# Comcast Subsidiary Refuses to Provide OLN Programming to EchoStar's DISH Network



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

EchoStar Press Release:

Comcast Subsidiary Refuses to Provide OLN Programming to EchoStar's DISH Network; 'Strong-arm Tactics by Comcast Punish EchoStar Customers'

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 20, 2005--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) confirmed today that it is no longer carrying Outdoor Life Network. The Comcast-owned programmer recently demanded that EchoStar force millions of additional DISH Network customers to pay for its outdoor programming as a condition to continued availability. EchoStar was unwilling to impose those additional costs on consumers.

"We work hard to provide choice for our customers and to keep prices low," said Eric Sahl, senior vice president of Programming for EchoStar. "Most of our customers have made the decision they do not want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."

For customers impacted by the loss of OLN, DISH Network recently added College Sports TV (CSTV), NFL Network and ESPNU at no additional cost. DISH Network offers other channels that provide similar programming to OLN, such as The Outdoor Channel and the Men's Channel. For hockey fans, hundreds of hockey games are available through regional sports networks offered by DISH Network, or customers can subscribe to the NHL Center Ice Package, which offers a variety of hockey games much broader than those offered on OLN.


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

Bill R said:


> Comcast Subsidiary Refuses to Provide OLN Programming to EchoStar's DISH Network; 'Strong-arm Tactics by Comcast Punish EchoStar Customers'


*Now THAT is Comcastic!* :lol:

Okay, not really, and that only makes sense to those of us who have had to suffer through the Comcast commercials lately.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

yeah wtf is up with those commercials anyways? Why are they being shown on the national networks when not everyone has comcast nationally. Unless this is part of their plan for national video domination


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

BFG said:


> yeah wtf is up with those commercials anyways? Why are they being shown on the national networks when not everyone has comcast nationally. Unless this is part of their plan for national video domination


comcast is the countries largest cable co!!! anybody who is anyone has comcast (unless they have time-warner)


----------



## brian24740 (May 1, 2005)

Effective Thursday, October 20, at 7:59 p.m. MST Outdoor Life
Network is no longer available. OLN, owned by the nation’s
largest cable TV company, Comcast, has made unreasonable
demands that would force millions of DISH network customers
to pay more for this channel. We regret the inconvenience
but are committed to keeping your prices the lowest
possible. We may have lost OLN, but DISH Network recently
added College Sports TV (CSTV), NFL Network and ESPNU
at no additional cost.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

What will Dish subs do for certain NHL games? OLN carries NHL Hockey through out the season since ESPN dumped it??? Interesting...


----------



## LuckyJW (Mar 12, 2005)

That stinks. I like my "Survivor" reruns. :nono:


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Sea bass said:


> What will Dish subs do for certain NHL games? OLN carries NHL Hockey through out the season since ESPN dumped it??? Interesting...


Sea Bass,

This is not the end of it. There is no way the NHL is going to allow this to go on much longer. Bottomline, Comcast has overstepped their position.

Dish is thrown down the gauntlet, and are theatening to pull out of their contract altogether with Comcast as Comcast is modifiying their Dish retransmission agreement after the fact. This is a game of chicken that Comcast and the NHL have much more to lose than Dish.

Mark my words this will end soon and end badly for Comcast. At this time Comcast as exclusive rights to all games scheduled to appear on OLN. I could see the NHL adding a feed to Center Ice for this "Exclusive content". The NHL could use this as an arguement to remove or refuse to honor the exclusivity clause until OLN honors their current carriage agreements with their contracted providers.

If OLN wants a better agreement or retransmission agreements then they should wait for those contracts to expire before they get better carriage terms just like all the other content owners.

"Failing to abide by your retransmission Consent contracts, screwing over OLN Paying subscribers, thats COMCASTIC"

John


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

This sucks. I can't get through July without my daily Tour de France fix. With or without Lance. I am also trying to archive all Survivor to DVD at the moment.


----------



## Sparkman87 (Apr 28, 2002)

JohnL said:


> Sea Bass,
> 
> This is not the end of it. There is no way the NHL is going to allow this to go on much longer. Bottomline, Comcast has overstepped their position.
> 
> ...


I believe that the NHL will actually back OLN on this. The OLN/NHL contract states that OLN CANNOT show NHL games unless OLN is carried under that providers most basic package. If OLN is placed on a tier of any kind, OLN is required to replace the NHL with other programming. THis was being done by E*. OLN was trying to renegoiate to get it placed on AT60, which is considered E* basic tier. E* won't pay those higher rates for an AT60 channel.


----------



## timmernator (Aug 29, 2005)

Lived without it last year, can live without it this year.

Actually, with cheap tickets to the Gladiators (ECHL) and freebies to the Thrashers, I can see hockey live cheaper than upgrading just to watch OLN.

As little as I'm able watch this year, I can enjoy the games much better once a week on HDNet, recorded on my 942!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Good riddance Comcast. Choke on that $65 million NHL fee.


----------



## Sparkman87 (Apr 28, 2002)

Here's the article that explains what I said before:

A Hockey Lockout To Hockey Blackout
Steve Zipay
Newsday
August 23, 2005

Just when you thought hockey was back, troubling news has surfaced
for fans on Long Island and around the metro area.

Cablevision has 3 million subscribers, and if any of them were
thinking of spending $4.95 a month for the digital sports tier that
carries OLN, the channel that is replacing ESPN and ESPN2 for the
NHL's national cable telecasts this season, they can forget it. The
puck stops here.

Up to 78 regular-season games, including as many as eight Rangers,
eight Devils and eight Islanders games, as well as a slate of
Stanley Cup playoff games and Games 1 and 2 of the Finals, won't be
available to you on OLN, we've learned.

Why? Because OLN is on expanded basic digital service in 90 percent
of its U.S. distribution of 64 million homes, but not in Cablevision
households on Long Island, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Westchester and
northern New Jersey.

So, in the latest twist in the wacky world of cable, even if you're
willing to pay to watch the NHL here, you can't buy it.

"In markets where OLN is offered on a digital sports tier, which
includes Cablevision, we are required through our contracts to black
out the games," an OLN spokesperson confirmed yesterday. "There will
be alternative programming in that time slot. We are working with
our affiliates on the situation. We believe OLN should be included
on expanded basic, not a sport tier."

Bull-riding rather than Rangers, perhaps?

It's all about leverage: OLN wants Cablevision to make the channel
available to all potential viewers and charge Cablevision a broad-
based fee. Viewers, again, are the pawns.

Not only will the Rangers-Flyers season opener Oct. 5 - an OLN
exclusive - be unavailable to Cablevision subscribers, the rest of
OLN's NHL schedule, primarily on Monday and Tuesday nights, will go
unseen in one of the NHL's largest markets.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Is it gone?

They've pulled it from the website
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/..._150/index.asp?viewby=1&packid=10045&sortby=1
http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/channels/index.asp?NetwID=50357


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

its gone!!! they have a slate up now


----------



## SPECIES11703 (Oct 10, 2004)

Comcast should change their name to "Commiecast!



Bill R said:


> EchoStar Press Release:
> 
> Comcast Subsidiary Refuses to Provide OLN Programming to EchoStar's DISH Network; 'Strong-arm Tactics by Comcast Punish EchoStar Customers'


----------



## SummitAdvantageRetailer (Feb 20, 2005)

How does this affect D* by the way? I'm about to look in their forums now. This is very interesting. I lost SBS a couple weeks ago to angry subs and now I'm angry for not getting OLN for NHL hockey. Grr...


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

SummitAdvantageRetailer said:


> How does this affect D* by the way? I'm about to look in their forums now. This is very interesting. I lost SBS a couple weeks ago to angry subs and now I'm angry for not getting OLN for NHL hockey. Grr...


It has not affected D*...OLN is in Total Choice Plus which satisfies the Comcast requirement.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

DCSholtis said:


> It has not affected D*...OLN is in Total Choice Plus which satisfies the Comcast requirement.


It's actually in TC & has been for over 4 years - if it was in ONLY TC+, it would be basically the same as the AT180 situation, as TC+ is NOT considered an "expanded basic" tier.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Your right. Ive had either TC+ or Premium so long I forgot there was still a plain TC. lol


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

i see on olns website that they are showing the redwings-blue jackets game, i hope it is not blacked out on Fox sports Net ohio.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Has Comcast forgotten why ESPN, and the OTA Networks dropped Hockey before? It just ain't that popular in the U.S. They acting like it's the NFL.
My guess is that most viewers will yawn over the lack of OLN Hockey.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Good riddance! OLN was a waste of perfectly good bandwidth. 

I support E*'s decision, even as I call to cancel their service. :whatdidid


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

SPECIES11703 said:


> Comcast should change their name to "Commiecast!


 :lol: Excellent!


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

derwin0 said:


> Has Comcast forgotten why ESPN, and the OTA Networks dropped Hockey before? It just ain't that popular in the U.S. They acting like it's the NFL.
> My guess is that most viewers will yawn over the lack of OLN Hockey.


Well, it may very well affect negotiations for a Thursday/Saturday NFL Package.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 1, 2003)

dishrich said:


> It's actually in TC & has been for over 4 years - if it was in ONLY TC+, it would be basically the same as the AT180 situation, as TC+ is NOT considered an "expanded basic" tier.


I concur.

I have TC and have always gotten OLN. I don't believe that OLN having to be on a extra cost tier is a Comcast requirement since directv has it on their basic package. It has to do with money. OLN wanted a little more cash and Dish didn't want to have to pay it to keep OLN on their basic tier. Plain and simple.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a comcast fanboy. I am a hockey fan above anything else. That said, I hope echostar and OLN can come to an agreement.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

OLN was never on a basic tier on DISH Network. It was in AT180 or its predecessor(s) from the start. OLN(Comcast) is requiring carriage on a more widely distributed tier to get the NHL content. They are requiring this in the middle of a contract term. There is some talk that this may have been a requirement of the contract between OLN and The NHL. But for the time being the NHL is not getting as much exposure on DISH Network as could have been, if OLN delivered the NHL programming.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

If OLN/Comcast was demanding to be on AT60, I think that would be unreasonable since the the AT60 is more like Limited Basic in comparison to other services. AT60 is only $27/mth after all. With D* you pay for the more expanded programming of TC. Basic cable costs around $50/mth or so, depending on your market and company, so again there could be justification of a more expensive channel in that line-up. It would be like OLN/Comcast saying, "Put OLN in Lifeline basic." While I think that a lot of subs are going to mad about this loss, I agree with E*'s reasoning.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

KingLoop said:


> If OLN/Comcast was demanding to be on AT60, I think that would be unreasonable since the the AT60 is more like Limited Basic in comparison to other services.


I don't disagree, but ESPN is on AT60, and OLN wants to become a direct competitor.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

i wish someone would take the survivor reruns off oln and put it on another network, i was so hoping to rewatch the a season of survivor with the survivor winner from ohio.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

carload said:


> I don't disagree, but ESPN is on AT60, and OLN wants to become a direct competitor.


Wanting to be a direct competitor and being a direct competitor are two entirely different things. Very presumptious of OLN to believe they rate the same consideration as ESPN.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Honestly, who cares about this channel? It's just another crappy AT180 channel that I'd just as soon see permanently removed from the line up, along with dozens of others. While I know a lot of folks are of the "the more, the merrier" mind set, I personally would rather Dish managed their costs by being selective about which channels they carry.

So good riddance, OLN.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Slordak said:


> Honestly, who cares about this channel? It's just another crappy AT180 channel that I'd just as soon see permanently removed from the line up, along with dozens of others. While I know a lot of folks are of the "the more, the merrier" mind set, I personally would rather Dish managed their costs by being selective about which channels they carry.
> 
> So good riddance, OLN.


So all hockey fans can just go to D*?


----------



## dpd146 (Oct 1, 2005)

Good thing Lance retired, which was the only compelling content on the channel.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Curtis0620 said:


> So all hockey fans can just go to D*?


Curtis,

Or pony up the bucks for Center Ice. Now I have access to all games except for the games on OLN, I really don't care as I get almost all the games anyway.

Comcast will blink first. Between Dish, Cablevision and dozens of other Providers not getting the NHL feeds because of ComCRAPS new policies, the NHL has about 10 million fewer Homes than they would have had access to before the season started, when ComCRAP decided to blackout some providers.

The NHL would now like to, "Thank you fans, NOW THAT IS COMCASTIC."

John


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

_As this is going to be a hot topic, I have made it a sticky. - *Holtz*_


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

JohnL said:


> Curtis,
> 
> Or pony up the bucks for Center Ice. Now I have access to all games except for the games on OLN, I really don't care as I get almost all the games anyway.
> 
> ...


They better have this settled before the playoffs, after the first 2 rounds you will see no hockey


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

The factor not being considered here is that *OLN has advertising*.

All they had to do was ask E* to move them to AT120 or AT60 _at no extra cost to E*_ (meaning to structure the deal in such a way as to not cost E* any more in total per year - ie create a lower per subscriber price when the channel is added to a more basic package).

Then everyone would win - OLN would increase their viewership, and increase their ad revenue, NHL would increase their viewership, and E* could say "OLN with new NHL coverage added to AT60 at no cost to our subscribers".

*But no*. Comcast had to be greedy.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

JohnL said:


> Between Dish, Cablevision and dozens of other Providers not getting the NHL feeds because of ComCRAPS new policies, the NHL has about 10 million fewer Homes than they would have had access to before the season started, when ComCRAP decided to blackout some providers.


Slow down, a moment. The NHL doesn't have 10 million fewer homes. Dish Network's sub count is 10 million; OLN wasn't available to the more than 6 million that do not subscribe to AT180. And who knows how many customers actually subscribe to AT 180? Same thing with Cablevision.

