tivo has found that out the hard way.


----------



## swallman

scooper said:


> *WHO* will have the problem ?
> 
> *WHO* will not be getting the advertising they normally get due to lower viewers ?
> 
> Fox can fix this very quickly - but you don't push around Charlie Ergen. Tivo has found that out the hard way.


As someone earlier up in the thread said - the typical Dish customer doesn't really care about the politics and negotiating - they just want to watch their TV. Especially when they look at either D* or cable and see that they have the channels and Dish doesn't. I know that is exactly the way my wife would be - she just wants to watch her channels (even if it would cost a bit more).

Who is the customer going to call ? I can almost guarantee that the majority of them will be calling Dish, not Fox.


----------



## SayWhat?

_I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Dish will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands._

I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Fox will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands.


----------



## Joe Diver

SayWhat? said:


> _I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Dish will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands._
> 
> I'll agree that is exaggerating a bit, but if all of those O&O markets go dark, Fox will have a very large customer relations issue on their hands.


I think the general public customer will just go where their channels are provided, and not really care to place blame.

The folks that post here are not representative of Joe Schmoe public....this place has enthusiasts who are much more versed and informed and have a deeper understanding of what's really going on....and can debate it (or argue it). The general public just wants to watch TV...and if Dish doesn't have their channels they'll get a provider who does....no matter whose fault the outage really is or the reasoning behind it.


----------



## James Long

Eksynyt said:


> Dish is going to pay dearly for this. I don't like what either side is doing but Fox can hold out a lot longer than Dish. If Dish loses these local fox channels and these big markets lose NFL and top-rated shows for a significant length of time, Dish will fall into oblivion.


DISH is stepping up the battle before losing the Fox local channels. Expect DISH's word on the issue soon. Unless Fox accepts the deal DISH is offering.


----------



## Wilf

Greg Bimson said:


> Could you grab a link for that, please? Because I am having a hard time believing that of a $40 a month bill $16 of it goes to sports programming. ESPN around $4, RSN maybe around $2.50, and yes, there may be more than one depending on circumstances, but that doesn't get to $16.


Found it? Here is the link:
http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/?mod=ATD_search

Wilf


----------



## scooper

So ESPN is eating at least 10% of my $40 for AT120 .. 

I think it is a "tad overpriced" as they say....


----------



## cloudy

I'm very tempted to say Fox can go take a flying leap off a cliff. However, if dish loses Fox Locals as well, I'm not so sure I'll still feel that this way.
If I do cancel Dish, I'll be much more likely to cut the cord and go with Netflix and Hulu than I will to go to D*.


----------



## Greg Bimson

But like I said, it isn't 40 percent of the bill. Not according to that chart:

ESPN $4
FSN $2.50
Versus $.26
Golf $.26
NFL $.75
Big Ten $.36
NHL $.35
ESPN2 $.54

And these aren't all in AT120, and it doesn't equate to 25 percent of the bill.


----------



## Hoosier205

scooper said:


> *WHO* will have the problem ?
> 
> *WHO* will not be getting the advertising they normally get due to lower viewers ?
> 
> Fox can fix this very quickly - but you don't push around Charlie Ergen. Tivo has found that out the hard way.


Tivo has found that out? No...the numbers point in the other direction on that one.


----------



## HobbyTalk

[edited] Info already posted.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Tivo has found that out? No...the numbers point in the other direction on that one.


You might look in to what Tivo has actually RECEIVED in all of their battle with DISH and how much of that is just passed on to the lawyers fighting DISH.

Also look at the way Tivo's stock price jumps up and down based on the changing "feeling" about how the case may turn out. Years later they are still fighting with pundits claiming victory but not delivering much in cash. (We've been hearing the drone of "a couple more months" for several years.) Not exactly the most stable situation that a company can be in.


----------



## calgary2800

I have NHL Center ice with Dish, paying in 4 installments of 42 bucks. Dish told me they will not refund my money and will continue to bill me 3 more installments even though currently I cant see a game!!! So I jumped to Directv tonight and will be set up in a few days. I would have stuck it out with dish if they would have refunded my money and stopped billing me for center ice. 

Goodbye Dish, been with you for 4 years or so. Anyone know how I can store the games away on my Vip 622 that I need to return.


----------



## Joe Diver

I purposely did not renew CI this year with Dish because I saw the situation coming...and I'm glad I didn't get it. That was one of the reasons I didn't switch last fall when they dropped 20 games due to a spat with Fox. I had already paid for CI


----------



## calgary2800

I feel bad for the people who paid the total price of CI and cant get a refund from Dish, that is a joke.


----------



## Hoosier205

I thought you were all told that Center Ice would not be affected. Is that not true afterall?


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> I thought you were all told that Center Ice would not be affected. Is that not true afterall?


They got the feeds of the games...1 in HD tonight.


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> They got the feeds of the games...1 in HD tonight.


One? That's it? :barf:


----------



## sigma1914

sigma1914 said:


> Yikes, only 1 HD feed (in bold)?
> 10/08	627	-	07:00	Dallas vs New Jersey (DAL)
> 10/08	628	-	07:30	Anaheim vs Detroit (DET)
> 10/08	629	-	07:30	Buffalo vs Ottawa (OTT)
> *10/08	630	9546	07:30	Washington vs Atlanta (WSH)*





Hoosier205 said:


> One? That's it? :barf:


Yup...a CSN game.


----------



## calgary2800

Dish really screwed up by not refunding CI money, wonder how many people jumped ship like me. I read about the dispute a few days but didnt figure it to apply to CI coverage and FOX. Yeah, I wasnt on top of my game paying full attention.


----------



## stiphy

I noticed that on the devs stars game on NHL ci tonight they cut to a slate for every commercial. This was a Fox feed. I've never seen this before in the 3 years I ha CI. They did not do this on the caps thrashers which was on the comcast feed. I am guessing that they don't want to give fox any revenue in the form of commercials or something.

I live in the Virgin islands and get all of the RSNs since we are in no specific region. I was stoked to get MSG and some of the FOX RSNs this year but I guess it wasnt meant to be. Unlike you guys on the mainland dish is my only real option.

Sean

Sean


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> Yup...a CSN game.


Wow. I hope they get more than that tomorrow. It look's like DirecTV will have 10 via CI, 2 via NHLN, and 1 via Versus.

EDIT: Nope....never mind. Dish Network customers only get 4 HD games tomorrow and only two of those via Center Ice. The other two are the NHLN games. That is incredible. I am paying four payments of $42.95, but receive substantially more games for that price. I don't blame folks for being ticked off. Not one bit.


----------



## calgary2800

Direct has a lot more HD games than Dish ever did. A lot HD games from the East, glad I jumped ship now.


----------



## kosmo13

Great..I'm in the same boat..was wondering why only 1 game was in HD, and none tomorrow basically!

What really ticked me off...tuned into NHL on the fly, on the NHL network, and they were showing HD highlights from both Wings/Ducks, Sens/Sabres, and Stars/Devils... 

Absolutely insane.. hopefully this gets resolved ASAP. I don't want to have to give up my 722 box and be forced to go to DirectTV.. what's the gut feeling on this?

I''ll be *****ing up a storm with Dish to get my $42.95 installments back! Anyone having any luck getting it for free by chance as a result?


----------



## calgary2800

I wasnt able to get my 1st 42 dollar installment back and cut my losses and left. Dish has done this to me before when in the Northwest ABC was lost for about 8 to 10 months due to a dispute over fees. 

It is a total disgrace that CI money is not being refunded. I have full hockey back Tuseday and it looks like Directv shows way more HD games anyway.


----------



## Hoosier205

What I am curious about is whether or not this is normal for Center Ice on Dish...or if this is related to the Fox dispute.


----------



## gatorbait2

I ate the $180 ETF and cancelled. What a joke that Dish can just quit offering programming but I am suppose to keep paying for their service. 

Never signing another tv contact again. Don't tell me you are protecting me from rate increases. Not that naive Charlie.


----------



## Joe Diver

And this is only hockey. Just wait until basketball season starts....and if they lose the local Fox feeds and NFL games....I know here in Dallas the Mavs are very popular....not to mention the Cowboys fans. If Dish doesn't carry the 9 Cowboy games slotted for Fox....or the 64 or so Mavs games on FSSW....

And that's just Dallas....

Go ahead Charlie, dig your heels in for a fight....


----------



## calgary2800

Hoosier205 said:


> What I am curious about is whether or not this is normal for Center Ice on Dish...or if this is related to the Fox dispute.


I've had Dish CI for last 4 years. This is a fox dispute all the way.


----------



## Joe Diver

Hoosier205 said:


> What I am curious about is whether or not this is normal for Center Ice on Dish...or if this is related to the Fox dispute.


Well, it depends and that's hard to say. The HD feeds for hockey are somewhat new. Only a few years ago it was a real treat to get a game in HD, maybe 2 or 3 a season. They've been adding more and more, and this is the first season that the Stars are touting every game broadcast in HD. So, what I'm saying is that we can't say what is and is not "normal" for HD and hockey.

Last season I got alot of games in HD, but not all of them. Maybe 60% of them. And that was more than the years before. On a given average night, if there were 10 games on CI, 4 or 5 would be HD.


----------



## TulsaOK

Does it seem like there are more D* posters than E* to anyone else?


----------



## Hoosier205

Kent Taylor said:


> Does it seem like there are more D* posters than E* to anyone else?


Well, you have had a number of them switch over the last few days. Can you answer the CI questions? Is this normal or is this related to the dispute?


----------



## Joe Diver

Kent Taylor said:


> Does it seem like there are more D* posters than E* to anyone else?


We're at home watching our games and surfing....E* folks are probably out since they don't have anything to watch.


----------



## JackBauer112

calgary2800 said:


> I wasnt able to get my 1st 42 dollar installment back and cut my losses and left. Dish has done this to me before when in the Northwest ABC was lost for about 8 to 10 months due to a dispute over fees.
> 
> It is a total disgrace that CI money is not being refunded. I have full hockey back Tuseday and it looks like Directv shows way more HD games anyway.


I take it that this is referring to the Fisher Communications dispute that occured back in 2008-09 when KOMO 4 and KATU 2 along with many of the other stations (Mainly CBS and FOX) could not come to an agreement due to the carriage issues. Well, DTV really does do well in not having any carriage problems albeit the Vs. and one other channel, but other than that, DTV really has a whole lot more full time HD and 3D than Dish ever will.


----------



## lparsons21

Joe Diver said:


> We're at home watching our games and surfing....E* folks are probably out since they don't have anything to watch.


Obviously not if you're posting this much! 

I'm with Dish and have more to watch than I can stand. My DVR is full and I had to start moving things over to one of my 3 EHDs.


----------



## sigma1914

Kent Taylor said:


> Does it seem like there are more D* posters than E* to anyone else?


Maybe because the forum is predominantly Directv subs? Ya think? If we're not allowed to post on opposing sides, then please tell that to a certain puppy, a mod, and a few other vocal Dish subs who have tons of posts on Directv topics.


----------



## Joe Diver

Hoosier205 said:


> Is this normal or is this related to the dispute?


I only watched the Stars game tonight, but I did check the guide for the CI games tonight mentioned above. All if them were presented in HD on DirecTV's CI package.


----------



## HDlover

Pro sports is out of hand along with TV that throws money at it. Just how much money are you willing to give them. It is predicted that pro sports will be an upcoming bursting financial bubble. At some point the fans will say "enough is enough". Why not now. Is there any achievement for you by a team you are not on? No. They don't call them "Fanatics" for nothing. Unexplainable enthusiasm and paying to do it. Stop watching, go play!


----------



## Slamminc11

Joe Diver said:


> We're at home watching our games and surfing....E* folks are probably out since they don't have anything to watch.


yeah, because the only channels Dish subs watch and the only channels that carry any shows at all are FX, Nat Geo, and RSN's. Since those are gone, there is absolutely nothing on...


----------



## calgary2800

Wait till the NBA kicks in and the NFL season heats up, Dish customer service reps better stock up on Advil. I just checked my guide, no Seahawks vs Bears on Fox this Sunday. Man, oh man and I just got a 65 plasma too.


----------



## mnassour

OK...so does Charlie need Fox more than Fox needs Charlie?


----------



## HDlover

No, Fox has to have big money to pay pro sports, not Charlie.


----------



## HDlover

calgary2800 said:


> Wait till the NBA kicks in and the NFL season heats up, Dish customer service reps better stock up on Advil. I just checked my guide, no Seahawks vs Bears on Fox this Sunday. Man, oh man and I just got a 65 plasma too.


Do you think you might enjoy watching something other than sports on that TV?


----------



## SayWhat?

calgary2800 said:


> I just checked my guide, no Seahawks vs Bears on Fox this Sunday. Man, oh man and I just got a 65 plasma too.


Well, then you can watch a good movie or one of the other hundreds of programs on various channels, or maybe just go outside and get some fresh air or spend time with the family, or ................


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Some random thoughts to ponder.

This forum is not representative of the average sub. I'd wager many typical Dish subs don't yet know there even is a dispute! Heck, a couple of people in here didn't notice their FX had been replaced with Folger's crystals (HD Net) at first...

As for sports... the truly die-hard sports fans are already with DirecTV. Customers that chose Dish did so to save money or for channels Dish has that DirecTV doesn't. Dish doesn't have full-time HD RSNs, while DirecTV does. DirecTV also has a number of SD RSNs that Dish doesn't. So anyone with Dish didn't have sports as their top priority.

So while I love me some me (and some sports)... IF the RSNs were a deal-breaker, then I'd already have been with DirecTV.

Don't expect much churn related to that.

IF FX and National Geographic are going to create churn, there sure hasn't been any noise about it. Any national news splash about a rash of complaints yet?

Now... IF the FOX-owned locals drop... that will create some more complaints. Lots of FOX primetime fans and some NFL fans will be more vocal about that.

I agree locals will cause a bit more of a stink, but only in those affected markets... so do we know if Dish has a big number of subscribers in those markets?

Also... it is really tacky of FOX to hold locals hostage over FX, NatGeo, and RSNs... Clearly two completely different contracts (really should be at least 3 different contracts, but I digress). IF FOX is willing to throw away all that revenue and advertising dollars while negotiating... it tends to indicate they have money to throw away! And that undermines their argument that they "need" more money.

The smart thing to do from a business point of view would be...

FOX agrees to continue to provide feeds of all channels currently under contract to Dish during negotiations. Dish would not automatically get any newly launched channels (if there were any) until a new agreement is signed.

Dish agrees to keep paying the old rate while the new contract is being discussed... and agrees that once a new agreement is reached, it will be retroactive to the point when the original contract expired and pay the new rate back-dated to that point.

This would be a win-win for both... Dish keeps channels while negotiating... FOX keeps getting money while negotiating... and on we go.

The only reason to yank channels (FOX chose to do this remember, not Dish) is to try and get customers to pressure Dish and help you do your job at marketing. FOX should do their own job OR pay all the Dish customers a sales-commission fee on the contract that gets signed if we pressure Dish into a new one.


----------



## calgary2800

HDlover said:


> Do you think you might enjoy watching something other than sports on that TV?


No


----------



## calgary2800

SayWhat? said:


> Well, then you can watch a good movie or one of the other hundreds of programs on various channels, or maybe just go outside and get some fresh air or spend time with the family, or ................


Also No. Please no sermons on life, OK.


----------



## calgary2800

Stewart,

Dish will not carry Fox while heated or not heated discussions are under way. In my area a whole prime season of ABC was thrown out the door while Charlie refused to come to the table with Fisher Broadcasting, they both lost money in the game of chicken. And I tend to think Fisher caved in at the end. And meantime Dish subscribers had to endure a season of Lost not in HD but be forced to watch in online where half the enjoyment is gone.


----------



## SayWhat?

> had to endure a season of lost not in hd but be forced to watch in online where half the enjoyment is gone.


oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Amon37

If they remove local fox and MyTV I will leave, I've heard enough from my wife about Sons of Anarchy and if she loses the shows she watches regularly on the other 2 channels it'll be war..lol I've already begun pricing cable and D*


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> Also... it is really tacky of FOX to hold locals hostage over FX, NatGeo, and RSNs... Clearly two completely different contracts (really should be at least 3 different contracts, but I digress). IF FOX is willing to throw away all that revenue and advertising dollars while negotiating... it tends to indicate they have money to throw away! And that undermines their argument that they "need" more money.


Any money Fox loses now will just be made up when they get the contract from DISH ... and that is really a shame. Fox has a monopoly on a product ... they can withhold their product for a million dollars per sub if they wish, and sell it to a competitor at any price they want ... DirecTV could be paying 10c per sub for each channel while Fox demands a million per sub from DISH. Who knows? There is no meaningful regulation on the matter.

And no, this isn't an invitation for all the know it alls on the forum to say Fox is asking DISH for the same price as DirecTV and every other provider. You don't know that. The few who would have access to DirecTV's contracts would not have access to DISH's and couldn't reveal details without losing their jobs. So don't lie and say you know what you don't know.

I am talking about the law here ... there are regulations in place that allege to prevent such situations as the one between Fox and DISH where the monopoly owner can legally demand any payment they wish ... but those regulations are not helping. The FCC has shirked it's duty in these matters and will only intervene to protect (guess who?) the broadcaster ... Fox in this case.

So DISH holds out ... waiting for a miracle. Wanting the best deal possible so they don't have to roll over and play dead every time a programmer comes up with a list of demands. Are they are paying for that good deal by losing a few customers? Probably. I hope it ends up being worth it.

Years ago, before DBS, laws were put in to place to protect broadcast stations from being taken advantage of by their then monopoly cable providers. Now those laws are being used by monopoly broadcast stations to take advantage of cable and satellite providers, playing one against the other and instead of working WITH a provider to extend their reach they work against the provider - trying to squeeze every dollar out of them as the can.

And yes, we're caught in the middle. Personally I choose NOT to be a pawn for Fox. I will not change providers just to get their programming. I see no reason to let a multi-billion dollar bully tell me what to do. I picked my satellite carrier ... and I'm sticking with them.


----------



## SayWhat?

> If they remove local fox and MyTV I will leave


Antenna.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> And yes, we're caught in the middle. Personally I choose NOT to be a pawn for Fox. I will not change providers just to get their programming. I see no reason to let a multi-billion dollar bully tell me what to do. I picked my satellite carrier ... and I'm sticking with them.


That's kind of where I am. IF I were to leave Dish for DirecTV or cable over a channel or two in dispute... that would be vote that I'm more in favor of raising prices for that channel than staying with a company that otherwise has done right by me.

My father had a couple of really bad experiences with DirecTV and their equipment, so I have no desire to go there... I've also experienced the lovely service of Time Warner cable in the past, so really wouldn't want to go that route either.

I picked Dish in part because of the known "evils" of the others... way back in 2002... and I've generally been very happy with the choice that I made. Sometimes I didn't get HD as soon as the others... sometimes I got HD first... a few channels that I liked are gone... a few others that I was "meh" about are also gone.

But if I switched providers just over those things... I'd be switching all the time, and that gets old fast. I'd rather ride it out unless and until Dish drops a whole bunch of channels that I watch.


----------



## SayWhat?

I can guarantee I would NOT go to Direct. I've gotten way too much junk mail in my USPS mailbox from them and I do not reward that behavior.

I may have to go OTA only for other reasons soon though unrelated to this dispute. I need to look into FTA again also if there's anything worth watching that way. Otherwise, I can get desired programs on DVD for a few $$$ per season from Amazon.


----------



## grog

For some of us however it is not as cut-and-dry.

In my case it was a 'coming-to-conclusion' event. Dish is not the major sports player and I don't think they want that position. Gladly they want to be the low cost provider with great movie and entertainment options.

Once we had our moment of clarity then we had to decide if we wanted a sports based solution or one that provided 'other entertainment'. Since my wife is a huge sports fan we, in the end decided to go the sports route.

It really was not about FOX in our case. It was about MLB, FOX and sports options in general that caused the change to DirecTV for us.



Stewart Vernon said:


> That's kind of where I am. IF I were to leave Dish for DirecTV or cable over a channel or two in dispute... that would be vote that I'm more in favor of raising prices for that channel than staying with a company that otherwise has done right by me.
> 
> My father had a couple of really bad experiences with DirecTV and their equipment, so I have no desire to go there... I've also experienced the lovely service of Time Warner cable in the past, so really wouldn't want to go that route either.
> 
> I picked Dish in part because of the known "evils" of the others... way back in 2002... and I've generally been very happy with the choice that I made. Sometimes I didn't get HD as soon as the others... sometimes I got HD first... a few channels that I liked are gone... a few others that I was "meh" about are also gone.
> 
> But if I switched providers just over those things... I'd be switching all the time, and that gets old fast. I'd rather ride it out unless and until Dish drops a whole bunch of channels that I watch.


----------



## dakeeney

I'm not going anywhere either. I'm with Dish!


----------



## BenJF3

Nowadays it doesn't really who your provider is, you can just about be assured that there will be a public posturing display over negotiations when contracts are up.


----------



## klang

Kent Taylor said:


> Does it seem like there are more D* posters than E* to anyone else?


Been that way for a few days now in this thread. Do Dish subs do this to the Directtv forums?


----------



## Jhon69

swallman said:


> As someone earlier up in the thread said - the typical Dish customer doesn't really care about the politics and negotiating - they just want to watch their TV. Especially when they look at either D* or cable and see that they have the channels and Dish doesn't. I know that is exactly the way my wife would be - she just wants to watch her channels (even if it would cost a bit more).
> 
> Who is the customer going to call ? I can almost guarantee that the majority of them will be calling Dish, not Fox.


Which Dish will say"If you wanted to pay more for programming"?,"You should have signed up with DirecTV"!.


----------



## MysteryMan

klang said:


> Been that way for a few days now in this thread. Do Dish subs do this to the Directtv forums?


YES


----------



## Jhon69

klang said:


> Been that way for a few days now in this thread. Do Dish subs do this to the Directtv forums?


Don't think so,but they may start to now.


----------



## Jhon69

dakeeney said:


> I'm not going anywhere either. I'm with Dish!


Me Too!!!!!.


----------



## klang

MysteryMan said:


> YES


It was an honest question. I've been a happy Dish sub since 2001. Never had any reason to visit a DirectTV forum.


----------



## MysteryMan

klang said:


> It was an honest question. I've been a happy Dish sub since 2001. Never had any reason to visit a DirectTV forum.


I believe you. My answer was honest.


----------



## lparsons21

I've read and posted in the D* forums on occasion. I don't think I did any trolling, but have made some comments that were on topic for the discussion.

And some of the D* subscribers have come here and posted, most with good on topic posts.

I see nothing wrong with these posts as they can bring some new info or a different point of view to the discussions.


----------



## Wilf

Greg Bimson said:


> But like I said, it isn't 40 percent of the bill. Not according to that chart:
> 
> ESPN $4
> FSN $2.50
> Versus $.26
> Golf $.26
> NFL $.75
> Big Ten $.36
> NHL $.35
> ESPN2 $.54
> 
> And these aren't all in AT120, and it doesn't equate to 25 percent of the bill.


Those are wholesale prices, not what we pay.

Wilf


----------



## dakeeney

:nono: All providers need to stand up and say NO to outrageous price increases when contracts come for up for negotiation. If providers stand together then greedy networks will have to come down on their asking price and if that doesn't do it then start dropping channels. That's the only thing that will get the networks attention. We the customers will hurt but not for long.


----------



## scooper

I'm like lparsons - if/when I browse a DirecTv forum - I stick to topic / general satellite issues (like OTARD issues).

I've been with Dish since Oct 2000 (or was it 1999 ?), and I've been pretty pleased with my choice. I get 2-3 mailings per week from both Time Warner Cable AND DirectTv , and these generally go straight to the trash.

Anyone who has stuck with Dish much beyond their initial contract period has seen these spats come and go. Most of those being vocal in this thread came to Dish for the lower price and are more into sports than the general Dish subscriber. I agree if there was a big uproar over FX and NatGeo - FOX's position might be enhanced. 

It should be totally illegal for content providers to bundle broadcast stations with their cable channel contents - i.e. - FOX should not be able to bundle OTA stations and FX et.al., Disney cannot bundle ABC stations and ESPN / Disney channels.


----------



## MysteryMan

dakeeney said:


> :nono: All providers need to stand up and say NO to outrageous price increases when contracts come for up for negotiation. If providers stand together then greedy networks will have to come down on their asking price and if that doesn't do it then start dropping channels. That's the only thing that will get the networks attention. We the customers will hurt but not for long.


I agree. Read what I said on post #794.


----------



## domingos35

i am staying with dish to


----------



## Joe Diver

scooper said:


> Anyone who has stuck with Dish much beyond their initial contract period has seen these spats come and go.


This was me. I've been with Dish since 2004, and yeah, they come and go. I've let it roll off in the past because it wasn't really an impact to me. It sucked when they dropped all those Voom channels, but oh well. The loss of DisneyHD sucked for the kids, but oh well.

But last fall they had a spat with Fox and dropped 20 Dallas Stars games. Okay, now you're hitting me where it counts. I let it slide though, stood by them hoping they'd get it worked out.....but no! Not only did they manage to lose (don't care whose fault) FSSW and FSSW+ (62 of 82 games broadcast) but they also lost FX and my favorite show on TV, SOA.

For me, personally, that was too much. I wish I was strong like James and others, but I'm not. When it comes to my hockey, I am weak, like a drug addict.


----------



## MSoper72

I'm staying with Dish as well. I get those spam letters from DirecTv constantly. Which they all go through the shredder. I used to be a DirecTv customer but their systems and programming was not to what I was wanting. Besides they even cancelled all but 1 of my local channels. DirecTv says that they are the sports leader. Well, they no longer have my local ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox. Which Dish has all my local channels. Even in HD! So I'm staying put.


----------



## DodgerKing

Hoosier205 said:


> What I am curious about is whether or not this is normal for Center Ice on Dish...or if this is related to the Fox dispute.


It does seem like there are fewer games in HD this year than last year on Dish while DirecTV has many more games this year than last year. It is probably a combination of the dispute and the allocation of bandwidth to HD RSNs by Dish

Dish network CI schedule through the 11th

DirecTV CI schedule through the 11th


----------



## HobbyTalk

I'll stay with Dish mainly because you can not get HD with Direct using an automatic antenna in an RV.


----------



## DodgerKing

HobbyTalk said:


> I'll stay with Dish mainly because you can not get HD with Direct using an automatic antenna in an RV.


You do need a stand alone slimeline Dish to get HD with Direct, true. And it is much more difficult to set up


----------



## Slamminc11

calgary2800 said:


> ...I just checked my guide, no Seahawks vs Bears on Fox this Sunday. Man, oh man and I just got a 65 plasma too.


Umm, you do know that Dish doesn't have a say in what games are shown on your local Fox station each week, right?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson said:


> But like I said, it isn't 40 percent of the bill. Not according to that chart:
> 
> ESPN $4
> FSN $2.50
> Versus $.26
> Golf $.26
> NFL $.75
> Big Ten $.36
> NHL $.35
> ESPN2 $.54
> 
> And these aren't all in AT120, and it doesn't equate to 25 percent of the bill.





wilf said:


> Those are wholesale prices, not what we pay.
> 
> Wilf


So let me set this perfectly clear:

In AT120 is only ESPN and ESPN2, which might be five dollars, or 12 percent of the bill. These are only the "wholesale prices", but to justify that "40 percent of the bill goes to sports", you are in essense saying that ESPN receives five dollars and Dish Network receives the remaining 11 as markup.

And people are complaining about ESPN?


----------



## chum76

calgary2800 said:


> I wasnt able to get my 1st 42 dollar installment back and cut my losses and left. Dish has done this to me before when in the Northwest ABC was lost for about 8 to 10 months due to a dispute over fees.
> 
> It is a total disgrace that CI money is not being refunded. I have full hockey back Tuseday and it looks like Directv shows way more HD games anyway.


If you paid by credit card contact them and they may do a chargeback. I had to do it once with earthlink.


----------



## pitflyer

I'm staying with Dish. I upgraded to AT 120+ (which adds FSP) and the rep incorrectly told me that channel is not available due to the dispute. (It is not affected). I do read on getwhatipaidfor.com that on Nov 1 Fox itself might disappear? Is that going to be true in ALL markets? Dish's own website says the dispute doesn't affect Fox from "http://www.howmuchmorecanwetake.com/"

FOX is spending time and money on advertising about local channels to threaten and scare DISH Network and our customers. We assure you we are working tirelessly to restore the current channels and ensure your local channels are not impacted.


----------



## chum76

gatorbait2 said:


> I ate the $180 ETF and cancelled. What a joke that Dish can just quit offering programming but I am suppose to keep paying for their service.
> 
> Never signing another tv contact again. Don't tell me you are protecting me from rate increases. Not that naive Charlie.


Hopefully your next provider will give you credits for leaving Dish. $180.00 is alot to pay with this economy.


----------



## TBoneit

Contrary to what some here may hope, If I left Dishnetwork it would be to go to FIOS or Cable.

I got tired of dealing with DirecTV years ago. I'm tired of having to shred all those "We want you back" letters that keep coming.

I have seen some horror stories about DirecTV on www.Ripoffreport.com

Many from people that never had it explained about the ETF, some from people that never did get reliable service and were still charged the ETF and so on. I saw many less about Dishnetwork by comparison.

If you have ever paid by Debit card you need to get that card changed and never use it again online or for Satellite.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Greg Bimson said:


> But like I said, it isn't 40 percent of the bill. Not according to that chart:
> 
> ESPN $4
> FSN $2.50
> Versus $.26
> Golf $.26
> NFL $.75
> Big Ten $.36
> NHL $.35
> ESPN2 $.54
> 
> And these aren't all in AT120, and it doesn't equate to 25 percent of the bill.


Correct, because that $4 is being paid by about 90% of people at E* since ESPN is in nearly every package. This is why a la carte pricing is never going to work. ESPN is getting $4 from 13M DISH subscribers every month. If it went a la carte, say only 9M wanted ESPN....well ESPN is still going to demand their $52M per month (using the illustrative examples). Now that $ became almost $6. Start to do that with every channel and the rates per channel go through the absolute roof. People will be asked to pay $25 for a single channel in some cases.


----------



## normang

I think that if Charlie didn't take a stand against some of these price hikes, eventually no one could afford to watch TV. If Fox really needs that much more to maintain all these channels, then perhaps they need to cut back on channels or find a better way to manage them so it doesn't cost as much.


----------



## sigma1914

TBoneit said:


> ...
> 
> I have seen some horror stories about DirecTV on www.Ripoffreport.com
> 
> Many from people that never had it explained about the ETF, some from people that never did get reliable service and were still charged the ETF and so on. I saw many less about Dishnetwork by comparison.
> 
> ...


Odd...I just did 2 searches there.

You searched for: directv
Approximately 522 Reports Found

You searched for: dish network
Approximately 1060 Reports Found

1060 > 522


----------



## pitflyer

Per the Fox side of the dispute website, "On November 1, 2010 DISH Network may also no longer carry the Fox Broadcasting Company ... because DISH’s contract with Fox’s television stations is expiring in the following markets. 

Atlanta
Austin
Boston
Chicago
Cleveland/Akron
Dallas
Denver
Detroit
Gainesville, FL
Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC
Houston
Kansas City 
Los Angeles
Memphis
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
New York
Orlando
Philadelphia
Phoenix
St. Louis
Salt Lake City
Tampa
Washington D.C.
Baltimore (MyNet 24)

Again lucky my market is not on the 'Fox contract' list either.


----------



## bbexperience

pitflyer said:


> Per the Fox side of the dispute website, "On November 1, 2010 DISH Network may also no longer carry the Fox Broadcasting Company ... because DISH's contract with Fox's television stations is expiring in the following markets.
> 
> Atlanta
> Austin
> Boston
> Chicago
> Cleveland/Akron
> Dallas
> Denver
> Detroit
> Gainesville, FL
> Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC
> Houston
> Kansas City
> Los Angeles
> Memphis
> Minneapolis
> Milwaukee
> New York
> Orlando
> Philadelphia
> Phoenix
> St. Louis
> Salt Lake City
> Tampa
> Washington D.C.
> Baltimore (MyNet 24)
> 
> Again lucky my market is not on the 'Fox contract' list either.


Even then, it's only the the Fox O&O stations though, right?


----------



## Eksynyt

FSN Northwest just lost the feed for the Texas Tech-Baylor game...I thought that channel wasn't affected? God I hate Dish.


----------



## John W

Eksynyt said:


> FSN Northwest just lost the feed for the Texas Tech-Baylor game...I thought that channel wasn't affected? God I hate Dish.


Same with Comcast SportsNet Chicago just then. In that case, it isn't Dish taking it away from CSN.


----------



## John W

John W said:


> Same with Comcast SportsNet Chicago just then. In that case, it isn't Dish taking it away from CSN.


Its back.


----------



## sigma1914

bbexperience said:


> Even then, it's only the the Fox O&O stations though, right?


Those are the Fox O&O cities.


----------



## bbexperience

sigma1914 said:


> Those are the Fox O&O cities.


Yes, but I thought that not every station within those cities is Fox O&O. True?


----------



## DodgerKing

bbexperience said:


> Even then, it's only the the Fox O&O stations though, right?


Which in LA accounts for 2 local stations: KTTV (FOX11) and KCOP (My13).

The current dispute took away the only two RSNs: FSN West (Lakers, Angels, Kings, and UCLA and USC basketball) and FSN PT (Dodgers, Clippers, Ducks, and UCLA and USC football)


----------



## sigma1914

bbexperience said:


> Yes, but I thought that not every station within those cities is Fox O&O. True?




Those cities Fox stations are the ones affected.


----------



## 356B

The possibility of FOX turning off dishTV or vise versa is a long shot a best. 
In LA a year ago Time Warner and FOX played the same game, the media ran endless fear reports about losing the NFL, House, Bones and heaven forbid American Idol......:coffee on New Years Eve no less. :eek2: It never happened, to much money at stake, to may viewers... but more over to may other options...!pepsi!
The Fox Sports stuff is expendable, even Nat Geo and FX.......but the flagship ? I don't think so.....:icon_da:
:icon_band


----------



## MilFan

Still waiting for my ****ing FS channel back, starting to see adds now on Big Ten Network about the dispute and switching to DirecTV. If only I had waited two more weeks.

FIGURE IT THE **** OUT DISH AND FOX!!


----------



## bbexperience

sigma1914 said:


> Those cities Fox stations are the ones affected.


Ya, I know that. What I'm saying is that these large markets would most likely have more than one station broadcasting Fox, and Dish is most likely airing different stations to different areas within the market.

I did some looking and it looks like this is the official Fox O&O station list:

Fox O&O's

There's only 28 stations there. So, to my point: In Detroit, for instance, there's at least 2 Fox stations (WSYM-47 and WJBK-2). In my location we get WSYM through Dish, but according to the list it's not a Fox O&O and therefore shouldn't be shut down Nov 1, should it come to that.


----------



## lparsons21

356B said:


> The possibility of FOX turning off dishTV or vise versa is a long shot a best.
> In LA a year ago Time Warner and FOX played the same game, the media ran endless fear reports about losing the NFL, House, Bones and heaven forbid American Idol......:coffee on New Years Eve no less. :eek2: It never happened, to much money at stake, to may viewers... but more over to may other options...!pepsi!
> The Fox Sports stuff is expendable, even Nat Geo and FX.......but the flagship ? I don't think so.....:icon_da:
> :icon_band


At one time, I would have thought as you do. But Fox has been getting more aggressive each time a contract comes up. I think it is very likely that it will go off on 11/2 as many are guessing now. 

I think that is a sad situation on one hand, but there may be a later silver lining. Normally I don't like the gov't involved in these things, but when they get to this point, maybe it is time to do some regulating.


----------



## altidude

356B said:


> The Fox Sports stuff is expendable....


For you maybe, but not in my house it's not! We're huge Lakers fans here and we'll be missing most home games until this is resolved. Time to bust out the old AM radio I guess. The radio play-by-play is excellent so it's not all bad. We used to try to set up a radio for the play-by-play and watch the game with the sound off but there was just too much delay to make that work.

I'm about 2 months into a new 24 month term so I'll stick with Dish. I find myself falling more in line with Dish's position on this anyway.

I switched to Dish when DirecTV dropped Versus under similar circumstances. There's just no escaping these battles I suppose.


----------



## Paul Secic

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's kind of where I am. IF I were to leave Dish for DirecTV or cable over a channel or two in dispute... that would be vote that I'm more in favor of raising prices for that channel than staying with a company that otherwise has done right by me.
> 
> My father had a couple of really bad experiences with DirecTV and their equipment, so I have no desire to go there... I've also experienced the lovely service of Time Warner cable in the past, so really wouldn't want to go that route either.
> 
> I picked Dish in part because of the known "evils" of the others... way back in 2002... and I've generally been very happy with the choice that I made. Sometimes I didn't get HD as soon as the others... sometimes I got HD first... a few channels that I liked are gone... a few others that I was "meh" about are also gone.
> 
> But if I switched providers just over those things... I'd be switching all the time, and that gets old fast. I'd rather ride it out unless and until Dish drops a whole bunch of channels that I watch.


Plus costing you lots of money to cancel a service and subbing to another one.


----------



## 356B

lparsons21 said:


> At one time, I would have thought as you do. But Fox has been getting more aggressive each time a contract comes up. I think it is very likely that it will go off on 11/2 as many are guessing now.
> 
> I think that is a sad situation on one hand, but there may be a later silver lining. Normally I don't like the gov't involved in these things, but when they get to this point, maybe it is time to do some regulating.


 You could be right.....we all know how this government likes getting involved in the private sector. Regardless Fox is not stupid and neither is dishTV, to much money on the table.......:sure:

:icon_band


----------



## beachcamp

bbexperience said:


> Ya, I know that. What I'm saying is that these large markets would most likely have more than one station broadcasting Fox, and Dish is most likely airing different stations to different areas within the market.
> 
> I did some looking and it looks like this is the official Fox O&O station list:
> 
> Fox O&O's
> 
> There's only 28 stations there. So, to my point: In Detroit, for instance, there's at least 2 Fox stations (WSYM-47 and WJBK-2). In my location we get WSYM through Dish, but according to the list it's not a Fox O&O and therefore shouldn't be shut down Nov 1, should it come to that.


If you look at the last page for the uplink report for week of Oct 4, there are 64 stations that could possibly be on the list to be lost. I believe that some stations that are not "O and O" give their negotiating rights to Fox.


----------



## 356B

altidude said:


> For you maybe, but not in my house it's not! We're huge Lakers fans here and we'll be missing most home games until this is resolved. Time to bust out the old AM radio I guess. The radio play-by-play is excellent so it's not all bad. We used to try to set up a radio for the play-by-play and watch the game with the sound off but there was just too much delay to make that work.
> 
> I'm about 2 months into a new 24 month term so I'll stick with Dish. I find myself falling more in line with Dish's position on this anyway.
> 
> I switched to Dish when DirecTV dropped Versus under similar circumstances. There's just no escaping these battles I suppose.


No it's not expendable for me either, they got me for 2 years in the Spring...and I'm living with that buggy 922 also.......:grin: it's purely a matter of numbers. FX has programming I enjoy, so does Nat Geo......my pup Kate loves Caesar....

:icon_band


----------



## dakeeney

every provider will have these battles and if they have guts to stand up to outrageous price increases then networks will give in. i still believe that it is going to go Oct. 29th or 30th before a deal is struck. There is now way Dish or Fox can afford to lose Fox locals.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Greg Bimson said:


> So let me set this perfectly clear:
> 
> In AT120 is only ESPN and ESPN2, which might be five dollars, or 12 percent of the bill. These are only the "wholesale prices", but to justify that "40 percent of the bill goes to sports", you are in essense saying that ESPN receives five dollars and Dish Network receives the remaining 11 as markup.
> 
> And people are complaining about ESPN?


A fast look shows

ESPN
ESPN2
ESPN News
ESPN U
HRTV
TVG

After that you can look at channels that have sports part of the time such as local channels, Spike, etc. Since a part of those channels carry sports and are as important as sports only channels (think FOX local channels), you would have to also figure in a percentage of the cost of those channels.


----------



## phrelin

bbexperience said:


> Ya, I know that. What I'm saying is that these large markets would most likely have more than one station broadcasting Fox, and Dish is most likely airing different stations to different areas within the market.
> 
> I did some looking and it looks like this is the official Fox O&O station list:
> 
> Fox O&O's
> 
> There's only 28 stations there. So, to my point: In Detroit, for instance, there's at least 2 Fox stations (WSYM-47 and WJBK-2). In my location we get WSYM through Dish, but according to the list it's not a Fox O&O and therefore shouldn't be shut down Nov 1, should it come to that.


After attempting to deal with the list, I've concluded two things.

In every urban DMA served by an O&O some or most Dish customers could get the station OTA which potentially reduces the impact on Dish if News Corp pulls the station. And in urban areas, the customer base is already fragmented by those using cable and telcom. I just can't find the numbers served in the DMA by cable, telcom, and satellite.
In some of the regions, as in your area, the DMA's fragment the region in such a way as to reduce the impact in neighboring rural areas. In the case of Detroit, there are 2 million households within the DMA affected. But the surrounding DMA's that fragment the region include Flint-Saginaw served by WSMH owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, Lansing served by WSYM owned by Journal Communications, and Toledo (Ohio) served by WUPW owned by Lin TV Corporation. This also reduces the impact on Dish if News Corp pulls the Detroit station.
The economics of News Corp pulling its O&O are complicated by the fact that at this time Fox is not doing that well with ratings which determine ad revenue. Can they afford to pull Dish Network in DMA's that represent 30%± of the TV households? How long can Dish go not having the Fox station on the satellite in DMA's including 30%± of the TV households?

What's a billionaire to do when his image is on the line?


----------



## adkinsjm

Read an article in Fargo about a sports bar that lost its Fox Sports feed since it had Dish. Why does a sports bar have Dish in the first place?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

We know what the list of O&O markets for FOX locals are... but what we don't know is how many of those Dish customers are unable to get those locals via antenna as well.

I'm not in an O&O market, but I also get a solid OTA signal... so even IF Dish lost my FOX via SAT, I'd be getting it via OTA... and with my 922 could still record on both OTA tuners at the same time if I needed to record FOX OTA and another OTA channel.

So... to determine whether this would affect FOX or Dish more... you have to look at not just the ratings and stuff BUT also how many customers would lose FOX completely vs how many would just lose the SAT feed and could still be watching OTA.

I know I hardly ever watch my SAT feed, because my OTA feed is better... so unless I'm in a scenario that I need to record 3 different OTA programs at the same time and that forces me to watch/record one of them via the SAT feed... I wouldn't even notice if I lost the SAT feed.

Depending on the market, a lot of Dish customers might not even notice a loss of the FOX feed if they too are watching OTA like me.


----------



## DodgerKing

Stewart Vernon said:


> We know what the list of O&O markets for FOX locals are... but what we don't know is how many of those Dish customers are unable to get those locals via antenna as well.
> 
> I'm not in an O&O market, but I also get a solid OTA signal... so even IF Dish lost my FOX via SAT, I'd be getting it via OTA... and with my 922 could still record on both OTA tuners at the same time if I needed to record FOX OTA and another OTA channel.
> 
> So... to determine whether this would affect FOX or Dish more... you have to look at not just the ratings and stuff BUT also how many customers would lose FOX completely vs how many would just lose the SAT feed and could still be watching OTA.
> 
> I know I hardly ever watch my SAT feed, because my OTA feed is better... so unless I'm in a scenario that I need to record 3 different OTA programs at the same time and that forces me to watch/record one of them via the SAT feed... I wouldn't even notice if I lost the SAT feed.
> 
> Depending on the market, a lot of Dish customers might not even notice a loss of the FOX feed if they too are watching OTA like me.


Most here in the biggest Dish market in the US, Los Angeles, are able to get most of the locals within a 90 mile radius of LA, with some pockets further than 90 miles and some much less. LA stations main antennas are on top of Mt. Wilson and many other mountains and hills in the area have relay antennas for those without a clear view of Mt. Wilson.

There is even an area of the 395 in the Owens Valley, 300 miles from LA, than can get the LA big 4 via OTA atenna


----------



## wreck

I live in Dallas (an O&O) Fox market. I only watch their 2 stations OTA myself! Losing Fox Sports Southwest is the deal breaker for me. They carry the Mavericks and Stars. We missed opening night for Hockey last night.


----------



## HDlover

altidude said:


> For you maybe, but not in my house it's not! We're huge Lakers fans here and we'll be missing most home games until this is resolved. Time to bust out the old AM radio I guess. The radio play-by-play is excellent so it's not all bad. We used to try to set up a radio for the play-by-play and watch the game with the sound off but there was just too much delay to make that work.
> 
> I'm about 2 months into a new 24 month term so I'll stick with Dish. I find myself falling more in line with Dish's position on this anyway.
> 
> I switched to Dish when DirecTV dropped Versus under similar circumstances. There's just no escaping these battles I suppose.


Bust out the internet.


----------



## Hoosier205

Stewart Vernon said:


> We know what the list of O&O markets for FOX locals are... but what we don't know is how many of those Dish customers are unable to get those locals via antenna as well.
> 
> I'm not in an O&O market, but I also get a solid OTA signal... so even IF Dish lost my FOX via SAT, I'd be getting it via OTA... and with my 922 could still record on both OTA tuners at the same time if I needed to record FOX OTA and another OTA channel.
> 
> So... to determine whether this would affect FOX or Dish more... you have to look at not just the ratings and stuff BUT also how many customers would lose FOX completely vs how many would just lose the SAT feed and could still be watching OTA.
> 
> I know I hardly ever watch my SAT feed, because my OTA feed is better... so unless I'm in a scenario that I need to record 3 different OTA programs at the same time and that forces me to watch/record one of them via the SAT feed... I wouldn't even notice if I lost the SAT feed.
> 
> Depending on the market, a lot of Dish customers might not even notice a loss of the FOX feed if they too are watching OTA like me.


 Do all of the currently available Dish receivers have OTA tuners or only some of them?


----------



## shadough

All of the vip receivers can use an OTA module. But not all of them include the module. 

I too will not miss FOX local since I generally watch it OTA anyway. But I think we are in the minority. Almost every customer house I goto, has either Fios/Cox/Dish/Direct with no OTA. Just a few H.O.'s use OTA so losing FOX will affect a lot of folks. My parents on the other hand, at least at the 'beach house' will need FOX (out of range of OTA). I might need to add my AAD channels to that receiver so that at least they can watch FOX programming when they go there. Probably be SOL for ******* games though.

However, I too am REALLY missing these FSN channels and may need to start up a scrip for D*, temporarily *gasp*.


----------



## mdavej

My installer, who'd apparently been in the business for many years, said I was the first OTA install he'd ever done, so OTA users are pretty rare. He was surprised when I pulled in nearly 20 channels with my little antenna. So losing Fox won't affect me personally one bit, but I'm sure it will have a huge negative impact on Dish. Hopefully the loss of viewers and ad revenue will have an equally devastating impact on Fox and bring both parties back to the table.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Do all of the currently available Dish receivers have OTA tuners or only some of them?


I think all of the HD receivers do, not so sure about the SD ones although the 625 does have OTA.

That's how I'll get Fox broadcast and actually, I mostly do that now for that channel.

At the moment, the only channel that I don't have that I care about is FX and it isn't in the top 10.


----------



## John W

adkinsjm said:


> Read an article in Fargo about a sports bar that lost its Fox Sports feed since it had Dish. Why does a sports bar have Dish in the first place?


There are commercial accounts and rates for such establishments although some likely cheat.


----------



## James Long

bbexperience said:


> Even then, it's only the the Fox O&O stations though, right?


Correct. Only the O&Os (including some Fox owned MyTV stations) and only the via satellite feeds.
OTA Fox feeds will remain available (assuming Fox still knows how to run an OTA transmitter).
ABC, NBC, CBS and other quality broadcasters will remain on satellite in those communities.

Personally, I can't name one show I watch on Fox (other than NASCAR). I assume the problem will be solved by then.


----------



## James Long

beachcamp said:


> If you look at the last page for the uplink report for week of Oct 4, there are 64 stations that could possibly be on the list to be lost. I believe that some stations that are not "O and O" give their negotiating rights to Fox.


Actually the new test channels (still not available for customer viewing) are one channel off of the Fox owned stations. Ready for DISH to put up an announcement video explaining the situation or perhaps do a live Charlie Chat in those markets.



James Long said:


> *Channels NOT Available*
> 8312 (6) Atlanta, GA market
> 8255 (8) Austin, TX market
> 8737 (25) Baltimore, MD market
> 8057 (7) Birmingham, AL market
> 8769 (26) Boston, MA market
> 8508 (33) Chicago, IL market
> 8509 (51) Chicago, IL market
> 8518 (9) Cleveland, OH market
> 8418 (3) Dallas, TX market
> 8419 (28) Dallas, TX market
> 8209 (32) Denver, CO market
> 8029 (3) Detroit, MI market
> 7799 (52) Gainesville, FL market
> 7264 (9) Greensboro/Winston Salem, NC market
> 8368 (27) Houston, TX market
> 8369 (21) Houston, TX market
> 6686 (14) Jonesboro, AR market
> 8439 (3) Kansas City, MO market
> 8026 (12) Los Angeles, CA market
> 8027 (14) Los Angeles, CA market
> 7169 (12) Memphis, TN market
> 8578 (10) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
> 8579 (30) Minneapolis/St Paul, MN market
> 8098 (6) New York, NY market
> 8099 (10) New York, NY market
> 8268 (36) Orlando, FL market
> 8269 (66) Orlando, FL market
> 8149 (30) Philadelphia, PA market
> 8318 (11) Phoenix, AZ market
> 8319 (46) Phoenix, AZ market
> 8529 (15) Salt Lake City, UT market
> 6755 (3) St Joseph, MO market
> 8589 (3) St Louis, MO market
> 8682 (14) Tampa, FL market
> 8078 (6) Washington, DC market
> 8079 (19) Washington, DC market


----------



## scooper

Hoosier205 said:


> Do all of the currently available Dish receivers have OTA tuners or only some of them?


You can break it into 2 classes - 
HD and SD

SD receivers - (DVR 501,508,510, 525,512, 625, 301,311, 322) will not include an OTA tuner. These receivers must gets locals from satellite only.

HD receivers (basically all the VIP models) either have a single OTA tuner built in (VIP 211, 222, DVR 622 and 722) or they can be equipped with a dual OTA tuner module (optional) (VIP 222K, 722K, 922)


----------



## James Long

scooper said:


> SD receivers - (DVR 501,508,510, 525,512, 625, 301,311, 322) will not include an OTA tuner. These receivers must gets locals from satellite only.


These are also composite and RF output only ... with the RF output generally the one used to connect to a TV. People can use the tuners built in to their TVs or a converter box to watch OTA broadcasts.



> HD receivers (basically all the VIP models) either have a single OTA tuner built in (VIP 211, 222, DVR 622 and 722) or they can be equipped with a dual OTA tuner module (optional) (VIP 222K, 722K, 922)


One thing that will be lost is the EPG ... so while the channels will be tunable knowing what is on may be a challenge. Timers set based on name (not time) will not work.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> ...
> 
> One thing that will be lost is the EPG ... so while the channels will be tunable knowing what is on may be a challenge. Timers set based on name (not time) will not work.


They should provide guide data for the OTA even if not available, no? Hypothetical - You receive channel XYZ-1 via OTA only, no SD or HD via Dish. Channel XYZ-1 has no guide data?


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> They should provide guide data for the OTA even if not available, no? Hypothetical - You receive channel XYZ-1 via OTA only, no SD or HD via Dish. Channel XYZ-1 has no guide data?


Correct. If a channel is not transmitted via DISH, the EPG is not transmitted via DISH and you get the channel without EPG. The exception would be subchannels of a channel that is carried (for example, if XYZ-1 is via satellite EPG for XYZ-2 is usually included regardless of if it is carried on DISH).

A non-hypothetical: Channel 69 WMYS in my market is not carried by DISH ... it shows up in my guide as "Digital Service".

It is possible that DISH could just turn off the via satellite channels without changing the EPG to "Important Announcement" but experience has shown that DISH does not broadcast EPG for stations not carried.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> Correct. If a channel is not transmitted via DISH, the EPG is not transmitted via DISH and you get the channel without EPG. The exception would be subchannels of a channel that is carried (for example, if XYZ-1 is via satellite EPG for XYZ-2 is usually included regardless of if it is carried on DISH).
> 
> A non-hypothetical: Channel 69 WMYS in my market is not carried by DISH ... it shows up in my guide as "Digital Service".
> 
> It is possible that DISH could just turn off the via satellite channels without changing the EPG to "Important Announcement" but experience has shown that DISH does not broadcast EPG for stations not carried.


Damn, that sucks for easy OTA recording. Guess you go "old school VCR style"...Set up the time & channel on the DVR.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Actually the new test channels (still not available for customer viewing) are one channel off of the Fox owned stations. Ready for DISH to put up an announcement video explaining the situation or perhaps do a live Charlie Chat in those markets.


So that is 27 markets that are O&O or are owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, with about 50 million TV households representing about 44% of the U.S. market.

That's a lot. For Rupert Murdoch there exists a huge political risk in calling attention to that number. And if he pulls the New York and Philadelphia locals off of Cablevision, which could occur in a week, this could get interesting.

Let's just say, Congress better be prepared, as I can't even guess how many Congressional Districts are impacted what with gerrymandering, not to mention Washington, D.C. itself.


----------



## DodgerKing

phrelin said:


> So that is 27 markets that are O&O or are owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, with about 50 million TV households representing about 44% of the U.S. market.
> 
> That's a lot. For Rupert Murdoch there exists a huge political risk in calling attention to that number. And if he pulls the New York and Philadelphia locals off of Cablevision, which could occur in a week, this could get interesting.
> 
> Let's just say, Congress better be prepared, as I can't even guess how many Congressional Districts are impacted what with gerrymandering, not to mention Washington, D.C. itself.


How is this a risk for Fox? 44% of the market, yes. Keep in mind, not all of those households have cable or satellite. For those that do pay for TV, one can only assume that 14% of those that pay for TV service in those markets have Dish, since Dish represents 14% of all paid TV subscriptions. Much less than 10% will even be affected and most of those can still get the local Fox OTA. In all, Fox is barely going to be affected.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Hoosier205 said:


> Do all of the currently available Dish receivers have OTA tuners or only some of them?


Some others beat me to it... but my further 2 cents anyway 

"Legacy" SD-only receivers don't have a digital OTA tuner... so those folks would be out of luck and lose the OTA if the SD SAT feed is lost.

All of the ViP series have a built-in OTA tuner except the 222K, 722K, and 922 models. I can't speak to the 222K but most folks that get a 722K or 922 get the OTA module because those receivers cost something to upgrade to anyway so I'd doubt anyone would spring to upgrade to a "flagship" Dish receiver and not go ahead and get the OTA module. Some have even managed to get it free I think.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> "Legacy" SD-only receivers don't have a digital OTA tuner... so those folks would be out of luck and lose the OTA if the SD SAT feed is lost.


With the note: "People can use the tuners built in to their TVs or a converter box to watch OTA broadcasts."

I used to watch OTA via the TV tuner before my locals were carried via satellite. Not as much as I do now seeing the programs integrated on my DISH receiver (and fed via satellite). Sometimes I think my satellite subscription might be worth more _without_ locals ... watching more of the content I'm paying for instead of rebroadcasts of what I can get for free.


----------



## Hoosier205

How much does the OTA module cost? I could look it up, but if one of you know the answer off the top of your head I won't bother. Maybe they'll just eat the cost and ship those out to folks who complain and are able to receive a decent signal from their location.

EDIT: Never mind...looked it up. $50.


----------



## grog

I think the removal of FOX stations from DISH will have the greatest impact to the "Nielsen Ratings" for the DMA's they serve.

http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/television.html

Or should I say it: I could see the blackout of FOX network as the reason future generations will point to the cancellation of "American Idol", "House" and "GLEE".

Or maybe we would see something like this:
Due to the already lower than normal "Nielsen Ratings" for the current FOX prime time offerings coupled with the lack of viewers due to carriage agreement between Dish and FOX all the major prime time FOX shows are canceled in favor of what the broadcaster feels are more cutting edge programming including the new FOX fishing hour staring Lisa Lampanelli and Gilbert Gottfried. 



DodgerKing said:


> How is this a risk for Fox? 44% of the market, yes. Keep in mind, not all of those households have cable or satellite. For those that do pay for TV, one can only assume that 14% of those that pay for TV service in those markets have Dish, since Dish represents 14% of all paid TV subscriptions. Much less than 10% will even be affected and most of those can still get the local Fox OTA. In all, Fox is barely going to be affected.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> How much does the OTA module cost? I could look it up, but if one of you know the answer off the top of your head I won't bother. Maybe they'll just eat the cost and ship those out to folks who complain and are able to receive a decent signal from their location.


It only took a few seconds to Google ... (Happy Birthday John Lennon!).

The module is $29.99 ... but I expect most people who could get an OTA signal would already have one as it adds the ability to record two OTA signals to DVRs that can already record two via satellite signals (four simultaneous recordings). Pretty cheap for it's usefulness.



Hoosier205 said:


> EDIT: Never mind...looked it up. $50.


Not the correct price.

"The Over-the-Air module can be purchased for $29.99 by calling DISH Network at 1-888-686-2388."
http://www.dishnetwork.com/receivers/hd/OTA/


----------



## TulsaOK

Games 5, 6 and 7 of the MLB World Series start on Fox on 11/1. I wonder who will blink.


----------



## Davenlr

Kent Taylor said:



> Games 5, 6 and 7 of the MLB World Series start on Fox on 11/1. I wonder who will blink.


My guess...FOX. They start using OTA stations as a bargaining chip for cable channels, and the FCC might not appreciate it when it comes to their rules that to date, have protected local affiliates by law. Plus, it would be hard to secure large sporting event contracts when the sports people wont know if their viewers will be able to see the event. Dish might lose a few subs, but anyone can buy a cheap antenna and plug it into their TV unless they are way out in the boonies.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> My guess...FOX. They start using OTA stations as a bargaining chip for cable channels, and the FCC might not appreciate it when it comes to their rules that to date, have protected local affiliates by law.


That, in a nutshell, is DISH's problem. The FCC protects the local affiliates and allows them to demand whatever they want in exchange for carriage. In the past that has been carriage of their cable channels - carry FX and NatGeo at the dictated price or you don't get Fox O&O - but this time they have upped the ante and want DISH to pay cash for the Fox O&O stations as well. Reports are that Fox wants $1 per sub for the Fox O&Os.

Until the FCC steps up and steps in I'm not sure there is any hope for the cable/satellite providers.


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> It only took a few seconds to Google ... (Happy Birthday John Lennon!).
> 
> The module is $29.99 ... but I expect most people who could get an OTA signal would already have one as it adds the ability to record two OTA signals to DVRs that can already record two via satellite signals (four simultaneous recordings). Pretty cheap for it's usefulness.
> 
> Not the correct price.
> 
> "The Over-the-Air module can be purchased for $29.99 by calling DISH Network at 1-888-686-2388."
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/receivers/hd/OTA/


When you login to your account then click on Order from Store,the amount quoted there is $50.00.:eek2:


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> It only took a few seconds to Google ... (Happy Birthday John Lennon!).
> 
> The module is $29.99 ... but I expect most people who could get an OTA signal would already have one as it adds the ability to record two OTA signals to DVRs that can already record two via satellite signals (four simultaneous recordings). Pretty cheap for it's usefulness.
> 
> Not the correct price.
> 
> "The Over-the-Air module can be purchased for $29.99 by calling DISH Network at 1-888-686-2388."
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/receivers/hd/OTA/


Not a bad price at all. Very reasonable. Looks like they need to fix this page though: http://www.dishnetwork.com/support/accessories/default.aspx


----------



## SayWhat?

phrelin said:


> That's a lot. For Rupert Murdoch there exists a huge political risk in calling attention to that number. And if he pulls the New York and Philadelphia locals off of Cablevision, which could occur in a week, this could get interesting.
> 
> Let's just say, Congress better be prepared,





DodgerKing said:


> How is this a risk for Fox? 44% of the market, yes. Keep in mind, not all of those households have cable or satellite.


The risk could be calling attention to how much of the market he controls in general, Dish subscribers or not.

---------------------

On the boxes with OTA modules, you still need a conventional antenna, correct? The only advantage is to be able to record to the DVR and have the EPG? For people with HTPCs, this isn't an issue is it?


----------



## farmerdave4

I've gotten rid of my secondary(travel/rv) account. UPS store said they are seeing a lot of dish network returns. I am about ready to switch to direct. 
Has any E* folks with a VIP622/722 made the switch to direct new HD Dvr recently? is so, how do you like it? I am about to switch after 10 years. I don't want keep missing FWSW.


----------



## inkahauts

Congress needs to get rid of the ability for any OTA channel to charge ANY provider for retransmition to its dma. That fix a small part of the possible issues ahead..

I am wondering how long before this all gets worked out, and I wonder if they are really asking for a 50% increase, and if so, where will that pout them in relation to all the other contracts fox has out there with other providers. Its possible that because of that agreement when the directv deal went through that they haven;t had any increases like all the other providers, and they just want to dish to pay the same all the other providers are paying, and are making them catch up in one increase... I doubt anyone here knows their pricing now vs what they actually want, vs. what all the other providers pay for these channels, but if they do, please spill!


----------



## Hoosier205

More government intervention is not the answer to just about any problem.


----------



## Davenlr

inkahauts said:


> Congress needs to get rid of the ability for any OTA channel to charge ANY provider for retransmition to its dma.


I agree. Either that, and/or allow US to choose to subscribe to whatever affiliates we want like we used to be able to.


----------



## SayWhat?

Davenlr said:


> allow US to choose to subscribe to whatever affiliates we want like we used to be able to.


I've always said that. I get my locals OTA, why would I pay Dish or anyone else for that? However, I'd like to get locals from the city I moved from years ago that's about 600 miles away. I might be willing to pay for that.

What about all the snowbirds? They go to Florida or Arizona for six months so why shouldn't they be able to get locals from their home city in Michigan, Minnesota or wherever while they're away?


----------



## DodgerKing

grog said:


> I think the removal of FOX stations from DISH will have the greatest impact to the "Nielsen Ratings" for the DMA's they serve.
> 
> http://en-us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/insights/rankings/television.html
> 
> Or should I say it: I could see the blackout of FOX network as the reason future generations will point to the cancellation of "American Idol", "House" and "GLEE".
> 
> Or maybe we would see something like this:
> Due to the already lower than normal "Nielsen Ratings" for the current FOX prime time offerings coupled with the lack of viewers due to carriage agreement between Dish and FOX all the major prime time FOX shows are canceled in favor of what the broadcaster feels are more cutting edge programming including the new FOX fishing hour staring Lisa Lampanelli and Gilbert Gottfried.


The point I was making is that the number of Dish only subs in these areas, where the only way they are able to watch Fox is directly through Dish, is such a small proportion that the impact on Fox's ratings directly will not be very significant.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> More government intervention is not the answer to just about any problem.


It is when government intervention created the problem in the first place. Giving stations the right to prohibit rebroadcast of their signals within their own broadcast area is the core of the problem. I'd make every station "must carry".



SayWhat? said:


> What about all the snowbirds? They go to Florida or Arizona for six months so why shouldn't they be able to get locals from their home city in Michigan, Minnesota or wherever while they're away?


The limits of technology. Satellite space is limited enough without making every market ConUS just so a few people could take their locals with them. There are only a few hours a day on the best stations where the content would be any different than watching the "where they are" version (local news and news/weather inserts on morning programs) with many stations opting out of local content.

I like the idea only because it puts pressure on the stations to "play ball" and allow their feeds to be carried within their market. I'd love to be able to watch the four markets surrounding mine for "almost local" content. The spot beams are large enough that I could watch them all (if it were legal).


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> The point I was making is that the number of Dish only subs in these areas, where the only way they are able to watch Fox is directly through Dish, is such a small proportion that the impact on Fox's ratings directly will not be very significant.


Unfortunately we will only KNOW when the overnight ratings come in after the OTA contract expires. One would hope a deal would be struck before then - but every passing workday makes it more likely that one will not.


----------



## jerry downing

SayWhat? said:


> I've always said that. I get my locals OTA, why would I pay Dish or anyone else for that? However, I'd like to get locals from the city I moved from years ago that's about 600 miles away. I might be willing to pay for that.
> 
> What about all the snowbirds? They go to Florida or Arizona for six months so why shouldn't they be able to get locals from their home city in Michigan, Minnesota or wherever while they're away?


The use of spot beams would make the reception of local stations from distant locations impossible.


----------



## Davenlr

jerry downing said:


> The use of spot beams would make the reception of local stations from distant locations impossible.


If you were around before and at the start of DBS, you would have been able to subscribe to a package of networks (one of each) from either New York, Denver, or Los Angeles if you chose to, rather than your "locals". There is no reason they could not add those back again, if the FCC reversed its previous rule making this illegal to protect the ad sales of the local stations.

If this were to happen, DIsh could simply replace a O & O Fox affiliate with a privately owned on, that would sell on the cheap to gain the viewers.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> If you were around before and at the start of DBS, you would have been able to subscribe to a package of networks (one of each) from either New York, Denver, or Los Angeles if you chose to, rather than your "locals". There is no reason they could not add those back again, if the FCC reversed its previous rule making this illegal to protect the ad sales of the local stations.


Actually the networks and affiliate groups sued to get those packages removed. The way the laws ended up getting written they PERMIT carriage under strict conditions ... overriding the outcome of the suits that would have restricted all rebroadcasts.

The flaw was allowing stations to restrict local into local carriage. No one would be worried about ever losing a local OTA broadcaster if "Must Carry" was the only option.


----------



## adkinsjm

John W said:


> There are commercial accounts and rates for such establishments although some likely cheat.


A decent sports bar will have DirecTV for Sunday Ticket and Extra Innings.


----------



## mlcarson

As long as FoxNews isn't affect, I'm good. I wish Dish would get more aggressive with ESPN and the other sports packages if the costs are as previously stated. I watch none of them and just have the $25/mo package. A-la-cart is looking better and better.


----------



## Joe Diver

farmerdave4 said:


> Has any E* folks with a VIP622/722 made the switch to direct new HD Dvr recently? is so, how do you like it? I am about to switch after 10 years. I don't want keep missing FWSW.


I did Thursday. PM me and we'll discuss the HR24 rather than here in this thread.


----------



## Amon37

SayWhat? said:


> Antenna.


no thanks, I'll take one solution that provides what I need.


----------



## Jhon69

lparsons21 said:


> I think all of the HD receivers do, not so sure about the SD ones although the 625 does have OTA.
> 
> That's how I'll get Fox broadcast and actually, I mostly do that now for that channel.
> 
> At the moment, the only channel that I don't have that I care about is FX and it isn't in the top 10.


The 625 does not have an OTA ATSC tuner,only a pass through to access your antenna connection with your Dish Network remote control.


----------



## lparsons21

Amon37 said:


> no thanks, I'll take one solution that provides what I need.


I have that with Dish. One antenna, one dish, and both Vip HDDVRs that handle them seamlessly, even giving me more flexibility in recording. With 3 events at once on one of them, and 4 events on the other, no other SAT HDDVR from any other provider does that.


----------



## lparsons21

Jhon69 said:


> The 625 does not have an OTA ATSC tuner,only a pass through to access your antenna connection with your Dish Network remote control.


Yeah, I was wrong on that. When my son had his at my house, I thought it would do it, but we never got him an OTA signal to his unit.


----------



## Jhon69

Amon37 said:


> no thanks, I'll take one solution that provides what I need.


I was surprised to see how many digital channels are out there now,of course there's no HBO or Comedy Central.

I went to www.tvguide.com to see the listings and channels available in my area.


----------



## adkinsjm

Jhon69 said:


> I was surprised to see how many digital channels are out there now,of course there's no HBO or Comedy Central.
> 
> I went to www.tvguide.com to see the listings and channels available in my area.


It all depends on where you live. We have the Big 4, with ABC as a widescreen SD subchannel, plus PBS with two sub-channels. Not much.


----------



## lparsons21

Jhon69 said:


> I was surprised to see how many digital channels are out there now,of course there's no HBO or Comedy Central.
> 
> I went to www.tvguide.com to see the listings and channels available in my area.


Other than the big 4, CW and PBS, the rest of ours are all religious channels. Not my particular cup of tea. I do use the OTA quite a bit though. I can get 2 of the OTA channels rock solid anytime, and the rest work OK most of the time but a bit flakey.

The local Fox station is one of those that is a bit flakey with signal dropouts on occasion, normally an issue in the daytime, but not so much at night.


----------



## Jhon69

lparsons21 said:


> Other than the big 4, CW and PBS, the rest of ours are all religious channels. Not my particular cup of tea. I do use the OTA quite a bit though. I can get 2 of the OTA channels rock solid anytime, and the rest work OK most of the time but a bit flakey.
> 
> The local Fox station is one of those that is a bit flakey with signal dropouts on occasion, normally an issue in the daytime, but not so much at night.


Our local Fox station has a digital channel that shows alot of movies,our local NBC channel has a digital channel that has it looks like 24 hour weather.


----------



## lparsons21

Jhon69 said:


> Our local Fox station has a digital channel that shows alot of movies,our local NBC channel has a digital channel that has it looks like 24 hour weather.


Our local Fox station has either changed ownership from one of the other locals or is so broke that they changed from using one of the other local news to another's local news.

I think it was the local CBS's stations news for quite awhile, and on the 1st of October changed to the NBC's stations news now.

And we do have 2 24-hour weather locals as a sub channel. PBS has 3 additional sub channels, 1 of which is just an SD of the HD signal, the other is different, and one is a test pattern.


----------



## Greg Bimson

inkahuts said:


> Congress needs to get rid of the ability for any OTA channel to charge ANY provider for retransmition to its dma.





Davenlr said:


> I agree. Either that, and/or allow US to choose to subscribe to whatever affiliates we want like we used to be able to.





Davenlr said:


> If you were around before and at the start of DBS, you would have been able to subscribe to a package of networks (one of each) from either New York, Denver, or Los Angeles if you chose to, rather than your "locals". There is no reason they could not add those back again, if the FCC reversed its previous rule making this illegal to protect the ad sales of the local stations.
> 
> If this were to happen, DIsh could simply replace a O & O Fox affiliate with a privately owned on, that would sell on the cheap to gain the viewers.


There was never any rule that allowed you to pick another affiliate.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Unfortunately we will only KNOW when the overnight ratings come in after the OTA contract expires. One would hope a deal would be struck before then - but every passing workday makes it more likely that one will not.


True, but doing the math will also tell you it is not significant. As Dish represents about 14% of PAID tv subscribers, which is a much smaller percentage of ALL TV subscribers. Of those that do use Dish, many are still able to also get the OTA feed of these channels as well. So the true impact of those that will not be able to get their local Fox at all is a very small percentage


----------



## jsk

lparsons21 said:


> Our local Fox station has either changed ownership from one of the other locals or is so broke that they changed from using one of the other local news to another's local news.
> .


They aren't changing local news, and most likely not changing ownership, but the TV stations are just changing their affiliations (i.e. where they get most of their programming from). For example, in the Baltimore market:

The Fox and CW affiliates are owned and/or operated by Sinclair Broadcasting
The My Network affiliate is owned by Fox
The ABC affiliate is owned by Scripps-Howard
The NBC affiliate is owned by Hearst
The CBS affiliate is owned by CBS

So, if Fox & E* don't reach an agreement, then I would lose my My Network affiliate, but not my Fox affiliate. A couple of years ago, E* almost didn't come to an agreement with Sinclair which could have resulted in us loosing our Fox & CW affiliates.

Many years ago Scripps-Howard required cable/satellite companies to carry their new HGTV network in order to carry the ABC affiliate that they own. That is now commonplace and what is happening with Fox. Since they can't come to an agreement about their cable channels, they are threatening to pull their owned & operated stations as well.


