# Dish Network Agreement Reached!!!



## PACOP (Feb 23, 2004)

HERES THE LINK
http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20040310005883&newsLang=en

Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement; CBS, MTV Networks and BET Restored

NEW YORK & ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 11, 2004--Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B) and EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) and its DISH Network today announced that they have reached a long-term, multi-channel agreement that provides for the satellite TV distribution of CBS, BET, and the MTV Networks channels previously carried by DISH Network.

"It's great to have our networks back in front of all our viewers, and to bring a new service, Nicktoons, to DISH Network subscribers," said Mel Karmazin, President and Chief Operating Officer of Viacom. "We apologize to our viewers for the disruption in their service, and want to thank them for their patience and support. We look forward to continuing to serve our viewers through DISH Network well into the future."

"This agreement with Viacom allows DISH Network to remain the lowest-cost, all digital TV provider in the country," said Charles Ergen, chairman and chief executive officer of EchoStar. "We understand that this has been a difficult few days for our customers, and we thank them for all the encouragement they have given us throughout. We also look forward to a long relationship with Viacom in which we can provide their quality channels to our viewers."

The multi-year agreement restores full service of CBS in 16 markets as well as Comedy Central, MTV, MTV2, Nickelodeon, Noggin, GAS, VH1, VH1 Classic, MTV Espanol and BET in all markets. Additionally, the agreement extends the term of the carriage for CBS HD (East and West) channels, as well as Spike TV, CMT and TV Land. DISH Network will also launch Nicktoons on its America's Top 180 package this spring.

As part of the agreement, Viacom and DISH Network have settled all litigation between the two companies.


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/updates/index.shtml


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Guys, lets start like 50 threads huh?


----------



## PACOP (Feb 23, 2004)

Finally...........man Was That Intense Or What. What A Great Day , We Keep All Channels And Gain Nictoons And Get Mlb Extra Innings Too


----------



## IndyMichael (Jan 25, 2003)

James_F said:


> Guys, lets start like 50 threads huh?


How does the agreement not warrant a new thread, this was where I heard about it first.


----------



## Agent0042 (Mar 1, 2004)

But you only gain NickToons if you're on Top 180. I imagine Dish required that as part of the deal. They were pretty fervent on that.

P.S., here's another article not posted in this thread yet: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040311/nyth057_1.html


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

IndyMichael said:


> How does the agreement not warrant a new thread, this was where I heard about it first.


What about the other two threads talking about? They should all be in the big thread so people can follow. Either way this thread will be closed when one of those "east coast" mods wakes up in the morning. :shrug:


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

_Closing out other thread and making this a sticky. - *Holtz*_


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Forgot they actually had someone on the left coast. How about closing the other "CBS is back thread"?


----------



## mwgiii (Jul 19, 2002)

Yea Nicktoons.

Kids will be happy.


----------



## kelliot (May 15, 2002)

The free PPV coupon is worth it for me compared to the lost Viacom for a day.


----------



## Wyoming_Companion (Sep 17, 2002)

Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....

We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.

I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

kelliot said:


> The free PPV coupon is worth it for me compared to the lost Viacom for a day.


Yea, maybe you can watch a viacom movie with it. :sure:

Oh don't spend that $1 all in one place either.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

James_F said:


> Yea, maybe you can watch a viacom movie with it. :sure:
> 
> Oh don't spend that $1 all in one place either.


Geesh, some people will just hate Dish no matter what they do.


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

Sure they settled but still no *THE NASHVILLE NETWORK!* Even if half of them probably won't admit it, TNN! was watched by millions before Viacom destroyed it for no good reason. !pride


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

jericho29 said:


> Geesh, some people will just hate Dish no matter what they do.


And some people want to have Charles' baby. What's your point?


----------



## Melishark (Mar 9, 2004)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


 HAPPY! HAPPY! HAPPY! We got our channels back !

Still not too excited about what happened to get here.

Let's just hope it doesn't happen again anytime soon and that there weren't enough people going to other providers that our rates go up to make up for the loss.

 :lol:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

uncdanwrong said:


> Sure they settled but still no *THE NASHVILLE NETWORK!* Even if half of them probably won't admit it, TNN! was watched by millions before Viacom destroyed it for no good reason. !pride


You're not my father in law are you? :lol:

He complains about it every time I visit.


----------



## TV Director (Feb 14, 2004)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Geez...get over it! :nono2: Remember as John Belushi once said: Film is art. Rock N Roll is life. Television is only furniture... :grin:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Melishark said:


> Let's just hope it doesn't happen again anytime soon and that there weren't enough people going to other providers that our rates go up to make up for the loss.


I doubt there will be many people leaving of this one issue since it did get resolved quickly. Those who will leave were already on their way out. I will be interested in reading how and why they came to an agreement so quickly. To go from posting an executive's home phone number to the love fest in the press release (even beyond the bull ****) is a stretch.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

TV Director said:


> Geez...get over it! :nono2: Remember as John Belushi once said: Film is art. Rock N Roll is life. Television is only furniture... :grin:


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Melishark (Mar 9, 2004)

James_F said:


> I doubt there will be many people leaving of this one issue since it did get resolved quickly. Those who will leave were already on their way out. I will be interested in reading how and why they came to an agreement so quickly. To go from posting an executive's home phone number to the love fest in the press release (even beyond the bull ****) is a stretch.


 But will we ever really know the 'truth' ?

We've heard 6 cents ... and then $2 ... that it's all Viacom .. it's all Dish. I don't think we'll ever really know.

But WHO CARES ... Spongebob is back ... 

Enjoy your channels everyone !