Dish Network. Cablevision. Dish Network. Cablevision. I seem to remember those two being in a dispute with another program provider. *YES*, I know I am certain but I just can't put my finger on it... 

The NHL took the money and ran by signing with OLN.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Slow down, a moment. The NHL doesn't have 10 million fewer homes. Dish Network's sub count is 10 million; OLN wasn't available to the more than 6 million that do not subscribe to AT180. And who knows how many customers actually subscribe to AT 180?


Of course they have 10 million fewer homes.

In the other thread (I'm surprise the mods are allowing two identical threads on this topic), someone described upgrading to AT180 to get OLN, so he could watch the NHL games, and then downgrading back to AT120 because OLN was no longer on.

Before the actions by OLN and E*, subscribers could get AT180 and thus OLN and NHL, with one phone call.

Now, no E* subscriber can get it at all (at the moment).


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

kstuart said:


> The factor not being considered here is that *OLN has advertising.*


And that has something to do with the price of tea in China because???


kstuart said:


> All they had to do was ask E* to move them to AT120 or AT60 at no extra cost to E* (meaning to structure the deal in such a way as to not cost E* any more in total per year).


And I am sure OLN is making millions off of Dish Network by being in AT180. The point for OLN is to gain basic tier carriage and make money with a net increase in revenue per month, even if it is at a lesser rate than OLN receives in AT180.


kstuart said:


> Then everyone would win - OLN would increase their viewership, and increase their ad revenue, NHL would increase their viewership, and E* could say "OLN with new NHL coverage added to AT60 at no cost to our subscribers".


OLN doesn't charge subscribers. OLN charges Dish Network for carriage. Maybe OLN wants more money since Dish Network is very profitable.


kstuart said:


> *But no.* Comcast had to be greedy.


And now that OLN is gone, how much of a reduction in the bill will Dish Network's AT180 customers receive? I'll give a hint: Dish Network customers will receive a price reduction in AT180 equal to the amount of exclusive OLN NHL games those subscribers could see. That would be zero.

So, if there is no discount for the removal of OLN from AT180, but Dish Network will save money by not paying for OLN, where is the greed?


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

> =So, if there is no discount for the removal of OLN from AT180, but Dish Network will save money by not paying for OLN, where is the greed?


They added NFL Channel,CSTV and ESPNU at no additional cost !!! its a wash


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

from kstuart:



> someone described upgrading to AT180 to get OLN, so he could watch the NHL games, and then downgrading back to AT120 because OLN was no longer on.


That was me. But let me clarify one point that you got wrong. I downgraded back to AT120 because *HOCKEY* was not on OLN and there was no point in keeping it - at least until this dispute is settled.

I'm a huge hockey fan, but I side with Dish on this one. At the risk of repeating myself, playing hardball in the United States using hockey as the bargaining chip is like Pat Robertson demanding that he be allowed to give sermons in hell.

...in either case, very few people want it... 

And I put my money where my mouth is - I was willing to pay more to get OLN because I don't think it's fair that the bulk of E* subscribers should have to subsidize hockey. All this banter back & forth about subscribers. That's beside the point. You can give access to OLN to all 10 million E* subscribers and still very few of them will watch hockey. That's just the reality in the United States.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

angiecopus said:


> i see on olns website that they are showing the redwings-blue jackets game, i hope it is not blacked out on Fox sports Net ohio.


OLN has an "exclusive" on this game. That means the only television provider whos cameras are allowed in Nationwide Arena that evening is OLN's.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Skates said:


> That's beside the point. You can give access to OLN to all 10 million E* subscribers and still very few of them will watch hockey. That's just the reality in the United States.


Okay. But now some industry speak:

When OLN gives out information on rate cards for advertising on the network, OLN must use the figures based on the payments they receive from the multi-channel distributors.

OLN could not say they are available in 10 million homes on Dish Network, since most of those subscrbers aren't on AT180. OLN didn't even have 4 million subscribers on Dish Network, if the 40% viewership is to be believed.

Therefore, now that OLN is off of Dish Network, OLN has lost less than 4 million homes. kstuart cannot say the channel is available to 10 million homes when most people didn't subscribe:


> Of course they have 10 million fewer homes.[...]
> 
> Before the actions by OLN and E*, subscribers could get AT180 and thus OLN and NHL, with one phone call.
> 
> Now, no E* subscriber can get it at all (at the moment).


But 10 million subscribers aren't signing up for AT180, and never will. So OLN didn't lose access to 10 million homes. They only lost access to the AT180 customers.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Nightfall said:


> I concur.
> 
> I have TC and have always gotten OLN. I don't believe that OLN having to be on a extra cost tier is a Comcast requirement since directv has it on their basic package.t...


 It is Comcast's requirement for OLN to be on the lowest basic tier. If that was not so Long Island Cablevision subs would be getting the NHL on OLN. As was the case with E* LI Cablevision subs get "bull riding" during the NHL games.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Slow down, a moment. The NHL doesn't have 10 million fewer homes. Dish Network's sub count is 10 million; OLN wasn't available to the more than 6 million that do not subscribe to AT180. And who knows how many customers actually subscribe to AT 180? Same thing with Cablevision.
> 
> Dish Network. Cablevision. Dish Network. Cablevision. I seem to remember those two being in a dispute with another program provider. *YES*, I know I am certain but I just can't put my finger on it...
> 
> The NHL took the money and ran by signing with OLN.


Greg,

Dish has 3 Million Top 180 subscribers, Cablevision in NYC alone has more than 3 Million subs that are NOT getting NHL games. Their are also dozens of other smaller cable systems in the same predicament. So with just Dish and Cablevision there are already almost 6.5 million NHL less OLN subscribers, add in the other providers and I would estimate the audience missing OLN NHL games to be about 10 million subscribers that are paying to receive OLN without NHL games.

John


----------



## SteveinDanville (Jun 26, 2002)

Let's see, with my 942 so buggy it's almost unwatchable, and now no bike racing, including next year's Tour de France, why is it again that I stick with this "service"?


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

OLN _will _ end up on AT120. That simple.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Both the NHL and OLN have stopped all feedback from their collective web sites.

I would guess they have been bombarded with angry messages about COMCRAP's new NHL policies.

If they really cared about us fans this would NOT be happening. Lets hope they get more unfriendly press, that causes them to relent and give us subscribers the content we are paying for.

John


----------



## cumberlandredskin (Feb 5, 2004)

JohnL said:


> Both the NHL and OLN have stopped all feedback from their collective web sites.
> 
> I would guess they have been bombarded with angry messages about COMCRAP's new NHL policies.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't it make sense for the NHL to have their product available to anyone that is willing to carry their games. Especially since they didn't exist last season. I'm really surprised that the NHL hasn't told Comcast to make this available to everyone no matter what teir of service OLN is availble. I'm not an NHL fan but they really have screwed this TV deal up bigtime!


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

cumberlandredskin said:


> Wouldn't it make sense for the NHL to have their product available to anyone that is willing to carry their games. Especially since they didn't exist last season. I'm really surprised that the NHL hasn't told Comcast to make this available to everyone no matter what teir of service OLN is availble. I'm not an NHL fan but they really have screwed this TV deal up bigtime!


If the NHL wanted hockey to be available to everyone with a television, they would have made a package with the major networks like the NFL did. Obviously, that didn't happen. The networks have been there, done that, not gonna do it again. The NHL might be happy just to have ANY network carry their games.


----------



## dbodle (Aug 23, 2004)

to heck with hockey maybe now DISH will add The Sportsman Channel


----------



## auburn2 (Sep 8, 2005)

Curtis0620 said:


> So all hockey fans can just go to D*?


Yes both of you can go to D* :lol:


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

That's so cruel...true, but cruel...


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

there's more than one???


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm not a hockey fan so I'll limite my two cents to this...

Given that even the best hockey fans last year didn't miss the NHL anywhere near as much as the NHL players and owners thought... I would think it behooves the NHL as a league (who claimed to be losing money hand over fist in the years leading up to the strike) to be as visible as possible.

If this means "free" games on TV to get people to watch with the new rules... I say they should do it. They are coming off a year where they actually claim they lost LESS money on strike than they would have being in business! It seems like they need all the help they can get... so getting more viewers and having their sport on more channels and more satellite/cable systems seems like a good business idea to me.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Two points:

While we know that E* isn't showing OLN, we don't know for sure that E* isn't still paying for OLN. Depending on the contract and how outrageous E* wants to act, it could be that E* is still paying the AT180 per-sub fees but choosing not to air the content.

Also, according to LyngSat (http://www.lyngsat.com/g11.html), OLN is available for free to C-band dishes. So if you really want it, you could just upgrade your equipment.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

carload said:


> ...
> While we know that E* isn't showing OLN, we don't know for sure that E* isn't still paying for OLN. Depending on the contract and how outrageous E* wants to act, it could be that E* is still paying the AT180 per-sub fees but choosing not to air the content....


E* still paying for OLN? :lol: :rolling: :nono:

According to the press relese it was Comcast's decision to pull the plug, not E*.
I hope that Comcrap/Commiecast gets burned Comcastically! :blauesaug


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Let's not forget the NHL's slogan for this year "Thank you fans". Is this how they thank the fans? I hope that both the NHL and the Comcastic CEO's gets to see this thread. Both of their "good" names are as good as mud right now.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

Well e* subs, don't feel bad, the OLN coverage is pretty shi**y anyway. So you might miss a couple games here and there, no biggie! Trust me!

Even the old announcers from ESPN that are now on OLN look embarassed to be there!!!

As for e*, I'm glad they stuck to their guns, this is the kind of backbone the country was built from! I don't see to many britts or tea drinkers around my neighbourhood!! :lol:


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

NHL??? Who are they???


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Has Comcast forgotten why ESPN, and the OTA Networks dropped Hockey before? It just ain't that popular in the U.S. They acting like it's the NFL.
> My guess is that most viewers will yawn over the lack of OLN Hockey.


Yawn, OLN can kiss my BUTTUX!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Playing "Devils Advocate" ---
The NHL wants as many people to see their games as possible. Thus they want the channel carrying their games to be visible to most, if not all, subscribers on each system. OLN, in cooperation with the NHL, blocked systems that did not place their channel at "the appropriate level".​They played the wild card: If you don't move OLN to basic you can't have the NHL. This ploy worked on some systems but not E* - they decided not to be bullied.

It is probably time for the FCC and lawyers to be called in by E* and cable operators who would also like to place their channels where they want - not where OLN/NHL wants. Sports channels available by satellite are supposed to be available to ALL providers under fair terms. The manner that OLN used to blackout hockey, forcing E* and others to air backup programming instead of the scheduled games. Thus making a satellite sports feed unavailable on a discriminatory basis. Reports are that the blocked providers can't even tune in the games - let alone rebroadcast them.

JL


----------



## chewey (Jul 28, 2004)

Between Fox Sports net and HDnet, i'm getting my fill of NHL. There is no way I would pay extra for OLN for the handful of games they show.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Mark Holtz said:


> _As this is going to be a hot topic, I have made it a sticky. - *Holtz*_


Deservedly, "hot topics" tend to stay on top of the heap as long as they are "hot" without being stuck. When threads sink down, that means they are no longer hot. A very democratic way of priortizing threads, although many of my excellent and highly interesting threads have sunk into oblivion almost immediately, if not sooner. :whatdidid

Sticking a _'who cares'_ topic like OLN is like serving the same school lunchroom menu day after day.

<yawn> My .02.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Better than having seven open threads discussing OLN because people didn't see it. There is a value to being a sticky.

JL


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't know why everyone is so worried...the enormous amount of fans of fishing, hunting, kayaking, archery et al, will be infuriated by the loss of OLN and they will call in to complain in droves and...unless...instead of watching them on TV they're actually out DOING those things...

We're DOOMED! :icon_cry:

My 0.0165 cents, based on an exchange rate to Canadian dollars of .825...


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

If I cant see the scottish pole tipping contest Im gonna hold my breath till i turn blue!!!!!


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

I am a big sports guy, but it seems that comcast thinks that they can force the NHL on everyone. Of the 4 major sports in the US, hockey is in 4th and way behind third. I think Dish is doing the right thing here. If you want the hockey it should be on the higher tier programming. OLN is week anyway IMO. Also I just actually had Comcast installed today to compare their service to Dish not for OLN mind you. 

I've made my decision, and lets just say that the cable box should be exiting the home entertainment center shortly.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

Who thinks this will end any other way than OLN in AT120?Also people say it's a handful of games on OLN but it is the conference finals and first two games of the finals.What would be the point of following the season and not the finals.If Cheapo Charlie is doing this for the customers all the time why is E* not loads cheaper than D*?


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

E* is all about making a profit (something d* rarely does)..As long as they make a profit they stay in business..As long as they stay in business we (as consumers) have a viable alternative to those monopolistic cable companies!!! BRAVO CHARLIE!!!


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

I want to see what all the METs fans who said how great it was Dish didn't carry YES when it takes Dish 3 years to add the Mets channel have to say then.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

E* has a deal for the new mets channel already in place


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

johnbelt28 said:


> Who thinks this will end any other way than OLN in AT120?


Not me. That is exactly how it will end, with OLN on the AT120.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

As much as I side against Echostar in situations like this, I have to agree with them here. OLN's only asset is a six hour programming block per week for six months out of the year. The rest is completely worthless to 99% of Dish's subscriber base. That makes this different from the YES situation, which has year-round MLB/NBA games nearly every day in the top Nielsen market.