----------



## david91722

DodgerKing said:


> That is what I thought. Thanks.
> 
> I know on EI, I can see the actual Dodgers and Angels feed on EI (the other team's feed is blacked out) or on the local RSN. I would assume if I lost the feed due to a program dispute, they would block it both ways or I would be able to get around the blockage by ordering EI. I can only assume the same is true for CI as well
> 
> He is now trying to get DirecTV hooked up ASAP, but the local dealers are backed up so the soonest he can get one is 3 weeks from now. He is on a cancellation list, so if someone in his area cancels they will contact him to see if he can do an earlier time. He is going to keep Dish until Direct is officially installed and if they bring back his King games on Dish before the installation, then he will cancel the Direct install.
> 
> I told him to try local cable since there is no contract. He can at least watch his Kings on cable until the Dish and Fox situation is worked out. He does not want to pay two bills, cable stinks, and he said it could take years (which I doubt) for them to settle


Your friend has 2 other options. Watch the games at a friends/relatives house (assuming they don't have E*), or go to his local sports bar.


----------



## lparsons21

jsk said:


> They aren't changing local news, and most likely not changing ownership, but the TV stations are just changing their affiliations (i.e. where they get most of their programming from).


In my case, the local Fox is using only the other station's local news broadcast, but an hour earlier. Same people on both channels, just a one hour difference.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> Correct. Only the O&Os (including some Fox owned MyTV stations) and only the via satellite feeds.
> OTA Fox feeds will remain available (assuming Fox still knows how to run an OTA transmitter).
> ABC, NBC, CBS and other quality broadcasters will remain on satellite in those communities.
> 
> Personally, I can't name one show I watch on Fox (other than NASCAR). I assume the problem will be solved by then.


Our FOX station in San Francisco is owned by COX. But the only time I watch it is when the World Series is on. I'm not a FOX fan for some reason. I just watch NATGEO from FOX's channels.


----------



## comizzou573

i think dish network is screwed and backrupt... on their facebook fan page they +21,000 fans that are all switching to directv or cable, they mad as hell over there


----------



## scooper

comizzou573 said:


> i think dish network is screwed and backrupt... on their facebook fan page they +21,000 fans that are all switching to directv or cable, they mad as hell over there


21,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to 14,000,000 ....

Even if you do the "for every vocal bad experiance, there is 10 non-vocal" it's still pretty insignificant.


----------



## comizzou573

^^I dont i think so, there is more than 21,000 dish subs mad about whats going on, according the articles written on facebook, and someone working for ups said they have been getting lots of dish receiver returned back to company, i think if they dont hurry up they are going to be even further deep in the hilo, there is the elections people want to watch on their local channels, msg sports is taken off because they want dish to add a music channel i think that would be cool to be honest, nat geo there are tons of people that watch it... including myself and i am disappointed they are working slow on there end cause there are major events upcoming these weeks


----------



## kcolg30

*Esto no pasa en Cuba.*


----------



## Paul Secic

Jhon69 said:


> I was surprised to see how many digital channels are out there now,of course there's no HBO or Comedy Central.
> 
> I went to www.tvguide.com to see the listings and channels available in my area.


Most of those shows on OTA are judges hearing stupid case and the like, more Spanish shows ETC.


----------



## SayWhat?

> according the articles written on facebook


Well, now THERE'S a viable and credible source. :sure:


----------



## chum76

Paul Secic said:


> Most of those shows on OTA are judges hearing stupid case and the like, more Spanish shows ETC.


There are a few subchannel gems...RTV puts tvland to shame, and ThisTV is a good channel, not to mention PBS create. Digital was the best thing to happen to OTA. I have several friends who cant get RTV because no pay subscriber carries it.


----------



## swallman

SayWhat? said:


> Well, now THERE'S a viable and credible source. :sure:


I wouldn't read too much into the remarks about receivers being returned, etc., but there are certainly a significant number of pissed off Dish customers over there right now.


----------



## 356B

comizzou573 said:


> i think dish network is screwed and backrupt... on their facebook fan page they +21,000 fans that are all switching to directv or cable, they mad as hell over there


I think bankruptcy is a stretch.......screwed on the other hand....:new_Eyecr not because they're going broke though. They seem to care less or just incompetent...... Their stuff barley works, they're constantly in contractual disputes, their reps are either in denial, clueless or told to stall.....(lie).:brush: It's not just dishTV though it's the whole system, at least in my world.......:soapbox:

:icon_band


----------



## lparsons21

comizzou573 said:


> ^^I dont i think so, there is more than 21,000 dish subs mad about whats going on, according the articles written on facebook, and someone working for ups said they have been getting lots of dish receiver returned back to company, i think if they dont hurry up they are going to be even further deep in the hilo, there is the elections people want to watch on their local channels, msg sports is taken off because they want dish to add a music channel i think that would be cool to be honest, nat geo there are tons of people that watch it... including myself and i am disappointed they are working slow on there end cause there are major events upcoming these weeks


The number isn't all that signficant, but feel free to think it is.

As to the elections, seems there are a plethora of channels on Dish that will tell you all you can stand to hear about them, and they aren't in trouble.

And quit trying to blame just one side in this. While I think Dish is the relative good guys in this, they are just as hard-headed as is Fox. When you get two intransigent forces against each other, this is the result you get.


----------



## Jhon69

Paul Secic said:


> Most of those shows on OTA are judges hearing stupid case and the like, more Spanish shows ETC.


Well? what do you want for Free!.


----------



## SayWhat?

chum76 said:


> There are a few subchannel gems...RTV puts tvland to shame, and ThisTV is a good channel,


True on both. Just hope they last and don't fall to the budget axe like earlier incarnations.



chum76 said:


> Digital was the best thing to happen to OTA.


Except for the loss of coverage area and dependability.


----------



## kcolg30

As long as my Extacy channel remains untouched, I will be grabbing my remote and sticking through this 2-way money shot dispute.


----------



## Dave

Churn rate has become the norm in Satellite TV. It just seems like everyone has there own programming they want. DirectV has the same problem but worse on the west coast. There seem to be more indiduals on the west or even east coast that want programming from other countries. DirectV can not or will not provide all these channels. Dish does and will. So if a customer or a group of customers want a channel in Russian, India, Japanese and DirectV is not will to provide they go to Dish. If they had signed up for DirectV and can not get it from them they leave. This is all part of the yearly churn rate. Both providers lose and gain customers in massive numbers each year because of the churn rate. So 21,000 leaving is just part of the yearly churn rate.


----------



## mlcarson

I can get PBS at 100% here in Las Cruces, NM -- not a blip of a signal on any of the other channels. Large urban areas probably have more of a choice.



Jhon69 said:


> I was surprised to see how many digital channels are out there now,of course there's no HBO or Comedy Central.
> 
> I went to www.tvguide.com to see the listings and channels available in my area.


----------



## TBoneit

sigma1914 said:


> Odd...I just did 2 searches there.
> 
> You searched for: directv
> Approximately 522 Reports Found
> 
> You searched for: dish network
> Approximately 1060 Reports Found
> 
> 1060 > 522


Interesting, I only look at the new reports when I go there. Most complaints for bot relate to ETF. Dishnetworks big problem seems to that they have many resellers that lie and guess who gets the blame. They need to police their resellers better and both need to explain the ETF better.

Did you read any of them, Some people are really torqued off.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

People on internet forums scream loudly about the exodus of subscribers and doom and gloom... and then time passes... and there was no exodus.

No doubt some have already left Dish over this... but Dish has also added some new customers during this time too!

Also, Dish loses customers when they add new channels... there really has been no direct correlation as yet between these disputes and mass exodus of subscribers over it.

When DirecTV lost Vs... there similarly wasn't a major flood of people leaving for Dish... Also, when Dish added a bunch of new HD that DirecTV still doesn't have... no exodus there either.

It just doesn't happen... and I still maintain that most of Dish's customers haven't really figured out that they have lost any channels yet.


----------



## sigma1914

TBoneit said:


> Interesting, I only look at the new reports when I go there. Most complaints for bot relate to ETF. Dishnetworks big problem seems to that they have many resellers that lie and guess who gets the blame. They need to police their resellers better and both need to explain the ETF better.
> 
> *Did you read any of them, Some people are really torqued off.*


They're funny...they can be nuts. :lol:


----------



## dakeeney

Stewart Vernon said:


> People on internet forums scream loudly about the exodus of subscribers and doom and gloom... and then time passes... and there was no exodus.
> 
> No doubt some have already left Dish over this... but Dish has also added some new customers during this time too!
> 
> Also, Dish loses customers when they add new channels... there really has been no direct correlation as yet between these disputes and mass exodus of subscribers over it.
> 
> When DirecTV lost Vs... there similarly wasn't a major flood of people leaving for Dish... Also, when Dish added a bunch of new HD that DirecTV still doesn't have... no exodus there either.
> 
> It just doesn't happen... and I still maintain that most of Dish's customers haven't really figured out that they have lost any channels yet.


I don't believe I have heard anything lately about the Disney spat. Disney found out that Dish customers can live without their hd feeds.


----------



## James Long

comizzou573 said:


> i think dish network is screwed and backrupt... on their facebook fan page they +21,000 fans that are all switching to directv or cable, they mad as hell over there


Verified DISH customers or just someone who claims to be one on the internet?

For all we know, they may all be dogs (although on Facebook, everyone knows if you are a dog).



SayWhat? said:


> according the articles written on facebook
> 
> 
> 
> Well, now THERE'S a viable and credible source. :sure:
Click to expand...

I checked Wikipedia ... it said everything on Facebook (and the Internet) is true.


----------



## 356B

As self defeating as this may sound....most people don't care...... :smoking:they don't care about Fox Sports, or FX and maybe even Nat Geo......they move on, turn the channel, go shopping, read a book....:read:but if you take FOX Network away you will hear a significant outcry from the great unwashed.....:new_cussi that's why in my opinion it will never happen. This is a money game of "Chicken".:imwith:

:icon_band


----------



## phrelin

356B said:


> This is a money game of "Chicken".


While I know that at the bottom your observation is correct, I do have bigger concerns and hope that neither Dish Network and Cablevision blink.

I know that those upset by the loss of the News Corp sports channels and cable channels don't understand the concerns of the few over the reach of Rupert Murdoch's tightening tentacles on the media, particularly TV.

But over in Britain concern is growing over his latest move. From The Hollywood Reporter:


> BBC director general Mark Thompson has again spoken out against Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp.'s bid for the remaining 61 percent of BSkyB, this time using an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose Thursday to warn against the consequences of the deal.
> 
> Thompson's comments on U.S. television come ahead of a hotly anticipated speech later this month by News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch, who is expected to give further details of the bid when he delivers the inaugural Baroness Thatcher lecture in London October 21st.


And from The Guardian/Observer web site:


> Murdoch has managed to achieve what most assumed was impossible, a more or less harmonious agreement between, among others, the BBC, the Daily Mail, the Guardian Media Group (which owns the Observer), the Telegraph Media Group and the owners of the Daily Mirror. There probably hasn't been such a disparate and determined alliance since Wellington mustered Prussians, Saxons, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, English and Irish troops to confront Napoleon at a little village south of Brussels in 1815.
> 
> This isn't Murdoch's Waterloo and, after 40 years of bending Britain to his political will, the 79-year-old probably is not losing much sleep over the new alliance. Still, even he must be aware of the unprecedented strength of feeling in boardrooms against him. There is almost no one in the business outside News International who disagreed with the director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, when he said on US television that there was a case for looking at Rupert Murdoch's media ownership systematically because of the "potential for abuse of power".
> 
> That is a glorious understatement. Give almost any politician a guarantee of anonymity and he or she will say much more but, as Peter Oborne's Channel 4 Dispatches programme made clear, most are too frightened to challenge him or his executives. Successive generations of politicians have allowed Murdoch to extend his power so, in the estimation of the respected media analyst Claire Enders, Britain has long passed the "Berlusconi moment".
> 
> No newspaper company can buy ITV because of rules against cross-ownership, but because Sky was founded after the law was enacted, these rules do not apply. The anachronism means that Murdoch can merge Sky, which has a turnover roughly three times the size of ITV's and is growing at a rate of about 400,000 subscribers a year, with his newspaper group....


This is what Americans also should know. Murdoch's media reach leaves us also with politicians "too frightened to challenge him or his executives." Murdoch manipulates political and economic power in the pursuit of his goals better than anyone else in the capitalist world, East and West, today.

Thus I have no delusions that American politicians - liberal, conservative or moderate - have the courage to take him on. But if two other billionaires, Charles Ergen of Dish Network and Charles Dolan of Cablevision, take him on at the same time, at least some opportunity exists to reign him in.

Otherwise, I have to be content with the knowledge that he's 79 and likely will die in the next 20 years. At that point, it is likely his empire will slowly lose its clout as others have done in the past.

Still, in the pursuit of his economic goals, the damage he has done to the arena of American political discourse has already exceeded that of William Randolph Hearst.

(Incidentally, this has nothing to do with partisanship. Hearst was twice elected as a Democrat to the U.S. House of Representatives. Nor does it have anything to do with Murdoch's Australian origins. Hearst's patrilineal ancestor, John Hurst settled in Plymouth Colony around 1620. These guys are just missing something found in billionaires like Warren Buffett - a semblance of humility.)


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> People on internet forums scream loudly about the exodus of subscribers and doom and gloom... and then time passes... and there was no exodus.


Chances are DirecTV will lose more customers than DISH ... as the new quarter just began we won't know until February. Losing customers is part of the business.

The list of things DISH was not supposed to survive is long. Somehow DISH is still around.


----------



## inazsully

If you have wondered about your reception capability for OTA channels here's what I did in Phoenix. I bought a $20 rabbit ear style antenna from Wally and plugged that baby into the back of my 722. It worked so well I disconnected the box from my second TV and now only use the antenna for that TV. Hey, if it doesn't work just return the antenna. I also have a roof top antenna connected to the 722 but I was surprised the rabbit ears worked just as well.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> Chances are DirecTV will lose more customers than DISH ... as the new quarter just began we won't know until February. Losing customers is part of the business.
> 
> The list of things DISH was not supposed to survive is long. Somehow DISH is still around.


DirecTV lose more because they have more (more subs) to lose from.


----------



## scooper

inazsully said:


> If you have wondered about your reception capability for OTA channels here's what I did in Phoenix. I bought a $20 rabbit ear style antenna from Wally and plugged that baby into the back of my 722. It worked so well I disconnected the box from my second TV and now only use the antenna for that TV. Hey, if it doesn't work just return the antenna. I also have a roof top antenna connected to the 722 but I was surprised the rabbit ears worked just as well.


Or you can approach it in a much more scientific manner.

Start here http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=45
and look for your local forum,

Have your results for your location from here www.tvfool.com

With these, you can get some advice from local people who can tell you what SHOULD work for your location.


----------



## fatpug

James Long said:


> Chances are DirecTV will lose more customers than DISH ... as the new quarter just began we won't know until February. Losing customers is part of the business.
> 
> The list of things DISH was not supposed to survive is long. Somehow DISH is still around.


James - Are you a moderator or a DISH employee. I can't tell the difference.


----------



## paja

I was listening off and on throughout the day to sports talk stations in the Chicago area. I heard ads from DirecTV about DISH losing FOX and urging DISH customers to switch before they lose important sports programming.Later Sunday afternoon(after that great Bear victory), I saw a DirecTV truck on my block. I talked to the tech and he told me he was inundated with customers switching from DISH to Direct and that was why he was working on a Sunday afternoon.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Chances are DirecTV will lose more customers than DISH ... as the new quarter just began we won't know until February. Losing customers is part of the business.
> 
> The list of things DISH was not supposed to survive is long. Somehow DISH is still around.




There is absolutely nothing that would even hint as such. Remember I predicted Dish will have a net loss this quarter that is even greater than last (remember I offered you a bet?)?

If you mean that Direct will have a larger gross loss, that maybe true, as they have more subs to lose to begin with. But they will have a much smaller gross loss percentage AND will end up with a net gain. Dish WILL have a net loss AND it will be greater than last quarter, IMO.

As for this current quarter, I predict exactly the same. Dish will have a net loss yet again, and Direct will be one of the few providers growing in total subscribers.

Conjecturing based on patterns alone, Direct is so far behind on installs due to way too many people wanting to sign up AND they have run out of equipment. Cant be too big of a loss when so many people are signing up.


----------



## Joe Diver

James Long said:


> Chances are DirecTV will lose more customers than DISH ... as the new quarter just began we won't know until February. Losing customers is part of the business.


I doubt that during this latest Fox debacle this will be true. Just seeing too much install activity locally and too many folks talking about it....and that's only with hockey season starting up. Once basketball gets out of pre-season I'll bet the activity increases 5X....and if they lose NFL broadcasts on Fox locals 11/1...well, I'll bet seeing a Dish subscriber will get to be pretty rare. Now, of course I'm only speaking of my local market, where the Dallas Mavericks and Dallas Cowboys are both hugely popular



paja said:


> ...Later Sunday afternoon(after that great Bear victory), I saw a DirecTV truck on my block. I talked to the tech and he told me he was inundated with customers switching from DISH to Direct and that was why he was working on a Sunday afternoon.


X2. I saw 2 DirecTV trucks in my neighborhood today. I talked to one of them and he said they were slammed with switchers, were having to work over the weekend and even doubling up on area coverage...that's why there was more than one truck in the neighborhood. He didn't know about the other guy, but he had 2 houses to do today while he was here in this neighborhood alone. All of his installs today were new customers replacing Dish.


----------



## turbo_oasis

I can tell that scores of my fellow Blues fans have switched or are switching to D*, Charter, and/or AT&T U-Verse. I have been on D* for several years so no effect on me. I find it funny the on the side of the Scottrade Center there is huge Ad for E* and the Blues and yet...Blues fans on E* cant watch the Blues. This has to be worse than D* vs VS last year, and has the potential to drag out longer.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> DirecTV lose more because they have more (more subs) to lose from.


That's no excuse. If a company is good they shouldn't be losing customers, should they? Yet every quarter companies lose customers ... and fuel the Internet arguments over why around why so many customers decide to call it quits. Are they just flip-flopping for a better deal? Are they tired of waiting for new HD? Was their favorite channel off for a month? Someone will use "subscriber loss" to say "see, I was right" when in reality it is just a part of the business.



fatpug said:


> James - Are you a moderator or a DISH employee. I can't tell the difference.


No moderator here is employed by DISH or DirecTV. It is not permitted by the site admins. I hope that clears up your confusion.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> That's no excuse. If a company is good they shouldn't be losing customers, should they? Yet every quarter companies lose customers ... and fuel the Internet arguments over why around why so many customers decide to call it quits. Are they just flip-flopping for a better deal? Are they tired of waiting for new HD? Was their favorite channel off for a month? Someone will use "subscriber loss" to say "see, I was right" when in reality it is just a part of the business.
> 
> ...


See below.


DodgerKing said:


> There is absolutely nothing that would even hint as such. Remember I predicted Dish will have a net loss this quarter that is even greater than last (remember I offered you a bet?)?
> 
> If you mean that Direct will have a larger gross loss, that maybe true, as they have more subs to lose to begin with. But they will have a much smaller gross loss percentage AND will end up with a net gain. Dish WILL have a net loss AND it will be greater than last quarter, IMO.
> 
> As for this current quarter, I predict exactly the same. Dish will have a net loss yet again, and Direct will be one of the few providers growing in total subscribers.
> 
> Conjecturing based on patterns alone, Direct is so far behind on installs due to way too many people wanting to sign up AND they have run out of equipment. Cant be too big of a loss when so many people are signing up.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> There is absolutely nothing that would even hint as such. Remember I predicted Dish will have a net loss this quarter that is even greater than last (remember I offered you a bet?)?


That was last quarter ... this dispute would have little if any impact on 3Q. We'll know how well DISH's efforts to keep up were soon enough.



> As for this current quarter, I predict exactly the same. Dish will have a net loss yet again, and Direct will be one of the few providers growing in total subscribers.


It is too early to say.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> That was last quarter ... this dispute would have little if any impact on 3Q. We'll know how well DISH's efforts to keep up were soon enough.
> 
> It is too early to say.


Care to bet?


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> Care to bet?


As I told the other guy three months ago ... this is not a gambling forum.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Many don't realize that the take rate for NHL CI is higher than NBA LP. Many hockey fans that have Dish Network should be a bit irate, as they must have AT250 to have the Versus games. So I'd assume most of the people that are leaving either sports fans that have lost FSN (which means NHL fans at this point) or FX programming fans.

HOWEVER, realize that it most likely wouldn't take much of an increase in calls to cause a logjam in install calls. DirecTV would have had to prepare to have their supply chain in order to add additional receivers, and they need more than one week's notice.


----------



## meStevo

OT but related to the current discussion, does DirecTV regularly lose customers in the quarter with probably their most popular signup offers (Sunday Ticket) ? I'd expect that to be their strongest quarter if anything.


----------



## RLMesq

I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch, but he happens to have Kurt Sutter's current project, Sons of Anarchy, on FX. (I also don't ride a Harley, because something that loud ought to be a lot faster and lean a lot farther before stuff starts dragging.)

The most recent urinating match between Charlie and Murdoch sent me looking at alternatives. I could have saved some $$$ with a Sunday Ticket promo package from DirecTV (even though I rarely watch football, especially on weekends where there's MotoGP, World Superbike, or the anemic AMA series), but the real deal was with Comcast.

I had a top tier package, including two DVRs, with Dish for years, and I'll save about $50 a month with Comcast with comparable programming and On Demand from HBO, Starz, Cinemax and Showtime.

The cheap m*****f*****s won't even pay return shipping on my DVRs, and I have to go up and remove the LNB myself!

Never again, Charlie... never again.


----------



## James Long

meStevo said:


> OT but related to the current discussion, does DirecTV regularly lose customers in the quarter with probably their most popular signup offers (Sunday Ticket) ? I'd expect that to be their strongest quarter if anything.


All companies lose customers every quarter ... generally starting with the quarter after the customer's commitment has ended. The key is to keep the customer in a commitment (perhaps by extending the commitment period as part of special offers), keeping the customers who are out of commitment (and ripe for the picking) happy, and replacing the customers that do leave with new customers (most who come with 24 month commitments). Avoiding the _net_ loss of customers.

The most expensive customers are the new ones. So financially a net loss of customers due to failure to replace all of the ones who leave isn't a completely bad thing. It is more of an embarrassment than a financial hit.


----------



## James Long

RLMesq said:


> ... and I have to go up and remove the LNB myself!


If you tell DISH the LNB is inaccessible they will not require its return.

DirecTV's newest offer isn't bad ... $29 off for one year, $14 off for the second year. Free HD for Choice Xtra or above. The 2nd year discount is especially nice as that is usually where one pays for the first year discounted price (average the cost of service out over the 24 month contract).

$42.49 per month for Choice Xtra, $47.49 for Choice Ultimate, $93.49 for Premier (over 24 months)? Not bad. Probably better than the NFLST offer that just expired (unless you wanted NFLST).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James is just saying what I also said a page or two back...

That both Dish and DirecTV have been losing customers for years whether they add channels or not and whether they lose channels or not.

I've seen no studies that could fully explain why Dish and DirecTV lost those customers.

DirecTV, however, has usually done a better job at adding more new customers than they lost... but again we don't know what this means.

As James said, some people keep flip-flopping back and forth when their contract expires to get a better perceived "new customer" offer. These people are part of the churn no matter what happens, and I don't know how you'd filter them out.

Yes, DirecTV does a good job of adding customers... but what are they doing that causes them to lose so many? IF the reason for "exodus" and "ruination" for Dish is the loss of channels due to negotiations... then why is DirecTV also losing customers and supposedly not having these negotiation problems?

People are not consistent (or sometimes rational) when talking about the hot topic of the moment.

I suspect we'll never know what effect (if any) this dispute or the Disney one has on the next quarter Dish churn because Dish has had churn in quarters where they lost no channels and even added some!

Oh, and I haven't seen any DirecTV trucks in my neighborhood... so does that mean DirecTV is going out of business? I mean, if Dish is losing all their customers and DirecTV is not installing them... then DirecTV must be going under too!

That's where hyperbole and extrapolating from small data samples gets you... nowhere fast.


----------



## MilFan

I had a couple questions:

1. Has there been any update about this from either side of the debate?

2. When/if this gets settled, it will be an all or nothing thing right? So all the Fox channels will be restored (Fox, Fox Sports, FX, Nat Geo)? They wouldn't just bring back Fox and let the other channels permanently be gone would they?

16 days til Bucks season....


----------



## DodgerKing

Stewart Vernon said:


> James is just saying what I also said a page or two back...
> 
> That both Dish and DirecTV have been losing customers for years whether they add channels or not and whether they lose channels or not.
> 
> I've seen no studies that could fully explain why Dish and DirecTV lost those customers.
> 
> DirecTV, however, has usually done a better job at adding more new customers than they lost... but again we don't know what this means.
> 
> As James said, some people keep flip-flopping back and forth when their contract expires to get a better perceived "new customer" offer. These people are part of the churn no matter what happens, and I don't know how you'd filter them out.
> 
> Yes, DirecTV does a good job of adding customers... but what are they doing that causes them to lose so many? IF the reason for "exodus" and "ruination" for Dish is the loss of channels due to negotiations... then why is DirecTV also losing customers and supposedly not having these negotiation problems?
> 
> People are not consistent (or sometimes rational) when talking about the hot topic of the moment.
> 
> I suspect we'll never know what effect (if any) this dispute or the Disney one has on the next quarter Dish churn because Dish has had churn in quarters where they lost no channels and even added some!
> 
> Oh, and I haven't seen any DirecTV trucks in my neighborhood... so does that mean DirecTV is going out of business? I mean, if Dish is losing all their customers and DirecTV is not installing them... then DirecTV must be going under too!
> 
> That's where hyperbole and extrapolating from small data samples gets you... nowhere fast.


Good points you made, particularly on churn rates.

As far as your last point. True, you cannot judge based on trucks. But you can make a conjecture based on other patterns, such as install backups due to too many people wanting to sign up, and lack of inventory due to the same reason. These two things do hint that a lot of people are currently getting installs


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> I had a couple questions:
> 
> 1. Has there been any update about this from either side of the debate?


It seems that both sides update their special websites to respond to the public banter ... but the real negotiations? No update. But I expect those in a Fox O&O market will get one soon.



> 2. When/if this gets settled, it will be an all or nothing thing right? So all the Fox channels will be restored (Fox, Fox Sports, FX, Nat Geo)? They wouldn't just bring back Fox and let the other channels permanently be gone would they?


Most likely all or nothing. The more Fox can bundle together, the more money they can get.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> As far as your last point. True, you cannot judge based on trucks. But you can make a conjecture based on other patterns, such as install backups due to too many people wanting to sign up, and lack of inventory due to the same reason. These two things do hint that a lot of people are currently getting installs


And yet DirecTV had supply problems before this issue with Fox ... we could be seeing the results of a system that was already not meeting it's demand getting hit by last minute NFLST signups (new customer offer ended Oct 6th) along with those with near zero patience on the Fox issue.

But maybe the truck will bring the equipment on Thursday.


----------



## damondlt

I bet you anything D* add 100,000 + new subscribers and Dish Networks Loses 200,000 in the end of the 3rd quarter.
I'll also bet 400,000 + subscriber losses for Dish by the end of the 4th quarter.

I'll Buy your club membership even if I'm 1 number Shy. You don't even have to give me anything if I win.

1 st one to accept is who I'm betting!


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> I bet you anything D* add 100,000 + new subscribers and Dish Networks Loses 200,000 in the end of the 3rd quarter.
> I'll also bet 400,000 + subscriber losses for Dish by the end of the 4th quarter.


If you're talking NET subscribers you should know that a gain of 100k would equal DirecTV's worst quarter for net gain in the last five years. Which just happens to be the number for the last two quarters. DirecTV adding 100k net is a bad quarter. (Gross loss runs from 664k to 950k over the last five years.) A net loss of 200k for DISH is off the charts.

In any case, this is still not a gambling forum.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm guessing the net numbers won't be all that different from any other quarter with negotiation problems on one side or the other.


----------



## turbo_oasis

With so many NHL & NBA games on the FSN RSN's D* will gain several more subs. Fans of those teams don't want to have to go to a bar to see their team...I feel E* will lose and lose badly in this war.


----------



## mnassour

DodgerKing said:


> Good points you made, particularly on churn rates.
> 
> As far as your last point. True, you cannot judge based on trucks. But you can make a conjecture based on other patterns, such as install backups due to too many people wanting to sign up, and lack of inventory due to the same reason. These two things do hint that a lot of people are currently getting installs


Well, I do know one thing...when I asked for an install time with Dish late last week they offered to be at my house *that day.*

Then I discovered this problem and canceled out. This reminds me too much of why I left, but Charlie still has some programming that DirecTV doesn't...so I"ll give him another try after this latest dust up settles.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> If you're talking NET subscribers you should know that a gain of 100k would equal DirecTV's worst quarter for net gain in the last five years. Which just happens to be the number for the last two quarters. DirecTV adding 100k net is a bad quarter. (Gross loss runs from 664k to 950k over the last five years.) A net loss of 200k for DISH is off the charts.
> 
> In any case, this is still not a gambling forum.


 I'm not talking about Gross, Net is what counts, The real Over all number! Those are the ones keeping the lights on.

100,000 might be a bad quarter in your eyes, But the company already has over 18.6 Million customers. For a company that adds 400,000+ new customers every year is a Huge acheivement in a business that over 15 years old.

If Dish lost 90,000 last quarter, and I add 100,000, thats 190,000 more customers over you I added.

Down play what you want, But fact is any number adding subs is better then losing them.

And with Charlie and his games with the networks over and over, customers aren't going to keep putting up with it.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> In any case, this is still not a gambling forum.


 Its not gambling, I'm not taking anything in return.:eek2:


----------



## Jupiter

NHL & NBA backs Fox.... http://bit.ly/d0uQYu

This can't be good for Charlie if both leagues affected by the dispute are supporting the other side.... I personally know 10 people who have dropped E* in the last few days for D* or cable. Most of them did not do it for pro sports, but for college hockey.


----------



## tsmacro

Jupiter said:


> NHL & NBA backs Fox.... http://bit.ly/d0uQYu
> 
> This can't be good for Charlie if both leagues affected by the dispute are supporting the other side.... I personally know 10 people who have dropped E* in the last few days for D* or cable. Most of them did not do it for pro sports, but for college hockey.


Well duh! The sports leagues make money off of the networks so of course they're going to be one their side here. They want to be able to get fatter contracts from the networks so the more they can charge the better as far as leagues concerned!


----------



## Jupiter

tsmacro said:


> Well duh! The sports leagues make money off of the networks so of course they're going to be one their side here. They want to be able to get fatter contracts from the networks so the more they can charge the better as far as leagues concerned!


Yes... but it's all about perception.

The sports fans are not getting their games. The leagues they follow are supporting the network over the provider. The customers don't care about the "numbers". They're not getting games and it's the providers fault in their eyes.

The only reason I have not dropped E* is because I cannot afford the cancellation right now.


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> 100,000 might be a bad quarter in your eyes,


You're not listening. In the past five years DirecTV has added at least 100,000 net each quarter. Your "bet" is that they will add the same as the least month. Not exactly going out on a limb.



> If Dish lost 90,000 last quarter, and I add 100,000, thats 190,000 more customers over you I added.


Oh, you're going to use tricks to inflate the numbers. 



> And with Charlie and his games with the networks over and over, customers aren't going to keep putting up with it.


Why does it seem that the people most upset already don't have DISH service?


----------



## 356B

This has become a DirectTV vs dishtv debate which is vaguely the issue at hand. If Direct has and dishTV does not so be it.....:soapbox: it seems the Direct folks want dishTV to fail...... :grrr:what's up with that? Just another *******contest....!pepsi!

:icon_band


----------



## Jhon69

mlcarson said:


> I can get PBS at 100% here in Las Cruces, NM -- not a blip of a signal on any of the other channels. Large urban areas probably have more of a choice.


Have you tried www.antennaweb.org ?. Then you should know for sure how many digital channels are available to you and what type of over the air antenna you may need.


----------



## levibluewa

and dropped Directv last month.


----------



## swallman

Jhon69 said:


> Have you tried www.antennaweb.org ?. Then you should know for sure how many digital channels are available to you and what type of over the air antenna you may need.


I just tried using Antennaweb with my street address and this is the result I got.

_There are no stations predicted to serve this location.
Depending on the specifics of your installation, though, you may be able to receive some signals._

Which is why I need to use cable/sat/etc. There are just some locations where people cannot get local channels with ANY antenna.


----------



## MilFan

If I'm understanding what people THINK will happen correctly, the deadline for the Fox locals/Dish to get a deal completed is November 1. But if Fox and Dish do work out a deal by that time (where the backlash would surely be the biggest due to loss of national programming/NFL games/etc), then ALL of Fox local/Fox Sports/FX/Nat Geo would be restored to Dish subs, not just the Fox locals. If that is indeed the case, there will be at most 2-3 regular season NBA/NHL games affected, so nothing too monumental.


----------



## SayWhat?

> ..I feel E* will lose and lose badly in this war.


And how much did Fox pay you to come here and post that?


----------



## turbo_oasis

"SayWhat?" said:


> And how much did Fox pay you to come here and post that?


I don't work for any TV network...I'm just a server engineer who is commenting on the insanity of the situation. E* needs to get off their high horse.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> All companies lose customers every quarter ... generally starting with the quarter after the customer's commitment has ended. The key is to keep the customer in a commitment (perhaps by extending the commitment period as part of special offers), keeping the customers who are out of commitment (and ripe for the picking) happy, and replacing the customers that do leave with new customers (most who come with 24 month commitments). Avoiding the _net_ loss of customers.
> 
> The most expensive customers are the new ones. So financially a net loss of customers due to failure to replace all of the ones who leave isn't a completely bad thing. It is more of an embarrassment than a financial hit.


James: a question

Do the cable companies and Dish and Dirrectv pay the media companies by the month or yearly?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Remember, during the DirecTV/Versus dispute, the NHL sided with Versus, because that was where their money was coming from. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the respective teams are supporting their local RSN's, as the local RSN's are paying them.


----------



## Jhon69

turbo_oasis said:


> I don't work for any TV network...I'm just a server engineer who is commenting on the insanity of the situation. E* needs to get off their high horse.


Maybe if Fox get's off their high horse,Dish Network will follow?.


----------



## Hoosier205

Has anyone been able to get a refund/credit for Center Ice as of yet? I know a few were trying. Only 4 HD games today, while DirecTV has 12.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Paul Secic said:


> Do the cable companies and Dish and Dirrectv pay the media companies by the month or yearly?


IIRC, the only documented method of payment we've seen recently is from the dispute between Disney and Dish Network. The payments there are monthly.


----------



## lparsons21

turbo_oasis said:


> With so many NHL & NBA games on the FSN RSN's D* will gain several more subs. Fans of those teams don't want to have to go to a bar to see their team...I feel E* will lose and lose badly in this war.


For the sports buff, you are probably right. But I don't think the sports buffs are the majority at all.


----------



## SayWhat?

> E* needs to get off their high horse.


You mean Fox, right?

I wouldn't care if Dish dropped ALL Fox channels at this point.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> You mean Fox, right?
> 
> I wouldn't care if Dish dropped ALL Fox channels at this point.


Thank the Lord you're not running the show.


----------



## sorentodd45

Joe Diver said:


> Now, of course I'm only speaking of my local market, where the Dallas Mavericks and Dallas Cowboys are both hugely popular.


Exactly. Certain markets are much more passionate about local sports than others.

Case in point, the Los Angeles DMA (which is very satt dish friendly, because of good weather). The Lakers' season kicks off on the 26th, with their first game on Fox Sports West on the 31st. If this dispute isn't resolved by then, it could get ugly.

Also, the Phoenix Suns (another good weather city and popular local team) have their first game on FSN-AZ on the 29th.

The only saving grace in those two DMA's is that about half of the NBA games are available on local over-the-air TV. However, this is a rarity in today's NBA television world.


----------



## MilFan

sorentodd45 said:


> Exactly. Certain markets are much more passionate about local sports than others.
> 
> Case in point, the Los Angeles DMA (which is very satt dish friendly, because of good weather). The Lakers' season kicks off on the 26th, with their first game on Fox Sports West on the 31st. If this dispute isn't resolved by then, it could get ugly.
> 
> Also, the Phoenix Suns (another good weather city and popular local team) have their first game on FSN-AZ on the 29th.
> 
> The only saving grace in those two DMA's is that about half of the NBA games are available on local over-the-air TV. However, this is a rarity in today's NBA television world.


This is the problem for my market. FS-Wisconsin carries 70 of the 82 Bucks games. Zero are on local TV, and I think four are on national TV (that aren't carried by FS-Wisconsin). If this drags all year long I go from being able to watch 74 games to 4.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> You're not listening. In the past five years DirecTV has added at least 100,000 net each quarter. Your "bet" is that they will add the same as the least month. Not exactly going out on a limb.
> 
> ?


 Your not listening.

I'm not gaining a thing from the "Bet" you would be If i'm wrong about E* declining numbers. My Point is I'll "Bet" you Dish Loses 300,000-600,000 customers by Febuary 2011 from the 2010 Year.
While Directv in the Process GAINS more "NET" customers.
If i'm wrong, I 'll Buy whom ever accepts , 1 Year Club Membership to DBS Talk. 
The loophole is it has to be someone who is a Dish Network subscriber, who is disputing my claims.

I'd say thats more then a fair bet.:lol:


----------



## sigma1914

MilFan said:


> This is the problem for my market. FS-Wisconsin carries 70 of the 82 Bucks games. Zero are on local TV, and I think four are on national TV (that aren't carried by FS-Wisconsin). If this drags all year long I go from being able to watch 74 games *to 4*.


That's more Bucks games than I'll watch all season & I sub to LP.  J/K with ya! :lol: I'd be upset if I missed Lakers games.


----------



## SayWhat?

I just can't believe people are so unreasonably obsessed with any sport. It's just a freakin' game folks. You've seen one, you've seen 'em all. They bounce a ball, or they throw a ball, or they chase someone who has a ball or they slap at a small black disc.


Whippeeeee.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> Oh, you're going to use tricks to inflate the numbers.
> 
> ?


 Yes , I'm going to use the same Formula Charlie uses with his HD channel counts.:lol:

Only Difference my Formula is accurite.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> I just can't believe people are so unreasonably obsessed with any sport. It's just a freakin' game folks. You've seen one, you've seen 'em all. They bounce a ball, or they throw a ball, or they chase someone who has a ball or they slap at a small black disc.
> 
> Whippeeeee.


My god are you clueless. I am hoping the above is sarcasm.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> I just can't believe people are so unreasonably obsessed with any sport. It's just a freakin' game folks. You've seen one, you've seen 'em all. They bounce a ball, or they throw a ball, or they chase someone who has a ball or they slap at a small black disc.
> 
> Whippeeeee.


So you have no interests? I'm sure your interests can be talked down on, too.


----------



## SayWhat?

_my Formula is accurite._

Ummmm, OK



> So you have no interests?


Interest, yes. Obsessions, no.


----------



## Hoosier205

damondlt said:


> Your not listening.
> 
> I'm not gaining a thing from the "Bet" you would be If i'm wrong about E* declining numbers. My Point is I'll "Bet" you Dish Loses 300,000-600,000 customers by Febuary 2011 from the 2010 Year.
> While Directv in the Process GAINS more "NET" customers.
> If i'm wrong, I 'll Buy whom ever accepts , 1 Year Club Membership to DBS Talk.
> The loophole is it has to be someone who is a Dish Network subscriber, who is disputing my claims.
> 
> I'd say thats more then a fair bet.:lol:


That DirecTV will have a better Q4 than Dish is certainly a safe bet. While this Fox/Dish dispute is good for DirecTV's business now...the outcome could set the market for the next provider who has to negotiate a new contract with Fox. We need to remember who the COO of News Corp. is now. It's a man who knows the service provider side of the industry very well. He knows exactly how to turn the screws on them. While I'm guessing that the DirecTV brass are enjoying watching Charlie deal with something like this yet again...they know that they will be up to bat soon enough. I think they will handle it very differently though.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> _my Formula is accurite._
> 
> Ummmm, OK
> 
> Interest, yes. Obsessions, no.


You're sitting here on a TV forum telling sports fans they should be OK not seeing their sports. My guess is that since you're on a TV forum, you like TV and are interested in something. My guess is you're OK with someone telling you you should be fine without the channel you watch most.

Please, get a clue. I beg you.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> Interest, yes. Obsessions, no.


Us sports fans are not all obsessive. I see from your old posts that you like Retro TV. It shows old programs. How boring. It's just a freakin' same old shows from before. You've seen one, you've seen 'em all.


----------



## SayWhat?

> My guess is you're OK with someone telling you you should be fine without the channel you watch most.


There is no single channel I couldn't do without. If a program is on, I'll watch it. If not, I'll watch something else.

I wouldn't change providers over it.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> There is no single channel I couldn't do without. If a program is on, I'll watch it. If not, I'll watch something else.
> 
> I wouldn't change providers over it.


I don't get why you have to watch tv. You've seen one show, you've seen 'em all.


----------



## satgeek550

Just called Dish Network and asked for a bill reduction. Also shared with them that I was strongly considering canceling my service with them. They first offered me free PPV movies and I said that wasn't enough, then the guy TX me to another department. Lady first said we can take off $5 for 6 months. She tried getting me to sign up for Free HD for Life, I explained I do not like auto-pay. She then said we can pay the one time $99 fee for you, with no commitment, I said yes I will take it. So that is $10 for the life of my account. I did explain that if I lost my local affiliate that I am leaving anyways and said they hope to have it resolved. I guess something is better than nothing.



AM Top 250 w/ HD
9 years
Vip 722
Vip 222k
DP311


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> There is no single channel I couldn't do without. If a program is on, I'll watch it. If not, I'll watch something else.
> 
> I wouldn't change providers over it.


Sounds like you'd do just fine with OTA reception then. It would save you a lot of money. I have certain interests and that is why pay TV makes sense for me.

There is only one thing I don't understand about you: Why do delete the name of person you are quoting and the link to the post you are quoting?


----------



## sigma1914

satgeek550 said:


> Just called Dish Network and asked for a bill reduction. Also shared with them that I was strongly considering canceling my service with them. They first offered me free PPV movies and I said that wasn't enough, then the guy TX me to another department. Lady first said we can take off $5 for 6 months. She tried getting me to sign up for Free HD for Life, I explained I do not like auto-pay. She then said we can pay the one time $99 fee for you, with no commitment, I said yes I will take it. * So that is $10 for the life of my account. * I did explain that if I lost my local affiliate that I am leaving anyways and said they hope to have it resolved. I guess something is better than nothing.
> 
> AM Top 250 w/ HD
> 9 years
> Vip 722
> Vip 222k
> DP311


No...it's $10 off for the duration that there's still a $10 HD fee. If Dish decides to do away with the HD fee, you won't have a HD fee to be credited.


----------



## Curtis0620

Hoosier205 said:


> That DirecTV will have a better Q4 than Dish is certainly a safe bet. While this Fox/Dish dispute is good for DirecTV's business now...the outcome could set the market for the next provider who has to negotiate a new contract with Fox. We need to remember who the COO of News Corp. is now. It's a man who knows the service provider side of the industry very well. He knows exactly how to turn the screws on them. While I'm guessing that the DirecTV brass are enjoying watching Charlie deal with something like this yet again...they know that they will be up to bat soon enough. I think they will handle it very differently though.


FOX wants there channels in the basic package, they already are with D*.


----------



## SayWhat?

> There is only one thing I don't understand about you: Why do delete the name of person you are quoting and the link to the post you are quoting?


It's easier to copy/paste the relevant text using the quote tags in the Quick Reply box than to quote the entire post and delete all non-relevant text.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> It's easier to copy/paste the relevant text using the quote tags in the Quick Reply box than to quote the entire post and delete all non-relevant text.


...if you say so. If you're going to quote someone, leave the portion which includes their name and the link to the post being quoted. It's better for everyone that way and easier to follow.


----------



## calgary2800

I dont have anymore patience to deal with Dish, they like to argue more than Direct too often. I rather pay a higher bill and have my big screen plasma filled with entertainment than Dish's issues and have a black screen. There is a option for everyone in TV land and I certainly dont want to cheap out. 

I'm better off switching to Direct anyway. If a good program can keep me away from the casino at night than its all the more money I will not lose in the long run. And I have lost buckets of money in casinos when there was no good TV on. 

Moral of story- 20-25 bucks a month aint a hill of beans to most of us.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jhon69 said:


> Maybe if Fox get's off their high horse,Dish Network will follow?.


Look at me.
Now, look at your bill.
Now look back at me!

I'm on a high horse.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

damondlt said:


> Your not listening.
> 
> I'm not gaining a thing from the "Bet" you would be If i'm wrong about E* declining numbers. My Point is I'll "Bet" you Dish Loses 300,000-600,000 customers by Febuary 2011 from the 2010 Year.
> While Directv in the Process GAINS more "NET" customers.
> If i'm wrong, I 'll Buy whom ever accepts , 1 Year Club Membership to DBS Talk.
> The loophole is it has to be someone who is a Dish Network subscriber, who is disputing my claims.
> 
> I'd say thats more then a fair bet.:lol:


Once again, this is not a betting site... Perhaps you would do better on one of those?

Meanwhile, you're only proposing that DirecTV to at least what it has done for several months in a row and most months over recent years... so it isn't much of a bet. In fact, your very argument implies no real effect from the Dish disputes if DirecTV isn't going to do hugely better than usual as a result.

Also, your math is suspect.

You said that if DirecTV adds 100,000 and Dish loses 90,000 then that equals DirecTV adding 190,000? No it doesn't. Not unless DirecTV also gets those 90,000 too!

The subscriber difference margin changes, yes... but it doesn't equal DirecTV gaining customers. Only gaining customers equals gaining customers.

We really don't know enough about churn to make any substantial statements. I suspect neither Dish nor DirecTV really know what makes up their churn either.

Dish is bad at adding new customers, but they don't lose as many as DirecTV does. I've seen quarters where DirecTV adds a million new customers BUT also loses 800,000 or more... So while DirecTV is good at adding, they seem worse than Dish at keeping.

Imagine... if DirecTV could continue to add like they do AND cut down on subscribers bailing.

Where do those customers go? Do they go back to Dish? Or cable? OR OTA only??

We just don't know. BOTH companies have issues, and most quarters the churn is not a result of channel additions/drops or even rate increases. Despite the hot buttons on internet threads... I've seen no substantial evidence that rate-increase time OR channel losses has any big effect on the churn for any particular quarter.


----------



## joshjr

Stewart Vernon said:


> Once again, this is not a betting site... Perhaps you would do better on one of those?
> 
> Meanwhile, you're only proposing that DirecTV to at least what it has done for several months in a row and most months over recent years... so it isn't much of a bet. In fact, your very argument implies no real effect from the Dish disputes if DirecTV isn't going to do hugely better than usual as a result.
> 
> Also, your math is suspect.
> 
> You said that if DirecTV adds 100,000 and Dish loses 90,000 then that equals DirecTV adding 190,000? No it doesn't. Not unless DirecTV also gets those 90,000 too!
> 
> The subscriber difference margin changes, yes... but it doesn't equal DirecTV gaining customers. Only gaining customers equals gaining customers.
> 
> We really don't know enough about churn to make any substantial statements. I suspect neither Dish nor DirecTV really know what makes up their churn either.
> 
> Dish is bad at adding new customers, but they don't lose as many as DirecTV does. I've seen quarters where DirecTV adds a million new customers BUT also loses 800,000 or more... So while DirecTV is good at adding, they seem worse than Dish at keeping.
> 
> Imagine... if DirecTV could continue to add like they do AND cut down on subscribers bailing.
> 
> Where do those customers go? Do they go back to Dish? Or cable? OR OTA only??
> 
> We just don't know. BOTH companies have issues, and most quarters the churn is not a result of channel additions/drops or even rate increases. Despite the hot buttons on internet threads... I've seen no substantial evidence that rate-increase time OR channel losses has any big effect on the churn for any particular quarter.


Do you have any numbers to back that up? I dont remember seeing D* drop almost as many as they add. My understanding was that D* goes after the higher end customers that will lower packages before leaving where as E* goes after the lower end customers that have no where lower to go. I remember reading countless threads on here about E* losing customers. As I recall it was almost always higher on the loss side for E*. That being said I dont remember seeing D* loss of customers. This is a question not a debate really. Do you have numbers to back that up?


----------



## TBoneit

turbo_oasis said:


> I don't work for any TV network...I'm just a server engineer who is commenting on the insanity of the situation. E* needs to get off their high horse.


True, all any of the providers have to do is say "BOHICA" and pay whatever is asked and no more disputes.

That's not the way the real world is.

Thus we have Cablevision's deadline on the 16th of October and then Dishnetworks deadline for locals of the end of the month.

If they stand firm the Fox local stations in NYC & Philadelphia stand to lose a lot of viewers.

BTW when is ratings sweep anyway?


----------



## SayWhat?

And the more Direct picks up, they harder they'll fall when Fox lowers the boom on them.


----------



## Lakers_Fan_24

Does anyone have some info on when this might be settled? Being an avid BB fan, just curious if this might get done by the end of October. I live in Florida and I never miss my Laker games. I talked to a sales lady (there all clueless) but she said very soon, there in negotiations now, won't be long.

I've been looking at Uverse, but they don't carry the NBA package and Direct doesn't have the HD channels I like (DIY and lots of HBO's - although they do have more Starz and Showtime). I've love the Dish DVR, very easy to use and the external HD is such a bonus.

Don't know what to do................. Luckily the 1st 2 Laker games are on TNT and ESPN. Oct 31st is the 1st game I might miss in 20 years of watching every game. (Just recently moved from LA to Florida) So anxious......


TIA


----------



## lparsons21

There's never any telling about how long this will take. CSRs and sales people are among the last to have even a sniff of a clue, they are too far from the head of the table where the talks are going on.

It could take just a little more time, or it could stretch out longer. My best guess is that it won't all come to a head until the O&O Fox locals come up on 11/1. But it is strictly a guess.


----------



## dakeeney

Yes I agree that it will come down to the Fox locals being pulled before there is an agreement signed.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> And yet DirecTV had supply problems before this issue with Fox ... we could be seeing the results of a system that was already not meeting it's demand getting hit by last minute NFLST signups (new customer offer ended Oct 6th) along with those with near zero patience on the Fox issue.
> 
> But maybe the truck will bring the equipment on Thursday.


I don't disagree. I do not think the Fox issue has had a big impact yet (if they lose the local Fox, then it may). My point was more of a general one about Direct having a net gain this quarter


----------



## DodgerKing

Hoosier205 said:


> That DirecTV will have a better Q4 than Dish is certainly a safe bet. *While this Fox/Dish dispute is good for DirecTV's business now...the outcome could set the market for the next provider who has to negotiate a new contract with Fox.* We need to remember who the COO of News Corp. is now. It's a man who knows the service provider side of the industry very well. He knows exactly how to turn the screws on them. While I'm guessing that the DirecTV brass are enjoying watching Charlie deal with something like this yet again...they know that they will be up to bat soon enough. I think they will handle it very differently though.


Which is exactly why I am on Dish's side on this issue and hope they continue to be a successful company


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> Look at me.
> Now, look at your bill.
> Now look back at me!
> 
> I'm on a high horse.


:lol::grin:

Here's how Charlie will take care of Fox's high horse!.:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## inazsully

Let's help the clowns at FOX and DISH out here. Since all 14+ million Dish subs lost certain channels like FX, and Charlie doesn't want to subject us poor customers to a rate hike, how about a small compromise? Drop the 120 pkg and have the 120+ pkg be the new beginning pkg? That should make FOX satisfied, 10 million "E" subs rates will stay the same and the 4 million 120 subs will get the + pkg with a big "THANKS" from the other 10 million of us. And we'll all get FX etc back. Or keep the 120 pkg and charge another $5 for the 120+ pkg. I can live with that too. Let's have some solution suggestions everybody.


----------



## Jhon69

calgary2800 said:


> I dont have anymore patience to deal with Dish, they like to argue more than Direct too often. I rather pay a higher bill and have my big screen plasma filled with entertainment than Dish's issues and have a black screen. There is a option for everyone in TV land and I certainly dont want to cheap out.
> 
> I'm better off switching to Direct anyway. If a good program can keep me away from the casino at night than its all the more money I will not lose in the long run. And I have lost buckets of money in casinos when there was no good TV on.
> 
> Moral of story- 20-25 bucks a month aint a hill of beans to most of us.


You don't have to apologize we all have to figure out which provider is right for us.For example I went with Dish Network first,then DirecTV,now back to Dish Network,it's just a better fit for me.Good Luck!


----------



## Jhon69

inazsully said:


> Let's help the clowns at FOX and DISH out here. Since all 14+ million Dish subs lost certain channels like FX, and Charlie doesn't want to subject us poor customers to a rate hike, how about a small compromise? Drop the 120 pkg and have the 120+ pkg be the new beginning pkg? That should make FOX satisfied, 10 million "E" subs rates will stay the same and the 4 million 120 subs will get the + pkg with a big "THANKS" from the other 10 million of us. And we'll all get FX etc back. Or keep the 120 pkg and charge another $5 for the 120+ pkg. I can live with that too. Let's have some solution suggestions everybody.


I really don't see a solution.You just can't tell Charlie"You put our product there or else"?.Charlie will choose"or else"?.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

joshjr said:


> Do you have any numbers to back that up? I dont remember seeing D* drop almost as many as they add. My understanding was that D* goes after the higher end customers that will lower packages before leaving where as E* goes after the lower end customers that have no where lower to go. I remember reading countless threads on here about E* losing customers. As I recall it was almost always higher on the loss side for E*. That being said I dont remember seeing D* loss of customers. This is a question not a debate really. Do you have numbers to back that up?


All you have to do is look at any of the DirecTV quarterly reports and pay attention to their details of subscribers added vs subscribers lost. I don't have the time to actually go back through the forum and find the threads, but it has all been expressed before.

In a quarter where DirecTV has a net addition of say 250,000 customers, that often comes as a result of actually adding 1 million customers while losing 750,000 during that same quarter.

So they have a net addition... but they still lost a lot of customers that IF they'd have kept them would have meant a much bigger net growth.

The ultimate point really being that DirecTV does better at replacing their lost customers in any given quarter than Dish usually does BUT both companies keep losing some customers every quarter no matter what else is going on.

Anything further is really WAY off-topic for this thread... so I'd encourage you to take a look for DirecTV quarterly financial reports and the data they report will back this up.

Ultimately neither company really seems to have been negatively impacted in any measurable way by not having some channels that the other one has... the numbers seem to go up and down related to other criteria moreso than any one dispute in a given quarter.


----------



## adam1115

Greg Bimson said:


> There was never any rule that allowed you to pick another affiliate.


Yes there was.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/shviafac.html

Before Dish offered LIL, if you couldn't pick up signals OTA you could geta distant.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Do you have any numbers to back that up? I dont remember seeing D* drop almost as many as they add. My understanding was that D* goes after the higher end customers that will lower packages before leaving where as E* goes after the lower end customers that have no where lower to go. I remember reading countless threads on here about E* losing customers. As I recall it was almost always higher on the loss side for E*. That being said I dont remember seeing D* loss of customers. This is a question not a debate really. Do you have numbers to back that up?


That's the trouble with memory ... one can block out the bad memories or fixate on them.

"_I dont remember seeing D* drop almost as many as they add._"
That one is easy ... just look at net gain. The closer they get to zero the more they have dropped as many as they have added. The last two reported quarters are DirecTV's worst in the past five years for net gain. 3Q 09 is a good example of what Stewart is saying ... over one million new customers but a net gain of 136.

"_I remember reading countless threads on here about E* losing customers. As I recall it was almost always higher on the loss side for E*._"
I remember reading countless threads of people claiming DISH would lose customers over some event or another. DirecTV has lost more customers per quarter than DISH for the past five quarters. They do have more customers to lose.

SEC Filings are available from both companies. The whole point is: DISH loses customers every quarter ... hundreds of thousands of them ... just like any other company with millions of customers. Saying DISH (or DirecTV) will lose customers is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. You have a pretty good chance of being right.



DodgerKing said:


> I don't disagree. I do not think the Fox issue has had a big impact yet (if they lose the local Fox, then it may). My point was more of a general one about Direct having a net gain this quarter


Again, not a long shot. When was the last quarter DirecTV didn't have a net gain? The sun will rise. Whether that net gain will be 100k or 460k would be a question.


----------



## Greg Bimson

adam1115 said:


> Yes there was.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/shviafac.html
> 
> Before Dish offered LIL, if you couldn't pick up signals OTA you could geta distant.


Okay. HOWEVER, Dish Network was found guilty for failure to follow the rules, and the courts prohibited Dish Network from providing distants. It wasn't that "if you couldn't pick up signals OTA you could get a distant". There were more qualifications.

The fact remains that Dish Network offered too many people distant stations that weren't supposed to get them. So the person I originally quoted might not have been allowed to subscribe to the distant networks. No one knows for sure. And the way those rules were written, it was very difficult to qualify for those channels.


----------



## inazsully

Jhon69 said:


> I really don't see a solution.You just can't tell Charlie"You put our product there or else"?.Charlie will choose"or else"?.


I don't see where you see possibly me saying " put it here or else". From what I've read here, FOX wants a 50% increase, and I have also read here that FOX really wants the RSN's in the lower tier. I'm not sure exactly what else constitutes a 50% increase but the 120+ is $5 more than the 120. Hence my suggestion. Don't see how you could construe it any other way. Oh, and Charlie saying "or else" is exactly the kind of attitude that is and will drive subs away.


----------



## adam1115

Greg Bimson said:


> Okay. HOWEVER, Dish Network was found guilty for failure to follow the rules, and the courts prohibited Dish Network from providing distants. It wasn't that "if you couldn't pick up signals OTA you could get a distant". There were more qualifications.
> 
> The fact remains that Dish Network offered too many people distant stations that weren't supposed to get them. So the person I originally quoted might not have been allowed to subscribe to the distant networks. No one knows for sure. And the way those rules were written, it was very difficult to qualify for those channels.


They legally provided distants before they offered LIL, and even after. And that wasn't what you said, you said there was no such rule.

And no, it wasn't very difficult to qualify. Prior to 1999 it extremely easy to qualify. After, it simply required you to not be able to receive an analog Grade B OTA signal. Meaning, if you couldn't get an acceptable OTA signal, you qualified. You could also apply for a waiver, and I remember a point in time where our O&O CBS affiliate approved any distant requests, which was the point of the people you were responding to.

The FCC tightened down the rules as LIL became more common, and Dish fought the system. That's not the same as there was never a rule that allowed distant locals.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Davenlr said:


> I agree. Either that, and/or allow US to choose to subscribe to whatever affiliates we want like we used to be able to.


I show this quote because it is specifically what I was responding to...


adam1115 said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> They legally provided distant before they offered LIL, and even after. And that wasn't what you said, you said there was no such rule.
> 
> And no, it wasn't very difficult to qualify. Prior to 1999 it extremely easy to qualify. After, it simply required you to not be able to receive an analog Grade B OTA signal. Meaning, if you couldn't get an acceptable OTA signal, you qualified.
> 
> The FCC tightened down the rules as LIL became more common, and Dish fought the system. That's not the same as there's no such rule that allows distant locals.


Here we go again...

The FCC NEVER tightened any rule. Congress did. And the qualification process in 1999 was the same as it was in 1989 and 2004, until the new law came into effect.

Most people with distant networks should not have had them. So to everyone saying it was easy to qualify needs to remember that it was so easy to qualify that Dish Network was barred by a court from providing distant networks.

I agree there was a rule (it was actually a law) which was violated so badly that DirecTV, Dish Network and Primetime 24 were all found guilty of violating it, and Primestar negotiated its way out of being sued.


----------



## James Long

adam1115 said:


> They legally provided distants before they offered LIL, and even after. And that wasn't what you said, you said there was no such rule.


The courts ruled that their provision of distants was an infringement on the stations and networks rights. Congress wrote laws that would, in strict circumstances, make it legal to rebroadcast distants using the statutory license. DISH violated the law and was sued, eventually settling with three of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) but Fox refused to settle and the four "affiliate groups" representing affiliates of each network refused to settle. DISH was found to be in violation of the law and the specified legal penalty was invoked (despite a last minute attempt to settle with the "affiliate groups"). A new law was written that now allows DISH to redeem itself and offer distants under stricter monitoring. But I've gone too far from the time period in question.

Back when it all began with Primetime 24 distants were carried because they physically could be carried ... with no legal protection. The court cases ended that when what we would call today the content owners won the right to protect their property. Primetime 24 was not legal.

It is interesting to note in this thread (a DISH vs Fox carriage dispute topic) that Fox was the only major network that refused to settle with DISH before the injunction ending distants. The bad blood runs deep.


----------



## Jhon69

inazsully said:


> I don't see where you see possibly me saying " put it here or else". From what I've read here, FOX wants a 50% increase, and I have also read here that FOX really wants the RSN's in the lower tier. I'm not sure exactly what else constitutes a 50% increase but the 120+ is $5 more than the 120. Hence my suggestion. Don't see how you could construe it any other way. Oh, and Charlie saying "or else" is exactly the kind of attitude that is and will drive subs away.


Well that's Charlie's attitude and if the new Dish Network's subs didn't know about that they do now the older ones do know about that.In fact that's one of the reasons I came back to Dish Network.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> DISH violated the law and was sued, eventually settling with three of the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) but Fox refused to settle and the four "affiliate groups" representing affiliates of each network refused to settle. DISH was found to be in violation of the law and the specified legal penalty was invoked (despite a last minute attempt to settle with the "affiliate groups").


The networks originally filed their lawsuit against Dish Network in *1998*.

The "agreement in principle" to settle the suit? Everyone agreed to settle but FOX, including all of the affiliate groups. However, because all networks and their affiliate boards had asked the Court of Appeals to terminate Dish Network's distant network service, that is what the Court of Appeals mandated. The case was passed to the lower court which could only enforce what it was told to do.

I'm just tired of the pining for "the way things used to be", when it was found that Dish Network violated the qualification process in every single way imaginable during that time.


----------



## Davenlr

Greg Bimson said:


> I'm just tired of the pining for "the way things used to be", when it was found that Dish Network violated the qualification process in every single way imaginable during that time.


My "Way it used to be" comment was referring to all the network packages available on C band, before Dish or DirecTv even existed.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> The networks originally filed their lawsuit against Dish Network in *1998*.


Yep. That fits in with the chronology given. Right after "_The courts ruled that their provision of distants was an infringement on the stations and networks rights. Congress wrote laws that would, in strict circumstances, make it legal to rebroadcast distants using the statutory license._"



> The "agreement in principle" to settle the suit? Everyone agreed to settle but FOX, including all of the affiliate groups. However, because all networks and their affiliate boards had asked the Court of Appeals to terminate Dish Network's distant network service, that is what the Court of Appeals mandated. The case was passed to the lower court which could only enforce what it was told to do.


There was an agreement before the final last chance hail mary after the appeal. The agreement was with ABC, CBS and NBC but not the other partites. The late agreement with the affiliate groups was too late ... but it is interesting to note (for the purposes of this thread) who the lone holdout was.



Davenlr said:


> My "Way it used to be" comment was referring to all the network packages available on C band, before Dish or DirecTv even existed.


Yep. PrimeTime 24 playing fast and loose and getting their hands slapped.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Davenlr said:


> My "Way it used to be" comment was referring to all the network packages available on C band, before Dish or DirecTv even existed.


Yes, but let's also put the timeline in perspective...

The original law, the SHVA, was passed in 1988. By 1998, ten years later, Primetime 24 was sued by the NFL for copyright infringement.

Yes, even Primetime24 was supposed to follow the law...


----------



## Paul Secic

Lakers_Fan_24 said:


> Does anyone have some info on when this might be settled? Being an avid BB fan, just curious if this might get done by the end of October. I live in Florida and I never miss my Laker games. I talked to a sales lady (there all clueless) but she said very soon, there in negotiations now, won't be long.
> 
> I've been looking at Uverse, but they don't carry the NBA package and Direct doesn't have the HD channels I like (DIY and lots of HBO's - although they do have more Starz and Showtime). I've love the Dish DVR, very easy to use and the external HD is such a bonus.
> 
> Don't know what to do................. Luckily the 1st 2 Laker games are on TNT and ESPN. Oct 31st is the 1st game I might miss in 20 years of watching every game. (Just recently moved from LA to Florida) So anxious......
> 
> TIA


I had lots of problems with U-verse 12 hour outage, bad remote control. If I were you I'd think twice! You must be close to the VRAD for it to work right.


----------



## runner861

From a historical perspective, it is interesting to note that Fox was the holdout on the "settlement" proposed by Dish, ABC, NBC, and CBS toward the end of the distant networks lawsuit. However, the "settlement" proposal came too late. The Court of Appeals had already issued its opinion and mandated the imposition of the injunction. The trial judge had imposed a much more limited injunction that the nationwide injunction mandated by the law and enforced by the Court of Appeals. So there never was any settlement, just a proposed settlement that came too late.

So apparently bad blood does run deep between Dish and Fox. We will see what happens in this dispute. And as far as the distant networks situation currently, Dish can't seem to get back into court to get the injuction lifted.

Another pattern that I notice is that Dish litigates matters and pushes disputes further than is advisable in some situations. Anyone who read the law would have known that the nationwide injunction was coming in the distant network lawsuit, yet Dish pushed the matter, to the detriment of its customers. Charlie was even personally castigated by the Court of Appeals in the opinion.

That distant network lawsuit should have been settled, for the benefit of the customers. Perhaps this current Fox dispute should be settled as well, although it is not a lawsuit, just a transactional dispute.


----------



## sigma1914

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...reach-decade-high-after-fights-over-fees.html

Looks like Fox thinks they're worth a lot. :lol:


> Chase Carey, the president and chief operating officer at New York-based News Corp., said this year that he thinks Fox is worth $5 a month given its sports programming and prime-time hits like "American Idol." That would top the most expensive channel on the dial, Disney's ESPN, which brings in $4.08 for each subscriber, according to SNL Kagan.


----------



## paja

Paul Secic said:


> I had lots of problems with U-verse 12 hour outage, bad remote control. If I were you I'd think twice! You must be close to the VRAD for it to work right.


They also don't carry MLB Network and currently have lost the Hallmark channels. They may lose Food Net and several others next month.


----------



## BenJF3

sigma1914 said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...reach-decade-high-after-fights-over-fees.html
> 
> Looks like Fox thinks they're worth a lot. :lol:


I'm fine with this so long as they allow ala carte carriage. Then they can see how much they are really worth!


----------



## sigma1914

BenJF3 said:


> I'm fine with this so long as they allow ala carte carriage. Then they can see how much they are really worth!


Did you read further?


> A la carte pricing is a concept that allows consumers to pay for channels individually. *Studies show that such a model would limit choices and raise prices, not benefiting the television operator, content provider, or consumer,* Joyce said in an interview.


----------



## MilFan

$5/month more for the Fox channels? Where do I sign?



> A la carte pricing is a concept that allows consumers to pay for channels individually. Studies show that such a model would limit choices and raise prices, not benefiting the television operator, content provider, or consumer, Joyce said in an interview.


TV viewers not being able to watch their channels is sure of benefit to a lot of parties.


----------



## Jim5506

FOX's high horse is that they are trying to force Dish to move several of their channels to the basic tier (AT-120 or whatever they call it now).

This is a defacto 50% increase in fees that would be due to FOX for these channels - they go from 8 million to 12+ million eligible subscribers.

Additionally this would mahe the Dish 120 tier less competitive with DirecTV which has no low cost tier like 120.

The strategy seems to be to make Dish's economy tier more expensive so Dish is no longer able to claim you can save $10 or $20 a month by switching to Dish.

Maybe some back door collusion here between DirecTV and FOX - maybe the Justice Department needs to look into this.


----------



## sigma1914

MilFan said:


> $5/month more for the Fox channels? Where do I sign?
> 
> TV viewers not being able to watch their channels is sure of benefit to a lot of parties.


It wouldn't $5/month if a la carte...It'd be more.


----------



## swallman

MilFan said:


> $5/month more for the Fox channels? Where do I sign?
> 
> TV viewers not being able to watch their channels is sure of benefit to a lot of parties.


The problem is that $ 5/month is just the Fox channels. What other networks do you watch ? It could be $ 3 for this network, $ 4 for another, etc. Pretty soon we are talking about some serious money.

I don't agree with the way either Dish or Fox is handling this situation, but I think Fox is a bit delusional about how much they think their network is worth.


----------



## BenJF3

http://meta.ath0.com/2006/02/18/alacarte/

What you all fail to comprehend is that market would distate price. It would NOT cost more because people wouldn't pay it - they be forced to set a fair price in order to gain subs. ESPN, Fox, whomever thinks they are worth all that? Fine let the people choose.


----------



## Hoosier205

BenJF3 said:


> http://meta.ath0.com/2006/02/18/alacarte/
> 
> What you all fail to comprehend is that market would distate price. It would NOT cost more because people wouldn't pay it - they be forced to set a fair price in order to gain subs. ESPN, Fox, whomever thinks they are worth all that? Fine let the people choose.


A la carte is a horrible idea. If your favorite channel is not popular enough with the masses...it disappears. Prices go up for everyone and selections shrink.

Before I go further....is that your blog?


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> A la carte is a horrible idea. If your favorite channel is not popular enough with the masses...it disappears. Prices go up for everyone and selections shrink.
> 
> Before I go further....is that your blog?


I'll take that over not even having an option to watch my #1 channel. TV and satellite companies shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and cannot watch on TV. If something is being broadcast, I expect to be able to turn on the TV and find it.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> I'll take that over not even having an option to watch my #1 channel.


If your #1 channel isn't popular enough...you wouldn't be able to watch it anyway. Networks would consolidate, options would diminish, variety would suffer.



MilFan said:


> TV and satellite companies shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and cannot watch on TV.


...why not? They have every right to decide which channels they offer. It's their company, their business. They are in the business of offering the channels they choose to offer. You have the option of doing business with them or not. If you want to choose which networks service providers contract with...start your own business as a service provider.


----------



## MilFan

> ...why not? They have every right to decide which channels they offer. It's their company, their business. They are in the business of offering the channels they choose to offer. You have the option of doing business with them or not. If you want to choose which networks service providers contract with...start your own business as a service provider.


"You have the option of doing business with them". If by "option" you mean "getting locked into a long-term contract with ridiculously high per month ET fees while the TV provider pulls channels as they please and your only option if you really want the program is to pay hundreds of dollars and then switch providers", yes, you're correct. But hey, if it's in the contract, that means its OK. Nothing about how TV providers operate should be questioned if its in the contract. Lets all drone on like robots.

You don't get it, and likely never will.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> $5/month more for the Fox channels? Where do I sign?


http://directv.com/


----------



## Curtis0620

MilFan said:


> "You have the option of doing business with them". If by "option" you mean "getting locked into a long-term contract with ridiculously high per month ET fees while the TV provider pulls channels as they please and your only option if you really want the program is to pay hundreds of dollars and then switch providers", yes, you're correct. But hey, if it's in the contract, that means its OK. Nothing about how TV providers operate should be questioned if its in the contract. Lets all drone on like robots.
> 
> You don't get it, and likely never will.


Or pick a provider that doesn't have a long history of pulling channels.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> http://directv.com/


Already was there. Came to Dish because of bundle options and pricing and after speaking to a representative of the company regarding the Fox/Dish dispute. Instead of saying "I think it is a rumor but I can't guarantee anything" he flat out told me, "these channels WILL NOT be pulled". So yes, I guess shame on me for believing an employee of Dish, I'm not going to let it happen again. Can't wait for someone to say "just pony up for the ETF then if you're so unhappy" for the 100th time, considering it would be over $400. But hey, that doesn't matter, let the robots drone on.



> Or pick a provider that doesn't have a long history of pulling channels.


I did a lot of background checking on this dispute before switching. Trust me when I say I will never believe a word a Dish Network employee says again. But I'm too early into the contract to switch, I don't have $420 to spend and then pay for another TV provider on top of it.

But yeah, Dish sucks so far.


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> But yeah, Dish sucks so far.


So does not including the name of the person to whom you're responding.