----------



## btbrossard (Oct 4, 2002)

Thank you Dish for getting this taken care of  .

Spongebob - Here I come!

/Benjamin


----------



## openhouse (Jan 25, 2003)

are u guys getting a picture yet ?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

No, I'm sure both Viacom and Dish win. 

In the end the loser is the consumer. Either Dish will raise rates, reduce channels or some other method to pay for the increase. If not, why fight so hard?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Looks from here as though everything has been restored and the 3 free Previews continue. 

Now, if we can get through the Turner thing without a big uproar.


----------



## n4kls (Feb 28, 2004)

Do I still get my dollar? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

n4kls said:


> Do I still get my dollar? :lol: :lol: :lol:


I think it will be prorated to account for the lenght of time the channels were gone. I estimate we'll get a 10.67 cent refund.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Bye bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure DirecTV will be *so* much better than Dish, and always treat you as the special person you are. :lol:

Oh, and please no responses from the grammar police for my last post. I know spelling "length" as "lenght" was a cardinal sin, and I'll do proper penance for that.


----------



## PACOP (Feb 23, 2004)

john, when are the turners coming up again?


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.


If you can find a five minute period in your life when you have not been used, *then* we can discuss it - but you can't.


----------



## DJ Rob (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm watching Comedy Central on Dish now. It's back.
They just ran a commercial saying that Comedy Central is not on Dish anymore (only on cable & Directv) LOL


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Everyone with AT60, 120, 180, AEP, Dish Latino Dos and Dix Latino Max will get $1 credit on their bill AND a free PPV coupon worth $3.99.

Not bad for 46 hours without channels I never watch. 

See ya
Tony


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

DISH has more Viacom channels than DirecTV now because they don't carry Nick GAS. I think Charlie actually asked for Nick GAS back when it launched and not the other way around.

DISH gets what they want: the new channel in AT180 and probably a slightly lower rate than everyone else. Viacom gets what they want: whatever it is they want, money, viewership, whatever.

And we get what we want: no rate increase, and our channels back, and a shiny new channel coming soon.

All is good.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

DISH should make Viacom put huge DISH Network ads on ILostMyFavoriteChannels.com


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

To Melishark:

Oh, this will happen again. I predict the same thing will happen when the Disney ABC contract comes up again. But it will last about a week or so (channels from ABC/Disney deleted by DN).

On a side note, I noticed this topic generated a lot of messages here, as opposed to on DigitalHomeCanada.com. Sorry to bring this up to those who are members of that board. Why was there almost no traffic there?

-A- Well, I thought if the Viacom standoff would have continued longer, we
-r- would see Charlie put up some of the Canadian channels to fill in. Oh well,
-t- maybe next time. Cheers, Art.


----------



## Crazy 1 (Oct 21, 2002)

I'm glad that all you E* subs got your channels back, mainly for all the children out there that lost their Nick. I'll bet there will be alot of happy kids today!


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

What about all those MTV/VH1 Suite channels? I thought Viacom was trying to push those channels down Dish's throats but notice that DirecTv never added them.


----------



## Kaydigi (Dec 31, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> What about all those MTV/VH1 Suite channels? I thought Viacom was trying to push those channels down Dish's throats but notice that DirecTv never added them.


The great war of 2004 is finally over, Making the Band II here I come tonight on MTV


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> What about all those MTV/VH1 Suite channels? I thought Viacom was trying to push those channels down Dish's throats but notice that DirecTv never added them.


Nobody wants those, few cable companies I know of carry them. EDIT: Mean that few providers want them. Don't know how many actual people want them.

Prediction: the suite channels will probably consolidate so there's fewer to carry, and maybe more places will pick them up.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages....We were used....


Yes, I feel SO violated, SO dirty - but the sex was GREAT while it lasted! :smoking:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

One thing I would really like to know -- *WHO BLINKED?*


----------



## davepack (Nov 25, 2002)

That's great news. First thing I did this morning was see if Nick was back, and it was. Then I hoped I'd see Noggin nestled in at 169, and there it was. My son will be glad that we can sit down together and watch Dora, Max & Ruby, and SpongeBob again.

I'm really glad this thing didn't go longer than a week or so. As I said in my other post, I didn't want to leave Dish because I've been pretty happy with them since 1997, but I honestly didn't know how long it could drag out.

Still, it was us--the little guy--that got hurt the most in this whole thing. I certainly have a bit more apprehension toward Dish than I had before. As long as this type of thing doesn't become a habit, though, I hope to be a Dish customer for a long time.

Thanks to EchoStar and Viacom for working this out.

Dave


----------



## scaredpoet (Jan 24, 2003)

James_F said:


> No, I'm sure both Viacom and Dish win.
> 
> In the end the loser is the consumer. Either Dish will raise rates, reduce channels or some other method to pay for the increase. If not, why fight so hard?


Y'know James, you can rail against Dish, but the statement you just made is cookie-cutter for every cable and satellite provider out there.

If you want to be truly idealistic, you'd ditch them all and get a C-band receiver.


----------



## joekel (Mar 10, 2004)

Agent0042 said:


> But you only gain NickToons if you're on Top 180. I imagine Dish required that as part of the deal. They were pretty fervent on that.
> 
> P.S., here's another article not posted in this thread yet: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040311/nyth057_1.html


 Hi I am a new member to this site info is great. Dishnetwork since 2000.Thanks joekel


----------



## johnsmith22 (Jul 12, 2002)

Lets face it Dishnetwork is in business to make money, there is nothing obscene about that. In order to compete they have to keep their rates competative, therefore they have to fine tune the balance between maximising their profit, keeping their customers happy and attracting new customers to the service. They know only too well if customers don't like their price or their service there are other places to go. The only thing I would say is look carefully before you leap, the grass is rarely much greener on the other side when everyone works to the same criteria.