The NHL is completely to blame here - OLN is no ESPN and if they wanted eyes watching their games they should have known better than to pick an obscure channel like that. Comcast has had a history of being difficult to deal with (thinking CSN-Philadelphia here) so this comes as no surprise to me. I still don't know why the NHL would agree to any deal that forces OLN to be on the basic tier, and if they're not, black out the programming even if it's on a higher tier. Did they really think that'd make providers include it on lower tiers?

Hockey is a fringe sport, and that's coming from a die-hard college hockey fan. The NHL can't get greedy when they're in no position to bargain for anything.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

johnbelt28 said:


> Who thinks this will end any other way than OLN in AT120?


I wouldn't be suprised either way. There have been a lot of improvements to AT120 lately ... perhaps if the per subscriber cost to E* is cut enough E* won't mind putting it at AT120.


johnbelt28 said:


> If Cheapo Charlie is doing this for the customers all the time why is E* not loads cheaper than D*?


There are other expenses than paying for channels. E* has a large satellite fleet to manage and many more channels (mostly locals) to maintain. It would be nice if everything paid for itself but that just doesn't happen. It all comes down to the bottom line.

JL


----------



## Ronmort (Apr 23, 2002)

bills976 said:


> As much as I side against Echostar in situations like this, I have to agree with them here. OLN's only asset is a six hour programming block per week for six months out of the year. The rest is completely worthless to 99% of Dish's subscriber base. That makes this different from the YES situation, which has year-round MLB/NBA games nearly every day in the top Nielsen market.
> 
> The NHL is completely to blame here - OLN is no ESPN and if they wanted eyes watching their games they should have known better than to pick an obscure channel like that. Comcast has had a history of being difficult to deal with (thinking CSN-Philadelphia here) so this comes as no surprise to me. I still don't know why the NHL would agree to any deal that forces OLN to be on the basic tier, and if they're not, black out the programming even if it's on a higher tier. Did they really think that'd make providers include it on lower tiers?
> 
> Hockey is a fringe sport, and that's coming from a die-hard college hockey fan. The NHL can't get greedy when they're in no position to bargain for anything.


 Words of Wisdom!!!!


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

If I was Dish, I'd put OLN in AT60 in a heartbeat if Comcast would give me CSN Philadelphia.


----------



## Spruceman (Nov 21, 2004)

Now, That's COMCASTRATED! I'm sick of sports accounting for such as large chunk of the programming fees paid by the satellite companies for the content of the basic packages. As to Outdoor Life, how is some pussgutted armchair athlete watching paid gladiators play hockey between the Viagra commercials part of outdoor life? The Outdoor Channel is far more outdoorsy. If the plan for Outdoor Life is to eventually become another ESPN, change the name; otherwise it's an insult to us who really live the outdoors. I wonder if Comcrap owned TEN-EXXXTASY would they would make the satellite companies pay extra per subscriber and carry it in the most basic package?


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

I didn't even know what where OLN was until they got hockey.I 've heard of people having the channel and not even knowing where to find it in their cable.i know the ratings for the NHL are bad compared to the ratings they had on ESPN but how do they compare to usual outdoor stuff they show?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Nick said:


> Good riddance! OLN was a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.


Until recently (I didn't notice when it happened and Comcast didn't say anything), OLN was a red-headed stepchild on their own programming lineup. It was stuck out on a "Digital Extra" a-la-cart tier for $6.95 a month with Speed Channel and a dozen channels that I couldn't remember if you paid me. It wasn't even included in their "Platinum" package!

Now it is included in their lifeline 38 channel analog lineup!

I'm sure the regional Comcast operators aren't happy about it, but they're doing it nonetheless.

I fall on the side of those who love the Tour de France coverage and don't give OLN a second look otherwise. I get the feeling that without Lance, the Tour won't generate enough interest to keep OLN going during the hockey off-season and as blasphemous as it might sound to those in hockey areas, hockey and its beer commercials aren't going to pay the bills either.

As an aside, the PQ is actually a little better now that it is an analog channel.


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Spruceman said:


> If the plan for Outdoor Life is to eventually become another ESPN, change the name; otherwise it's an insult to us who really live the outdoors.


They did drop the Outdoor Life Network name back in July and now the network is just called OLN. See this link.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Ghostwriter said:


> I am a big sports guy, but it seems that comcast thinks that they can force the NHL on everyone. Of the 4 major sports in the US, hockey is in 4th and way behind third. I think Dish is doing the right thing here. If you want the hockey it should be on the higher tier programming. OLN is week anyway IMO. Also I just actually had Comcast installed today to compare their service to Dish not for OLN mind you.
> 
> I've made my decision, and lets just say that the cable box should be exiting the home entertainment center shortly.


I just looked at the Comcast channel line up for my area and OLN is on 765 which is Extendended Digital.


----------



## ride525 (Aug 13, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> I just looked at the Comcast channel line up for my area and OLN is on 765 which is Extendended Digital.


I wonder if that means 40% of customers get OLN.

Hey Paul, San Lorenzo, Ca....my hometown....


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 2, 2004)

I think that the NHL and Comcast are shooting themselves in the foot. What I'm curious about is if Dish doesn't see a huge backlash and can get away without bringing it back will the other providers pull it? I mean if I was Cablevision or whatever and I saw that the backlash with dish died down in a few days I'd considering dumping them also especially if enough providers dropped them Comcast and the NHL would have to renegotiate their deal.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Has there been a major backlash? Aside from a few posts on a public forum, I haven't heard anything on the news for instance as if it was making major news.

I'm betting a lot of folks got used to not having hockey around for a year, and won't even notice it is missing. The NHL and any channel who paid for rights to broadcast this year needs the viewers more than the viewers need the NHL at this point.


----------



## nimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Has there been a major backlash? Aside from a few posts on a public forum, I haven't heard anything on the news for instance as if it was making major news.
> 
> I'm betting a lot of folks got used to not having hockey around for a year, and won't even notice it is missing. The NHL and any channel who paid for rights to broadcast this year needs the viewers more than the viewers need the NHL at this point.


Well put. I think you nailed it right on the head. Using hockey as a bargaining chip is pretty weak. OLN would be better suited to have limited eyeballs from E* subscribers than no eyeballs from E* subscribers.

What also makes zero sense is the fact that OLN sold advertising packages based on numbers that included E*'s subscriber base. If I were an advertiser, I would be calling OLN and telling them I want money back due to a smaller audience than originally promised.

Additionally, NHL teams cannot be pleased about this situation. I live in Florida and last Monday night's Panthers game was not available to me. OLN had exclusive rights to the broadcast and so I was not able to see it. That's bad news for the Panthers and every other team that appears on an OLN-only broadcast.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

nimmer said:


> What also makes zero sense is the fact that OLN sold advertising packages based on numbers that included E*'s subscriber base.


How do you know this? Where is it published that OLN is selling its advertising rates with Dish Network customers included?


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

This is why we need regulations against so-called "vertical integration". A distributor of multi-channel programming should NOT be allowed to own a content provider. I know there are regs on the books which prohibit the TV networks from producing more than a few shows per year, in order to protect the syndication rights for the independent producers. I also know that Microsoft has to provide complete knowledge of its operating system to outside programmers (no flames, please, I'm not qualified to say whether or not that actually happens). In this situation, where one company owns and/or controls many facets of a business, the consumer always suffers.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

ride525 said:


> I wonder if that means 40% of customers get OLN.
> 
> Hey Paul, San Lorenzo, Ca....my hometown....


I've lived here most of my life. I'm disabled and living in my parent's house. They're dead now, but I have lots of memories. I live in back of Bay Fair Mall.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> nimmer said:
> 
> 
> > What also makes zero sense is the fact that OLN sold advertising packages based on numbers that included E*'s subscriber base.
> ...


Prove that they didn't. These constant pleas for people to back up their numbers in print and yet you don't bother to back up your guesses.

With no 'facts' on either side one has to rely on logic - and logic states that OLN would give as a subscriber number the total number of subscribers regardless of system where they see OLN. Or alre you suggesting that OLN proactively removed E* from the total before selling ads for this fall? Losing a few million E* subscribers means OLN needs to reduce it's total accordingly.

JL


----------



## ride525 (Aug 13, 2003)

It would be my guess that folks that paid for advertising on OLN are not happy right now, there are 3 million Dish subscribers not able to see the channel (and the ads).


----------



## logray (Apr 8, 2005)

I appreciate Charlie making decisions for us...

HOWEVER

Wouldn't it be nice if we could be given the option to pay a rediculous amount to keep OLN?

DirectTV still has it.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

That's part of the point of dish removing it, OLN was blocking the NHL from the subscribers that were willing to upgrade to AT180 and pay $10 more to see the NHL. OLN would rather force dish to lower the OLN to AT120 and force the subscribers of that package to pay to have OLN there regardless if they want to watch OLN or not. OLN has to earn customer demand on their own and shouldn't be allowed to force providers to place their package in lower packages when the appeal doesn't exist for it there.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> With no 'facts' on either side one has to rely on logic - and logic states that OLN would give as a subscriber number the total number of subscribers regardless of system where they see OLN. Or alre you suggesting that OLN proactively removed E* from the total before selling ads for this fall? Losing a few million E* subscribers means OLN needs to reduce it's total accordingly.
> 
> JL


I almost posted what you did... so I'll just add one other thing I was thinking... IF OLN took the latter route and didn't count the Dish customers as part of their subscribers for advertising dollars... then that would imply they were planning to pull from Dish before it happened... and that wouldn't look good.

So we are either left with the conspiracy theory that OLN didn't count Dish because they knew they were going to create a problem... OR the logical supposition that Dish subscribers must have been counted.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## ride525 (Aug 13, 2003)

HDMe said:


> So we are either left with the conspiracy theory that OLN didn't count Dish because they knew they were going to create a problem... OR the logical supposition that Dish subscribers must have been counted.


OLN seemed surprised when Dish pulled the plug on OLN, according to the news reports. In fact OLN's own statement on OLNTV.com states their surprise:

"We were surprised and disappointed that DISH unilaterally chose to stop providing OLN to its customers without warning, and denied fans access great sports coverage. Fortunately, those customers do have the ability to explore other cable and satellite options that carry OLN."


----------



## Ronmort (Apr 23, 2002)

What a twist this has produced- encouragement from Comcast for Dish customers to switch to DTV to get the NHL games on the Comcast sponsored Outdoor Life Network web site!


----------



## ride525 (Aug 13, 2003)

Ronmort said:


> What a twist this has produced- encouragement from Comcast for Dish customers to switch to DTV to get the NHL games on the Comcast sponsored Outdoor Life Network web site!


Yes, check out the OLNTV.com website. There is a banner at the top that declares: "OLN is on DIRECTV", with a link.


----------



## lee1203 (Jul 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> I wouldn't be suprised either way. There have been a lot of improvements to AT120 lately ... perhaps if the per subscriber cost to E* is cut enough E* won't mind putting it at AT120.There are other expenses than paying for channels. E* has a large satellite fleet to manage and many more channels (mostly locals) to maintain. It would be nice if everything paid for itself but that just doesn't happen. It all comes down to the bottom line.
> 
> JL


DirecTV is making 3 new HD IDR's and one SD IRD and they are upgrading over 600,000 hd costumers over the next 2 years and the 3 orders of the Tandberg things (over $12 million) and they are launching 4 new sat's in the next 2 years and they still have to pay there providers of the channels and still manage there large satellite fleet and they spent over $30 million in advertising (for the DVR ad alone) and DIRECTV has not pulled a channel (not counting Here!TV) out of line up in over a year or so.

so who is spending more money?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ride525 said:


> OLN: "We were surprised and disappointed that DISH unilaterally chose to stop providing OLN to its customers without warning, and denied fans access great sports coverage. Fortunately, those customers do have the ability to explore other cable and satellite options that carry OLN."


The trouble with that statement is that E* isn't denying access to "great sports coverage" - they pulled the plug on the mediocre OLN. OLN is the ones that denied access to "great sports coverage" by not providing E* with the NHL version of their feed,

JL


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lee1203 said:


> DirecTV is making 3 new HD IDR's and one SD IRD and they are upgrading over 600,000 hd costumers over the next 2 years and the 3 orders of the Tandberg things (over $12 million) and they are launching 4 new sat's in the next 2 years and they still have to pay there providers of the channels and still manage there large satellite fleet and they spent over $30 million in advertising (for the DVR ad alone) and DIRECTV has not pulled a channel (not counting Here!TV) out of line up in over a year or so.
> 
> so who is spending more money?


The question is who is making more money. Thanks for the list of money pits that D* is filling up while not making a profit. E* has to pay its own way - no deep pockets behind the scenes covering constant losses. It isn't like E* is standing still - they have several HD receivers in the works (with no need for SD only receivers). And they have a lot of open leases on SES satellites for future expansion. All being done WHILE TURNING A PROFIT.

While *we* wouldn't mind E* losing money for a quarter or two, E* needs to turn a profit to stay in business for the following quarter. Voom tried the 'lets lose money every quarter' approach - the only difference being that their deep pockets (Cablevision) cut them off and D*'s deep pockets are still covering losses.