----------



## phrelin

MilFan said:


> But it's not beyond ridiculous to expect a Dish employee to tell me he can't promise the channels won't go out instead of OUTRIGHT PROMISING they won't? Got it. And you're not a Dish apologist how? Apparently you feel ALL of the burden falls on the consumer, and that they shouldn't feel compelled to believe the employees of a company you are backing pretty strongly. Just a lot of contradiction there.


Sometimes I find it hard to believe people's naiveté. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone would think a CSR is "in the know" about retransmission agreement negotiations. We find out things here that CSR's don't know about months later.

But if you were told that the News Corp channels weren't going to be pulled and you have a recording of the conversation, I'd bet that the administrative office would let you out of the agreement.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> http://directv.com/




Pay $5 more for Fox on Direct than on Dish? Are you sure about that?


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> Sometimes I find it hard to believe people's naiveté. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone would think a CSR is "in the know" about retransmission agreement negotiations. We find out things here that CSR's don't know about months later.
> 
> But if you were told that the News Corp channels weren't going to be pulled and you have a recording of the conversation, I'd bet that the administrative office would let you out of the agreement.


They are recorded and can be pulled to verify. (per someone who works in that department and posts elsewhere)


----------



## MilFan

phrelin said:


> Sometimes I find it hard to believe people's naiveté. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone would think a CSR is "in the know" about retransmission agreement negotiations. We find out things here that CSR's don't know about months later.
> 
> But if you were told that the News Corp channels weren't going to be pulled and you have a recording of the conversation, I'd bet that the administrative office would let you out of the agreement.


I don't own a phone recording device nor do I feel it should be normal business practice to record all calls for business purposes, but maybe in today's day and age that is expecting too much. I really don't care if people believe it happened or not. I'll stop *****ing about this when the channels are restored. I don't consider paying over $400 in ETF a realistic option, so my only other option is complain to someone, and when you complain to them or seek answers, you get an automated response. So my soapbox lives here.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> I don't own a phone recording device


:rolling::rolling::rolling:

We're not talking about you recording the call.  Dish Network will have a recording of it and can verify your claims. Oh my...


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> :rolling::rolling::rolling:
> 
> We're not talking about you recording the call.  Dish Network will have a recording of it and can verify your claims. Oh my...


He said "and you have a recording" and I was responding to that. Read.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

BenJF3 said:


> What you all fail to comprehend is that market would distate price. It would NOT cost more because people wouldn't pay it - they be forced to set a fair price in order to gain subs. ESPN, Fox, whomever thinks they are worth all that? Fine let the people choose.


There are two sides to the market, though.

Consumers ultimately have a limit beyond which they will not pay... but providers have a price below which they cannot offer a product.

In cases where the public is not willing to pay the minimum that a particular channel needs to stay afloat, then that channel will go away.

Of course everyone says to this that "yeah, let those bad channels go away that no one wants"... but as each of those goes away, that's choice down the drain AND if it was a channel owned by one of the others (like part of a Disney "suite") then they will want more money for their remaining channels to make up the difference.

In the end, I think we could expect to have a small fraction of the current channels for virtually the same price.

I always remind people that C-band used to have this kind of choice... and people either opted to bundle and save money OR bailed on C-band for the smaller DBS dishes and were willing to sacrifice choice to save money and have a smaller dish.

The market did indeed drive this bundling of channels, and away from a la carte pricing for most situations. It would be hard to believe the public would turn the bus around and suddenly drive in the opposite direction.


----------



## BenJF3

phrelin said:


> Sometimes I find it hard to believe people's naiveté.


Why? Some people here actually believe that D* has 194 HD "channels" :lol:



Stewart Vernon said:


> The market did indeed drive this bundling of channels, and away from a la carte pricing for most situations. It would be hard to believe the public would turn the bus around and suddenly drive in the opposite direction.


I'm not saying providers couldn't still bundle. I'd like to at least see the FCC force some type of break up and enforce "tier" based programming. They have to at the very least end program tying. That would go a long way in helping these disputes. Simply by dumping sports into a Sports Tier would likely give consumers a choice to lower their bills drastically.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Pay $5 more for Fox on Direct than on Dish? Are you sure about that?


Probably more that $5 (unless one is comparing discounts) ... but there are more differences between packages than Fox or no Fox.

My suggestion illustrates Charlie's position on the issue. If he gave in to demands prices would need to be raised. There would be less days with a channel missing but DISH would no longer have a low price package for people to choose. Being the same as other providers isn't good. DISH needs to be different to be able to compete. DISH has decided to offer a low price package.


----------



## calgary2800

A CSR at dish say CI and Fox are Ok and its up and running for all games as of 1224pm Pac Time is that right? I'm at work cant verifiy.


----------



## Curtis0620

BenJF3 said:


> Why? Some people here actually believe that D* has 194 HD "channels" :lol:
> 
> I'm not saying providers couldn't still bundle. I'd like to at least see the FCC force some type of break up and enforce "tier" based programming. They have to at the very least end program tying. That would go a long way in helping these disputes. Simply by dumping sports into a Sports Tier would likely give consumers a choice to lower their bills drastically.


DISH thinks they have 200.:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## James Long

calgary2800 said:


> A CSR at dish say CI and Fox are Ok and its up and running for all games as of 1224pm Pac Time is that right? I'm at work cant verifiy.


The problem channels are FoxSports, NatGeo and FX. There has been no change noted on the channels actually affected by the dispute.


----------



## BenJF3

Curtis0620 said:


> DISH thinks they have 200.:lol::lol::lol:


True - both are full of it. When I count "channels" like they do I can say that Time Warner in my division has over 300 HD channels!

Anyway, I think everyone can agree that something has to be done to regulate these disputes.


----------



## MilFan

BenJF3 said:


> True - both are full of it. When I count "channels" like they do I can say that Time Warner in my division has over 300 HD channels!
> 
> Anyway, I think everyone can agree that something has to be done to regulate these disputes.


Agreed. I don't understand why the FCC doesn't step in on these.


----------



## sigma1914

calgary2800 said:


> A CSR at dish say CI and Fox are Ok and its up and running for all games as of 1224pm Pac Time is that right? I'm at work cant verifiy.


The games have been on CI still, just very few in HD.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Curtis0620 said:


> Or pick a provider that doesn't have a long history of pulling channels.


Dish didn't pull the channel, FOX pulled the channel.


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> The games have been on CI still, just very few in HD.


Yep, today's HD Center Ice schedule:

Dish: 0
DirecTV: 1

Tomorrow's HD Center Ice schedule:

Dish: 0 (I think...)
DirecTV: 7


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> Yep, today's HD Center Ice schedule:
> 
> Dish: 0
> DirecTV: 1
> 
> Tomorrow's HD Center Ice schedule:
> 
> Dish: 0 (I think...)
> DirecTV: 7


For a long time, we've noted at DBSTalk that DirecTV is the better choice for the serious sports fan. I don't understand why any would be Dish customers unless they have a line of sight problem. That's why I responded to a post previously:


phrelin said:


> Joe Diver said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. I spent hours doing side by side comparisons, and it turns out I'm only losing 2 HD channels I watch and have in my channel favorites. Everything else stays the same. The channels that were lost I didn't watch anyway, plus I've gained a few I will watch....and the SD feed is there if I'm desperate enough and simply "must" watch a show on one of those channels.
> 
> Besides...I'm a rabid hockey fan. I will not do without my Stars games. I was angry as hell last fall when they dropped 20 games due to a spat with Fox. Dropping 62 of 82 games is a no-go for me. I'll happily give up some national HD channels to get all my games...in glorious HD this season.
> 
> They're here now installing it....my buddy just called and he says his picture quality is noticeably better.....That HR24 is a great looking unit. It's replacing the VIP622 I've had forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Your research results represent what I've been puzzling over - why almost all rabid sports fans aren't on DirecTV? I think it speaks to the advantage of competition that you can get what you want. And as a "fallen-away" sports fan who loves scripted drama, having Dish works fine for me though, yes, I'm disappointed about FX. But I'm losing nothing important to me.
Click to expand...


----------



## HDlover

sigma1914 said:


> It wouldn't $5/month if a la carte...It'd be more.


Why do we have to pay for any channel with advertising? This is the fault of the providers. A la carte is the only thing that provides for the consumers decision. The only reason we don't have a provider that offers it is because of collusion. The FCC should have mandated it long ago. Thankfully the internet is coming to the rescue. More and more people are getting TV there.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Tomorrow's HD Center Ice schedule:
> Dish: 0 (I think...)


Two plus NHLNetwork's game that I see in the EPG. Here's the promotional copy for the package (which is currently in free preview):
*NHL® Center® Ice
Get a Front-Row Seat to Your Favorite Team.*

* Follow your favorite teams and players, with up to 40 out-of-market games each week.
* Select games are available in HD.
* You choose what games to watch, every night of the season.
* You get the NHL Network™ FREE . NHL Network is the only 24/7 channel dedicated to total hockey coverage.

Order NHL® Center Ice® by October 31 and get the Early Bird Package: 4 payments of $42.95​Up to 40 out-of-market games each week, _select_ games in HD. This is the yardstick that what DISH customers are getting should be compared against to answer the question of if DISH is meeting their commitment.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Two plus NHLNetwork's game that I see in the EPG. Here's the promotional copy for the package (which is currently in free preview):
> *NHL® Center® Ice
> Get a Front-Row Seat to Your Favorite Team.*
> 
> * Follow your favorite teams and players, with up to 40 out-of-market games each week.
> * Select games are available in HD.
> * You choose what games to watch, every night of the season.
> * You get the NHL Network™ FREE . NHL Network is the only 24/7 channel dedicated to total hockey coverage.
> 
> Order NHL® Center Ice® by October 31 and get the Early Bird Package: 4 payments of $42.95​Up to 40 out-of-market games each week, _select_ games in HD. This is the yardstick that what DISH customers are getting should be compared against to answer the question of if DISH is meeting their commitment.


NHL Network happens to be included with Center Ice. It is not exclusive to it however. Games on NHLN are not Center Ice games. Select games in HD is different than no games in HD at all. When both DirecTV and Dish Network customers are paying the same amount for Center Ice, but Dish Network customers are getting far less games in HD...something is wrong.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> NHL Network happens to be included with Center Ice. It is not exclusive to it however. Games on NHLN are not Center Ice games. Select games in HD is different than no games in HD at all. When both DirecTV and Dish Network customers are paying the same about for Center Ice, but Dish Network customers are getting far less games in HD...something is wrong.


DISH *HD* RSN/Sports carriage wasn't great before October 1st. You expect the situation to improve during the dispute?

DISH doesn't claim "most of the games are available in HD". They say select games. Comparing the offers is a DISH vs DirecTV debate that does not belong in this thread. Comparing DISH actual vs DISH offer is what matters in this thread.


----------



## MilFan

> For a long time, we've noted at DBSTalk that DirecTV is the better choice for the serious sports fan. I don't understand why any would be Dish customers unless they have a line of sight problem. That's why I responded to a post previously:


If Dish carries the channels that are relevant for them to watch their teams at the time signing up, why wouldn't they be Dish customers? Are they supposed to assume that Dish is so stingy in their contract disputes that they will likely be missing channels they had when they originally switched?

I realize DirecTV carries more HD sports channels, but that really only comes into play part of the time on the RSN's from what I understand (but the number of games carried is the same). The locals, ESPN, NBATV, and NFLN are all HD. The other difference is that DirecTV carries Sunday Ticket and MLB Network and Dish doesn't.


----------



## Hoosier205

Just to compare further...HD Center Ice feeds from 10/7 - 10/13:

DirecTV: 30
Dish Network: 8

With customers of both providers paying the same amount for Center Ice, but receiving something very different in return. That just isn't fair.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Just to compare further...HD Center Ice feeds from 10/7 - 10/13:
> DirecTV: 30
> Dish Network: 8
> 
> With customers of both providers paying the same amount for Center Ice, but receiving something very different in return. That just isn't fair.


Again. Not the point. If you want to have a DISH vs DirecTV fight take it elsewhere.

Read the offer DISH is making. "Select" games in HD, not "most", "select".


----------



## bnborg

HDlover said:


> Why do we have to pay for any channel with advertising? . . .


I agree. That always mystified me.


----------



## scooper

MilFan said:


> So my soapbox lives here.


So we have noted.

Now - what exactly do you think this will accomplish ?


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Again. Not the point. If you want to have a DISH vs DirecTV fight take it elsewhere.
> 
> Read the offer DISH is making. "Select" games in HD, not "most", "select".


I had no idea that often times "select" means "none at all."

Here is something that is relevant to this thread - Multiple people have reported that they have Center Ice, but have been unable to view games which appear on channels involved in the Fox/Dish Network dispute. You said this would not happen because the CI deal is with the NHL and not with those networks. Either the folks reporting this are mistaken or you were mistaken regarding the affect of this dispute. Either way is fine...just a mistake, but can we get some clarification on this?

Obviously, people w/o CI will be locked out of watching games on their RSN's that are involved in this dispute. It sounds as if people w/ CI have also been affected however.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Again. Not the point. If you want to have a DISH vs DirecTV fight take it elsewhere.
> 
> Read the offer DISH is making. "Select" games in HD, not "most", "select".


The point wasn't so much comparing Dish vs Direct, but comparing price value. People are not getting the same thing for the same price. You did the same when you made a post linking DirecTV with the price value comment for Fox.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> I had no idea that often times "select" means "none at all."


It doesn't. Since they are talking up to 40 SD games per week I wouldn't read it as a promise that there would be a HD game every day. Select games per week.



> Here is something that is relevant to this thread - Multiple people have reported that they have Center Ice, but have been unable to view games which appear on channels involved in the Fox/Dish Network dispute. You said this would not happen because the CI deal is with the NHL and not with those networks. Either the folks reporting this are mistaken or you were mistaken regarding the affect of this dispute. Either way is fine...just a mistake, but can we get some clarification on this?


If they are in the market area where the RSN holds the rights to broadcast the game it will be blacked out. Otherwise the games listed are available.



> Obviously, people w/o CI will be locked out of watching games on their RSN's that are involved in this dispute. It sounds as if people w/ CI have also been affected however.


The NHL has sold the rights to broadcast to those customers to the RSNs. Blackouts are required to protect the rights they sold.



DodgerKing said:


> The point wasn't so much comparing Dish vs Direct, but comparing price value. People are not getting the same thing for the same price. You did the same when you made a post linking DirecTV with the price value comment for Fox.


I was reminding people of why Charlie is fighting ... not starting a free for all. If you got the wrong impression I'm sorry. Consider this the post correcting that impression.

Let's stick with DISH vs Fox and not DISH vs DirecTV.


----------



## BenJF3

HDlover said:


> Why do we have to pay for any channel with advertising? This is the fault of the providers. A la carte is the only thing that provides for the consumers decision. Hopefully the internet will come to the rescue. More and more people are getting TV there.


This is an incredibly valid point I used to make. The business model for TV _was _ advertising based. TV was meant to be free and advertising sponsored. Cable TV came along and was a great option for many who could get OTA reception or didn't want to be bothered with the hassles of an antenna and rotor system. It worked until programming became too expensive due to high paid actors and overpaid sports "stars".

The end result is the programmer *NEED* cable and sat providers. If the cable ops and satcos teamed up against the content providers it would be a huge win. The content providers wouldn't have a pot to piss in because they would have no outlet for their media!


----------



## phrelin

HDlover said:


> Why do we have to pay for any channel with advertising? This is the fault of the providers. A la carte is the only thing that provides for the consumers decision. Hopefully the internet will come to the rescue. More and more people are getting their TV there.


You mean like iTunes which charges for most everything? Or like HULU's monthly fee slowly, but surely, edging into the picture for NBCU, News Corp and Disney (see screenshot below)? Or maybe streaming from NetFlix or Amazon for which you always pay?

I would commend to anyone the _Wired Magazine_ recent cover story The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet which, among other things, explains why the idea of dedicated "apps" is a mechanism for charging for things that used to be free and improving advertising revenue, for things such as episodes from your favorite show.

Whatever, I can guarantee you that the media giants will get their money from you. They may not be able to completely kill peer-to-peer illegal file sharing, but most people will be paying.


----------



## MilFan

Any RSN affected by the Fox/Dish dispute will not televise games through Dish Network, regardless of where you live, and the blackout rules don't change at all with the dispute either, from what I understand. So local fans are screwed regardless if their RSN is affected. You can't watch on your local RSN, and then any other feed for the other team is going to be blacked out because TV rights go to the local RSN. But it doesn't matter if you're in market or out of market, if FS North is involved in the dispute, you can't watch it whether you're in Wisconsin or Alaska. It's all of a sudden become very difficult to watch sports.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> If they are in the market area where the RSN holds the rights to broadcast the game it will be blacked out. Otherwise the games listed are available.


Then why are Center Ice subscribers, in this thread, reporting that they have not had access to out-of-market CI games on channels involved in the Fox/Dish dispute? I understand what you are saying. Are you a CI sub? Maybe you aren't and you can't personally check this out.


----------



## MysteryMan

James Long said:


> It doesn't. Since they are talking up to 40 SD games per week I wouldn't read it as a promise that there would be a HD game every day. Select games per week.
> 
> If they are in the market area where the RSN holds the rights to broadcast the game it will be blacked out. Otherwise the games listed are available.
> 
> The NHL has sold the rights to broadcast to those customers to the RSNs. Blackouts are required to protect the rights they sold.
> 
> I was reminding people of why Charlie is fighting ... not starting a free for all. If you got the wrong impression I'm sorry. Consider this the post correcting that impression.
> 
> Let's stick with DISH vs Fox and not DISH vs DirecTV.


DISH vs FOX scorecard: DISH 0 - FOX 12 (and counting)!


----------



## BenJF3

phrelin said:


> Or maybe streaming from NetFlix or Amazon for which you always pay?


I don't get any ads with my Netflix subscription and as far as I know Amazon ins't inserting commercials into the episodes I can buy off their service.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Any RSN affected by the Fox/Dish dispute will not televise games through Dish Network, regardless of where you live,


That is not correct. There are disputed Fox feeds being included in the CI package. Those games are available to people outside of the region the RSN holds the rights for. If the game is also on local broadcast then you can watch it there. That might reduce the number of people missing the game.



Hoosier205 said:


> Then why are Center Ice subscribers, in this thread, reporting that they have not had access to out-of-market CI games on channels involved in the Fox/Dish dispute? I understand what you are saying. Are you a CI sub? Maybe you aren't and you can't personally check this out.


CI is in free preview. Any DISH sub can check.


----------



## mnassour

bnborg said:


> HDlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to pay for any channel with advertising? . . .
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. That always mystified me.
Click to expand...

To oversimplify it...Because DirecTV doesn't get any money from the commercials you see (generally). And someone has to pay for the electricity to uplink this stuff, as well as the cost of the programming itself and the people who throw the switches.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> That is not correct. There are disputed Fox feeds being included in the CI package. Those games are available to people outside of the region the RSN holds the rights for. If the game is also on local broadcast then you can watch it there. That might reduce the number of people missing the game.


I was told differently. I figured that of the 19 Fox Sports channels pulled, they were pulled from view for everyone, and that that would include CI and NBA League Pass feeds, even for out of market viewing.

Either way, it does a local fan no good regardless if their RSN is affected. Local feed is gone, other feeds blacked out. Awesome.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> That is not correct. There are disputed Fox feeds being included in the CI package. Those games are available to people outside of the region the RSN holds the rights for. If the game is also on local broadcast then you can watch it there. That might reduce the number of people missing the game.
> 
> ...


Not the HD feeds, though.


----------



## SayWhat?

sigma1914 said:


> It wouldn't $5/month if a la carte...It'd be more.


So make Fox a premium package like the movie packages or a monthly PPV subscription like some of the Adult channels.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> That is not correct. There are disputed Fox feeds being included in the CI package. Those games are available to people outside of the region the RSN holds the rights for. If the game is also on local broadcast then you can watch it there. That might reduce the number of people missing the game.
> 
> CI is in free preview. Any DISH sub can check.


Well, it sounds like we need some more CI subs to chime in. Several have reported differently. Either way, 8 games rather than 30 in the span of 13 days for the same amount of money is pretty bad. I'd be ticked if I found that out.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> So make Fox a premium package like the movie packages or a monthly PPV subscription like some of the Adult channels.


Fox would never agree to that and for good reason.


----------



## mnassour

SayWhat? said:


> So make Fox a premium package like the movie packages or a monthly PPV subscription like some of the Adult channels.


That's the problem....Fox won't allow that. Fox wants all its programming to be on the lowest tier possible so it will have the most eyeballs and can charge higher commercial rates.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm not interested in what Fox wants. If they don't want to play ball, let'em go home.


----------



## MilFan

So if I'm understanding this correctly (I'm going to use NBA example because I don't know the hockey channel affiliations), what James Long is saying is:

Even though FS North is involved in the Fox/Dish dispute, that a NBA League Pass subscriber living out of market would have access to TWolves games on that station? How is that possible if Fox has pulled broadcasting rights to FS North from Dish? Or is this only applicable to Center Ice?


----------



## swallman

MilFan said:


> So if I'm understanding this correctly (I'm going to use NBA example because I don't know the hockey channel affiliations), what James Long is saying is:
> 
> Even though FS North is involved in the Fox/Dish dispute, that a NBA League Pass subscriber living out of market would have access to TWolves games on that station? How is that possible if Fox has pulled broadcasting rights to FS North from Dish? Or is this only applicable to Center Ice?


From what I'm understanding, if the hockey game is in-market, you then are required to watch it on the RSN (instead of through CI). However, since you can't currently get the RSN, you are SOL.

If it is out-of-market game, then you would be able to watch it via CI.

Enough acronyms in there for ya ?


----------



## phrelin

mnassour said:


> That's the problem....Fox won't allow that. Fox wants all its programming to be on the lowest tier possible so it will have the most eyeballs and can charge higher commercial rates.


And collect as much money as possible from every subscriber even if they would never watch the channels.

The math is simple. For instance out of 100± million TV households, the largest premium channel group HBO has 28.6 million subscribers. At $15 a month HBO can bring in $429 million. If HBO were to be offered by all cable and satellite providers on the lowest tier for $5 a subscriber, they'd make about the same only they wouldn't have to depend on a fan base like they do now.

No way will News Corp or Disney risk having to depend on sports fans paying $15 a month to each of them.


----------



## swallman

phrelin said:


> And collect as much money as possible from every subscriber even if they would never watch the channels.
> 
> The math is simple. For instance out of 100± million TV households, the largest premium channel group HBO has 28.6 million subscribers. At $15 a month HBO can bring in $429 million. If HBO were to be offered by all cable and satellite providers on the lowest tier for $5 a subscriber, they'd make about the same only they wouldn't have to depend on a fan base like they do now.
> 
> No way will News Corp or Disney risk having to depend on sports fans paying $15 a month to each of them.


Then that shows their product isn't worth what they want to charge!


----------



## MilFan

swallman said:


> From what I'm understanding, if the hockey game is in-market, you then are required to watch it on the RSN (instead of through CI). However, since you can't currently get the RSN, you are SOL.
> 
> If it is out-of-market game, then you would be able to watch it via CI.
> 
> Enough acronyms in there for ya ?


Yeah, I get that locally you're required to watch the local RSN, and other RSN's are blacked out, but my point here is that Center Ice is going to pull the same RSN for their feeds. Teams don't have multiple stations that broadcast the same team from what I can recall. Again, I'm strictly talking Fox Sports channels involved here.

So for Wolves, broadcast on Fox Sports North. Available in Los Angeles but not available in Minneapolis? That cannot be right. If so, that is probably going to piss me off even more, which is hard to do at this point.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> So if I'm understanding this correctly (I'm going to use NBA example because I don't know the hockey channel affiliations), what James Long is saying is:
> 
> Even though FS North is involved in the Fox/Dish dispute, that a NBA League Pass subscriber living out of market would have access to TWolves games on that station? How is that possible if Fox has pulled broadcasting rights to FS North from Dish? Or is this only applicable to Center Ice?


The league (regardless of sport) owns the rights to every game of every team in the league. The league sells the rights to air the game to several parties, including TV Stations, RSNs and National Networks. They divide the country into areas and sell rights within those areas. Not every game is sold to all three types of broadcasters. Where the game isn't sold exclusively to someone else the league sells carriage via packages such as Center Ice.

Fox's broadcasting rights only extend to the region where the league has sold the rights for each game. Outside of that area the feed belongs to the league and the league are free to broadcast it.



MilFan said:


> So for Wolves, broadcast on Fox Sports North. Available in Los Angeles but not available in Minneapolis? That cannot be right. If so, that is probably going to piss me off even more, which is hard to do at this point.


Sorry.


----------



## swallman

MilFan said:


> Yeah, I get that locally you're required to watch the local RSN, and other RSN's are blacked out, but my point here is that Center Ice is going to pull the same RSN for their feeds. Teams don't have multiple stations that broadcast the same team from what I can recall. Again, I'm strictly talking Fox Sports channels involved here.
> 
> So for Wolves, broadcast on Fox Sports North. Available in Los Angeles but not available in Minneapolis? That cannot be right. If so, that is probably going to piss me off even more, which is hard to do at this point.


That agreement should be between the RSN's and NHL/CI and the Fox dispute shouldn't affect those feeds. But yes, you are correct - someone in LA can watch the Wolves (via CI), but not someone in Mpls (via RSN).


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> Fox's broadcasting rights only extend to the region where the league has sold the rights for each game. Outside of that area the feed belongs to the league and the league are free to broadcast it.


So for NBA season, local fans are FUBAR but everyone else is fine, essentially. I was under the impression that you would pull up NBA League Pass, and that all the affected RSN's in the Fox/Dish dispute would be unavailable. But you only get screwed if you're a local team trying to watch your team.

Ok, now I'm fuming mad................


----------



## MilFan

swallman said:


> That agreement should be between the RSN's and NHL/CI and the Fox dispute shouldn't affect those feeds. But yes, you are correct - someone in LA can watch the Wolves (via CI), but not someone in Mpls (via RSN).


Yeah, I got it now.  Utterly f'ing amazing, but I got it.


----------



## sorentodd45

MilFan said:


> So if I'm understanding this correctly (I'm going to use NBA example because I don't know the hockey channel affiliations), what James Long is saying is:
> 
> Even though FS North is involved in the Fox/Dish dispute, that a NBA League Pass subscriber living out of market would have access to TWolves games on that station? How is that possible if Fox has pulled broadcasting rights to FS North from Dish? Or is this only applicable to Center Ice?


It sounds like James is saying that a Dish viewer in California (for example) *should* be able to see a Wild game on Centre Ice or a T-Wolves game on League Pass.

But if that is the case, then Dish Network has to be very careful with its re-mapping software, so as to black out Fox Sports North "in-market" (the state of Minnesota).


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...reach-decade-high-after-fights-over-fees.html
> 
> Looks like Fox thinks they're worth a lot. :lol:


Yeah, Fox thinks they are so great, but let's do the real math here. Fox is an OTA channel and therefore starts out being worth exactly zero to the viewer as they are paying by watching the ads that Fox sold.

If they are carried by cable and/or SAT, there should only be a small charge to cover the cost of carriage outside of OTA and no more. We shouldn't be paying anything but a very minimal charge for it, far smaller than any $5 bill/month. And in fact, that is the historical way it has been done. A minimal charge in the $5-$6/month range for all locals via sat/cable.

As to their great programming, well for me it is a sum total of 5 programs a week. And from that viewpoint, it isn't worth much to me either.

But to be fair, I can and do get my locals via OTA often times. The only time I get them off sat is if there is a 3rd or 4th event that I want to record.


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> Instead of saying "I think it is a rumor but I can't guarantee anything" he flat out told me, "these channels WILL NOT be pulled".


Actually the DISH employee didn't lie to you as Dish didn't pull any channels. Fox stopped sending them access to the signals, and yes thats a huge difference. IF Dish had access and was refusing to let you see your #1 Channel during the dispute, then yes, the Dish employee lied to you. Since its Fox that is causing the outage, call them, explain how hard this is for you, and for them to either let Dish Broadcast these channels during the dispute or to pay for your ETF, so you can go to another carrier that has that channel.

You can also try to get Fox and all the other Pro Sports to change the Blackout rules that all Carriers have to follow.

Dish has a history, of contract disputes, that is true. This year though, Fox and ABC have been fighting with several different carriers over how they are worth. Contract disputes during these more challenging fiscal times will increase, and the idea of having to pay more for a TV channel because Fox has had a run of bad movies, or because ABC, has had a run of bad movies and problems at thier theme parks shouldn't effect how much I have to pay for a TV channel. Tired of these kind of companies that try to make up for a lose in one silo by upping the price in a different silo, and screwing people over in the long run.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Fox is an OTA channel and therefore starts out being worth exactly zero to the viewer as they are paying by watching the ads that Fox sold.


FX, NatGeo and ESPN are OTA?


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> FX, NatGeo and ESPN are OTA?


No, but out of that link I took it to mean Fox the O&O stations and not the Fox family since they only talked about the things provided on Fox, like Glee.

And ESPN has nothing to do with Fox, btw...


----------



## Michael P

MilFan said:


> So for NBA season, local fans are FUBAR but everyone else is fine, essentially. I was under the impression that you would pull up NBA League Pass, and that all the affected RSN's in the Fox/Dish dispute would be unavailable. But you only get screwed if you're a local team trying to watch your team.
> 
> Ok, now I'm fuming mad................


I think you are making an assumption here. If FOX did indeed "pull the plug" for an RSN carrying games that are a part of NBALP or NHLCI how would E* get the games? The only possible way for a game to be seen in one of these packs would be if one of the two teams are on an RSN that is not affected by the FOX retrans dispute.

Case in point, when E* had MLBEI you never saw Yankees games from YES.

OTOH on NHLCI you do get the Canadian RSN and CBC feeds, so technically it's possible. However it's not a retrans dispute that is preventing E* from carrying Rogers Sports Net or the CBC full time.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> The league (regardless of sport) owns the rights to every game of every team in the league. The league sells the rights to air the game to several parties, including TV Stations, RSNs and National Networks. They divide the country into areas and sell rights within those areas. Not every game is sold to all three types of broadcasters.


Just trying to clarify...

The leagues own the national television rights. If a game is shown nationally, the league owns it. Therefore, Center Ice (and the rest of the league packages) are sold by the leagues, because they are "national". For the NHL, think Versus and NBC. Games are sold by the league for nationwide distribution. For the NBA, think ESPN/ABC and TNT; for MLB, think Fox and TBS. However, those broadcasts on the Regional Sports Nets can be shown nationally with league approval, and those are the league packages.

Each team is also given an area by the league (except for the NFL) as their "home territory". The individual teams can then sell their local broadcast rights to the highest bidder, be it a local channel or an RSN, or even a network they start themselves (YES, NESN, MASN). That gives the RSN the right to broadcast locally, *exclusively*.

FSN North is home to the Minnesota Wild, Timberwolves and Twins. And because FSN North has been given exclusive rights for the local area in exchange for money, if FSN North is dropped then you cannot get the games if you are in the exclusive area. However, because the leagues have the ability to commandeer the FSN North feed for their sports packages, the game can be made available to the rest of the country outside of the local area.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> Let's stick with DISH vs Fox and not DISH vs DirecTV.


NP...

But continuing with the CI issue due to the Fox RSN pull...From what many longtime Dish CI subs are saying, it does appear that the removal of these RSNs has affected CI. Many, on this site and others, are stating that the number of games, the number of duel feeds, and the number of games in HD is much less this year than previous years.


----------



## Shades228

The real fallout won't happen unless the locals go. People keep talking about CI and DirecTV's dispute with VS impacted more people and it proved to have a negligible impact. Sorry hockey fans you guys don't drive a market. If the locals go then the real damage will happen. Regardless of if you're a sports fan or not when you take away the most popular local channel and impact local sports teams you're in some trouble. Dish knows this and they lost subs for a long time in part because of their other local channel dispute. I doubt they want to get back into that boat again.


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> The league (regardless of sport) owns the rights to every game of every team in the league. The league sells the rights to air the game to several parties, including TV Stations, RSNs and National Networks. They divide the country into areas and sell rights within those areas. Not every game is sold to all three types of broadcasters. Where the game isn't sold exclusively to someone else the league sells carriage via packages such as Center Ice.
> 
> Fox's broadcasting rights only extend to the region where the league has sold the rights for each game. Outside of that area the feed belongs to the league and the league are free to broadcast it.
> 
> Sorry.


Let me ask you this, or anyone else that can answer, since I not have Dish.

Where you able to (prior to Fox pulling down the RSNs) watch your local feed on both CI and your local RSN? For example, here in LA, will I be able to watch the Kings on the CI feed and on FSN West (same local feed)?


----------



## 356B

It appears since I get FOX from Oakland Ca. for the moment I'm OK....:scratchin but I saw this on FoxNews and found it interesting....GetWhatIPaidFor.com :icon_stup
What a mess, I do enjoy FX and Nat Geo.....and by the way I'm paying for them in my tier..... :bad_nono:I 'm wondering about compensation from dishTV? :money:To get Nat Geo oringinaly I had to go up in service tiers......:imwith:

:icon_band


----------



## phrelin

It would be excellent PR if this settles in for a long haul for Dish to reduce the price of the appropriate tiers by $2. A token, yes, but smart PR to get people thinking about the relationship between the demands of media conglomerates versus people, as opposed to Dish Network versus customers.


----------



## SayWhat?

> when you take away the most popular local channel


The 'most popular' local channels aren't at risk anywhere in the country.


----------



## Eksynyt

SayWhat? said:


> The 'most popular' local channels aren't at risk anywhere in the country.


Um, Local Fox will probly be going dark on Dish Network for all of the largest media markets in the USA on November 1. In Nielsen key 18-49 demos, I'm pretty sure Fox is the #1 Network in America. I know Dish doesn't really cater to sports fans, but if every single NFC East market loses Fox on Dish Network, not to mention highly watched shows like Glee and American Idol, then this will be a VERY big deal...can somebody enlighten me, will this be the largest local channel retrans dispute ever for Dish Network if it comes to pass?


----------



## sorentodd45

DodgerKing said:


> Let me ask you this, or anyone else that can answer, since I not have Dish.
> 
> Where you able to (prior to Fox pulling down the RSNs) watch your local feed on both CI and your local RSN? For example, here in LA, will I be able to watch the Kings on the CI feed and on FSN West (same local feed)?


When I used to have Direct-TV, yes, that was the case. The RSN feed was just re-mapped over to the proper CI channel.

However, with CI that is provided InDemand (cable or Verizon), then the CI channel is blacked out for a local team. But the local RSN is in the clear.


----------



## spiketoo

DodgerKing said:


> Let me ask you this, or anyone else that can answer, since I not have Dish.
> 
> Where you able to (prior to Fox pulling down the RSNs) watch your local feed on both CI and your local RSN? For example, here in LA, will I be able to watch the Kings on the CI feed and on FSN West (same local feed)?


No. The feed from your local RSN is blacked out on CI forcing you to use the local RSN channel.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I'm pretty sure Fox is the #1 Network in America.


I though they were like #4 or #5. I can't think of anything on Fox I watch.


----------



## MysteryMan

SayWhat? said:


> I though they were like #4 or #5. I can't think of anything on Fox I watch.


Last I heard CBS was number one.


----------



## phrelin

You can view last week's ratings day by day in the thread 2010 week 3 - whither NBC?, but overall CBS usually has the top 12-13 programs out of the top 25 in terms of total viewers and 9-10 of the top 25 in terms of the 18-49 demo. Oh, and to stay relevant, Fox usually has 2-4 in total viewers and 4-6 in the demo.


----------



## MilFan

> I think you are making an assumption here. If FOX did indeed "pull the plug" for an RSN carrying games that are a part of NBALP or NHLCI how would E* get the games? The only possible way for a game to be seen in one of these packs would be if one of the two teams are on an RSN that is not affected by the FOX retrans dispute.


This is my understanding as well. I didn't understand how Dish can televise a game on a RSN involved in the Fox dispute REGARDLESS of where in the country they are showing it. If Dish doesn't have that channel, they don't have that channel, nationally. That was the point I was making earlier, this dispute WIDELY affects the NBALP and NHLCI subscriptions in general, since a ton of those channels are wiped out, basically making the package an irrelevant or at minimum severely watered down purchase.

Again, if I'm wrong on this, I'd like someone who has one of the packages to confirm.


----------



## sigma1914

Eksynyt said:


> Um, Local Fox will probly be going dark on Dish Network for all of the largest media markets in the USA on November 1. In Nielsen key 18-49 demos, I'm pretty sure Fox is the #1 Network in America. I know Dish doesn't really cater to sports fans, but if every single NFC East market loses Fox on Dish Network, not to mention highly watched shows like Glee and American Idol, then this will be a VERY big deal...can somebody enlighten me, will this be the largest local channel retrans dispute ever for Dish Network if it comes to pass?





SayWhat? said:


> I though they were like #4 or #5. I can't think of anything on Fox I watch.


Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company


> Launched on October 9, 1986, from 2004 to 2009 Fox was the highest-rated broadcast network in the 18-49 demographic.[3] In the 2007-08 season, Fox became the most popular network in America in household ratings for the first time in its history, replacing CBS.[3] CBS took back the top spot in the 2008-09 season.


----------



## sigma1914

MilFan said:


> This is my understanding as well. I didn't understand how Dish can televise a game on a RSN involved in the Fox dispute REGARDLESS of where in the country they are showing it. If Dish doesn't have that channel, they don't have that channel, nationally. That was the point I was making earlier, this dispute WIDELY affects the NBALP and NHLCI subscriptions in general, since a ton of those channels are wiped out, basically making the package an irrelevant or at minimum severely watered down purchase.
> 
> Again, if I'm wrong on this, I'd like someone who has one of the packages to confirm.


You're wrong. The games still come on CI & LP. No HD versions, though. For example, yesterday the NY Rangers vs NY Islanders was on CI on Dish. MSG, which isn't on Dish, carried it in SD only.


----------



## phrelin

Fox is having a ratings problem this fall. When "American Idol" is on they do fine, but in terms of total viewers over the year, CBS has held that title for several years. Regarding this season, from TV-By-The-Numbers:


> CBS is up 5% in adults 18-49 vs. 2009-10. NBC and the CW are both up 3% vs. last season.
> 
> On the downside, both ABC and Fox continue well below last year's ratings pace, down 14% and 13% respectively in the all important adults 18-49 ratings compared to their averages after two weeks last season.


Everything you always didn't want to know about the ratings you can find out at TVbytheNumbers.


----------



## adkinsjm

sigma1914 said:


> You're wrong. The games still come on CI & LP. No HD versions, though. For example, yesterday the NY Rangers vs NY Islanders was on CI on Dish. MSG, which isn't on Dish, carried it in SD only.


The NHL owns the rights to the CI feeds, not the RSNs.


----------



## sigma1914

phrelin said:


> Fox is having a ratings problem this fall. When "American Idol" is on they do fine, but in terms of total viewers over the year, CBS has held that title for several years....


Not in the 2007-2008 season. Fox was #1.


----------



## MilFan

sigma1914 said:


> You're wrong. The games still come on CI & LP. No HD versions, though. For example, yesterday the NY Rangers vs NY Islanders was on CI on Dish. MSG, which isn't on Dish, carried it in SD only.


Got it, so local fans get totally shafted (no game whatsoever) and non-local fans get partially shafted (no HD) until this is resolved.


----------



## rphillips187

Had a fun convo with someone from E* today...

(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: Robert, we are working hard on that, but one thing is sure that, we are going to get back FOX sooner. 
Robert Phillips: so you're saying that you guarantee that I will not be losing my local Fox network and will get back my other channels such as FSN and FX prior to the November 1st deadline? 
(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: Yes, I cannot assure on the date and time. 
(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: Because, if we assure on that, and if we don't make it on that day, it would be a great misunderstanding with our customers. 
Robert Phillips: But you just told me that you are sure we are getting Fox back "sooner." What exactly does that mean? Sooner than never?
(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: What I meant is we will be getting it back as soon as possible.
Robert Phillips: So what if it is never possible?
(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: We will restore your Fox channels as soon as possible in the event of an interruption.
Robert Phillips: Like the one we're currently having?
(03) HY3 Eddie M.U1K: Correct.


----------



## DodgerKing

spiketoo said:


> No. The feed from your local RSN is blacked out on CI forcing you to use the local RSN channel.


That is different than how DirecTV does it. You can watch your own team's local feed on your own local RSN or on the CI channel (if you sub to CI). You can also watch any of the CI feeds on the respective RSN as well if you sub to CI. The only feed blacked out is the feed of the team playing your own local team.

The reason why I was asking is that if CI feeds are league and not related to local disputes on RSNs, it seems like you would be able to sub to CI and still watch you own team's local feed. This means that if Direct had the same dispute, you would still be able to watch your own local team on their local feed through CI since they do not black out your in market feed


----------



## Shades228

MysteryMan said:


> Last I heard CBS was number one.


Most of the week it takes it.



phrelin said:


> You can view last week's ratings day by day in the thread 2010 week 3 - whither NBC?, but overall CBS usually has the top 12-13 programs out of the top 25 in terms of total viewers and 9-10 of the top 25 in terms of the 18-49 demo. Oh, and to stay relevant, Fox usually has 2-4 in total viewers and 4-6 in the demo.


You don't do Sundays though.


----------



## MilFan

Is Dish offering League Pass for free for the first week? I want to check on DodgerKing's theory, although I never checked when I had DirecTV to see if you could watch both the local RSN and the local RSN through NBALP.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Not in the 2007-2008 season. Fox was #1.


Hate to state the obvious... but I'm pretty sure it is 2010 now... so doesn't this year's ratings matter more than ones from 2-3 years ago?

Meanwhile... this still isn't making the major news networks (not even FOX News is making a fuss over this)... so I still wager most of Dish's customers are oblivious.

No exodus yet.


----------



## hiero4life

So far NHL HD games are pretty slim on E. HNiC should be in HD but it isn't, the MSG feeds I don't think we had them last year. I always get shafted because I have Absolute and get no RSNs I'm in so cal so I lose 2 stations which means I miss around 150 games a year. If I miss out on my teams HD feed because of this I will move to D next year. Thanks for posting how many HD feeds E CI are missing.


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> Is Dish offering League Pass for free for the first week? I want to check on DodgerKing's theory, although I never checked when I had DirecTV to see if you could watch both the local RSN and the local RSN through NBALP.


Theory? You can watch both the RSN channel and the special sports package channel on Direct for any of the games featured in their respective sports package.

LP is a free preview on Direct. Here is a screen capture of the RSN feed and the LP channel feed of the same game

I am not trying to make this a Dish vs Direct thing. I am only showing how Direct does things (for those visual learners like myself) and wondering if Dish does the same. If they do, then there maybe away around losing your local team's feed.


----------



## MilFan

Both those games are the local broadcast though, correct? 

I'm assuming Dish offers the first week free for LP?


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> Both those games are local though, correct?
> 
> I'm assuming Dish offers the first week free for LP?


It is not both games, it is the same game and the same feed. Just on two different channels. One channel is the local RSN for the Wolfs and the other channel is the LP channel carrying that feed. This is the way Direct does all of their sports packages. You can watch the games on either the RSN itself or the special sports pack channels for that leagues sports package (IOW, I can watch the NBA games on the local RSNs or on the LP channels if I sign up for LP).

I live in CA. I don't live anywhere near MN nor CO, so this is not my local game.

When the Kings game starts in an hour I will show you that I can do the same with CI and with a local team as well. I will be able to get my local team on both the CI local feed and my local RSN. The only blackout will be the visiting teams feed


----------



## MilFan

DodgerKing said:


> It is not both games, it is the same game and the same feed. Just on two different channels. One channel is the local RSN for the Wolfs and the other channel is the LP channel carrying that feed. This is the way Direct does all of their sports packages. You can watch the games on either the RSN itself or the special sports pack channels for that leagues sports package (IOW, I can watch the NBA games on the local RSNs or on the LP channels if I sign up for LP).
> 
> I live in CA. I don't live anywhere near MN nor CO, so this is not my local game


I'm interested to see if Dish is the same, and if so, if both the channels are affected by the Dish/Fox dispute.


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> I'm interested to see if Dish is the same, and if so, if both the channels are affected by the Dish/Fox dispute.


That is exactly why I am posting this. I am not attempting to show that Direct is better or worse. I am just trying to visually show what I was explaining and asking if Dish does the same. If so, you maybe able to watch your local team through the CI or LP feed of your local RSN


----------



## MilFan

DodgerKing said:


> That is exactly why I am posting this. I am not attempting to show that Direct is better or worse. I am just trying to visually show what I was explaining and asking if Dish does the same. If so, you maybe able to watch your local team through the CI or LP feed of your local RSN


Thanks. Judging by my luck so far, I'm going to doubt it.


----------



## MilFan

Dish Network customer service below. Doesn't even know that they have League Pass or what it is called, then says no free preview. You can't give one week free? Unreal.



> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: hello
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: How are you doing today?
> Me: good, you?
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I am doing great. Thank you
> Me: i wanted to know what the update was on the Fox and Dish Network dispute, as NBA season is two weeks away
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I'd be happy to assist you.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: In order to better assist you I will need to access your account. Can you please provide your home telephone number or the 16 digit account number listed on your DISH Network bill statement?
> Me: #####83634 is the phone number
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: Thank you.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: Please give me a moment to access your account.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I appreciate your patience.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: So you also waiting to watch NBA league?
> Me: yes, i switched two weeks before this dispute, and i was obviously not happy to hear of it
> Me: i just wanted to know if it was going to be resolved in the next couple weeks
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I am sorry to hear that you are having an issue.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: We are working hard to reach a fair and equitable agreement. Negotiations usually proceed quickly, and we hope to reach an agreement soon. DISH Network will not be bullied or forced into reaching an agreement that is unfavorable to our customers, and we are committed to investing in the time that is required to reach a fair deal.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I will also feel bad like you if it is not resolved.
> Me: yeah, i saw that already, basically they don't know. One other question, does Dish offer a free first week preview of NBA League Pass like DirecTV? I wanted to test that out to see if I had other options
> me: the League Pass that is
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: Okay
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: Let me check it for you.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I am sorry
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: We have a NBA free pass but not a NBA league pass
> Me: I would check the wording, I'm pretty sure you have NBA League Pass. It's the package you buy that allows you to watch out of market NBA games.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: Okay.
> Me: I'm positive you have it, I just want to know if you offer it free for the first week.
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: I am really sorry we don't are not offering that free pass
> (03) HY6 Ramakanth C.X3N: It was wonderful chatting with you! Is there anything else that I can help you with today?


Yeah, great chat.


----------



## MysteryMan

MilFan said:


> Dish Network customer service below. Doesn't even know that they have League Pass or what it is called, then says no free preview. You can't give one week free? Unreal.
> 
> Yeah, great chat.


At least that csr could read from the prepaired script they give them.


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> Dish Network customer service below. Doesn't even know that they have League Pass or what it is called, then says no free preview. You can't give one week free? Unreal.
> 
> Yeah, great chat.


:lol:

CSRs are funny creatures. Not only did you state LP more than once, he/she kept saying Free Pass after you corrected him.


----------



## MilFan

http://www.theamericandishtv.com/blog/free-preview-of-nba-league-pass/

Should have just done this initially (google >>>>>>>>> CSR)


----------



## Jhon69

MilFan said:


> http://www.theamericandishtv.com/blog/free-preview-of-nba-league-pass/
> 
> Should have just done this initially (google >>>>>>>>> CSR)


Keep an eye on channel 102,The Free Preview Channel.


----------



## ehren

hiero4life said:


> So far NHL HD games are pretty slim on E. HNiC should be in HD but it isn't, the MSG feeds I don't think we had them last year. I always get shafted because I have Absolute and get no RSNs I'm in so cal so I lose 2 stations which means I miss around 150 games a year. If I miss out on my teams HD feed because of this I will move to D next year. Thanks for posting how many HD feeds E CI are missing.


I was at my folks house over the weekend and I watched the MSG-HD networks for the Rangers and Isles games. Plus every other freakin game in HD except the CBC-HD feed which doesnt suprise me. Made me sick.


----------



## Jhon69

DodgerKing said:


> That is exactly why I am posting this. I am not attempting to show that Direct is better or worse. I am just trying to visually show what I was explaining and asking if Dish does the same. If so, you maybe able to watch your local team through the CI or LP feed of your local RSN


Center Ice is in Free Preview.


----------



## DodgerKing

Now here is a local game. Notice the local feed appears on both the CI channel and on my local RSN? Does Dish do the same? If so, this maybe one way to get around the removal of your local FSN


----------



## DodgerKing

Jhon69 said:


> Center Ice is in Free Preview.


I know.


----------



## Jhon69

DodgerKing said:


> I know.


Sorry I was reporting that to MilFan saw it on Channel 102.


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> So for NBA season, local fans are FUBAR...


!rolling


----------



## Eksynyt

Kent Taylor said:


> !rolling


And in the case of Portland, we haven't seen the local Blazers games since 2007 plus we have no local NHL team so this doesn't affect us. However, losing FX and all the FS RSNs sucks since I watch a lot of those on College Football Saturdays.

I'm really interested to see how long this dispute lasts with the local Fox stations. If it drags on, I don't see how Dish can't eventually cave.


----------



## Joe Diver

DodgerKing said:


> That is different than how DirecTV does it. You can watch your own team's local feed on your own local RSN or on the CI channel (if you sub to CI). You can also watch any of the CI feeds on the respective RSN as well if you sub to CI. The only feed blacked out is the feed of the team playing your own local team.





DodgerKing said:


> One channel is the local RSN for the Wolfs and the other channel is the LP channel carrying that feed. This is the way Direct does all of their sports packages. You can watch the games on either the RSN itself or the special sports pack channels for that leagues sports package


This will be very nice indeed. In all the years past that I've had CI on Dish, they will black out your local teams's games on CI. You can ONLY watch out of market games. You are forced to watch your local feed or local RSN....which sucked at times because Dish didn't have the game in HD, but CI did...and it was blacked out. The 20 games they dropped last season because of a dispute with Fox were also blacked out on CI. They were listed in the guide, but you got the blue box saying it wasn't available in your area. Same thing when you tried to tune in the local feed or RSN for one of those 20 games.

So no more stupid BS for me. DirecTV and CI...looks like I'll get all of the games and multiple feeds of them to choose from.


----------



## sigma1914

Joe Diver said:


> This will be very nice indeed. In all the years past that I've had CI on Dish, they will black out your local teams's games on CI. You can ONLY watch out of market games. You are forced to watch your local feed or local RSN....which sucked at times because Dish didn't have the game in HD, but CI did...and it was blacked out. The 20 games they dropped last season because of a dispute with Fox were also blacked out on CI. They were listed in the guide, but you got the blue box saying it wasn't available in your area. Same thing when you tried to tune in the local feed or RSN for one of those 20 games.
> 
> So no more stupid BS for me. DirecTV and CI...looks like I'll get all of the games and multiple feeds of them to choose from.


You'll still only get the local feed. If you're a Red Wings fan (like myself ), then when Dallas plays them, we have to watch the Stars feed & FS Detroit gets blacked out.


----------



## MilFan

So the most likely scenario of a local NBA fan that has a RSN affected by the dispute but buys League Pass is:

Local RSN-off the air
Local RSN on NBALP-blacked out 
Other teams RSN on NBALP-blacked out

That's what I thought heading in.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Looks like this may happen on Cablevision next. So if this can happen on E* and Cablevision whos to say that it won't happen on D* next?

Fox channels could disappear from Cablevision Friday


----------



## HobbyTalk

All of the rebroadcasters should just tell Fox NO! Then where would Fox be when no one rebroadcasts their shows? Of course the majority of them have no balls to do that.


----------



## Jhon69

Eksynyt said:


> And in the case of Portland, we haven't seen the local Blazers games since 2007 plus we have no local NHL team so this doesn't affect us. However, losing FX and all the FS RSNs sucks since I watch a lot of those on College Football Saturdays.
> 
> I'm really interested to see how long this dispute lasts with the local Fox stations. If it drags on, I don't see how Dish can't eventually cave.


You can try the sports channels in the 9000s in the guide, see if you can find something to watch this Saturday.


----------



## Hoosier205

No, they should just come to a fair deal. Fox deserves to get paid and Dish deserves a fair deal.


----------



## tsmacro

Hoosier205 said:


> No, they should just come to a fair deal. Fox deserves to get paid and Dish deserves a fair deal.


And this is where the problem lies. It wouldn't be hard to argue that with the economy the way that it is with so many people out of work and so many other people who haven't received a raise in years that if Fox was being "fair" they'd realize they should offer their programming for less money than they're currently charging and thus allowing more people to be able to afford to watch their channels and gaining more viewers. But it seems that Fox is just trying to keep doing business as usual and approaching this as ok time to negotiate a new contract so of course we're going to be asking for more money again like we always do every time.


----------



## GrumpyBear

MilFan said:


> So the most likely scenario of a local NBA fan that has a RSN affected by the dispute but buys League Pass is:
> 
> Local RSN-off the air
> Local RSN on NBALP-blacked out
> Other teams RSN on NBALP-blacked out
> 
> That's what I thought heading in.


1. This is only during the dispute over pricing/minimum tier for placement
2. This will happen no matter who the carrier is.
3. This will happen no matter who the carrier is.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> You'll still only get the local feed. If you're a Red Wings fan (like myself ), then when Dallas plays them, we have to watch the Stars feed & FS Detroit gets blacked out.


I am getting mixed info here. Are you Dish CI subs able to watch the local feed through CI, like you can on Direct, or are you only able to watch it on your local RSN?


----------



## sigma1914

DodgerKing said:


> I am getting mixed info here. Are you Dish CI subs able to watch the local feed through CI, like you can on Direct, or are you only able to watch it on your local RSN?


I was answering Joe, a fellow Directv sub. Dish folks must use their RSN according to all I've read.


----------



## GrumpyBear

DodgerKing said:


> I am getting mixed info here. Are you Dish CI subs able to watch the local feed through CI, like you can on Direct, or are you only able to watch it on your local RSN?


Sigma1914 is a Direct user. Seems like he is discribing how Direct works.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> 1. This is only during the dispute over pricing/minimum tier for placement
> 2. This will happen no matter who the carrier is.
> 3. This will happen no matter who the carrier is.


No, #2 doesn't work that way on Directv. We can see games on RSNs with whatever package (CI, LP, etc) or watch on the CI/LP channel.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> I was answering Joe, a fellow Directv sub. Dish folks must use their RSN according to all I've read.





GrumpyBear said:


> Sigma1914 is a Direct user. Seems like he is discribing how Direct works.


Ahhhh...

Thanks.

Then I guess there is no way around your local RSN being pulled and you not being able to watch your local team. That sucks


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> No, #2 doesn't work that way on Directv. We can see games on RSNs with whatever package (CI, LP, etc) or watch on the CI/LP channel.


The same is true for EI as well


----------



## MilFan

DodgerKing said:


> Ahhhh...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Then I guess there is no way around your local RSN being pulled and you not being able to watch your local team. That sucks


That is just incredible to me, that there is no physically possible way to watch a local game through your TV during this dispute if your RSN is affected, even if you paid more for something like League Pass. You can't watch through League Pass Broadband either because it goes by IP address and blacks out local feeds.

Unreal.


----------



## Jhon69

Hoosier205 said:


> No, they should just come to a fair deal. Fox deserves to get paid and Dish deserves a fair deal.


Not a 50% increase as the title of this thread suggests?.:eek2::nono2:


----------



## MilFan

Jhon69 said:


> Not a 50% increase as the title of this thread suggests?.:eek2::nono2:


Dish is the ones saying it is a 50% increase. That doesn't mean that figure is accurate.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> No, they should just come to a fair deal. Fox deserves to get paid and Dish deserves a fair deal.


A fair deal:

DISH will pay for receive facilities, backhaul bandwidth, several uplink centers, millions of dollars in satellites and not charge Fox one penny for helping them reach millions of viewers in markets where they hold an FCC license.

DISH will also pay a fair price based on the content and viewership ratings of Fox's separate cable networks.

DISH will not pay $4 per month per subscriber for content that simply is not as popular as other programming in that price range (or as popular but available at a lower price).


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> Dish is the ones saying it is a 50% increase. That doesn't mean that figure is accurate.


Fox has not made a counter claim, and this is a DISH forum not a Fox forum.

Besides - doing a little digging Fox's published claim that their programming is worth $4.00 per month could easily work out to be a 50% increase over the previously stated industry cost for FoxSports. ($2.66 current price plus 50% increase is $4.) So it is plausible. That is not accounting for also wanting to be paid for carriage of the O&O stations (typically another $1 in the demands discussed in the media).


----------



## adkinsjm

James Long said:


> A fair deal:
> 
> DISH will pay for receive facilities, backhaul bandwidth, several uplink centers, millions of dollars in satellites and not charge Fox one penny for helping them reach millions of viewers in markets where they hold an FCC license.
> 
> DISH will also pay a fair price based on the content and viewership ratings of Fox's separate cable networks.
> 
> DISH will not pay $4 per month per subscriber for content that simply is not as popular as other programming in that price range (or as popular but available at a lower price).


Dish will pay to carry channels customers want.

Dish will cut the bills of its customers during the dispute to reflect the savings the company receives.

Dish will not lie to consumers about why they aren't missing much.


----------



## tampa8

James Long said:


> A fair deal:
> 
> DISH will pay for receive facilities, backhaul bandwidth, several uplink centers, millions of dollars in satellites and not charge Fox one penny for helping them reach millions of viewers in markets where they hold an FCC license.
> 
> DISH will also pay a fair price based on the content and viewership ratings of Fox's separate cable networks.
> 
> DISH will not pay $4 per month per subscriber for content that simply is not as popular as other programming in that price range (or as popular but available at a lower price).


Sums it up for me perfectly.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> A fair deal:
> 
> DISH will pay for receive facilities, backhaul bandwidth, several uplink centers, millions of dollars in satellites and not charge Fox one penny for helping them reach millions of viewers in markets where they hold an FCC license.
> 
> DISH will also pay a fair price based on the content and viewership ratings of Fox's separate cable networks.
> 
> DISH will not pay $4 per month per subscriber for content that simply is not as popular as other programming in that price range (or as popular but available at a lower price).


Well, what you want doesn't match up with reality. Dish will pay Fox, as they should. The question is how much. What Fox is probably asking for is too high and they will likely meet somewhere in the middle. The notion that service providers should not pay to carry broadcast networks is ridiculous and has no chance of changing.


----------



## James Long

adkinsjm said:


> Dish will pay to carry channels customers want.


DISH will pay a fair price, whenever possible, to keep their prices lower. Not just anything the provider demands.



Hoosier205 said:


> Well, what you want doesn't match up with reality. Dish will pay Fox, as they should. The question is how much. What Fox is probably asking for is too high and they will likely meet somewhere in the middle. The notion that service providers should not pay to carry broadcast networks is ridiculous and has no chance of changing.


Unfortunately the government supported reality isn't a fair deal. I answered what a fair deal would be.

According to the media reports the last "payment" Fox accepted for carrying the O&Os was carriage of their cable channels. Fox tied consent to carry O&Os to simply paying for FX, NatGeo and FoxSports. Now Fox has changed their mind and want payment in cash as well as in kind for their O&Os. Under the old contract Fox _agreed_ with the notion that service providers should not pay to carry broadcast networks. Somehow that notion wasn't ridiculous under the old contract. Why is it ridiculous now?


----------



## Jhon69

tampa8 said:


> Sums it up for me perfectly.


Me also with all those sports channels open in the 9000s in my guide,HD Net Movies and HD Theater,which channels am I supposed to be missing?.Fox who?.


----------



## garn9173

MilFan said:


> That is just incredible to me, that there is no physically possible way to watch a local game through your TV during this dispute if your RSN is affected, even if you paid more for something like League Pass. You can't watch through League Pass Broadband either because it goes by IP address and blacks out local feeds.
> 
> Unreal.


You're acting like this is some new way of operating just to screw you and other E* subscribers when it fact it's been the long standing policy of both NHL CI and NBA LP. The service providers aren't making the rules here, the respective leagues are.


----------



## SayWhat?

> there is no physically possible way to watch a local game through your TV


Of course there is. I get all my locals regardless of what Dish or any other carrier does. (In HD by the way)

It's called an antenna. I'm not held hostage by either side of any dispute, or weather fades.



> The notion that service providers should not pay to carry broadcast networks is ridiculous and has no chance of changing.


Why? Once it leaves the local broadcaster's tower, why should they have any say in what happens to it?


----------



## DodgerKing

garn9173 said:


> You're acting like this is some new way of operating just to screw you and other E* subscribers when it fact it's been the long standing policy of both NHL CI and NBA LP. The service providers aren't making the rules here, the respective leagues are.


Or are they? Like my screen captures show, on Direct you are able to get your local team's feed of LP and CI. One would think if you pay the league extra money for these packages, you should still be able to get your local team's feed.


----------



## TulsaOK

SayWhat? said:


> Of course there is. I get all my locals regardless of what Dish or any other carrier does.
> 
> It's called an antenna. I'm not held hostage by either side of any dispute, or weather fades.


It would help if you would use the "Quote" function which includes a link back to the post to which you are responding. You know, like everyone else does.


----------



## DodgerKing

SayWhat? said:


> Of course there is. I get all my locals regardless of what Dish or any other carrier does.
> 
> It's called an antenna. I'm not held hostage by either side of any dispute, or weather fades.


We are talking about watching your local team on your local RSN. How does an antenna work for RSNs?


----------



## Joe Diver

DodgerKing said:


> We are talking about watching your local team on your local RSN. How does an antenna work for RSNs?


It doesn't.

(I know you know that)


----------



## SayWhat?

If your local Fox station is carrying it and you can get your local Fox station OTA, you can see the game, right?


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> If your local Fox station is carrying it and you can get your local Fox station OTA, you can see the game, right?


Local NBA & NHL aren't on local Fox...they're on RSNs, hence the displeasure!


----------



## Hoosier205

Kent Taylor said:


> It would help if you would use the "Quote" function which includes a link back to the post to which you are responding. You know, like everyone else does.


Here, here


----------



## SayWhat?

But the thread is about Fox, Fox locals and Dish, right?


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> If your local Fox station is carrying it and you can get your local Fox station OTA, you can see the game, right?


Fox has no local team affiliations for broadcasting.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> But the thread is about Fox, Fox locals and Dish, right?


Seriously? Do you not get it? :eek2:


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> But the thread is about Fox, Fox locals and Dish, right?


19 Fox Sports stations have been pulled as well.


----------



## SayWhat?

> It would help if you would use the "Quote" function which includes a link back to the post to which you are responding.


Easier not to. C&P into the quick reply box and move on with having to wait for an intermediate page to load, then edit out irrelevant text.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> Easier not to. C&P into the quick reply box and move on with having to wait for an intermediate page to load, then edit out irrelevant text.


Took 1 second.


----------



## TulsaOK

It all about you, right? Still, following accepted procedures makes reading your responses a little easier for *the rest of us*.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Seriously? Do you not get it?


No. I don't '_get_' sports at all, never did. But I can get Fox OTA if I want to. Only thing I miss is one or two rerun programs on FX and I can do without those.


----------



## SayWhat?

If you don't want people using the quick reply box, disable it.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Or are they? Like my screen captures show, on Direct you are able to get your local team's feed of LP and CI. One would think if you pay the league extra money for these packages, you should still be able to get your local team's feed.


That's NOT how it works. It doesn't matter how much you pay the league ... if they have sold the rights to a game for your area you MUST get the game through the channel that was sold the rights.

In most cases it is a moot point ... the subscriber subscribes to the RSN as well as the league package. The only thing different on DirecTV is presentation. Instead of requiring the customer to tune to the RSN's feed they allow the customer to watch their own RSNs on the league channels. The actual enforcement of the blackout rules are the same. Your payment for a league package (LP/CI) DOES NOT provide access to the local RSN's feed. For access to that feed one must subscribe separately.

(The unfortunate issue for this thread being the dispute between Fox and DISH making those RSNs unavailable to their normal subscribers.)


----------



## TulsaOK

When used properly, it's fine.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> Fox has no local team affiliations for broadcasting.





> *The bit you edited:* The only major sport carried on a regular basis (for regular season) on Fox is NFL. NBA is either Fox Sports or some other station.


It looks like you edited your post before I could respond. Sports broadcasts hosted by Fox: NFL, NASCAR, MLB (including the upcoming World Series), Formula One (4 races), UEFA final, and Cotton Bowl Classic.

Not arguing with you, just felt like listing them.


----------



## DodgerKing

SayWhat? said:


> If your local Fox station is carrying it and you can get your local Fox station OTA, you can see the game, right?


Most professional games in baseball, basketball, and hockey are now on RSNs. Few games are shown on OTA networks anymore, so an antenna only setup will prevent you from watching close to 99% of all of the games.

As far as the FOX issue. The local Fox owned RSNs are included in this latest take down of channels. Without these RSNs, many people are not able to see close to 99% of their local team(s) games.


----------



## DodgerKing

SayWhat? said:


> Easier not to. C&P into the quick reply box and move on with having to wait for an intermediate page to load, then edit out irrelevant text.


Actually, it is easier, faster, and requires fewer steps to simply hit the "quote" button and then type your response


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> 19 Fox Sports stations have been pulled as well.


On DISH it is 12 ... the other named regional feeds are placed on ALT channels when their content varies from the larger regional channel (such as "FS Indiana" when it differed from "FS Midwest").



SayWhat? said:


> If you don't want people using the quick reply box, disable it.


If you want to be better understood use the quote or multi-quote buttons. Especially in a busy thread. If you don't want people to understand what you're saying keep doing the copy paste or non quote replies.


----------



## MilFan

James Long said:


> On DISH it is 12 ... the other named regional feeds are placed on ALT channels when their content varies from the larger regional channel (such as "FS Indiana" when it differed from "FS Midwest").


Correct, and this is where I'm affected. I get FS North in my area but FS Wisconsin is shown on the RSN's (only during Brewers/Bucks games). For me, I basically view it as its own channel even though it's only available during the games.


----------



## joshjr

swallman said:


> The problem is that $ 5/month is just the Fox channels. What other networks do you watch ? It could be $ 3 for this network, $ 4 for another, etc. Pretty soon we are talking about some serious money.
> 
> I don't agree with the way either Dish or Fox is handling this situation, but I think Fox is a bit delusional about how much they think their network is worth.


Thinking what their network is worth and getting it are two different things. I doubt they are getting that in their other contracts either.


----------



## joshjr

HobbyTalk said:


> Dish didn't pull the channel, FOX pulled the channel.


That might be the case but It was E* that didnt come to terms. If you worked with contracts and it was fulfilled would you keep working for free?


----------



## SayWhat?

> That might be the case but It was E* that didnt come to terms.


Because the offer presented to them was unreasonable.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> Because the offer presented to them was unreasonable.


Who are you quoting?


----------



## James Long

That one is easy. 

:backtotop


----------



## joshjr

swallman said:


> Then that shows their product isn't worth what they want to charge!


A product is only worth as much as people will pay for it. Obviously people pay the fee HBO set. Just because you dont agree or dont sub to HBO does not make that true.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> That might be the case but It was E* that didnt come to terms. If you worked with contracts and it was fulfilled would you keep working for free?


It depends on if I wanted to keep working. I wouldn't work for free and no one is asking Fox to "work for free" ... extending the existing contract would be an appropriate compromise.


----------



## phrelin

Do people really understand the nature of the demands being made by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp?

This is the company that offers it's Fox News image that is all "protect the ordinary folks" BS and that is demanding a 50% increase in the middle of The Great Recession. And this is the company that for the first time as far as I know has tied local broadcast channel negotiations into a package of cable and sports channels which as far as I'm concerned is extortion.

Billionaires Charles Ergen of Dish Network and Charles Dolan of Cablevision are not going to get screwed by capitulating to billionaire Rupert Murdoch of News Corp.

Getting screwed would be you and your 300,000,000 fellow Americans - many of whom have not seen and will not be seeing any increase in any source of income until The Great Recession winds down, sometime around 2018 if we're lucky.


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> It depends on if I wanted to keep working. I wouldn't work for free and no one is asking Fox to "work for free" ... extending the existing contract would be an appropriate compromise.


While that would be good for Dish and their customers (keeps the programming on and Dish doesn't have to pay Fox any additional fees), it takes away a motivational tool from Fox. I take it that negotations had been going on for many months and going nowhere in the eyes of Fox so it was time to light a fire under Charlie's rear end. Could it back fire on Fox, maybe, but it might also show Dish that Fox is very serious and if Charlie didn't think Fox would pull the channels it might be the warning that come 11/1 Fox will be very willing to pull the OTA Fox channels.


----------



## srrobinson2

Dear Mr. Ergen,

In July, you removed Disney HD and Disney XD HD. In October, you removed FX HD and National Geographic HD. All 4 of these HD channels were part of my monthly subscription package. When you removed them, you never refunded any money to me, nor did you lower my monthly subscription rate. You also removed FOXSW, FOXMW, FOXS, SUN, FOXFL, FOXOH, FOXCN, FOXD, FOXN and SPSOU. I pay $7 per month for the multi-regional sports package, and you have removed approximately 50% of the channels that I pay for. Again, I have seen no refund or reduction in fees.

I have been a customer since 1997 (look me up xxx-xxx-xxxx), and now I am in the process of arranging for Comcast to install their digital cable service in my home. 

Your current HD selection does not compare to Comcast or DirectTV, and the way you treat customers who have been subscribers since the beginning is awful. Comcast will charge me $71.90 for a package that includes your Top 250 channels + the channels you have pulled + ABC Fam HD + ESPNU HD + ESPN News HD + MGM + Universal + Palladia. They offer 83 HD channels, while you offer 68 in your Top 250 package, yet you claim to offer the most. You have a funny way of counting. 

I’ve been over-paying for content ($64.99 for Top 250 + $7 for multi-region sports = $71.99/month) compared to what I can get from Comcast: 15 more HD channels for $.09 less each month.

The fact that you allow your corporate bickering with Disney and Fox cost you loyal customers shows me that you are not the type of company with which I wish to do business. I would have been willing to pay extra each month to retain my lost channels, but Comcast will see that revenue instead of DishNetwork.

My cable is supposed to be hooked up on Friday. I will call your office to have my service terminated once the cable has been installed.


----------



## Hoosier205

srrobinson2 said:


> Dear Mr. Ergen,
> 
> In July, you removed Disney HD and Disney XD HD. In October, you removed FX HD and National Geographic HD. All 4 of these HD channels were part of my monthly subscription package. When you removed them, you never refunded any money to me, nor did you lower my monthly subscription rate. You also removed FOXSW, FOXMW, FOXS, SUN, FOXFL, FOXOH, FOXCN, FOXD, FOXN and SPSOU. I pay $7 per month for the multi-regional sports package, and you have removed approximately 50% of the channels that I pay for. Again, I have seen no refund or reduction in fees.
> 
> I have been a customer since 1997 (look me up xxx-xxx-xxxx), and now I am in the process of arranging for Comcast to install their digital cable service in my home.
> 
> Your current HD selection does not compare to Comcast or DirectTV, and the way you treat customers who have been subscribers since the beginning is awful. Comcast will charge me $71.90 for a package that includes your Top 250 channels + the channels you have pulled + ABC Fam HD + ESPNU HD + ESPN News HD + MGM + Universal + Palladia. They offer 83 HD channels, while you offer 68 in your Top 250 package, yet you claim to offer the most. You have a funny way of counting.
> 
> I've been over-paying for content ($64.99 for Top 250 + $7 for multi-region sports = $71.99/month) compared to what I can get from Comcast: 15 more HD channels for $.09 less each month.
> 
> The fact that you allow your corporate bickering with Disney and Fox cost you loyal customers shows me that you are not the type of company with which I wish to do business. I would have been willing to pay extra each month to retain my lost channels, but Comcast will see that revenue instead of DishNetwork.
> 
> My cable is supposed to be hooked up on Friday. I will call your office to have my service terminated once the cable has been installed.


Dear Customer,

You were never promised the above mentioned channels. Channel lineups are, and always have been, subject to change. They recently changed. Goodbye.

Sincerely,

Charlie


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> Dear Customer,
> 
> You were never promised the above mentioned channels. Channel lineups are, and always have been, subject to change. They recently changed. Goodbye.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Charlie


I agree that Dish in general doesn't care how this dispute affects its customers (they only care how it affects them as a company), so your tone above is accurate.