If you look at it logically Viacom lost 9.5 million customers and Dish Network had some, but not all, of those 9.5 million disgruntled plus a few ready to jump ship. Many were like me who never watch the Viacom channels and either had CBS as a distant Network or off the air. It seems to me there were overpowering reasons on both sides to get it fixed as quickly as possible.

I never doubted that the channels would come back. Hats off to Charlie for sticking to his guns and getting a deal he could live and keep rates as low as possible. I do believe that although many of the posters here will doubtless disagree. 

Anyway it really was a storm in a teacup and not a life stopper so lets get back to living our lives!


----------



## freakmonkey (Sep 11, 2003)

People are going to wig out when next years price increases are announced. Hopefully you people will remember this incident when your are crying that E* is raising rates again.


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

Looks like Charlie caved. He had to take Nicktoons and had to include Spike, CMT and TVLand in the new agreement. All things he didn't want to do.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Here is Dish Network's official press release:

*Viacom and DISH Network Reach Long-Term Agreement; CBS, MTV Networks and BET Restored*

NEW YORK & ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 11, 2004--Viacom (NYSE: VIA, VIA.B) and EchoStar Communications Corporation and its DISH Network today announced that they have reached a long-term, multi-channel agreement that provides for the satellite TV distribution of CBS, BET, and the MTV Networks channels previously carried by DISH Network.​
"It's great to have our networks back in front of all our viewers, and to bring a new service, Nicktoons, to DISH Network subscribers," said Mel Karmazin, President and Chief Operating Officer of Viacom. "We apologize to our viewers for the disruption in their service, and want to thank them for their patience and support. We look forward to continuing to serve our viewers through DISH Network well into the future."​
"This agreement with Viacom allows DISH Network to remain the lowest-cost, all digital TV provider in the country," said Charles Ergen, chairman and chief executive officer of EchoStar. "We understand that this has been a difficult few days for our customers, and we thank them for all the encouragement they have given us throughout. We also look forward to a long relationship with Viacom in which we can provide their quality channels to our viewers."​
The multi-year agreement restores full service of CBS in 16 markets as well as Comedy Central, MTV, MTV2, Nickelodeon, Noggin, GAS, VH1, VH1 Classic, MTV Espanol and BET in all markets. Additionally, the agreement extends the term of the carriage for CBS HD (East and West) channels, as well as Spike TV, CMT and TV Land. DISH Network will also launch Nicktoons on its America's Top 180 package this spring.​
As part of the agreement, Viacom and DISH Network have settled all litigation between the two companies.​


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Nick said:


> One thing I would really like to know -- *WHO BLINKED?*


Since we have no rate increase, we can only assume Viacom did. But it really was a compromise, since Charlie did have to "tear up" the Spike & TVLand contracts. So really I think Viacom blinked, not that it really matters.

I'm proud of Dish for setting a precedent that it won't just cave in to threats. It patiently negotiated rather than give into scare tactics (super bowl, NCAA tourney). Nice work [email protected]!


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Many of the comments I have read say that they had so many CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, they wanted to make sure it got done. I really do believe by writing letteres and making calls made this happen. Along with a pretty big basketball tourney next Thursday, but at least we got a week earlier.


----------



## TAK (Nov 21, 2003)

How is Nicktoons any different than Nickelodeon? Doesn't Nickelodeon show cartoons the majority of the day anyways?

BTW, I'm glad they reached a deal so quickly. I missed Comedy Central greatly, the rest, not so much. I guess I sorta missed VH1 too.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

In the Twin Cities, both Cable companies put out full page ads trying to take advantage of the situation, while I can't blame them for doing so, you have to wonder now that its all over so quick, that they wasted there money. They might have gotton a couple subs, but its not going to pay for a full page ad in both local papers I suspect.

Also. for the switchers with no patience, hope the wait for your new gear is worth it.. since I doubt anyone that is switching has even gotton an installer near their house, add the hassle of the switching out gear, selling old gear. and whatever other costs there might be, etc.... don't let the door hit you on the way out..


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Are you so naive to think that DirecTV wouldn't do the same if the need arose? Where will you go if DirecTV does something that bothers you?


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Everyone with AT60, 120, 180, AEP, Dish Latino Dos and Dix Latino Max will get $1 credit on their bill AND a free PPV coupon worth $3.99.
> 
> Not bad for 46 hours without channels I never watch.
> 
> ...


Tony
You forgot about the 16 markets that lost their CBS...we got an extra $1


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

James_F said:


> And some people want to have Charles' baby. What's your point?


Hey, if I would get a cut of his inheritance, I'd have his baby. Of course my body isn't exactly equipped to have a baby either but I've seen Junior.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Nick said:


> One thing I would really like to know -- *WHO BLINKED?*


My reaction is that Charlie blinked. He had to add Nicktoons, tear up the Spike et al contracts (excuse me, I mean "extend" them), and drop his good-chance-of-winning-eventually lawsuit about tying OTA retransmission agreements to irrelevant issues. Maybe the number of customers who left exceeded estimates?

What did Charlie win? Installing Nicktoons only on AT180? Some other tier-based concessions? A break on per-subscriber fees? Unless I hear about other systems getting lower rates to match Charlie's, I doubt it.

We may never really know. The great news is that for us viewers, it's all good now.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

TAK said:


> How is Nicktoons any different than Nickelodeon? Doesn't Nickelodeon show cartoons the majority of the day anyways?