JL


----------



## lee1203 (Jul 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> The question is who is making more money. Thanks for the list of money pits that D* is filling up while not making a profit. E* has to pay its own way - no deep pockets behind the scenes covering constant losses. It isn't like E* is standing still - they have several HD receivers in the works (with no need for SD only receivers). And they have a lot of open leases on SES satellites for future expansion. All being done WHILE TURNING A PROFIT.
> 
> While *we* wouldn't mind E* losing money for a quarter or two, E* needs to turn a profit to stay in business for the following quarter. Voom tried the 'lets lose money every quarter' approach - the only difference being that their deep pockets (Cablevision) cut them off and D*'s deep pockets are still covering losses.
> 
> JL


DIRECTV has made profit.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/167100966


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lee1203 said:


> DIRECTV has made profit.
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/167100966


How rare!
The Segundo, Calif., satellite-TV provider said net income for the quarter ended June 30 was $162 million, or 12 cents a share, compared with a net loss of $13 million, or 1 cent a share, the same period a year ago. Revenues rose 21 percent to $3.19 billion.​As for E*: they made $855 million, or $1.89 per share in that quarter (not 12¢ but 15 times as much). Scroll back two posts and you will see "The question is who is making more money."

It isn't a question of a lucky quarter ... it is a track record over time. The same quarter last year when D* was losing $13 million E* made $85 million. In the first 6 months of 2005 E* made $1.17 billion D* only made $120.1 million (hmmm ... 42 million 1Q loss for D*).

Loss is a popular term when describing D*'s finances:
2001 - $621.6 million loss
2002 - $893.8 million loss
2003 - $361.8 million loss
2004 - $1.9 BILLION loss

E* had rough years, but they have been doing well for the past couple of years:
2001 - $ 215.5 million loss
2002 - $ 852.0 million loss (including $689.8 related to the merger)
2003 - $ 224.5 million PROFIT
2004 - $ 214.8 million PROFIT

So congratulations to D* - they pulled off a quarter in the black. Good luck posting a profit for the entire year! 

JL


----------



## lee1203 (Jul 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> How rare!
> The Segundo, Calif., satellite-TV provider said net income for the quarter ended June 30 was $162 million, or 12 cents a share, compared with a net loss of $13 million, or 1 cent a share, the same period a year ago. Revenues rose 21 percent to $3.19 billion.​As for E*: they made $855 million, or $1.89 per share in that quarter (not 12¢ but 15 times as much). Scroll back two posts and you will see "The question is who is making more money."
> 
> It isn't a question of a lucky quarter ... it is a track record over time. The same quarter last year when D* was losing $13 million E* made $85 million. In the first 6 months of 2005 E* made $1.17 billion D* only made $120.1 million (hmmm ... 42 million 1Q loss for D*).
> ...


It's hard to make a profit when someone is trying to sell you left and right!!!!!

and the 19.B was for there HD sat and it is easy to make a PROFIT when your cheap :nono2:


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 1, 2003)

Since when did this discussion go from OLN to profits based on Directv and Dish? I really don't give two rips on the profit margins of each company. Even though I am a Directv subscriber, some of my friends are on Dish so they don't get OLN anymore. Most of them are hockey fans and are going to miss the game tonight that is exclusivly on OLN.

Any news on OLN talking with Dish on a new contract?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nightfall said:


> Since when did this discussion go from OLN to profits based on Directv and Dish?


Since the conversation cycled back around to why OLN isn't on Dish - Charlie doesn't easily pay extortion, he runs a profitable business.


Nightfall said:


> Any news on OLN talking with Dish on a new contract?


Only thing promising I saw was on the DirecTV website ... They are advertising that they are the only satellite provider with OLN, but they state:ATTENTION DISH NETWORK SUBSCRIBERS
You're *currently* unable to view your favorite OLN programming on DISH Network. ...
source​Emphasis added on "currently". I guess D* expects E* to allow the channel back on the system. 

JL


----------



## logray (Apr 8, 2005)

I think I want to switch to Comcast because of all of those great national commercials on TV. Oh, and they have OLN too.

I think I'll call them up today and ask them to buy out my local cable operator just so I can get their service.

<COUGH> <COUGH>


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

I don't care who makes a profit and who don't.The bottom line is never count on being able to watch your favorite channel or sport on E*. It could be there one minute and gone the next.Charlie will hold out for a better deal like with Viacom then gives in and then the bill goes up in Jan.So why does he pull these grandstand things.Why don't he just make the deal.I'm sure this chanel will end up in AT120 maybe at a lower rate per subscriber.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And once again, it is important to tell more than one side of the story:


James Long said:


> Loss is a popular term when describing D*'s finances:
> 2001 - $621.6 million loss
> 2002 - $893.8 million loss
> 2003 - $361.8 million loss
> 2004 - $1.9 BILLION loss


I didn't know that DirecTV posted a loss of $621.6 million.

press release for the full year of 2001 states:


> For 2001, net losses totaled $621.6 million compared to net income of $813.0 million in 2000. The change was primarily due to the sale of HUGHES' satellite manufacturing businesses in 2000, the lower EBITDA and an increase in depreciation and amortization expense in the Direct-To-Home Broadcast segment and at PanAmSat.


This press release says *Hughes* had net losses of $621.6 million. So, are we talking about DirecTV, or are we talking about Hughes? DirecTV was a business unit of Hughes, and did not report separate numbers for DirecTV.

Hughes made a profit of $813 million in 2000. I am sure DirecTV was profitable then.

Awfully nice to note Dish Network's loss related to the merger. Too bad the same microscope wasn't used to inspect the yearly finances of the other company.

You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

nimmer said:


> What also makes zero sense is the fact that OLN sold advertising packages based on numbers that included E*'s subscriber base.





Greg Bimson said:


> How do you know this? Where is it published that OLN is selling its advertising rates with Dish Network customers included?





James Long said:


> Prove that they didn't. These constant pleas for people to back up their numbers in print and yet you don't bother to back up your guesses.


I'll back up my guesses when numbers dictate they need to be backed up. That is much better than throwing out SWAGs with no basis in fact. And still no one has proved that OLN is selling ad time based on overstated household numbers.


James Long said:


> With no 'facts' on either side one has to rely on logic - and logic states that OLN would give as a subscriber number the total number of subscribers regardless of system where they see OLN. Or alre you suggesting that OLN proactively removed E* from the total before selling ads for this fall? Losing a few million E* subscribers means OLN needs to reduce it's total accordingly.


OLN would have had to pitch to potential NHL advertisers the amount of people that would receive the ads. It was common knowledge that Comcast was going to use the NHL as a battering ram to gain carriage in normal tiers when the contract was first signed. However, I am not sure a news article can be considered as backing up my statement. 

The date of the article is 22 August. The date of the agreement between the NHL and OLN was 19 August. Therefore, common sense and *logic* would dictate that OLN subscribers in a digital tier should not be counted for advertising sales during NHL games. Common sense would tell anyone this game of brinksmanship has been ongoing for the past two months, and that there shouldn't have been any surprise.

However, if we are now talking about the fact that OLN has now been removed from 3.4 million homes, then yes, OLN may have to give rebates because the number of OLN subscribers has decreased.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Anybody wanna bet that Howard Stern on demand andd INHD 1&2 are really at the heart of the e*/comcrap negociations!!!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

juan ellitinez said:


> Anybody wanna bet that Howard Stern on demand andd INHD 1&2 are really at the heart of the e*/comcrap negociations!!!


I'll do you one better. What is sitting in front of the FCC right now? The application for both Comcast and Time Warner to take over Adelphia systems. Many, many, many parties are demanding review of Comcast's and Time Warner's business practices, as well as wanting conditions placed on this takeover. What better way to get the FCC's attention than this squabble.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I didn't know that DirecTV posted a loss of $621.6 million.


All numbers are from the respective company's 10-Ks for 2004 except this year's figures are from their most recent 10-Q.


> So, are we talking about DirecTV, or are we talking about Hughes?


The balance sheet was labeled DirecTV, not Hughes.


> Awfully nice to note Dish Network's loss related to the merger.


E*'s 10-K had the notation as a footnote for the figure on their balance sheet. D* did not provide a footnote. No microscope needed to read a footnote. Perhaps you can teach D* how to write an annual report?


Greg Bimson said:


> I'll back up my guesses when numbers dictate they need to be backed up. ... And still no one has proved that OLN is selling ad time based on overstated household numbers.


And still you have not proven that a number that included subscribers via E* was not used. Thanks for your cooperation.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> The balance sheet was labeled DirecTV, not Hughes.


Then obviously your source cannot be trusted. You'll need to analyze and fix your figures if you wish to be a trustworthy moderator.


James Long said:


> And still you have not proven that a number that included subscribers via E* was not used. Thanks for your cooperation.


Then obviously the source cannot be trusted, because no one provided the source. And I certainly shouldn't have to assume a post is correct when I still want to see the backup. There needs to be a fact in there somewhere, not just some Simple, Wild-A** Guess (SWAG) by a poster that needs to be refuted. I certainly don't need to cooperate. This isn't Kum-ba-yah.

I certainly don't have to prove an author's statements where there are discrepancies. But I've already done one section of your homework. Maybe it is time to do your own homework instead of bashing me. The onus is on you guys to get it right from the start.

It is likely that OLN has gained more than the 3.6 million subscribers lost by Dish Network's termination of the carriage contract, so that the net loss of subscribers is near zero. And after all, the last statement must be correct, until someone can prove it wrong.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> It is likely that OLN has gained more than the 3.6 million subscribers lost by Dish Network's termination of the carriage contract, so that the net loss of subscribers is near zero. And after all, the last statement must be correct, until someone can prove it wrong.


A loss is a loss regardless of whether or not it is offset by gains elsewhere. If I lost an account and tried to tell my boss it's ok because I signed a different account, he'd laugh in my face and then fire me.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

LtMunst said:


> A loss is a loss regardless of whether or not it is offset by gains elsewhere. If I lost an account and tried to tell my boss it's ok because I signed a different account, he'd laugh in my face and then fire me.


Not if you are trying to drive your property into more homes. Comcast is using the NHL to gain carriage of OLN into more homes, so they can bid on more sports packages, and make a competing network to ESPN. I suspect your job is quite a bit different than that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Then obviously your source cannot be trusted. You'll need to analyze and fix your figures if you wish to be a trustworthy moderator.


Dear Sir,

The source was given in my last post. DirecTV's 2004 10-K statement, linked from the DirecTV website. If you believe that their statement is in error take it up with DirecTV. Thanks for your cooperation.

If you honestly believe that OLN did not include E* subscribers who could see the OLN feed in their previous subscriber count then I seriously doubt your sanity. If you honestly believe that OLN would attempt to sell WITHOUT giving subscriber numbers I doubt your judgement.

JL


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Not if you are trying to drive your property into more homes. Comcast is using the NHL to gain carriage of OLN into more homes, so they can bid on more sports packages, and make a competing network to ESPN. I suspect your job is quite a bit different than that.


Option #1 (Push Dish to the point where Dish drops your channel)
Gain 3.6MM subs elsewhere minus 3.6MM subs from Dish = Net Zero

Option #2 (Negotiate reasonable carriage agreement with Dish)
Gain 3.6MM subs elsewhere Plus retain 3.6MM subs from Dish = Net 3.6MM Gain

I still fail to understand where Option #1 is ok.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

After GM purcahased Hughes it sold off many of the business lines. For a long time you could buy a "tracking stock" called GM -H. It was an odd bird as purchase of a share did not convey direct ownership of Hughes----it actually conveyed ownsership in GM (that owned Hughes) and the right to participate in the earnings of Hughes. Eventually the entity became known as DTV. 

Many of the financial figures did separate divisions but not all of them did. You will have a heck of a time trying to fill in the blanks. This lack of clarity scared some away from buying "tracking stocks". GM invented the category when they bnought EDs and used it again for Hughes. There are other examples but not many.

I do not know how OLN sold ad rights. Nor do most of us know what the contract between OLN and DISH said. All we know is that DISH subs who happen to be hockey fans cannot watch as much hockey as they would like.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Here's the funny thing about all this. I take phone calls from Dish customers & potential Dish customers all day, since this whole OLN debacle has ensued guess how many calls i've gotten about it? Two! That's right just two. And even the funnier thing, why did they call to complain about the channel going missing? Because they were going to miss the championship bull-riding rodeo this up coming weekend. So from my personal experience it's Bull Riding 2 Hockey 0.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> The source was given in my last post. DirecTV's 2004 10-K statement, linked from the DirecTV website. If you believe that their statement is in error take it up with DirecTV. Thanks for your cooperation.


You mean this link?And when you open the 2001 report, the one that has HUGHES all over it, it didn't ring a bell? I don't believe the statement is in error; I believe you misread the report and attributed all losses by Hughes to DirecTV.


James Long said:


> If you honestly believe that OLN did not include E* subscribers who could see the OLN feed in their previous subscriber count then I seriously doubt your sanity. If you honestly believe that OLN would attempt to sell WITHOUT giving subscriber numbers I doubt your judgement.


I never said I didn't believe OLN included Dish Network subscribers on the old OLN feed. I said it is common knowledge that Comcast was trying to take OLN to the next level. I believe that disclosure was provided to advertisers regarding the amount of subscribers able to see NHL games on OLN was different than the normal OLN feed. Everyone in the industry new Comcast was using the NHL as a tool to gain broader coverage.

You can doubt my sanity or my judgment all you want. You'll see the amount of people that will question your integrity if you don't dig for answers to support your claims, or outlandish claims of other posters.

I will concede that OLN has probably lost potential viewers due to cessation of carriage of the network by Dish Network. I will not concede that those advertisers that bought ad time on OLN for their NHL coverage did not know about the potential carriage fight to get OLN into more basic packages.


LtMunst said:


> Option #1 (Push Dish to the point where Dish drops your channel)
> Gain 3.6MM subs elsewhere minus 3.6MM subs from Dish = Net Zero
> 
> Option #2 (Negotiate reasonable carriage agreement with Dish)
> ...