----------



## Hoosier205

MilFan said:


> I agree that Dish in general doesn't care how this dispute affects its customers (they only care how it affects them as a company), so your tone above is accurate.


How it affects their customers _is_ how it affects their business and how it affects their business _is_ how it affects their customers.


----------



## phrelin

RAD said:


> While that would be good for Dish and their customers (keeps the programming on and Dish doesn't have to pay Fox any additional fees), it takes away a motivational tool from Fox. I take it that negotations had been going on for many months and going nowhere in the eyes of Fox so it was time to light a fire under Charlie's rear end. Could it back fire on Fox, maybe, but it might also show Dish that Fox is very serious and if Charlie didn't think Fox would pull the channels it might be the warning that come 11/1 Fox will be very willing to pull the OTA Fox channels.


You are comfortable with this precedent, I take it:


> Chase Carey, the president and chief operating officer at New York-based News Corp., said this year that he thinks Fox is worth $5 a month given its sports programming and prime-time hits like "American Idol." That would top the most expensive channel on the dial, Disney's ESPN, which brings in $4.08 for each subscriber, according to SNL Kagan.


If so, then it will come to pass that the four major broadcast networks will cost $20± a month. And it will come to pass before 2025 that Congress will allow them to scramble the broadcast signal forcing OTA viewers to have a box for $20 a month. Or they will be able to watch them on their four $4.99/mo apps on their newer internet TV systems.

Remember, you read it here first. Fortunately, I'll be dead before then.

In the meantime, I'm rooting for the two Charles against Rupert. I like tilting against windmills.


----------



## MilFan

Hoosier205 said:


> How it affects their customers _is_ how it affects their business.


Not really. They rationalize that paying more to Fox MAKES THEM increase their rates, but paying nothing to Fox during the dispute sure as hell doesn't make them lower the rates, does it? Think about it for a second before responding with your typical "it's in the contract channels can change" rhetoric that requires little to no critical thinking.


----------



## phrelin

MilFan said:


> Not really. They rationalize that paying more to Fox MAKES THEM increase their rates, but paying nothing to Fox during the dispute sure as hell doesn't make them lower the rates, does it? Think about it for a second before responding with your typical "it's in the contract channels can change" rhetoric that requires little to no critical thinking.


Every contract dispute that has involved pulling channels where the information has been made available seems to indicate that part of the concession forced on the signal carrier has been to backdate the contract.

Critical thinking only works if you pay attention to the history of this business.


----------



## MilFan

phrelin said:


> Every contract dispute that has involved pulling channels where the information has been made available seems to indicate that part of the concession forced on the signal carrier has been to backdate the contract.
> 
> Critical thinking only works if you pay attention to the history of this business.


My point is that the consumer gets no benefit regardless.

They either:

1. Pay the same for less programming (as they are now)
2. Pay more for the same programming (as Dish rationalizes they would if they agree to the Fox price increase)
3. Pay the same for the same programming (while missing some programming temporarily)

Dish SAYS they are doing this for the consumer, but that isn't the case. The consumer sees no benefit from this regardless of what happens, at BEST they break even.


----------



## RAD

phrelin said:


> You are comfortable with this precedent, I take it: If so, then it will come to pass that the four major broadcast networks will cost $20± a month. And it will come to pass before 2025 that Congress will allow them to scramble the broadcast signal forcing OTA viewers to have a box for $20 a month. Or they will be able to watch them on their four $4.99/mo apps on their newer internet TV systems.
> 
> Remember, you read it here first. Fortunately, I'll be dead before then.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm rooting for the two Charles against Rupert. I like tilting against windmills.


So are you saying you want government regulation of the television media industry and that the free enterprise/market system should be abandoned?

IMHO if they want to charge that amount then let them, you have the right to not pay it if you don't want to. If enough people feel that way then they will end up losing money and will have to lower their prices as customers go elsewhere for their entertainment.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> This is the company that offers it's Fox News image that is all "protect the ordinary folks" BS and that is demanding a 50% increase in the middle of The Great Recession.


A 50 percent increase of what? Take a look at what Dish Network wrote; it isn't a 50 percent increase of subscriber fees.


----------



## phrelin

MilFan said:


> My point is that the consumer gets no benefit regardless.
> 
> They either:
> 
> 1. Pay the same for less programming (as they are now)
> 2. Pay more for the same programming (as Dish rationalizes they would if they agree to the Fox price increase)
> 3. Pay the same for the same programming (while missing some programming temporarily)
> 
> Dish SAYS they are doing this for the consumer, but that isn't the case. The consumer sees no benefit from this regardless of what happens, at BEST they break even.


Gee. As an old guy, I see the benefit accruing in the future if the two Charles can force Rupert to blink. If the two Charles blink, as I posted:


phrelin said:


> ...It will come to pass that the four major broadcast networks will cost $20± a month. And it will come to pass before 2025 that Congress will allow them to scramble the broadcast signal forcing OTA viewers to have a box for $20 a month. Or they will be able to watch them on their four $4.99/mo apps on their newer internet TV systems.
> 
> Remember, you read it here first. Fortunately, I'll be dead before then.


This has much more significant long term implications than missing yesterday's game or episode of "Sons of Anarchy."


----------



## Greg Bimson

Personally, I feel that Dish Network has a leg to stand on. If enough of the people that require FX or an FSN (or NatGeo and maybe later the Fox Network) leave, Dish Network will probably do just fine. The problem is twofold: the amount of subscribers that may leave because Dish Network will no longer have the progamming, and the amount those subscribers will be paying because the package rates should be reduced if they no longer offer the affected programming.

There is a difference if as of 30 September 2010
Dish Network has 14.3 million subs paying on average $70 ($1 billion a month)

To a plausible scenario of 30 September 2011
Dish Network could have 13 million subs paying on average of $65 ($845 million a month)

That would be a revenue loss of $465 million per quarter and losing customers. Not good for a company trying to stabilize customer and revenue losses.


----------



## Jhon69

RAD said:


> So are you saying you want government regulation of the television media industry and that the free enterprise/market system should be abandoned?
> 
> IMHO if they want to charge that amount then let them, you have the right to not pay it if you don't want to. If enough people feel that way then they will end up losing money and will have to lower their prices as customers go elsewhere for their entertainment.


I for one agree.

The basic core priced package should be Standard Definition,then High Definition should be extra price and in a separate package.Then sports should be in their own separate priced package,but you know what? the programmer's don't want that,they want to force the providers to just take it and pass it along in their packages.So basically the programmers are trying to dictate to the providers how much profit they can make,while the programmers profit will increase.

Another typical "it's all about me" and "to hell with you crap".:eek2:

For that is the reason I fully support Charlie Ergen and Dish Network!.


----------



## Hoosier205

What would be an odd turn of events and *extremely *unlikely scenario:


Dish puts off an agreement with Fox on the premise that it would have to raise rates on customers to offset the rate increase from Fox. Suggesting that they are protecting their customers from a rate increase themselves.
The dispute goes on long enough to also cause the loss of the Fox O&O's and then a substantial number of subscribers...substantial enough to matter anyway.
They then lose enough business to make a larger than originally planned rate increase for customers necessary. More customers may leave or choose other providers.
Meanwhile, Fox just lost a lot of eyeballs and don't play so hard with DirecTV.
DirecTV gets a decent deal, picks up a boatload of Dish subs lost due to the Fox issues, picks up some others after a recent Dish rate hike, and laughs all the way to the bank. 
Dish files for bankruptcy protection and shortly thereafter is purchased by Blockbuster.  Okay...that one is just silly. 
Purely hypothetical and extremely unlikely, but interesting to me nonetheless.


----------



## Jhon69

Greg Bimson said:


> Personally, I feel that Dish Network has a leg to stand on. If enough of the people that require FX or an FSN (or NatGeo and maybe later the Fox Network) leave, Dish Network will probably do just fine. The problem is twofold: the amount of subscribers that may leave because Dish Network will no longer have the progamming, and the amount those subscribers will be paying because the package rates should be reduced if they no longer offer the affected programming.
> 
> There is a difference if as of 30 September 2010
> Dish Network has 14.3 million subs paying on average $70 ($1 billion a month)
> 
> To a plausible scenario of 30 September 2011
> Dish Network could have 13 million subs paying on average of $65 ($845 million a month)
> 
> That would be a revenue loss of $465 million per quarter and losing customers. Not good for a company trying to stabilize customer and revenue losses.


What's there to reduce AT120 doesn't have FSN in it and the other two are being filled in with HD Net Movies and HD Theater.As a standard definition customer I like it!.


----------



## Paul Secic

swallman said:


> Then that shows their product isn't worth what they want to charge!


I wouldn't pay $1 for FOX'S properties except for NATGEO.


----------



## RAD

Hoosier205 said:


> What would be an odd turn of events and *extremely *unlikely scenario:
> 
> 
> Dish puts off an agreement with Fox on the premise that it would have to raise rates on customers to offset the rate increase from Fox. Suggesting that they are protecting their customers from a rate increase themselves.
> The dispute goes on long enough to also cause the loss of the Fox O&O's and then a substantial number of subscribers...substantial enough to matter anyway.
> They then lose enough business to make a larger than originally planned rate increase for customers necessary. More customers may leave or choose other providers.
> Meanwhile, Fox just lost a lot of eyeballs and don't play so hard with DirecTV.
> DirecTV gets a decent deal, picks up a boatload of Dish subs lost due to the Fox issues, picks up some others after a recent Dish rate hike, and laughs all the way to the bank.
> Dish files for bankruptcy protection and shortly thereafter is purchased by Blockbuster.  Okay...that one is just silly.
> Purely hypothetical and extremely unlikely, but interesting to me nonetheless.


The one that that could effect that is people discover rabbit ears again and just go with OTA to get Fox. Both Dish (and DirecTV) have receive ATSC/OTA channels with their HD receivers so people don't leave Dish in massive droves and just go OTA for Fox. Charlie wins and Fox loses.


----------



## Michael P

phrelin said:


> It would be excellent PR if this settles in for a long haul for Dish to reduce the price of the appropriate tiers by $2. A token, yes, but smart PR to get people thinking about the relationship between the demands of media conglomerates versus people, as opposed to Dish Network versus customers.


Instead of giving us a $2 reduction, they gave us HD Theatre (downrezzed to SD) in place of Nat Geo. Not a good substitution in my book.

If this does not get resolved soon I may drop down from 250.


----------



## srrobinson2

I beg to differ...I ordered the multi-regional sports package to receive some of the Fox stations advertised as part of the package. Now those channels have been removed, and I am going to have my Dish removed once I find a suitable HD DVR solution that is compatible with Comcast - ugh!


----------



## Joe Diver

Besides the obvious loss of 62 Dallas Stars games...one of the big things that pissed me off with Dish was being used as a pawn in their struggles. It seems like Dish has a history of using their customer base to force negotiations, by pulling channels or allowing them to be pulled. Then it directly impacts the customer and it goes to a mud slinging fight between Dish and whoever they happen to have an issue with. Dish likes to spin it as "we're just looking out for our customers", but they're really using us.

Accurate or not, this is my personal perception after being with Dish for years.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Jhon69 said:


> What's there to reduce AT120 doesn't have FSN in it and the other two are being filled in with HD Net Movies and HD Theater.As a standard definition customer I like it!.


But I'm fairly certain the $100/month subscribers that want to watch their local team and cannot because it is on a pulled RSN won't be staying long. You have to think that many of the AEP or AT250 customers won't be thrilled if they are missing programming they want to watch.


----------



## Jhon69

srrobinson2 said:


> I beg to differ...I ordered the multi-regional sports package to receive some of the Fox stations advertised as part of the package. Now those channels have been removed, and I am going to have my Dish removed once I find a suitable HD DVR solution that is compatible with Comcast - ugh!


Have you tried checking out the sports channels in the guide(9000s range?) there's alot of sports up there.


----------



## Jhon69

Greg Bimson said:


> But I'm fairly certain the $100/month subscribers that want to watch their local team and cannot because it is on a pulled RSN won't be staying long. You have to think that many of the AEP or AT250 customers won't be thrilled if they are missing programming they want to watch.


I'm a AT250 Dish Network subscriber no problems here.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> Well, what you want doesn't match up with reality. Dish will pay Fox, as they should. The question is how much. What Fox is probably asking for is too high and they will likely meet somewhere in the middle. The notion that service providers should not pay to carry broadcast networks is ridiculous and has no chance of changing.


The notion that service providers should pay for free OTA channels is more ridiculous. You are probably right that it won't change. But the rate should be absolutely minimal.

In my case, I'd just as soon tell all the locals to punt and I'll just get them fine with my el-cheapo glorified rabbit ears.


----------



## Paul Secic

swallman said:


> Then that shows their product isn't worth what they want to charge!





356B said:


> It appears since I get FOX from Oakland Ca. for the moment I'm OK....:scratchin but I saw this on FoxNews and found it interesting....GetWhatIPaidFor.com :icon_stup
> What a mess, I do enjoy FX and Nat Geo.....and by the way I'm paying for them in my tier..... :bad_nono:I 'm wondering about compensation from dishTV? :money:To get Nat Geo oringinaly I had to go up in service tiers......:imwith:
> 
> :icon_band


You're safe with KTVU because COX owns KTVU. You'll still get the FOX network.


----------



## Jhon69

Joe Diver said:


> Besides the obvious loss of 62 Dallas Stars games...one of the big things that pissed me off with Dish was being used as a pawn in their struggles. It seems like Dish has a history of using their customer base to force negotiations, by pulling channels or allowing them to be pulled. Then it directly impacts the customer and it goes to a mud slinging fight between Dish and whoever they happen to have an issue with. Dish likes to spin it as "we're just looking out for our customers", but they're really using us.
> 
> Accurate or not, this is my personal perception after being with Dish for years.


I really hope that after 2 years you still feel the same way and you find a provider your happy with I really do.Good Luck!


----------



## phrelin

srrobinson2 said:


> I beg to differ...I ordered the multi-regional sports package to receive some of the Fox stations advertised as part of the package. Now those channels have been removed, and I am going to have my Dish removed once I find a suitable HD DVR solution that is compatible with Comcast - ugh!


As I noted on your other thread:


phrelin said:


> ...All those channels before the dispute were available in the AT200 package which I subscribe to.
> 
> To get all those channels I pay the normal rate of $54.99 a month. To get all those channels from Comcast would cost me $74.94 plus $8 for HD. That's $82.94 or $27.95 a month or $335.40 a year more than I pay through Dish....


It must be nice to have not been affected by The Great Recession.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> The notion that service providers should pay for free OTA channels is more ridiculous. You are probably right that it won't change. But the rate should be absolutely minimal.
> 
> In my case, I'd just as soon tell all the locals to punt and I'll just get them fine with my el-cheapo glorified rabbit ears.


OTA reception is free. Retransmission is not. That is the way it is and how it will continue to be. If cable and satellite providers want to provide their customers with the major broadcast networks, they can pay to do so.


----------



## lparsons21

Ok, Hoosier, you win! 

One of the side benefits for me with all this has been I've looked at my Dish bill and thought about how much I'm paying and what I'm getting for it. For the basic programming with AT200, I'm fine with what is happening.

But I got to looking at the premiums I had. HBO and Showtime for boxing, HBO for Boardwalk Empire. Well, not very many fights on either when you think about it, and BE can be rented/streamed or whatever next year and it isn't like that show is time sensitive. So I just shaved $24/month off my bill. That is something I wouldn't have done without all this, I would have just kept paying the bill and watching the very few shows those 2 channels have that are of interest to me.

Thanks Dish & Fox!!


----------



## Joe Diver

Jhon69 said:


> I really hope that after 2 years you still feel the same way and you find a provider your happy with I really do.Good Luck!


Yeah, me too. It was a nice luxury not being under contract and having to enter another one (for no out of pocket) was a consideration. So far so good with DirectTV, and it's only the sports feeds that are a deal breaker for me. DirecTV, being a sports centered service...well, I can just hope this Dish thing won't happen there, but there's no guarantee of that. I've made my choice, made my move so I have to live with it...or cough up the fee to change again within the next two years.


----------



## lparsons21

Cablevision is having their share of issues with Fox too. Here's a link to an article that talks about it and actually puts a tag on the money Fox wants from them :

http://www.multichannel.com/article/458356-UPDATED_Cablevision_Tells_Fox_to_Try_Again.php


----------



## MilFan

I emailed Dish to ask if they are giving a free first week preview of NBALP. They apparently don't read their emails, because the only thing they sent back is a copy and pasted diatribe from their website concerning the Fox/Dish dispute. THAT ISN'T WHAT I ASKED. So I've now contacted one of their CSR's via chat (who didn't even know what League Pass was, and then outright said they didn't have a free week preview) and now I get an automated response that doesn't answer the question. It took me 5 seconds to find a blog that says they do, but the company itself cannot confirm?

I'm dealing with morons.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> OTA reception is free. Retransmission is not. That is the way it is and how it will continue to be.


There is a big picture here, much like the run up to The Great Recession.


phrelin said:


> And it will come to pass before 2025 that Congress will allow them to scramble the broadcast signal forcing OTA viewers to have a box for $20 a month. Or they will be able to watch them on their four $4.99/mo apps on their newer internet TV systems.


----------



## dakeeney

I could see a substantial increase for Fox if they were the #1 network, but they are not even close to the top spot overall. They are not worth the money they're asking. Better get your rabbit ears ready


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> There is a big picture here, much like the run up to The Great Recession.


Link to source?


----------



## TulsaOK

MilFan said:


> I'm dealing with morons.


A lot of us are.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Not good for a company trying to stabilize customer and revenue losses.


Customer loss is just a point of pride. Revenue loss is not a problem

Since DISH Network launched in 1995 DISH has increased revenue every year. You suggest stabilizing? That is their current problem. They leveled off at the 2007 revenue level. The last three quarters DISH has been doing better, with 2Q revenue being the highest quarter to quarter increase since 2Q 07.

Customer loss ... 2Q 10's 19k net loss doesn't look good. But for the year ending June 2010 DISH still added 708k net customers ... compared to DirecTV's 455k net gain for the same period. The year ending March 2010 was similar with a 753k net gain vs 579k for the competition. The trend is good.

Past performance does not guarantee future results, but despite what could be considered scary numbers, the trend is good.


----------



## James Long

MilFan said:


> It took me 5 seconds to find a blog that says they do, but the company itself cannot confirm?


Is it a company run blog?

It took me 5 seconds to confirm it on DISH's website.
http://www.dishnetwork.com/sports/default.aspx
Free Preview: October 26 - November 2

But it is irrelevant to seeing your home town team.


----------



## TBoneit

Hoosier205 said:


> Just to compare further...HD Center Ice feeds from 10/7 - 10/13:
> 
> DirecTV: 30
> Dish Network: 8
> 
> With customers of both providers paying the same amount for Center Ice, but receiving something very different in return. That just isn't fair.


So when the Local Quickchek sells ketchup for a lot more than the local Shoprite's ketchup, same brand, same size. Or One has a different brand for less, then in both cases the higher priced one is unfair?


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> Link to source?


The source is me and my family's experience in the broadcasting industry since the 1930's. In other words, it's my opinion, it's free, and worth every penny.


----------



## TBoneit

Eksynyt said:


> Um, Local Fox will probly be going dark on Dish Network for all of the largest media markets in the USA on November 1. In Nielsen key 18-49 demos, I'm pretty sure Fox is the #1 Network in America. I know Dish doesn't really cater to sports fans, but if every single NFC East market loses Fox on Dish Network, not to mention highly watched shows like Glee and American Idol, then this will be a VERY big deal...can somebody enlighten me, will this be the largest local channel retrans dispute ever for Dish Network if it comes to pass?


That's your opinion. In my eyes Fox is the least watched of the big four networks. Many weeks I watch more on USA network or Game Show Network than I watch on FOX. To me Fox is a best #6 network.


----------



## Hoosier205

TBoneit said:


> So when the Local Quickchek sells ketchup for a lot more than the local Shoprite's ketchup, same brand, same size. Or One has a different brand for less, then in both cases the higher priced one is unfair?


Retailer markup...that's your excuse for that disparity? Got it.


----------



## sigma1914

dakeeney said:


> I could see a substantial increase for Fox if they were the #1 network, but they are not even close to the top spot overall. They are not worth the money they're asking. Better get your rabbit ears ready


From 2004 to 2009 Fox was the highest-rated broadcast network in the 18-49 demographic.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> The source is me and my family's experience in the broadcasting industry since the 1930's. In other words, it's my opinion, it's free, and worth every penny.


So it's a guess. Provide proof that Congress has any interest in doing what you have suggested and I'll be more than happy to take a look. They don't by the way, so let's not spend too much time on it.


----------



## sigma1914

TBoneit said:


> That's your opinion. In my eyes Fox is the least watched of the big four networks. Many weeks I watch more on USA network or Game Show Network than I watch on FOX. To me Fox is a best #6 network.


Actually, it's fact...see my last post.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> From 2004 to 2009 Fox was the highest-rated broadcast network in the 18-49 demographic.


Here in 2010, they aren't.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Retailer markup...that's your excuse for that disparity? Got it.


To calculate markup one must know how much the retailer paid, not just the price the retailer charges.

If the wholeseller charges Quickchek more than Shoprite when they supply the ketchup the markup for the higher priced Quickchek sold ketchup may be less. But the customer doesn't care ... they'll go to Shoprite to save themselves some money and Quickchek will have to lower their price to the Shoprite price (or less) even if they sell the ketchup at a loss. They could stop selling the ketchup, but then they would lose all the bun and wiener customers who want ketchup and won't accept any other condiment in it's place.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> Here in 2010, they aren't.


...2010 isn't over yet. They probably won't finish first, but they are doing well. Multiple hit programs and highly rated sports broadcasts.


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> Here in 2010, they aren't.


2010 isn't over, yet, to determine that number.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> To calculate markup one must know how much the retailer paid, not just the price the retailer charges.
> 
> If the wholeseller charges Quickchek more than Shoprite when they supply the ketchup the markup for the higher priced Quickchek sold ketchup may be less. But the customer doesn't care ... they'll go to Shoprite to save themselves some money and Quickchek will have to lower their price to the Shoprite price (or less) even if they sell the ketchup at a loss. They could stop selling the ketchup, but then they would lose all the bun and wiener customers who want ketchup and won't accept any other condiment in it's place.


I'm sorry...did the word "wiener" just pop up in a DBS-related discussion. We've gone off the rails again.  Missing so many HD CI games for Dish customers paying the same rate is unfortunate though. Hopefully that changes over the next few years and I suspect that it will to some degree.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> I'm sorry...did the word "wiener" just pop up in a DBS-related discussion. We've gone off the rails again.  Missing so many HD CI games for Dish customers paying the same rate is unfortunate though. Hopefully that changes over the next few years and I suspect that it will to some degree.


They are not missing unless they are promised. Select games are available.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> They are not missing unless they are promised. Select games are available.


Select few...very few.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> So it's a guess. Provide proof that Congress has any interest in doing what you have suggested and I'll be more than happy to take a look. They don't by the way, so let's not spend too much time on it.


Yep, it's my unhumble opinion. Note, I said before 2025, not this year. Even mega corporations can only move Congress slowly, in increments. For instance Murdoch's last win I noted before:


phrelin said:


> ...We had the big uproar in June 2003 over the FCC's move to increase by 10% the number of local TV affiliates a network could own - from 35% to 45%.
> 
> Even a Republican controlled Congress had trouble with that. After first voting to keep the ownership cap at 35%, both the House and Senate raised the aggregate cap to 39% by attaching a rider to a massive funding bill. The 39% cap allowed News Corp/FOX to keep all their stations.


It's the big picture to keep in mind. In 1998 there were no clues about the risks of letting the investment community run wild, except a long history of screwups and bad faith.


----------



## SayWhat?

I keep seeing the same small handful of people stating how important and valuable Fox is and how any company that drops them will die a quick death and yet nearly everyone else is saying they don't really miss Fox at all.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> I keep seeing the same small handful of people stating how important and valuable Fox is and how any company that drops them will die a quick death and yet nearly everyone else is saying they don't really miss Fox at all.


Well, that's usually how a 2 sided discussion happens.


----------



## lparsons21

Hoosier205 said:


> ...2010 isn't over yet. They probably won't finish first, but they are doing well. Multiple hit programs and highly rated sports broadcasts.


According to multiple sources, ad dollars are down because of not having enough shows in the top spots. And ad dollars are what they worry about. If they could get enough ad dollars, they wouldn't care about what position they were in.

And because those ad dollars are down, they are looking to make up for it and add some more directly from US!

The one thing you can take from this and the other ongoing battles with Fox and others is that all carriers are going to see more of this, not less.


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> I keep seeing the same small handful of people stating how important and valuable Fox is and how any company that drops them will die a quick death and yet nearly everyone else is saying they don't really miss Fox at all.


It will be darned funny if it is found that FX, RSN and other Fox channels aren't nearly as big a deal as Fox is hoping they are in all of this.

I for one, don't miss any of what is gone now. Fox local here is locally owned, so it will still be on, but even if it weren't I can get the 5 shows I watch each week on them via OTA. While I like those 5 shows, they aren't in my top 10 shows each week though.


----------



## sigma1914

lparsons21 said:


> It will be darned funny if it is found that FX, RSN and other Fox channels aren't nearly as big a deal as Fox is hoping they are in all of this.
> 
> I for one, don't miss any of what is gone now. Fox local here is locally owned, so it will still be on, but even if it weren't I can get the 5 shows I watch each week on them via OTA. While I like those 5 shows, they aren't in my top 10 shows each week though.


FX was cables 10th highest rated network of 2009, 5th among 18-49 year olds...The others, not so much. :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

We haven't heard boo about the lost Disney HD feeds from more than a month ago... Is it months now? I honestly haven't thought about them except as comparison to this new FOX dispute.

Honestly, and I'm repeating myself, for as popular as FOX supposedly is... this thread is not nearly as active as the Lifetime dispute thread of a couple of years back! Seriously... that one created more furor than this one... so either FOX isn't that popular after all OR the general public is siding with Dish on this one.

Meanwhile... I've seen 1, maybe 2 in this thread who have actually switched from Dish to elsewhere over this... and I've heard literally nothing on the major news channels about this.

Even if local FOX is lost in some O&O markets... many (if not most) of those people will be able to continue watching via OTA and might not even notice that Dish no longer has a SAT feed. I know I wouldn't, as I never watch the SAT feed, but I'm also not in an O&O market either.

Meanwhile, no amount of bickering on our forum will change anything... This is between Dish and FOX... and right now both sides are digging in their heels. Personally, I think FOX should cave. Whether or not they are "due" an increase at this point is irrelevant. They've already seen that they aren't as important to Dish as Dish is to them...

FOX should, as I've suggested before, agree to provide the feeds at the old rate while negotiating new terms that would be back-dated to the old contract expiration. Right now FOX is getting nothing, and asking for pie in the sky... They'd be better off getting what they were happy with under the old contract, and asking for more.

Yes, it takes away an advantage point to not withhold feeds... but at this point, I think it is all but proven that it isn't much of a negotiating point because there isn't any major backlash from Dish customers over this.

Oh, and no... I do not believe Dish is "doing it for the customers"... They are a business, and doing it for themselves... just like FOX and just like any one of us would do in their shoes! But, the interest of the customers is also Dish business... so just like it behooves FOX to keep their channels on while negotiating... it also behooves Dish not to allow channels to go dark while holding their point as well.

You or I might ask for and deserve a raise... but in this economy most of us wouldn't refuse to work at all while asking for that raise... More than likely, we'd keep trying but keep working... and meanwhile the longer the lack of raise, the more we'd be searching to see IF there was a better job out there. But current money is better than no money while waiting for future money that never was yours yet.


----------



## SayWhat?

The point is that there are only a small few complaining, albeit vocally.

The vast majority here don't seem to care if Fox goes away.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> The point is that there are only a small few complaining, albeit vocally.
> 
> The vast majority here don't seem to care if Fox goes away.


Those of us here, both Dish and DirecTV subs alike, represent a very small fraction of each providers total subscribers. The vast majority here, haven't chimed in one way or the other. There is no way to know how they feel about the issue. Whether or not that they have posted in this thread is not a sound indication.


----------



## sigma1914

SayWhat? said:


> The point is that there are only a small few complaining, albeit vocally.
> 
> The vast majority here don't seem to care if Fox goes away.


The vast majority here aren't Dish subs, nor have they chimed in with an opinion.


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> The vast majority here aren't Dish subs, nor have they chimed in with an opinion.


Which shows what most DISH subs _HERE_ think of the issue so far. Not worth commenting on.


----------



## Hoosier205

Stewart Vernon said:


> Meanwhile... I've seen 1, maybe 2 in this thread who have actually switched from Dish to elsewhere over this... and I've heard literally nothing on the major news channels about this.


I am certain that the Q4 numbers will show that these disputes have impacted both providers in very different ways. Judging how much the issue is impacting Dish based on activity in various threads here is not a good idea. The Dish Network sections of this forum aren't overly active anyway.



Satelliteracer said:


> It's true. A LOT of volume right now.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Which shows what most DISH subs _HERE_ think of the issue so far. Not worth commenting on.


That's only your assumption.


----------



## sorentodd45

DodgerKing said:


> That is different than how DirecTV does it. You can watch your own team's local feed on your own local RSN or on the CI channel (if you sub to CI). You can also watch any of the CI feeds on the respective RSN as well if you sub to CI. The only feed blacked out is the feed of the team playing your own local team.
> 
> The reason why I was asking is that if CI feeds are league and not related to local disputes on RSNs, it seems like you would be able to sub to CI and still watch you own team's local feed. This means that if Direct had the same dispute, you would still be able to watch your own local team on their local feed through CI since they do not black out your in market feed


In theory, that would work. But unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Dish and Direct go by zip code to assign sports blackouts.

And the re-mapping software is different for Dish and Direct as opposed to cable TV / Verizon. You would think that cable TV CI would be in the clear for a local team if they are using the exact same feed as the local RSN. But nope, the channel is blacked out. The end result is that with D or D, you have two choices of channels to watch a game, with cable, only one.


----------



## SayWhat?

I'm referring to the majority of posters on this thread, which should have been obvious. It's the only measure we have at the moment.

I'd almost rather see Fox go away for a few weeks or maybe months and really take it in the wallet for a while.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Those of us here, both Dish and DirecTV subs alike, represent a very small fraction of each providers total subscribers. The vast majority here, haven't chimed in one way or the other. There is no way to know how they feel about the issue. Whether or not that they have posted in this thread is not a sound indication.


Here's a good reply to that statement:


Hoosier205 said:


> That's only your assumption.





Hoosier205 said:


> I am certain that the Q4 numbers will show that these disputes have impacted both providers in very different ways. Judging how much the issue is impacting Dish based on activity in various threads here is not a good idea. The Dish Network sections of this forum aren't overly active anyway.


Which is why I focused on the DISH subscribers HERE and their actual posting history in this thread ... as compared with select DirecTV subs HERE who seem to be more obsessed with the issue.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> Here's a good reply to that statement:
> 
> Which is why I focused on the DISH subscribers HERE and their actual posting history in this thread ... as compared with select DirecTV subs HERE who seem to be more obsessed with the issue.


It's an assumption on your part until actual data becomes available. It's an issue that will approach our doorstep in the near future. So, we are understandably interested. Also, I think we have played very nice for the most part. The CI thing was viewed as a DirecTV vs Dish thing, but it really wasn't. It was more of an interesting footnote. I hadn't looked into it before and didn't notice the disparity until recently.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> Which shows what most DISH subs _HERE_ think of the issue so far. Not worth commenting on.


Be honest, the whole Dish side of this forum is pretty dead. You're amc HD thread had a whopping 75 posts...14 were from Directv subs.


----------



## MilFan

lparsons21 said:


> Here in 2010, they aren't.


I don't see how relevant that is here, they were #1 for five years and are still highly rated now. Those that argue it's not that popular are 100% wrong, period. The local Fox loss will result in a big outcry if it happens, you can bet money on it.


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> Be honest, the whole Dish side of this forum is pretty dead. You're amc HD thread had a whopping 75 posts...14 were from Directv subs.


It looks like this forum is trends more towards DirecTV as far as membership goes, while the other one (with their paid handler) trends more towards Dish. I'm not sure why, but that seems to be the case


----------



## James Long

The PM system is available for those who want to talk amongst themselves.
The topic of this thread is Fox vs DISH ... not the forum.

:backtotop


----------



## SayWhat?

I didn't even know there were any Disney channels missing except for a few comments posted here. I knew there was a conflict a few months back and some channels went dark for a few hours, but they popped right back in.

I guess that means those channels are more important and valuable than Fox.


----------



## tsmacro

sigma1914 said:


> From 2004 to 2009 Fox was the highest-rated broadcast network in the 18-49 demographic.


Cool that means they should be making more $$$ in ad revenue than any other network and as a result don't need to ask for more from subscribers! And by not asking for and increase they'll be sure to get favorable treatment from the tv service providers and should never have to worry about their channels disappearing and removing potential eyeballs from the ads they have on those channels. Well if only...:sure:

Actually that whole 18-49 demographic thing might be part of the problem. Advertisers are starting to become savy to the fact that the demographic that for so many years was the one that they were used to getting the best return for their dollar on isn't doing so well for them anymore. Not a big surprise considering it is younger people that use DVR's at a higher rate and find their entertainment online instead of on tv. It's probably why we see more and more ads for health products and/or drugs aimed at older people, because those ads are seeing a better return than those aimed towards younger people anymore.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> I didn't even know there were any Disney channels missing except for a few comments posted here. I knew there was a conflict a few months back and some channels went dark for a few hours, but they popped right back in.
> 
> I guess that means those channels are more important and valuable than Fox.


Local Fox hasn't been pulled yet. When/if it is, it will be a massive outcry given the amount of viewers it affects.

The biggest reason the outcry is minimal at this point is that the channels pulled aren't nearly as highly viewed as local Fox, and the sports shown on the RSN's are currently in preseason. The Fox deadline (Nov 1) and NHL/NBA seasons (last week of October) coincide, so you're going to see venom at that time if this is not resolved.


----------



## lparsons21

sigma1914 said:


> FX was cables 10th highest rated network of 2009, 5th among 18-49 year olds...The others, not so much. :lol:


Which probably explains why we don't see the howling nearly as much as you could reasonably expect. Maybe 18-49 year olds aren't very prevalent here.

I know I'm not very close to that range of numbers...


----------



## lparsons21

MilFan said:


> Local Fox hasn't been pulled yet. When/if it is, it will be a massive outcry given the amount of viewers it affects.
> 
> The biggest reason the outcry is minimal at this point is that the channels pulled aren't nearly as highly viewed as local Fox, and the sports shown on the RSN's are currently in preseason. The Fox deadline (Nov 1) and NHL/NBA seasons (last week of October) coincide, so you're going to see venom at that time if this is not resolved.


We'll certainly have to wait and see if you are correct. But so far, in this and some other disputes, the outcry hasn't been nearly what people thought it would be.

Yes, the sports fans will yowl, but maybe they aren't as big an audience as you think they are. I know that friends of mine that are sports fans (not rabidly so), don't watch the RSNs very often and get their sports fix from locals, ESPN and other channels.


----------



## SayWhat?

As far as lack of coverage from the media, they've been focused on Nov 2, Falcon Lake, the Chile mine and a few other major stories. This dispute isn't even a blip on their tickers.


----------



## MilFan

SayWhat? said:


> As far as lack of coverage from the media, they've been focused on Nov 2, Falcon Lake, the Chile mine and a few other major stories. This dispute isn't even a blip on their tickers.


Yet.


----------



## lparsons21

SayWhat? said:


> As far as lack of coverage from the media, they've been focused on Nov 2, Falcon Lake, the Chile mine and a few other major stories. This dispute isn't even a blip on their tickers.


Well, those and some very stupid stories too you know. 24 hours a day and 7 days a week gets you some very crappy news stories and more bad opinions than you can stand!!


----------



## sorentodd45

Greg Bimson said:


> Personally, I feel that Dish Network has a leg to stand on. If enough of the people that require FX or an FSN (or NatGeo and maybe later the Fox Network) leave, Dish Network will probably do just fine. The problem is twofold: the amount of subscribers that may leave because Dish Network will no longer have the progamming, and the amount those subscribers will be paying because the package rates should be reduced if they no longer offer the affected programming.


But I think the whole situation runs deeper than just the few (or many) customers that are currently bailing on Dish. It's the amount of horrible PR that they will get from this.

I'm not the most religious person in the world, but when I found out about this mess, I got down on my knees and prayed to the Lord Jesus that I'm not a Dish Customer (I'm actually ex-Direct, now with Verizon FiOS).

I've been telling *everyone* I know, online and offline, to stay as far away from Dish as if they were the bubonic plague (and I tell them why). Word of mouth can be a powerful advertising tool, both positive and negative. I hope Mr. Ergen is aware of this.


----------



## Hoosier205

lparsons21 said:


> Well, those and some very stupid stories too you know. 24 hours a day and 7 days a week gets you some very crappy news stories and more bad opinions than you can stand!!


EDIT: Oops...my reading comprehension failed me on that one. Sorry about that.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Falcon Lake, the upcoming general election, and Chile mine are stupid stories? Maybe you were just being sarcastic...


He said those _*and*_ some very stupid stories ... not those _*are*_ some very stupid stories.

Regular media rarely covers disputes like these anyways, unless they are involved.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> He said those _*and*_ some very stupid stories ... not those _*are*_ some very stupid stories.
> 
> Regular media rarely covers disputes like these anyways, unless they are involved.


Thanks. I misread.


----------



## phrelin

MilFan said:


> I don't see how relevant that is here, they were #1 for five years and are still highly rated now. Those that argue it's not that popular are 100% wrong, period. The local Fox loss will result in a big outcry if it happens, you can bet money on it.


It wouldn't matter how popular Fox is generally. The 5th game of the World Series is scheduled for Monday, November 1. Assuming a 5th game, there will be "a big outcry" for certain.

And if Cablevision loses the Fox locals in New York City and Philadelphia at the end of this week, that will involve losing the National League Championship Series with the Phillies. So look for a big outcry there if neither Rupert Murdoch nor Charles Dolan blinks.

And given the American public's memory span of a gnat, it doesn't surprise me that one has to point out that during the season last fall it wasn't until the Championship Series week that Fox's ratings moved from just ok. Yes they do well in the Winter with "American Idol."

It's always amazing how effective News Corp, which owns a significant bit of the press, is at misleading people. From the press coverage one would think "24" was some kind of phenomenon, but in reality in terms of average viewership it had the following "so-so" ratings:








Compare it to "NCIS" which has never had the coverage in the press:








EDIT:



sigma1914 said:


> From 2004 to 2009 Fox was the highest-rated broadcast network in the 18-49 demographic.


Just to add, the demo 18-49 rating is only important for certain advertising revenue. It is not a reflection of how many people watch the channel. The regularly published best number we have is total viewers from Nielsen reflected in the boxes above, and I'd be the first to admit that's somewhat suspect.


----------



## SayWhat?

Stupid stories? Yeah, we couldn't have gotten through life without hearing about Justin Beiber launching a line of nail polish you know.


The thing is, they DID cover the ABC/Disney dispute. I saw that discussed on several newscasts and websites. I haven't seen a word on this one.


----------



## James Long

SayWhat? said:


> The thing is, they DID cover the ABC/Disney dispute. I saw that discussed on several newscasts and websites. I haven't seen a word on this one.


Was the newscast story a local story with parents complaining? I believe there were a couple of those but with the SD feeds available to most subscribers it is not a total outage.

The CBS/Viacom dispute took CBS O&O and other channels off the air for two days. Having likely game five (sweeps are not to be expected) on November 1st doesn't help and may be what Fox is counting on. Inflicting damage if DISH doesn't give in to the demands.

So ... pull at midnight on 10/31 and spend the day arguing with an agreement just in time for the game or on November 2.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ If I remember right, they were CNN Money and maybe Bloomberg stories.


----------



## phrelin

Hmmm. I just noticed that we hit 1475 posts in this thread in 34 days. Even the long Tivo lawsuit threads take something like 150 days to get to this level of posting.

It is utterly amazing what Rupert Murdoch and News Corp can accomplish manipulating the "you can't do that to me" crowd.


----------



## Greg Bimson

This dispute only affects a handful of NHL teams, starting their regular season...

Sabers, Islanders and Rangers on MSG, Devils too.

Atlanta Thrashers on SportsSouth
Tampa Bay Lightning on SunSports
Florida Panthers on FSFlorida
Nashville Predators on FSTennessee
Columbus Bluejackets on FSOhio
Detroit Red Wings on FSDetroit
Minnesota Wild on FSNorth
Dallas Stars on FSSouthwest
Anaheim Ducks and LA Kings on PrimeTicket/FSWest

Of the teams with the largest following, it is probably the northern tier of the Midwest that is being hurt the most being without hockey coverage. And then there are those that want FX for their scripted programming. I suspect a lot haven't bolted, yet, but could do so if the mothership gets involved.

Frankly, I don't see this dispute ending. It is exactly like the YES "dispute", but since YES was never carried, there's no real dispute.


----------



## MilFan

Greg Bimson said:


> This dispute only affects a handful of NHL teams, starting their regular season...
> 
> Sabers, Islanders and Rangers on MSG, Devils too.
> 
> Atlanta Thrashers on SportsSouth
> Tampa Bay Lightning on SunSports
> Florida Panthers on FSFlorida
> Nashville Predators on FSTennessee
> Columbus Bluejackets on FSOhio
> Detroit Red Wings on FSDetroit
> Minnesota Wild on FSNorth
> Dallas Stars on FSSouthwest
> Anaheim Ducks and LA Kings on PrimeTicket/FSWest
> 
> Of the teams with the largest following, it is probably the northern tier of the Midwest that is being hurt the most being without hockey coverage. And then there are those that want FX for their scripted programming. I suspect a lot haven't bolted, yet, but could do so if the mothership gets involved.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see this dispute ending. It is exactly like the YES "dispute", but since YES was never carried, there's no real dispute.


What are the NBA teams affected?


----------



## Dave

OK you would like to have a Dish sub commit. Well I am a Dish sub. I will not change service to make Fox a happy camper or pad there bank account. I have the Americas Top 200 package. Price $ 54.99 + $ 6 DVR fee. If I change to DirectV's Choice Extra Package it is $ 63.99 + $ 7 DVR fee. I am showing the normal cost for the programing. No discounts or rebates. So if I change to DirectV it cost me an extra $ 120 per year. I can live without the F/X or RSN's for the $ 120 savings. One channel is not worth the extra $ 10 per month it would cost me. Besides I always get great service from the chat's and e-mails when or if I ever have to use them. Plus I can add the Platinum package for the $ 10 difference in providers cost. I am sorry if you DirectV posters are unhappy with my decision. But I will not give up my Dish TV.
This a honest comparison.


----------



## Shades228

Dave said:


> OK you would like to have a Dish sub commit. Well I am a Dish sub. I will not change service to make Fox a happy camper or pad there bank account. I have the Americas Top 200 package. Price $ 54.99 + $ 6 DVR fee. If I change to DirectV's Choice Extra Package it is $ 63.99 + $ 7 DVR fee. I am showing the normal cost for the programing. No discounts or rebates. So if I change to DirectV it cost me an extra $ 120 per year. I can live without the F/X or RSN's for the $ 120 savings. One channel is not worth the extra $ 10 per month it would cost me. Besides I always get great service from the chat's and e-mails when or if I ever have to use them. Plus I can add the Platinum package for the $ 10 difference in providers cost. I am sorry if you DirectV posters are unhappy with my decision. But I will not give up my Dish TV.
> This a honest comparison.


Same level of programming with DirecTV is Choice so it would be $58.99.

I'm glad for people who will use OTA and won't miss their RSN. However the major markets impacted with the loss of local fox is another matter. It would take more than this for Dish to go away so people saying that they'll disappear because of this are just being silly. However they can lose large segments of money making markets during this time.

I could care less what the reason is that something happens. Even if it's outside of he companies control if I want something I will go to who has it and I would say every customer is like that as well. It just depends on when that point comes per person.


----------



## sorentodd45

MilFan said:


> What are the NBA teams affected?


Suns -- FSN Arizona
Bobcats -- FSN Carolinas
Pistons -- FSN Detroit
Heat & Magic -- FSN Florida & Sun Sports
Rockets -- FSN Houston
Pacers -- FSN Indiana
Timberwolves -- FSN North
Cavs -- FSN Ohio
Thunder -- FSN Oklahoma
Hawks -- FSN South & SportSouth
Spurs & Mavs -- FSN Southwest
Grizzlies -- FSN Tennessee
Bucks -- FSN Wisconsin
Lakers & Clippers -- FSN West & Prime Ticket
------------------------------------------------

Wow, that's 17 teams! And the NBA is much more popular than the NHL. In a couple of weeks, the **** is really going to hit the fan.


----------



## Jhon69

sorentodd45 said:


> But I think the whole situation runs deeper than just the few (or many) customers that are currently bailing on Dish. It's the amount of horrible PR that they will get from this.
> 
> I'm not the most religious person in the world, but when I found out about this mess, I got down on my knees and prayed to the Lord Jesus that I'm not a Dish Customer (I'm actually ex-Direct, now with Verizon FiOS).
> 
> I've been telling *everyone* I know, online and offline, to stay as far away from Dish as if they were the bubonic plague (and I tell them why). Word of mouth can be a powerful advertising tool, both positive and negative. I hope Mr. Ergen is aware of this.


I would believe Mr.Ergen is more concerned that a programmer is trying to tell him,no force him to put their programming where they want it to be.


----------



## Jhon69

phrelin said:


> Hmmm. I just noticed that we hit 1475 posts in this thread in 34 days. Even the long Tivo lawsuit threads take something like 150 days to get to this level of posting.
> 
> It is utterly amazing what Rupert Murdoch and News Corp can accomplish manipulating the "you can't do that to me" crowd.


And that is worth repeating "You can't do that to me Rupert"!!.:ramblinon


----------



## Eksynyt

18 days til Dish Network's downfall commences.


----------



## HobbyTalk

joshjr said:


> That might be the case but It was E* that didnt come to terms. If you worked with contracts and it was fulfilled would you keep working for free?


Dish would have been happy to continue to carry the channels under the old contract while the new contract was negotiated. Fox would not allow them to do that and pulled the channels. Many times people work with "no contract" while a new contract be being negotiated. They get paid the old contract rates with back pay once the new contract is agreed upon.


----------



## HobbyTalk

srrobinson2 said:


> D
> 
> Your current HD selection does not compare to Comcast or DirectTV


You really have to be kidding..... right?


----------



## DodgerKing

James Long said:


> They are not missing unless they are promised. Select games are available.


When it is fewer than the year before, you are paying the same price as the year before, and the same price as other providers whom are showing more, then there is something missing. Sure they are not breaching a contract nor are they not following their wording, but they are giving their subs less than before and less than others. This does fall under, "missing" and these Dish CI subs do have something to be upset about


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

I applaud Dish for resisting Fox. And as other channels ask for higher fees, more will leave. From today's WSJ....

--------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...48083813748368.html?mod=ITP_personaljournal_0
Cutting the Cable Cord Gets Easier

Economy Helps Drive Shift From Cable TV; New Products Smooth the Way

A recent survey by Wedbush Securities of 2,500 U.S. consumers found 12% had cut premium cable services over the past year, with 7% axing cable altogether. After seeing the trend percolate for several years, market-research firm Parks Associates last December estimated that half a million households had so far cut the cable cord in favor of online-only content. 
--------------------


----------



## Joe Diver

James Long said:


> Which shows what most DISH subs _HERE_ think of the issue so far. Not worth commenting on.


True...there are lots of _other_ places to look and see how people feel. There are numerous FaceBook pages setup for both sides, Dish and Fox. Seems the most comments on any of those, regardless if it's a Dish favored page or Fox favored page....tons of folks are switching to DirecTV. Seeing this same current of "switching" on Dallas Stars boards and Dallas Mavericks boards. Looks like people just don't care who the fight is with or why. They just want their channels.


----------



## DodgerKing

Dave said:


> OK you would like to have a Dish sub commit. Well I am a Dish sub. I will not change service to make Fox a happy camper or pad there bank account. I have the Americas Top 200 package. Price $ 54.99 + $ 6 DVR fee. If I change to DirectV's Choice Extra Package it is $ 63.99 + $ 7 DVR fee. I am showing the normal cost for the programing. No discounts or rebates. So if I change to DirectV it cost me an extra $ 120 per year. I can live without the F/X or RSN's for the $ 120 savings. One channel is not worth the extra $ 10 per month it would cost me. Besides I always get great service from the chat's and e-mails when or if I ever have to use them. Plus I can add the Platinum package for the $ 10 difference in providers cost. I am sorry if you DirectV posters are unhappy with my decision. But I will not give up my Dish TV.
> This a honest comparison.


I don't think a single DirecTV sub has said anything about any Dish sub not being happy, nor have they suggested Direct is better or Dish subs should change.

As far as packaging goes, AT200 is not equivalent to Choice Extra, as Choice Extra has more channels. Choice Extra would be between the AT200 and the AT250 package with Dish.


----------



## Hunter844

I really liked Nat Geo and probably watched that channel more than any other and sometimes watched FX...if both channels are not going to be in my package I shouldn't have to pay for a test channel with no programming support or at least it's basically a collection of programming from other Discovery platforms and another channel HDmovies that's really a throw-in at best. HDmovies is certainly good for a movie every now and then and my original HD package had it and I enjoyed it...they took it away a couple years ago when I upgraded and I missed it but not like I'll miss National Geographic. I was already irked a little bit that Planet Green was turned into the heli-logging channel...good grief. Makes me wonder what the heck am I paying for? I realize Dish has no control over that but either which way I wanted to vent.


That's my 2 cents...I'm sure Charlie is going to get right on that.


----------



## Dave

Why is it when you try to give DirectV a break, you get a disagreement by so many. DirectV Choice is not a good comparison for Dish 200. Choice package only has 150 channels. So paying way more for alot less is not a good comparison for DirectV subs. This is why I choose the Choice extra package for comparison. The choice extra pack has 210 channels, which is a better comparison to Dish 200. But to each there own. I will never give up my Dish, no matter how many channels Charlie has to fight with to keep my price low.
Fox, Disney, CBS, etc, etc. need to lower there cost to the public. I for one do think the Government needs to step in and tell or force the affilates, enough is enough. Fox, CBS, ABC/Disney, NBC etc., etc. need some rules put in place to quit raising rates and demanding more and more from the public. It has to stop now.


----------



## Hoosier205

Dave said:


> Why is it when you try to give DirectV a break, you get a disagreement by so many. DirectV Choice is not a good comparison for Dish 200. Choice package only has 150 channels. So paying way more for alot less is not a good comparison for DirectV subs. This is why I choose the Choice extra package for comparison. The choice extra pack has 210 channels, which is a better comparison to Dish 200. But to each there own. I will never give up my Dish, no matter how many channels Charlie has to fight with to keep my price low.
> Fox, Disney, CBS, etc, etc. need to lower there cost to the public. I for one do think the Government needs to step in and tell or force the affilates, enough is enough. Fox, CBS, ABC/Disney, NBC etc., etc. need some rules put in place to quit raising rates and demanding more and more from the public. It has to stop now.


You're right, the federal government has nothing better to do than interfere in business matters. Move this right to the top of the list. How dare a company be able to control their own destiny. The government knows better. These companies don't own their own products...the government should assume control.


----------



## Jim5506

sorentodd45 said:


> I'm not the most religious person in the world, but when I found out about this mess, I got down on my knees and prayed to the Lord Jesus that I'm not a Dish Customer (I'm actually ex-Direct, now with Verizon FiOS).


What an abhorrent and frivilous waste of such a powerful tool.


----------



## inazsully

sorentodd45 said:


> Suns -- FSN Arizona
> Bobcats -- FSN Carolinas
> Pistons -- FSN Detroit
> Heat & Magic -- FSN Florida & Sun Sports
> Rockets -- FSN Houston
> Pacers -- FSN Indiana
> Timberwolves -- FSN North
> Cavs -- FSN Ohio
> Thunder -- FSN Oklahoma
> Hawks -- FSN South & SportSouth
> Spurs & Mavs -- FSN Southwest
> Grizzlies -- FSN Tennessee
> Bucks -- FSN Wisconsin
> Lakers & Clippers -- FSN West & Prime Ticket
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wow, that's 17 teams! And the NBA is much more popular than the NHL. In a couple of weeks, the **** is really going to hit the fan.


As for FSN AZ we are losing the Coyotes, Suns, ASU football and basketball. Yes, this is a very big deal to many of the 4 million people in the Phoenix area. Thousands of transplants out here from all over the country love to watch their old home teams play the local teams.


----------



## sorentodd45

Jim5506 said:


> What an abhorrent and frivilous waste of such a powerful tool.


Why is it frivilous? There's no limit on prayer, there's no quota. I'm just happy I'm not losing any channels, channels that I actually care about.

One of my relatives has Dish, and if it were not for the fact that he is still under contract, he would jump ship in an instant.


----------



## DodgerKing

Dave said:


> Why is it when you try to give DirectV a break, you get a disagreement by so many. DirectV Choice is not a good comparison for Dish 200. Choice package only has 150 channels. So paying way more for alot less is not a good comparison for DirectV subs. This is why I choose the Choice extra package for comparison. The choice extra pack has 210 channels, which is a better comparison to Dish 200. But to each there own. I will never give up my Dish, no matter how many channels Charlie has to fight with to keep my price low.
> Fox, Disney, CBS, etc, etc. need to lower there cost to the public. I for one do think the Government needs to step in and tell or force the affilates, enough is enough. Fox, CBS, ABC/Disney, NBC etc., etc. need some rules put in place to quit raising rates and demanding more and more from the public. It has to stop now.


Music channels are included in the count. When you take the music channels out, the actual TV channels on AT200 and Choice are pretty close to the same.


----------



## joshjr

sorentodd45 said:


> Suns -- FSN Arizona
> Bobcats -- FSN Carolinas
> Pistons -- FSN Detroit
> Heat & Magic -- FSN Florida & Sun Sports
> Rockets -- FSN Houston
> Pacers -- FSN Indiana
> Timberwolves -- FSN North
> Cavs -- FSN Ohio
> *Thunder -- FSN Oklahoma*
> Hawks -- FSN South & SportSouth
> Spurs & Mavs -- FSN Southwest
> Grizzlies -- FSN Tennessee
> Bucks -- FSN Wisconsin
> Lakers & Clippers -- FSN West & Prime Ticket
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wow, that's 17 teams! And the NBA is much more popular than the NHL. In a couple of weeks, the **** is really going to hit the fan.


Since when does E* carry FSN Oklahoma?


----------



## joshjr

Dave said:


> Why is it when you try to give DirectV a break, you get a disagreement by so many. DirectV Choice is not a good comparison for Dish 200. Choice package only has 150 channels. So paying way more for alot less is not a good comparison for DirectV subs. This is why I choose the Choice extra package for comparison. The choice extra pack has 210 channels, which is a better comparison to Dish 200. But to each there own. *I will never give up my Dish, no matter how many channels Charlie has to fight with to keep my price low.*Fox, Disney, CBS, etc, etc. need to lower there cost to the public. I for one do think the Government needs to step in and tell or force the affilates, enough is enough. Fox, CBS, ABC/Disney, NBC etc., etc. need some rules put in place to quit raising rates and demanding more and more from the public. It has to stop now.


So your saying if there is a dispute with every channel that you will still be a happy subscriber? Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. For your faithful years of service we will provide you with absolutely nothing in return for your normal monthly charge. Oh thank you so much that would be just wonderful.


----------



## TulsaOK

Eksynyt said:


> 18 days til Dish Network's downfall commences.


Jeez, even your avatar is yawning.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Has anyone given much thought to what will happen if Dish acquiesces? Let's say that Galavision and Univision demand 1.75 a month to carry those two channels. What does Dish do? Does Dish say "No" to a channel which has repeatedly drawn the youngest demo of any broadcast network? And what about all the Hispanic viewers, the country's fastest growing demo. If Dish gives in to Fox, it's a green light for all the other networks and cable channels.


----------



## normang

Dish isn't the only place that's having problems with Fox..

Cablevision customers could lose Fox TV shows (Reuters)
Customers of Cablevision Systems Corp in New York could lose shows like Glee' and 'House' as well as NFL football games as the cable operator jousts with News Corp's Fox Networks over a programing dispute.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Hoosier205 said:


> I am certain that the Q4 numbers will show that these disputes have impacted both providers in very different ways. Judging how much the issue is impacting Dish based on activity in various threads here is not a good idea. The Dish Network sections of this forum aren't overly active anyway.


I am certain the Q4 numbers will prove nothing of the kind because the quarterly reports simply count how many customers left and how many new were added. It does nothing to show or guess at why this was true.

I've beaten it into the ground... but Dish has lost lots of customers in quarters where they added new channels... and gained customers in quarters where they dropped channels.

There has been no quantifiable study to explain for certain why customers keep hopping around from provider to provider. It's all assumption on our part, with nothing to back it up.


----------



## russ9

normang said:


> Dish isn't the only place that's having problems with Fox..
> 
> Cablevision customers could lose Fox TV shows (Reuters)
> Customers of Cablevision Systems Corp in New York could lose shows like Glee' and 'House' as well as NFL football games as the cable operator jousts with News Corp's Fox Networks over a programing dispute.


NY Times article

"The loss of access to Dish's 12 million subscribers seems to be having an impact on the entertainment channels: Viewing on FX has declined since Dish was cut off. For the 10-day period from Oct. 1 to 11, FX averaged 565,000 viewers for its total day of programming. For the comparable period in September, the channel averaged 765,000 viewers. National Geographic Channel has seen a similar decline, to 200,000 viewers from 260,000"


----------



## 356B

This story certainly has brought out the dishTV haters....... :rant: sad commentary on the values we hold self evident.......TV........!pepsi!

:icon_band


----------



## Jhon69

Hoosier205 said:


> You're right, the federal government has nothing better to do than interfere in business matters. Move this right to the top of the list. How dare a company be able to control their own destiny. The government knows better. These companies don't own their own products...the government should assume control.


It seems possible if it turns criminal.If Fox cuts off their locals to get Dish Network to agree with whatever Fox wants it would seem like extortion to me.

Here you decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion


----------



## inazsully

356B said:


> This story certainly has brought out the dishTV haters....... :rant: sad commentary on the values we hold self evident.......TV........!pepsi!
> 
> :icon_band


I think the knee jerk reaction was aimed at DISH but I for one have turned the majority of my disdain towards FOX. Not all of it but the large majority. Let's face it, FOX pulled these channels DISH just didn't do a lot to stop them. Maybe they tried but we, the suffering subs, will probably never how sincere the negotiations were from either side. Never the less, FOX delivered the final blow.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> You're right, the federal government has nothing better to do than interfere in business matters. Move this right to the top of the list. How dare a company be able to control their own destiny. The government knows better. These companies don't own their own products...the government should assume control.


I have a better idea. Let's have the federal government give up control of all the frequencies it has licensed to the Fox stations involved - just open them up in each DMA to every guy who wants to use those frequencies. No point in continuing to regulate those particular licensed stations that have an exclusive *Federal* Communications Commission conditional license to use those frequencies on the public's airwaves. Or better yet, have the FCC revoke those licenses and auction them off to others who can put them to better use.


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> Since when does E* carry FSN Oklahoma?


DISH carried the content on an alt channel, when it varied from the main FS feed for the area. Several of the FS channels listed by Fox were not carried on a dedicated channel number by DISH.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

russ9 said:


> "The loss of access to Dish's 12 million subscribers seems to be having an impact on the entertainment channels: Viewing on FX has declined since Dish was cut off. For the 10-day period from Oct. 1 to 11, FX averaged 565,000 viewers for its total day of programming. For the comparable period in September, the channel averaged 765,000 viewers. National Geographic Channel has seen a similar decline, to 200,000 viewers from 260,000"


Who knows if that is accurate... BUT if we treat it as accurate... that would imply that of the 12 million Dish customers subscribing to a package that includes FX and National Geographic... less than 2% (1.6666666%) were watching those channels.

That doesn't sound like FOX will be getting a price hike on those any time soon.

FX and NatGeo losing those 200,000 viewers is a much bigger percentage of their ratings for those shows than those same viewers are towards Dish's subscriber base.

Dish has lost more than 200,000 subscribers for completely unknown reasons in many recent quarters... so even if all of those customers bolted, it would barely make a ripple to Dish.


----------



## tsmacro

Kent Taylor said:


> Jeez, even your avatar is yawning.


:lol:


----------



## Greg Bimson

Jhon69 said:


> It seems possible if it turns criminal.If Fox cuts off their locals to get Dish Network to agree with whatever Fox wants it would seem like extortion to me.
> 
> Here you decide:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion


The contract between Fox and Dish Network for the Fox-owned and the Local TV-owned Fox Network ends Halloween night. If there's no deal to extend it, how can that be extortion?


----------



## tsmacro

phrelin said:


> Just to add, the demo 18-49 rating is only important for certain advertising revenue. It is not a reflection of how many people watch the channel. The regularly published best number we have is total viewers from Nielsen reflected in the boxes above, and I'd be the first to admit that's somewhat suspect.


Yeah and the 18-49 demo is actually starting to fall out of favor with TV advertisers because those advertisers are starting to realize that it's exactly that demo that are seeing their ads less often on tv because people that age are more likely to be watching via DVR and/or the internet.


----------



## AMike

sorentodd45 said:


> Suns -- FSN Arizona
> Bobcats -- FSN Carolinas
> Pistons -- FSN Detroit
> Heat & Magic -- FSN Florida & Sun Sports
> Rockets -- FSN Houston
> Pacers -- FSN Indiana
> Timberwolves -- FSN North
> Cavs -- FSN Ohio
> Thunder -- FSN Oklahoma
> Hawks -- FSN South & SportSouth
> Spurs & Mavs -- FSN Southwest
> Grizzlies -- FSN Tennessee
> Bucks -- FSN Wisconsin
> Lakers & Clippers -- FSN West & Prime Ticket
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wow, that's 17 teams! And the NBA is much more popular than the NHL. In a couple of weeks, the **** is really going to hit the fan.


Don't forget the Knicks on MSG. And even though E* doesn't carry Yes, you can include the Nets.


----------



## habsfan66

Hoosier205 said:


> I'm sorry...did the word "wiener" just pop up in a DBS-related discussion. We've gone off the rails again.  Missing so many HD CI games for Dish customers paying the same rate is unfortunate though. Hopefully that changes over the next few years and I suspect that it will to some degree.


I've been trying to make this point for the last year that I've been a Dish sub. Paying the same price for CI as DirecTV but getting about 25% of their HD content is a joke. If "Free HD for Life" is a big deal then you're telling me that HD content has some value, otherwise offering it for free would be no benefit whatsoever. So if it has value then I shouldn't get charged as much for CI as a DirecTV sub who is getting so much more, currently at the same price.

Anyway, the only reason I have Dish is because I can only get their EA signal. Is there any hope that DirecTV will be coming out with an alternative angle signal any time soon (or ever)?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Has anyone given much thought to what will happen if Dish acquiesces? Let's say that Galavision and Univision demand 1.75 a month to carry those two channels. What does Dish do? Does Dish say "No" to a channel which has repeatedly drawn the youngest demo of any broadcast network? And what about all the Hispanic viewers, the country's fastest growing demo. If Dish gives in to Fox, it's a green light for all the other networks and cable channels.


Dish Network has repeatedly demanded packaging channels the way they want to. This fight is specifically about packaging FX and the FSN RSN's into AT120. If Dish Network doesn't want to deal with packaging FX and the FSN RSN's into AT120, that's fine. Fox will feel that Dish Network is a trusted business partner, as every other major provider has signed on for those terms, except Cablevision, which is one of three major providers that have issues almost anytime a carriage contract is up for renewal.


----------



## Hoosier205

habsfan66 said:


> I've been trying to make this point for the last year that I've been a Dish sub. Paying the same price for CI as DirecTV but getting about 25% of their HD content is a joke. If "Free HD for Life" is a big deal then you're telling me that HD content has some value, otherwise offering it for free would be no benefit whatsoever. So if it has value then I shouldn't get charged as much for CI as a DirecTV sub who is getting so much more, currently at the same price.
> 
> Anyway, the only reason I have Dish is because I can only get their EA signal. Is there any hope that DirecTV will be coming out with an alternative angle signal any time soon (or ever)?


Well, this weekend isn't going to make you any happier. It's pretty bad...

*HD Center Ice Feeds by Provider for October 15-17 -*

DirecTV: 24
Dish Network: 6


----------



## Greg Bimson

habsfan66 said:


> So if it has value then I shouldn't get charged as much for CI as a DirecTV sub who is getting so much more, currently at the same price.


Keep in mind that on the non-NFL packages, the leagues set the price of the package. If you want a discount, you will have to call in and get it in the form of credits, as Dish Network cannot lower the price of Center Ice.


----------



## Ira Lacher

I have predicted this before, and I'll predict this again:

The paradigm of beaming TV signals to local affiliates and national re-transmitters will go the route of the printed newspaper. The more the programmers and providers have these carriage disputes, and the faster technology improves, the quicker some providers will be apt to beam real-time programming directly to the individual viewer, either via a computer or an Internet-equipped TV such as what Sony has announced it has designed.

At first there may be businesses, such as Google TV or Apple TV, that package and broker programming to individuals. Some of the less desirable networks may choose to stay with this route. But more likely, powerhouses such as ESPN will continue to test the market by offering content directly to viewers. Then the market will truly be freer, since consumers will decide whether the product is worth the cost.

As with any truly free market, there will be winners and losers. But ain't that America?


----------



## DodgerKing

russ9 said:


> NY Times article
> 
> "The loss of access to Dish's 12 million subscribers seems to be having an impact on the entertainment channels: Viewing on FX has declined since Dish was cut off. For the 10-day period from Oct. 1 to 11, FX averaged 565,000 viewers for its total day of programming. For the comparable period in September, the channel averaged 765,000 viewers. National Geographic Channel has seen a similar decline, to 200,000 viewers from 260,000"


A better measure would be to compare this year's Sept vs Oct to previous year's Sept vs Oct. Perhaps Sept always has higher ratings than Oct.


----------



## habsfan66

Greg Bimson said:


> Keep in mind that on the non-NFL packages, the leagues set the price of the package. If you want a discount, you will have to call in and get it in the form of credits, as Dish Network cannot lower the price of Center Ice.


Sad part is, I'd much rather get the HD content than a discount, that's why I get the package. I actually got $50 off last year as the CSR even admitted it was basically a joke.

And does anyone kinow if DirecTV will have an alternate angle signal ever?


----------



## olguy

DodgerKing said:


> A better measure would be to compare this year's Sept vs Oct to previous year's Sept vs Oct. Perhaps Sept always has higher ratings than Oct.


How about this year vs last year? From the same article:


> The FX fall-off is notable because in mid-September, the network brought back its most popular hourlong program, "Sons of Anarchy." The show is down about 10 percent in the ratings from last year.


Is the enire 10% a result of being pulled from Dish by Fox? Or is part of it due to some viewers are watching other programs? I don't know. I just know the article says down 10% from last year.


----------



## sorentodd45

AMike said:


> Don't forget the Knicks on MSG. And even though E* doesn't carry YES, you can include the Nets.


You are right, I was just going off the list of FSN channels that appeared on getwhatipaidfor.com.

So that brings the total to 19 teams. It looks like Jazz fans are okay, as FSN Utah (sub-feed of FSN Rocky Mountain) does not appear to be FOX owned.


----------



## kinglerch

In related news, the loss of FSNOhio does not deprive Ohio viewers from watching any worthwhile local sports teams :lol:


----------



## sorentodd45

joshjr said:


> Since when does E* carry FSN Oklahoma?


It's a sub-feed of FSN Southwest. Fox Sports created it when the Seattle Sonics moved to Oklahoma City.


----------



## Hoosier205

sorentodd45 said:


> It looks like Jazz fans are okay, as FSN Utah (sub-feed of FSN Rocky Mountain) does not appear to be FOX owned.


That's right.



> Acquired by Liberty Media as part of its purchase of DirecTV. A sub-feed for Utah (FSN Utah) carries the Utah Jazz (NBA), Phoenix Coyotes (NHL-via Fox Sports Arizona), Real Salt Lake (MLS), and local collegiate sports.


----------



## phrelin

olguy said:


> How about this year vs last year? From the same article:
> Is the enire 10% a result of being pulled from Dish by Fox? Or is part of it due to some viewers are watching other programs? I don't know. I just know the article says down 10% from last year.


For those that are interested in "Sons of Anarchy" comparative total viewer ratings:

Comparable week with FX on Dish:

9/22/2009 3.76 million
9/21/2010 3.48 million

Down 0.28 million

Comparable week with FX not on Dish:

10/13/2009 3.31 million
10/12/2010 2.85 million

Down 0.46 million

The loss of Dish might have cost FX 4% of its "Sons of Anarchy" viewers. To what extent that actually affects the all-important, but fickle and DVR enabled 18-49 demo on any one night, who knows?


----------



## Santi360HD

and here I was upset when DirecTV pulled VS last year...Dish's tactic of pulling a string of fox channels & MSG. I would of left immediately...then again YES channel isnt on here from the get go...so i'd have to be in some parallel universe to have Dish Network & like it and cheer them on RA RA RA that they're so great..

They'd be hard pressed for me to see it their way as to why the dispute is going on.
I'll stick with my DirecTV and the emptyness of any more new HD channels....Keep the fight going fellow Echostar peeps..

game on


----------



## SayWhat?

Again, FOX PULLED THE CHANNELS, not Dish.

Capiche'?


----------



## Santi360HD

Be that as it may (FOX pulled them, Dish pulled them)...one thing that cannot be argued...Is that they're absent from the DISH lineup..

comprende?


----------



## dakeeney

:nono2:And now I fear that Fox O&O may be pulled, BY FOX AND NOT DISH, before this thing is settled.!pusht!!


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> Again, FOX PULLED THE CHANNELS, not Dish.
> 
> Capiche'?





dakeeney said:


> :nono2:And now I fear that Fox O&O may be pulled, BY FOX AND NOT DISH, before this thing is settled.!pusht!!


The removal of these channels from your lineups was the result of decisions made by both the service provider and the content provider. Make no mistake...they both failed at negotiating a deal prior to the deadline.


----------



## Paul Secic

Hoosier205 said:


> Dear Customer,
> 
> You were never promised the above mentioned channels. Channel lineups are, and always have been, subject to change. They recently changed. Goodbye.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Charlie


You're right!


----------



## Paul Secic

Joe Diver said:


> Yeah, me too. It was a nice luxury not being under contract and having to enter another one (for no out of pocket) was a consideration. So far so good with DirectTV, and it's only the sports feeds that are a deal breaker for me. DirecTV, being a sports centered service...well, I can just hope this Dish thing won't happen there, but there's no guarantee of that. I've made my choice, made my move so I have to live with it...or cough up the fee to change again within the next two years.


What will you do if FOX demands a 50% increase on DirecTV in the future?


----------



## DodgerKing

olguy said:


> How about this year vs last year? From the same article:
> Is the enire 10% a result of being pulled from Dish by Fox? Or is part of it due to some viewers are watching other programs? I don't know. I just know the article says down 10% from last year.


Again, correlation is not causation. Most cable network ratings are down this year compared to last. A better measure is to look at yearly trends, previous Oct vs Sept and compare the same thing to this year. In addition look at ratings patterns over a multi-year period. FX could have dropped the same amount last year compared to 08 as well.


----------



## DodgerKing

phrelin said:


> For those that are interested in "Sons of Anarchy" comparative total viewer ratings:
> 
> Comparable week with FX on Dish:
> 
> 9/22/2009 3.76 million
> 9/21/2010 3.48 million
> 
> Down 0.28 million
> 
> Comparable week with FX not on Dish:
> 
> 10/13/2009 3.31 million
> 10/12/2010 2.85 million
> 
> Down 0.46 million
> 
> The loss of Dish might have cost FX 4% of its "Sons of Anarchy" viewers. To what extent that actually affects the all-important, but fickle and DVR enabled 18-49 demo on any one night, who knows?