I agree, what's the point of NickToons when that's all Nick shows now anyway? And don't we already have more than one feed of Nick? Guess that explains why Charlie only let them put NickToons on the AT180 pack, huh?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

BEFORE: (From the 3/8 CC thread)

...unreasonable demands, extorting higher fees
...threatened to pull the superbowl
...outrageous demands
...a violation of the public trust
...Viacom...crossed the line 
...they refuse to bring the rates back in line
...Viacom used this weapon against the public trust

AFTER: (From the 3/11 E* Press Release) 

"Viacom is a leading global media company, with preeminent positions in broadcast
and cable television, radio, outdoor advertising, and online. With programming that
appeals to audiences in every demographic category across virtually all media, the
company is a leader in the creation, promotion, and distribution of entertainment,
news, sports, music, and comedy."

Amazing. Simply amazing.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

James_F said:


> ...In the end the loser is the consumer.


Or alternately, consumers who think that, in the E* vs V battle, they are losers, are.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

My theory on what happened....

Charlie got the right to unbundle and handle CBS as an independent service, not tied to any other Viacom contract.

Viacom got to tie all their non broadcast cable services into one contract. They got to add their channel they were forcing down our throats.

I have no idea of money terms and wouldn't even try to guess.


----------



## freakmonkey (Sep 11, 2003)

Why do adults bash Nicktoons?

It is not for you. 

It is for kids.

They don't show Nick cartoons such as Sponge Bob on Nick @ Nite.


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

I'm not sure who won, but I doubt that Mell was pushing for NickToons to be on AT180. I'm betting that he was pushing this for AT120 or 60. I'm guessing Charlie can afford to put it on 180.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

uncdanwrong said:


> Sure they settled but still no *THE NASHVILLE NETWORK!* Even if half of them probably won't admit it, TNN! was watched by millions before Viacom destroyed it for no good reason. !pride


Hey hello are you out of it. TNN was renamed Spike TV. So what the hell is your problem.


----------



## freakmonkey (Sep 11, 2003)

stonecold said:


> Hey hello are you out of it. TNN was renamed Spike TV. So what the hell is your problem.


Hello that was supposed to humor.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

carload said:


> My reaction is that Charlie blinked. He had to add Nicktoons,


Dish was already in negotiations to add Nicktoons from last year. Looks like Viacom used that as part of the effort to try and force a full Viacom bundle into AT60. Since that didn't happen and Dish did what they set out to do last year, namely add Nicktoons only to AT180 I don't see that issue as a loss.

I was hoping it would drag on for a few more days. I hear E* was giving greater consideration to PBSKids in that event. I doubt that we will see that channel now.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> DISH Network will also launch Nicktoons on its America's Top 180 package this spring.[/left]


Notice Dish never adds anything to its Top 120 package. Wasn't SITV put in the Top 180 as well? I wish they'd take the Encore Theme channels plus The Movie Channel out of Top 180 and lower the cost.


----------



## Art7220 (Feb 4, 2004)

And now that that's over:

Where can I find Curling on Dish Net & when are we getting Oxygen?

-A- :glasses:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

scaredpoet said:


> Y'know James, you can rail against Dish, but the statement you just made is cookie-cutter for every cable and satellite provider out there.


No provider I've ever had has pulled a network or channels off. They have been close, but somone always gets smart. Charles just does what he always does, lets his ego get in the way.


> If you want to be truly idealistic, you'd ditch them all and get a C-band receiver.


Why, I have no problems with DirecTV and if they pulled the stunt that Charles did, I'd walk (at least until NFL season started).


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

Not very good one then..... I am gald it no longer called TNN sounds like a ******* station.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> Or alternately, consumers who think that, in the E* vs V battle, they are losers, are.


Yoda? Is that you?


----------



## torque91 (Sep 16, 2003)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Good luck. It won't be easy


----------



## freakmonkey (Sep 11, 2003)

Charlie did not pull the programing. He had no choice the contract expired. If he continued to broadcast those channel w/o a contract then he would be a thief. Why is E* the bad guy here???? I just don't understand how standing up for yourself against a big bully can be seen has egotistical.


----------



## llukesh (Mar 9, 2004)

Know what I wish? I wish for Pay Per View. No, not the PPV Movies and Events like we have already. I mean PPV everything. I'd be so great if every channel were available to us, and we were charged only by what we watched... say $0.15 an hour... for the normal channels, maybe higher for others (a quick calculation says this is about equal to my current bill). Why? Because.... IF we had every channel available to us, and were charged for what we used (not just it's availability), WE would be in control of situations like the one that just happened. If Dish payed Viacom by usage, and we paid dish by usage, WE would be the ones in control. Those channels we don't like, and don't watch, would have to improve their programming to compete with the others. If a media squeeze occured (like the one that just ended), I could show my contempt by personally boycotting CBS, VH1, or whatever. WE would be the ones in control, paying only for what we used, and I am certain that our programming would be better. Also, we'd have everything available to us instead of having to buy 'channel packages'. Just a thought....


----------



## mphhammer (Feb 5, 2004)

During the great black out of 2004 I was one of the 1.6 mil who lost CBS. I noticed a strange thing on my UPN channel. Every one in a while they would broadcast a message accross the top of the screen. It was sort of a proviacom message explaning why we lost CBS. Is UPN also owned by viacom? If so why did we not lose that channel? If not then why are they supporting another channel? I don't claim to be the most informed person around here so please don't flame for my ignorance.


----------



## llukesh (Mar 9, 2004)

but... like my grandmother always said... 
''If IF's and BUT's were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas''
in other words.. ya can't always get what ya want.