The point is that it is Comcast's business decision to try and drive OLN from sports-tier packaging to basic tier. There will be hiccups. This is one of many.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

OLN may have an exclusive here in the U.S., however what about Star Choice and ExpressVu? Are any of the OLN games on either or both of the Canadian satellite systems?

Time to go "grey". eh?


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

OLN exclusivity means nothing in Canada.If TSN is televising the game you would see it.TSN has showed at least a couple the OLN games.Even usuing the OLN feed once.Going Grey would be a good idea if you want to see the East and West finals and first two games of the Finals.I'm sure the CBC Coverage will be better than OLN or NBC.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> You mean this link?And when you open the 2001 report,


Try the 2004 report (something current) as referenced and stop being so argumentative. It's DirecTV, dude.

JL


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Alright (in my best JL voice), stay on topic and knock off the personal attacks.


----------



## lee1203 (Jul 14, 2005)

James Long said:


> Try the 2004 report (something current) as referenced and stop being so argumentative. It's DirecTV, dude.
> 
> JL


and it's DISH :hurah: :lol: :nono2:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> Try the 2004 report (something current) as referenced and stop being so argumentative. It's DirecTV, dude.


It is DirecTV as of 2004. Maybe even very late 2003. However, let's try the 2004 report, which doesn't have a footnote relating to the one-time charges, such as Dish Network's failed merger attempt:


> Divestitures
> 
> • During the first quarter of 2004, we sold our investment in XM Satellite Radio common stock for $477.5 million in cash.
> 
> ...


lurker, I realize I am being tough on you. No, it wasn't in the footnote section. It was in the Divestures section.

But understand, I do respect your position. All I am asking is that you wade through still waters carefully when providing facts. Otherwise, it appears there is an extreme bias, and you are a moderator.

I know that Dish Network has been more profitable than DirecTV. Echostar has been growing their satellite business, from starting in the back of a truck 25 years ago to be a major force in the satellite industry. Surprsingly to many here, I do respect that.

DirecTV, on the other hand, has had to endure playing second fiddle in their own conglomerate for quite some time. It is the sole-surviving vestige remaining from Hughes Aircraft Corporation. The newer owners (Fox Entertainment Group) are trying to restructure the company to make it more profitable. It doesn't help when the prior owners (General Motors) have made some horrible business decisions that the new owners must correct via losses or via write-downs (Pegasus, Spaceway, DirecTV DSL, etc.). Transformation of a company that 10 years ago was one of the largest defense contractors to a multi-channel distribution vendor is frought with pits and pot-holes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> lurker, I realize I am being tough on you.


No ... you are being tough on EVERYONE ... busting people's chops because they didn't bow and scrape to YOUR NEEDS while you fail to provide similar backing to your assumptions.


Greg Bimson said:


> Otherwise, it appears there is an extreme bias, and you are a moderator.


With all due respect - that isn't a mute button. The numbers I provided for E* and D* are from their own reports. E* just made it easier to make a note on that one year. (There are probably more excuses burried in their text too.) But ignore the "excuses" why D* or E* didn't turn a profit at a particular time and look at the big picture - as you finally did:


Greg Bimson said:


> I know that Dish Network has been more profitable than DirecTV. Echostar has been growing their satellite business, from starting in the back of a truck 25 years ago to be a major force in the satellite industry. Surprsingly to many here, I do respect that.


That's good. Being in the satellite business and in the black doesn't come easily - especially in DBS. More companies have failed trying to do DBS than are succeeding. (The Dominion only survives through their arrangement with E*. If they were held to their construction deadlines they would not have survived.)

Back on topic: One of the ways E* stay in the black is to stay away from making expensive mistakes such as overpaying for programming. Some would say not getting the NFL package and letting D* have a continuing exclusive would be the death of E* - it wasn't. Not having all the networks in HD - another nail in the coffin? Nope. E* still turns a bigger profit than D*.

Not having OLN won't kill E* either.

JL


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Luckily for Dish we are not all Bullriding fans


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> ..., why did they call to complain about the channel going missing? Because they were going to miss the championship bull-riding rodeo this up coming weekend. So from my personal experience it's Bull Riding 2 Hockey 0.


I can believe that, after all, even Arena Football beats Hockey in the ratings.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> Here's the funny thing about all this. I take phone calls from Dish customers & potential Dish customers all day, since this whole OLN debacle has ensued guess how many calls i've gotten about it? Two! That's right just two. And even the funnier thing, why did they call to complain about the channel going missing? Because they were going to miss the championship bull-riding rodeo this up coming weekend. So from my personal experience it's Bull Riding 2 Hockey 0.


 :lol: :thats: Now that is funny!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> No ... you are being tough on EVERYONE ... busting people's chops because they didn't bow and scrape to YOUR NEEDS while you fail to provide similar backing to your assumptions.


Now that is completely wrong. I have always backed up my "assumptions" with any evidence I can find. I don't throw out such facts as "DirecTV has only been profitable for two quarters in its existance", only to find out there is really no way to separate anything between DirecTV and Hughes for the first nine years of DirecTV's existance. If I am wrong, I'll say I am wrong.


James Long said:


> With all due respect - that isn't a mute button. The numbers I provided for E* and D* are from their own reports. E* just made it easier to make a note on that one year. (There are probably more excuses burried in their text too.) But ignore the "excuses" why D* or E* didn't turn a profit at a particular time and look at the big picture - as you finally did:


Sure. I never did stop looking at the big picture. But when an artist is painting, it is nice to have all the colors. When building an argument, it is nice to have the evidence behind it, not just some assertion that everything you post is correct. Most of DirecTV's assets were tied to Hughes, which never separated out their business units on a continuing basis. Therefore, DirecTV as a company reporting its own financials has been around less than two years. Now that "The DirecTV Group" is only DirecTV USA and DirecTV Latin America, we'll finally see what DirecTV itself can achieve.

Besides, looking at the big picture, you'll note that the "non-profitability" issue at DirecTV is not tied to programming. It is tied to subscriber acquisition and write downs to streamline the business.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Now that is completely wrong. I have always backed up my "assumptions" with any evidence I can find. I don't throw out such facts as "DirecTV has only been profitable for two quarters in its existance",


Perhaps you need to take off the blinders and scroll back the thread ... You have constantly assumed the opposite of posters and demanded proof while offering none for your 'side'.

BTW: I have never said that about D* ... lies are not appreciated.

JL


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_(Editor's note: Greg Bimson is a long-time and valued contributor to this forum and to other DBS-related fora. He is known to be patient, but stubbornly tenacious. He is most capable of wearing down a fierce opponent, and was once almost single-handedly responsible for forcing a well-know DBS provider to add the City of Baltimore to its growing list of LiLs. On a personal note, Mr. Bimson lives at home with his three trained bulldogs, two untrained alligators and an attack hamster named "Mort", which is Latin for "death".)_

:sure:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> BTW: I have never said that about D* ... lies are not appreciated.


Guess what? It is quite easy to say I was wrong. I misread your post on the historical numbers of Dish Network and the former entity that is now DirecTV. Your post was that DirecTV made a profit over $120M over the past two quarters, so it quite easy to misinterpret as seeing that your argument was a misreading of the annual report.


James Long said:


> Perhaps you need to take off the blinders and scroll back the thread ... You have constantly assumed the opposite of posters and demanded proof while offering none for your 'side'.


I readily admit my bias. I don't like how Dish Network's subscriber base gets held hostage in these squabbles. But I wasn't taking sides. I can only assume you must be talking about this post, my fourth post in this thread, post number 89, as it was the first time you challenged me:


> Originally Posted by nimmer:
> What also makes zero sense is the fact that OLN sold advertising packages based on numbers that included E*'s subscriber base.
> 
> Originally Posted by Greg Bimson:
> How do you know this? Where is it published that OLN is selling its advertising rates with Dish Network customers included?


*I don't have a side to this argument.* I wanted proof that OLN was selling NHL advertising packages based on the amount of subscribers which included those on Dish Network. There was no _guess_, other than that of the original poster. I certainly do not have to back up my opinion, as I did not provide one.

Then again, in response to this thread on post 111, I provided a link to the story that three days after the ink dried on the new OLN/NHL agreement, that Comcast was going to press providers to carry OLN in a basic or extended basic tier, and get OLN out of the sports tier. I even clarified that if we are discussing the general carriage of OLN's national feed, that OLN would have to restate downward the amount of available subscribers due to cessation of carriage by Dish Network. I did provide backup: the media biz knew all about the existance of two OLN's. The only difference between the two is that one carries the NHL and one does not. There would then be two different subscriber counts.

You were so busy trying to prove that DirecTV was such a money-bleeder and to discredit any of my questioning that you missed the forest because of the trees. My position (and question) still stands: where is it given that OLN sold advertising time on the OLN/NHL feed and included Dish Network subscribers in their totals, even if OLN had no intention of offering the NHL feed to Dish Network? Was that so much to ask when I hadn't even taken a position on the issue?


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

To Bimson & Long:

May we have our thread back please? I'll help you out by distilling your lengthy pi**ing contest into two simple statements:

1 - Comcast wants more eyeballs/money for OLN
2 - E* refuses to pay more money or provide more eyeballs

What motivates them is far from important to us, although one is not required to be a Rhodes Scholar to figure it out. The bottom line is, they have taken their positions and one of four things will happen:

A - Comcast will blink
B - E* will blink
C - No one will blink and there will be a compromise of some sort
D - No one will blink and there will be no compromise

(This is not a poll - please do not vote)

Perhaps when someone has some INFORMATION about the dispute to share, as opposed to SPECULATION, they could post it for the benefit of those of us who either want OLN, or hockey on OLN.

Thanks for your cooperation...


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

I vote B


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)




----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It's probably worth mentioning that I've seen more posts now about Dish vs DirecTV than I have people who are devoted hockey fans who dearly miss their NHL after a year of no-play.

Methinks that ultimately OLN will find it has misjudged the value of its own product just as the entire NHL did all last season. 

I keep being reminded that the NHL owners said publically that they lost less money last year out of business, than they did the previous year while playing hockey! Clearly indicating the severe lack of interest from most fans.

If they want fans to come back... exclusive rights to a channel that is trying to bully service providers into taking it and treating OLN like it were ESPN established for 25 years+... well, methinks OLN will find itself soon in the position that the NHL was last year. Not a whole lot of people interested in what they are missing.

Especially now... when folks are already used to not having hockey for a year... like quitting smoking... if you make it the first year, the cigarettes aren't as tempting after that.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Denver Post columnist Dick Kreck weighs in: http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_3147510

Not much new, but I found this interesting: "In an odd twist, Comcast executives flew to Denver late last week to discuss the issue with EchoStar but met for only a few minutes before heading back to the company's Philadelphia headquarters. By the time they got home, EchoStar had announced it was dropping OLN."


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Skates said:


> May we have our thread back please?


Yep.


HDMe said:


> I keep being reminded that the NHL owners said publically that they lost less money last year out of business, than they did the previous year while playing hockey! Clearly indicating the severe lack of interest from most fans.


What?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

IOW - E* told them "Drop dead" - no room for compromise.


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

Scooper, you know how this works. Everyone starts with their most extreme position, then eventually they meet in the middle...or not... :nono2:


----------



## bobsupra (Jul 12, 2002)

Bullriding is not one of my top 100 sports. But the Tour de France is my number one and I plan my July around the OLN coverage. I watch the morning and evening broadcasts each day and ensure the phones are turned off.

I would pay extra for OLN, if needed. But, if E* and comsquat haven't worked out their problems by May, I will be switching DBS providers.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

My thoughts exactly! :goodjob:



bobsupra said:


> Bullriding is not one of my top 100 sports. But the Tour de France is my number one and I plan my July around the OLN coverage. I watch the morning and evening broadcasts each day and ensure the phones are turned off.
> 
> I would pay extra for OLN, if needed. But, if E* and comsquat haven't worked out their problems by May, I will be switching DBS providers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Feel free to ignore the poll as well, if you feel so inclined. There for those who wish to participate.

Let's stay on the topic of OLN vs E* though, regardless of poll participation. 

JL


----------



## pjmrt (Jul 17, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Has Comcast forgotten why ESPN, and the OTA Networks dropped Hockey before? It just ain't that popular in the U.S. They acting like it's the NFL.
> My guess is that most viewers will yawn over the lack of OLN Hockey.


I tend to agree, especially after the lockout of last year. They need to win back fans, and that will be a chore. For a network to roll in and pretend that the NHL will start out where it was at its peak is wishfull thinking. I'm a hockey fan but I think E* is doing the right thing. I cannot say I would miss the NHL or OLN right now. I'd like to still see it included in the package, but its not worth what Comcast is wanting.


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Personally I think OLN will end up back on DN the 180. Unless Comcast is williong to lower prices so that it can be shown on the AT120 at the same price, I really do not see too many people up in arms against DN for them to cave. Takeing away CBS is one thing taking OLN is well not even close. And OLN will never be ESPN...just like MSNBC will never be CNN.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> I readily admit my bias. I don't like how Dish Network's subscriber base gets held hostage in these squabbles.


I'm a Dish subscriber and I didn't feel like I was taken hostage. I supported Dish in the Viacom struggle (and was annoyed that they punked out) and I support them now.

You have to fight for what is right. I believe that. I bear the cost, many costs, when it's the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. And it pays off.

In my blog I have an entry on customer service that mentions Dish. And no, it isn't real favorable. What I pointed out is that there's a cost to getting the best, and Dish is right now it. But at least I believe that Charlie really perceives himself to be the dragon-slayer. Okay, maybe he's also a dragon, but he's _our_ dragon, going after other dragons.