How did 09 compare to 08 and 07? Did it drop each year?


----------



## Paul Secic

lparsons21 said:


> Well, those and some very stupid stories too you know. 24 hours a day and 7 days a week gets you some very crappy news stories and more bad opinions than you can stand!!


That's why I don't watch my local TV News dumb stories. But there are other people in my house that do.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Greg Bimson said:


> The contract between Fox and Dish Network for the Fox-owned and the Local TV-owned Fox Network ends Halloween night. If there's no deal to extend it, how can that be extortion?


The extortion argument comes as part of noting that FOX wasn't charging for OTA before, but was giving them free for Dish carrying other FOX cable channels.

They would now be refusing to renew that contract not because they wanted money for OTA but because Dish didn't agree to demands for the cable channels.

IF that is all true, then that would be the definition of extortion I think.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DodgerKing said:


> Again, correlation is not causation. Most cable network ratings are down this year compared to last. A better measure is to look at yearly trends, previous Oct vs Sept and compare the same thing to this year. In addition look at ratings patterns over a multi-year period. FX could have dropped the same amount last year compared to 08 as well.


This actually proves my earlier argument about Dish churn (loss of subscribers)... If you look at quarterly reports, Dish has churn of subscribers whether channels are lost or not. Looking at that churn it would be all but impossible to tell the reason for that churn or to tie it to loss of specific channels.

The same argument about whether or not FX ratings are directly associated with loss of Dish customers is essentially the same argument about Dish quarterly subscriber churn. So people can't be on one side in one argument and the other side in the other argument.

Meanwhile, if viewership is down for other reasons (whatever the reason might be)... that tends to encourage the Dish position that the channel isn't worth as much money as FOX is asking.


----------



## domingos35

dish is not alone in the fight against FOX

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/news/companies/fox_cablevision_dispute/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote


----------



## JackBauer112

RIP Dish Network (1996-2011). I think this will be the final draw for Dish. It won't survive this blow. Sky Angel, I've never heard of if I can get that station, I don't know how to get it set up, but at least they have good programming with MLB network along with the fact they carry local channels too.

So not only Direct has the competition as they already pwn the failed Dish, but some other providers have competition that Direct doesn't even mention.


----------



## SayWhat?

^^ Don't be silly. Dish isn't going anywhere. If anybody gets hurt by this, it will more than likely be Fox.



Which I won't mind a bit. Kinda sad to think how far Fox has fallen since the late 90s.


----------



## Hoosier205

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Don't be silly. Dish isn't going anywhere. If anybody gets hurt by this, it will more than likely be Fox.
> 
> Which I won't mind a bit. Kinda sad to think how far Fox has fallen since the late 90s.


Fallen? How so?


----------



## domingos35

JackBauer112 said:


> RIP Dish Network (1996-2011). I think this will be the final draw for Dish. It won't survive this blow. Sky Angel, I've never heard of if I can get that station, I don't know how to get it set up, but at least they have good programming with MLB network along with the fact they carry local channels too.
> 
> So not only Direct has the competition as they already pwn the failed Dish, but some other providers have competition that Direct doesn't even mention.


 STUPID POST
U must a directv fanboy like Hossier


----------



## JackBauer112

SayWhat? said:


> ^^ Don't be silly. Dish isn't going anywhere. If anybody gets hurt by this, it will more than likely be Fox.
> 
> Which I won't mind a bit. Kinda sad to think how far Fox has fallen since the late 90s.


The only FOX shows I really like are Cops, AMW, Simpsons, Cleveland Show, Fam Guy Glee and Hell's Kitchen.

My guess is that Dish with no YES, no MLB Network and no life (Charlie Ergen) basically want to fail in the Satellite Business. I know he's cheap, but if Mike White (DTV's CEO) can shell out $$$ for programming, and in the long run, he can retain many customers but for Dish, their history of channel pulling makes Charlie in major butthurt since he can't get programming. So basically the best option is that Charlie and Jim needs to become an hero and let someone else run the company and compete with Mike White. That way, Dish can rebound from it.


----------



## Hoosier205

domingos35 said:


> *STUPID *POST
> *U *must *[be]* a directv fanboy like *Hossier*


Just saying...


----------



## levibluewa

DirecTV: 194 HD 
Dish Network: 150 HD 


That's why I dropped Directv. Promises, promises. Directv went down the tubes when John Malone took over and nothing has changed.


----------



## SayWhat?

Fox came up with some ground breaking shows back then. They were creative and original. They were the underdog and they knew it and they appreciated their audiences as few as they were.

We have Fox to thank for Kelly (pronounced Kelleeee) Bundy after all.


----------



## Hoosier205

levibluewa said:


> DirecTV: 194 HD
> Dish Network: 150 HD
> 
> That's why I dropped Directv. Promises, promises. Directv went down the tubes when John Malone took over and nothing has changed.


Hossier?  Everything is counted. Nothing fuzzy about it.


----------



## TulsaOK

SayWhat? said:


> We have Fox to thank for Kelly (pronounced Kelleeee) Bundy after all.


Not to mention Megyn Kelly.


----------



## bostontrader

So does this mean that until the dispute with F*x is settled there will be no NESN RSN available? The notice regarding replacement channels on the site is confusing.


----------



## demsd

phrelin said:


> And don't start chatting about breaking up the packages into a la carte. Murdoch knows that won't work for him and it's what he thinks that counts, thinking that does not include the best interest of 100,000,000 American households.




So what you are saying is, what Rupert wants your willing to give him?

We live in a capitalist society, A LA Carte TV is inevitable. The question is, do you want it to be on your terms, or the terms of the network conglomerate?

FACT: Rupert Murdock is nothing without the _100,000,000 American households_.

Q: Are you willing to pay for pasta, and not eat it, when you order a steak in a restaurant?
A: YES

Now IS the time to start _chatting about breaking up the packages into a la carte_.


----------



## Hoosier205

demsd said:


> We live in a capitalist society, A LA Carte TV is inevitable.


In no way is it inevitable.


----------



## demsd

bostontrader said:


> So does this mean that until the dispute with F*x is settled there will be no NESN RSN available? The notice regarding replacement channels on the site is confusing.


If FOX owns it, there won't be.


----------



## demsd

Hoosier205 said:


> In no way is it inevitable.


It absolutely is. Its either that, or the networks die. Unless of course you have a few money trees in your back yard.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Stewart Vernon said:


> The extortion argument comes as part of noting that FOX wasn't charging for OTA before, but was giving them free for Dish carrying other FOX cable channels.
> 
> They would now be refusing to renew that contract not because they wanted money for OTA but because Dish didn't agree to demands for the cable channels.
> 
> IF that is all true, then that would be the definition of extortion I think.


Okay.

From numerous articles regarding another dispute, Cablevision is paying Fox for their owned-and-operateds. So if Dish Network is NOT, then don't they deserve to pay "market value"?

Besides, since the Fox O&O affiliates are not tied to the same contract as FX, NatGeo and the FSN's, it is very difficult to say negotiations for those channels had any effect on the O&O's.


----------



## Hoosier205

demsd said:


> It absolutely is. Its either that, or the networks die. Unless of course you have a few money trees in your back yard.


Embracing a la carte would lead to their demise. Avoiding it is their only option. Content providers know that, service providers know that, most of us know that.


----------



## demsd

Hoosier205 said:


> Embracing a la carte would lead to their demise. Avoiding it is their only option. Content providers know that, service providers know that, most of us know that.


Your point then is that charging the carrier $.42/month/sub now, and maybe $.84/month/sub in 5 years, not including the carriers profit, is somehow sustainable? How long will you continue to subscribe if you go from paying $54.99/month for 200 channels to $109.98/month for the same package?


----------



## Hoosier205

demsd said:


> Your point then is that charging the carrier $.42/month/sub now, and maybe $.84/month/sub in 5 years, not including the carriers profit, is somehow sustainable? How long will you continue to subscribe if you go from paying $54.99/month for 200 channels to $109.98/month for the same package?


It would be even more expensive for me to subscribe to those same channels under an a la carte scenario. The rates charged would be even higher than you suggest.


----------



## SayWhat?

As much as I'd prefer it, ala carte was tried and it died. In the days of C-Band, you could pick and choose what you wanted. What was the other one, 4TV or something?

The networks found that some channels weren't being selected as much as they'd hoped, but enough not to kill the channel off. To keep the channel alive, they packaged it with one or more others -- you paid one price, you got the group of channels.

My main preference now is to be able to choose an entertainment only package with no sports channels at all. Since everybdoy claims the sports channels are more expensive, I should be able to get a less expensive package or more channels.


----------



## lparsons21

Greg Bimson said:


> Okay.
> 
> From numerous articles regarding another dispute, Cablevision is paying Fox for their owned-and-operateds. So if Dish Network is NOT, then don't they deserve to pay "market value"?
> 
> Besides, since the Fox O&O affiliates are not tied to the same contract as FX, NatGeo and the FSN's, it is very difficult to say negotiations for those channels had any effect on the O&O's.


Here's a link to one of the more current articles. Note the staggering increases Fox is wanting from Cablevision. Why would anyone imagine that Fox is interested in anything fair in this squabble?

http://www.multichannel.com/article/458391-Fox_Cablevision_Battle_Factored_Into_Stocks_Analyst.php


----------



## scooper

lparsons21 said:


> Here's a link to one of the more current articles. Note the staggering increases Fox is wanting from Cablevision. Why would anyone imagine that Fox is interested in anything fair in this squabble?
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/458391-Fox_Cablevision_Battle_Factored_Into_Stocks_Analyst.php


If that's what FOX has in mind - they'll get told the same thing Disney got told - buzz off.


----------



## sorentodd45

bostontrader said:


> So does this mean that until the dispute with F*x is settled there will be no NESN RSN available? The notice regarding replacement channels on the site is confusing.


NESN is owned by the Boston Bruins and the Boston Red Sox. It isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Greg Bimson said:


> Okay.
> 
> From numerous articles regarding another dispute, Cablevision is paying Fox for their owned-and-operateds. So if Dish Network is NOT, then don't they deserve to pay "market value"?
> 
> Besides, since the Fox O&O affiliates are not tied to the same contract as FX, NatGeo and the FSN's, it is very difficult to say negotiations for those channels had any effect on the O&O's.


I actually don't disagree with you here... I was just explaining the leap-of-logic that led to the claim of "extortion". I hedged in my post by saying "IF it was true"... because as you say, we really don't have a way to know for certain IF FOX is leveraging their O&O locals against the other contract.

That they *could* be, though, is worthy of conversation in this thread.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> We live in a capitalist society, A LA Carte TV is inevitable.


You are correct... in that it _was_ inevitable... C-band and early cable essentially were a la carte.

But on average when offered a price for 1 channel, a price for a 2nd channel, OR a bundled price for both channels that was cheaper than the sum of the two... customers chose the bundle.

This is why "value meals" sell at fast food restaurants. Granted, those restaurants still offer a la carte too... but when the general public speaks and wants a discount for bundling, then bundling becomes the norm.

The flip side, as someone else already noted, is that bundling also helps a company who owns more than 1 channel. IF FX does boffo in the ratings, but National Geographic doesn't... then NatGeo might go away in a la carte because not enough people would subscribe OR be willing to pay higher prices for that single channel... BUT customers might be willing to pay a bundle price for both and in their minds attribute more of the cost to the channel they want.

For me... I can't watch 200+ channels even if I tried... BUT there are lots of shows that come on channels that I barely watch otherwise... so I like having the option to tune in when I want. So the bundle is worth it to me.

History has shown us that IF things were un-bundled, then only the strong survive... and those things will cost as much of more than the bundle does now for less options.

It's not like we'd all get to pay half or less of our average bill by just paying for the channels we want. Sure, it might work for a few months... but once those other channels went bankrupt and the remaining channels had us over a barrel as the only remaining options... you can be sure they would raise their prices, and in the end we'd pay the same for less.

That too is capitalism.


----------



## whatchel1

My feeling all along is that a la carte is fine if there are packages available. I would like to see all channels be available after one buys a package. Then you could add any thing to the package. That way one could what they want in having channels packaged to save on the pricing and be able to add say 5 or 10 on top of it that aren't in their package.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Ira Lacher said:


> I have predicted this before, and I'll predict this again:
> 
> The paradigm of beaming TV signals to local affiliates and national re-transmitters will go the route of the printed newspaper. The more the programmers and providers have these carriage disputes, and the faster technology improves, the quicker some providers will be apt to beam real-time programming directly to the individual viewer, either via a computer or an Internet-equipped TV such as what Sony has announced it has designed.
> 
> At first there may be businesses, such as Google TV or Apple TV, that package and broker programming to individuals. Some of the less desirable networks may choose to stay with this route. But more likely, powerhouses such as ESPN will continue to test the market by offering content directly to viewers. Then the market will truly be freer, since consumers will decide whether the product is worth the cost.
> 
> As with any truly free market, there will be winners and losers. But ain't that America?


Maybe, but here's the paradigm.

So ESPN is going to go directly to Johnny Public and say, we'll sell you ESPN for only $5.00 a month...just saying as an example. This way they bypass the MSO's who are giving them $4.00 (per the published reports).

How do you think the MSO's will react to that? Will ESPN, in your example, be willing to throw dirt in the face of all these companies that pay them handsomely for content? Not everyone is going to have a HD internet connected television. Secondly, not everyone (especially rural areas) is going to have the broadband pipe to deliver that content.

ESPN rakes in billions each year from DIRECTV, Comcast, DISH, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc. And many of those entities control the very pipes that would deliver that content via the internet.

See where I'm going with this?

This is a lot different animal than Apple selling songs for $0.99. I'm not disagreeing with you that a form of what you talk about is very likely to happen (or is happening right now), but the complexities in all this are astonishing on so many levels.


----------



## chum76

demsd said:


> So what you are saying is, what Rupert wants your willing to give him?
> 
> We live in a capitalist society, A LA Carte TV is inevitable. The question is, do you want it to be on your terms, or the terms of the network conglomerate?
> 
> FACT: Rupert Murdock is nothing without the _100,000,000 American households_.
> 
> Q: Are you willing to pay for pasta, and not eat it, when you order a steak in a restaurant?
> A: YES
> 
> Now IS the time to start _chatting about breaking up the packages into a la carte_.


I think down the road you will be able to do a la carte and stream programming from the network website(s) of your choice. I cut the cord and use OTA and netflix. I liked a&e and watch for free online, but sooner or later they will all go to a subscription based site. The broadcast networks can add digital subchannels as well.


----------



## inazsully

Paul Secic said:


> What will you do if FOX demands a 50% increase on DirecTV in the future?


They won't and it's been mentioned here numerous times as to why they won't. Because of the tens of thousands of taverns and sports bars across the country "D" holds a much bigger hammer than does "E".


----------



## Satelliteracer

Hoosier205 said:


> In no way is it inevitable.


Some interesting articles that support your position. There are many people out there that have this mindset of "I pay $60 for 100 channels so if I should be able to pay $6 for just 10 channels I choose". If only the world worked that way, but it doesn't.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki

http://www.zdnet.com/news/the-false-choice-of-a-la-carte-tv/160322

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...od-network-cablevision-wants-to-know/?mod=fox


----------



## MysteryMan

Satelliteracer said:


> Some interesting articles that support your position. There are many people out there that have this mindset of "I pay $60 for 100 channels so if I should be able to pay $6 for just 10 channels I choose". If only the world worked that way, but it doesn't.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/news/the-false-choice-of-a-la-carte-tv/160322
> 
> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...od-network-cablevision-wants-to-know/?mod=fox


Interesting reads. Thanks Satelliteracer


----------



## demsd

Hoosier205 said:


> It would be even more expensive for me to subscribe to those same channels under an a la carte scenario. The rates charged would be even higher than you suggest.


I never made any suggestions as per rates. That being said, you obviously don't get the premise of A La Carte.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Satelliteracer said:


> Some interesting articles that support your position. There are many people out there that have this mindset of "I pay $60 for 100 channels so if I should be able to pay $6 for just 10 channels I choose". If only the world worked that way, but it doesn't.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/news/the-false-choice-of-a-la-carte-tv/160322
> 
> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...od-network-cablevision-wants-to-know/?mod=fox


Well, the record industry also resisted a-la-carte, but eventually had no choice. For the content providers, especially sports channels, the current system is so superior from a revenue-maximization standpoint.

But for the non-sports fan, paying ESPN 4.50 a month has begun to take its toll.


----------



## joshjr

sorentodd45 said:


> It's a sub-feed of FSN Southwest. Fox Sports created it when the Seattle Sonics moved to Oklahoma City.


It might be to E* customers but to D* customers we have all the Tunder games even if the Mavs are on that night on FSSW as well.


----------



## demsd

I see your 3 closed-minded articles and raise you 2.

[Its happening in Canada] http://money.blogs.time.com/2010/03/04/tv-a-la-carte-one-mans-dream/

Bell TV offers 30 A La Carte channels for $22 [$.73 per channel] and individual channels at $2 each after that. At that price, I would save $21/month off my bill [Top 200 w/ HD] and get 60 channels I want. [A La Carte channels at Bell TV - http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpTv_Programming.page#tabCont3-tabs]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS40945637220100922

Naysayers [i.e. the networks] suggest that consumers would pay more for less, as the sweeping rules would decimate small and niche cable channels while raising prices. Really, you mean I would be paying the same to lose 100's of channels I am forced to take That I don't watch? Fear mongering.

*NOTE: CBS owns ZDnet, which was owned by CNET networks * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNET_Networks



Satelliteracer said:


> Some interesting articles that support your position. There are many people out there that have this mindset of "I pay $60 for 100 channels so if I should be able to pay $6 for just 10 channels I choose". If only the world worked that way, but it doesn't.
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/01/25/100125ta_talk_surowiecki
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/news/the-false-choice-of-a-la-carte-tv/160322
> 
> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/201...od-network-cablevision-wants-to-know/?mod=fox


----------



## James Long

joshjr said:


> It might be to E* customers but to D* customers we have all the Tunder games even if the Mavs are on that night on FSSW as well.


DISH uses their alt feeds for FS Carolina, FS Houston, FS Indiana, FS Kansas City, FS Oklahoma, FS Tennessee and FS Wisconsin feeds when their content is different from the main regional feed. I wouldn't mind seeing them get their own "dedicated" channel numbers. Some DISH customers have complained in the past about not being able to find their games only to find that they were on an alt channel.


----------



## James Long

demsd said:


> That being said, you obviously don't get the premise of A La Carte.


We understand the concept ... but we also understand the reality.

Fox makes more money selling FoxSports at $2.41 per month to 9 million customers than they would make selling it for $3.00 per month to 7 million customers. Assuming they could get 77% of their current subscribers via DISH to voluntarily pay extra for their channel they would break even. But giving people a choice means those people can decide not to subscribe to FoxSports. To make the same money they have to keep raising the price to make up for the viewers lost. The more they raise the price the less viewers will agree to pay it. They might get 7 million at $3 per month ... but they won't get 7 million at $4 per month or $5 per month. The sports nuts will pay it but those trying to save money will walk away.

What Fox is asking for in this dispute is MORE subscribers to pay for their programming, not less. They want FoxSports to be in the AT120 level increasing their subscribers via DISH to 13 million. Which would be fine if they would lower their per subscriber price to $1.66 ... but they want both the money and the forced subscribership. And since this is America with a free market they can withhold their programming from the 9 million customers, some of them who want FoxSports programming, to force the issue of being paid more for those subscriptions or being paid for the 4 million who currently choose not to subscribe to FoxSports.

I doubt FoxSports would survive in America in an a la carte system. They would have to replace every subscriber who chooses not to subscribe with a higher charge on those who do subscribe. A higher charge that would make more people ask if FoxSports is worth the money ... and the spiral continues.

The Canadian system is still not a la carte. People are still forced to buy channels they may not want to get channels they do want. Subscribers pay $30 per month (channels included) before they get a single "theme pack". THEN add up to $6 per month for each theme pack. Not cheap. One might find a channel combination that beats the American way of charging for channels, but we can do that between DISH and DirecTV and other US options as well. One just has to pick the right channels.


----------



## Greg Bimson

People bring up Canada, and then conveniently forget that almost every country outside of the US is way more regulated than us. The FCC would have to triple in size to manage any proposal matching another country's regulation.


----------



## runner861

A la carte is the way to go, in my opinion. Sure, some channels may go out of business because they won't be able to make enough money. And, the monthly fees for some subscribers would substantially increase, such as those who subscribe to the sports channels. However, for a great many subscribers the monthly fees would substantially decrease, and people would only pay for the channels that they want. Market forces would dictate what channels remained, who paid higher fees, and who paid lower fees. And, at the end of the day, that is how it should be with a free market.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> A la carte is the way to go, in my opinion. Sure, some channels may go out of business because they won't be able to make enough money. And, the monthly fees for some subscribers would substantially increase, such as those who subscribe to the sports channels. However, for a great many subscribers the monthly fees would substantially decrease, and people would only pay for the channels that they want. Market forces would dictate what channels remained, who paid higher fees, and who paid lower fees. And, at the end of the day, that is how it should be with a free market.


I disagree on the placement of "some" vs "a great many" in that statement. Replace "some" with "many" and "a great many" with "a few" and I'm with you all the way.A la carte is the way to go, in my opinion. Sure, _many_ channels may go out of business because they won't be able to make enough money. And, the monthly fees for _many_ subscribers would substantially increase, such as those who subscribe to the sports channels. However, for _a few_ subscribers the monthly fees would substantially decrease, and people would only pay for the channels that they want. Market forces would dictate what channels remained, who paid higher fees, and who paid lower fees. And, at the end of the day, that is how it should be with a free market.​
The free market developed this system. As lousy as it is, it is a free market system that allows someone with something you want to set the terms on how they sell it to someone who wants it. Fox can say: "You can't have Fox O&O without paying for FX, NatGeo and FoxSports." and "You can't have FoxSports unless you pay our price."

If you were selling your car wouldn't you get to set the price? And if you disagreed with the price wouldn't you get to say no deal? That is a free market. If you had two cars and I wanted to buy one of your cars and you wanted me to buy both of your cars. It is up to you, the seller, to decide if you want to split up the sale or walk away. It would be up to me, the buyer, to decide if I wanted to buy both or walk away. If one of your cars was really worth having and the other "not so much" I would have to choose whether getting the prize was worth paying for the lemon. That is the free market.

I suppose the government could take TV and cable channels and force their sale via some "eminent domain" type of process. I wouldn't mind seeing that for OTA stations that exist OTA "to serve their communities" (or at least that's what they say when applying for the license). I have no problem with breaking the existing system as needed. But I'm not going to call something that isn't a free market "free market".


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think people forget that the free market chose the package/tier system over a la carte years ago as new channels were added.

As people were offered discounts for buying multiple channels vs just buying individual ones at a higher price, people chose the bundle to save money per-channel and have more viewing options.

IF we unbundled everything tomorrow, and all channels had to be paid for/ordered a la carte... undoubtedly a bunch of them would be out of business within 6 months as they wouldn't get enough viewers paying at any price.

Other channels would survive, but with less subscribers would charge more for their channels.

Yes the market determines pricing... but it isn't one sided! Both the consumer and the producer are part of the equation!

IF I don't want to pay more than $5 then I won't buy... but if the channel can't be profitable for less than $6 then they will not drop to my buying point... and if enough people are like me, then even a popular channel could find itself in trouble.

For all the talk about pro sports... I like my football and basketball but wouldn't dream of paying the asking price for tickets to attend one live! Some of the popular teams and teams with good records are having trouble selling tickets to their stadiums. That's what happens in a free market. They can't afford to sell for less, and people choose not to pay more... and eventually something has to give.

Any way you want to slice things... every indicator points to a la carte ultimately leading to less channels for the same or more money as we pay now for tiers.

Also, you might find your favorite channel is one that doesn't survive a la carte... because you are in the minority of people willing to pay for it on its own merits.


----------



## Hoosier205

There aren't enough facepalm's in the world for folks who believe a la carte might be a good idea. In the category of "things which are bad ideas", this one is among the most obvious.


----------



## Hoosier205

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think people forget that the free market chose the package/tier system over a la carte years ago as new channels were added.


Ding, ding, ding.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Well, the record industry also resisted a-la-carte, but eventually had no choice. For the content providers, especially sports channels, the current system is so superior from a revenue-maximization standpoint.
> 
> But for the non-sports fan, paying ESPN 4.50 a month has begun to take its toll.


But here's the difference. Disney owns ESPN and all the Disney content and ABC. They aren't going to let a MSO take sports without the other on a widely distributed tier. That's what makes this so so so so much more complicated than the record industry. It might as well be apples and couches in a comparison.

By controlling broad holdings like that, they can force sports on everyone (even if non sports fans don't want it), or force children's programming on everyone (even if the sports fans don't care about it).

Newscorp has similar power. If NBC Universal and Comcast merger goes through...same situation.


----------



## Satelliteracer

demsd said:


> I see your 3 closed-minded articles and raise you 2.
> 
> [Its happening in Canada] http://money.blogs.time.com/2010/03/04/tv-a-la-carte-one-mans-dream/
> 
> Bell TV offers 30 A La Carte channels for $22 [$.73 per channel] and individual channels at $2 each after that. At that price, I would save $21/month off my bill [Top 200 w/ HD] and get 60 channels I want. [A La Carte channels at Bell TV - http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpTv_Programming.page#tabCont3-tabs]
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS40945637220100922
> 
> Naysayers [i.e. the networks] suggest that consumers would pay more for less, as the sweeping rules would decimate small and niche cable channels while raising prices. Really, you mean I would be paying the same to lose 100's of channels I am forced to take That I don't watch? Fear mongering.
> 
> *NOTE: CBS owns ZDnet, which was owned by CNET networks * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNET_Networks


I wonder why so many Canadians for so long had fake USA addresses then if tv is so great up there. They sure were consuming a lot of American tv from satellite companies. :lol: Probably why so many of them come south for health care, too. Better options.

I posted three articles for convenience but there are many others including several studies. Those 100 channels that YOU don't watch, others do. And yes, they would feel upset about having to spend much more to keep them. That's really the whole point, not everyone agrees to which 10, 20, 40, 60 channels are most important to them. But the more and more niche you get, the much higher cost those become to the customer. Basic economics. Either those customers would have to pay it, or that channel would go belly up...thus reducing choice.

Congress ordered a 6 month study on this back in 2004 and came away with the conclusion that it would cost customers more money and cause some channels to go out of business. Worse, it would mean less innovation, less new channels, especially for certain protected classes. Think about the channels created in the last 5 years, many of them niche but important to certain groups of people, that never would have even been considered under an a la carte plan.

Booz Allen did a similar study and came to the same conclusion in 2005.

Other studies in 2007 and 2008, including several at prestigious business schools.

The NY Times had an interesting piece on it just a few years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business/media/24nocera.html


----------



## phrelin

Satelliteracer said:


> I wonder why so many Canadians for so long had fake USA addresses then if tv is so great up there. They sure were consuming a lot of American tv from satellite companies. :lol: Probably why so many of them come south for health care, too. Better options.
> 
> I posted three articles for convenience but there are many others including several studies. Those 100 channels that YOU don't watch, others do. And yes, they would feel upset about having to spend much more to keep them. That's really the whole point, not everyone agrees to which 10, 20, 40, 60 channels are most important to them. But the more and more niche you get, the much higher cost those become to the customer. Basic economics. Either those customers would have to pay it, or that channel would go belly up...thus reducing choice.


While I had no problem with that theory up to about 2004-5, like every other program to subsidize an industry in its infancy or a critical industry in times of trouble at some point you have to say "No more."

Right now we have "The Hub" co-owned by Discovery and Hasbro that started this month and is "spun" by its coowners as:


> ...A high-quality children's and family entertainment and educational network.
> 
> The network will feature shows about Hasbro toys, including Strawberry Shortcake, My Little Pony, and Transformers.


 But one observer noted:


> It's a mish-mash of children's shows and sitcom reruns. But the reason it caught my attention is that The Hub's 11 p.m.-to-midnight programming is The Transformers and G.I. Joe, the seminal cartoons of my youth. It makes perfect sense, of course. Even as a kid, I knew both of those shows were blatant attempts to promote toys made by Hasbro. Now, you know. And knowing is half the battle.


Now I know somewhere some kid is going to throw a tantrum because his parents don't have the right cable/satellite company to get this, but come on, do I really have to pay 20¢± per month. You want to cater to your kid, pungle up $5 a month for this. And maybe it ought to be $12 a month for Disney plus ESPN for the big kid in the house, $8 a month for Nick, etc.

You don't think you should have to pay like that? Well, in the end you will because the nickle and dimers will soon include Ryan Seacrest who we recently learned:


> ...is teaming up with entertainment company AEG and talent agency CAA to start a new cable channel.
> 
> The 35-year-old television personality's latest venture is in very early stages, but according to THR, would focus on music, pop culture and lifestyle.


And if he can just get all the cable and satellite companies to put that into their basic package for 10¢ per month per subscriber, he can be subsidized to the tune of $8 million a month.

Shall we also subsidize mega corporations growing corn? Oh, we already do that. The difference is the government taxes you, while in the case of cable channels, cable and satellite companies tax you. And you don't even get to vote for the members of their Boards or their CEO.

Sorry, but somewhere along the way I went from being a liberal on this to being a libertarian.


----------



## runner861

To clarify, I never said a "government-mandated a la carte system." I just said an a la carte system is, in my opinion, the way to to. I think that "retransmission consent" should be replaced with "must carry," but that is the only change in regulation that I want. I understand that a business is able to market its channels anyway it chooses--Fox or any network can bundle channels together. But, at the same time, the carriers can resist that bundling. The carriers can work toward an a la carte system.

Sure, prices and channel availability will change. But I am not convinced that the results will be horrific--the results will be what the market dictates. And, although many people on this board make predictions about horrific results with a la carte, no one really knows what will happen because we do not have a la carte.

I fully support Dish's refusal to pay the prices demanded by Fox. Am I glad that the channels are gone? I am not, but I understand why they are gone.


----------



## adkinsjm

DodgerKing said:


> That is different than how DirecTV does it. You can watch your own team's local feed on your own local RSN or on the CI channel (if you sub to CI). You can also watch any of the CI feeds on the respective RSN as well if you sub to CI. The only feed blacked out is the feed of the team playing your own local team.
> 
> The reason why I was asking is that if CI feeds are league and not related to local disputes on RSNs, it seems like you would be able to sub to CI and still watch you own team's local feed. This means that if Direct had the same dispute, you would still be able to watch your own local team on their local feed through CI since they do not black out your in market feed


People just can't comprehend this.

If your local RSN was pulled, there isn't a way to see your local team on that channel legally on Dish Network. It doesn't matter if you have Center Ice or League Pass, your local team will be blacked out because the RSN has exclusive rights to broadcast the games to your area that it shows. It doesn't matter if you want to pay more money or you think you have a right to see the games. The truth is you won't see them as long as this dispute goes on.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> To clarify, I never said a "government-mandated a la carte system." I just said an a la carte system is, in my opinion, the way to to. I think that "retransmission consent" should be replaced with "must carry," but that is the only change in regulation that I want. I understand that a business is able to market its channels anyway it chooses--Fox or any network can bundle channels together. But, at the same time, the carriers can resist that bundling. The carriers can work toward an a la carte system.


Yes, the carriers can ... and DISH does within what they can negotiate with the program providers.

The following programmers have agreed to allow DISH to sell their channels a la carte (as well as include them in certain tiered levels of programming):
Bloomberg Television ($3.00), RFD-TV ($3.00), Sportsman Channel ($3.00), The Outdoor Channel ($3.00), CineLatino ($5.00), Dish CD (stereo Muzak $5.00), Encore Movies ($5.00), Veria ($5.00), Epix 3 (one SD channel $7.00).

Baby First ($5.00) is a la carte only and the Latino Bonus Pack ($14.00) adds the base DISH Latino channels to any English package.

There is also some sports a la carte: Multi-Sport w/ Redzone ($7.00), Fox Soccer Plus ($15.00), Willow Cricket ($19.99), Racetrack Television ($50.00).

DISH's basic price structure of AT120 then AT120 Plus basically separates the RSNs out of AT120 and allows people to buy their local RSNs for $5.00 without jumping to the next level (AT200).

And in previous disputes Mr Ergen has gone on record as saying that he will carry the disputed channel a la carte if they wish. The biggest problem is the programmers. They don't want to be paid for just the customers who want their channel enough to subscribe. They want to be paid for ALL the customers they can get.

It is in Fox's best interest to be paid for as many customers as possible. It would be a bad business decision for them to accept an a la carte offer if they can get a tier such as AT120 Plus or AT200 (DISH's most popular level). As long as programmers want it and refuse to accept a la carte placement the idea is dead in the water.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Bloomberg Television ($3.00), RFD-TV ($3.00), Sportsman Channel ($3.00), The Outdoor Channel ($3.00), CineLatino ($5.00), Dish CD ($5.00), Encore Movies ($5.00), Veria ($5.00), Epix 3 ($7.00).
> 
> Baby First ($5.00)


That's what, $45 right there? I pay about $50/mo or so for AT250 on annual billing. For ala carte to work for me, channels would have to be priced in the 30 or 40 cent range, not the $3-5 range.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> That's what, $45 right there? I pay about $50/mo or so for AT250 on annual billing. For ala carte to work for me, channels would have to be priced in the 30 or 40 cent range, not the $3-5 range.


Exactly the point that a lot of people keep missing about a la carte. They seem to think they'd get whatever channel they wanted for $1 or less each... but it's virtually guaranteed not to happen.

All the channels that are <$1 right now are only that low because they have so many subscribers from being in a package OR because a company like Disney/FOX/etc has a bunch of channels and "gives" a couple away with purchase of other stuff.

A lot of the a la carte debate reminds me of when some retail store has a "buy one get one free" sale... and inevitably someone will want to just get the one free OR will want to pay half price for just one and argues "but it is the same thing"...

They miss the reality that a company is willing to take less if you buy more and they can handle the accounting however they want... but they won't give a "volume discount" if you aren't purchasing in volume.

So all those <$1 channels would go belly up OR would quickly become $2-$3 channels in a heartbeat... and then unless you truly just want to watch 2-3 channels, you'll be paying more for less channels.

Anyone who truly only wants to watch 2-3 channels isn't really watching that much TV anyway, and probably can live without TV moreso than those of us who watch a lot.


----------



## SayWhat?

Although I can remember when we ONLY had 2 or 3 channels to watch. Period.

Your choice was ABC, NBC or CBS. If you were lucky, you had one or two independants and maybe PBS and some of those went to test patterns between midnight and 6 AM. But I guess that's a different thread.


----------



## adkinsjm

Stewart Vernon said:


> Exactly the point that a lot of people keep missing about a la carte. They seem to think they'd get whatever channel they wanted for $1 or less each... but it's virtually guaranteed not to happen.
> 
> All the channels that are <$1 right now are only that low because they have so many subscribers from being in a package OR because a company like Disney/FOX/etc has a bunch of channels and "gives" a couple away with purchase of other stuff.
> 
> A lot of the a la carte debate reminds me of when some retail store has a "buy one get one free" sale... and inevitably someone will want to just get the one free OR will want to pay half price for just one and argues "but it is the same thing"...
> 
> They miss the reality that a company is willing to take less if you buy more and they can handle the accounting however they want... but they won't give a "volume discount" if you aren't purchasing in volume.
> 
> So all those <$1 channels would go belly up OR would quickly become $2-$3 channels in a heartbeat... and then unless you truly just want to watch 2-3 channels, you'll be paying more for less channels.
> 
> Anyone who truly only wants to watch 2-3 channels isn't really watching that much TV anyway, and probably can live without TV moreso than those of us who watch a lot.


I'm sure 75 percent of the networks carried by Dish or any provider would go under with an a-la-carte system.


----------



## djlong

There's something being forgotten in the a-la-carte debate.

Right now, channels are being paid whether they are watched or not.

I wonder what would happen to the advertising rates for a channel that could say the following:

Yes, we lost 75% of our "households" when we went to a-la-carte - BUT, the remaining 25% that we have are people who have PICKED US DELIBERATELY. These are much more attentive eyeballs. In other words, is it worth more to the advertiser to pay a channel that says "We're in 100 million households" or "25 million households are paying to see our programming"?


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> I understand that a business is able to market its channels anyway it chooses--Fox or any network can bundle channels together. But, at the same time, the carriers can resist that bundling. The carriers can work toward an a la carte system.


Let's talk about that:

If carriers can work toward an a la carte system, it is almost exactly the direction that Dish Network is going.

However, in order for the carriers to resist bundling, they have to actually stop bundling. Right now, all Dish Network is doing is telling Fox that their programming (which they believe is highly-rated) is not superior in price to many other alternatives. Dish Network hasn't said "We will no longer have subscription packages".

It's a two-way street. Dish Network created the AT120, AT200 and AT250 packs, to provide programming to consumers. Screaming "a la carte" because the channel isn't being carried doesn't ignore the fact that the channels were pulled BECAUSE of how the distributor wants the programming bundled and how the programmers want the programming bundled.

And let's not forget that in an a la carte world, ratings for channels would mean something. So, speaking of rules changes, I'd assume the two most expensive channels in an a la carte world would be your local CBS affiliate and your local FOX affiliate.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Satelliteracer said:


> But here's the difference. Disney owns ESPN and all the Disney content and ABC. They aren't going to let a MSO take sports without the other on a widely distributed tier. That's what makes this so so so so much more complicated than the record industry. It might as well be apples and couches in a comparison.
> 
> By controlling broad holdings like that, they can force sports on everyone (even if non sports fans don't want it), or force children's programming on everyone (even if the sports fans don't care about it).
> 
> Newscorp has similar power. If NBC Universal and Comcast merger goes through...same situation.


How about packaging channels together like this, by ownership/distributor, then offering those packages (not the individual channels) al la carte?


----------



## MysteryMan

Looks like Fox could use a course in "How To Win Friends And Influence People". Fox and Cablevision are locking horns and have until midnight tonight to come up with a agreement or the plug gets pulled with Cablevision!


----------



## audiomaster

I would prefer A La carte as I would not subscribe to any sports on Sat. I would probably subscribe to 20-25 channels. But what I would prefer is billing BY SHOW! With perhaps a "season ticket" for a show for all season. If I watch TV, I pay for exactly what I watch. if the networks make crummy shows they make no money, good shows, they do. Seems fair to me.

I can just swing the antenna to WCCB in Charlotte and watch the Panthers off-air if I want to get really depressed!

I don't see Homeland Security ever allowing off-air stations to stop broadcasting so I can always get my news and lots of programming there.
I realize that won't work for some more rural residents. But they could get Obama to declare those areas "communicationally depressed" and get government subsidies to cover Sat TV!


----------



## James Long

djlong said:


> Yes, we lost 75% of our "households" when we went to a-la-carte - BUT, the remaining 25% that we have are people who have PICKED US DELIBERATELY. These are much more attentive eyeballs. In other words, is it worth more to the advertiser to pay a channel that says "We're in 100 million households" or "25 million households are paying to see our programming"?


The sale of "households reached" is too strong. People actually watching and caring about the programming is a different number called ratings. That number has it's place in selling advertising (especially show specific ads) but keeping the "reached" number high, even if artificial, is more important.

Besides ... a home reached may pick up an occasional viewer who would not have thought in advance to subscribe to the channel.



Greg Bimson said:


> However, in order for the carriers to resist bundling, they have to actually stop bundling. Right now, all Dish Network is doing is telling Fox that their programming (which they believe is highly-rated) is not superior in price to many other alternatives. Dish Network hasn't said "We will no longer have subscription packages".
> 
> It's a two-way street. Dish Network created the AT120, AT200 and AT250 packs, to provide programming to consumers. Screaming "a la carte" because the channel isn't being carried doesn't ignore the fact that the channels were pulled BECAUSE of how the distributor wants the programming bundled and how the programmers want the programming bundled.


Creating the packages was a progressive effort. DISH started out in 1996 with AT40 ($19.95) in 1996 as their only tier. The next year they started offering AT40 and AT50 putting the newer channels in the $5 higher package. The third level was not introduced until 2000 ($19.95/$29.95/$39.95 levels). In 2000 there were only 5 million subscribers. DISH had a "pick any channel" type package but it didn't last.

The programmers still want to reach "everyone". The compromise is to place them in AT250 and let people with lower packages buy the channel a la carte. Not many would accept the position of a la carte only.



> And let's not forget that in an a la carte world, ratings for channels would mean something. So, speaking of rules changes, I'd assume the two most expensive channels in an a la carte world would be your local CBS affiliate and your local FOX affiliate.


What would you do with the "must carry" local stations? They don't get paid for carriage. There would have to be some base level package for them. And the government would have to step in and define "distributed on a non-discriminatory manner" to allow DISH to charge their customers 50c for ABC and $1 for CBS or FOX (NBC would be a quarter).

Yeah, that is not going to fly.


----------



## lparsons21

MysteryMan said:


> Looks like Fox could use a course in "How To Win Friends And Influence People". Fox and Cablevision are locking horns and have until midnight tonight to come up with a agreement or the plug gets pulled with Cablevision!


With Dish, Fox and Cablevision CEOs being who they are, you can probably expect Fox to go dark there for a time. As subscribers paying the bill these guys generate, we can only hope that something not completely horrible to us comes out of all this.

And for those on services not currently involved in this saga, the writing is on the wall. This will be happening with more frequency as the content providers have pretty much said they want more money from subscribers because the ad dollars aren't paying out so well anymore.


----------



## James Long

MysteryMan said:


> Looks like Fox could use a course in "How To Win Friends And Influence People". Fox and Cablevision are locking horns and have until midnight tonight to come up with a agreement or the plug gets pulled with Cablevision!


What annoys me the most about this issue is Fox's advertising. Instead of telling their lost viewers that they are working on a deal to have their channels restored they are spending their money advertising competing systems. It is getting to the point where I can't watch other Fox related channels due to the number of "dump DISH" ads. It reminds me of protesters with picket signs ... not a company trying to get their channels restored.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> What annoys me the most about this issue is Fox's advertising. Instead of telling their lost viewers that they are working on a deal to have their channels restored they are spending their money advertising competing systems.


It's a two-way street, two weeks into the dispute.

Obviously, negotiations had to occur long before the October 1 cut-off date. Fox feels it is getting nowhere, so they are trying to improve their bottom line by enticing subscribers to move to systems where they feel they have relationships with valued partners.

Meanwhile, Dish Network is happy to have the CEO tell everyone on the disputed channels that Fox is demanding a 50 percent increase, yet that would only be in relation to having FX and the FSN's in the lowest tier. It is actually a bit surprising that Dish Network hasn't been more vocal about the dispute.

Neither side wants to budge off of their basic demands.


----------



## SayWhat?

I guess I never understood 'must carry'. The network or viable independants should be carried, but does every local low power church or high school channel need to be? Not in my book. There are a few channels here that are nothing but paid programming; not a single scripted or programmed item on them. Then we have a state operated PBS type system with transmitters in most cities of any size at all. Rotating my antenna, I get about 20 of those, all with the same programming.

The other thing I never understood was the retrans fees. I get my local stations OTA crystal clear. I get distant station clear 90% of the time with some digitization/pixelation/complete loss (thanks DTV, never had that problem with analog). Why should I have to pay to get those same channels by satellite? The local stations aren't losing anything that they need compensation for. If anything they're gaining viewers and should have to pay Dish for the increased households. Those are people that might not watch them at all if they couldn't get it by satellite.

Back close to topic, there really isn't that much on Fox or any other OTA channel I watch, let alone would pay to watch. During any given week, I might record an hour or two of network OTA programming. Add in a few reruns and some shows on RTN. Other than that, I try to catch the local morning news.


----------



## SayWhat?

> It is getting to the point where I can't watch other Fox related channels due to the number of "dump DISH" ads. It reminds me of protesters with picket signs ...


I know we can't get political, but it reminds me of the campaigns over recent years. You don't talk about what YOU can do, you badmouth the other guy.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Obviously, negotiations had to occur long before the October 1 cut-off date. Fox feels it is getting nowhere, so they are trying to improve their bottom line by enticing subscribers to move to systems where they feel they have relationships with valued partners.


Fox created the "GetWhatIPaidFor.com" domain on August 18th. DISH created the "JoinTheFightAgainstFox.com" domain on September 21st. That is a pretty good illustration of Fox's intentions in this matter.

Fox's decision to attack DISH and tell people to change providers was not an act of desperation at the end of negotiations. It is an assault planned at least weeks in advance.



> Meanwhile, Dish Network is happy to have the CEO tell everyone on the disputed channels that Fox is demanding a 50 percent increase, yet that would only be in relation to having FX and the FSN's in the lowest tier.


50% is not a hard number to come up with even if one assumed that it only related to the existing package levels for the programming (AT120+ for FoxSports, AT200 for FX, AT250 for NatGeo). If a figure around $2.30 is used as the "current" for FoxSports we're talking about a $1.15 increase. Combining the media reports of Fox wanting payment for Fox 0&0 at typically $1 per subscriber as well as any increase on FoxSports, FX and NatGeo and 50% is easy to get to ... without the placement issue.

Fox has openly claimed that their programming is worth $4 per subscriber. You don't get to $4 without a 50% price increase from the chart that was provided earlier in the thread.


----------



## scooper

Greg Bimson said:


> It's a two-way street, two weeks into the dispute.
> 
> Obviously, negotiations had to occur long before the October 1 cut-off date. Fox feels it is getting nowhere, so they are trying to improve their bottom line by enticing subscribers to move to systems where they feel they have relationships with valued partners.
> 
> Meanwhile, Dish Network is happy to have the CEO tell everyone on the disputed channels that Fox is demanding a 50 percent increase, yet that would only be in relation to having FX and the FSN's in the lowest tier. It is actually a bit surprising that Dish Network hasn't been more vocal about the dispute.
> 
> Neither side wants to budge off of their basic demands.


Absolutely - now- who needs the other more ?


----------



## TulsaOK

scooper said:


> Absolutely - now- who needs the other more ?


I assume that Fox isn't getting paid during this dispute while Dish hasn't lowered my bill any.


----------



## Curtis0620

audiomaster said:


> I would prefer A La carte as I would not subscribe to any sports on Sat. I would probably subscribe to 20-25 channels. But what I would prefer is billing BY SHOW! With perhaps a "season ticket" for a show for all season. If I watch TV, I pay for exactly what I watch. if the networks make crummy shows they make no money, good shows, they do. Seems fair to me.
> 
> I can just swing the antenna to WCCB in Charlotte and watch the Panthers off-air if I want to get really depressed!
> 
> I don't see Homeland Security ever allowing off-air stations to stop broadcasting so I can always get my news and lots of programming there.
> I realize that won't work for some more rural residents. But they could get Obama to declare those areas "communicationally depressed" and get government subsidies to cover Sat TV!


Let's say $0.99 for a 30 minute show, $1.99 for a 60 minute show and $3.99 for a movie.

That would add up real fast.


----------



## tampa8

If the premise you believe in is that A La Carte will lower your bill, it will for a limited amount of people. When I see people say they only want to pick the few channels they watch, they better mean a very few if they expect to save money. As mentioned wherever you see examples of A La Carte, the pricing is in dollars, not cents. Even at only $4 a channel, you could get, what, about 10 channels before it is more than the Dish lower tier that includes locals? Yes, for a very few they would be happy with that. 
Will they be happy when the provider charges them $10 to add and subtract? Will they be happy when their favorite show moves to another channel they don't get and now have to? Or when their sports team is on another channel for the beginning of a game as often happens when another event goes overtime?

For most people, I firmly believe A La Carte would cost more and for once agree with a government (and others) studies that it would water down the choices and not encourage taking programming risks. Packaging is not perfect, not much is. But there are things I get to watch that I know I would not be able to afford, or would not have even been produced if A La Carte were the only alternative. I can only see it working if it is offered in addition to the packages being offered.


----------



## EW800

I would love to know what the advertisers are saying in regard to this dispute going on as long as it is. I would imagine that they are very concerned about these channels now being available to far fewer viewers. I would think they would be putting pressure on Fox to resolve this??


----------



## phrelin

I will make one more comment about a la carte vs tiered packages.

If I could con the cable and satellite companies into putting up the phrelin channel consisting of 24/7 web cam of my cat in SD with mono audio (low bandwidth usage) for a mere 10¢ a month from every subscriber, that could bring me a gross revenue of something like $8 million a month.

At some point, these channels that have relatively few viewers ought to be on the internet where the 10,000 viewers that watch two shows from it can do so. Cable TV is an inappropriate medium.

With regard to pricing of a la carte, the market would determine the price. HBO can pull $15 a month for its package. Maybe Disney with the a package that includes the Disney channel and ESPN could pull $20, maybe not. Maybe they could get $10 for ESPN a la carte. I don't know.

Maybe a basic cable tier could include the top rated 100 channels 20¢ and under plus whatever "premium packages" or a la carte you want to buy - Disney, NBCU, Viacom, CBS, Time Warner, Fox, Discovery, whatever.

My point is, I don't want to continue a system that forces me to subsidize Ryan Seacrest or Hasbro.


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> My point is, I don't want to continue a system that forces me to subsidize Ryan Seacrest or Hasbro.


Yet almost 85 percent of the US households, including your own, are by a strained definition "subsidizing" a system the free-market built. It's a bit disingenuous complaining the system is corrupt while continuing to send in money.

I don't get to ear-mark how my tax money is spent or choose the suppliers of the wheat used in a box of spaghetti.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> Let's talk about that:
> 
> And let's not forget that in an a la carte world, ratings for channels would mean something. So, speaking of rules changes, I'd assume the two most expensive channels in an a la carte world would be your local CBS affiliate and your local FOX affiliate.


Get Congress to eliminate "retransmission consent" and go with "must carry," or put up a rooftop antenna (how TV is really supposed to be received), and you get the local affiliates for free.

It seems like companies like Dish feel that subscribers are nearing a breaking point where they will not tolerate further rate increases. I at least believe that is the case. Something has to give. People who are not sports fans don't want to pay large amounts of money for sports channels. People don't want to pay large amounts of money for TV channels that are supposed to be free, like the local network affiliates. Something is going to happen. Perhaps the market will move toward a la carte. Perhaps people will just stop subscribing to cable and satellite and go back to OTA or move to the internet. Perhaps people will just accept that cable and satellite are going to offer fewer channels. The system, as it currently is, is unsustainable and is broken.


----------



## Paul Secic

Santi360HD said:


> Be that as it may (FOX pulled them, Dish pulled them)...one thing that cannot be argued...Is that they're absent from the DISH lineup..
> 
> comprende?


Again FOX pulled "their" channels first!


----------



## grooves12

James Long said:


> What annoys me the most about this issue is Fox's advertising. Instead of telling their lost viewers that they are working on a deal to have their channels restored they are spending their money advertising competing systems. It is getting to the point where I can't watch other Fox related channels due to the number of "dump DISH" ads. It reminds me of protesters with picket signs ... not a company trying to get their channels restored.


Well, the thing is, it WORKS... Fox is not harmed in any way by these negotiations. Customers are naive and switch providers whenever these things happen, not realizing that by doing so they are indirectly agreeing to a price increase and encourage the tactics of the network.


----------



## inazsully

OK, OK, By now it's pretty obvious that the blame game has been established. There are a few here that certainly seem to know what they are talking about regarding this issue and how it came to be, at least from the DISH standpoint. James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious how some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


----------



## EW800

grooves12 said:


> Fox is not harmed in any way by these negotiations.


Wouldn't fox be taking a beating from their advertisers over the fact that the number of possible viewers is less??


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> Get Congress to eliminate "retransmission consent" and go with "must carry," or put up a rooftop antenna (how TV is really supposed to be received), and you get the local affiliates for free.


Funny. Eleven years ago both DirecTV and Dish Network "needed local television stations to compete with cable". And with those local stations, DirecTV and Dish Network became much more viable in the eyes of the general public, as one of the main obstacles of subscribing was overcome.

Which is the exact same problem with cable TV. Most people believed it was a half/half propostion: pay for cable to get your local channels and additional programming. EDIT: And if you go to the government with your hand out, asking to compete with another group, you'll be saddled with their regulations. So DBS received the local stations, and the must-carry and retransmission consent laws.

So of course what is being asked is to rollback TV like it was in the 1980's, just like Charlie Ergen and his quote about "when I was a kid, sports was on broadcast TV". Times change, and if you don't want to play the game, either get out or change the game...


runner861 said:


> It seems like companies like Dish feel that subscribers are nearing a breaking point where they will not tolerate further rate increases. I at least believe that is the case. Something has to give.


Dish Network has an interesting problem. They are the "value" provider. So they are already operating on thinner margins because their business plan WAS to be a few dollars cheaper than their competitors. Now, one of their programming providers is feeling shortchanged because all of their other partners offer their programming on the most basic tier. So, Dish Network now has three options:

1) Swallow the proposal with pride
2) Forget the channels exist and hope not many jump ship
3) somewhere in between

The value provider may have to start dealing without more and more channels if they are simply looking to cut costs. The downside is they may have to deal with both a shrinking subscriber base and a shrinking base of possible customers that will now never consider Dish Network as an alternative because they don't have some of the higher-rated programming.


runner861 said:


> The system, as it currently is, is unsustainable and is broken.


It isn't broken if people aren't leaving in droves. You can't get 85 percent of the nation to agree on much; 85 percent of the nation is subscribing to some form of multichannel distribution.


----------



## mnassour

SayWhat? said:


> I guess I never understood 'must carry'. The network or viable independants should be carried, but does every local low power church or high school channel need to be? Not in my book. There are a few channels here that are nothing but paid programming; not a single scripted or programmed item on them. Then we have a state operated PBS type system with transmitters in most cities of any size at all. Rotating my antenna, I get about 20 of those, all with the same programming.
> 
> The other thing I never understood was the retrans fees. I get my local stations OTA crystal clear. I get distant station clear 90% of the time with some digitization/pixelation/complete loss (thanks DTV, never had that problem with analog). Why should I have to pay to get those same channels by satellite? The local stations aren't losing anything that they need compensation for. If anything they're gaining viewers and should have to pay Dish for the increased households. Those are people that might not watch them at all if they couldn't get it by satellite.
> 
> Back close to topic, there really isn't that much on Fox or any other OTA channel I watch, let alone would pay to watch. During any given week, I might record an hour or two of network OTA programming. Add in a few reruns and some shows on RTN. Other than that, I try to catch the local morning news.


Sigh. Yes, it is a steaming pile of dog turd. Let's look at some of the points you raise...

"Must Carry" rules do not, indeed, apply to each and every low-power station. If that was the case, they'd all be on DirecTV/Dish/cable/whatever. The stations that qualify under Must Carry have two options. 1) the station can force the cable company to carry its signal or 2) the station can negotiate with the cable company for payment for its signal. As you can imagine, big time network stations do #2. Rarely-viewed stations go for #1.

PBS is not owned/operated by "the state". It is an independent, non-profit corporation that does receive certain federal funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which was created by Congress. That funding accounts for about 15-20% of the annual budget for most PBS stations.

Regarding the local stations you get via satellite...yes, you do pay for them. DirecTV/Dish/cable incur certain costs involved with picking up their signals and retransmitting them. It doesn't matter whether a station is a commercial local or an HBO feed. It costs real money to put this stuff up on the birds and if you want to watch it that way, you will pay for it....commercials or not. The argument you make about locals not being watched if they were not on satellite has been made, by the satellite companies and cable companies. No dice. Congress passed a law that allows these retransmission agreements and charges. I forget whether it was a D Congress or an R Congress that did it. It makes no difference.

And except for the news, I too watch so little OTA programming it's not even funny.

Back in the 1980s we chose to deregulate giant media holding corporations. So here we are. Is everyone happy?

:soapbox::barf:


----------



## Greg Bimson

inazsully said:


> OK, OK, By now it's pretty obvious that the blame game has been established. There are a few here that certainly seem to know what they are talking about regarding this issue and how it came to be. James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious what some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


Guess...

As of 1 November, the affilates for which Fox is negotiating are gone. Dish Network will then swallow almost whatever Fox is proposing (with some carrot dangled to save face) and have everything back up a few days later. My belief?

Take a look at the Viacom dispute about six years ago. All Viacom channels, which at the time were the MTV suite, the Nickelodeon suite and the CBS network were removed. Based on the reports at the time, Viacom ended up receiving pretty much everything they wanted.



James Long said:


> What would you do with the "must carry" local stations? They don't get paid for carriage. There would have to be some base level package for them. And the government would have to step in and define "distributed on a non-discriminatory manner" to allow DISH to charge their customers 50c for ABC and $1 for CBS or FOX (NBC would be a quarter).
> 
> Yeah, that is not going to fly.


Just like a la carte isn't either, but we always discuss it.


----------



## whatchel1

Kent Taylor said:


> I assume that Fox isn't getting paid during this dispute while Dish hasn't lowered my bill any.


Then contact them. I did the day after the S hit the fan. I'm going to be getting $5 off per month for a year. I had to speak w/ the exec resolution team but starting next month will be paying $5 less. They 1st wanted to give me 3 PPV coupons told them now thank you as that is SD & I have no use for it. It took some time on chat but I was given what I felt was a very reasonable response.


----------



## phrelin

inazsully said:


> OK, OK, By now it's pretty obvious that the blame game has been established. There are a few here that certainly seem to know what they are talking about regarding this issue and how it came to be, at least from the DISH standpoint. James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious how some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


I might be able to offer an "educated guess" after I see what happens with the Cablevision v Fox situation.

You can pick you're web story this morning, but USA Today had Cablevision/Fox dispute may keep baseball playoffs off the air which offers speculation by "informed talking heads" and this comment:


> Time to break out the outrage: It would be "unconscionable" for the companies to penalize sports and entertainment fans "who have no part in this fight," Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said in a letter urging the companies to settle.


----------



## mnassour

If Peter BLOODY King doesn't think I have a dog in this hunt, then he hasn't seen my satellite bill!

Idiot.


----------



## TBoneit

Curtis0620 said:


> Let's say $0.99 for a 30 minute show, $1.99 for a 60 minute show and $3.99 for a movie.
> 
> That would add up real fast.


And what would you pay each time a new show comes along to see if you like it?


----------



## GrumpyBear

whatchel1 said:


> Then contact them. I did the day after the S hit the fan. I'm going to be getting $5 off per month for a year. I had to speak w/ the exec resolution team but starting next month will be paying $5 less. They 1st wanted to give me 3 PPV coupons told them now thank you as that is SD & I have no use for it. It took some time on chat but I was given what I felt was a very reasonable response.


I was able to get the Multisports package credit for free. Online chat with a very helpful CSR, explained I only carry the Multisports Package during college football season, was watching the Charlie message about how they are offering up for free all the other Sports networks to others, while this was going on, why did I have to pay for something that, others were getting for free. 2 minutes later, $7 off the bill for 4 months, even get an extra month. I carefully avoided how much I love NFL Redzone though.


----------



## Curtis0620

TBoneit said:


> And what would you pay each time a new show comes along to see if you like it?


I don't believe in this model, so, I don't think the current system will change.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

tampa8 said:


> If the premise you believe in is that A La Carte will lower your bill, it will for a limited amount of people. When I see people say they only want to pick the few channels they watch, they better mean a very few if they expect to save money. As mentioned wherever you see examples of A La Carte, the pricing is in dollars, not cents. Even at only $4 a channel, you could get, what, about 10 channels before it is more than the Dish lower tier that includes locals? Yes, for a very few they would be happy with that.
> Will they be happy when the provider charges them $10 to add and subtract? Will they be happy when their favorite show moves to another channel they don't get and now have to? Or when their sports team is on another channel for the beginning of a game as often happens when another event goes overtime?
> 
> For most people, I firmly believe A La Carte would cost more and for once agree with a government (and others) studies that it would water down the choices and not encourage taking programming risks. Packaging is not perfect, not much is. But there are things I get to watch that I know I would not be able to afford, or would not have even been produced if A La Carte were the only alternative. I can only see it working if it is offered in addition to the packages being offered.


A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.

Offered a la carte, ESPN would have to charge 25 to 30 dollars in order to arrive at the same revenue (monthly fees + advertising) it generates today. But too many sports fans would balk at the 27.50 a month price, so ESPN would have to renegotiate its contracts with the many sports associations (NBA, NFL, MLB, et al.) .


----------



## sigma1914

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.
> 
> Offered a la carte, ESPN would have to charge 25 to 30 dollars in order to arrive at the same revenue (monthly fees + advertising) it generates today. But too many sports fans would balk at the 27.50 a month price, so ESPN would have to renegotiate its contracts with the many sports associations (NBA, NFL, MLB, et al.) .


I can't believe how wrong you are.


----------



## phrelin

sigma1914 said:


> Gloria_Chavez said:
> 
> 
> 
> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.
> 
> Offered a la carte, ESPN would have to charge 25 to 30 dollars in order to arrive at the same revenue (monthly fees + advertising) it generates today. But too many sports fans would balk at the 27.50 a month price, so ESPN would have to renegotiate its contracts with the many sports associations (NBA, NFL, MLB, et al.) .
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe how wrong you are.
Click to expand...

About which part? It's her opinion.

IMHO most subscribers would end up paying at about the same level over a decade as the market structure changed.

I also believe that the sports market structure would change resulting in less income to almost all elements of the market - owners, players, etc. But since Disney controls a package that includes two "must haves" for every home with children under 15 and every home with children over 15, I could be wrong.:grin:


----------



## epokopac

inazsully said:


> OK, OK, By now it's pretty obvious that the blame game has been established. There are a few here that certainly seem to know what they are talking about regarding this issue and how it came to be, at least from the DISH standpoint. James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious how some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


Neither side wants to be the first to "blink".

Fox "will" go dark on 11-1.

E* phone systems and servers "seize up" constantly from (as one example) a plethora of LIVID (!) customers that are expecting to watch the 5th and possible deciding game of the World Series (Philadelphia leading 3 games to 1). They don't want to hear about some "f**king" negotiations from a CSR. Requests for service cancellations go thru the roof.

I hope I'm very wrong.


----------



## SayWhat?

TBoneit said:


> And what would you pay each time a new show comes along to see if you like it?


Nothing. I don't pay for individual shows unless they are commercial free and on DVD or some other format that I can play and replay at will.


----------



## sigma1914

phrelin said:


> About which part? It's her opinion.
> 
> IMHO most subscribers would end up paying at about the same level over a decade as the market structure changed.
> 
> I also believe that the sports market structure would change resulting in less income to almost all elements of the market - owners, players, etc. But since Disney controls a package that includes two "must haves" for every home with children under 15 and every home with children over 15, I could be wrong.:grin:


In her comparison to music. Online music sales are in no way like TV. With music, you can buy songs rather than an album. That doesn't transfer over to TV. Who's going to buy 3 episodes of a whole season?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

sigma1914 said:


> In her comparison to music. Online music sales are in no way like TV. With music, you can buy songs rather than an album. That doesn't transfer over to TV. Who's going to buy 3 episodes of a whole season?


Can someone please jog my memory. Prior to 2001, I do recall many many music fans asking for single tracks, at the prorated price of the entire album. Fans of a certain group would say, "I bought the entire album, but would have been far more satisfied if I were able to buy individual tracks."

Well, technology (Napster) forced the music labels hands, and we are where we are.

As to your point regarding the appropriateness of my analogy, a piece from yesterday's WSJ...

----------
NFL vs. 'TV Everywhere'

TV's fight against Napsterization is far from won.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440004575547942371013452.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

The idea, championed by Time Warner's Jeff Bewkes and Comcast's Brian Roberts, is dubbed "TV Everywhere"-i.e., we'll give you digital entertainment via broadband, on any device regardless of location, as long as you keep subscribing to cable at home.

As far as we know, both men are trim and have 20-20 vision, but their confidence that their industry will not be Napsterized still fills us with manly admiration.

Consider some recent straws in the wind. Once again, many of the beneficiaries of the existing set-up-Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC-are having to sue start-ups for rebroadcasting local TV signals to paying subscribers over the Web without permission of the station owners.
----------

And you ask who's going to buy 3 episodes a an entire season, well, believe it or not, not every viewer watches an entire season of a TV show. Many indeed watch what they can, when they can, even if it means having to pay Amazon a couple of dollars to watch a certain episode, or watching it on Hulu for free.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> Funny. Eleven years ago both DirecTV and Dish Network "needed local television stations to compete with cable". And with those local stations, DirecTV and Dish Network became much more viable in the eyes of the general public, as one of the main obstacles of subscribing was overcome.
> 
> Which is the exact same problem with cable TV. Most people believed it was a half/half propostion: pay for cable to get your local channels and additional programming. EDIT: And if you go to the government with your hand out, asking to compete with another group, you'll be saddled with their regulations. So DBS received the local stations, and the must-carry and retransmission consent laws.
> 
> So of course what is being asked is to rollback TV like it was in the 1980's, just like Charlie Ergen and his quote about "when I was a kid, sports was on broadcast TV". Times change, and if you don't want to play the game, either get out or change the game...Dish Network has an interesting problem. They are the "value" provider. So they are already operating on thinner margins because their business plan WAS to be a few dollars cheaper than their competitors. Now, one of their programming providers is feeling shortchanged because all of their other partners offer their programming on the most basic tier. So, Dish Network now has three options:
> 
> 1) Swallow the proposal with pride
> 2) Forget the channels exist and hope not many jump ship
> 3) somewhere in between
> 
> The value provider may have to start dealing without more and more channels if they are simply looking to cut costs. The downside is they may have to deal with both a shrinking subscriber base and a shrinking base of possible customers that will now never consider Dish Network as an alternative because they don't have some of the higher-rated programming.It isn't broken if people aren't leaving in droves. You can't get 85 percent of the nation to agree on much; 85 percent of the nation is subscribing to some form of multichannel distribution.


Back then, the satellite carriers weren't carrying the locals at all. Now, they are. Locals on satellite makes it more attractive and a better sell to consumers, but that is why we need "must carry." "Retransmission consent" puts the locals into play at any time the local and the carrier can't reach an agreement. The problem exists for cable and for satellite.

As far as 85 percent subscription, that may be the case. But that figure won't last if programming providers keep forcing the rates through the roof. I stand by my statement: The system as it currently exists is unsustainable and is broken.


----------



## phrelin

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Can someone please jog my memory. Prior to 2001, I do recall many many music fans asking for single tracks, at the prorated price of the entire album. Fans of a certain group would say, "I bought the entire album, but would have been far more satisfied if I were able to buy individual tracks."
> 
> Well, technology (Napster) forced the music labels hands, and we are where we are.
> 
> As to your point regarding the appropriateness of my analogy, a piece from yesterday's WSJ...


What I liked about that article:


> In a sense, an antique manifestation of this conceit is the NFL's 72-hour rule, which has led to a spate of local game blackouts amid the current economic downturn. The rule lets the NFL block local broadcast of a game if tickets remain unsold three days before kick-off. This time, though, the Web is giving fans a way to fight back.
> 
> Yes, it's illegal; the pirate sites, which seem to be hosted offshore, come and go, but Twitter and Facebook allow viewers quickly to communicate how to find them. And because live broadcasts aren't complete files, they aren't digitally watermarked to allow Internet Service Providers to automatically detect and cut off unauthorized users.
> 
> Why is this important? Because the ability to lock up sports rights is a key underpinning of the existing TV power structure. We may find out next year how piratical Americans are willing to be when ESPN moves the college bowl games to cable from broadcast.


And this is discussion in a News Corp newspaper.


----------



## GrumpyBear

epokopac said:


> Neither side wants to be the first to "blink".
> 
> Fox "will" go dark on 11-1.
> 
> E* phone systems and servers "seize up" constantly from (as one example) a plethora of LIVID (!) customers that are expecting to watch the 5th and possible deciding game of the World Series (Philadelphia leading 3 games to 1). They don't want to hear about some "f**king" negotiations from a CSR. Requests for service cancellations go thru the roof.
> 
> I hope I'm very wrong.


Depending on how Fox and Cablevision contracts go, Dish could be just another story on Fox's greed. Fox is going to have more problems than Dish if Fox goes black on two different carriers at the sametime.

Lots of posts in this crazy thread, not many Dish Users that upset, a few, not many, lots of circle arguements, but not that many upset.

Fox O&O go black on Dish, while the same Stations are Black on CableVision as well. Fox will be the ones everybody is looking at and complaining about, as most will see that they are just trying to use the World Series as a Bargining ploy to squeeze money out of people.


----------



## inazsully

epokopac said:


> Neither side wants to be the first to "blink".
> 
> Fox "will" go dark on 11-1.
> 
> E* phone systems and servers "seize up" constantly from (as one example) a plethora of LIVID (!) customers that are expecting to watch the 5th and possible deciding game of the World Series (Philadelphia leading 3 games to 1). They don't want to hear about some "f**king" negotiations from a CSR. Requests for service cancellations go thru the roof.
> 
> I hope I'm very wrong.


I hope you're wrong too, but I think you may be correct. When this went beyond the first weekend the writing was on the wall. There is little incentive to end it prior to Nov. 1. If Dish waits till Nov. 15 they will have waited too long. I think FOX is the culprit here but they hold the hammer.


----------



## ggotch5445

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.
> 
> Offered a la carte, ESPN would have to charge 25 to 30 dollars in order to arrive at the same revenue (monthly fees + advertising) it generates today. But too many sports fans would balk at the 27.50 a month price, so ESPN would have to renegotiate its contracts with the many sports associations (NBA, NFL, MLB, et al.) .


My gosh, I'm so sorry to say that I have to disagree- for all the reasons that so many have pointed out.

Without the subsidising of programing in "packages", a la carte will always be more expensive, just like it is in a resturant, or for that matter, i-Tunes!

If you buy individual tracks at i-Tunes (a la carte), you pay .99 to 1.29; if you buy an entire album (likely with tracks you may not want or like), you get a discount on each of the roughly 12 songs on the album, translating into a 9.99 price usually.

Having said that, it would appear that we may be actually heading to an a la carte system of TV programming on the internet- for the short term. My guess would be that if/when that takes off, it will also eventually turn into packaged services.

As others have pointed out, people might prefer a la carte, but will choose packages when they speak for their wallets.


----------



## demsd

Satelliteracer said:


> I wonder why so many Canadians for so long had fake USA addresses then if tv is so great up there.


They get the same channels we do...


----------



## SayWhat?

Just took a quick count. Out of my AT250 package with Max movie channels added, I have 84 channels in my Guide menu. Some of those ard duplicates like Reelz and some of the Preview channels, and I have Dish 101 for the Charlie Chat and special announcements. Out of those, there might be 50 or so that I watch with any regularity, some maybe only for a single program a month or for a few minutes of news.

To get the ones I would really want ala carte of via distributor bundle, each channel would have to average $1 or less to get a better price than my annual AT250 fee.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> The Canadian system is still not a la carte. People are still forced to buy channels they may not want to get channels they do want. Subscribers pay $30 per month (channels included) before they get a single "theme pack". THEN add up to $6 per month for each theme pack. Not cheap. One might find a channel combination that beats the American way of charging for channels, but we can do that between DISH and DirecTV and other US options as well. One just has to pick the right channels.


You must have skipped over the A la Carte page where it says:

"*Enjoy the flexibility of choosing your channels one by one*. Customize your A la carte selection by choosing 15, 20 or 30 from a selection of nearly 100 available channels."

30 channels for $22 is nothing like being forced to pay for 150 channels you don't want out of a 200 channel package.


----------



## demsd

djlong said:


> There's something being forgotten in the a-la-carte debate.
> 
> Right now, channels are being paid whether they are watched or not.
> 
> I wonder what would happen to the advertising rates for a channel that could say the following:
> 
> Yes, we lost 75% of our "households" when we went to a-la-carte - BUT, the remaining 25% that we have are people who have PICKED US DELIBERATELY. These are much more attentive eyeballs. In other words, is it worth more to the advertiser to pay a channel that says "We're in 100 million households" or "25 million households are paying to see our programming"?


That works the same for content the networks put out. One of the biggest issues with NBC's ratings we learned during the Conan/Leno debacle was that they stopped developing content. Those networks that dump worn out, already watched 20 x's programming on it viewers would could also lose if they did not become creative with their programming.