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

Russian saying: "If grandfather was grandmother --------> he'd be wearing a skirt"


----------



## Darkman (Apr 16, 2002)

Mind you, Irish men wearing one anyhow


----------



## V-Train (Mar 9, 2004)

mphhammer,

UPN (Paramount) is owned by Viacom. I assume we didn't lose the channel because: 
A: none of the UPN stations are owned and operated by Viacom (which was the case with the CBS stations that were lost; those CBS stations not owned and operated by Viacom were not lost);
and/or
B: Dish has a separate contract for UPN stations (which was the case for Spike TV, which also was not lost)


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

Richard King said:


> My theory on what happened....
> 
> Charlie got the right to unbundle and handle CBS as an independent service, not tied to any other Viacom contract.
> 
> ...


I'd bet this is what happened. Charlie's biggest problem was with the bundling of CBS. They probably did a separate contract for CBS, and the price was carriage of Nicktoons on the other contract. Give and take.


----------



## TimL (Apr 24, 2002)

llukesh said:


> Know what I wish? I wish for Pay Per View. No, not the PPV Movies and Events like we have already. I mean PPV everything. I'd be so great if every channel were available to us, and we were charged only by what we watched... say $0.15 an hour... for the normal channels, maybe higher for others (a quick calculation says this is about equal to my current bill). Why? Because.... IF we had every channel available to us, and were charged for what we used (not just it's availability), WE would be in control of situations like the one that just happened. If Dish payed Viacom by usage, and we paid dish by usage, WE would be the ones in control. Those channels we don't like, and don't watch, would have to improve their programming to compete with the others. If a media squeeze occured (like the one that just ended), I could show my contempt by personally boycotting CBS, VH1, or whatever. WE would be the ones in control, paying only for what we used, and I am certain that our programming would be better. Also, we'd have everything available to us instead of having to buy 'channel packages'. Just a thought....


Because as it has rehashed over and over before, It would never happen because if we paid based on "what we watched" the channels would lose money plus Providers and networks NEVER want viewers to have control in that way..Plus in programming..The networks hit on a hot thing and shove it down our throats till viewers get tired of it. I watch maybe a half dozen channels between satellite/cable at my house but I like having a choice of more.

Tim Lones
Canton, Ohio


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Stosh said:


> I think it will be prorated to account for the lenght of time the channels were gone. I estimate we'll get a 10.67 cent refund.


You get to keep the dollar, plus you will get a coupon for a free PPV movie. See here.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/updates/index.shtml


----------



## psycaz (Oct 4, 2002)

I say this as a Dish customer (just so folks know what side of the fence I'm, on) - I hope this happens to Direct TV once. It would be great to see BOTH sides presented in the media. You know Rupert would make sure Fox News presented their side of the dispute. It's a shame the only thing the media reported was that Charlie pulled the channels - which wasn't even correct. Can't broadcast what you don't have rights to. I didn't see anywhere the issue being looked at from both sides.

Not that I want anyone to loose channels - but it would be nice for the whole story to get air time. Maybe we could get some real legislation untying ota stuff from everything else.


----------



## V-Train (Mar 9, 2004)

My guess is neither side "caved", per se. They both saw the cost of continuing the fight and came to a compromise.

Also, we must consider that probably Viacom saw a lot of value in getting Dish to drop their antitrust lawsuit. If the lawsuit had continued, and Viacom lost, they would have a LOT to lose, not only financially because of treble (triple) damages, but also not being able to bundle, and possibly not being able to own stations. If they had lost the case, their whole business strategy could have gone up in smoke and changed the whole market landscape...


----------



## V-Train (Mar 9, 2004)

psycaz said:


> I say this as a Dish customer - I hope this happens to Direct TV once. It would be great to see BOTH sides presented in the media. You know Rupert would make sure Fox News presented their side of the dispute. It's a shame the only thing the media reported was that Charlie pulled the channels - which wasn't even correct. Can't broadcast what you don't have rights to. I didn't see anywhere the issue being looked at from both sides.
> 
> Not that I want anyone to loose channels - but it would be nice for the whole story to get air time. Maybe we could get some real legislation untying ota stuff from everything else.


Psycaz,

As much as I would like to see what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot, I don't see this happening to D*. Why? Because it is in Fox's interest to pursue the same strategy Viacom is pursing with bundling. They can afford to give Viacom what they want for their 12 million D* customers. Then, when it comes time to renew FOX programming with the cable companies (and E*), they can pursue the same bundling Viacom wants. The many, many more millions of customers at play will more than make up for what they lose to Viacom by "giving in" in D* programming costs.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

llukesh said:


> Know what I wish? I wish for Pay Per View. No, not the PPV Movies and Events like we have already. I mean PPV everything. I'd be so great if every channel were available to us, and we were charged only by what we watched... say $0.15 an hour... for the normal channels, maybe higher for others (a quick calculation says this is about equal to my current bill). Why? Because.... IF we had every channel available to us, and were charged for what we used (not just it's availability), WE would be in control of situations like the one that just happened. If Dish payed Viacom by usage, and we paid dish by usage, WE would be the ones in control. Those channels we don't like, and don't watch, would have to improve their programming to compete with the others. If a media squeeze occured (like the one that just ended), I could show my contempt by personally boycotting CBS, VH1, or whatever. WE would be the ones in control, paying only for what we used, and I am certain that our programming would be better. Also, we'd have everything available to us instead of having to buy 'channel packages'. Just a thought....