----------



## ride525 (Aug 13, 2003)

I was told by someone in Dish Network Executive office that negotiations were still going on.

I would expect there to be some sort of compromise.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

OLN will be back as part of the lower AT120 package, not because E* _blinked_ or gave in or showed some weakness. It will be that way due to negotiation and comprimise.

If anything, OLN will probably give more by lowering their per-subscriber fees to compensate for the the add'l subs. It will be worth it for them to do so, if only from the add'l advertising revenue.

Also, Dish may be willing to spend _a little bit_ more to keep people from defecting. I am sure that there are enough people willing to do that, despite all of the negative opininions posted here about hockey, that Charlie would pay a tiny bit more to keep them.

This will end up as a win-win-win for all concerned, Dish, OLN, and the subs. OTOH, it will perpetuate Charlie's rep as an a-hole to do business with, despite all of the cheerleading here. (Anybody see him on that panel discussion that was aired on HDNet almost two years ago with all the DBS and cable execs at some trade show? I used to be a supporter too, till I saw him there. Yikes.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As noted earlier, one promising note I saw is on the DirecTV website ... They are advertising that they are the only satellite provider with OLN, but they state:ATTENTION DISH NETWORK SUBSCRIBERS
You're *currently* unable to view your favorite OLN programming on DISH Network. ...
source​Emphasis added on "currently". I guess D* expects E* to allow the channel back on the system. 

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TechnoCat said:


> I'm a Dish subscriber and I didn't feel like I was taken hostage. I supported Dish in the Viacom struggle (and was annoyed that they punked out) and I support them now.


But I now need to make you aware of something...


James Long said:


> In the first 6 months of 2005 E* made $1.17 billion


That is PROFIT.


TechnoCat said:


> You have to fight for what is right. I believe that. I bear the cost, many costs, when it's the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. And it pays off.


It may pay off, but not as much to your pocketbook as it does to another company which has made (in my favorite Dr. Evil voice) $1 billion. This fight isn't about your profitability; it is about Dish Network's.

So all this discussion about how channels are removed to keep costs low is a moot point when Dish Network is now making money hand over fist. Unless there is some kind of anomoly (like satellites falling out of the sky), Dish Network will be very much in the black for the next decade, and it isn't because cutting channels off to their subscriber base is making them $1 billion a year.

If this Viacom split to create two separate companies, one for cable properties, the other for CBS/UPN properties comes to pass, the next negotiation for carriage will be fierce. You can bet the two companies will try to make much more money than the current Viacom contract. And I am not only talking big conflicts with only Dish Network here. I suspect a lot of cablers, and DirecTV, will have a problem paying much more for the Viacom content.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Most of the big jump in E*s profits for 2005 was due to the realization of a previous tax write-off. Without that, the profits were more like $ 272MM. Still very nice, but I would not continue to expect a Billion a year.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Just for kicks: EchoStar will be spending a huge chunk of that money to buy replacement satellites in the very near future or something similar to (as you put it) satellites falling out of the sky will happen.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

LtMunst said:


> Most of the big jump in E*s profits for 2005 was due to the realization of a previous tax write-off.





JohnH said:


> Just for kicks: EchoStar will be spending a huge chunk of that money to buy replacement satellites in the very near future or something similar to (as you put it) satellites falling out of the sky will happen.


Well, that puts the $1 billion made so far this year into a bit better perspective.

John, I know about Echostar X (10), but what else was being done?

All I am asking people is to realize that the only relationship between channel carriage expense (thru the multi-channel vendors) and customer revenue (thru the subscribers) is the ability for the company to make a profit. Technically, these expense fights have less to do with raising rates than one would believe, as many carriage contracts escalate their payment terms yearly. That even seems to include the one Dish Network signed with Viacom recently.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> John, I know about Echostar X (10), but what else was being done?


Don't know what is being done. E*1, E*2, E*3 and E*4 are quite old. E*5 and E*6 are not young. There is no redundancy at the core slots or any of the slots for that matter.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Greg is correct, and I have also always maintained that the price Dish charges for its packages have everything to do with competition and very little to do with any particular expense such as programming fees.

So the OLN fight is not about lowering your monthly rate. It's more like a dispute between McDonalds and whoever supplies its fish fillets. If you like the occasional Filet-O-Fish, this is a minor inconvenience, but it you depend on them, you'll start looking for another fast food joint.

Any thoroughly fanatic NHL fan will have purchased Center Ice, and the OLN dispute will block one game a week out of dozens. Generally fanatic sports fans can watch and DVR lots of NHL replays with the Sports Pack. Casual NHL fans will get their favorite team's RSN. So who's going to leave Dish because of the loss of OLN's NHL coverage?

As some have suggested, I think more folks will leave if OLN's other programming isn't eventually restored. That leads me to my guess -- that Dish will return to running "OLN Classic", or maybe split it into Classic for AT120 and Plus for AT180.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Poll deleted at the request of thread originator.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Since OLN will not accept the Plus for AT180 scenario, that won't work.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

carload said:


> Greg is correct, and I have also always maintained that the price Dish charges for its packages have everything to do with competition and very little to do with any particular expense such as programming fees.


On an item by item basis I accept (without proof) that individual channels don't impact the price. But they do affect the flow of money that pays for new satellites and technologies. E* cannot grow without profit to spend on the future and pay off the past.


carload said:


> As some have suggested, I think more folks will leave if OLN's other programming isn't eventually restored. That leads me to my guess -- that Dish will return to running "OLN Classic", or maybe split it into Classic for AT120 and Plus for AT180.


Not having the NFL package didn't kill E* - do you think not having a few hockey games and a second outdoor channel will do more damage? As much damage is potential through losing OLN, E* has gained by adding CSTV and the NFL Network. Losing OLN isn't the death of E*.

Two OLNs isn't likely to happen either. Why spend bandwidth over a contract dispute. OLN either needs to provide their full feed WITH NHL or E* needs to accept the NHL free version. No double feeds. I suppose the compromise is that OLN=NHL free and OLN NHL is put on a sports alternative channel on those special nights - but that is messy.

JL


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But I now need to make you aware of something...That is PROFIT.It may pay off, but not as much to your pocketbook as it does to another company which has made (in my favorite Dr. Evil voice) $1 billion. This fight isn't about your profitability; it is about Dish Network's.


Just because it's not in my personal economic best interest doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. In this case it's economically neutral for me in the short term, economically advantageous in the long term and has no downside, but the Viacom issue had a (limited) convenience cost for me at the time and I still supported it.

I often put my money in places you wouldn't find economically sensible; I give to conservation and to my church, I pay membership feeds and donate to various organizations and political groups. The Democrats lost an election thinking as you just did, that people only measure what's "right" by economic self-interest.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

carload said:


> Greg is correct, and I have also always maintained that the price Dish charges for its packages have everything to do with competition and very little to do with any particular expense such as programming fees.
> 
> So the OLN fight is not about lowering your monthly rate.


Those don't come close to following.

Dish charges what they can to maintain growth, sufficient investment and profitability. Sometimes this is relative to another competitor, sometimes it's in a relative vacuum. But if you cavalierly increase their costs a bit here and a bit there, the base increases. Maybe it's not seen as a rate increase, maybe it's a delayed sat launch or a different channel they don't add, or compression artifacts bringing their vid quality down to D*'s as they reduce infrastructure-per-channel. The rates are in larger quanta anyhow... meaning it takes a lot of $0.02 per subscriber (example) to make an entire dollar difference in rates, which is the only time we'll see it outside of competition. But if you refuse every two cents for that reason, you'll never get to a dollar.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

TechnoCat said:


> I'm a Dish subscriber and I didn't feel like I was taken hostage. I supported Dish in the Viacom struggle (and was annoyed that they punked out) and I support them now.
> 
> You have to fight for what is right. I believe that. I bear the cost, many costs, when it's the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do. And it pays off.
> 
> In my blog I have an entry on customer service that mentions Dish. And no, it isn't real favorable. What I pointed out is that there's a cost to getting the best, and Dish is right now it. But at least I believe that Charlie really perceives himself to be the dragon-slayer. Okay, maybe he's also a dragon, but he's _our_ dragon, going after other dragons.


Well said, TechnoCat. :up: :up:

I still get OLN (Adelphia cable) and there's still nothing on. :shrug:


----------



## LuckyJW (Mar 12, 2005)

They don't have the "OLN not available" slate up anymore on the Guide... Now there is no 151 at all on the guide. Doesn't look like OLN will be back any time soon. Oh well, less pennies for Comcast to count.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TechnoCat said:


> Just because it's not in my personal economic best interest doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. In this case it's economically neutral for me in the short term, economically advantageous in the long term and has no downside, but the Viacom issue had a (limited) convenience cost for me at the time and I still supported it.


But a question still remains.... why is this the right thing to do? A company tries to maximize revenues and minimize expenses. A public company must do this, as the board answers to shareholders. In this case, wherever you look at it, AT180 has lost a channel because management has drawn a line in the sand, but you receive no rebate due to the loss.

And this even applies to OLN and Comcast: it appears the plan is to put OLN in more homes, so that they can even bid on more sports programming packages, to become a competitor to ESPN as a subscription-driven sports channel. Comcast/OLN is answering to their shareholders by trying to gain carriage in more homes and at a higher rate in order to offset some of the programming costs by throwing down the gauntlet and trying to compete with ESPN. Just because this is a pro-Dish Network forum doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for this stalemate.


TechnoCat said:


> I often put my money in places you wouldn't find economically sensible; I give to conservation and to my church, I pay membership feeds and donate to various organizations and political groups. The Democrats lost an election thinking as you just did, that people only measure what's "right" by economic self-interest.


Without commenting or discussing the political tone of this paragraph, you are correct. Running your own finances, you do what is important to you. "Right" isn't only about economics.

This fight, however, is completely about the economics as it relates to both companies. To believe otherwise would be foolhardy, as nothing makes companies change policies more than reductions at the bottom line of a balance sheet.


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

Glad to see you stayed on topic...  

Here's a suggestion - why doesn't somebody produce a copy of the contract? 

The issue is simple - is Comcast in violation of the contract and further, was E*'s response a violation of the contract?

This may be about money, but the parties made an agreement and one of them (or both - or neither, for that matter) are in breach.

I do get mildly amused when the press tries to compare this with the Viacom dispute. Viacom, at least, had something of value to bargain with...


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> Poll deleted at the request of thread originator.


I wonder why? Was it not jiving with his expectations? Or, could it even be because E* didn't care for the way it was trending?

I, for one, found it interesting to see how forum members thought it would end. Anybody else? Shall I create one in a new thread?


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

garypen said:


> I wonder why? Was it not jiving with his expectations? Or, could it even be because E* didn't care for the way it was trending?
> 
> I, for one, found it interesting to see how forum members thought it would end. Anybody else? Shall I create one in a new thread?


One of the choices should be "Franky, I don't give a damn".


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Definitely.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Skates said:


> The issue is simple - is Comcast in violation of the contract and further, was E*'s response a violation of the contract?


Considering the lack of court filings, the simplest explanation is that no one is in violation of the contract. OLN is willing to provide the outdoorsy programming it agreed to, and E* is willing to keep paying for it. But nothing prevents OLN from creating a "Plus" version with new stuff, and nothing prevents E* from paying for OLN without actually broadcasting it.

In our common vacuum, my opinion is that E* yanked OLN as leverage, depriving the network of that many viewers. My guess is that the only way E* could do that without getting an injunction against it is to keep paying for it. Further, it's not like E* pays for OLN weekly; it's probably got a monthly/quarterly payment that isn't overdue yet.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I'd love to stay on topic. But when a large chunk of the respondants here are happy every time there is some kind of carriage disagreement, I want to know why. It is important to understand the psyche. Especially when rates are going up yearly, with or without OLN.


Skates said:


> Here's a suggestion - why doesn't somebody produce a copy of the contract?
> 
> The issue is simple - is Comcast in violation of the contract and further, was E*'s response a violation of the contract?
> 
> This may be about money, but the parties made an agreement and one of them (or both - or neither, for that matter) are in breach.


Good point. I'd suspect this is very similar to the Fox Sports Ohio issue from 2003 regarding the Indians broadcasts.

I'd assume, only basing from past history, that OLN was not in breach of contract. Dish Network tends to sue quickly if they feel they are being abused. I might assume that Dish Network is not in breach, because we haven't heard the response from OLN in a court room, either.


----------



## adv_dp_fan (Sep 5, 2004)

Wow, this has been a fun read. Personally it has had little if any affect on my household. My wife misses her bull riding and I hope it's cleared up before the next America's Cup but beyond that we feel no reason to leave Dish over it. Since Comcast is already on my blacklist for killing off TechTV I'm not crying much for them. Over all the whole thing has generated a big yawn from the four people under my roof. Actually, Dish could drop every single sports channel they have or stick them all on one sports package you paid extra for if you wanted it and I wouldn't even notice. Of course my wife might be a bit upset.  Or maybe not as most of the time of late she's watching her football/baseball/whatever OTA since it's in HD. Either way, not bothering us much.


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

First, I keep hearing about this "two-tier" approach or "OLN Plus". So, why was there no such thing in place for the Tour de France? OLN had no problem offering up that jewel with no additional requirements from E*.

Second, I just checked the ratings. The final stage of the Tour de France had 1.7 million viewers on OLN.

The entire viewership for a hockey game on OLN is 350,000.

There is what's legal and then there's what wins the PR war. Charlie knows that if you slice out the percentage of the 350,000 who would be watching on E*, it's a very small number. He knows that he has the upper hand regardless of what the contract says.