----------



## Ira Lacher

Satelliteracer said:


> How do you think the MSO's will react to that? Will ESPN, in your example, be willing to throw dirt in the face of all these companies that pay them handsomely for content? Not everyone is going to have a HD internet connected television. Secondly, not everyone (especially rural areas) is going to have the broadband pipe to deliver that content.


If Fox loses its gamble with DISH, and Charlie stands firm in the face of the anticipated churn from losing the Fox RSNs and most likely, the O&O locals, the programmers will have no choice but to accept less money from the sat and cable middlemen. They might then try to recoup their losses by sweetening the pot for individuals to take their services a la carte over the internet -- perhaps allowing them access to ESPN3 only if they take service over the internet. But whatever happens, the current paradigm is doomed, IMHO.


----------



## sigma1914

demsd said:


> You must have skipped over the A la Carte page where it says:
> 
> "*Enjoy the flexibility of choosing your channels one by one*. Customize your A la carte selection by choosing 15, 20 or 30 from a selection of nearly 100 available channels."
> 
> 30 channels for $22 is nothing like being forced to pay for 150 channels you don't want out of a 200 channel package.


Read page 2: http://www.bell.ca/web/tv/en/on/pdfs/channels/channels.pdf

Step 1 - CHOOSE A PLAN, Theme pack selection starts at the $48 package! That gets you 3 themes. Then, step 2 has HD add ons which is $5 each or $10 for 3 themes. Yeah, al a carte is sooooo much cheaper.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> The programmers still want to reach "everyone". The compromise is to place them in AT250 and let people with lower packages buy the channel a la carte. Not many would accept the position of a la carte only.


Packaging networks should not mean that 70 out of the 200 channels you get should be CD music channels, or 10 shopping networks if I am not a TV shopping channel nut, and 10 religious channels if I am an atheist. Or do you personally like paying for those type of channels?


----------



## demsd

sigma1914 said:


> Read page 2: http://www.bell.ca/web/tv/en/on/pdfs/channels/channels.pdf
> 
> Step 1 - CHOOSE A PLAN, Theme pack selection starts at the $48 package! That gets you 3 themes. Then, step 2 has HD add ons which is $5 each or $10 for 3 themes. Yeah, al a carte is sooooo much cheaper.


A Plan is Not a theme pack. Basic is like $18.27 a month - BUT you can choose from the 100 channel line up in that plan - and if you want to add a theme pack or premium movie package, you can.


----------



## Satelliteracer

TheRatPatrol said:


> How about packaging channels together like this, by ownership/distributor, then offering those packages (not the individual channels) al la carte?


Good luck with that one because some programmers demand same distribution tiers or no agreement. Sports channel XYZ demands to be on same tier as sports channel ABC. Cartoon programmer 123 demands to be on same tier at cartoon programmer ABC.

So on and so forth.


----------



## swallman

demsd said:


> A Plan is Not a theme pack. Basic is like $18.27 a month - BUT you can choose from the 100 channel line up in that plan - and if you want to add a theme pack or premium movie package, you can.


I went through their website like a new customer, and the cheapest plan was $ 30.00 which includes a bunch of channels. Didn't see anywhere on there where you can START with ala carte.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> What annoys me the most about this issue is Fox's advertising. Instead of telling their lost viewers that they are working on a deal to have their channels restored they are spending their money advertising competing systems. It is getting to the point where I can't watch other Fox related channels due to the number of "dump DISH" ads. It reminds me of protesters with picket signs ... not a company trying to get their channels restored.


Another aspect of this kind of negative campaigning... One day FOX and Dish will come to an agreement again... so on that day will FOX run several weeks of "Go to Dish, we like them now" ad campaigns?


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.


Study after study indicates this statement is inaccurate.


----------



## Satelliteracer

demsd said:


> They get the same channels we do...


Actually, no they don't.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> Fox created the "GetWhatIPaidFor.com" domain on August 18th. DISH created the "JoinTheFightAgainstFox.com" domain on September 21st. That is a pretty good illustration of Fox's intentions in this matter.
> 
> Fox's decision to attack DISH and tell people to change providers was not an act of desperation at the end of negotiations. It is an assault planned at least weeks in advance.


Nice! I never thought to do a whois on the domain. That being the case, its now obvious that FOX had an intention to strong arm some carrier. Considering that DISH has a reputation for fighting back against carrier fee increases, FOX probably figured DISH would be the first carrier to bite the proverbial bullet.


----------



## demsd

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually, no they don't.


Oh, sorry you're right. We don't get Animal Planet, Bio, Discovery, Food Network, MTV, etc here in the states.


----------



## demsd

Kent Taylor said:


> I assume that Fox isn't getting paid during this dispute while Dish hasn't lowered my bill any.


Call DISH - they will give you a credit.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.


Not a good example, and it doesn't even work.

You can't compare purchasing one song vs an album to purchasing one TV channel vs several TV channels. You *could* compare one song to one TV program, though... iTunes does let you purchase individual TV shows just like you can purchase individual songs.

The album price, though, is usually a few dollars cheaper than buying each song individually... to use your music example... so you only save money IF you only wanted a few songs. IF you want the whole album, then you pay less for the bundle than a la carte.

I won't even get into how the quality has gone down too... for two reasons:

1. Digital music downloads are not the same quality of audio as their CD or vinyl album counterparts, so you're actually sacrificing quality too.

2. It's easier for less-skilled musicians to release digitally than it was to publish a physical media... so we get a lot more watered-down downloads than we used to have physical media.

Meanwhile... to re-iterate why this was a bad comparison.

Songs are part of an album which are sold alongside other albums in a store.

TV shows are part of a network which are sold alongside other networks.

That's why you can't compare picking any song to picking any network... They aren't on the same level of scale relative to the product.


----------



## demsd

Greg Bimson said:



> I don't get to ear-mark how my tax money is spent or choose the suppliers of the wheat used in a box of spaghetti.


Do you spend $100/month on spaghetti and not eat it?


----------



## demsd

inazsully said:


> OK, OK, By now it's pretty obvious that the blame game has been established. There are a few here that certainly seem to know what they are talking about regarding this issue and how it came to be, at least from the DISH standpoint. James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious how some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


I think that will depend on what happens with Cablevision tonight. If they lose FOX programming, I think FOX will end up blinking first.


----------



## GrumpyBear

I like the idea of how Bell is doing it. Basic package and you add the themes, an the HD is Free when you order HD equipment. Not a bad way at all. $61 and I pick the 6 extra themes I want, Free HD, all for the same price, plus network timeshifting too boot.
Not bad for $61, not bad at all. Now if they only use EchoStar equipment.


----------



## demsd

swallman said:


> I went through their website like a new customer, and the cheapest plan was $ 30.00 which includes a bunch of channels. Didn't see anywhere on there where you can START with ala carte.


Select QC as your province, you'll see something different.


----------



## sigma1914

demsd said:


> Oh, sorry you're right. We don't get Animal Planet, Bio, Discovery, Food Network, MTV, etc here in the states.


There's 111 logos there. We receive 27. That's not very supportive of your claim that "They get the same channels we do..."


----------



## ggotch5445

While I still believe that this will all work out, in 5 weeks more, or less, I am coming around to a new thought, after reading the thread here and at Satellite Guys: why don't we just petition Dish to just let Fox go, and donate Fox's percentage of our rates to charity? 

Imagine millions of viewers pushing Dish to not renew any contract with Fox, so that the funds could be used to help folks? I, for one, would love to see a cash reward given to the rescue workers that descended into tghe Chilean mine to help get the miners out.

Bill O'reilly would have to declare Dish, and its subscribers "Patriots", for their unselfish donation towards the needy.

(takes tongue out of cheek)


----------



## Greg Bimson

demsd said:


> Oh, sorry you're right. We don't get Animal Planet, Bio, Discovery, Food Network, MTV, etc here in the states.


You might want to look at those logos a little more closely.


demsd said:


> Do you spend $100/month on spaghetti and not eat it?


What does the price have to do with tea in China?

My point is still valid; I do not get to buy a box of spaghetti and demand that the wheat be from Italy or that another wheat producer is used.

You purchase AT200? There are lots of ingredients in there to make that up. It doesn't matter if you watch 199 of them or only 1 of them.


----------



## Satelliteracer

demsd said:


> Oh, sorry you're right. We don't get Animal Planet, Bio, Discovery, Food Network, MTV, etc here in the states.




ESPN missing....
ESPN2.....missing
ESPN News...missing
Only two HBO channels
ABC Family...missing
Most RSNs...missing
Big Ten Network...missing
Disney...missing
Starz...missing
NBA TV...missing
Nicktoons...missing
Military channel...missing
Cinemx channels...missing
Showtime channels...missing
Etc, etc, etc. You get the idea

I'm not trying to pick a fight. Of course there is overlap, but is it any surprise their prices are different when they don't have ESPN in their lineup, the most expensive channel there is? Same goes with a number of other channels that are very expensive to US operators that they don't carry, thus reducing those costs. You're not comparing apples to apples.


----------



## demsd

sigma1914 said:


> There's 111 logos there. We receive 27. That's not very supportive of your claim that "They get the same channels we do..."


"Pickle, Pickle!" I am not that anal....

They get channels we do. Either way, you are missing the point. We were discussing A La Carte and I was pointing out that Canucks have more choice over what programming they pay for - especially considering they can actually CHOOSE channels from the 100 channel lineup.


----------



## sigma1914

demsd said:


> "Pickle, Pickle!" I am not that anal....
> 
> They get channels we do. Either way, you are missing the point. We were discussing A La Carte and I was pointing out that Canucks have more choice over what programming they pay for - especially considering they can actually CHOOSE channels from the 100 channel lineup.


Keep back pedaling. 

They get a few channels we do. I still don't see where you only choose channels you want.


----------



## demsd

Satelliteracer said:


> ESPN missing....
> ESPN2.....missing
> ESPN News...missing
> Only two HBO channels
> ABC Family...missing
> Most RSNs...missing
> Big Ten Network...missing
> Disney...missing
> Starz...missing
> NBA TV...missing
> Nicktoons...missing
> Military channel...missing
> Cinemx channels...missing
> Showtime channels...missing
> Etc, etc, etc. You get the idea


:eek2: at the Entire list.










Remember, this is Canada we are referring to, not the US.


----------



## demsd

sigma1914 said:


> Keep back pedaling.
> 
> They get a few channels we do. I still don't see where you only choose channels you want.


Use QC as your province and you will :eek2: it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Satelliteracer said:


> ESPN missing....
> ESPN2.....missing
> ESPN News...missing
> Only two HBO channels
> ABC Family...missing
> Most RSNs...missing
> Big Ten Network...missing
> Disney...missing
> Starz...missing
> NBA TV...missing
> Nicktoons...missing
> Military channel...missing
> Cinemx channels...missing
> Showtime channels...missing
> Etc, etc, etc. You get the idea
> 
> I'm not trying to pick a fight. Of course there is overlap, but is it any surprise their prices are different when they don't have ESPN in their lineup, the most expensive channel there is? Same goes with a number of other channels that are very expensive to US operators that they don't carry, thus reducing those costs. You're not comparing apples to apples.


Bunch of channels they get that aren't available in the US as well. Not to sure about the al la Carte, but I really enjoy adding what themes I want to add to my basice package. Granted the Timeshifting would never fly here in the States, sure wish it would though. Bell offers TSN and TSN 2 as thier ESPN's, it more national to them.


----------



## runner861

grooves12 said:


> Well, the thing is, it WORKS... Fox is not harmed in any way by these negotiations. Customers are naive and switch providers whenever these things happen, not realizing that by doing so they are indirectly agreeing to a price increase and encourage the tactics of the network.


Does anyone have any idea of how many subscribers are actually changing providers? Common sense tells me that the number would be very few. It is a pain to have a technician out to the house to rewire/replace equipment, it may cost money, and people have a lot of other things to think about, like job and family obligations.


----------



## sigma1914

demsd said:


> :eek2: at the Entire list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 142 logos....45 we get.
> 
> Remember, this is Canada we are referring to, not the US.





demsd said:


> Use QC as your province and you will :eek2: it.


So one province gets to choose & others don't?


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> So one province gets to choose & others don't?


Quebec has lots of issues, and VERY different from the rest of Canada. Its a French thing.


----------



## demsd

sigma1914 said:


> So one province gets to choose & others don't?


It may be that it is not available everywhere just yet. I seem to remember a press release that was dated earlier in the year.

EDIT

http://eliasmakos.com/2010/02/15/bell-launches-a-la-carte-options-in-quebec-with-a-huge-catch/


----------



## demsd

GrumpyBear said:


> Quebec has lots of issues, and VERY different from the rest of Canada. Its a French thing.


Careful now. I am French. In fact, there is a town with my last name in QC.


----------



## GrumpyBear

demsd said:


> Careful now. I am French. In fact, there is a town with my last name in QC.


There is a Town and College with my last name in Ontario. 

Quebec is the oddball part of Canada.


----------



## demsd

QC is nice though. Family had a cabin there many years ago.


----------



## demsd

Greg Bimson said:


> What does the price have to do with tea in China?


Price is part of what the discussion is about, isn't it?



Greg Bimson said:


> My point is still valid; I do not get to buy a box of spaghetti and demand that the wheat be from Italy or that another wheat producer is used.


But you do buy it and then throw it out when you get home, right?



Greg Bimson said:


> You purchase AT200? There are lots of ingredients in there to make that up. It doesn't matter if you watch 199 of them or only 1 of them.


If the spaghetti you were whipping up for your kids tonight had tainted ingredients from China, would you use said ingredients and force your kids to eat it? Or, would you toss the poison and get just the ingredients you wanted to feed your kids?

Really? You position is that if there is only one channel in the AT200 that I watch, its worth the $54.99/month?


----------



## swallman

demsd said:


> Select QC as your province, you'll see something different.


Did that and it still says I gotta pay $ 18 to get the "Basic" package containing 100 channels (with probably a bunch of crap nobody wants).

EDITED: Ok, I selected "A la carte 30" and for $ 40 you get the 100 channels plus 30 a la carte you can pick from.


----------



## demsd

swallman said:


> Did that and it still says I gotta pay $ 18 to get the "Basic" package containing 100 channels (with probably a bunch of crap nobody wants).


Seems I am repeating myself, again.

Huh? I don't get it... what you mean A La Carte?


----------



## Satelliteracer

With all due respect, you're still comparing apples to couches. On so many levels. A nation of 330million people vs a nation of 40million. Production costs of content in one country vs the other. Infrastructure to deliver content in one country compared to the other. Even the channel counts...are the channels you've listed comparable? My Canadian relatives say not even close. ESPN's equivalent in Canada...is it really equivalent? No. Etc, etc. There's one major broadcast network in Canada, not four. The costs to run those 4 is exponentially higher than the CBC. 

If this was a slam dunk as some make it out to be, don't you think a company in the States would have done this on a value play? Sezmi has tried and the offering is incredibly sparse for a reason. If it was easy, wouldn't the NY Times and other publications illustrate that, when instead they point out clearly the shortcomings?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Sezmi's offerings may be "incredibly sparse", but it has some smart believers. 90M in VC funding. If I had an opportunity, I'd invest in the company. Very scaleable, and I do believe that there is a sizable market for the product (PayTV - sports programming) + DVR + VOD.


----------



## phrelin

Satelliteracer said:


> If it was easy, wouldn't the NY Times and other publications illustrate that, when instead they point out clearly the shortcomings?


The NY Times is one of the few newspapers that isn't owned by an owner of a TV station or other media related company. But they are a minority stakeholder in the Boston Red Sox.

So, I'm not certain where one could get a completely fair thorough analysis of the complexity, pros and cons, and possible outcomes.


----------



## SayWhat?

What does Canada have to do with the Fox >> Dish dispute?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> Really? You position is that if there is only one channel in the AT200 that I watch, its worth the $54.99/month?


You weren't asking me... but I'll answer.

IF you are only watching one channel in AT200 why on earth are you subscribing to that package?

Are you only watching one channel and that channel is not available in a lower tier?

Generally speaking, anyone who watches any TV at all is highly unlikely to only want to watch one single channel that is only available in one of the higher tiers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> What does Canada have to do with the Fox >> Dish dispute?


Pretty much nothing... and it really isn't even a good example of "a la carte" because it doesn't seem to be a la carte. It seems to just be a different way of bundling.

I am not really seeing the relevance, especially since Dish customers aren't threatening to move to Canada if FOX goes dark at the end of the month.


----------



## Satelliteracer

phrelin said:


> The NY Times is one of the few newspapers that isn't owned by an owner of a TV station or other media related company. But they are a minority stakeholder in the Boston Red Sox.
> 
> So, I'm not certain where one could get a completely fair thorough analysis of the complexity, pros and cons, and possible outcomes.


Perhaps, but I always found that the NY Times didn't shy away from taking on corporate America.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Sezmi's offerings may be "incredibly sparse", but it has some smart believers. 90M in VC funding. If I had an opportunity, I'd invest in the company. Very scaleable, and I do believe that there is a sizable market for the product (PayTV - sports programming) + DVR + VOD.


I do not disagree with you. It has a place in the discussion and they may get a determined following. As I've said many times to friends and family, choose what is right for you. For some people, it's rabbit ears. For others it's Sezmi. For others, DIRECTV or FIOS. Etc, etc.


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> You weren't asking me... but I'll answer.
> 
> IF you are only watching one channel in AT200 why on earth are you subscribing to that package?
> 
> Are you only watching one channel and that channel is not available in a lower tier?
> 
> Generally speaking, anyone who watches any TV at all is highly unlikely to only want to watch one single channel that is only available in one of the higher tiers.


Another one who comments on one line without reading the whole post.

Greg Bimson said:



> You purchase AT200? There are lots of ingredients in there to make that up. *It doesn't matter if you watch 199 of them or only 1 of them*.


To which I said:



> If the spaghetti you were whipping up for your kids tonight had tainted ingredients from China, would you use said ingredients and force your kids to eat it? Or, would you toss the poison and get just the ingredients you wanted to feed your kids?
> 
> Really? Your position is that if there is only one channel in the AT200 that I watch, its worth the $54.99/month?


Don't take things out of context. I never said or suggested that I, or anyone else, would pay $54.99 to watch one channel out of 200.


----------



## scooper

If anybody STILL has doubts that it is FOX causing this ruckus - 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19342518#post19342518


----------



## Davenlr

scooper said:


> If anybody STILL has doubts that it is FOX causing this ruckus -
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19342518#post19342518


I hope cablevision holds out. Id love to see Fox's advertisers Monday morning after paying big bucks for NFL and baseball coverage trying to get Fox to explain why 5 million people didnt get to see the ads they paid for.

If Dish and Cablevision hold out, it will bring Fox to its knee's pretty quick.


----------



## demsd

Satelliteracer said:


> With all due respect, you're still comparing apples to couches. On so many levels. A nation of 330million people vs a nation of 40million. Production costs of content in one country vs the other. Infrastructure to deliver content in one country compared to the other. Even the channel counts...are the channels you've listed comparable? My Canadian relatives say not even close. ESPN's equivalent in Canada...is it really equivalent? No. Etc, etc. There's one major broadcast network in Canada, not four. The costs to run those 4 is exponentially higher than the CBC.
> 
> If this was a slam dunk as some make it out to be, don't you think a company in the States would have done this on a value play? Sezmi has tried and the offering is incredibly sparse for a reason. If it was easy, wouldn't the NY Times and other publications illustrate that, when instead they point out clearly the shortcomings?


Now you are comparing shoes to suitcases.

The Obvious point is not population, or infrastructure [e.g. what it costs NBC or ESPN to put out its content]. I could say it would cost NBC and ESPN less if they cut expenses, like the salary of their CEO's, which in turn would reduce the cost to us. Fact still remains, Animal Planet here can't be that much different in Canada, unless of course the animals on the Animal planet Canada are animated. Is ESPN Classic different in Canada? Does the Bio channel in Canada only do segments on Canadians?

And what does the 4 to 1 ratio for broadcast networks have to do with anything? Your point is that it is cheaper to own and operate a network in Canada because there are less people to watch your network? That seems back asswords.

None of that has anything to do with A La Carte or being forced to pay for shopping and religious networks or CD music channels. Obviously Bell TV has the ability to offer A La Carte programming, regardless of what networks are available there or how good they are. I should not have to pay more so sports fans can watch sports if I don't. I am an atheist, I don't want to pay for religious channels. I have a radio, MP3 Player and the Internet, I don't want to pay for CD/Satellite music channels. You are comfortable with that, I am not. So I don't care what you call it. Call it A la Carte or Opt-Out. Either way, forcing people to pay for certain channels so you can get the channels you want is bull - and everyone here knows it - and you can fight city hall.


----------



## demsd

Davenlr said:


> I hope cablevision holds out. Id love to see Fox's advertisers Monday morning after paying big bucks for NFL and baseball coverage trying to get Fox to explain why 5 million people didnt get to see the ads they paid for.
> 
> If Dish and Cablevision hold out, it will bring Fox to its knee's pretty quick.


Both should hold out - in fact I would suggest that they tell FOX they want a 50% reduction or they can kiss butt. And so should every carrier who has a contract with FOX that is about to expire.


----------



## GrumpyBear

It will be really hard for Fox not to look like the bad guy to the majority of fans in the Nation, once they are not being shown on 2 different carriers at the same time.


----------



## Satelliteracer

demsd said:


> Now you are comparing shoes to suitcases.
> 
> Call it A la Carte or Opt-Out. Either way, forcing people to pay for certain channels so you can get the channels you want is bull - and everyone here knows it - and you can fight city hall.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion. It's clear everyone here doesn't know it, just as it's clear that the New York Times, USA Today, Congress, several universities also don't know it. Good discussion back and forth....not sure why CEO pay got brought into it, that's a drop in the bucket compared to real costs but whatever.

Peace


----------



## JackBauer112

RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


----------



## TulsaOK

JackBauer112 said:


> RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


That's just as cute as it was back in post #1543. :lol:


----------



## mnassour

demsd said:


> Both should hold out - in fact I would suggest that they tell FOX they want a 50% reduction or they can kiss butt. And so should every carrier who has a contract with FOX that is about to expire.


That would be SO brilliant! Time Warner, CableVision, Dish and DirecTV, all tell Fox that they're just not worth it.

They're really not, you know. :rant:


----------



## HobbyTalk

Gloria_Chavez said:


> A la carte will lower the cable bill of most subscribers, in the same way that a la carte has significantly reduced the amount of money we pay for music.


Really? Where can I buy single CDs? Comparing CDs to downloads is comparing oranges to apples. Downloads are less expensive because there is no physical media, no distribution costs, no overhead for a bricks/mortar, no employees to pay, etc.


----------



## calgary2800

I have CI on dish, although its my last day with dish. Anyway, why is the Pit-NYI game on? It is FSN Pittsburgh, I dont understand. Someone fill me in why this game is on.


----------



## Greg Bimson

demsd said:


> Really? You position is that if there is only one channel in the AT200 that I watch, its worth the $54.99/month?


Why not? People buy a package channels based upon both price and the makeup of those channels. You're acting as if it matters whether or not you watch ESPN.

It doesn't. Your television provider has taken care of that choice for you. They package the channels; the programmers can negotiate to be placed in the tiers the providers created.

This is NOT Canada, it isn't even all of Canada that has a la carte, and the providers there are extremely regulated.


----------



## SayWhat?

So Fox went dark on Cablevision too?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19343485#post19343485


----------



## SayWhat?

> LOS ANGELES -- For the third time in less than a year, Cablevision has caused a television service disruption in the New York and Philadelphia areas by demanding preferential terms and allowing its agreements to carry WNYW FOX5, WWOR My9, WTXF FOX29, FOX Deportes, FOX Business Network, and Nat Geo WILD to expire.
> 
> Beginning on Saturday, October 16, Cablevision subscribers will lose FOX5, My9 and FOX29, home of Major League Baseball's National League Championship Series and the World Series, the NFL on FOX, American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, the local news and other prominent programming.


http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/15/2559031/cablevision-drops-fox.html



> Fox Says It Is Off Cablevision
> Cablevision viewers no longer have access to WNYW, WWOR after Oct. 15 midnight deadline
> By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 10/16/2010 12:14:12 AM
> 
> Fox said early Saturday that as of midnight, Cablevision viewers no longer have access to WNYW and WWOR, "home of Major League Baseball's National League Championship Series and the World Series, the NFL on Fox, American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, the local news and other prominent programming."
> 
> Midnight Oct. 15 was the deadline for the two sides to come to terms on a new carriage deal.
> 
> Fox rejected calls from some in Washington Friday to keep the stations on and submit to outside arbitration.


http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458497-Fox_Says_It_Is_Off_Cablevision.php


----------



## Slamminc11

SayWhat? said:


> http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/15/2559031/cablevision-drops-fox.html
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458497-Fox_Says_It_Is_Off_Cablevision.php


Good Job Cablevision! Now let's hope Dish stands tall as well and doesn't cave to Fox!!!


----------



## Davenlr

SayWhat? said:


> http://www.sunherald.com/2010/10/15/2559031/cablevision-drops-fox.html
> 
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/458497-Fox_Says_It_Is_Off_Cablevision.php


Dont suppose Sun Herald is in bed with Fox do you? Talk about a one sided article.

I also noted on the "keep fox on" website Fox 5 New York linked to, it listed several alternative providers to Cablevision customers...and DISH network wasnt one of those listed....


----------



## SayWhat?

It looks more like a press release than an article.


----------



## SayWhat?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-16/news-corp-pulls-fox-from-cablevision-in-fee-dispute.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575555200939876456.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...bbo.cablevision.fox.dispute.summary.box.0127/

Wall Street Journal, Businessweek and SI have picked it up already.

Not a word about Dish in any of them that I've found.

Edit, BW has a reference to Dish:



> Separately, Dish Network Corp., based in Englewood, Colorado, is battling with News Corp. over costs to carry Fox regional sports networks and two cable channels. Those networks went dark on the satellite operators' system on Oct. 1 and remain off while the two parties negotiate. The dispute may intensify later this month when Dish's contract to carry the Fox broadcast network, the home of "The Simpsons," expires.


From the WSJ article:



> Cablevision said in a statement that it already pays News Corp. more than $70 million a year for its channels and that the company is demanding more than $150 million a year for the same programming. Fox has declined to comment on those figures.


More than double?


----------



## Davenlr

Hope Murdock rots in his greed.


----------



## phrelin

Just in case someone doesn't understand that this is a news release from Fox, from Businesswire, the news release web site used by most major corporations:



> October 16, 2010 12:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> 
> Cablevision Drops Fox
> 
> _Cable Operator Declares "Impasse" at 8pm and Refuses to Negotiate Further
> 
> Cablevision's Demand for Preferential Treatment Forces Viewers to Lose National League Championship Series, World Series, NFL on FOX, Glee, House, American Idol, The Simpsons, and Other Prominent Programming on FOX5, My9 and FOX29
> 
> FOX Deportes, FOX Business Network, and Nat Geo WILD Also Dropped _​
> LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--For the third time in less than a year, Cablevision has caused a television service disruption in the New York and Philadelphia areas by demanding preferential terms and allowing its agreements to carry WNYW FOX5, WWOR My9, WTXF FOX29, FOX Deportes, FOX Business Network, and Nat Geo WILD to expire.
> 
> "We deeply regret that Cablevision refuses to recognize the value of our programming"
> 
> Beginning on Saturday, October 16, Cablevision subscribers will lose FOX5, My9 and FOX29, home of Major League Baseball's National League Championship Series and the World Series, the NFL on FOX, American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, Family Guy, the local news and other prominent programming.
> 
> "We deeply regret that Cablevision refuses to recognize the value of our programming," said WNYW FOX5 and WWOR MY9 Vice President and General Manager Lew Leone. "Given the current circumstances, we encourage our viewers to visit www.keepfoxon.com or call 1-866-KEEP-FOX to learn of alternate providers in their area."
> 
> Fox has submitted numerous proposals to the cable operator in an effort to secure an agreement. However, Cablevision has refused to negotiate in good faith and rejected all of Fox's offers.
> 
> "In an effort to avoid this very situation, we started this process in May and made numerous reasonable proposals to Cablevision," said Mike Hopkins, President, Fox Networks Affiliate Sales and Marketing. "However, we remain far apart and Cablevision has made it clear that they do not share our view regarding the value of Fox's networks. After days of posturing and the appearance of negotiating, they formally stopped even the pretense of negotiating at 8pm - declaring an "impasse" - and made no further efforts toward reaching a new agreement before the expiration." Hopkins also said, "We remain willing to negotiate and hope that future talks ultimately will be productive, but as of now Cablevision has declined to counter our most recent proposal. Regrettably, their efforts were focused more on calls for government intervention than constructive negotiations."
> 
> Cablevision spent most of Friday refusing to engage in constructive bargaining - instead issuing statements calling for the FCC and others to mandate binding arbitration. Fox rejected those demands saying that Cablevision needed to stop hiding behind a call for government intervention and negotiate in good faith.
> 
> Fox stated that direct business-to-business negotiation is the only way to resolve the issue, and noted that Cablevision is being hypocritical by claiming that Fox's proposals are not fair. According to SNL Kagan, in 2009 Cablevision paid itself and charged other pay-TV companies considerably more for just two of its channels (MSG and MSG Plus) than it paid Fox for 12 of its channels, even though the Fox channels enjoy significantly higher ratings.
> 
> While Fox assures its fans that the company will continue to negotiate in hopes of reaching a successful conclusion, viewers have options and can visit www.keepfoxon.com or call 1-866-KEEP-FOX to find an alternate provider in their area.
> 
> *Fox Networks Affiliate Sales and Marketing* is a unit of Fox Networks Group (FNG) and includes 37 domestic programming services in which FNG holds interests. Together these networks reach more than 550 million subscribing television homes and represent one of the media industry's largest and most diverse programming groups. Fox Networks Sales and Marketing distributes FX, National Geographic Channel, Nat Geo WILD, Fox Reality Channel, Fox Movie Channel, FUEL TV, FSN and 19 regional cable sports networks, SPEED, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Soccer Plus, Fox College Sports, FOX Deportes and the Big Ten Network (co-venture with the Big Ten Conference). FNG also includes the FOX broadcast network, Fox Digital Media, and Fox Sports Enterprises, which manages interests in sports franchises and leading statistical information provider STATS, LLC.
> 
> --Fox Networks--​
> Contacts
> 
> Fox Cable Networks
> Scott Grogin, 310-369-4733
> [email protected]
> or
> Brian Peterson, 310-369-0009
> [email protected]


The press is lazy, Cablevision will comment at some point. It would be nice if Ergen commented on the record. But now the plot thickens.


----------



## SayWhat?

> In ads critical of News Corp. and Fox, Cablevision is saying that it currently pays $70 million a year for various Fox channels and now is being asked for $150 million. Fox has countered that Cablevision pays itself $124 million a year for its MSG sports channels, which generally have much smaller audiences than those of WNYW and WWOR.
> 
> According to people familiar with the talks, Fox wants a deal that will eventually see its channels get in the neighborhood of $1 per subscriber, per month. The long-term deal would probably start at roughly 50 cents per subscriber. A person close to Cablevision says one issue is what Fox wants for several small cable channels, such as Fox Business and National Geographic Channel, as part of a deal for the Fox stations.
> 
> "News Corp. is continuing to demand more for Fox 5 than Cablevision pays all of the other broadcast stations combined," Cablevision said.


LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ent...ions-are-off-of-cablevision-system-homes.html


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> I am an atheist, I don't want to pay for religious channels.


Let's not make this a religious thread... but I will say this in response.

I too am an atheist, but have NO problem with religious channels being included in packages that I subscribe to. There are lots of religious folk chipping in for channels that I watch that likely have things they would rather not view.

Back on topic... We have what we have because of free market. A few random people on the internet (ALL of US in this forum) are not really representative of the folk that drove things away from pure a la carte and towards a tiered/package system.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Kent Taylor said:


> That's just as cute as it was back in post #1543. :lol:


Maybe he's just mad because FOX cancelled him last season!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

How's this for a conspiracy theory...

Dish and Rainbow had disagreements over Voom HD, which led to all of those channels being dropped and Rainbow suing Dish while Voom effectively closed its doors as a property with Dish having been the only national carrier.

We all figured that meant no IFC, WE, or AMC HD because why would Rainbow play ball with Dish with that suit in play?

BUT... we were all surprised to get AMCHD a few weeks back without much fanfare.

Then Dish and FOX have problems... and now Cablevision and FOX, resulting in FOX being dropped from Cablevision.

Am I the only one who had a light-bulb moment and thought... what if Rainbow and Dish played nice with AMCHD and each agreed to help the other out by playing the same hardball with FOX?

Strange bedfellows, or so the saying goes...


----------



## Davenlr

I think it would be hilarious if the FCC pulled all of FOX's broadcast licenses, since pulling them off cable systems is not in the public interest anymore, since the public now has no access to emergency information from those stations. Im sure the FCC could find some violation and make it stick.

Seriously tho, Ill bet the local electronics retailers shelves will be bare of rabbit ears and any other indoor antenna they might have had in stock.


----------



## whatchel1

Additional source that Cablevision didn't knuckle under : http://www.fangsbites.com/2010/10/breaking-news-cablevision-pulls-fox.html So now that's 5 mil and if E* doesn't that's another roughly 13 mil. That's gonna be 18 mil less eyes, if I were an advertiser I'd be calling and say you owe me a big chunk of money back. Ad rates are set by possible number of viewers.


----------



## Davenlr

Cant cablevision pick up a "significantly viewed" Fox station from a nearby market? I know several cable systems here offer more than one DMA's network channels.


----------



## phrelin

I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter:

I was disturbed earlier this month when News Corp's Fox pulled a group of cable sports and entertainment channels off of my television signal provider Dish Network. I was further troubled by the fact that News Corp has threatened to pull 27 Fox local broadcast channels on November 1. This is all because Fox is demanding an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent for these channels.

Last night News Corporation pulled all its Fox cable and broadcast channels from Cablevision, a cable company serving 3 million customers including New York City and Philadelphia. It has been reported that News Corp is seeking a 150% rate increase from Cablevision.

What is most troubling is that neither the FCC nor Congress seems to care even though:

This involves FCC licensed broadcast channels;
The nation is in the middle of a recession; and
This involves the telecast of World Series and other professional sports league events, leagues that have been exempted by Congress from laws against monopolies.
That Congress in 2003 allowed Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to keep channels it gained in a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the FCC is also troubling.

I would like to know before election day where you stand on this matter as your response, or lack thereof, will affect how I will vote.

Sincerely,​Do I think it will do any good? Who knows? But there is an election coming up in a couple of weeks.


----------



## SayWhat?

It's spreading across the news sites like wildfire.

Why didn't that happen a few weeks back with Dish?


----------



## Davenlr

Watching this drama unfold sure beats watching FOX. My company isnt even in the dispute (yet), but ive blocked all my Fox stations from my guide, just out of solidarity. I absolutely hate greedy corporations.


----------



## Davenlr

SayWhat? said:


> It's spreading across the news sites like wildfire.
> 
> Why didn't that happen a few weeks back with Dish?


Because the channels DISH lost were a drop in the viewership bucket.


----------



## HobbyTalk

SayWhat? said:


> It's spreading across the news sites like wildfire.
> 
> Why didn't that happen a few weeks back with Dish?


Shows you how important that FX and NatGeo is.


----------



## inazsully

Man, this is more fun than sex.


----------



## SayWhat?

Yeah, yeah, I know, I'm talking to myself, but whatever.......



> But Fox says it deserves the money for quality programming.
> 
> "Our position in these negotiations is entirely reasonable -- we are simply asking for fair compensation for the value Fox5 and My9 programming offers," Fox said.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/10/16/fox.cablevision.dispute/

Ummm, value? Quality programming? When do they plan on starting to do that? Their current lineup:



> America's Most Wanted
> American Dad
> American Idol
> Bob's Burgers
> Bones
> Cops
> Family Guy
> Fringe
> Glee
> Hell's Kitchen
> House
> Human Target
> Kitchen Nightmares
> Lie to Me
> MasterChef
> Raising Hope
> Running Wilde
> So You Think You Can Dance
> The Cleveland Show
> The Good Guys
> The Simpsons


http://www.fox.com/shows/

From the same CNN article above:



> "I am disappointed that Fox and Cablevision have not found a way to ensure that consumers could enjoy uninterrupted carriage of Fox broadcast stations on Cablevision systems," said Julius Genachowski, FCC chairman.
> 
> The companies should protect their audience's interests, he said.


Well, now there's a novel idea, companies thinking of their customers' needs first?


----------



## dakeeney

Rupert and Fox.


----------



## Hoosier205

phrelin said:


> I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter:
> 
> I was disturbed earlier this month when News Corp's Fox pulled a group of cable sports and entertainment channels off of my television signal provider Dish Network. I was further troubled by the fact that News Corp has threatened to pull 27 Fox local broadcast channels on November 1. This is all because Fox is demanding an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent for these channels.
> 
> Last night News Corporation pulled all its Fox cable and broadcast channels from Cablevision, a cable company serving 3 million customers including New York City and Philadelphia. It has been reported that News Corp is seeking a 150% rate increase from Cablevision.
> 
> What is most troubling is that neither the FCC nor Congress seems to care even though:
> 
> This involves FCC licensed broadcast channels;
> The nation is in the middle of a recession; and
> This involves the telecast of World Series and other professional sports league events, leagues that have been exempted by Congress from laws against monopolies.
> That Congress in 2003 allowed Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to keep channels it gained in a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the FCC is also troubling.
> 
> I would like to know before election day where you stand on this matter as your response, or lack thereof, will affect how I will vote.
> 
> Sincerely,​Do I think it will do any good? Who knows? But there is an election coming up in a couple of weeks.


Your letters will be completely forgotten and this issue will have been settled by the time the next Congress convenes. The lame duck session will be short and focused on other pending business. They have more important issues at hand than interfering in business matters.


----------



## Hoosier205

Davenlr said:


> Hope Murdock rots in his greed.


The amount of hatred, venom, and vindictiveness being spewed in this thread is ridiculous. Seriously, step out into the real world for a while and remind yourselves that it's only television.


----------



## BillJ

I hate to lose channels but doubling rates is just too much. Typical Murdock and don't expect him to back down. I was a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal. When renewal time came after Murdock took control a one year subscription cost more than I'd paid for my last two year subscription. And only the one year subscription was offered. They stuck with that for months and only after I'd declined for two months after the subscription expired did they offer a two year "deal".... second year at a 42% discount but the average for the two years is still up 65%. No thanks.

BTW, on DISH they've lost a viewer for FX's Sons of Anarchy. I've missed enough now that I'll never go back even if the channel is restored.


----------



## Wilf

Hoosier205 said:


> The amount of hatred, venom, and vindictiveness being spewed in this thread is ridiculous. Seriously, step out into the real world for a while and remind yourselves that it's only television.


You got that right. There is a lot more in life than TV and MLB. Take a deep breath, If you don't like what is going on, then walk with your feet, and your wallet.

Wilf


----------



## SaltiDawg

phrelin said:


> I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter: ...


My first post in this thread. * Excellent letter!*


----------



## scooper

phrelin said:


> I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter:
> 
> I was disturbed earlier this month when News Corp's Fox pulled a group of cable sports and entertainment channels off of my television signal provider Dish Network. I was further troubled by the fact that News Corp has threatened to pull 27 Fox local broadcast channels on November 1. This is all because Fox is demanding an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent for these channels.
> 
> Last night News Corporation pulled all its Fox cable and broadcast channels from Cablevision, a cable company serving 3 million customers including New York City and Philadelphia. It has been reported that News Corp is seeking a 150% rate increase from Cablevision.
> 
> What is most troubling is that neither the FCC nor Congress seems to care even though:
> 
> This involves FCC licensed broadcast channels;
> The nation is in the middle of a recession; and
> This involves the telecast of World Series and other professional sports league events, leagues that have been exempted by Congress from laws against monopolies.
> That Congress in 2003 allowed Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to keep channels it gained in a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the FCC is also troubling.
> 
> I would like to know before election day where you stand on this matter as your response, or lack thereof, will affect how I will vote.
> 
> Sincerely,​Do I think it will do any good? Who knows? But there is an election coming up in a couple of weeks.


Nice letter, but I'm not sure how much good it will do...


----------



## spiketoo

SayWhat? said:


> It's spreading across the news sites like wildfire.
> 
> Why didn't that happen a few weeks back with Dish?





Davenlr said:


> Because the channels DISH lost were a drop in the viewership bucket.


Nah - someone in NYC must have got their panties in a wad.

Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.....


----------



## lparsons21

I just read the story on Cablevision vs Fox on cnn.com. And then I read a bunch of the reader comments. Boy those comments are mostly not very kind to Fox, but unfortunately many of them talk about Fox News which isn't part of this particular saga.

For those that have been wondering whether or not Fox O&O locals will go dark on 11/1, I think you got your answer today!


----------



## mnassour

Hoosier205 said:


> The amount of hatred, venom, and vindictiveness being spewed in this thread is ridiculous. Seriously, step out into the real world for a while and remind yourselves that it's only television.


I don't know....there's something about Murdoch and Fox that brings out the worst in people.


----------



## runner861

phrelin said:


> I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter:
> 
> I was disturbed earlier this month when News Corp's Fox pulled a group of cable sports and entertainment channels off of my television signal provider Dish Network. I was further troubled by the fact that News Corp has threatened to pull 27 Fox local broadcast channels on November 1. This is all because Fox is demanding an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent for these channels.
> 
> Last night News Corporation pulled all its Fox cable and broadcast channels from Cablevision, a cable company serving 3 million customers including New York City and Philadelphia. It has been reported that News Corp is seeking a 150% rate increase from Cablevision.
> 
> What is most troubling is that neither the FCC nor Congress seems to care even though:
> 
> This involves FCC licensed broadcast channels;
> The nation is in the middle of a recession; and
> This involves the telecast of World Series and other professional sports league events, leagues that have been exempted by Congress from laws against monopolies.
> That Congress in 2003 allowed Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to keep channels it gained in a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the FCC is also troubling.
> 
> I would like to know before election day where you stand on this matter as your response, or lack thereof, will affect how I will vote.
> 
> Sincerely,​Do I think it will do any good? Who knows? But there is an election coming up in a couple of weeks.


In theory, it is a good idea to write. However, are you writing by email or US mail? I have heard that US mail goes unopened for up to a year while it is being checked for contaminants. This has been going on since 2001, when we had the anthrax letters. Also, in any event, I doubt that you will get a response before the election, and I doubt that the response will be anything substantive. It will probably be something like "I encourage the parties to work together to restore the channels."


----------



## juan ellitinez

Its not just Dish....... Looks like cablevision lost the NLCS opening game

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/...Cablevision+dispute+threatens+MLB+broadcasts+


----------



## TulsaOK

lparsons21 said:


> I just read the story on Cablevision vs Fox on cnn.com. And then I read a bunch of the reader comments. Boy those comments are mostly not very kind to Fox, but unfortunately many of them talk about Fox News which isn't part of this particular saga.!


CNN viewers/readers badmouthing Fox News? Who wudda thunk.


----------



## lparsons21

Kent Taylor said:


> CNN viewers/readers badmouthing Fox News? Who wudda thunk.


Well there is that, of course! 

I'm a multi-news watcher. I figure that if I watch them all at different times, I can separate the relative BS they all spew and come to something resembling the actual facts...

And with Fox I can always depend on Beck to cry for me! :lol:


----------



## TBoneit

I had a customer this morning that was looking for a power adaptor for a Terk TV5. It came with a TV3 adaptor that doesn't fit. He said Terk was shipping him the right one, 5 days or so to get it. He didn't want to wait.
He's a Cablevision customer.

An excerpt from the Cablevision email about the dispute:

"We regret to inform you that News Corp, in an act of corporate greed, has pulled Fox 5 and My9 from your Cablevision channel lineup. This is an unfortunate attempt to extort unreasonable and unfair fee increases from Cablevision and our customers.

News Corp is demanding more for Fox 5 than we pay for every other broadcast channel. In fact, they want more for Fox 5 than we pay CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision combined and are asking for more than $150 million a year. That’s an $80 million increase for the exact same programming! In these tough economic times, an increase of these vast proportions is irresponsible and unfair."

So Fox is worth paying more than CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision combined?
Huh?

I watch a lot more shows on CBS, NBC, and ABC as well as cable channels like Epix, GSN & USA than Fox shows.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Tbonelt says, 

"News Corp is demanding more for Fox 5 than we pay for every other broadcast channel. In fact, they want more for Fox 5 than we pay CBS, NBC, ABC and Univision combined and are asking for more than $150 million a year. That’s an $80 million increase for the exact same programming! In these tough economic times, an increase of these vast proportions is irresponsible and unfair.""

If Cablevision acquiesces, wait until Univision comes up for renewal. They'll want 4x what they currently get (they wanted a dollar, probably settled for 50 cents). And Univision has already begun to draw more 18-34s than Fox on certain days, and in a few years, will do so every night.

Personally, I hope Cablevision and Dish hold out. We've had stagnant median income for over a decade now. And just one month ago, Harley workers had to agree to a what amounts to a real (after-inflation) wage decrease over the next seven years.


----------



## SayWhat?

If I were one of the Charlies, I wouldn't even want to accept the past rates. I'd be pushing for a reduction.


----------



## Paul Secic

GrumpyBear said:


> Depending on how Fox and Cablevision contracts go, Dish could be just another story on Fox's greed. Fox is going to have more problems than Dish if Fox goes black on two different carriers at the sametime.
> 
> Lots of posts in this crazy thread, not many Dish Users that upset, a few, not many, lots of circle arguements, but not that many upset.
> 
> Fox O&O go black on Dish, while the same Stations are Black on CableVision as well. Fox will be the ones everybody is looking at and complaining about, as most will see that they are just trying to use the World Series as a Bargining ploy to squeeze money out of people.


This morning on CNN they talked about FOX pulling their channels off of Cablevision in New York City. They said Cablevision pays seventy million dollars per year. Double that and you have a fight!

Go Charlie duke it out!


----------



## Paul Secic

Davenlr said:


> Dont suppose Sun Herald is in bed with Fox do you? Talk about a one sided article.
> 
> I also noted on the "keep fox on" website Fox 5 New York linked to, it listed several alternative providers to Cablevision customers...and DISH network wasnt one of those listed....


Rupart might own the Sun Herald.


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> I am writing to my incumbent U.S. Senators and Congressman, as well as to their opponents in the upcoming election, the following letter:
> 
> I was disturbed earlier this month when News Corp's Fox pulled a group of cable sports and entertainment channels off of my television signal provider Dish Network. I was further troubled by the fact that News Corp has threatened to pull 27 Fox local broadcast channels on November 1. This is all because Fox is demanding an unprecedented rate increase of more than 50 percent for these channels.
> 
> Last night News Corporation pulled all its Fox cable and broadcast channels from Cablevision, a cable company serving 3 million customers including New York City and Philadelphia. It has been reported that News Corp is seeking a 150% rate increase from Cablevision.
> 
> What is most troubling is that neither the FCC nor Congress seems to care even though:
> 
> This involves FCC licensed broadcast channels;
> The nation is in the middle of a recession; and
> This involves the telecast of World Series and other professional sports league events, leagues that have been exempted by Congress from laws against monopolies.
> That Congress in 2003 allowed Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to keep channels it gained in a momentary lapse of judgement on the part of the FCC is also troubling.
> 
> I would like to know before election day where you stand on this matter as your response, or lack thereof, will affect how I will vote.
> 
> Sincerely,​Do I think it will do any good? Who knows? But there is an election coming up in a couple of weeks.


Congress isn't in session. They're kissing babies & such.


----------



## SaltiDawg

Paul Secic said:


> Congress isn't in session. They're kissing babies & such.


Actually, the House is in Session, just most members absent. A dirty-trick this year to prevent the President from making appointments.

EDIT: I should have said "Senate" not "House." In any event, "Congress" is not in recess.


----------



## phrelin

Hoosier205 said:


> The amount of hatred, venom, and vindictiveness being spewed in this thread is ridiculous. Seriously, step out into the real world for a while and remind yourselves that it's only television.


I do frequently see someone here say "it's only TV." Hmmm. So it is kind of trivial. And since this forum is about TV, what does that make the forum and it's members?:grin:

:soapbox:

It's true. It's only TV. And I'm sending this on "it's only the internet". I lived fine without the internet or personal computers before 1980. I lived fine before we got TV in 1951. My grandparents lived fine without the automobile or electricity or airplanes.

It's only TV? My Pany plasma. my Toshiba A/V receiver, and my Bose speakers work just fine if they have the reliable HD-with-dolby audio/video content for which I bought them. If Rupert Murdoch and Disney pull the content because in the middle of The Great Recession they figure they can squeeze a lot more money out of me, it ok for me to get angry. But I think more about these situations:

•If you're elderly or disabled and except for an occasional outing, spend 24/7 at home, then TV likely takes on a completely different meaning in your life.

•If you are unemployed in The Great Recession, TV may be helping you avoid depression, even though you have discovered that the bankers and the billionaire owners of multinational corporations like Rupert Murdoch only want more of your money. TV may have a completely different meaning in your life.

•It's only TV. Yes, if you work including a commute 11 hours a day, sleep 8 hours, use up 2 eating, find time to shower etc., it is only TV. You'd be lucky to find an hour to watch TV and what could it matter if you've lost that one program you liked to watch on Thursdays? TV has no meaning in your life.

•If you're the guy or gal who does that 11 hour day and you come home to four other people complaining that (a) the DVR's not working, (b) Billy's family gets Disney in HD, (c) the Smith's get ESPN in HD and Fox Sports, and (d) why did you decide to go with Dish Network, then TV may take on a completely different meaning in your life.​If your house and all your belongings are destroyed in a fire, someone will tell you "at least no one was seriously hurt or killed." That's not much consolation under the circumstances. Saying "it's only TV" isn't going to make it all better for many of these people over the next however many days, even if the scale of the loss isn't that overwhelming.

Don't dismiss the anger people feel about what Rupert Murdoch represents in this situation. After all, his Fox News has been stirring the fires of anger and fear for over a decade.
:soapbox:


----------



## phrelin

Paul Secic said:


> Congress isn't in session. They're kissing babies & such.


Yeah, and if we Californian's could put Senator Barbara Boxer and her opponent Carly Fiorina on record in this matter, and in your case Congressman Sam Farr and my case Congressman Mike Thompson, maybe the FCC would get noisy also and worry Rupert's underlings who have to make this work. (Rupert could care less.)

If I could get a written response expressing concern, if not downright outrage, out of Boxer and Thompson I'd see to it that the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the LA Times would have a copy of it.

It's time to turn Rupert's approach to doing things against him.



runner861 said:


> In theory, it is a good idea to write. However, are you writing by email or US mail? I have heard that US mail goes unopened for up to a year while it is being checked for contaminants. This has been going on since 2001, when we had the anthrax letters. Also, in any event, I doubt that you will get a response before the election, and I doubt that the response will be anything substantive. It will probably be something like "I encourage the parties to work together to restore the channels."


Boxer isn't in a position to ignore any voter, IMHO. But yeah, I could get that meaningless response, if any. It's worth a try though.


----------



## TulsaOK

Let's not wander into a political discussion here, folks. Dish vs. Fox.


----------



## whummer

I am glad I have found this forum because I see a lot of interesting information. As far as the Dish/Fox thing is concerned here is my take. I do not care who is right or wrong in this dispute. It is clear to me that niether of them is concerned about their customers because if they were this would have been resolved a long time ago without causing customers to lose channels. I have been a long time Dish subscriber, about 13 years, and quite happy with them until moving to HD about 1 1/2 years ago. Since then it has been nothing but trouble. Sound dropping out, distorted picture and the receiver rebooting itself every now and then. I am on my third receiver now and the problems remain. I have gotten all kinds of excuses and conflicting suggestions. And now, this latest programming dispute was the last straw for me. I do not intend to miss any more hockey games and Direct TV will be replacing Dish on Monday.


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> Back on topic... We have what we have because of free market. A few random people on the internet (ALL of US in this forum) are not really representative of the folk that drove things away from pure a la carte and towards a tiered/package system.


I doubt the consumer has anything to do with it.


----------



## demsd

whummer said:


> ... And now, this latest programming dispute was the last straw for me. I do not intend to miss any more hockey games and Direct TV will be replacing Dish on Monday.


until DirecTV has to raise your rates... and you'll be back.


----------



## demsd

SaltiDawg said:


> Actually, the House is in Session, just most members absent. A dirty-trick this year to prevent the President from making appointments.


Huh, Appointments?


----------



## demsd

BillJ said:


> I hate to lose channels but doubling rates is just too much. Typical Murdock and don't expect him to back down. I was a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal. When renewal time came after Murdock took control a one year subscription cost more than I'd paid for my last two year subscription. And only the one year subscription was offered. They stuck with that for months and only after I'd declined for two months after the subscription expired did they offer a two year "deal".... second year at a 42% discount but the average for the two years is still up 65%. No thanks.
> 
> BTW, on DISH they've lost a viewer for FX's Sons of Anarchy. I've missed enough now that I'll never go back even if the channel is restored.


That does not make sense. You complained about the WSJ upping its prices and because DISH does not want to increase your bill, your bailing?


----------



## demsd

Greg Bimson said:


> Why not? People buy a package channels based upon both price and the makeup of those channels. You're acting as if it matters whether or not you watch ESPN.
> 
> It doesn't. Your television provider has taken care of that choice for you. They package the channels; the programmers can negotiate to be placed in the tiers the providers created.
> 
> This is NOT Canada, it isn't even all of Canada that has a la carte, and the providers there are extremely regulated.


:nono2:


----------



## demsd

SayWhat? said:


> It's spreading across the news sites like wildfire.
> 
> Why didn't that happen a few weeks back with Dish?


It did.

Dish Fox Dispute News


----------



## Slamminc11

demsd said:


> Huh, Appointments?


When congress is not in session, and there are senior federal appointments that congress still hasn't approved, then the president can do a recess appointment of those federal employees per the constitution while congress is not in session. But what this congress has decided to do, is stay in session (tho limited as it is) so that the president can not make those appointments. No actual congressional work is getting done, but it is blocking those important spots from being filled.


----------



## demsd

scooper said:


> Nice letter, but I'm not sure how much good it will do...


Unfortunately, one letter won't.


----------



## WingNut

Since this is happening with Cablevision now and ongoing with Dish Network, can the same happen with DirecTv? Or are their ties with Fox so strong that they won't have to worry about Fox pulling the plug?

This sounds like a giant ploy to get a lot of people to switch to DirecTv.

I am tempted to just switch to DirecTv to avoid losing any more channels, but if a few months down the line DirecTv/Fox go through the same BS, I won't be happy.


----------



## DodgerKing

WingNut said:


> Since this is happening with Cablevision now and ongoing with Dish Network, can the same happen with DirecTv? Or are their ties with Fox so strong that they won't have to worry about Fox pulling the plug?
> 
> This sounds like a giant ploy to get a lot of people to switch to DirecTv.
> 
> I am tempted to just switch to DirecTv to avoid losing any more channels, but if a few months down the line DirecTv/Fox go through the same BS, I won't be happy.


Direct and Fox have already come to terms. There will not be any loss off any Fox channels on Direct anytime soon


----------



## demsd

Paul Secic said:


> Rupart might own the Sun Herald.


No, but he does own...


----------



## RAD

WingNut said:


> Since this is happening with Cablevision now and ongoing with Dish Network, can the same happen with DirecTv? Or are their ties with Fox so strong that they won't have to worry about Fox pulling the plug?
> 
> This sounds like a giant ploy to get a lot of people to switch to DirecTv.
> 
> I am tempted to just switch to DirecTv to avoid losing any more channels, but if a few months down the line DirecTv/Fox go through the same BS, I won't be happy.


DirecTV and Fox nolonger have any ties. Fox swapped their interest in DirecTV with Liberty Media for Liberty's interest in News Corp. Liberty (aka Dr. Malone) then divested himself of the majority ownership stake that he had in DirecTV so right now their basically a standalone company.


----------



## jerry downing

Unless FOX gives in to Cablevision and Dish, the same thing will happen when they go to negotiate with DirecTV. I don't expect to go that far since FOX would have lost quite a bit of advertising revenue by then.


----------



## DodgerKing

jerry downing said:


> Unless FOX gives in to Cablevision and Dish, *the same thing will happen when they go to negotiate with DirecTV*. I don't expect to go that far since FOX would have lost quite a bit of advertising revenue by then.


Just three posts above yours this points was already made, "_Direct and Fox have already come to terms. There will not be any loss off any Fox channels on Direct anytime soon_"


----------



## jerry downing

DodgerKing said:


> Direct and Fox have already come to terms. There will not be any loss off any Fox channels on Direct anytime soon


How long is this agreement for? Does it include the fifty percent increase?


----------



## DodgerKing

jerry downing said:


> How long is this agreement for? Does it include the fifty percent increase?


Terms will never be disclosed. All I can say, as Satracer has stated as well as a source of mine, Fox will not be pulled off of DirecTV anytime soon.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2610290#post2610290



Satelliteracer said:


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


----------



## Satelliteracer

DodgerKing said:


> Just three posts above yours this points was already made, "_Direct and Fox have already come to terms. There will not be any loss off any Fox channels on Direct anytime soon_"


Actually, D* and Fox are still under their last negotiated agreement and their contract isn't up for awhile.


----------



## DodgerKing

Satelliteracer said:


> Actually, D* and Fox are still under their last negotiated agreement and their contract isn't up for awhile.


Well...I heard differently. But, the long while part is still correct.

Is this just an extension of the last agreement, or is this still the original deadline that was set under this contract?


----------



## SayWhat?

Where'd all the Dish bashers go now that Fox has pulled this on another carrier?


----------



## Hoosier205

SaltiDawg said:


> Actually, the House is in Session, just most members absent. A dirty-trick this year to prevent the President from making appointments.


Wrong. Recess appointments have nothing to do with the House. Presidential appointments must clear the Senate and not the House. The Senate must remain in pro forma session to avoid recess appointments by the President. This is what they will do until after the election.



Slamminc11 said:


> When congress is not in session, and there are senior federal appointments that congress still hasn't approved, then the president can do a recess appointment of those federal employees per the constitution while congress is not in session. But what this congress has decided to do, is stay in session *(tho limited as it is)* so that the president can not make those appointments. No actual congressional work is getting done, but it is blocking those important spots from being filled.


It will last a minute or so and no business will be conducted.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> I doubt the consumer has anything to do with it.


Sure they do... TV is a luxury, NOT a staple/need.

IF more customers wanted a la carte than packages... then we would have a la carte.

The customers spoke may years ago and moved from a la carte to tiers/packages that gave more bang for their buck.

Heck, customers seem to even want multiple channels owned by the same company even if those channels show a lot of repeats! There are many channels owned by single companies that share content with each other and repeat a lot... that could be consolidated into half of less total channels without losing any content...

Even as a sports fan, I don't need a half dozen ESPN channels! I also don't need a dozen HBO channels either.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

SayWhat? said:


> Where'd all the Dish bashers go now that Fox has pulled this on another carrier?


Same place they always go... back to hiding-in-wait.

And let's be fair... there are plenty of DirecTV bashers too who come out of the woodwork when the shoe is on the other foot.

Meanwhile, back to the Dish vs FOX thread.

With Cablevision's agreement ending first... we have slightly longer than 2 weeks to see how this shakes out before Dish loses their O&O FOX locals.

IF Cablevision caves during that time, Dish will have a tougher row to hoe... but if Cablevision sticks it out, then I predict either FOX will be forced to come to its senses OR we will be in this for the long haul... like next year or later long haul.


----------



## Slamminc11

Hoosier205 said:


> ...It will last a minute or so and no business will be conducted.


I never said that any business was being conducted...


----------



## bdhall1313

I switched to Dish a couple of weeks ago for more regular HD channels. Got tired of DirecTV only adding PPV and sports channels.

I'm glad I switched to Dish and hope they continue to tell Fox no on increased prices. I'd rather have AMC-HD and BBCA-HD than the Fox channels.

The only shows I watch on Fox are Bones, House and Fringe. Those shows are also available on Hulu.


----------



## dakeeney

:nono2:


Stewart Vernon said:


> Same place they always go... back to hiding-in-wait.
> 
> And let's be fair... there are plenty of DirecTV bashers too who come out of the woodwork when the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> Meanwhile, back to the Dish vs FOX thread.
> 
> With Cablevision's agreement ending first... we have slightly longer than 2 weeks to see how this shakes out before Dish loses their O&O FOX locals.
> 
> IF Cablevision caves during that time, Dish will have a tougher row to hoe... but if Cablevision sticks it out, then I predict either FOX will be forced to come to its senses OR we will be in this for the long haul... like next year or later long haul.


I now believe that this will NOT be settled by 11/1 and that O&O stations will probably be pulled and for how long nobody will know. I'm still siding with Dish.


----------



## James Long

inazsully said:


> James, Phrelin, Paul, Greg, and several others. What is you're educated GUESS, will FOX go dark on Nov. 1? If they do what are the short term ramifications for DISH? I'm just curious how some of the 1500 + posters here think this issue will play out.


My prediction:

The contract for Fox O&O carriage will expire on November 1st. All Fox O&O stations will leave DISH Network (as required, since Fox has chosen "consent to carry" for their stations and as of November 1st DISH will not have consent to carry Fox O&O programming). Game 5 (if played) will not be aired via DISH.

There will be much noise on the Internets over the issue. See current thread for an example. Sort term a few will continue to predict the death of DISH. Especially if the World Series ends up being won in Game 5.

If there is a Game 6 there is a good chance that it will be aired via DISH ... DISH and Fox will come to an agreement sometime in the afternoon on November 3rd and all the channels will return. If there is no game six ... find the next thing people might actually miss on Fox O&O.

The last major dispute (CBS/Viacom) was solved with a two day outage. I don't expect any less of an outage this time around.

The final deal? We'll never know. All we will know is that the channels are back and both Fox and DISH will break their arms patting themselves on the back in press releases touting the success of their deal.

Long term ... DISH will do fine. As noted, they have survived losing channels before. Fox isn't that special.

That's my opinion.


----------



## grog

I think this is the whole problem with carriage deals and perhaps what will solve the issue in the future.

Since providers require contracts with subs it would not be unreasonable to demand that providers provide full disclosure on the state of carriage agreements and when they are set to expire. The listing of current stations should carry this information and would thus allow the shopping customer to know what programming to expect for the locked in period of the contract. The same information would also be used with new equipment or other changes would require a new contract with the provider.

The above is not asking for anything other than public disclosure of the carriage period for each package. Nothing more is required.

If I opt for Dish and I see that FOX carriage is due in 10 months then I know up front that I have 14 months I could be without FOX unless I am willing to break my contract and pay a penalty for changing carriers.

Currently this information is not available and it should be!

In my case I was not under contract with Dish. So switching to DirecTV did not break any contracts and in the end I am actually getting a small refund.



DodgerKing said:


> Terms will never be disclosed. All I can say, as Satracer has stated as well as a source of mine, Fox will not be pulled off of DirecTV anytime soon.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2610290#post2610290


----------



## DodgerKing

"SayWhat?" said:


> Where'd all the Dish bashers go now that Fox has pulled this on another carrier?


I don't remember seeing any here to begin with


----------



## grog

I left Dish but never bashed them. 



DodgerKing said:


> I don't remember seeing any here to begin with


----------



## lparsons21

grog said:


> I left Dish but never bashed them.


That's what I noticed. Some left Dish because of the sports (primarily) and others were irritated, but very little real bashing. Much less than I thought might be the case.

I just grumble and stick with Dish as sports are not that big a deal to me.


----------



## James Long

DISH vs Fox ...
Not each other.
:backtotop


----------



## Dave

FOX is going so far as to pull there feed off of HULU so nobody can go there to see the broadcast. So I guess for FOX it is really about greed. I mean what has HULU ever done to make FOX pull there feed, except for there disputes with Dish and Cablevision.


----------



## RAD

Dave said:


> FOX is going so far as to pull there feed off of HULU so nobody can go there to see the broadcast. So I guess for FOX it is really about greed. I mean what has HULU ever done to make FOX pull there feed, except for there disputes with Dish and Cablevision.


I just checked and it's still working for me. I found this post, http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20101016/news-corp-shuts-off-hulu-access-to-cablevision-subs/ which said they were pulling it from Cablevision customers but changed their mind and put it back.


----------



## JackBauer112

FOX definitely needs to do what Dish has done to YES Network, MLB Network and all of the other channels Dish played hardball went and guess what, Dish won't ever carry YES, MLB nor CSN Philly. Charlie definitely turned furry and emo when he always pulls channels and doesn't really care for bringing them back. No wonder he's losing subs. MSG tying in fuseTV it'll be the next thing to no YES, no MSG and Boomer Esiasion's radio show on WFAN. It's a huge shame what Dish Network has come to. Dish just needs to go file Chapter 7, Charlie just needs to give up his satellite service, refund all of their money as well his for the Distant networks he's contracted with, and became an hero and later sell Dish to Sky Angel so that he can get his company done all over with. 

RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


----------



## phrelin

RAD said:


> DirecTV and Fox nolonger have any ties. Fox swapped their interest in DirecTV with Liberty Media for Liberty's interest in News Corp. Liberty (aka Dr. Malone) then divested himself of the majority ownership stake that he had in DirecTV so right now their basically a standalone company.


Er, well, I may not subscribe to some conspiracy theory, but let's not forget that Chase Carey, who was CEO of DirecTV from 2003-2009, previously worked for News Corp as COO of Fox, Inc., and CEO of Fox Broadcasting.

In January he returned to News Corp as President/COO/Deputy Chairman where, of course, Rupert Murdoch is Chairman/CEO.

However, the Executive Suite at DirecTV has a Pepsi/YUM tinge now and no one with direct ties to the Murdoch Empire.


----------



## RAD

phrelin said:


> Er, well, I may not subscribe to some conspiracy theory, but let's not forget that Chase Carey, who was CEO of DirecTV from 2003-2009, previously worked for News Corp as COO of Fox, Inc., and CEO of Fox Broadcasting.
> 
> In January he returned to News Corp as President/COO/Deputy Chairman where, of course, Rupert Murdoch is Chairman/CEO.
> 
> However, the Executive Suite at DirecTV has a Pepsi/YUM tinge now and no one with direct ties to the Murdoch Empire.


Do you sleep with the lights on


----------



## Stewart Vernon

From Engadget:



Engadget said:


> Not only can you not watch Fox on Cablevision's cable service at the moment, but if you get your internet from said company, you can't watch Fox content on Hulu either.


*Full article*

FOX can't block all internet access (unless they are insane), but interesting that they are singling out Cablevision's internet customers too... even if those internet customers are actually a DirecTV customer for their TV viewing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> I just checked and it's still working for me. I found this post, http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20101016/news-corp-shuts-off-hulu-access-to-cablevision-subs/ which said they were pulling it from Cablevision customers but changed their mind and put it back.


Even if they did an about face and turned it back on quickly... the fact that they actually tried at all should be yet another nail in the FOX banner that shows they are the bad guy in this particular debate.

IF people hadn't screamed about Hulu, would they have stopped broadcasting OTA in those markets too?


----------



## phrelin

I hope to see a headline using a baseball metaphor: Murdoch's Evil Empire Strikes Out.


----------



## RAD

Stewart Vernon said:


> From Engadget:
> 
> *Full article*
> 
> FOX can't block all internet access (unless they are insane), but interesting that they are singling out Cablevision's internet customers too... even if those internet customers are actually a DirecTV customer for their TV viewing.





Stewart Vernon said:


> Even if they did an about face and turned it back on quickly... the fact that they actually tried at all should be yet another nail in the FOX banner that shows they are the bad guy in this particular debate.
> 
> IF people hadn't screamed about Hulu, would they have stopped broadcasting OTA in those markets too?


Because it blocked all Cablevision internet customers, including the DirecTV sub is probably why they had to back off tha plan.

Bad guy or just playing hardball? Of course they're going to do whatever they can to pressure Cablevision to come to an agreement. Guess it's like a union when they set up a picket line, try to shut the company down so they have to come to an agreement.


----------



## Slamminc11

JackBauer112 said:


> FOX definitely needs to do what Dish has done to YES Network, MLB Network and all of the other channels Dish played hardball went and guess what, Dish won't ever carry YES, MLB nor CSN Philly. Charlie definitely turned furry and emo when he always pulls channels and doesn't really care for bringing them back. No wonder he's losing subs. MSG tying in fuseTV it'll be the next thing to no YES, no MSG and Boomer Esiasion's radio show on WFAN. It's a huge shame what Dish Network has come to. Dish just needs to go file Chapter 7, Charlie just needs to give up his satellite service, refund all of their money as well his for the Distant networks he's contracted with, and became an hero and later sell Dish to Sky Angel so that he can get his company done all over with.
> 
> RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


you do realize that pretty much anyone and everyone here (but you ironically) quit paying any kind of attention to anything you have to say a long time ago...right?


----------



## Rduce

JackBauer112 said:


> FOX definitely needs to do what Dish has done to YES Network, MLB Network and all of the other channels Dish played hardball went and guess what, Dish won't ever carry YES, MLB nor CSN Philly. Charlie definitely turned furry and emo when he always pulls channels and doesn't really care for bringing them back. No wonder he's losing subs. MSG tying in fuseTV it'll be the next thing to no YES, no MSG and Boomer Esiasion's radio show on WFAN. It's a huge shame what Dish Network has come to. Dish just needs to go file Chapter 7, Charlie just needs to give up his satellite service, refund all of their money as well his for the Distant networks he's contracted with, and became an hero and later sell Dish to Sky Angel so that he can get his company done all over with.
> 
> RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


Yea, we get it Bauer, you do not like DISH and are celebrating in some masturbatory fashion over the vision that your EVIL EMPIRE is going down because you and you alone can see the future. I'm personally weary of your troll act and would hope that a moderator shuts down your sophomoric diatribe sooner than later&#8230;


----------



## Richard King

JackBauer112 said:


> FOX definitely needs to do what Dish has done to YES Network, MLB Network and all of the other channels Dish played hardball went and guess what, Dish won't ever carry YES, MLB nor CSN Philly. Charlie definitely turned furry and emo when he always pulls channels and doesn't really care for bringing them back. No wonder he's losing subs. MSG tying in fuseTV it'll be the next thing to no YES, no MSG and Boomer Esiasion's radio show on WFAN. It's a huge shame what Dish Network has come to. Dish just needs to go file Chapter 7, Charlie just needs to give up his satellite service, refund all of their money as well his for the Distant networks he's contracted with, and became an hero and later sell Dish to Sky Angel so that he can get his company done all over with.
> 
> RIP Dish Network (1996-2011)


This reminds me of someone who used to post on the Dish Usenet groups many years ago. He was a soccer fan and everyday would promise the demise of Dish because they didn't carry a certain soccer series that he was interested in. He was constantly posting a "Tic tic tic" at the end of his messages. Thankfully, the sky never fell and he found other things to do and eventually disappeared. Is anyone around from those days who remembers this pest?


----------



## phrelin

Slamminc11 said:


> you do realize that pretty much anyone and everyone here (but you ironically) quit paying any kind of attention to anything you have to say a long time ago...right?


Aww, go easy on the guy. He's so Fox, he chose to name himself after a Fox show character.


----------



## Davenlr

I downgraded my package (thusly losing the same channels you Dish folks lost) out of solidarity, and so Fox wont get any additional money from me. Might miss Nat Geo, but Ill live. 

Go Dish and Cablevision...


----------



## JackBauer112

phrelin said:


> Aww, go easy on the guy. He's so Fox, he chose to name himself after a Fox show character.


Thanks for understanding! DirecTV rules!


----------



## SaltiDawg

Hoosier205 said:


> Wrong. Recess appointments have nothing to do with the House. Presidential appointments must clear the Senate and not the House. The Senate must remain in pro forma session to avoid recess appointments by the President. This is what they will do until after the election.


You are, of course, correct. When I corrected the statement that the Congress was not in session I mistakenly said "House" and not "Senate". I have gone back and added an Edit addressing my mistake.

Thanks for your tactful correction. lol


----------



## SaltiDawg

phrelin said:


> Aww, go easy on the guy. He's so Fox, he chose to name himself after a Fox show character.