I agree with you about this however there are some things to consider. The providers, like ViaComm, Newscorp, Turner, etc are the ones that demand that channels not be distributed alacarte (one-by-one). But even if they didn't, many people are not aware that the systems used to authorize and carry your channels could not support this. For E*, D*, or Cable to transmit an individual data stream that large to each customer would use more band width than some of the channels do. Think about it this way: It is easier to transmit a stream that says "Customer N gets Package A and premium channels X, Y, and Z" whereas it would take incredible bandwitdth to send streams that included more like "Customer N gets channel 1,3,34,82, and on and on." Perhaps the systems could be designed for this later but it can not possibly be supported by any carrier at this time. As for analog cable, you would have to have a cable box of some sort in every home to unscramble each individual channel.

It is a nice wish, but virtually impossible to support at this time.

I truly have to wonder on here before I post anything who is just going to rip it to shreds, but oh well...

Cheers


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

psycaz said:


> I say this as a Dish customer (just so folks know what side of the fence I'm, on) - I hope this happens to Direct TV once. It would be great to see BOTH sides presented in the media. You know Rupert would make sure Fox News presented their side of the dispute. It's a shame the only thing the media reported was that Charlie pulled the channels - which wasn't even correct. Can't broadcast what you don't have rights to. I didn't see anywhere the issue being looked at from both sides.
> 
> Not that I want anyone to loose channels - but it would be nice for the whole story to get air time. Maybe we could get some real legislation untying ota stuff from everything else.


Wait for the TV movie, but don't expect it to air on ViaComm.


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

Stonecold, the post was intended to be humorous but as James F's father in law proves there is definitely some truth to it. AFAIK Spike TV's programming bears no resemblance to the fishing shows, NASCAR races, country talk shows, etc. that used to be on TNN! A lot of people actually did watch the network, so don't be surprised if someone other than Viacom starts the highly successful *THE ******* NETWORK!* !pride


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

Being near the ocean here in SoCal I maybe all wet but..

If ViaCom is interested in buying into Dish as some industry/stock people say (ViaCom has no cable/satellite systems now) ViaCom might have pushed this situation more than necesary to impress upon Ergan that in the long run he can not go it alone. Link-ups (D*/Fox etc) or take over might appeal to Ergan at some point in time. Even Ted Turner went this route.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Jerry 42 said:


> Being near the ocean here in SoCal I maybe all wet but..
> 
> If ViaCom is interested in buying into Dish as some industry/stock people say (ViaCom has no cable/satellite systems now) ViaCom might have pushed this situation more than necesary to impress upon Ergan that in the long run he can not go it alone. Link-ups (D*/Fox etc) or take over might appeal to Ergan at some point in time. Even Ted Turner went this route.


Now I don't have some fancy link to post to back this up but I am fairly confident this is true. In order for any company to buy DISH, they have to have Charlie's consent. Charlie and his Wife together own somewhere close to 90% of the stock in the E* making it virtually impossible for a hostile take over to occur. Someone feel free to post a credible source that backs up or tears down what I just said. I get a lot of email about this stuff but I am confident one of them said this.

Crazy


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Crazy D* Man - Actually - it could be done MUCH smaller than you're suggesting. 

In it's simplest form, you would have the customer's receiver store a sequence of bits on their smartcard (this part is actually already going). In the data stream for each channel, you would put a code that unlocks with the customers stored value, such that you have to have both to watch the program. By unbundling, all you're doing is increasing the number of "keys" to store on each receiver.


----------



## psycaz (Oct 4, 2002)

It just frustrates me to watch this stuff go on and know its not going to change unless E* merges with someone. 
They will always seem to be the target of higher than expected rates and threatening to loose channels. They are the only major player right now vulnerable to this tactic. 
Cable can just raises their rates. D* can just get back at everyone by their own stuff as V-Train points out. And VOOM hasn't been around long enough to be considered a major player yet (my opinion).


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

scooper said:


> Crazy D* Man - Actually - it could be done MUCH smaller than you're suggesting.
> 
> In it's simplest form, you would have the customer's receiver store a sequence of bits on their smartcard (this part is actually already going). In the data stream for each channel, you would put a code that unlocks with the customers stored value, such that you have to have both to watch the program. By unbundling, all you're doing is increasing the number of "keys" to store on each receiver.


Authorization, at least on E*, is transmitted in a completely different stream than the actual A/V. Currently, a data-stream is sent like a packet on a computer. It has a header identified as the smart card and receiver ID, followed by the packages that receiver is authorized for. If you increase the "keys" (locks would be a more appropriate term here) on a receiver, you must also increase the number of "keys" that are transmitted and that uses bandwidth. The only way your method would work is if the data stream were transmitted as you changed channels which would require a bi-directional transmission. However, this technology is being tested at E*'s primary uplink.

Crazy


----------



## David_Levin (Apr 22, 2002)

Richard King said:


> My theory on what happened....
> 
> Charlie got the right to unbundle and handle CBS as an independent service, not tied to any other Viacom contract.


I doubt this happened, but we really don't know. I'm not sure how useful it is to guess what did or didn't happen.

The Satellite Home Viewers is coming up for renewal. After this, the bundling of Free over-the-air with pay channels is certainly in the public eye. This could ultimately end up a win for Charlie.

What did happen is that Viacom wanted Nicktoons in AT60 and it ended up in AT180. This is a big deal.

Sometimes I wish there would be three threads: Factual information, speculation, and random ranting....


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

Did the I mention that this new highly successful network will be located in beautiful Branson, MO and viewers will actually get to vote whether to call it THE ******* NETWORK! or THE BRANSON NETWORK! !pride


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

Since it wasn't protracted, Dish has won big. Charlie made some good moves. Dish will be seen now by most people as a fighter for its customers, unlike D* or Comcrap. Congrats to Charlie on a job well done.