Frankly, Comcast decided to play "hardball" with the wrong sport. What do you think would have happened if they'd have done this with the Tour de France instead of the NHL?

Let's be realistic. Charlie cares about his bottom line. It's easy for him to say "I'm doing this for my customers" but he's doing it for himself.

By the way, a likely theory of why there are no lawsuits is that the parties are still talking. It's when they stop talking that the lawsuits will fly.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Skates said:


> Second, I just checked the ratings. The final stage of the Tour de France had 1.7 million viewers on OLN.
> 
> The entire viewership for a hockey game on OLN is 350,000.


Wait. We're comparing apples to kumquats here. The race is a month long, yet only the final leg drew 1.7 million viewers, to see an American win his record sixth consecutive Tour de France.

To compare finals, the final game of the previous Stanley Cup drew 6.3 million viewers, with one Canadian and one American team. (Source) Yes, OLN will only have Games 1 and 2 of the Finals. Once we get to the Finals, Games 1 and 2 will be in the top 5 ever most watched programming on OLN.


----------



## Skates (Apr 15, 2004)

Greg - you blew right by my point...TIMING...

Is it fair to say not too many people care right now? If you want to bargain, use your best chips...and for hockey, that ain't in October...


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

garypen said:


> OLN will be back as part of the lower AT120 package, not because E* _blinked_ or gave in or showed some weakness. It will be that way due to negotiation and comprimise.
> 
> If anything, OLN will probably give more by lowering their per-subscriber fees to compensate for the the add'l subs. It will be worth it for them to do so, if only from the add'l advertising revenue.
> 
> ...


This isn't a club, it's a business. Do you ra ra for Safeway or Albertsons? No.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

Why are people supportive of Dish when this means nothing to your bill and just E*bottom line?Your bill goes up every new year whether they take off OLN or not.I have had both services.What are the benefits of Dish.The price is similiar but you always have these channel disputes.There is internationals. Any other reason?Sure E* added EsPNU,CSTV and NFL Network.But that was ages after D*.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

adv_dp_fan said:


> My wife misses her bull riding


Sounds like more of a personal issue. Have you tried vitamin E and ginseng?


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> This isn't a club, it's a business. Do you ra ra for Safeway or Albertsons? No.


You talkin' ta me? I don't ra-ra for anybody. I think the emotional attatchment people have for the TV providers is weird. It seems to be especially strong amongst Dish subs.


----------



## Tom in TX (Jan 22, 2004)

garypen said:


> Sounds like more of a personal issue. Have you tried vitamin E and ginseng?


Gary - you're such a perv!
Keep up the good work! :lol: 
Tom in TX


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I love how Charlie and dish is always evil... and DirecTV is great!

At least in the Dish forums...

Go read the DirecTV forums and there are lots of folks there wanting to know why DirecTV doesn't have a channel that Dish has... and why Dish gets new channels but DirecTV doesn't.

So Charlie is only in it for his company's bottom line? Well, what do you think DirecTV is in it for? They BOTH do it for their own bottom line, which to some extent means making customers happy because without customers, no business!

Dish has channels that DirecTV doesn't and vice-versa. IF that happens to be a channel you want, then fights ensue and Charlie (or DirecTV) becomes the evil empire (cue the Star Wars Vader music)...

Back on topic now...

Anyone in here watch PTI on ESPN in the evenings? Today (yesterday now I guess) they were talking about OLN and hockey... and the very limited number of viewers of hockey.. and the poor turnout for the hockey games so far in attendance.

Sounds to me Dish is on the right side of this... when the hockey fans aren't going to the games and even watching the game in droves... OLN doesn't have a chance of demanding a premium placement for their channel. Methinks DirecTV just got suckered into paying more than they had to.

Think too, ESPN and FOX turned down hockey... so OLN got coverage by default and not because they outbid for a hot product.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

HDMe said:


> So Charlie is only in it for his company's bottom line? Well, what do you think DirecTV is in it for? They BOTH do it for their own bottom line, which to some extent means making customers happy because without customers, no business!


And how is removing OLN making customers happy?


HDMe said:


> Anyone in here watch PTI on ESPN in the evenings? Today (yesterday now I guess) they were talking about OLN and hockey... and the very limited number of viewers of hockey.. and the poor turnout for the hockey games so far in attendance.


Exactly. We are still in the first month of an 84 game season where not one game was played last season. Ratings and attendance should be somewhat poor. The NHL would have tried some other way to get a television contract if OLN didn't step up to the plate and offer more than ESPN's option year. ESPN was looking to dump hockey.


HDMe said:


> Sounds to me Dish is on the right side of this... when the hockey fans aren't going to the games and even watching the game in droves... OLN doesn't have a chance of demanding a premium placement for their channel. Methinks DirecTV just got suckered into paying more than they had to.


DirecTV didn't have to do anything; OLN has been in Total Choice for quite some time now.

But that does lead me to another question, along the lines of Skates' questioning. There are two, distinct OLN feeds: one with NHL, one without. I am left wondering how this was pulled off? In the Dish Network/FSN Ohio/Indians dispute in 2003, it was made to sound as if each provider had to sign a new contract in order to get the other half of the Indians games. In this OLN/NHL contract, how did each of the multichannel providers that sent OLN to most of their subscribers end up receiving the NHL? For example, did DirecTV simply have to sign an amendment to the master OLN contract so that they could receive the NHL programming?

Did OLN give DirecTV the NHL feed without any change to the carriage contract? I'd think there was an amendment so that the NHL games flowed to those providers with at least 40 percent carriage on their systems. The way this has played out so far, the companies that carry OLN in basic or expanded basic simply received the OLN feed with NHL coverage. If there wasn't an amendment, OLN could be in trouble, as contractually no one was told about there being two different feeds of OLN.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> But that does lead me to another question, along the lines of Skates' questioning. There are two, distinct OLN feeds: one with NHL, one without. I am left wondering how this was pulled off? In the Dish Network/FSN Ohio/Indians dispute in 2003, it was made to sound as if each provider had to sign a new contract in order to get the other half of the Indians games. In this OLN/NHL contract, how did each of the multichannel providers that sent OLN to most of their subscribers end up receiving the NHL? For example, did DirecTV simply have to sign an amendment to the master OLN contract so that they could receive the NHL programming?
> 
> Did OLN give DirecTV the NHL feed without any change to the carriage contract? I'd think there was an amendment so that the NHL games flowed to those providers with at least 40 percent carriage on their systems. The way this has played out so far, the companies that carry OLN in basic or expanded basic simply received the OLN feed with NHL coverage. If there wasn't an amendment, OLN could be in trouble, as contractually no one was told about there being two different feeds of OLN.


The FSN Ohio/Indians thing was different. In that situation the number of subs was not an issue. The amount of money per sub was an issue.
In the OLN/NHL thing I have heard no mention of a money issue, only the number of subs appears to be the issue.

Technically the different feeds being provided is quite simple. They both are encrypted and in the same mux, so it is just a matter of authorizing the individual providers receiver for the appropriate feed. BTW: Research will tell you there are 4 feeds. There is a Mpeg Audio pair and an AC3 audio pair.

Either feed can be called OLN content and I doubt that the providers would have any legal standing to dispute that.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

Heard commercial on the radio this morning for Directv that says Dish has lost OLN and Directv has it.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

invaliduser88 said:


> Heard commercial on the radio this morning for Directv that says Dish has lost OLN and Directv has it.


Waste of radio advertising $$$'s. I'm sure the vast majority of listeners were thinking OLwhat????


----------



## adv_dp_fan (Sep 5, 2004)

garypen said:


> Sounds like more of a personal issue. Have you tried vitamin E and ginseng?


Being a male who has little interest in sports living in a house full of female sports fans, I doubt vitamin E and ginseng will suddenly make me want to sit on the couch all day watching hulking men play grab ass.. :lol:


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

adv_dp_fan said:


> Being a male who has little interest in sports living in a house full of female sports fans,


I'm a female sports fan myself. I love female sports. Professional mud wrestling, for instance.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And how is removing OLN making customers happy?


I could be mistaken, but I had gathered from other posts in the thread that Dish only pulled OLN after OLN pulled hockey.

OLN said "no hockey for you"... and Dish said "well then why are we carrying your channel if you are going to blackout programming?"

Some folks that complain about the local blackouts I would think would be all over OLN for blacking out hockey games on Dish... and Dish was standing up and saying if you don't give us the channel we signed up for, then we won't carry your 2nd rate programming.

Or something to that effect.

If Dish hadn't dropped OLN, there still wouldn't be hockey... unless Dish caved to OLN demands for a better placement in the AT packs... and then most assuredly we would see this as a price increase and then those complaints would roll in.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

HDMe said:


> unless Dish caved to OLN demands for a better placement in the AT packs... and then most assuredly we would see this as a price increase


Competition and the marketplace set consumer prices, not the cost of ingredients. I guarantee you that, for example, increased gas prices for the fleet of vans in Englewood have nicked Dish's bottom line, but no one says that high gas prices are going to lead to a rate increase.

This is not about Dish holding the line on behalf of its customers. This is all about Dish holding the line on behalf of its shareholders. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## adv_dp_fan (Sep 5, 2004)

garypen said:


> I'm a female sports fan myself.


Come on, this is the internet, you're just posing as a female, you're probably more a big hairy male sports fan. :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

carload said:


> Competition and the marketplace set consumer prices, not the cost of ingredients. I guarantee you that, for example, increased gas prices for the fleet of vans in Englewood have nicked Dish's bottom line, but no one says that high gas prices are going to lead to a rate increase.
> 
> This is not about Dish holding the line on behalf of its customers. This is all about Dish holding the line on behalf of its shareholders. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


But if the fuel prices stay high long enough it actually will... Shipping companies like UPS, for instance, start tacking on "fuel surcharges" and eventually if the cost of the goods goes up enough to eat into Dish's profit margin then they would raise prices to adjust things.

Fuel is a bad example, however, because it is a fluxuating thing... and it might go down in a year or so... whereas once Dish signs a contract with a provider for several years at a higher price then that is a guaranteed higher cost for them, so they undoubtedly will revisit their prices.

Why do you think the price increases hit around the first of the year? They do their bookwork and look at the new contracts/deals over the past year... and if they dipped too much into their profits then they raise the bill a little.

If enough employees at Dish wanted & got raises... then they might raise the bill then too! Lots of things factor into the costs of doing business.

Competition is a factor too... but not every company can operate in a perpetual money-loss mode forever.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I won't hijack this thread. If you want to assert that programming costs drive package prices, open up a new thread so we can debate it there.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

adv_dp_fan said:


> Come on, this is the internet, you're just posing as a female, you're probably more a big hairy male sports fan. :lol:


I'm a big heairy male alright. But, I'm a fan of female sports. Naked female sports.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

A lot of people are griping about E* here. E* turns a profit now every quarter, and I like that, because it means that my prices are likely not to go up as much as a company's pricing who isn't as profitable.

Now, I don't sub to AT180 so this change doesn't effect me, and the majority of E* subs. Ultimately, if E* moves OLN and has to pay a lot more for it based on the new sub count, and it effects E*s profitability, we might see a price increase. Or, E* eats this cost per sub for now and increases pricing sooner than they would have. The only way to satisfy OLNs current demands is to put their station in the AT60. That would cost E* a lot more money. I think it is unreasonable. Should the current 8 or 9 million customers who choose not to pay for the AT180 have to buy OLN? Or, should E* continue with their current game plan? I say no OLN is better than my rates going up to have hockey.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

carload said:


> I won't hijack this thread. If you want to assert that programming costs drive package prices, open up a new thread so we can debate it there.


Everything that is a part of doing business drives the cost of the package prices... including the price of OLN (which is the topic of this thread)... while not every single penny increase directly results in that same penny increase to our bills... every increase eventually contributes to the decision to make a bill increase.

So I can only be in support for Dish when something like the OLN situation comes up, and a channel is trying to renegotiate an existing contract before it is up and/or pressure Dish to extend/write a new contract at a higher rate or better placement within the package tiers.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

carload said:


> I won't hijack this thread...
> 
> If you did, wouldn't that constitute carjacking? :hurah:  :lol:
> 
> OLN has been gone how long now??? Yep, still don't miss it!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Miss what? :shrug:


----------



## tripod (May 7, 2005)

OLNTV forum has been down for a week.Guess they got tired of being threatened.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I could be mistaken, but I had gathered from other posts in the thread that Dish only pulled OLN after OLN pulled hockey.
> 
> OLN said "no hockey for you"... and Dish said "well then why are we carrying your channel if you are going to blackout programming?"
> 
> ...


Second rate programming is right. I'm glad OLN isn't in AT 120. Now if Charlie could dump G4 I'd be happy!


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> Second rate programming is right. I'm glad OLN isn't in AT 120. Now if Charlie could dump G4 I'd be happy!


Granted I don't know one program on G4 but I don't want it took away.I'm sure some people watch it.Do you think your bill would be cheaper if they took it off?


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

i want g4 to stay i enjoy watching call for help, and icons.


----------



## james39 (Dec 10, 2003)

I know a lot of people hate g4, but some of us do watch it, and would be very upset if it were removed.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I think you all may get a kick out of this...

All Jazz games televised, but not for all Utahns, from the Salt Lake Tribune:


> Up until this year, Jazz fans have been able to see 27 games on Fox Sports Net (FSN) through Comcast (Channel 51); 40 games on KJZZ; and two on national TV. In a new deal with the Jazz, FSN will broadcast 13 more games. But Comcast won't pay the "six-figure charge" FSN wants for those additional games, according to Tim Griggs, vice president and general manager for FSN Utah and FSN Rocky Mountain.
> 
> Child said the charge is more like "seven figures," which is too high.
> 
> ...