I stopped reading Jack's posts when the Fox Series, "24" got old.


----------



## Dave

How can FOX hold so much contempt for the end user or the product. You and I the end consumer, the person paying there bill and keeping them on the air. Its one thing to fight with Dish and Cablevision, but to even think you can also control HULU who you probably have a contract with is beyond believeability. I would guess that HULU threaten a huge lawsuit if they broke there contract for carriage with them, Hulu.


----------



## phrelin

Ah well, to quote from my own blog post from back in 2007:


> To expand upon this, after trying out a deal with Apple to feed shows to iPods, NBC joined with Fox to create a venture called Hulu.com.


 The owners are:

NBC Universal (32%)
Fox Entertainment Group (31%)
ABC (27%)
Providence Equity Partners (10%)


----------



## Davenlr

Dave said:


> How can FOX hold so much contempt for the end user or the product..


Greed, the same reason this country is in a recession. Greed, money, and more Greed.


----------



## calgary2800

Just had Direct take place of my Dish today, HD quality pic is better than Dish. Not happy with the remote and ease of use.


----------



## RAD

calgary2800 said:


> Just had Direct take place of my Dish today, HD quality pic is better than Dish. Not happy with the remote and ease of use.


If you haven't done so yet, I'd recommend checking out http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=115 especially the beginners FAQ link and the undocuments tips PDF in the Biginners FAQ so you can find out how to change the 30 second slip to a 30 second skip.


----------



## russ9

Richard King said:


> This reminds me of someone who used to post on the Dish Usenet groups many years ago. He was a soccer fan and everyday would promise the demise of Dish because they didn't carry a certain soccer series that he was interested in. He was constantly posting a "Tic tic tic" at the end of his messages. Thankfully, the sky never fell and he found other things to do and eventually disappeared. Is anyone around from those days who remembers this pest?


Yeah, the countdown was to the end of 1997, Tick Tock....
Oliver something, I think.


----------



## epokopac

bdhall1313 said:


> I switched to Dish a couple of weeks ago for more regular HD channels. Got tired of DirecTV only adding PPV and sports channels.
> 
> I'm glad I switched to Dish and hope they continue to tell Fox no on increased prices. I'd rather have AMC-HD and BBCA-HD than the Fox channels.
> 
> The only shows I watch on Fox are Bones, House and Fringe. Those shows are also available on Hulu.


House and Lie To Me is what I watch. My portable DTV brings in OTA Fox just fine as long as I'm in the right location in the kitchen. Forgot about Hulu. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RAD said:


> Because it blocked all Cablevision internet customers, including the DirecTV sub is probably why they had to back off tha plan.
> 
> Bad guy or just playing hardball? Of course they're going to do whatever they can to pressure Cablevision to come to an agreement. Guess it's like a union when they set up a picket line, try to shut the company down so they have to come to an agreement.


I understand hardball... and while I don't like it, I recognize it as acceptable in negotiations.

But FOX thinking it could punish its internet viewers is not hardball... it's crossing a line that reveals their true colors, in my opinion.

They have a right to pull their channels from Cablevision or Dish if they aren't getting what they want... but they shouldn't have the right to prevent you from going elsewhere.

In fact, it smacks of hypocrisy... because on the one hand they were going to block Hulu viewers who may or may not also be paying customers on DirecTV... but at the same time were recommending people switch to DirecTV if Dish or Cablevision lost FOX channels.

At that point it isn't a price negotiation... but trying to force the public to go to FOX's apparent "preferred" provider... and on top of that forcing you to not get your internet from Cablevision or be punished with guilt-by-association.

IF I were a FOX customer on DirecTV and using hulu, and my internet was through Cablevision I would be even more pissed than if I were a Cablevision/Dish TV customer... because they'd be taking away something I was still paying FOX for (albeit indirectly).

To me... that activity should show people that they really should be siding with Dish and Cablevision here.


----------



## Slamminc11

According to his twitter page, ESPN's baseball guy Buster Olney has Cablevision and is not able to watch the game tonite but will have to listen to it on the radio...Can't wait to read his next article on ESPN.com...that should be a hum-dinger of an article I would guess!


----------



## HobbyTalk

whummer said:


> I am glad I have found this forum because I see a lot of interesting information. As far as the Dish/Fox thing is concerned here is my take. I do not care who is right or wrong in this dispute. It is clear to me that niether of them is concerned about their customers because if they were this would have been resolved a long time ago without causing customers to lose channels.


So you are saying that Dish should pay whatever the programmers ask for and they they should pass on those costs to you? If each programmer would ask for 50% raises in rates, your bill would go up at least 50%. What would be your opinion then?


----------



## chum76

HobbyTalk said:


> So you are saying that Dish should pay whatever the programmers ask for and they they should pass on those costs to you? If each programmer would ask for 50% raises in rates, your bill would go up at least 50%. What would be your opinion then?


I can understand why Fox wants more money. I am sure their programming costs have soared through the roof, and they air alot of popular shows and sporting events which cost $$$$$. If Dish network/cablevision drop Fox then so be it. Users who dont miss the channels can stay, and others who miss them can go to other pay tv providers. Free market supply and demand always wins.


----------



## John W

Interesting right now, with Center Ice in free preview and the Blackhawks on local WGN only tonight, tuned in to 633 on Dish for Sabres at Blackhawks(CHI) per the guide. They are showing the MSG feed.


----------



## fredinva

Crapola, I lost about 20 Fox sports channels---------------all showing the same game!!!!!!


----------



## James Long

Slamminc11 said:


> you do realize that pretty much anyone and everyone here (but you ironically) quit paying any kind of attention to anything you have to say a long time ago...right?


Isn't replying paying some kind of attention? 

DISH vs Fox ...


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I wonder how many OTA antennas were sold today?

I still don't understand why cable and satellite have to pay to rebroadcast local channels when a person can put up an antenna and get their locals for free.


----------



## sigma1914

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wonder how many OTA antennas were sold today?
> 
> I still don't understand why cable and satellite have to pay to rebroadcast local channels when a person can put up an antenna and get their locals for free.


Not everyone can get OTA that easy.


----------



## Davenlr

Because most people dont want an UGLY antenna on their house, they are outside the range of the stations, the stations are in multiple directions...several reasons. Personally, I wish the satellite companies would have stuck to satellite, and used all that extra money and satellite bandwidth they dedicated to locals, to providing more SATELLITE channels. It is what it is. I have OTA, and use it.


----------



## RasputinAXP

sigma1914 said:


> Not everyone can get OTA that easy.


VHF6 ABC is almost unreceivable at my house.


----------



## paja

Davenlr said:


> Because most people dont want an UGLY antenna on their house, they are outside the range of the stations, the stations are in multiple directions...several reasons. Personally, I wish the satellite companies would have stuck to satellite, and used all that extra money and satellite bandwidth they dedicated to locals, to providing more SATELLITE channels. It is what it is. I have OTA, and use it.


I watch all local stations here in Chicago OTA unless I plan on doing alot of surfing. The HD PQ isthe best by far over any service(and I've had them all) and you get all the sub-channels to boot.


----------



## demsd

RAD said:


> Do you sleep with the lights on


That's :lol:


----------



## HobbyTalk

chum76 said:


> I am sure their programming costs have soared through the roof


Yeah, those cartoons sure cost a lot to make 



chum76 said:


> Free market supply and demand always wins.


It does? What world do you live in?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Slamminc11 said:


> According to his twitter page, ESPN's baseball guy Buster Olney has Cablevision and is not able to watch the game tonite but will have to listen to it on the radio...Can't wait to read his next article on ESPN.com...that should be a hum-dinger of an article I would guess!


Will he broach the obvious. That the 4.50 a month his parent company extracts from every cable subscriber, sports fan or not, is in large part responsible for this mess.

Moreover, I would suspend this reporter/columnist if he can't get rabbit ears or go to the local water hole to watch the game.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

TheRatPatrol said:


> I still don't understand why cable and satellite have to pay to rebroadcast local channels when a person can put up an antenna and get their locals for free.


The simplest answer is... just because one person gives something away doesn't give you the right to sell it.

OTA transmissions aren't public domain just because they are free to receive with antennas connected to your TV.

IF satellite and cable companies had always provided OTA for free, then I suspect they could have long ago secured rights to always carry them for free... but cable and satellite have wanted to charge for the locals that they know people want... so in some (many?) cases the locals have asked for compensation for that re-transmission.


----------



## SayWhat?

chum76 said:


> If Dish network/cablevision drop Fox then so be it.


Still not getting it are you? *FOX PULLED* THE CHANNELS.

Dish and Cablevision tried to negotiate. Fox refused.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> The simplest answer is... just because one person gives something away doesn't give you the right to sell it.
> 
> OTA transmissions aren't public domain just because they are free to receive with antennas connected to your TV.
> 
> IF satellite and cable companies had always provided OTA for free, then I suspect they could have long ago secured rights to always carry them for free... but cable and satellite have wanted to charge for the locals that they know people want... so in some (many?) cases the locals have asked for compensation for that re-transmission.


I'll agree with part and disagree with part.

You are right that just because someone gives something away you can not sell it but there are a number of other factors here.

First, without the OTA signals being rebroadcast, many people would not be able to view that signal for a number of reasons. Rebroadcasting the signal brings in more advertising dollars for the programmer/station because they can demand higher advertising fees for the wider audience.

Apartment complexes have rebroadcast OTA signals for decades via CATV systems and are not charged a rebroadcast fee. Why aren't they since the cost of the tenants rent surely includes the investment of the CATV system? I know most now have cable or sat systems where the tenant is charged but they can just provide OTA signals if they want.

Rebroadcasters have an investment to get that signal to their customers. This includes hardware to get the signal and more hardware to get it out to their customers. It costs the OTA stations nothing. These costs should be able to be covered by fees to customers.

The fact is that it OTA stations charge cable and sat. companies because they can. It is pure greed on their part.


----------



## grog

Since when did Cablevision become the good guy here.

There is much more to this story then the public is seeing I can assure you.

http://www.cablevision.com/about/index.jsp

Cablevision was also majority owner and operator of Madison Square Garden and its properties from 1997 until February 2010, when the sports and entertainment powerhouse became a separate, public company, Madison Square Garden, Inc.​
Dish dropping MSG/FUSE was due to increased double digit rates that MSG was asking. Due to the time frame of MSG becoming a separate company from Cablevision it is safe to say the carriage negotiations for MSG/FUSE with Dish would have occurred while Cablevision was still the parent company.

Dish Network pulls plug on MSG
http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/article207853.ece

A Dish spokesman told the Associated Press that it refused a "double digit" percentage rate hike proposal linked to carrying Fuse, which it called a "low-rated music video channel."​
Now lets look at what else Cablevision did today.

Cable2vision, Rejecting Verizon's Request, Refuses to Provide FiOS TV Subscribers - and Millions of Other Viewers - Access to New York Gubernatorial Debate

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-new-york-gubernatorial-debate-105102454.html

NEW YORK, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire/
Verizon's efforts come after Cablevision refused repeated requests to share the broadcast of this only scheduled debate. "We reached out to Cablevision directly, but our request was flatly denied," Webb said.

She added: "Cablevision's refusal to make this historic debate available to residents and voters across New York is nothing short of outrageous.​
Also;

http://www.rainbow-media.com/default
A subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corporation

Yes the same company that owns AMC and VOOM until it was killed due to carriage issues that could not be resolved with Dish.



SayWhat? said:


> Still not getting it are you? *FOX PULLED* THE CHANNELS.
> 
> Dish and Cablevision tried to negotiate. Fox refused.


----------



## SayWhat?

> Since when did Cablevision become the good guy here.


When they said No to Fox's demands. They may be the bad guy in other cases, but I'm behind them here.


----------



## phrelin

From Variety regarding Fox blocking internet streaming content:


> A source familiar with the situation said Fox took that step in an effort to maximize its leverage with Cablevision, but backed down after it became clear that the move would major strife in Washington, where Congress and the FCC are already in the midst of setting net neutrality and broadband policies. Such manipulation of consumers' broadband access is exactly the type of action that net neutrality, endorsed by the FCC and Obama administration, is designed to prevent.
> 
> Cablevision broadband customers were blocked from accessing Fox.com and Hulu for hours on Saturday but all access was expected to be restored by Saturday evening, a source said.
> 
> Ed Markey (D-Mass.), raised a red flag about Fox's broadband-blocking step in a letter he sent to FCC chief Julius Genachowski Saturday urging him to bring the companies to the FCC and have the commission "broker an agreement." The FCC "needs to actively defend Internet freedom and consumer rights," Markey wrote in reference to Fox's broadband-blocking move.
> 
> "Fox has sunk to a new low in its bullying tactics, blocking Cablevision customers from accessing Fox and Hulu websites," said a statement from the American Television Alliance, a coalition of cable operators, including Cablevision, satcasters and telco operators that is pushing the FCC and pols to make major changes on the law governing station retransmission agreements.


And from Bloomberg:


> Cablevision on Oct. 14 said it would accept binding arbitration with Fox that would allow them to continue the negotiations without the threat of a blackout. U.S. Representatives Steve Israel, a New York Democrat, and Peter King, a New York Republican, sought the commitment in a letter to both companies.
> 
> Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, chairman of a subcommittee overseeing communications, technology and the Internet, said he plans to introduce legislation keeping such disputes from taking channels off the air until the FCC is able to decide on the need for arbitration.
> 
> "This is the best way to empower consumers, increase transparency, and preserve the free market," Kerry said in an e-mailed statement.


The FCC has, of course, offered an arbitration process and Fox flatly refused. Every hour that Fox remains off the Cablevision systems in in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and parts of Pennsylvania, the pressure on Congress and the FCC will rachet up. The UPI notes:


> U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D.-N.J., said in a statement it is "inexcusable that Fox would rather hold consumers hostage than engage in further negotiations."


For those of you who might be interested, members of the Senate Sub-Committee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet chaired by Kerry are:

Mark Begich
Sam Brownback
Maria Cantwell
Jim DeMint
Byron L. Dorgan
John Ensign
Daniel K. Inouye
Johnny Isakson
Mike Johanns
Amy Klobuchar
Frank R. Lautenberg
George S. LeMieux
Claire McCaskill
Bill Nelson
Mark Pryor
Olympia J. Snowe
John Thune
Tom Udall
Mark Warner
Roger F. Wicker
David Vitter


----------



## SayWhat?

> The dispute may provoke the government to revisit the regulations that govern retransmission. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement Saturday afternoon that he would introduce legislation to create "new rules of the road" for retransmission consent.
> 
> Mr. Kerry said his legislation would "allow signals to continue transmitting until the F.C.C. evaluates the last best offer of the firms, determines whether they were made consistent with good faith negotiation and market conditions, and if they were, then recommends or does not recommend binding arbitration during which carriage would continue." If one of the companies rejected that recommendation, both would have to "publicly disclose the parameters of their last best offer to each other," Mr. Kerry said, "in order for consumers to determine for themselves which party they side with."


http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...aches-second-day-for-cablevision-subscribers/


----------



## HobbyTalk

Fox may have just cut their own throat.


----------



## Joe Diver

The next few weeks should be very interesting....


----------



## phrelin

According to The Hollywood Reporter this evening:


> Representatives of Cablevision Systems and News Corp./Fox met here Saturday afternoon, but didn't resolve their carriage fee dispute, instead agreeing to more talks.
> 
> The result: Cablevision customers will continue to see dark screens when trying to tune in to two News Corp. TV stations in New York and one in Philadelphia, as well as several cable networks.
> 
> Saturday's meetings took place over several hours starting at noon EST. They appeared not to have made material progress, but plan to meet again Sunday.


----------



## whatchel1

HobbyTalk said:


> Fox may have just cut their own throat.


Sure hope so. Also when the channels go down on E (if they do). Then there will be even more problems. Then congress will get all kinds of calls and it may spur legislation to be put forth when they come back for spring session. No matter who controls the houses there will be a bunch of sports fans really PO'd at Fox.


----------



## phrelin

My guess is that if Fox pulls its broadcast stations from Dish on November 1, Senator Kerry will have his committee begin hearings in the lame duck session in November-December, and among his first witnesses will be billionaires Charles Dolan of Cablevision and Charles Ergen of Dish Network. Then we'll see what billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of TV stations that exist because of their conditional federal licenses, will say in response.

Remember that unlike in the Time Warner Cable system dispute last year, Murdoch's ego is matched by the principals at Cablevision and Dish. Kerry has to know this. I just don't know if Murdoch does. The two Charles might be willing to give Murdoch what he got from Time Warner for the local Fox stations, but it would cost Murdoch significant concessions on the cable channels.

It will be interesting to watch because the outcome will affect all local station negotiations in the future and our future costs, no matter who your signal provider is.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HobbyTalk said:


> I'll agree with part and disagree with part.
> 
> You are right that just because someone gives something away you can not sell it but there are a number of other factors here.
> 
> First, without the OTA signals being rebroadcast, many people would not be able to view that signal for a number of reasons.


True... but speaking first here from the consumer perspective, we are not entitled to satellite, cable, or even the free OTA. IF we can get it, then we can watch it... but there is no guarantee of it.



HobbyTalk said:


> Rebroadcasting the signal brings in more advertising dollars for the programmer/station because they can demand higher advertising fees for the wider audience.


I'll have to partially agree and partially disagree here... for a couple of reasons.

IF people get the re-transmission via cable or satellite who could have gotten it via OTA (I use myself as an example here) then no eyes are gained in that household. The only gained viewers would be those who are outside the normal OTA reception area.

While it is true some will opt not to put up an antenna where they could... that isn't a cost-decision since a one-time antenna install will be cheaper in the long run than a cable/satellite bill.. so the only reason not to receive OTA if you can is because you don't like the aesthetics of an OTA antenna.

An additional problem is that neither cable nor satellite actually re-transmits the exact signal unmolested in all cases. Both cable and satellite insert their own commercials during their feeds of many channels... so the eyes you get for the re-transmission might not see the commercial that you intended.



HobbyTalk said:


> Apartment complexes have rebroadcast OTA signals for decades via CATV systems and are not charged a rebroadcast fee. Why aren't they since the cost of the tenants rent surely includes the investment of the CATV system?


I don't have an answer for you here. Although I suppose I could play devil's advocate and ask if you know for sure that they aren't paying those local channels. Even if they aren't paying, they must be getting permission from them to do so.



HobbyTalk said:


> Rebroadcasters have an investment to get that signal to their customers. This includes hardware to get the signal and more hardware to get it out to their customers. It costs the OTA stations nothing. These costs should be able to be covered by fees to customers.


Perhaps... but then why does the charge continue after the equipment has been paid for? IF a company like Dish charges $5 for locals, does it really cost them $5 per customer in perpetuity to pay for the maintenance of that equipment? That seems like a lot, since I can buy an antenna myself for less than $100 and pick up all the channels for just me for that one time charge.



HobbyTalk said:


> The fact is that it OTA stations charge cable and sat. companies because they can. It is pure greed on their part.


Not fact, just your opinion. Not saying you aren't entitled of course... but you can't claim it as fact.

To refute the "fact" of that... I offer up my own DMA... where years ago several major local channels wanted cable (Time Warner) to stop charging customers for retransmission OR pay them something for the right.

Time Warner was given a choice:

1. Give the customers of cable the OTA retransmission for free since they were getting it for free from the local broadcast.

OR

2. Pay the local channels a fee and then charge their cable customers.

In the end... Time Warner chose to pay rather than drop the charge to their customers.

At least in my DMA, it wasn't greed on the part of local broadcasters but rather Time Warner... and once that die was cast, that became the same fee to the satellite companies that also wanted to carry the channels.


----------



## SayWhat?

HobbyTalk said:


> Apartment complexes have rebroadcast OTA signals for decades via CATV systems and are not charged a rebroadcast fee. Why aren't they since the cost of the tenants rent surely includes the investment of the CATV system?





Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't have an answer for you here. Although I suppose I could play devil's advocate and ask if you know for sure that they aren't paying those local channels. Even if they aren't paying, they must be getting permission from them to do so.


I think that has to do with the cable franchise agreements with local governments.



Stewart Vernon said:


> but then why does the charge continue after the equipment has been paid for? IF a company like Dish charges $5 for locals, does it really cost them $5 per customer in perpetuity to pay for the maintenance of that equipment?


Which is why I refuse to pay a DVR fee and will stick with my 508 until they kill them all off.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> The simplest answer is... just because one person gives something away doesn't give you the right to sell it.


<<Insert irrelevant comparison here.>>



> OTA transmissions aren't public domain just because they are free to receive with antennas connected to your TV.


They should be. Even broadcasters seem to have forgotten the reason that they were granted a license to broadcast. To serve their communities. Broadcasters should be doing everything possible to meet that promise ... including allowing their signals to be rebroadcast.

Retransmission fees are like a forced pledge drive ... Your local PBS station that goes on the air and cries a little saying that they will not exist unless you, the viewer, give them $10 or $20? It's likely true. Fox is going on the air and saying they need nearly $50 ... with no threat to their existence. They have found a way to extort money from their viewers and, even worse, their non viewers.

One of the biggest mistakes ever made was allowing "consent to carry".



> IF satellite and cable companies had always provided OTA for free, then I suspect they could have long ago secured rights to always carry them for free... but cable and satellite have wanted to charge for the locals that they know people want... so in some (many?) cases the locals have asked for compensation for that re-transmission.


I doubt it. While the access fees that CATV charged were part of the argument stations used to get "retransmission consent" and the leverage to get "their piece of the pie", in today's world the haves (Fox) are going to use every tool they have to get money from the have nots (cable/satellite providers and the viewers who pay for free TV through cable/satellite instead of installing antennas).

The fee started out covering costs ... it takes money to run cable to every home in a service area and keeping the quality acceptable. It takes money to launch satellites - especially when one set of locals cannot be used to serve the entire country. It takes money to backhaul signals hundreds or thousands of miles to a satellite uplink center.

If one looks at the costs of receiving and retransmitting locals it would be far more that the $3-$6 attributed to locals on the customer's bill. Fortunately people will pay for $25+ in other channels to get those locals. It is not advertised but last year DISH introduced "welcome" packs that likely don't cover the cost of delivery. Why should the satellite provider lose money to extend the reach of some O&O station that can't even reach all of the people they are licensed to "serve" via their antenna system?

Why should a multi-billion dollar broadcaster like Fox be able to refuse to serve the people they are licensed to serve unless paid extra? When 85% of their viewership comes via cable and satellite putting out a good broadcast signal isn't needed. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the money to roll in. Because they can.


----------



## SayWhat?

Well, they're not exactly refusing to serve. The stations are still there for anyone with antennas or some other method. They're just blocking one carrier, ..... OK, two carriers.

The question is, should they be allowed to? I say no. Since DTV and other reasons that many local residents can't receive their local stations, Fox and other licensed broadcasters should be required to provide their signals to people living in their DMA whether it be by OTA, cable and/or satellite. Fees are another issue and that may be where the FCC needs to step in. Could those fees be regulated?


----------



## BenJF3

phrelin said:


> My guess is that if Fox pulls its broadcast stations from Dish on November 1, Senator Kerry will have his committee begin hearings in the lame duck session in November-December, and among his first witnesses will be billionaires Charles Dolan of Cablevision and Charles Ergen of Dish Network. Then we'll see what billionaire Rupert Murdoch, owner of TV stations that exist because of their conditional federal licenses, will say in response.
> 
> Remember that unlike in the Time Warner Cable system dispute last year, Murdoch's ego is matched by the principals at Cablevision and Dish. Kerry has to know this. I just don't know if Murdoch does. The two Charles might be willing to give Murdoch what he got from Time Warner for the local Fox stations, but it would cost Murdoch significant concessions on the cable channels.
> 
> It will be interesting to watch because the outcome will affect all local station negotiations in the future and our future costs, no matter who your signal provider is.


_DING, DING, DING!_

Kerry Pledges To Introduce Retrans Reform Legislation


----------



## James Long

BenJF3 said:


> _DING, DING, DING!_
> 
> Kerry Pledges To Introduce Retrans Reform Legislation


Good. Hopefully something will come of it. Most of these off-year attempts to rework the retrans laws are simply ignored and don't see the light of day (off-year referring to not in a year when the law is up for renewal and requires extension).


----------



## Wilf

The current situation may be a foretaste of what happens if and when Comcast gets its greedy hands on NBC.


----------



## BenJF3

James Long said:


> Good. Hopefully something will come of it. Most of these off-year attempts to rework the retrans laws are simply ignored and don't see the light of day (off-year referring to not in a year when the law is up for renewal and requires extension).


I like the fact the they would have to disclose BOTH sides offers that resulted in impasse - then we really know who is lying.


----------



## damondlt

grog said:


> Since when did Cablevision become the good guy here.
> 
> There is much more to this story then the public is seeing I can assure you.
> 
> http://www.cablevision.com/about/index.jsp
> Cablevision was also majority owner and operator of Madison Square Garden and its properties from 1997 until February 2010, when the sports and entertainment powerhouse became a separate, public company, Madison Square Garden, Inc.​Dish dropping MSG/FUSE was due to increased double digit rates that MSG was asking. Due to the time frame of MSG becoming a separate company from Cablevision it is safe to say the carriage negotiations for MSG/FUSE with Dish would have occurred while Cablevision was still the parent company.
> 
> Dish Network pulls plug on MSG
> http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/article207853.ece
> A Dish spokesman told the Associated Press that it refused a "double digit" percentage rate hike proposal linked to carrying Fuse, which it called a "low-rated music video channel."​Now lets look at what else Cablevision did today.
> 
> Cable2vision, Rejecting Verizon's Request, Refuses to Provide FiOS TV Subscribers - and Millions of Other Viewers - Access to New York Gubernatorial Debate
> 
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-new-york-gubernatorial-debate-105102454.html
> NEW YORK, Oct. 16 /PRNewswire/
> Verizon's efforts come after Cablevision refused repeated requests to share the broadcast of this only scheduled debate. "We reached out to Cablevision directly, but our request was flatly denied," Webb said.
> 
> She added: "Cablevision's refusal to make this historic debate available to residents and voters across New York is nothing short of outrageous. ​Also;
> 
> http://www.rainbow-media.com/default
> A subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corporation
> 
> Yes the same company that owns AMC and VOOM until it was killed due to carriage issues that could not be resolved with Dish.


Exactly 100% correct.

You guys need to stop thinking Cablevision and Dishnetwork is making a team effort against fox. No Way!:nono2:

Rainbow Media Hates Charlie Ergen with a passion.
Don't forget that.


----------



## BenJF3

damondlt said:


> Exactly 100% correct.
> 
> You guys need to stop thinking Cablevision and Dishnetwork is making a team effort against fox. No Way!:nono2:
> 
> Rainbow Media Hates Charlie Ergen with a passion.
> Don't forget that.


and you all are missing the point- Re-trans in it's current form is bad for the consumer and needs to be changed. I don't care who the provider is, these blackouts happen all the time now. You never heard of this crap before these media conglomerates bought up everything!


----------



## runner861

BenJF3 said:


> _DING, DING, DING!_
> 
> Kerry Pledges To Introduce Retrans Reform Legislation


The article describes a proposal that seems rather weak. Once the NAB is finished with it, it will be even weaker or abandoned.

The only good part is it requires disclosure of each party's last offer before a channel is pulled. That may help a little. Each party is entitled to its own opinion, but each party is not entitled to its own set of facts. Right now, we can't even get the facts of a dispute, just each party's filtered and slanted and outright dishonest version.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> Why should a multi-billion dollar broadcaster like Fox be able to refuse to serve the people they are licensed to serve unless paid extra? When 85% of their viewership comes via cable and satellite putting out a good broadcast signal isn't needed. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the money to roll in. Because they can.


"refuse to serve the people"?

Fox is serving people whether or not Cablevision or Dish Network are carrying their affiliates.

"We need locals to compete with cable". Does anyone honestly believe DirecTV and Dish Network would have 30+ million subscribers in 2010 if networks weren't on DBS? People keep forgetting. The addition of locals brought subscribers that would never have signed up. And the same can be said of cable TV in the 1970's and 1980's.

I've said before it is a symbiotic relationship, yet the profits in the 1980's only went one way.

To give anyone an idea of the problem here:

Cablevision loses Fox to about 5 million households, and the world is coming to an end.

Dish Network gets sued by one of the programmers because they felt Dish Network should have to pay interest.

Cablevision is complaining that they have to go from $8 million to $34 million a year in retrans payments. Dish Network was ordered to pay $65 million in late interest payments. The monetary dynamics of the TV business model are skewed.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> "refuse to serve the people"?
> 
> Fox is serving people whether or not Cablevision or Dish Network are carrying their affiliates.
> 
> "We need locals to compete with cable". Does anyone honestly believe DirecTV and Dish Network would have 30+ million subscribers in 2010 if networks weren't on DBS? People keep forgetting. The addition of locals brought subscribers that would never have signed up. And the same can be said of cable TV in the 1970's and 1980's.
> 
> I've said before it is a symbiotic relationship, yet the profits in the 1980's only went one way.
> 
> To give anyone an idea of the problem here:
> 
> Cablevision loses Fox to about 5 million households, and the world is coming to an end.
> 
> Dish Network gets sued by one of the programmers because they felt Dish Network should have to pay interest.
> 
> Cablevision is complaining that they have to go from $8 million to $34 million a year in retrans payments. Dish Network was ordered to pay $65 million in late interest payments. The monetary dynamics of the TV business model are skewed.


The OTA broadcasters don't even cover the communities they are supposed to be "serving" in many cases. Then they claim areas as local that are unable to receive any signal with any type of antenna, due to terrain or distance or due to the broadcaster putting out a weak, lousy signal. Then that crummy local station will pull its signal in some retransmission dispute. Yet those same viewers are blocked by the local station from receiving a distant station, so they must put up with some lousy SD signal provided by a satellite carrier or no signal at all. Congress really needs to get involved and start serving the consumer, and stop being a tool of the NAB.


----------



## SHS

What most people don't get is if News Corporation get it way the other broadcast media networks will fallow suit and start changing out noes with 50% rate hike which bad all round for us Cable/Satellite customers. 
I say can all News Corporation channel don't give in to there BS greed just becuase Murdoch lost tens of millions in playing in stock market and pass on bucks to us customers:nono:.

Greg are you looking at the bigger picture of things.



> "We need locals to compete with cable"


Now if they only get rid 50% of trash show that wouldn't be a problem more people would used them locals channel.
But min people can not get ATSC (OTA transmissions) do where they live you know the type of housing there in, hell I be lucky to get one maybe two channel when I move Coleman, Oklahoma next month so my only option are Dishnetwork or DirecTV.



> I've said before it is a symbiotic relationship, yet the profits in the 1980's only went one way.


That not so profits where being reused to run lines all over town or citys back in days in fact in days most of the profits are being reused to run all new upgrade better and faster cable lines.


----------



## kenglish

Since Congress seems hell-bent on eliminating broadcasting anyway, does any of this matter?

But, since Congress is also claiming that America cannot survive without unlimited 700 MHz spectrum for phones, internet, etc, why not just eliminate all broadcasting from the current TV bands, and move it all to FREE satellite?

The government could simply require that current satellite broadcasters design all their new receivers to demodulate HD local-in-to-local signals as a FTA signal, using a single, common modulation system. Then, allow anyone with a hundred bucks to go down to Wally-Mart and buy an FTA receiver, and a dish, if they don't already have a pay subscription. Consolidate all the locals in to spot beams, running a single HD channel (rather than the current SD and HD separates, times two providers), along with whatever local-content sub-channels they can produce, and uplink them to the birds. When the current L-I-L system needs updating, such as new satellites and new terrestrial facilities, turn them over to the local stations to run as a consortium, and take the burden off the DBS providers. The government is already talking about "buying out" some broadcasters, so why not use that money to "buy" some of the DBS (L-I-L) spectrum back from Dave and Charlie?

That way, everybody can just get their local "stations" via a dish, with the spot-beams providing the "protection" from out-of-market broadcasts. People who want to buy cable or satellite premium channels can still do so. At the end-of-life of the sats and ground facilities, the FCC can get completely out of it, and let the stations' consortium foot the bills (just like they do nowadays, with their transmitters), and new broadcasters can buy in as required.


----------



## chum76

SayWhat? said:


> Still not getting it are you? *FOX PULLED* THE CHANNELS.
> 
> Dish and Cablevision tried to negotiate. Fox refused.


Well of course they pulled the channels as they should have. If I am a dish subscriber and refuse to pay my bill do you think my screen would go blank? :lol:


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> IF people get the re-transmission via cable or satellite who could have gotten it via OTA (I use myself as an example here) then no eyes are gained in that household. The only gained viewers would be those who are outside the normal OTA reception area.


I would be willing to bet that in 90% of DMAs that cable/sat provides OTA programming to people that would not be able to easily get it with an OTA antenna.



Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't have an answer for you here. Although I suppose I could play devil's advocate and ask if you know for sure that they aren't paying those local channels. Even if they aren't paying, they must be getting permission from them to do so.


I do. I had a MATV license back in the 80's and worked on a number of CATV systems for apartment complexes and motels. None of them had a rebroadcast license. The local channels were happy these establishments put in the systems as it increase their viewership. AFAIK no license was required and if there was I am sure that my training and testing by the FCC would have had section on it.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Perhaps... but then why does the charge continue after the equipment has been paid for? IF a company like Dish charges $5 for locals, does it really cost them $5 per customer in perpetuity to pay for the maintenance of that equipment? That seems like a lot, since I can buy an antenna myself for less than $100 and pick up all the channels for just me for that one time charge.


 So you think that the digital lines to bring in the signals, the sats, the uplink and downlink equipment, the transmission lines to each house, the trucks to fix those lines, the employees to fix the lines, etc. are ever paid off and require no unkeep and/or continued upgrading? Your lowly antenna can not be compared to a sat. uplink/downlink distro.

I my case I put up an OTA antenna this summer, total cost was over $500 for the tower, antenna, cabling and installation supplies. That is 8 years of $5 per month.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Not fact, just your opinion. Not saying you aren't entitled of course... but you can't claim it as fact.


And of course yours is YOUR opinion too and you can't claim as fact


----------



## HobbyTalk

chum76 said:


> Well of course they pulled the channels as they should have. If I am a dish subscriber and refuse to pay my bill do you think my screen would go blank? :lol:


Your not paying your bill does not effect millions of people. Part of a stations license agreement for their spectrum allotment is that they serve the public. If they wanted to serve the public they could have left on the signal until an agreement was reached and they recover the back fees owed if there was an increase.

Are you are in favor of teachers, police and air traffic controllers to be forced to stay on the job and work without a contract when there is a contract dispute?


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> You guys need to stop thinking Cablevision and Dishnetwork is making a team effort against fox. No Way!:nono2:
> 
> Rainbow Media Hates Charlie Ergen with a passion.
> Don't forget that.


So ... how did DISH get AMC HD added to the lineup?

MSG/MSG+/Fuse is a problem DISH has to deal with. I assume that one will end in the same way the Yes "dispute" ended. A contract DISH can live with or no carriage at all.

But one cannot claim eternal hatred between the two companies when DISH adds Rainbow Media channels. There is some relationship there. And working together to "beat" Fox on O&O carriage is something that will help both companies. It would be in their best interest not to hold on to the past or other issues while working on a "common enemy".


----------



## russ9

Fox's latest salvo - Cutting off Hulu access to it's programming for Cablevision INTERNET customers. It didn't last long, but it shows the crap Fox will pull. 
Pond Scum

Dish and the cable providers should reverse the equation - charge Fox for delivering their programming to its customers, just like UPS does, thus providing eyeballs to advertisers (which is what it is all about). Hell, even the newspaper has to pay someone to deliver its product.

Hulu, the irony!


----------



## chum76

HobbyTalk said:


> Your not paying your bill does not effect millions of people. Part of a stations license agreement for their spectrum allotment is that they serve the public. If they wanted to serve the public they could have left on the signal until an agreement was reached and they recover the back fees owed if there was an increase.
> 
> Are you are in favor of teachers, police and air traffic controllers to be forced to stay on the job and work without a contract when there is a contract dispute?


I think the stations argument would be to use OTA or change cable/satellite providers. I am not taking sides but Fox has alot of sporting events that are very expensive, and if ESPN gets top dollar why cant they? And your other point I wont comment on due to politics but I agreed with the gipper.


----------



## whummer

HobbyTalk said:


> So you are saying that Dish should pay whatever the programmers ask for and they they should pass on those costs to you? If each programmer would ask for 50% raises in rates, your bill would go up at least 50%. What would be your opinion then?


I am saying that Dish and its programmers should work out their business relationship without dragging subscribers into it. I do not care who charges what and who pays what. Dish and Fox, as well as all the other providers, should run their business in whatever manner they see fit and if a Dish subscriber like I have been for the past 13 years decides the price is too high or they do not want to settle for for not getting the channels they want and have subscribed to, then they can simply change providers.


----------



## lparsons21

whummer said:


> I am saying that Dish and its programmers should work out their business relationship without dragging subscribers into it. I do not care who charges what and who pays what. Dish and Fox, as well as all the other providers, should run their business in whatever manner they see fit and if a Dish subscriber like I have been for the past 13 years decides the price is too high or they do not want to settle for for not getting the channels they want and have subscribed to, then they can simply change providers.


While I agree that they should do it without dragging the subscribers into it, that takes away any leverage in the negotiations, or at least reduces the leverage.


----------



## kenglish

russ9 said:


> Dish and the cable providers should reverse the equation - charge Fox for delivering their programming to its customers, just like UPS does, thus providing eyeballs to advertisers (which is what it is all about). Hell, even the newspaper has to pay someone to deliver its product.
> Hulu, the irony!


That would be hard to do, since the satellite and cable companies also provide DVRs, so that their customers can SKIP the advertising. Even UPS has to pay back the shipper if they (intentionally) lose a package.


----------



## Paul Secic

James Long said:


> My prediction:
> 
> The contract for Fox O&O carriage will expire on November 1st. All Fox O&O stations will leave DISH Network (as required, since Fox has chosen "consent to carry" for their stations and as of November 1st DISH will not have consent to carry Fox O&O programming). Game 5 (if played) will not be aired via DISH.
> 
> There will be much noise on the Internets over the issue. See current thread for an example. Sort term a few will continue to predict the death of DISH. Especially if the World Series ends up being won in Game 5.
> 
> If there is a Game 6 there is a good chance that it will be aired via DISH ... DISH and Fox will come to an agreement sometime in the afternoon on November 3rd and all the channels will return. If there is no game six ... find the next thing people might actually miss on Fox O&O.
> 
> The last major dispute (CBS/Viacom) was solved with a two day outage. I don't expect any less of an outage this time around.
> 
> The final deal? We'll never know. All we will know is that the channels are back and both Fox and DISH will break their arms patting themselves on the back in press releases touting the success of their deal.
> 
> Long term ... DISH will do fine. As noted, they have survived losing channels before. Fox isn't that special.
> 
> That's my opinion.


Frankly I just watch NATGEO once in a while & don't watch the FOX Network at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HobbyTalk said:


> I would be willing to bet that in 90% of DMAs that cable/sat provides OTA programming to people that would not be able to easily get it with an OTA antenna.


Not sure how to read this... Are you meaning to say that in 90% of DMAs there are some people who need cable/sat to get OTA?

OR

Are you meaning to say that 90% of people who subscribe to cable/sat NEED to do so to get OTA?

I'd agree with the first, but not the 2nd interpretation.



HobbyTalk said:


> So you think that the digital lines to bring in the signals, the sats, the uplink and downlink equipment, the transmission lines to each house, the trucks to fix those lines, the employees to fix the lines, etc. are ever paid off and require no unkeep and/or continued upgrading? Your lowly antenna can not be compared to a sat. uplink/downlink distro.
> 
> I my case I put up an OTA antenna this summer, total cost was over $500 for the tower, antenna, cabling and installation supplies. That is 8 years of $5 per month.


Yeah, but Dish doesn't have to put up a tower and $500 antenna setup like you do... because they can go right to where the OTA is being broadcast.

In fact, at least in my area, local channels provide fibre lines to Time Warner... and would do so to Dish or DirecTV if they wanted. I don't know how DirecTV does it, but Dish appears to go near the broadcast tower and put up an antenna.

Yes, the uplink equipment has some cost... but that cost is divided over all the subscribers in the DMA who subscribe to locals... and $5 per subscriber for all of those subscribers tends to add up quickly for one uplink location.

Think about it this way... there's no reason that the cost of maintaining the equipment for a DMA's locals should cost more than the equipment for any other group of channels... and yet this pricing of $5-$6 for locals doesn't apply across the board to all carried channels.



HobbyTalk said:


> And of course yours is YOUR opinion too and you can't claim as fact


Of course... the difference being I didn't say mine was all fact, whereas you did


----------



## dakeeney

Paul Secic said:


> Frankly I just watch NATGEO once in a while & don't watch the FOX Network at all.


I rarely watched NatGeo and watched FX for Terriers. On Fox I only watch Bones, Good Guys, and Raising Hope. I DO NOT miss FX, Nat Geo or all the RSN's. Our local Fox is not an O&O station. I'm still with Dish


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> They should be. Even broadcasters seem to have forgotten the reason that they were granted a license to broadcast. To serve their communities. Broadcasters should be doing everything possible to meet that promise ... including allowing their signals to be rebroadcast.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why should a multi-billion dollar broadcaster like Fox be able to refuse to serve the people they are licensed to serve unless paid extra? When 85% of their viewership comes via cable and satellite putting out a good broadcast signal isn't needed. All they have to do is sit back and wait for the money to roll in. Because they can.


What is often missed in these discussions... Broadcast channels are broadcast for free OTA and anyone that can put up an antenna and receive them can get these signals at no additional cost beyond the antenna installation.

No one is entitled to anything more than that... and technically you aren't even entitled to that. IF you get a TV and put up an antenna, then you get what you get, and that's it. IF you want more and are willing to pay, there are cable/sat options to do so.

No one has a right to OTA channels. IF you can't receive them where you live, even with an antenna outside, then you aren't guaranteed or entitled to them for free some other way.

Just because you can't get something for free that others can get for free, doesn't mean someone owes you something...

Companies give away stuff all the time that they don't want people to sell. IF a company appears at a convention and gives stuff away, then they don't care what happens to that stuff later in most cases.

BUT... a company who gives away a freebie if you visit their office is doing so to get you into the office to perhaps convince you to buy something. They would not want (or permit usually) someone going in and grabbing cases of the free stuff to distribute around town because this would prevent those people from visiting the office as intended. Worse, if someone tries to re-sell the free stuff and turn a profit, the company would not like that either and would be within rights to prevent it either by demanding royalties on each sale OR blocking people from picking up freebies to re-sell.

So... people who don't want to pay for OTA... it is simple. DON'T PAY FOR IT  Put up an antenna and get it free as provided... and if you can't do that, then essentially tough.

As long as cable and satellite companies want to charge for retransmission they should have to pay for the right to do so.

Now on the topic of this thread... what are those signals worth? That is up to people to decide for themselves. I even started a thread in the General Satellite forum to ask what people think their TV is worth, but surprisingly for all the complaining that people do in threads like this... not many people seem to have an opinion on what their TV is worth to them!

FOX has the right to ask for more money. Dish has the right to balk. Dish customers have the right to balk at a price increase. FOX has the right to pull the channels. Customers have the right to be mad about that too.

IF FOX is asking for more than the channels are worth (my opinion in this case), then hopefully they will not get their increase... especially if they try strong-arm tactics and cutting people off from other channels as a way to get money for all of their channels.


----------



## Paul Secic

TheRatPatrol said:


> I wonder how many OTA antennas were sold today?
> 
> I still don't understand why cable and satellite have to pay to rebroadcast local channels when a person can put up an antenna and get their locals for free.


Digital signals have problems in different areas. A friend of mine two miles away can't get anything. He ordered Comcast's lowest tier which costs $49.00 per month.


----------



## phrelin

Stewart Vernon said:


> What is often missed in these discussions... Broadcast channels are broadcast for free OTA and anyone that can put up an antenna and receive them can get these signals at no additional cost beyond the antenna installation.
> 
> No one is entitled to anything more than that... and technically you aren't even entitled to that. IF you get a TV and put up an antenna, then you get what you get, and that's it. IF you want more and are willing to pay, there are cable/sat options to do so.
> 
> No one has a right to OTA channels. IF you can't receive them where you live, even with an antenna outside, then you aren't guaranteed or entitled to them for free some other way.
> 
> Just because you can't get something for free that others can get for free, doesn't mean someone owes you something...


Stewart, that denies the entire history of federal regulation of broadcast radio (and subsequently, TV). To say that "no one" has a right to OTA channels is to deny that these OTA television stations can be built by anyone, anytime, anywhere, using any frequency, willy, nilly, and the broadcasters have no obligations to anyone.

That was the situation in 1925 and in many parts of the nation all you could hear was chaos, as existing Congressional regulation was written in 1912 when radio meant ship-to-shore broadcasting. Out of that chaos came the Radio Act of 1927 which required that radio 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 meant and there were many points of view. But at the time, no one that I ever heard of thought one who lived within in a territory served by a radio station shouldn't be allowed to get that signal by whatever means possible.

One thing for certain I can tell you is that 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 original context that I view everything that is going on today.

IMHO to look at it from any other point of view, you should begin by explaining why broadcast stations shouldn't be allowed to scramble their signals and require a box to receive the signal for a fee. If there isn't some public entitlement to that signal based on that federal license, there is nobody entitled to OTA.

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

Again, if that isn't a correct interpretation, then I see no reason local stations can't scramble the signal and rent you a box for OTA reception.


----------



## James Long

whummer said:


> I am saying that Dish and its programmers should work out their business relationship without dragging subscribers into it.


Sorry, that is not possible. Think about it: Fox makes a demand, DISH makes an offer. DISH cannot carry the channels unless they accept the demand or Fox accepts the offer. What if Fox wants a million dollars per subscriber and won't back down? Following your rule DISH would accept the offer ... but paying any provider a million dollars per sub IS going to affect the customer as the customer is the source of the income that pays that monthly fee. There is no benevolent underwriter paying carriage fees ... it all gets passed on to the subscriber.

So Fox asks for $10 per subscriber. Too much? At what point under your rule can DISH say no to a price? Or should they just accept any offer, pass the price on and hope that the high prices they are forced to charge in order to pay the providers don't put them out of business.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Yes, the uplink equipment has some cost... but that cost is divided over all the subscribers in the DMA who subscribe to locals... and $5 per subscriber for all of those subscribers tends to add up quickly for one uplink location.


Do you really think that the money collected for locals covers the cost of delivery?

Look at two examples: Bluefield/Oak Hill, WV. They have five HD and one SD channels uplinked from one uplink center. These channels must be received in market, backhauled to the uplink center and transmitted to satellite. How many subscribers are there in that market? Enough?

The second example: New York, NY. 18 channels on two different satellite locations. A lot more bandwidth required for the backhaul - especially with two uplink centers needing feeds. But a lot more customers.

$5 per subscriber adds up quickly ... but so do the costs involved in buying and maintaining equipment and backhauls ... plus the high expense of satellites needed to provide the spotbeams. But looking at it market by market is simply foolish. The cost of a backhaul from the boonies is more expensive than one from a well connected city. Additional channels in larger cities add to the price from there. There are too many variables to assume that each market's costs are covered by that market's customers. Or even the $5 each from all customers. $65 million is a good start toward paying the costs ... but running ~210 points of presence and thousands of video backhauls cuts into that pretty quickly. Plus all the uplink centers that would not exist if it were not for locals.



> Think about it this way... there's no reason that the cost of maintaining the equipment for a DMA's locals should cost more than the equipment for any other group of channels.


Stop and think. What does it take to carry AMC HD? One satellite receiver in Cheyenne or Gilbert feeding two multiplexers (one for each arc). The signal never leaves the building. What does it take to carry Bluefield, WV, locals? A remote reception site with six ATSC digital tuners and backhauls to an uplink center that would not exist if it were not for locals. Sounds like a reason why locals would cost a LOT more to carry than a simple satellite fed channel. All DISH has to do to get AMC HD is connect a receiver to a dish they are using for other channels they carry. Not so much for local markets.



Stewart Vernon said:


> What is often missed in these discussions... Broadcast channels are broadcast for free OTA and anyone that can put up an antenna and receive them can get these signals at no additional cost beyond the antenna installation.


Instead of buying a huge tower and antenna system I decided to share the cost with a few thousand of my neighbors. We got together and pooled our money paying a community antenna TV system to put up a huge tower (several hundred feet tall) on the edge of town, receive the signal clearer than anyone's home antenna could and share the signal to all who contribute toward maintaining the system.

The technology changed ... I'm no longer sharing an antenna with my neighbor. I have my locals received by a high quality receiver 15 miles from my home, sent by fiber optic to an uplink center that is about 80 miles further away, then bounced off a satellite in space to be received by my antenna in my back yard. But the concept is the same. Instead of buying a 30ft or 50ft tall tower to clear the trees and paying for it (hoping it doesn't get damaged and fall on my house) I share the feed off of DISH's receive antenna 15 miles away. And pay the local broadcasters for the "privilege" of watching their shows. Beyond the shared cost of the system.


----------



## farmerdave4

If they take away our Local FOX station, for us that have OTA on VIP receivers I wonder if OTA channel guide would still exist or just Digital Channel would appear. I am assuming that Dish does not have the ability to take away what channels we receive OTA. I was looking at moving to D* but it looks like they don't have OTA receiption in there receivers and I am not willing to give up having sub channels yet.


----------



## DodgerKing

farmerdave4 said:


> If they take away our Local FOX station, for us that have OTA on VIP receivers I wonder if OTA channel guide would still exist or just Digital Channel would appear. I am assuming that Dish does not have the ability to take away what channels we receive OTA. I was looking at moving to D* but it looks like they don't have OTA receiption in there receivers and I am not willing to give up having sub channels yet.


The HR20 (High Def DVR) and the H20 (High Def receiver) have two built in OTA tuners. The other DVR's and receivers accept the *AM21* (external OTA tuner) that is also integrated into the guide and plugs into the USB port in the back of the DVR/Receiver


----------



## phrelin

I enjoyed an opinion piece at newjerseynewsroom sports headlined FOX-Cablevision dispute and authentic frontier gibberish which notes:


> What Israel (along with King and Lautenberg) should have said was that he and his 434 fellow members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate should revisit the 1984 Cable TV Act and become pro-choice advocates and give consumers a chance to pick and choose what cable TV channels they want.


:grin:


----------



## farmerdave4

DodgerKing said:


> The HR20 (High Def DVR) and the H20 (High Def receiver) have two built in OTA tuners. The other DVR's and receivers accept the *AM21* (external OTA tuner) that is also integrated into the guide and plugs into the USB port in the back of the DVR/Receiver


Thanks for clearing that up. I'll take a closer look at the owners manual. So would that mean each HR20 can record two SAT Channels and two OTA at the same time? or it can only record two programs at a time?


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Far too many people that once had access to the OTA analog signal no longer have access to digital OTA because the signal does not travel as well. 

If I were the government, I would do one of two things. 

(i) Mandate that the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) erect enough repeaters so that 100% get access to the signal, or 

(ii) Mandate that the major networks make available their transmission via satellite, and the government would provide a dish and box that would enable anyone to download the signal, free.

I find it unconscionable that so many seasoned citizens that had been receiving the analog signal a few years ago now have to pay 50 dollars or so a month to access basic TV.


----------



## DodgerKing

farmerdave4 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I'll take a closer look at the owners manual. So would that mean each HR20 can record two SAT Channels and two OTA at the same time? or it can only record two programs at a time?


Even though it has 4 tuners, only two are active at one time. You can record 2 OTA, 2 Satellite, or 1 OTA and 1 Satellite channel at a time


----------



## RAD

farmerdave4 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I'll take a closer look at the owners manual. So would that mean each HR20 can record two SAT Channels and two OTA at the same time? or it can only record two programs at a time?


Can record a max of only two programs, two DBS or two OTA or one OTA/one DBS. The only exception is you can also record a program via DirecTV on Demand while recording two others.


----------



## phrelin

In the every cloud has a silver lining department, from Local Bars See Surge Thanks to Fox Blackout:


> Brendan Tandy, owner of Smithtown's Napper Tandy's, said that Napper's always hosts a packed bar for Sunday football, but that they received a lot more phone calls the night before from fans inquiring about the Giants.
> 
> Blacksmith Tavern was so packed Sunday afternoon that bartenders did not have a free minute to answer questions. However, residents were loud and clear on the issue.


----------



## Davenlr

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Far too many people that once had access to the OTA analog signal no longer have access to digital OTA because the signal does not travel as well.


Not exactly true. In some cases, it was a poor channel choice by the television station to save money (using lower power vhf channels). In some cases, it is because the signal was almost unwatchable to begin with (snowy analog).

It is the unwillingness of a lot of people, to mount a real antenna on their roof, that prohibits reception. I can pick up digital channels from 140 miles away with my roof mounted antenna, and NEVER have any issues with my own DMA channels.

If you want to use indoor antennas, you get what you get.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Gloria_Chavez said:


> (i) Mandate that the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) erect enough repeaters so that 100% get access to the signal, or


What defines 100% access... you can still have significant issues that no matter how many repeaters, people still won't be able to get signal.
And who is going to pay for it? Networks already had to pay for the Digital transition, that was mandated on them



Gloria_Chavez said:


> (
> (ii) Mandate that the major networks make available their transmission via satellite, and the government would provide a dish and box that would enable anyone to download the signal, free.


And people thought that subsidizing the digital converter boxes was expensive.



Gloria_Chavez said:


> I find it unconscionable that so many seasoned citizens that had been receiving the analog signal a few years ago now have to pay 50 dollars or so a month to access basic TV.


So many other issues that the government and others should be working on.
Just a few years ago, people were able to pay their mortgages and had jobs.


----------



## phrelin

From the NY Times:


> Football fans did not have to be shut out entirely. They could watch Fox over the public airwaves, and on the Internet if they did a little digging. A Web site called ivi TV, which transmits the signal of WNYW in New York (as well as a host of other channels in New York, Seattle and some in Italy and China) for a monthly charge of $4.99 a month, was offering a 30-day free trial on Sunday that made the game available live via the Internet.


----------



## phrelin

From Newsday:


> Talks between Cablevision and Fox regarding a new agreement over retransmission fees for WNYW/5 and My 9, among other program channels, broke off just before 4 p.m. today.
> 
> In a statement, Fox reported that "we continue to remain far apart."


According to Variety:


> According to sources, no material progress was made in today's meeting. But execs did agree to meet again on Monday.


----------



## nmetro

So, if the above happened to Cablevision, it means come 1 November, Denver will lose both KWGN (CW) and KDVR (FOX), because Fox has an ownership stake in KWGN. Just like FOX owns KNYW and WWOR. Not only that, if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR. 

So, it is quite possoble that FOX own "duopolies" will have even a larger impact than just losing a FOX affiliate. In some cases, like Denver and New York, a second station as well.

Meanwhile, the FCC and Congress do nothing about retransmission consent. Apparently, this is another case where the NAB thinks they really own the frequencies they broadcast on and they can charge as much as the market will bear for signals that can be received OTA. Unfortunately, for people like myself who live too far from a transmitter, and have hills and mountains in the way, cable, DISH or DirectTV are my only options.

Finally, while Cablevision is certainly no angel, it is the largest provider in the New York/Long Island area. In the case of Long Island it is Cablevision or satellite. But, for many people a good antenna will get signals from New York City and Connecticut. So, there is an option.

Bad enough that Murdoch is trying to buy votes in the election; now he shows his true arrogance.


----------



## Satelliteracer

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Far too many people that once had access to the OTA analog signal no longer have access to digital OTA because the signal does not travel as well.
> 
> If I were the government, I would do one of two things.
> 
> (i) Mandate that the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) erect enough repeaters so that 100% get access to the signal, or
> 
> (ii) Mandate that the major networks make available their transmission via satellite, and the government would provide a dish and box that would enable anyone to download the signal, free.
> 
> I find it unconscionable that so many seasoned citizens that had been receiving the analog signal a few years ago now have to pay 50 dollars or so a month to access basic TV.


Who is going to pay for all those repeaters? I'm guessing you would want the networks to do so....in which case they are going to want to be compensated for that. Who is going to pay for all those receivers?

As for their content, they pay an enormous amount of money to create, develop, broadcast their shows (unions, actors, production, sports, etc).....this stuff isn't free.


----------



## Satelliteracer

nmetro said:


> So, if the above happened to Cablevision, it means come 1 November, Denver will lose both KWGN (CW) and KDVR (FOX), because Fox has an ownership stake in KWGN. Just like FOX owns KNYW and WWOR. Not only that, if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR.


Why would your CW be affected just because Fox owns part of that station? Should have no impact at all unless the CW carriage is up on that station.


----------



## Slamminc11

phrelin said:


> In the every cloud has a silver lining department, from Local Bars See Surge Thanks to Fox Blackout:


So if one of those people going to the bars decided to drink too much and drives and kills someone, I wonder if Fox and Murdoch could be sued by the dead persons family. I mean if they hadn't shut off Fox on Cablevision, the person wouldn't have had to go to the bar to see the game, and thus the drunk driver wouldn't have been on the road and caused the death...
Stretch maybe, but...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> Stewart, that denies the entire history of federal regulation of broadcast radio (and subsequently, TV).
> 
> ...
> 
> Even at that time, nobody knew exactly what that meant and there were many points of view. But at the time, no one that I ever heard of thought one who lived within in a territory served by a radio station shouldn't be allowed to get that signal by whatever means possible.


You are combining two different concepts here, though... and maybe it is my fault for the words I've chosen.

Anyone in the USA can buy a TV with a built-in tuner OR add a converter box and put up an antenna and try to receive OTA broadcast channels. There is no guarantee you will be able to receive any, though.

IF you can, then those broadcasts are free to view... BUT if you can't receive them with a TV + antenna for free via OTA broadcast, you are in no way entitled to receive those same broadcasts for free via any other method.

Where would it end?

Say I am in a rural area where I can't receive OTA... and cable hasn't deployed to me either... and there is a huge forest such that I can't receive satellite either.

Would that mean I was entitled to receive DVDs of all my favorite TV shows for free? They are broadcast for free after all... so why should I have to pay for DVDs of something that is given to me for free? And why should DVD manufacturers have to pay the actors/writers/etc for the right to sell DVDs when they already gave the shows away for free OTA?

Do you see where I'm going? Just because the OTA broadcast is free... doesn't mean the content is free forever in all other forms of delivery... and just because OTA broadcast is free doesn't mean you are entitled to receive that content for free elsewhere via another method.

On a tangent... there are those who have tried to argue something similar for music... that since songs are played on free broadcast radio, we shouldn't have to buy them on CDs or even pay for downloadable digital copies. I hope you can see the flaw in that line of thinking that just because something is given away on a free broadcast medium doesn't make it free forever in all other possible formats.

We are entitled to nothing... technically we have a "right" to receive the free OTA broadcast stations IF we can receive them with the intended TV + antenna equipment.

But we are not entitled to receive them via cable or satellite.


----------



## James Long

DodgerKing said:


> Even though it has 4 tuners, only two are active at one time. You can record 2 OTA, 2 Satellite, or 1 OTA and 1 Satellite channel at a time


Unlike the DISH 722k and 922 where all four can be recording at the same time (all three on the 622 and 722 that have a single OTA tuner).

Downloads for DISHOnline are separate from the four tuners and content can be downloaded while four tuner recordings are in progress.


----------



## James Long

Satelliteracer said:


> Who is going to pay for all those repeaters? I'm guessing you would want the networks to do so....in which case they are going to want to be compensated for that. Who is going to pay for all those receivers?


No problem. Cable and satellite will help. All the station has to do is elect "must carry" and they can reach ~85% of their audience for free.



> As for their content, they pay an enormous amount of money to create, develop, broadcast their shows (unions, actors, production, sports, etc).....this stuff isn't free.


Does the local station pay any more if they are rebroadcast on DISH or DirecTV or do they just pay based on their market rank or ratings? Seems like that money is spent regardless of if DISH carries them.


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> Unlike the DISH 722k and 922 where all four can be recording at the same time (all three on the 622 and 722 that have a single OTA tuner).
> 
> Downloads for DISHOnline are separate from the four tuners and content can be downloaded while four tuner recordings are in progress.


The person asking knows how DISH's DVRs work: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2611742#post2611742


> ...for us that have OTA on VIP receivers...


----------



## James Long

sigma1914 said:


> The person asking knows how DISH's DVRs work: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2611742#post2611742


This being a DISH forum it isn't entirely off topic how DISH receivers work. As for further questions about DirecTV we have a place for that too. Further questions about DirecTV should be asked in the DirecTV forums.

:backtotop DISH vs Fox


----------



## epokopac

" ... if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR." 

CH 238 (WWOR) is still on the air as of 6:06 PM EDT SUN 10-18-10. I was expecting it to be dark on Saturday because of the Cablevision issue.


----------



## RasputinAXP

epokopac said:


> " ... if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR."
> 
> CH 238 (WWOR) is still on the air as of 6:06 PM EDT SUN 10-18-10. I was expecting it to be dark on Saturday because of the Cablevision issue.


It's dark to Cablevision, not Dish.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> You are combining two different concepts here, though... and maybe it is my fault .... _blah blah blah..._


And in the end it comes down to greed and not the station wanting to serve the viewer. There are no additional costs to the broadcaster to have their signal rebroadcast. Yes, some do provide the link and fiber but they wouldn't have to if they became "must carry". The only reason that I can see they want to charge for it is that they can and are greedy. Of course it could also be that a majority of their programming is crap and advertisers just don't want to pay as much to advertise on crap programming. So to make up for it they are now charging the viewer for their free programming.

BTW, Dish no longer charges for LiL channels so they are providing it for free


----------



## TheRatPatrol

While walking my dog earlier I noticed some more recently installed D* dishes. I wonder how many have jumped over since this all started?


----------



## Joe Diver

Slamminc11 said:


> So if one of those people going to the bars decided to drink too much and drives and kills someone, I wonder if Fox and Murdoch could be sued by the dead persons family..


Sure, why not. It's the American Way now. Blame anyone else except the dumbass who caused the problem to begin with.



TheRatPatrol said:


> While walking my dog earlier I noticed some more recently installed D* dishes. I wonder how many have jumped over since this all started?


I've noticed, walking around my neighborhood, that DirecTV now greatly outnumbers Dish. Seems like I see one or two DirecTV trucks every day now.


----------



## inazsully

TheRatPatrol said:


> While walking my dog earlier I noticed some more recently installed D* dishes. I wonder how many have jumped over since this all started?


I live in a retirement community of 35,000 in Arizona and I play in several large golf leagues. Lots of angry Dish owners and many saying they are switching after Nov. 1 if they lose FOX. FSNAZ is a huge deal out here. The Red Wings were in town Sat night playing the Coyotes. I think we have more Red Wing fans here than Coyote fans. And the NBA starts in two weeks.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HobbyTalk said:


> And in the end it comes down to greed and not the station wanting to serve the viewer.


You just can't make that argument and mean it.

Are you greedy for asking for overtime pay at your job? I mean, you already are at work so why should they pay you more? You're just greedy for wanting more money to do the same work! 

I am not naive... and I know businesses are not doing it "for the customer" any more than people do things "for the children" whenever they profess it... but it is absolutely fair and American (capitalist system) for someone to want to be paid for something they create/transmit.

I make something and I give it away if you come to me to get it.. but I have every right to prevent people from taking my giveaways across the street and selling them to people who can't come to me to get them. The product is mine, and I'll happily give it away to anyone who wants it... but I don't grant permission for you to take a bunch and sell them to people and stop them from coming to me.

I can't go to McDonald's and buy up a truck of burgers & fries and then open up McRonald's across the street and re-sell their burgers for profit.

Heck, in the entertainment world ticket scalping is illegal if you sell the ticket for more than it costs you to get it.

In the computer shareware world and in Linux distribution... there is lots of "free" software that you can redistribute all you want as long as you distribute the entire software without changes, give the full documentation, and do not charge for it!

As soon as you start charging for the shareware or Linux code without permission, then you have a problem... you have to pay to play unless you want to give the whole thing away free.

So Dish, DirecTV, and cable could probably get re-transmission agreements for all locals IF they agreed to not charge for them in any market... but once that slippery slope started, then the price negotiations began and that's where we are now.


----------



## chum76

Satelliteracer said:


> Who is going to pay for all those repeaters? I'm guessing you would want the networks to do so....in which case they are going to want to be compensated for that. Who is going to pay for all those receivers?
> 
> As for their content, they pay an enormous amount of money to create, develop, broadcast their shows (unions, actors, production, sports, etc).....this stuff isn't free.


Our local stations are building repeaters all over the DMA. The only channel I cant get is the CW but the station has a construction permit for a repeater in our area. TVfool and rabbitears.com are good free tools to find local signals. I agree about the costs Fox must pay and I dont blame them for wanting more money.


----------



## Slamminc11

Joe Diver said:


> Sure, why not. It's the American Way now. Blame anyone else except the dumbass who caused the problem to begin with...


I believe I was...Rupert Murdoch!


----------



## grog

No one I know of? 



TheRatPatrol said:


> While walking my dog earlier I noticed some more recently installed D* dishes. I wonder how many have jumped over since this all started?


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> So Dish, DirecTV, and cable could probably get re-transmission agreements for all locals IF they agreed to not charge for them in any market... but once that slippery slope started, then the price negotiations began and that's where we are now.


Dish does not charge for LiL channels. So as you said, they should get to rebroadcast them for free. Thank you for making my point.


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> <<Insert irrelevant comparison here.>>


Stepping through the non similar comparisons:


Stewart Vernon said:


> Are you greedy for asking for overtime pay at your job? I mean, you already are at work so why should they pay you more? You're just greedy for wanting more money to do the same work!


Fox is not doing overtime. They are doing the exact same amount of work needed to fulfill their duties under their government issued license to broadcast. Rebroadcast by satellite and cable causes Fox to do no more work EXCEPT to the extent where they employ lawyers to prevent such rebroadcast of their signal. Stations that want to reach viewers more than turn a quick buck per potential viewer elect "must carry" and go about their business of broadcasting.



> The product is mine, and I'll happily give it away to anyone who wants it... but I don't grant permission for you to take a bunch and sell them to people and stop them from coming to me.


How does the rebroadcast of Fox television signals STOP people from going to Fox? What is so special about OTA reception that getting a clearer, perhaps even a possible, reception of the signal is a negative? How about if a cab brings someone to you to pick up the free product ... are you going to charge the cab company for bringing people to your business? If you do charge, they will probably stop bringing people to you.



> Heck, in the entertainment world ticket scalping is illegal if you sell the ticket for more than it costs you to get it.


You apparently skipped or ignored my post earlier about the real costs involved in retransmitting local stations. The ~$65 million DISH collects for locals is quickly spent on maintaining hundreds of local points of presence, leasing fiber backhauls from said points of presence to one or more uplink centers and building and staffing said uplink centers that WOULD NOT EXIST if it were not for carriage of said locals.

Orange, NJ, Mount Jackson, VA, Atlanta, GA, Monee, IL, Jackson, MS, Baker, MT, St Louis, MO, New Braunfels, TX, and Spokane, WA uplinks would not exist if it were not for the carriage of locals. The fiber network would not exist if it were not for carriage of said locals ("cable" channels can be received via satellite in Cheyenne or Gilbert direct from their sources).

It costs DISH a lot of money to get these signals.

Legal ticket resellers such as Ticketmaster charge fees for their services. They don't pay venues for permission to redistribute their tickets. The venues/artists pay them.



> In the computer shareware world and in Linux distribution... there is lots of "free" software that you can redistribute all you want as long as you distribute the entire software without changes, give the full documentation, and do not charge for it!


Can you charge for burning a CDROM to give to a friend?



> So Dish, DirecTV, and cable could probably get re-transmission agreements for all locals IF they agreed to not charge for them in any market... but once that slippery slope started, then the price negotiations began and that's where we are now.


Fine. DISH no longer charges for locals. They are free with any package AT120 or above. Happy? Can the stations please stop charging DISH for retransmission? Thanks.


----------



## paja

Stewart Vernon said:


> You just can't make that argument and mean it.
> 
> Are you greedy for asking for overtime pay at your job? I mean, you already are at work so why should they pay you more? You're just greedy for wanting more money to do the same work!
> 
> I am not naive... and I know businesses are not doing it "for the customer" any more than people do things "for the children" whenever they profess it... but it is absolutely fair and American (capitalist system) for someone to want to be paid for something they create/transmit.
> 
> I make something and I give it away if you come to me to get it.. but I have every right to prevent people from taking my giveaways across the street and selling them to people who can't come to me to get them. The product is mine, and I'll happily give it away to anyone who wants it... but I don't grant permission for you to take a bunch and sell them to people and stop them from coming to me.
> 
> I can't go to McDonald's and buy up a truck of burgers & fries and then open up McRonald's across the street and re-sell their burgers for profit.
> 
> Heck, in the entertainment world ticket scalping is illegal if you sell the ticket for more than it costs you to get it.
> 
> In the computer shareware world and in Linux distribution... there is lots of "free" software that you can redistribute all you want as long as you distribute the entire software without changes, give the full documentation, and do not charge for it!
> 
> As soon as you start charging for the shareware or Linux code without permission, then you have a problem... you have to pay to play unless you want to give the whole thing away free.
> 
> So Dish, DirecTV, and cable could probably get re-transmission agreements for all locals IF they agreed to not charge for them in any market... but once that slippery slope started, then the price negotiations began and that's where we are now.


I guess you don't have ticket brokers where you live. Check out the store fronts around Wrigley Field that RESELL Cub tickets for more than the Cubs sell them for. Can't wait unbtil next season to see what the brokers are RESELLING the tickets for when the Yankees come to town. $1,000 for a bleacher seat maybe?


----------



## normang

Earl Bonovich said:


> What defines 100% access... you can still have significant issues that no matter how many repeaters, people still won't be able to get signal.
> And who is going to pay for it? Networks already had to pay for the Digital transition, that was mandated on them
> 
> So many other issues that the government and others should be working on.
> Just a few years ago, people were able to pay their mortgages and had jobs.


What defines 100% coverage. that's easy. everyone. The question then becomes where do you draw the lines? Are there people living in places that no matter what you do, they cannot get an OTA signal even from perhaps a reasonably located repeater.

There are of course places you cannot get Satellite reception nor is there cable, and places I am sure that people live that might have trouble with any kind of reception no matter the source.

That said, with thousands of square miles of coverage area for a single DMA, would it be possible for them to setup repeater stations that would allow more people to easily receive their signals,of course, would it cost something, you bet, high speed data lines for the signal, towers setup, perhaps new channels defined. Will you reach everyone, probably not. Is it worth it, hard to say.

The problem with today's economy is government, they stick their nose into far too many things that should have been left alone or managed at the state or local level or not messed with at all.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Stewart Vernon said:


> So Dish, DirecTV, and cable could probably get re-transmission agreements for all locals IF they agreed to not charge for them in any market... but once that slippery slope started, then the price negotiations began and that's where we are now.


No, I'll agree with James. Twelve years ago, Dish Network and DirecTV walked into Captiol Hill asking for the ability to compete with cable; Dish Network and DirecTV _NEED_ local channels. And so did Time Warner in 2000, Dish Network again in 2004 (Viacom) and Cablevision now in 2010.

Every time they've left a system, they've been back relatively quickly.

The point is by needing local channels, it has inadvertently setup this tug-o-war regarding the carriage of local stations. Fifteen years ago when cable was truly the only viable source of programming (DirecTV had just started), rates were kept low as the cable company had all of the negotiating power. Not any more.

It doesn't matter where the fees for local channels are itemized, they're needed, according to everyone. And now Fox is expecting to get paid for them, at a more "free market" rate.


----------



## siwsiw

Can someone out there close this thread, or at least change it's title?
What should the new title be??
I don't see anything valuable in regards to this dispute. Every day I go to this forum and spend at least 20 minutes reading bla bla bla instead of reading something valuable.


----------



## Ira Lacher

> Are you are in favor of teachers, police and air traffic controllers to be forced to stay on the job and work without a contract when there is a contract dispute?