----------



## Lurker (May 14, 2002)

What use is a PPV coupon when you are on autopay? I would never trust them to get it right if I were to mail it in without a bill and payment.


----------



## Crazy 1 (Oct 21, 2002)

I know this a lot off the topic but, The autopay thing just gives too much control to a company IMHO. I would never consider giving anyone that much control over my funds. Just about every company you deal with now wants you to do autopay, But if they can't take a personal check from me they don't get my bussiness. Thats just my opinion.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Nick said:


> BEFORE: (From the 3/8 CC thread)
> 
> ...unreasonable demands, extorting higher fees
> ...threatened to pull the superbowl
> ...


 The rhetoric always changes after anything is done, Wars, elections, channel negotations, you say what you think will give you the edge in the PR battle, and when its over, you have to get along in the end and the whole thing changes.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Lurker said:


> What use is a PPV coupon when you are on autopay? I would never trust them to get it right if I were to mail it in without a bill and payment.


 I have heard that its not an issue, though I think they need to come up with a means of redeeming those coupons without mailing them in... Perhaps something in the website, enter a code, and once its entered, its done..


----------



## MrAkai (Aug 10, 2002)

normang said:


> The rhetoric always changes after anything is done, Wars, elections, channel negotations, you say what you think will give you the edge in the PR battle, and when its over, you have to get along in the end and the whole thing changes.


Echostar has always been at peace with Viacom
Echostar has always been at war with DirecTv


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> AFTER: (From the 3/11 E* Press Release)
> "Viacom is a leading global media company, with preeminent positions in broadcast ...


The after is the glowing boilerplate added to ALL Viacom news releases. Look at the bottom of most press releases and you will see one of these "the world will stop spinning without us" statements. 



V-Train said:


> UPN (Paramount) is owned by Viacom. I assume we didn't lose the channel because:
> A: none of the UPN stations are owned and operated by Viacom (which was the case with the CBS stations that were lost; those CBS stations not owned and operated by Viacom were not lost);
> and/or
> B: Dish has a separate contract for UPN stations (which was the case for Spike TV, which also was not lost)


Several UPNs are owned by Viacom, so it must be a separate contract. Since E* really doesn't care about UPN is would be pushing your luck to ask too much to carry a UPN station. Viacom may have even elected "Must Carry" on those stations (no $$, but forced online).

I went to bed early last night. Glad to see Nick there this morning. I wonder if we will ever know "who caved" but I don't care. I've got a dollar and another PPV coming and I still havn't spent the PPV coupon from February's price change. Maybe I'll spend one and my wife will spend one ...

JL


----------



## Joe Capitano (Aug 13, 2002)

My thinking: considering the relative weakness of the UPN, though some stations like WSBK and (Fox-owned) WWOR do have regional pro and college sports to offer, I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom decided to make its UPN O&Os "Must Carry." It's the only way they'd get seen.

As to the new SHVA: so that this does not happen again I want bundling of broadcast and cable channels prohibited. Let local stations negotiate for their own spots if that's their wish. If they want a side channel for a secondary regional service (like a news channel) that can be negotiated, but bundling of existing or future national channels with a broadcast station should be illegal.

And, no change to the distants. Leave them in.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

Crazy D* Man said:


> You get to keep the dollar, plus you will get a coupon for a free PPV movie. See here.
> 
> http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/programming/updates/index.shtml


Geez, why is everyone so serious here! 

That was a joke (OK, a bad one, but still...)! I wasn't being serious, and I thought that was obvious!


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

James_F said:


> In the end the loser is the consumer. Either Dish will raise rates, reduce channels or some other method to pay for the increase. If not, why fight so hard?


Another troll-like statement. *Obviously* they fought so they *wouldn't* have to raise rates - that was explicitly stated by Dish from the start. And why would they have to reduce channels? That is just silly.

And here's another secret I guess you don't know - things get more expensive over time. If you think Dish, DirecTV, VOOM, or your local cable company will always be able to keep their rates the same, you are living in a fantasy world. So tell me again what I lost by this episode?

My question is - why do so many people who don't have Dish spend so much time in the Dish forums spreading their manure? Must be anger or some deep-seated phychological problem....you know the kind of person I mean, there's one in every crowd, who says the sky is gray just because everyone else sees it as blue. The kind of people who spread joy - when they leave the room.


----------



## Jarrett76 (Nov 6, 2003)

My installer called today to let me know the channels were back on. I asked him who blinked, and he said echostar did, and that viacom got the fees whey wanted. We should find out for sure real soon


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Jarrett76 said:


> My installer called today to let me know the channels were back on. I asked him who blinked, and he said echostar did, and that viacom got the fees whey wanted. We should find out for sure real soon


Viacom wanted to put Nicktoons in AT60 and it is going to be in AT180. So Echostar got their way at least in part. The rest we will never know for sure.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Link said:


> Notice Dish never adds anything to its Top 120 package. Wasn't SITV put in the Top 180 as well? I wish they'd take the Encore Theme channels plus The Movie Channel out of Top 180 and lower the cost.


SiTV is in Top 120 I believe


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Jarrett76 said:


> My installer called today to let me know the channels were back on. I asked him who blinked, and he said echostar did, and that viacom got the fees whey wanted. We should find out for sure real soon


So.... an installer has all the inside info? You really believe that? If so, wanna buy a bridge?

Who cares who blinked? I think both companies got a lot of calls, they figured out a way to end it all in very timely fashion.