Trust me, read the whole thing, especially the part at the bottom regarding how FSN got these extra 13 games.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> I think you all may get a kick out of this...
> 
> All Jazz games televised, but not for all Utahns, from the Salt Lake Tribune:Trust me, read the whole thing, especially the part at the bottom regarding how FSN got these extra 13 games.


Is Charlie a Mormon? For some reason, I thought he was. That may be why he's willing to pay such a high amount for only a small number of add'l games for his fellow Mormons, than a small amount for a lot of NHL games that don't impact his constituency.

Of course, if he's not Mormon, it's hard to understand why he would do that.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

garypen said:


> ...
> Of course, if he's not Mormon, it's hard to understand why he would do that.


If it's true, then he's a *MORON*.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Back on the OLN front. I just received just my third complaint call since the whole OLN debacle started. It's been over a week since I received my first two. Why was this person missing OLN? Motocross. So now that makes my personal tally: Bull Riding 2, Motocross 1 and Hockey still at 0. It doesn't seem that too many people really care too much about this channel to me. And those that are complaining aren't the hockey fans. If Comcast was hoping for an outcry from hockey fans to Dish to strengthen their bargaining position it seems that was a grave miscalculation.


----------



## nimmer (Sep 5, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> If Comcast was hoping for an outcry from hockey fans to Dish to strengthen their bargaining position it seems that was a grave miscalculation.


As I have stated repeatedly in this forum, although I am a huge hockey fan, it's no secret that the sport is not good bargaining chip when it comes to programming. In effect, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. TV ratings for the NHL are abysmal and OLN would be better served trying to use something else as leverage. Right now, OLN should be using hockey to promote their other programming to non-traditional OLN viewers.

The real loser in the whole deal is the NHL because they need all the eyeballs they can get.

It is rumored that OLN is trying to create a competitive network to ESPN. If that is the case, they are misguided in their efforts over the whole NHL programming issue. They should remember that it too ESPN 20 years to earn the stripes.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

nimmer said:


> It is rumored that OLN is trying to create a competitive network to ESPN. If that is the case, they are misguided in their efforts over the whole NHL programming issue. They should remember that it too ESPN 20 years to earn the stripes.


Remember, though, in order for OLN to compete with ESPN, it will need to be in approximately the same amount of households. ESPN has 90 million households; OLN only 65 million. OLN will need to increase its base before any other league will even consider using them for their property. MLB and NFL will not line up any bid using OLN if it isn't in a very large majority of multichannel homes.


----------



## garypen (Feb 1, 2004)

Mikey said:


> If it's true, then he's a *MORON*.


LOL! :lol:


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Wow, over 8000 views of this thread. I think that's more than OLN ever got. :lol:


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Wow, over 8000 views of this thread. I think that's more than OLN ever got. :lol:


Don't laugh, you may actually be right


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Ok, I got complaint call #4 today. This customer is missing his dirt track racing & hunting shows. Still no complaints from Hockey fans.


----------



## crrscott (Oct 10, 2005)

So this wonderfull decision by comcast does not only affect D* customers. Some cable companies are affected too? I have been swapping out alot of dish customers more for the Cowboy programming than the Ice dancers.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Ok, call number five about OLN today and this one also about bull riding. Still no complaints from hockey fans.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

jeez, you would think for the sake of the NHL, someone would compain

what exactly are you guys saying to customers who want their OLN?


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> If Comcast was hoping for an outcry from hockey fans to Dish to strengthen their bargaining position it seems that was a grave miscalculation.


And the hypocrisy with Comcast's commitment to NHL exposure, is that they don't want NHL exposure via the Flyers they own, through CCSN-Phila. to be available on satellite, or Dish Network. Yet, of course, they want Dish to carry and pay more for OLN, for NHL.

Phila. is one of NHL's biggest markets.

I hope Dish can hold out on OLN for CCSN-Phila. Hopefully, without OLN on Dish, OLN won't have enough HH for the Thursday-Sat NFL bid.

Only reason DirecTV capitulates every time is because they have the NFL Sunday Ticket that Comcast doesn't have, so Comcast's Philly monopoly is equated out. Plus, DirecTV has to be perceived as the sports provider, and carrier of the big named channels (like YES) and events, where Dish E* doesn't give any one area (like sports) more preference, and looks more on the bottom line on demand vs. what will be profitable and not money-losing to carry.


----------



## BarryO (Dec 16, 2003)

A long-time Echostar suscriber here, but all I can say is that if they don't have OLN back by June (before the TDF starts) I'm switching to DirecTV. 

Until then, I don't care if I miss Ted Nugent's latest bow hunting adventure.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

never even thought of CSN-Philly... crazy Comcast..


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

alebowgm said:


> jeez, you would think for the sake of the NHL, someone would compain
> 
> what exactly are you guys saying to customers who want their OLN?


What can you say? :lol: Honestly I tell them to call Dish customer service and complain and then to ask for Comcast's number while there and call them and complain also. telling them that if enough people complain to both that maybe that'll put pressure on both sides to get something done. The problem of course is getting enough people to actually do it.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Looks like we might get OLN HD NHL on D* tonight.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I talked to someone on the phone today who wanted to order Dish, but decided against it because of OLN AND......He was a hockey fan!!! Guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. :lol:


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

looks like neither have blinked yet.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I was watching Call For Help on Dish Network on G4 and noticed that an OLN commercial came on for the PBR Bull Riding to subscribe to DirecTv (that its on channel 608) or local cable company to get the PBR Bull Riding or all of OLN's sports programs. It was as if the commercial was meant for Dish Network subscribers. This reminds me of the Viacom and Sinclair fiasco.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

The only thing I have watched on OLN since I signed up for Dish in 2000 is 2 episodes of reruns of Survivor last month. And since I have already seen all of Survivor and know how it ends, the channel is essentially worthless to me as I don't like hockey either. But I do hope Dish gets something worked out for those of you who like hockey.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> I was watching Call For Help on Dish Network on G4 and noticed that an OLN commercial came on for the PBR Bull Riding to subscribe to DirecTv (that its on channel 608) or local cable company to get the PBR Bull Riding or all of OLN's sports programs. It was as if the commercial was meant for Dish Network subscribers. This reminds me of the Viacom and Sinclair fiasco.


What Sinclair Fiasco??? I thought they settled at the last minute!!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Another sale lost because of OLN. This one for once again, bull-riding. From what I can tell Dish would be better off carrying OLN w/out the hockey as from what I can tell it's not the hockey fans that really seem to care about OLN.


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

I don't care now that the next Flyers game on OLN isn't until Jan 30th.


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> I talked to someone on the phone today who wanted to order Dish, but decided against it because of OLN AND......He was a hockey fan!!! Guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. :lol:


I'm a huge hockey fan, but missing just a few games out of an 82 game schedule sure isn't worth time complaining to telephone operator. Especially when they have no power to do anything about it. :icon_lame


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

LJR said:


> I'm a huge hockey fan, but missing just a few games out of an 82 game schedule sure isn't worth time complaining to telephone operator. Especially when they have no power to do anything about it. :icon_lame


Johnstown huh? They still have that minor league team the Johnstown Jets?


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

Just an update...

Supposivly (according to a form I found via Google), the OLN that has been recently re-uplinkd to Dish DOES NOT currently have the NHL Package on it!!! 

So either the Bull Riders are going to win or OLN is still feeding Dish the secondary feed...


----------



## LJR (Nov 2, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Johnstown huh? They still have that minor league team the Johnstown Jets?


Actually no, after the movie "Slap Shot" they changed to the Chiefs. I've only ever been to one game, the Carlson brothers (Hansons in the movie) were there signing autographs. I don't care for minor leaque games.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

LJR said:


> Actually no, after the movie "Slap Shot" they changed to the Chiefs. I've only ever been to one game, the Carlson brothers (Hansons in the movie) were there signing autographs. I don't care for minor leaque games.


:lol: Wow that long ago huh? Guess I just showed my age there then!:lol: Oh well, the only reason I even knew about the "Jets" is that I grew up in Binghamton NY and the old "Broome Dusters" used to play them sometimes, like I said, many years ago!


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Just saw this on a Dish Network page this morning. Is it a sign of OLN progress or just an outdated page: http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/sports_overview/index.shtml

"Love sports? Sign up for America's Top 180 and get all kinds of great sports entertainment channels such as Fox Sports Net, ESPN, *Outdoor Life Network*, plus many more!" (emphasis mine)

Hmm, I think the official name is OLN. I vote for outdated page.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

It's an outdated page.


----------



## Rondo1 (Jan 4, 2003)

So I have a simple question to all of you, because I dont get it, and this last move to remove OLN has for the first time in 10 years with Dish, made me seriously consider DirecTV. Can someone tell me this -- does DirecTV have these same issues with channels as Dish does? Why is it that it seems that only Dish has these issues and removes channels, etc. when things go bad? Please inform.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Rondo1 said:


> So I have a simple question to all of you, because I dont get it, and this last move to remove OLN has for the first time in 10 years with Dish, made me seriously consider DirecTV. Can someone tell me this -- does DirecTV have these same issues with channels as Dish does? Why is it that it seems that only Dish has these issues and removes channels, etc. when things go bad? Please inform.


Because Dish has decided to fight raises in prices while Direct seems to just give in and pay whatever the channel is asking. It really comes down to the difference (IMHO) to a company that has deep pockets because it's owned by FOX so they aren't as concerned with profitability and another who does things the old way and is out on their own but continues to be profitable for their shareholders.


----------



## busboy789 (Oct 25, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> Because Dish has decided to fight raises in prices while Direct seems to just give in and pay whatever the channel is asking. It really comes down to the difference (IMHO) to a company that has deep pockets because it's owned by FOX so they aren't as concerned with profitability and another who does things the old way and is out on their own but continues to be profitable for their shareholders.


Do you honestly think that Dtv just gives in and pays whatever the channel asks? I find this very difficult to believe. Do you have any information to back this up other than Dtv doesn't yank channels and whine to their subscribers about price increases?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Rondo1 said:


> So I have a simple question to all of you, because I dont get it, and this last move to remove OLN has for the first time in 10 years with Dish, made me seriously consider DirecTV. Can someone tell me this -- does DirecTV have these same issues with channels as Dish does? Why is it that it seems that only Dish has these issues and removes channels, etc. when things go bad? Please inform.


A lot of people have asked this question lately... and I've been trying to think of a good way to explain why it is a bad question to ask.

We don't know why DirecTV doesn't appear (note I say "appear" because they might have the same problems but have a better PR department and handle things in private) to have the same problems as Dish does.

Sometimes DirecTV gets a "better" offer since they have more subscribers, a programming might offer a lower price to DirecTV than to Dish because of that... and Dish may be fighting that kind of scenario.

Perhaps, as has been suggested, DirecTV with deeper financial backing and less concern for being profitable immediately, they don't fight the increases as much and just pass them along to customers.

It is also a matter of perspective... Go and kick a guy in the shin and he might squeal loudly or he might kick you back or he might feel nothing at all. Maybe he likes pain, or has a prosthetic leg or doesn't get angry easily. To use his reaction as the sole judgment on whether or not it is OK to randomly kick people in the shin wouldn't be correct.

Which is probably as close to an example as I can get right now... as to why Dish has these problems seemingly moreso than DirecTV.


----------



## Rondo1 (Jan 4, 2003)

OK, well thanks guys. I was just wondering if anyone did know why this was the case. All of you have valid points, so I'm going to assume that its a little but of all of it. But I still think I'm going to need to get a bare DTV subscription this summer in order to follow the Tour de France on OLN. There is no better coverage than what OLN offers for the Tour, so I either make the switch completely or just get one box with a non-permanent dish on my deck and go from there. :-( Dang I hope they resolve this before June!


----------



## GOHAWKS (Dec 20, 2005)

AMA Motocross starts in the middle of May, If the dispute is not resolved by then I will be switching to D* as well.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

busboy789 said:


> Do you honestly think that Dtv just gives in and pays whatever the channel asks? I find this very difficult to believe. Do you have any information to back this up other than Dtv doesn't yank channels and whine to their subscribers about price increases?


Let's see, I used the word *SEEMS* which would indicate to all but the most simple minded people rolleyes: ) that I am expressing an observed opinion and not at tried and true fact. That is my opinion (yes, those are allowed on this forum) and I will stick by it. I don't miss OLN, Lifetime, and whatever else has been dropped, but I am glad I at least have stock in a company that tries to work to turn a profit for it's shareholders and tries to not cave in to those channels that want or attempt to gouge them and us by charging more. Does Direct try, I am sure they do, but I don't *THINK* they try really very hard.
But to answer you question, yeah I do think that Direct doesn't fight as hard as Dish does to protect themselves and the people who use their service and their stockholders. It *SEEMS* to me that savings and profits are not as high of a priority for Direct as it is for Dish (take a look at the last four years profitability for both), hence I have stock in one and not the other. But then again I really couldn't care less what you find hard to believe about my opinion anyway, so...


----------



## Tom in TX (Jan 22, 2004)

Slamminc11 said:


> That is my opinion (yes, those are allowed on this forum)


Not in the Potpourri Forum!! If you don't agree with Jonstad, or Bogy, you are ignorant, immature, unethical, etc.!!
TomSr


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Tom in TX said:


> Not in the Potpourri Forum!! If you don't agree with Jonstad, or Bogy, you are ignorant, immature, unethical, etc.!!
> TomSr


You left off PJMRT. If you are going to throw that around about that forum, then you definitely need to put his name on this list!!!!!


----------