They are forced to. I believe federal employees are forbidden to strike, as per the Taft Hartley Law. And many states have laws that ban police, firefighters, and other public employees from striking.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

To those saying Dish is no longer charging for locals... You didn't really fall for that did you?

You're still paying for them... they just stopped letting you get a discount to drop them. That's not the same thing as stopping charging for them.

On the paying-for-locals note, I guess no one "gets" the value of retaining distribution rights to something you choose to give away free. I am sure all of you arguing the opposite side would want to be paid if you were creating something.

Imagine you creating home videos and uploading them to youtube... then you find out someone has been downloading your free videos, burning them to DVD, and selling them without your permission. You're seriously saying that you wouldn't be trying to get a piece of that action?

When you own something you can choose to give it away, but that doesn't negate the value.

Also, no one answered the question... Why would I not be entitled to free DVDs of TV shows since they are on free OTA? What gives them the right to sell that content? OR why can Netflix charge me to stream a TV show that I could have watched for free OTA?

It's the same argument as to why cable/sat have to pay for re-transmission rights. You can't take someone else's product and repackage it to sell as your own without paying them if they want to be paid.

It's not a new concept.


----------



## runner861

Ira Lacher said:


> They are forced to. I believe federal employees are forbidden to strike, as per the Taft Hartley Law. And many states have laws that ban police, firefighters, and other public employees from striking.


Does anyone remember when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers who illegally went on strike back in 1981?


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the paying-for-locals note, I guess no one "gets" the value of retaining distribution rights to something you choose to give away free.


Perhaps we need to get away from this, since it seems that all some are doing are stating their mind without responding. Hopefully others have got some value out of the other side of the argument. I would not mind seeing brief answers to the points I've answered but it seems that those posts are being ignored.

What harm does it do Fox O&O that their channels are picked up, for free, by DISH network and distributed to people who have the legal right to watch their station? Why is is so hard to see this as a benefit? Fox is not being asked to work any harder or spend a dime more than they do to broadcast their O&Os OTA. It seems that Fox has everything to win and nothing to lose by being carried by satellite and cable.

The only issue is consent. Fox and other broadcasters have discovered a revenue stream and they won't let it go. Last contract they smoked a little marijuana - a gateway drug - by leveraging carriage of FX, NatGeo and FoxSports with Fox O&O. If one doesn't carry our cable networks one doesn't get the O&Os. The buzz was good so they moved on to crack - a harder drug - and they are asking for money for their O&Os and claiming that their programming is worth $4 when the figures produced earlier in this thread show them charging much less. Fox is addicted. The only question is how do we intervene. What will it take to break their dangerous addiction?

Perhaps going cold turkey in a couple of weeks will help. Perhaps the next time a contract renewal comes up for MLB or NASCAR or other sports the sanctioning body will tell Fox that they don't like the way they do business and find another outlet. Perhaps the government will intervene.

In any case ... Fox has a serious problem. One that needs to be fixed.


----------



## whatchel1

Well ABC news ran the story tonight. Here is a link to the transcript. I think that the video of the story will be put on the site over night. http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=11897550 And yes it talks about Fox's plans to yank their stations on Nov 1 from E*.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> To those saying Dish is no longer charging for locals... You didn't really fall for that did you?
> 
> You're still paying for them... they just stopped letting you get a discount to drop them. That's not the same thing as stopping charging for them.


Sure they stopped charging. Where is the charge on the bill? There can not be a discount if there is no charge... you can't give something back that you never receive.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Imagine you creating home videos and uploading them to youtube... then you find out someone has been downloading your free videos, burning them to DVD, and selling them without your permission. You're seriously saying that you wouldn't be trying to get a piece of that action?


I have made videos on youtube and I encourage people to copy the content. Why? Because each clip has my website info on it... it's free advertising.



Stewart Vernon said:


> Also, no one answered the question... Why would I not be entitled to free DVDs of TV shows since they are on free OTA? What gives them the right to sell that content? OR why can Netflix charge me to stream a TV show that I could have watched for free OTA?


Because they can, are greedy and you are willing to pay for it. You can get much of the same content on-line for free. Visit any of the network's web sites, or Hulu, iTunes or any number of content providers.


----------



## SayWhat?

> What harm does it do Fox O&O that their channels are picked up, for free, by DISH network and distributed to people who have the legal right to watch their station?


None, which is why I don't feel they should be charging anything. They should be appreciative of the additional viewers as I sated a few pages back.

I'm not sure who is paying for the fiber or other link required to get the local signals to the Dish uplink site though.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> The only issue is consent.


Exactly. The issue is consent. They can consent to give their channel away for free via cable/sat OR they can ask for money in exchange for that consent.

Anyone who wants it for free can get it via OTA or through some of the online streaming options available. There are free options for viewers who wish to view the content at no charge.

I think FOX is over-valuing themselves in this economy... and I think they are wrong in this particular dispute... but I can't deny that they have the right to ask for some compensation in exchange for their product.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

HobbyTalk said:


> Sure they stopped charging. Where is the charge on the bill? There can not be a discount if there is no charge... you can't give something back that you never receive.


By that logic... I'm not paying for ESPN either, nor am I paying for Disney or FX or AMC... because all my bill says is "Dish HD Absolute" or "AT250"...

You do see why that doesn't make sense to say just because it isn't an item on the bill doesn't mean they aren't charging for it, right?



HobbyTalk said:


> I have made videos on youtube and I encourage people to copy the content. Why? Because each clip has my website info on it... it's free advertising.


I didn't say anything about people giving your youtube videos away... I said what if they were selling them for profit? You're telling me that if someone sold your free videos for profit and didn't share that profit with you, you would be fine with that?


----------



## Joe Diver

Now the Dallas Stars have joined in...they're urging fans to drop Dish and are giving away free tickets:

*Razor's Quest*

This is hosted by an official NHL Network Online site....


----------



## Davenlr

Once it appears to be a multi-party conspiracy to put DISH out of business, you watch the justice dept step in...


----------



## FarmerBob

Something's fishy here. The most talk I have seen about this with DISH is here and on satellite channels and one or two Comcast ads. Then tonight on ABC News big ol' up in arms report on Cablevison's 2-3 million viewers losing out a ball games today because of their clash with FOX. Which sounds like they are just starting, whereas, we're long past that. They did mention a "spat" with DISH and said that something could happen on Nov. 1 that would affect their 14 million customers. I though DISH had 35 million subs, 70 million feet, as per their ads?

And what I have seen of the Cablevision reports on this have been extensive (major marketing blitz), clean, clear, concise, and penetrating, what I feel, Charlie should have done a long time ago but hasn't. Which leaves me with the feeling that there's something else about this that we are not privy to?


----------



## SayWhat?

Stewart Vernon said:


> Also, no one answered the question... Why would I not be entitled to free DVDs of TV shows since they are on free OTA? What gives them the right to sell that content?
> 
> It's the same argument as to why cable/sat have to pay for re-transmission rights. You can't take someone else's product and repackage it to sell as your own without paying them if they want to be paid.
> 
> It's not a new concept.


Going on a tangent for a minute.....

When "Married With Children" was put on DVD, they had to use a different theme song due to the high $$$ demanded from the rights holder for "Love and Marriage" used on air. I never understood that. In syndication all over the country and cable and satellite, they use the original theme. It's only different on DVD. Why? Why didn't the music rights transfer with the program rights as in syndication/reruns?

Different thread, I know, but it's sort of related to retransmission.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> I didn't say anything about people giving your youtube videos away... I said what if they were selling them for profit? You're telling me that if someone sold your free videos for profit and didn't share that profit with you, you would be fine with that?


They could sell them all they want. It means more exposure to me, more visitors to the web site and more income because of the advertising I sell on the web site. It also saves me money because I do not need to advertise as much via AdSense and banner ads.

My next plan is to sell advertising on the videos. The more they are given away and sold, the more I can charge for that advertising because it gives the advertiser more exposure. I can only wish that some "mega" corp. would take the videos and release them to millions of their customers. I could retire within a year!


----------



## SayWhat?

FarmerBob said:


> Something's fishy here. The most talk I have seen about this with DISH is here and on satellite channels and one or two Comcast ads. Then tonight on ABC News big ol' up in arms report on Cablevison's 2-3 million veiwers losing out a ball games today because of their clash with FOX. Which sounds like they are just starting, whereas, we're long past that. They did mention a "spat" with DISH and said that something could happen on Nov. 1 that would affect their 14 million customers. I though DISH had 35 million subs, 70 million feet, as per their ads?


Because Dish has lost the OTA channels yet like Cablevision has. Dish has only lost FSN, FX and NatGeo. Come Nov 1 when the OTA locals go off, you should see more coverage.

Also, anything in NY gets more coverage. Somebody spits on the sidewalk, it's world news while they call in HomSec, the FBI, the CIA and hazmat teams to determine if it was a threat or not.


----------



## HobbyTalk

FarmerBob said:


> I though DISH had 35 million subs, 70 million feet, as per their ads?


They claimed 35 million "viewers".


----------



## phrelin

Joe Diver said:


> Now the Dallas Stars have joined in...they're urging fans to drop Dish and are giving away free tickets:
> 
> *Razor's Quest*
> 
> This is hosted by an official NHL Network Online site....


I posted this also in the thread someone started about this.


phrelin said:


> I assume everyone here knows about Dallas Stars owner Tom Hicks' company Hicks Holdings. From Businessweek (*emphasis added*, and you can look it up in Wikipedia also):
> 
> 
> 
> Just 18 months after launching Hicks Holdings, a vehicle for his billion-dollar sports and real estate empire, Hicks-the-dealmaker is on a tear. He has bought an upstart electronics firm with 1,000 employees in China, *started a new venture with DirecTV selling bundled TV-telecom services to condos*, and made bets on such eclectic businesses as landscaping materials in the Midwest and pet food in Argentina. And he has revved up expansion of Gammaloy, an oil field rental outfit he bought from his wife's family a decade ago. Having paid about $20 million, he may sell it or do an initial public offering, which could fetch more than $200 million, according to Wall Street sources.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he's disappointed with Dish Network.
Click to expand...

I hate tidbits of information thrown out without context or research like some of the 24/7 news channel talking heads do all the time.


----------



## FarmerBob

SayWhat? said:


> . . . Also, anything in NY gets more coverage. Somebody spits on the sidewalk, it's world news while they call in HomSec, the FBI, the CIA and hazmat teams to determine if it was a threat or not.


Exactly what I wrote to ABC when I asked why no coverage of this with DISH. Other than the slight mention.


----------



## Joe Diver

phrelin said:


> I posted this also in the thread someone started about this. I hate tidbits of information thrown out without context or research like some of the 24/7 news channel talking heads do all the time.


Me too. Hicks is almost bankrupt.


----------



## phrelin

SayWhat? said:


> Also, anything in NY gets more coverage. Somebody spits on the sidewalk, it's world news while they call in HomSec, the FBI, the CIA and hazmat teams to determine if it was a threat or not.


You are correct. It is important to keep in mind that if the management folks can see it out their windows in Rockefeller Center (NBC and News Corp), Midtown Manhattan (CBS), or the Upper West Side (ABC), it's Earth shattering news. And these are the people whose New York cable system isn't carrying Fox right now.


----------



## Dave

As I ponder some of the many post on here I start to wonder. When will all the DirectV posters start blaming Dish for Cablevisions fight with FOX. If all you want to do is criticize a carry. Then by all means drop it and move on. I for one will not give up my Dish Network for DirectV. DirectV has to many problems of there own right now. Some of you say hurry up and switch to DirectV. As we have seen by DirectV's own under cover boss. DirectV don't have any dishes or HDDVR's for there regular customers let alone 1000's of new customers. So I guess I will pass on DirectV and just stay here with Charlie and Dish. So lets hope that Charlie stays the course and maintains the good fight against FOX.


----------



## SayWhat?

> "The longer this shameful News Corp. blackout of the NFL and Major League Baseball continues, the more obvious it becomes to everyone, including political leaders of both parties, that binding arbitration is the fastest and fairest way" to end the stalemate, Cablevision Executive Vice President Charles Schueler said in a statement.
> 
> Cablevision said in a statement Oct. 16 that Fox failed to negotiate in good faith and called the decision to remove the programming "a black eye for broadcast television in America."
> 
> Higher Fees
> 
> *Broadcasters such as Fox are trying to extract fees from pay-TV operators for signals that were once free. Pay-TV operators are resisting the charges, which are typically passed to the customer, arguing the channels are free over the public airwaves and on the Web.* The dispute between Cablevision and News Corp. doesn't affect Fox News, FX and local sports channels.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ume-after-sports-blacked-out-in-new-york.html


----------



## grog

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/15/cablevisionfox-fight-is-so-last-century/


What Cablevision and FOX basically disagree on is pricing. This happened last year, too, when both sides agreed to a one-year contract extension.​
So last year the Cablevision and FOX could not come to terms with pricing and a one-year extension was started. So for the last year they have been in debate talks over the carriage. Sorry; but if I granted an extension of one year then we could not come to terms and after that period Cablevision called foul I would just tell them to move on. If they don't want to carry then go away.

AN OPEN LETTER TO CABLEVISION SUBSCRIBERS FROM WNYW
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/an-open-letter-to-cablevision-subscribers-from-wnyw

Cablevision family certainly doesn't allow arbitrators to set the rates for their cable channels like MSG and AMC. In fact, just a few weeks ago, MSG and MSG Plus went off the dial for millions of DISH Network subscribers - and MSG did not ask for arbitration.​
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_16352216
While Fox didn't dispute Cablevision's claims, it called Cablevision "hypocritical" because it pays more for two of its sister company channels, MSG and MSG Plus, than it does for all 12 Fox channels. MSG and MSG Plus are owned by Madison Square Garden Inc., which like Cablevision is controlled by the Dolan family.​


SayWhat? said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ume-after-sports-blacked-out-in-new-york.html


----------



## CoolGui

James Long said:


> DISH uses their alt feeds for FS Carolina, FS Houston, FS Indiana, FS Kansas City, FS Oklahoma, FS Tennessee and FS Wisconsin feeds when their content is different from the main regional feed. I wouldn't mind seeing them get their own "dedicated" channel numbers. Some DISH customers have complained in the past about not being able to find their games only to find that they were on an alt channel.


This is not completely true... They do carry the major sports games but not the in depth team news or some of the local high school and college programs. But directv is the same, just dedicated channel number as you mention. This local content is something I'd like to get that's why I'm still trying to find a way to make cable feasible for my family.


----------



## SayWhat?

> I don't know for a fact who the worse bad guy is in this dispute, although I have my suspicions. Fox's Rupert Murdoch is always pulling stunts like this, apparently not satisfied that he's quite rich enough. But the overall problem is more complex and troublesome.
> 
> I do know it would behoove Major League Baseball, the next time its TV deal expires with Fox, to remember what Murdoch thinks about baseball fans.
> 
> Not much.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/bi...e-as-Fox-TV-fights-with-Cablev?urn=mlb-277579

Yeah, ya might wanna think about that Rupie. You might be cutting your own throat when it comes to league contracts next time.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think FOX is over-valuing themselves in this economy... and I think they are wrong in this particular dispute... but I can't deny that they have the right to ask for some compensation in exchange for their product.


Thanks for stating Fox is wrong. Hopefully you will agree that the laws that gave them so much power are also wrong and need adjusting.



Stewart Vernon said:


> You do see why that doesn't make sense to say just because it isn't an item on the bill doesn't mean they aren't charging for it, right?


DISH charges for a lot of stuff that isn't specified on the bill. Just because a customer doesn't get locals (grandfathered in a package without them) doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward supporting the points of presence, fiber backhauls and unlink centers needed only for the delivery of locals. Just because a customer subscribes to AT120 or less doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward channels they don't get.

It was your suggestion that DISH stop charging for locals. How do you suggest they accomplish that? If they reduce their package prices by $5 (as they did with the DISH America packages) would you accept that they are no longer charging for locals? It seems like an impossible challenge to ask DISH to stop charging for something that costs them money to deliver. The cost of the hundreds of points of presence, fiber links and extra uplink centers will make it on your bill somehow.



HobbyTalk said:


> They claimed 35 million "viewers".


They claimed 35 million people. I don't believe they were counting the dog ... but we have a thread for the commercial and another one for counting.


----------



## AntAltMike

I haven't been following this as closely as I should have, but I just heard on "TBD", which was formerly Comcast News channel 8, that Fox was threatening to pull its programming from "this network" in a few weeks.

By "this network", did they mean TBD, or did they mean Comcast cable? I regrettably don't have the wearwithall to scour the 1,900+ posts here to try to find the answer to that question it is is already contained somewhere in this thread.


----------



## grog

While I do agree with FOX charging rates that are two high I also think the rates Cablevision is charging for MSG is also too high.

But who am I? They feel the market will handle the rates so they ask for that amount. Currently that is their right to do so. If the carrier does not want to pay the rate then they can chose not to carry, this is also their choice.

What I would like to see is public disclosure of this information. The channel guide from the provider should include the cost of the station as well as the start and end date of the carriage so that those who enter into agreement with the provider has all the information up front on the channels they care about.

Also; I also think it would be a great idea if removal of stations was do by proxy based on usage. In other words; Dish could send a letter of intent to remove stations which it deems as of little value since the stations are watched by only say 0.2% of the subs.

Something like this:

*For the stations subject to removal*
[x] Yes remove FOX; I understand my bill will be reduced by $8.00 each month if this channel is removed. I also understand that 67% of the subscribers must also agree to the removal. Checking this box means you vote to remove FOX due to high cost of carriage.

*Another section to scope impact *
[x] I will change carriers if FOX is dropped.

With the above system in place no one could blame Charlie for removing channels. We could only blame ourselves if we did not vote! 



James Long said:


> Thanks for stating Fox is wrong. Hopefully you will agree that the laws that gave them so much power are also wrong and need adjusting.
> 
> DISH charges for a lot of stuff that isn't specified on the bill. Just because a customer doesn't get locals (grandfathered in a package without them) doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward supporting the points of presence, fiber backhauls and unlink centers needed only for the delivery of locals. Just because a customer subscribes to AT120 or less doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward channels they don't get.
> 
> It was your suggestion that DISH stop charging for locals. How do you suggest they accomplish that? If they reduce their package prices by $5 (as they did with the DISH America packages) would you accept that they are no longer charging for locals? It seems like an impossible challenge to ask DISH to stop charging for something that costs them money to deliver. The cost of the hundreds of points of presence, fiber links and extra uplink centers will make it on your bill somehow.
> 
> They claimed 35 million people. I don't believe they were counting the dog ... but we have a thread for the commercial and another one for counting.


----------



## runner861

A la carte is the only thing that can stop this. When something is a la carte, the network wants its signal to be on every system in order to reach every possible viewer. The network only gets a payment when the viewer subscribes. Right now, the incentive is the opposite: extract large amounts of money from the carrier by pulling the signal and get the signal carried in a basic package at a high per subscriber rate.

People on this board criticize the a la carte idea as unworkable--it will result in higher rates and fewer channels. I'm not sure, and they aren't either. This has not been tried on a large scale.

Perhaps it will never happen, but a la carte across the board should be tried. The incentive will be to lower the price of each channel in order to get more viewers. Whether it is achieved by the carriers presenting a united front and forcing the program providers to go along, or whether by government regulation, the time for a la carte is here.

One thing is certain: The current system is broken and is no longer sustainable.


----------



## GrumpyBear

runner861 said:


> One thing is certain: The current system is broken and is no longer sustainable.


I think its one of the Reason all the Cable companies, Direct and Dish, want the FCC to create binding arbitration for situations like this and its about time for it too. Big fear for Fox, ABC, and others with binding arbitration, is the leaks that could comeout on exactly how much they charge each provider. Broadcasters like the veil of secrecy, and don't want favoritism to be exposed.


----------



## tonyd79

AntAltMike said:


> I haven't been following this as closely as I should have, but I just heard on "TBD", which was formerly Comcast News channel 8, that Fox was threatening to pull its programming from "this network" in a few weeks.
> 
> By "this network", did they mean TBD, or did they mean Comcast cable? I regrettably don't have the wearwithall to scour the 1,900+ posts here to try to find the answer to that question it is is already contained somewhere in this thread.


TBD was not _Comcast_ News Channel 8, it was Newschannel 8. It is not owned by Comcast, it is owned by Allbrittion Communications, the owners of WJLA (Channel 7) in DC. It is available on other cable systems in the area, including Fios.

I am sure they were talking about TBD itself although I am not sure what Fox programming is on it.


----------



## kenglish

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Far too many people that once had access to the OTA analog signal no longer have access to digital OTA because the signal does not travel as well.
> 
> If I were the government, I would do one of two things.
> 
> (i) Mandate that the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) erect enough repeaters so that 100% get access to the signal, or
> 
> (ii) Mandate that the major networks make available their transmission via satellite, and the government would provide a dish and box that would enable anyone to download the signal, free.
> 
> I find it unconscionable that so many seasoned citizens that had been receiving the analog signal a few years ago now have to pay 50 dollars or so a month to access basic TV.


Maybe what the government should do, is give some attention to training installers how to receive DTV signals, and making some laws that require access to OTA antenna feeds in large buildings.

BTW, the "major networks" have nothing to do with the terrestrial distribution of their signals, beyond the O&O stations they own. That's all up to the local affiliates.


----------



## spiketoo

James Long said:


> Perhaps we need to get away from this, since it seems that all some are doing are stating their mind without responding. Hopefully others have got some value out of the other side of the argument. I would not mind seeing brief answers to the points I've answered but it seems that those posts are being ignored.
> 
> What harm does it do Fox O&O that their channels are picked up, for free, by DISH network and distributed to people who have the legal right to watch their station? Why is is so hard to see this as a benefit? Fox is not being asked to work any harder or spend a dime more than they do to broadcast their O&Os OTA. It seems that Fox has everything to win and nothing to lose by being carried by satellite and cable.
> 
> The only issue is consent. Fox and other broadcasters have discovered a revenue stream and they won't let it go. Last contract they smoked a little marijuana - a gateway drug - by leveraging carriage of FX, NatGeo and FoxSports with Fox O&O. If one doesn't carry our cable networks one doesn't get the O&Os. The buzz was good so they moved on to crack - a harder drug - and they are asking for money for their O&Os and claiming that their programming is worth $4 when the figures produced earlier in this thread show them charging much less. Fox is addicted. The only question is how do we intervene. What will it take to break their dangerous addiction?
> 
> Perhaps going cold turkey in a couple of weeks will help. Perhaps the next time a contract renewal comes up for MLB or NASCAR or other sports the sanctioning body will tell Fox that they don't like the way they do business and find another outlet. Perhaps the government will intervene.
> 
> In any case ... Fox has a serious problem. One that needs to be fixed.


Nothing disparaging, but I find your analogy to be hyperbole and myopic. Money is the 'drug' here. 'Revenue' was the gateway phase. 'More revenue' is the 'harder' phase. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. In fact, the DEA considers it a Class I narcotic while the basis of crack is considered a Class II - not much diff other than a Class I has no accepted medical use.

There is no way to 'fix' an addiction to money.


----------



## bbexperience

runner861 said:


> A la carte is the only thing that can stop this. When something is a la carte, the network wants its signal to be on every system in order to reach every possible viewer. The network only gets a payment when the viewer subscribes. Right now, the incentive is the opposite: extract large amounts of money from the carrier by pulling the signal and get the signal carried in a basic package at a high per subscriber rate.
> 
> People on this board criticize the a la carte idea as unworkable--it will result in higher rates and fewer channels. I'm not sure, and they aren't either. This has not been tried on a large scale.
> 
> Perhaps it will never happen, but a la carte across the board should be tried. The incentive will be to lower the price of each channel in order to get more viewers. Whether it is achieved by the carriers presenting a united front and forcing the program providers to go along, or whether by government regulation, the time for a la carte is here.
> 
> One thing is certain: The current system is broken and is no longer sustainable.


Not this again...


----------



## inazsully

I do not think that ala-cart can work for all of the reasons given earlier. But I wonder if the packages offered can be more varied even if specific packages cost more and included less channels. How about a sports package that include the current Platinum package for instance? At say $15 mo, those that didn't care for sports could save $15 mo and I'll except paying an extra $10 mo for Platinum (or something else of value) in order to get my RSN's. Several different package combo's could be offered allowing Dish to maintain their overall profit margin and the subs to streamline their package to more suit their viewing desires.


----------



## Hoosier205

bbexperience said:


> Not this again...


Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.


----------



## DodgerKing

Hoosier205 said:


> Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.


Don't be so sure. The days of paid TV packages through a provider are numbered. Eventually cable companies will mainly be bandwidth providers and most people will get their TV through antenna and/or internet.


----------



## garn9173

runner861 said:


> A la carte is the only thing that can stop this.


straight from a cable executive's mouth:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22839308?hilite=bainch



> The great myth of a-la-carte is that it would lower costs. The programmers already know who watches and who doesn't watch their channel. The price they charge is based on viewership and even more the fervor of their fans. So in very simple terms a subscriber might look at their $60 bill for 120 channels as being $.25 per channel (average) plus $30 for delivery, billing etc (everything the Cable company does.) Therefore if you could drop the 110 channels you don't watch, wouldn't your bill be just $32.50 (assuming delivery is a a fixed-fee for the network?)
> 
> The problem is the programmers don't operate on the assumption that they are getting $.25 per sub. They operate under the assumption that they earn $5 per devoted viewer and the rest watch for free. They only bill on a per-customer basis because that is an easy number to audit (unlike the true number of devoted viewers.) So in this example the customer's bill would increase from $60 to $80.
> 
> Now this doesn't mean every a-la-carte example ends negatively for customers, but most will. They will because the programmers get advertising "credit" for those customers who might watch on occasion but certainly wouldn't pay extra for a certain channel. Now the programmer isn't going to just take a pay-cut in the a-la-carte model, so they will just charge their devoted customers more to make up for that loss.
> 
> So the real answer is, if a-la-carte were to win you would find that:
> 
> 1. The total programming availability would decrease.
> 2. The majority of customers would pay slightly more.
> 3. Fans of high-cost content (Sports, Hi-Def, etc) would pay substantially more.
> 4. Fans of low-cost content (Discovery, TCM, Food Network etc) would pay slightly less.
> 
> Now I know this isn't the popular answer but I believe it is the accurate one, and is largely supported by the GAO report that investigated cable rates several years ago.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Hoosier205 said:


> Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.


No, they don't get too tired of it.

The problem is right here...

Dish Network has AT120, AT200 and AT250. Programmers want to negotiate for the right to be placed into those packs. Until those packs are removed and not replaced, a la carte won't work. Programmers will not accept it. This isn't c-band, no matter how much everyone is trying to make it out to be.


----------



## MilFan

NHL already underway, 8 days til NBA season. Then local Fox pulled.

Basically, 10-14 days until mega **** storm. 

Get this done Fox and Dish.


----------



## James Long

kenglish said:


> Maybe what the government should do, is give some attention to training installers how to receive DTV signals, *and making some laws that require access to OTA antenna feeds in large buildings*.


And then the building owners could charge a fee for antenna access to pay for said antenna, the broadcasters would then pitch a fit that the building owner is "making money" from redistributing their signal (horrors!) and then the building owner will have to pay a royalty to the station. Plus poor quality TV stations would sue the building owner for installing an antenna good enough to pick up some stations but not all stations in the area. "required OTA access" would be more than simply putting up an omni and hoping for the best.

In other words we've tried that. That is how we got to where we are today.


----------



## DodgerKing

garn9173 said:


> straight from a cable executive's mouth:
> 
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22839308?hilite=bainch


A la cart will not be channels provided by the provider. It will be viewers paying to watch a program or paying a monthly fee for unlimited specific content. IOW, it will be viewer choice provided via the internet. It does not matter what a cable exec believes or what a TV company thinks. The only thing that matters is what the customers decide to do, and they will have to adjust due to the demand by those TV viewers. When these viewers decide to stop paying cable and DBS providers and start paying for streaming and movie downloads instead, both the provider and the networks will have to adjust accordingly


----------



## MilFan

I know I asked this before, but I've seen conflicting "rumors" about it. If Fox and Dish do come to a resolution, it will be an "all or nothing" agreement regarding all the channels, correct? If Fox local gets resolved then Fox Sports will as well?


----------



## sigma1914

DodgerKing said:


> Don't be so sure. The days of paid TV packages through a provider are numbered. *Eventually cable companies will mainly be bandwidth providers and most people will get their TV through antenna and/or internet.*


We're a looooong way from that. Not everyone has access to HSI or OTA.


----------



## DodgerKing

MilFan said:


> I know I asked this before, but I've seen conflicting "rumors" about it. If Fox and Dish do come to a resolution, it will be an "all or nothing" agreement regarding all the channels, correct? If Fox local gets resolved then Fox Sports will as well?


The local Fox OTA networks are under a different contract than the Fox RSNs. One can be resolved and the other can still be pending.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> We're a looooong way from that. Not everyone has access to HSI or OTA.


Not as long as you may think


----------



## MilFan

DodgerKing said:


> The local Fox OTA networks are under a different contract than the Fox RSNs. One can be resolved and the other can still be pending.


I am going to be one pissed off person in a couple weeks, apparently.

Never felt more helpless in dealing with a company as a consumer. I have no way to watch my teams in my own home and I have no way to cancel without spending over $400.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Dish Network viewers: [enthusiastically gets out of rest room and heads to chair] The Bucks, huh?
Over Greedy Fox: [comforts NBA] Well, now see? This is nice.
Dish Network viewers: The only thing that keeps me alive is watching the Bucks lose! PPPT!


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network has AT120, AT200 and AT250. Programmers want to negotiate for the right to be placed into those packs. Until those packs are removed and not replaced, a la carte won't work. Programmers will not accept it. This isn't c-band, no matter how much everyone is trying to make it out to be.


At this point DISH's hands are tied. They have overlapping long term agreements with providers based on delivering their signals to millions of households. They can't just say "as of December 31st, 2010, there will be no packages" without violating all of those long term contracts.

The second problem would be getting the programmers to accept less households, even at a higher price per household. If the net millions is any less than they earn today from retrans they won't go for an a la carte arrangement. It would not make sense.


----------



## sigma1914

DodgerKing said:


> Not as long as you may think


I really disagree. HSI needed for internet TV is not available to enough people to make it a viable option.


----------



## MilFan

GrumpyBear said:


> Dish Network viewers: [enthusiastically gets out of rest room and heads to chair] The Bucks, huh?
> Over Greedy Fox: [comforts NBA] Well, now see? This is nice.
> Dish Network viewers: The only thing that keeps me alive is watching the Bucks lose! PPPT!


I could really give a damn if you care about the sport or not. And the Bucks will probably win 50 games this year, not that you know what you're talking about whatsoever, but still.


----------



## DodgerKing

sigma1914 said:


> I really disagree. HSI needed for internet TV is not available to enough people to make it a viable option.


It is growing very quickly and more and more people who do have access are doing this very thing.

Anyway, my point is that this will eventually be the norm (maybe a couple of years from now or maybe 20 years from now) and both the provider and network will have to adjust to this demand.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> Dish Network viewers: [enthusiastically gets out of rest room and heads to chair] The Bucks, huh?
> Over Greedy Fox: [comforts NBA] Well, now see? This is nice.
> Dish Network viewers: The only thing that keeps me alive is watching the Bucks lose! PPPT!


They finished 6th in the East & won 46 games last year.


----------



## GrumpyBear

DodgerKing said:


> Not as long as you may think


Biggest problem with HSI, and OTA, will be the real costs. Cable and DSL companies now, already have in place fee's for exceeding xGB in downloads. Moving to HSI for TV will raise your costs in the long run, as it will be based on a GB download limit, which will be disasterous for users in pricing. 
Don't forget the entire reasoning the FCC and members of Congress gave in getting together to block a Dish/Direct merger years ago was the, this would create a unfair monoply to millions of users that have no ability to get access to cable tv. Those same millions still have no access to HSI. HSI and OTA is decades away from being a reality. FCC had to put off the Digital tranistion for almost a decade, it will take even more decades to make a HSI and OTA transition.

Binding Arbitration sounds much better.


----------



## RAD

sigma1914 said:


> I really disagree. HSI needed for internet TV is not available to enough people to make it a viable option.





DodgerKing said:


> It is growing very quickly and more and more people who do have access are doing this very thing.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that this will eventually be the norm (maybe a couple of years from now or maybe 20 years from now) and both the provider and network will have to adjust to this demand.


Sorry but agree with Sigma1914, ISP's are dragging their feet increasing speeds, especially telco DSL service where are just too limited by the technology. They also want to keep going to a pay for what you use model and streaming video will cause the overages to rack up fairly quickly. Between having to pay for the premium bandwidth packages that would allow for multiple HD streams and the overage charges you might end up paying more then what you pay now for DBS service.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> They finished 6th in the East & won 46 games last year.


Aunt Pearl would love to watch them lose the rest of the games.

Granted 46 is what 5 games over .500? Can't remember how loooonnnngggg baskeball is. 82 games?

NHL showed fans what they thought of them a few years ago, with the no season.

Oh wait, you mean something can survive with an interruption? You mean people move on after something like an entire season lost? No couldn't really happen at all. Baseball and Hockey are dead sports.


----------



## MilFan

GrumpyBear said:


> Aunt Pearl would love to watch them lose the rest of the games.
> 
> Granted 46 is what 5 games over .500? Can't remember how loooonnnngggg baskeball is. 82 games?
> 
> NHL showed fans what they thought of them a few years ago, with the no season.
> 
> Oh wait, you mean something can survive with an interruption? You mean people move on after something like an entire season lost? No couldn't really happen at all. Baseball and Hockey are dead sports.


You're obviously not a sports fan nor do you know what you're talking about. Are you really comparing a sport going on strike (so nobody can see it) to one provider not carrying the game so only a section of people can't see it? One is the sport getting interrupted, the other is sports TV getting interrupted. Slight difference.

Nobody cares if you don't care about sports. This effects a ton of people that have one or two teams they follow religiously. That is the point. The sports fans are not interested in the political BS between two companies, they are interested in watching their teams.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> ...Baseball and Hockey are dead sports.


Baseball? The Yankees/Rangers ALCS is averaging 6.969 million viewers. That's not bad for a dead sport.


----------



## James Long

So for now we're stuck with the system we have ... fantasies aside (including my own) we have a system where channel providers contract with cable and satellite providers to provide them carriage on their systems (usually with the carrier paying a carriage fee, not the channel paying for carriage). Said providers sign long term contracts that include the level at which the channels will be provided (or in rare cases allow a la carte offerings). Pie in the sky may taste good but we're not in the sky. We're grounded.

Fox will continue to leverage their content for as much money as they can get to as many households as they can get. DISH will continue to try to keep the costs in check so they can afford to stay in business. Hopefully everything will work out sooner than later.


----------



## MilFan

sigma1914 said:


> Baseball? The Yankees/Rangers ALCS is averaging 6.969 million viewers. That's not bad for a dead sport.


I think he meant basketball, but even if he did he's wrong.


----------



## altidude

MilFan said:


> This effects a ton of people that have one or two teams they follow religiously. That is the point. The sports fans are not interested in the political BS between two companies, they are interested in watching their teams.


You are exactly right. We're huge Lakers fans here and we'll miss most of the home games until FSW is back. For me, losing Fox L.A. isn't the end of the world. I am fortunate in that I can still record OTA on the 722 (I think) and on a media center PC (for sure). Maybe losing the O&O channels will be the impetus that Fox and Dish need to hammer out an agreement. They just need to get it done.

I can't financially afford to cancel my Dish agreement so I am locked. Regardless, I think Dish is doing the right thing even if it does cause me pain. I left D* when they lost Versus. There's just no avoiding these conflicts the way things are currently negotiated.


----------



## MilFan

altidude said:


> You are exactly right. We're huge Lakers fans here and we'll miss most of the home games until FSW is back. For me, losing Fox L.A. isn't the end of the world. I am fortunate in that I can still record OTA on the 722 (I think) and on a media center PC (for sure). Maybe losing the O&O channels will be the impetus that Fox and Dish need to hammer out an agreement. They just need to get it done.
> 
> I can't financially afford to cancel my Dish agreement so I am locked. Regardless, I think Dish is doing the right thing even if it does cause me pain. I left D* when they lost Versus. There's just no avoiding these conflicts the way things are currently negotiated.


I agree. For me, it's losing 74 of the 82 games with no other physical alternative. NBALP will black out both the local and non-local feeds, same with NBALP Broadband. My only option is to pay $400ish to cancel (just joined) or go to a bar. Not exactly ideal in Wisconsin winter weather conditions.


----------



## runner861

Hoosier205 said:


> Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.


Don't be too sure. Things are moving in that direction. Look what happened to music and music stores with the advent of itunes. People are getting more and more programming on an a la carte basis over the internet. Cable companies and satellite companies can either change with the times, or be left behind and become irrelevant. I'll say it again: The current system is unsustainable and is broken.


----------



## GrumpyBear

No I am a Big sports fan. Carry the Multisports Package every year. Getting the MSP w/NFL Redzone for Free right now, do to all this. 

Sorry Basketball is 82 games long, NHL is an extremely long 82 games as well. Both have playoff season almost as long as the regular season. Getting all hot an bothered about this now, with some much time remaining and how this will be the death of Dish is crazy. 

Sorry no World Weries that effected millions more than the few fans, that the loss of Fox Sports is effecting. The loss of an entire NHL season, effected more fans that the current issue as well. Yet somehow all survived, and both effected millions of more fans than the current issues.

Sorry if the Aunt Peal got to you, It was just on TV on a episode of That 70's show. Just to funny.


----------



## sigma1914

runner861 said:


> Don't be too sure. Things are moving in that direction. Look what happened to music and music stores with the advent of itunes. People are getting more and more programming on an a la carte basis over the internet. Cable companies and satellite companies can either change with the times, or be left behind and become irrelevant. I'll say it again: The current system is unsustainable and is broken.


Why do people keep comparing an iTunes music purchase to TV? iTunes style works in music because you can buy songs rather than a whole album. Who's going to buy individual shows of a season? No one. It's no the same.

I just checked iTunes...Mad Men Season 4 cost $34.99 :lol: No thanks.


----------



## Hoosier205

runner861 said:


> Don't be too sure. Things are moving in that direction. Look what happened to music and music stores with the advent of itunes. People are getting more and more programming on an a la carte basis over the internet. Cable companies and satellite companies can either change with the times, or be left behind and become irrelevant. I'll say it again: The current system is unsustainable and is broken.


Oh I am absolutely sure that things are not moving in that direction. Those of us who understand the history and issues surrounding a la carte models know why it is not going to happen with television service providers. Service providers, content providers, creative talent, production talent, consumers, etc...all would lose under a la carte systems. It's a terrible idea and luckily isn't being pursued by anyone in a position to implement it.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> Baseball? The Yankees/Rangers ALCS is averaging 6.969 million viewers. That's not bad for a dead sport.


Hmm, I guess the sarcasm was totally missed. :nono::nono:
Please reread. Will help you out since you like to selective copy and paste.

_Oh wait, you mean something can survive with an interruption? You mean people move on after something like an entire season lost? No couldn't really happen at all. Baseball and Hockey are dead sports._
Those numbers show just how Baseball, survived killing, off the World Series and playoffs, that effected millions of more fans, than the current Fox and Dish issue. NHL canceled an enter season and survived. Seasons in question are just to long and its to early to really even be that worried about it.
Sorry all the doom and gloom over this is crazy. All the posts on how Dish wont survive is crazy. Dish will recover keep on moving on. Just like Baseball and Hockey did.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> Hmm, I guess the sarcasm was totally missed. :nono::nono:
> Please reread.
> Those numbers show just how Baseball, survived killing off the World Series and playoff, that effected millions of more fans, than the current Fox and Dish issue. NHL canceled an enter season and survived. Seasons in question are just to long and its to early to really even be that worried about it.
> Sorry all the doom and gloom over this is crazy. All the posts on how Dish wont survive is crazy. Dish will recover keep on moving on. Just like Baseball and Hockey did.


Ahhh ok. Now I see your point. I don't think Dish will die from this. Hurt? Yes.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> Ahhh ok. Now I see your point. I don't think Dish will die from this. Hurt? Yes.


Without being in person, sometimes Sarcasm is easily missed. Dish will be hurt if and only if Fox O&O go dark. That will get more attention. Granted it will also give more attention to Fox for having the same problem with 2 carriers at the sametime. More people will be upset with Fox than Dish.

You really can't find much outrage here in this very thread. A few yes, not many. You have almost as many Direct users, maybe more posting in this, really, really funny thread.


----------



## runner861

Hoosier205 said:


> Oh I am absolutely sure that things are not moving in that direction. Those of us who understand the history and issues surrounding a la carte models know why it is not going to happen with television service providers. Service providers, content providers, creative talent, production talent, consumers, etc...all would lose under a la carte systems. It's a terrible idea and luckily isn't being perused by anyone in a position to implement it.


What about AOL TV and Hulu and other sites that allow individual episodes and even individual news stories to be viewed? What about all the in demand programming on cable? You may be sure...others aren't. Time will tell. Do you think things will continue as is? Anytime a person or company is made to change and fears the possibility of losing money, there will be resistance. Change is coming. What exactly the change will be is unknown.

Do you mean perused or pursued?


----------



## Paul Secic

nmetro said:


> So, if the above happened to Cablevision, it means come 1 November, Denver will lose both KWGN (CW) and KDVR (FOX), because Fox has an ownership stake in KWGN. Just like FOX owns KNYW and WWOR. Not only that, if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR.
> 
> So, it is quite possoble that FOX own "duopolies" will have even a larger impact than just losing a FOX affiliate. In some cases, like Denver and New York, a second station as well.
> 
> Meanwhile, the FCC and Congress do nothing about retransmission consent. Apparently, this is another case where the NAB thinks they really own the frequencies they broadcast on and they can charge as much as the market will bear for signals that can be received OTA. Unfortunately, for people like myself who live too far from a transmitter, and have hills and mountains in the way, cable, DISH or DirectTV are my only options.
> 
> Finally, while Cablevision is certainly no angel, it is the largest provider in the New York/Long Island area. In the case of Long Island it is Cablevision or satellite. But, for many people a good antenna will get signals from New York City and Connecticut. So, there is an option.
> 
> Bad enough that Murdoch is trying to buy votes in the election; now he shows his true arrogance.


When did FOX purchase KWGN?


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> What about AOL TV and Hulu and other sites that allow individual episodes and even individual news stories to be viewed?


You do realize that most of that content would not exist if it were not for carriage on a broadcast or cable network. Digital distribution is secondary. It is a way of programmers making extra money via advertisers and/or subscription fees off of programs transmitted by traditional means.

The content that never saw broadcast is about the same quality as a direct to DVD movie. Sometimes you will find a gem, but most of the time you're not missing much. The best content still ends up being on a linear cable or broadcast channel - and maybe on VOD for those who missed an episode.

A la carte by program isn't going to replace traditional cable or broadcast.


----------



## Geronimo

epokopac said:


> " ... if you are Superstation subscriber you will lose both KWGN and WWOR."
> 
> CH 238 (WWOR) is still on the air as of 6:06 PM EDT SUN 10-18-10. I was expecting it to be dark on Saturday because of the Cablevision issue.


No you will not. Dish does not have to negotiate for the right to carry superstations. They simply pay copyright fees. but isn't KWGN a tribume owned station?


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> You do realize that most of that content would not exist if it were not for carriage on a broadcast or cable network. Digital distribution is secondary. It is a way of programmers making extra money via advertisers and/or subscription fees off of programs transmitted by traditional means.
> 
> The content that never saw broadcast is about the same quality as a direct to DVD movie. Sometimes you will find a gem, but most of the time you're not missing much. The best content still ends up being on a linear cable or broadcast channel - and maybe on VOD for those who missed an episode.
> 
> A la carte by program isn't going to replace traditional cable or broadcast.


I agree that a la carte by program isn't going to replace traditional cable or satellite or broadcast tv. All I mean is that a la carte choices are being seen in the marketplace, and I think that a la carte distribution of channels, as opposed to distribution by package, may be coming to cable and satellite. Who knows, I may be wrong, the marketplace is constantly evolving.


----------



## Paul Secic

HobbyTalk said:


> Dish does not charge for LiL channels. So as you said, they should get to rebroadcast them for free. Thank you for making my point.


Since when? That's wonderful! I'm not paying for Judge Judy et al.


----------



## epokopac

Paul Secic said:


> When did FOX purchase KWGN?


Looks like it never happened.

According to Wikipedia:

KWGN turned down the Fox affiliation in 1986, which instead went to KDVR.


----------



## Geronimo

epokopac said:


> Looks like it never happened.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> KWGN turned down the Fox affiliation in 1986, which instead went to KDVR.


Even if it was owned by Fox it would still be available as a superstation. There is no need to megotiate retransmission consent for a superstation.


----------



## James Long

Geronimo said:


> Even if it was owned by Fox it would still be available as a superstation. There is no need to megotiate retransmission consent for a superstation.


If it were a Fox affiliate it would be considered a distant (regardless of ownership) and could not be a superstation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

runner861 said:


> Don't be too sure. Things are moving in that direction. Look what happened to music and music stores with the advent of itunes. People are getting more and more programming on an a la carte basis over the internet. Cable companies and satellite companies can either change with the times, or be left behind and become irrelevant. I'll say it again: The current system is unsustainable and is broken.


But it isn't moving more and more in that direction.

If you wanted just one season of one show via iTunes it would likely cost you $30+ for that show online.

All you have to do is want 2 shows, and you're already paying more than your cable/sat bill for hundreds of channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> You do realize that most of that content would not exist if it were not for carriage on a broadcast or cable network. Digital distribution is secondary. It is a way of programmers making extra money via advertisers and/or subscription fees off of programs transmitted by traditional means.


That's another good point that people often miss... DVD sales and online streaming/digital copies are supplemental to the original broadcast.

IF the original broadcast goes away... leaving only online content... then that content would possibly need to cost even more to make up for that lost revenue.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Another thought on the bundling during negotiations.

I would really like to see a company like FOX negotiate different contracts for each channel... and not bundle them together... but I don't suppose that would ever happen voluntarily. I wouldn't want our government to mandate it either.

BUT

I think it might be appropriate to force an OTA broadcast network to negotiate completely independent from same-company-owned satellite... In other words, not allow a company like FOX to tie their O&O local channels to negotiations for FX and their RSNs.

As an example... what if all those gas stations that sell gasoline required you to also buy chips + drinks in their usually overpriced convenience store in order to buy gasoline. You'd have no choice but to do so if you have a car to drive... and that would be an unfair bundling situation that I think our government would step in to rectify.

I see similar parallels here. I wouldn't want the government to force carriage for locals or SAT channels... but if the same company owns SAT and OTA stations... I would be fine if the government stepped in and mandated separate negotiations for each scenario AND forbid bundling of those negotiations OR a company like FOX trying to use their locals as leverage against their SAT channels.


----------



## runner861

Stewart Vernon said:


> But it isn't moving more and more in that direction.
> 
> If you wanted just one season of one show via iTunes it would likely cost you $30+ for that show online.
> 
> All you have to do is want 2 shows, and you're already paying more than your cable/sat bill for hundreds of channels.


But what about Hulu and AOL TV, where you can watch individual episodes? You can also watch individual episodes and even individual news reports on network sites. And cable is already full of on demand video. That is what people want today.

I don't mean that overall cable and satellite will go away in favor of purchase of individual episodes. I mean that cable and satellite customers may be allowed to purchase individual stations on an a la carte basis. We shall see. Who knows, I may be wrong.


----------



## demsd

RasputinAXP said:


> VHF6 ABC is almost unreceivable at my house.


Get a better OTA antenna. The cost of an antenna beats having to pay for channels you would get for free otherwise.


----------



## AMike

Center Ice customers on D* and other providers are being impacted by this dispute between E* and Fox. The local team in my market, Atlanta Thrashers, did not televise 3 of their games last week on the local RSN. The first game was available on CI, but the other 2 were not. The team has posted this on their website:



> At midnight on September 30, Dish Network dropped FOX Sports South and SportSouth and 17 other Fox Sports regional networks and has refused to reach a fair agreement to distribute Fox programming.
> 
> As a result, Atlanta Thrashers' fans with Dish Network service will miss Thrashers' games this season until the dispute is resolved.
> 
> *Also due to this dispute, Thrashers' games will be unavailable on the NHL's Center Ice package, regardless of your cable or satellite service provider.
> *
> Fortunately, there are alternatives, as FOX Sports South and SportSouth are offered by a variety of other local cable and satellite distributors in our area.
> 
> If you would like to learn more about these alternatives, please call I-877-99-I-PAID.
> 
> You may also visit www.GetWhatIPaidFor.com.
> 
> If you are not a Dish Network customer, you will not be affected and will get to enjoy all 65 Thrashers' game telecast on FOX Sports South and SportSouth.


To use an old phrase, D* and other video provider Center Ice customers have a dog in this hunt now. I personally think this blackout situation should be resolved between D* and Fox since it should have no bearing on D* customers. And if the tables were turned, the same should apply.


----------



## demsd

Joe Diver said:


> The next few weeks should be very interesting....


Right. Wait until Nov. 1.


----------



## runner861

Stewart Vernon said:


> Another thought on the bundling during negotiations.
> 
> I would really like to see a company like FOX negotiate different contracts for each channel... and not bundle them together... but I don't suppose that would ever happen voluntarily. I wouldn't want our government to mandate it either.
> 
> BUT
> 
> I think it might be appropriate to force an OTA broadcast network to negotiate completely independent from same-company-owned satellite... In other words, not allow a company like FOX to tie their O&O local channels to negotiations for FX and their RSNs.
> 
> As an example... what if all those gas stations that sell gasoline required you to also buy chips + drinks in their usually overpriced convenience store in order to buy gasoline. You'd have no choice but to do so if you have a car to drive... and that would be an unfair bundling situation that I think our government would step in to rectify.
> 
> I see similar parallels here. I wouldn't want the government to force carriage for locals or SAT channels... but if the same company owns SAT and OTA stations... I would be fine if the government stepped in and mandated separate negotiations for each scenario AND forbid bundling of those negotiations OR a company like FOX trying to use their locals as leverage against their SAT channels.


In principle, I agree with you. In reality, it will never happen. Separate negotiation cannot be forced. Each party during negotiations is aware of the "separate" negotiations, and the negotiations will be de facto bundled, even if separate agreements are reached.

The only way to force truly separate negotiations is to go to "must carry," no compensation to the station, or have the money the satellite/cable company must pay be determined by a formula or by a government body, not through negotiations.


----------



## James Long

Stewart Vernon said:


> But it isn't moving more and more in that direction.
> 
> If you wanted just one season of one show via iTunes it would likely cost you $30+ for that show online.
> 
> All you have to do is want 2 shows, and you're already paying more than your cable/sat bill for hundreds of channels.


Most TV shows last more than a month. One would have to subscribe for several months to catch an entire season. Hopefully there are more shows to watch over the several months to balance it all out.

The issue of live sports programming will keep linear channels alive. Some people will watch their sports on a replay or DVRd but there are few legal streaming or download sources for such programming. It is also far more efficient to use broadcasting to deliver live programming simultaneously to millions of viewers than individual data streams.

Sports programming being one of the keys, those who offer it (such as Fox) have content that is generally "irreplaceable" via legal digital delivery.


----------



## Gloria_Chavez

Stewart Vernon said:


> But it isn't moving more and more in that direction.
> 
> If you wanted just one season of one show via iTunes it would likely cost you $30+ for that show online.
> 
> All you have to do is want 2 shows, and you're already paying more than your cable/sat bill for hundreds of channels.


Stewart, I have one question for you and others who insist that we're not going a-la-carte. How do you see the PayTV industry evolving?

Over the last 12 months, the Median CPI is running at 0.5%. Harley Davidson just froze wages for the next 7 years. In real terms, they will decline.

Against this backdrop, I don't believe that PayTV providers will be able to increase the annual fees by 6% or so, as many have done over the last decade. If Fox gets what it wants from Cablevision, I can guarantee you that Univision will ask for 1 dollar a subcriber when that contract comes up, insisting that it is more valuable that the Fox Nework. And within one year, it may indeed be drawing more 18-34s than Fox.

That's why I see a-la-carte gaining traction.

Or perhaps deflation, in the form of enough subscribers migrating to the likes of Sezmi that the Cablevisions will be able to impose a decrease in the monthly fees to cable channels like ESPN.


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> To refute the "fact" of that... I offer up my own DMA... where years ago several major local channels wanted cable (Time Warner) to stop charging customers for retransmission OR pay them something for the right.
> 
> Time Warner was given a choice:
> 
> 1. Give the customers of cable the OTA retransmission for free since they were getting it for free from the local broadcast.
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. Pay the local channels a fee and then charge their cable customers.
> 
> In the end... Time Warner chose to pay rather than drop the charge to their customers.
> 
> At least in my DMA, it wasn't greed on the part of local broadcasters but rather Time Warner... and once that die was cast, that became the same fee to the satellite companies that also wanted to carry the channels.


It might not have been greed on the part of the network at the time, but surely was on the part of Time Warner. I would have to argue that dollar signs is why subscribers pay their carrier for the same local networks that you say were free on cable.


----------



## Hoosier205

AMike said:


> Center Ice customers on D* and other providers are being impacted by this dispute between E* and Fox. The local team in my market, Atlanta Thrashers, did not televise 3 of their games last week on the local RSN. The first game was available on CI, but the other 2 were not. The team has posted this on their website:
> 
> To use an old phrase, D* and other video provider Center Ice customers have a dog in this hunt now. I personally think this blackout situation should be resolved between D* and Fox since it should have no bearing on D* customers. And if the tables were turned, the same should apply.


Yes, this is very unfortunate. The problem is that we are dealing with Charlie here and regardless of how much time he is given to work out a solution, a dispute most often seems to be the outcome. Just wait until one or the other files suit...Charlie will be ecstatic. I think he is hoping for a staring role in a Law & Order spin-off one day. Yes, Fox pulled the plug but both parties failed to settle the issue. Fox deserves to get paid and Charlie deserves a fair rate.


----------



## HobbyTalk

DodgerKing said:


> It is growing very quickly and more and more people who do have access are doing this very thing.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that this will eventually be the norm (maybe a couple of years from now or maybe 20 years from now) and both the provider and network will have to adjust to this demand.


Eventually you won't need a TV to watch programming. It will be beamed into your brain waves so you will just remember that you watched it.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> Retransmission fees are like a forced pledge drive ... Your local PBS station that goes on the air and cries a little saying that they will not exist unless you, the viewer, give them $10 or $20? It's likely true. Fox is going on the air and saying they need nearly $50 ... with no threat to their existence. They have found a way to extort money from their viewers and, even worse, their non viewers.


PBS receives 40-50% of its operating revenue from Federal and State sources [i.e. our taxes]. Its not free to watch PBS either.


----------



## demsd

BenJF3 said:


> and you all are missing the point- Re-trans in it's current form is bad for the consumer and needs to be changed. I don't care who the provider is, these blackouts happen all the time now. You never heard of this crap before these media conglomerates bought up everything!


Not according to the free-market mongers.


----------



## John W

HobbyTalk said:


> Eventually you won't need a TV to watch programming. It will be beamed into your brain waves so you will just remember that you watched it.


As long as you accept The Mark.


----------



## James Long

Gloria_Chavez said:


> That's why I see a-la-carte gaining traction.


Loud people on the internet (sometimes including me) may want a la carte but as long as those who own the content don't want to sell their channels a la carte there is nothing that can be done - other than refuse to carry their channels at all.

Fox wants as many paying subscribers (not necessary viewers, just payers) as possible. They get a large subscriber count by making all or nothing demands from their carriers. Deliver the channel to most (if not all) customers or you don't get to deliver them to any customer.

Getting Fox (and other cablecasters/broadcasters) to give up that mindset is the key. I wouldn't hold my breath.

THEY DON'T CARE how many people are unemployed or underemployed or hurting. The only people Fox cares about are (1) management and (2) shareholders. Their job is to make money ... not make it easier for their viewers. And as long as their viewers who may not be able to afford travel or tickets to a game or need a distraction are still willing to pay for content they are happy. Overjoyed. Thrilled.

With a la carte they would only be paid for customers THEY convinced to subscribe. Under the current package system they get paid for people who never watch. It would be rather stupid and contrary to their goal of making money to allow their channels to be sold a la carte.

Which is why it is a non-starter.


----------



## demsd

runner861 said:


> The OTA broadcasters don't even cover the communities they are supposed to be "serving" in many cases. Then they claim areas as local that are unable to receive any signal with any type of antenna, due to terrain or distance or due to the broadcaster putting out a weak, lousy signal. Then that crummy local station will pull its signal in some retransmission dispute. Yet those same viewers are blocked by the local station from receiving a distant station, so they must put up with some lousy SD signal provided by a satellite carrier or no signal at all. Congress really needs to get involved and start serving the consumer, and stop being a tool of the NAB.


Aahhh... the distant network battle of '06.

I have to wonder why they just didn't re-draw the lines.


----------



## TulsaOK

demsd said:


> Right. Wait until Nov. 1.


Actually, November 2nd is a more important date.


----------



## demsd

chum76 said:


> I think the stations argument would be to use OTA or change cable/satellite providers. I am not taking sides but Fox has alot of sporting events that are very expensive, and if ESPN gets top dollar why cant they? And your other point I wont comment on due to politics but I agreed with the gipper.


Or, the carriers [e.g. Cablevision and DISH] could give an incentive to their subs, such as an OTA antenna to get their locals for free if they stay put. Its better than a big carrier fee increase.


----------



## sorentodd45

MilFan said:


> I am going to be one pissed off person in a couple weeks, apparently.
> 
> Never felt more helpless in dealing with a company as a consumer. I have no way to watch my teams in my own home and I have no way to cancel without spending over $400.


MilFan, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Doesn't the Nov. 1st deadline thing only apply to FOX owned and operated stations?

FOX-47 WMSN is owned and operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group.

If I'm wrong and 11-1-10 applies to *all* FOX affiliates nationwide, then I humbly apologize.

EDIT: list of FOX O&O's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Television_Stations_Group


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> No one is entitled to anything more than that... and technically you aren't even entitled to that. IF you get a TV and put up an antenna, then you get what you get, and that's it. IF you want more and are willing to pay, there are cable/sat options to do so.
> 
> No one has a right to OTA channels. IF you can't receive them where you live, even with an antenna outside, then you aren't guaranteed or entitled to them for free some other way.


What about emergency broadcasts? Wasn't that part of the hoopala during the analog to HD switch? Or, was the low cost and/or free conversion boxes for another reason?


----------



## James Long

sorentodd45 said:


> MilFan, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Doesn't the Nov. 1st deadline thing only apply to FOX owned and operated stations?
> 
> FOX-47 WMSN is owned and operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group.
> 
> If I'm wrong and 11-1-10 applies to *all* FOX affiliates nationwide, then I humbly apologize.


11-1-10 only applies to Fox O&Os ... but some sports season starts at the end of the month and he'll be missing real games on FS Wisconsin (not pre-season games that don't count).


----------



## demsd

Davenlr said:


> I can pick up digital channels from 140 miles away with my roof mounted antenna, and NEVER have any issues with my own DMA channels.


Out of curiosity, what antenna are you using?


----------



## Greg Bimson

demsd said:


> Aahhh... the distant network battle of '06.
> 
> I have to wonder why they just didn't re-draw the lines.


Because the article is pretty much an invalid, incorrect opinion based upon one fact. And that is only reading the first page of the article.


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> 11-1-10 only applies to Fox O&Os ... but some sports season starts at the end of the month and he'll be missing real games on FS Wisconsin (not pre-season games that don't count).


I thought it also included some former Fox O&O's that the current owners have asked News Corp to handle the negotations for?


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> I am not naive... and I know businesses are not doing it "for the customer" any more than people do things "for the children" whenever they profess it... but it is absolutely fair and American (capitalist system) for someone to want to be paid for something they create/transmit.


In the US, greed and capitalism are not much different.


----------



## scooper

RAD said:


> I thought it also included some former Fox O&O's that the current owners have asked News Corp to handle the negotations for?


Correct. There is some of them going to be affected by 11-1-2010 as well.


----------



## demsd

Joe Diver said:


> Now the Dallas Stars have joined in...they're urging fans to drop Dish and are giving away free tickets:
> 
> *Razor's Quest*
> 
> This is hosted by an official NHL Network Online site....


Texas A & M does the opposite.

http://www.latimes.com/sns-ap-fbc-dish-am-discount,0,5453352.story


----------



## demsd

runner861 said:


> ... The incentive will be to lower the price of each channel in order to get more viewers.


I tend to agree with that. As the saying goes, 'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.' I have to wonder what would have happened with FOX if they tried this in an A La Carte world. As it stands now, the carrier decides if they want to pay the carrier fee hike. In an A La Carte world, the sub would. Furthermore, the rate hike would effect all FOX subs at once, not just those with a certain carrier. There would be none of the scare tactics either.


----------



## demsd

Hoosier205 said:


> Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.


And when it does... who's butt you gonna kiss?


----------



## demsd

garn9173 said:


> straight from a cable executive's mouth


 As if a cable/satellite/TV network exec is going to tell you it would be better. If you buy that, I have a time-share on the moon I can sell you.


----------



## runner861

demsd said:


> I tend to agree with that. As the saying goes, 'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.' I have to wonder what would have happened with FOX if they tried this in an A La Carte world. As it stands now, the carrier decides if they want to pay the carrier fee hike. In an A La Carte world, the sub would. Furthermore, the rate hike would effect all FOX subs at once, not just those with a certain carrier. There would be none of the scare tactics either.


This is exactly where I would like to see the market go.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Gloria_Chavez said:


> Stewart, I have one question for you and others who insist that we're not going a-la-carte. How do you see the PayTV industry evolving?.


I think (as I've said) the market has spoken and a la carte across the board is not coming back. Whenever people were given the choice of individual channels vs bundled channels w/ discount, people generally choose more options.

Having said that... given the economy right now AND the general model, I agree that there has to be a price ceiling somewhere... (I started a thread in the General Sat forum to try and find out where people think that price ceiling is, but it isn't getting much traffic).

Ultimately we all have a price beyond which we will pay no more... and if the cost comes to that point, we will drop packages to stay within our budget.

When that happens... the only way for companies to increase their profit will be for marginal channels to drop off the board.

Strangely, a la carte AND bundles could have the same future... that being a future with less channels available for the same money we pay now.

So I don't see new channels being added at nearly the same rate we have seen in the past 10 years. Also, some SD channels might never have the money to go HD... and those ultimately will fail and go away as more and more people adopt HD as their sole viewing option.

I see larger suites like HBO eventually being forced to save money and consolidate their channels... showing essentially the same movies with less repeats on half or less of the current channels they have now.

I see the same with channels owned by the same company... I'm surprised, for example, that Universal HD didn't go away once NBC/Universal upgraded all their other properties (USA, Syfy, etc.) to HD.

I'm amazed that we still have the CW and the FOX-owned My Network. I'll be surprised if they are still around in 5 years.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> What about emergency broadcasts? Wasn't that part of the hoopala during the analog to HD switch? Or, was the low cost and/or free conversion boxes for another reason?


I had this same argument back then... There was hoopla to provide free converter boxes... but no hoopla to provide free antennas, install those free antennas, and provide free electricity to power those.

Even the "emergency broadcast" scenario isn't applied across the board.

The guarantee is that IF you have the right equipment to receive OTA, then you can watch for no additional cost... but there is no caveat that says you are entitled to receive for free via cable or satellite or internet IF you can't or choose not to receive via OTA.

To continue along these themes... the US Constitution guarantees "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... but it guarantees no specifics. In other words, you aren't guaranteed a home to live in or food to eat or video games to play. You are only guaranteed the opportunity to obtain those things.

For broadcast TV... you are only entitled to what you can receive via an OTA antenna. For anything else, you might have to pay to get it if there is not another free option voluntarily provided.

Heck, how about one of the rules we have on DBSTalk for example. You can visit here for free and post for free. You can also visit Satellite Guys' Web site for free. BUT you cannot go to Satellite Guys and copy/paste someone else's free public post here in its entirety without permission to do so. Vice-versa is also true. Both are free-to-access Web sites often discussing the same topics, and clearly it benefits either site if you "advertise" the other site by re-posting something you saw at one site on the other for discussion by people who only visit one site and not both... but you don't have the right to do so without first gaining permission.


----------



## demsd

Hoosier205 said:


> Oh I am absolutely sure that things are not moving in that direction. Those of us who understand the history and issues surrounding a la carte models know why it is not going to happen with television service providers. Service providers, content providers, creative talent, production talent, consumers, etc...all would lose under a la carte systems. It's a terrible idea and luckily isn't being pursued by anyone in a position to implement it.


I don't know how you can say that. Do you have some kind of magic calculator that tells you how many people are subscribed to a package that probably does not get some of the most popular channels - and how many of them would subscribe to those channels in a A La Carte scenario, thus increasing revenue for those networks?

If you believe the carriers, networks and anti A La Carte talking heads, then you can make all the assumptions you want and think you are right.

Prove your point. Telling everyone how you know what you are talking about and that we should listen to you is not enough. Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one. Having an opinion does not make you an authority, nor does it make your opinion any more valid than that of another [i.e. me].

Where is Capitalism and the free market without the people who are opening their wallet?


----------



## Hoosier205

demsd said:


> I don't know how you can say that.


Common sense and logic.


----------



## sigma1914

demsd said:


> I don't know how you can say that. Do you have some kind of magic calculator that tells you how many people are subscribed to a package that probably does not get some of the most popular channels - and how many of them would subscribe to those channels in a A La Carte scenario, thus increasing revenue for those networks?
> 
> If you believe the carriers, networks and anti A La Carte talking heads, then you can make all the assumptions you want and think you are right.
> 
> Prove your point. telling everyone how you know what you are talking about and that we should listen to you is not enough. Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one. Having an opinion does not make you an authority, nor does it make your opinion any more valid than that of another [i.e. me].
> 
> Where is Capitalism and the free market without the people who are opening their wallet?


Legit studies have been done. He's right.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

demsd said:


> Where is Capitalism and the free market without the people who are opening their wallet?


It bears repeating that capitalism + free market is what caused people to drop their a la carte options on C-band in favor of packages/tiers on DBS dishes.


----------



## James Long

demsd said:


> I have to wonder what would have happened with FOX if they tried this in an A La Carte world.


I wonder how much Fox charges for their channels on Mars?

The US TV market is not an a la carte world. Fox would never agree to a provider offering their channels a la carte. They thrive off of having millions of non-viewers pay for their programming. It is in Fox's best interest to make sure they are never in an a la carte world.

Even if it means being in a not-retransmitted world for a few days.


----------



## runner861

sigma1914 said:


> Legit studies have been done. He's right.


Legit studies are one thing. Actual, real-world experience is quite another.


----------



## runner861

Stewart Vernon said:


> It bears repeating that capitalism + free market is what caused people to drop their a la carte options on C-band in favor of packages/tiers on DBS dishes.


That wasn't the reason people dropped C-band. The dishes were too big and had to be mechanically moved from satellite to satellite. They took over a day to install.

DBS dishes are smaller and don't have to be moved. They can be installed in a half hour. Usually, one or maybe two fixed satellites will get the subscriber all the channels he/she wants.


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> But it isn't moving more and more in that direction.
> 
> If you wanted just one season of one show via iTunes it would likely cost you $30+ for that show online.
> 
> All you have to do is want 2 shows, and you're already paying more than your cable/sat bill for hundreds of channels.


How does A La Carte TV equate to a per show system? Al la Carte music is an obvious difference than A La Carte TV would be. Unless of course you were paying $103/month to watch unlimited movies/TV channels that included all networks.


----------



## demsd

Stewart Vernon said:


> Another thought on the bundling during negotiations.
> 
> *I would really like to see a company like FOX negotiate different contracts for each channel... and not bundle them together*... but I don't suppose that would ever happen voluntarily. I wouldn't want our government to mandate it either.


Sounds like you want A La Carte.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> Legit studies are one thing. Actual, real-world experience is quite another.


Got any real world experience in the US marketplace? If not, good luck convincing any major players to give it a real world try.


----------



## Greg Bimson

demsd said:


> Where is Capitalism and the free market without the people who are opening their wallet?


_IF_ that actually happens on a mass front, then there is a slim possibility. Until then, there isn't, because "Capitalism and the free market" have had 85 percent of the general public paying for packages of programming.

I'll say it...

Dish Network has the right idea if they are trying to head in that direction. But as I said before, it will not work until they no longer package their channels. And that would take a few years to reap the rewards, while subscribers that miss their programming could leave in droves.


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> I wonder how much Fox charges for their channels on Mars?
> 
> The US TV market is not an a la carte world. Fox would never agree to a provider offering their channels a la carte. They thrive off of having millions of non-viewers pay for their programming. It is in Fox's best interest to make sure they are never in an a la carte world.
> 
> Even if it means being in a not-retransmitted world for a few days.


You are right when you say that Fox would not want an a la carte outcome. However, it is the responsibility of the viewers, the carriers, and the government to push the world toward an a la carte outcome. Let Fox stations go dark across all the carriers until they see the light. Otherwise there is literally no stopping the rate increases until the entire cable/satellite industry implodes upon itself.

Charlie has left some examples of horrible management and decisions in his past. One only has to think of the distant networks lawsuit to see a series of horrible and short-sighted decisions. However, in this instance with Fox, Charlie is handling it right, at least from what I can see on the outside.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> Fox would never agree to a provider offering their channels a la carte.


Then Rupert Murdock would have to find another way to fill his pockets.


----------



## SayWhat?

Any word from the table in NY today yet?


----------



## James Long

demsd said:


> How does A La Carte TV equate to a per show system? Al la Carte music is an obvious difference than A La Carte TV would be. Unless of course you were paying $103/month to watch unlimited movies/TV channels that included all networks.


Bundled music subscriptions are becoming more popular. Instead of buying a song for $1 or more and owning it "forever" people can subscribe to a play as many songs as you like service. The opposite of a la carte.


----------



## demsd

Greg Bimson said:


> _IF_ that actually happens on a mass front, then there is a slim possibility. Until then, there isn't, because "Capitalism and the free market" have had 85 percent of the general public paying for packages of programming.


That's because 85% of the general public are naive. They believe what the talking heads want them to believe and do not have the tenacity to expect to get what they want to pay for.


----------



## demsd

James Long said:


> Bundled music subscriptions are becoming more popular. Instead of buying a song for $1 or more and owning it "forever" people can subscribe to a play as many songs as you like service. The opposite of a la carte.


I don't pay for bundled music, nor would I. There is no value in that for me. I know what I want as a consumer. As a small business owner, I also know what consumers in my industry want. If I can't provide it to them at the price they want to pay... they move along.


----------



## James Long

demsd said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fox would never agree to a provider offering their channels a la carte.
> 
> 
> 
> Then Rupert Murdock would have to find another way to fill his pockets.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need another way. He has one that works just fine. Offer "must have" content and charge as many people (not just viewers) for it as they can. If someone doesn't go along he just mounts a massive smear campaign planned far in advance of the contract expiration to try to put the company out of business.

Sounds like an episode of the Sopranos. Pay the protection or we'll ice you.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Stewart Vernon said:


> I see larger suites like HBO eventually being forced to save money and consolidate their channels... showing essentially the same movies with less repeats on half or less of the current channels they have now.


I wonder. Which is a more attractive package?

2 HBO channels for $5.00 each per month ($10.00 total) that repeats programming once per month. The viewer would have a choice between two channels at any one time. Few repeats in any one month but if they miss a program they have to wait until next month to see it.

12 HBO channels for $1.00 each per month ($12.00 total) that repeats programming every 5 days. The viewer would have a choice to watch any of a dozen channels at any one time. Lots of repeats but if they miss a program they could watch it 5 days later.


----------



## James Long

OK ... we're way off track (again).

Let's take a breather. This thread is on hold for a few hours. When it returns we'll see if it can be about the topic of the thread.

*DISH vs Fox*

That is what is important here.

In the meantime, if something happens in the actual dispute between DISH and Fox we'll let you know.


----------



## James Long

For continuing discussion of DISH vs Fox please use the new thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=185482

Note: The new thread is not for continuing discussion of a la carte or other spin off conversations.


----------