Go home tonight and watch Survivor.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040311/1419000980_1.html

I don't see anything in here that Viacom didn't say that they wanted.


----------



## Jarrett76 (Nov 6, 2003)

Earl Zuberbelt said:


> So.... an installer has all the inside info? You really believe that? If so, wanna buy a bridge?
> 
> Who cares who blinked? I think both companies got a lot of calls, they figured out a way to end it all in very timely fashion.
> 
> ...


Easy there earl. Its just a rumor, nothing to get worked up over.

Here is another link:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040311/media_viacom_echostar_7.html


----------



## jeffwtux (Apr 27, 2002)

Curtis0620 said:


> http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/040311/1419000980_1.html
> 
> I don't see anything in here that Viacom didn't say that they wanted.


The didn't want NickToons in AT180.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Richardson said:


> Viacom wanted to put Nicktoons in AT60 and it is going to be in AT180. So Echostar got their way at least in part. The rest we will never know for sure.


*I* wanted them to put NickToons in at AT60 too - or at least AT120. Another channel to entice people to pay more more more for satellite TV. 

JL


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

Facts: Dish stock NEVER dropped during this episode. Viacom's did. Winners and losers are defined by the market. Dish didn't have to accept putting the Viacom bundle in AT60 which meant paying Viacom for EVERY subscriber. Witnessed by the only new channel going in the top tier and Noggin staying there.

You are correct. Charlie is E*. He owns vast majority of the stock that woudl be needed to takeover. Right or wrong Charlie made his rep and his early fortune as a professional poker player and it still shows.

DirecTV/Viacom negotiations began before Rupe got the official blessing. Eddie was still spending GM money. Eddie has never had a problem reaching into GMs deep pockets for a deal. That is why NFL ST costs more than it brings in. Not saying bad or good, just the way it is. There is new attitude in the DirecTV front office now. Time will tell how what direction that heads in.


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

I recall that many of you were convinced that Charlie was stupid. He's made 9B, but he's dumber than you are. I suggested that if you thought so, you should short the stock. Who did? 

Also, I notice that a number of the real Charlie bashers seem to have disappeared, and we're down to the normal assemblage of agnostics. I have to say that I don't miss some of the jerks.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Does this mean Dish will want their $1 back????????????


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Viacom DID NOT want Nicktoon to be in AT60. I know this for a fact because they offered Dish the same deal as comcast and DTV, and Nicktoon is NOT at the lowest Digital tier for comcast, infact it rather expensive. Remember Viacom did not want nicktoon to be in AT60 because they DIDN'T require the same for comcast and DTV and they gave dish the same contract.


----------



## JohnMI (Apr 2, 2002)

Randy_B said:


> Facts: Dish stock NEVER dropped during this episode.


Well, to be fair and more accurate -- Dish's stock's CLOSING price never really dropped during the episode. It actually did drop quite a bit as far as trading goes -- but closed back up enough to not really be that bad when just looking at closing values.

In after-hours trading, the stock dropped from around 36 on Friday the 5th down to 33.75 at channel cut-off Monday night / Tuesday morning.

So, people did start to panic a bit. But, good for Dish, it climbed up again during the day on Tuesday to close at a reasonable level. Note that it did a similar (although not as extreme) dive after-hours on Tuesday evening, but opened up ok on Wednesday.

So, to suggest that the stock price never dropped at all is a bit inaccurate. But, yes, the overall closing price never dropped significantly, I agree.

- John...


----------



## Jarrett76 (Nov 6, 2003)

I just saw on CNBC that echostar caved, but I missed most of the story. Well at least things are normal again....for now.


----------



## uncdanwrong (Feb 11, 2004)

To me it looks like both compromised so it's hard to say that either side won or lost. Of course Viacom wasn't willing to compromise at all until members of Congress told them to "get it done". Still the bundling of licensed television stations should be illegal.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

uncdanwrong said:


> To me it looks like both compromised so it's hard to say that either side won or lost. Of course Viacom wasn't willing to compromise at all until members of Congress told them to "get it done". Still the bundling of licensed television stations should be illegal.


When did congress get involved. I dont remeber congress saying anything.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

Link said:


> Does this mean Dish will want their $1 back????????????


Yes. All who received a credit will have $1 plus interest debited from their account.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

llukesh said:


> Know what I wish? I wish for Pay Per View. No, not the PPV Movies and Events like we have already. I mean PPV everything. I'd be so great if every channel were available to us, and we were charged only by what we watched... say $0.15 an hour... for the normal channels, maybe higher for others (a quick calculation says this is about equal to my current bill). Why? Because.... IF we had every channel available to us, and were charged for what we used (not just it's availability), WE would be in control of situations like the one that just happened. If Dish payed Viacom by usage, and we paid dish by usage, WE would be the ones in control. Those channels we don't like, and don't watch, would have to improve their programming to compete with the others. If a media squeeze occured (like the one that just ended), I could show my contempt by personally boycotting CBS, VH1, or whatever. WE would be the ones in control, paying only for what we used, and I am certain that our programming would be better. Also, we'd have everything available to us instead of having to buy 'channel packages'. Just a thought....


That's not possible now. In the C-BAND days you could, but Congress changed the law.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Jarrett76 said:


> Easy there earl. Its just a rumor, nothing to get worked up over.
> 
> Here is another link:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040311/media_viacom_echostar_7.html


OK.... the bridge is in Brooklyn... I can get you a heck of a deal....


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Happy trails. One less complainer to deal with......


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Jerry G said:


> Yes. All who received a credit will have $1 plus interest debited from their account.


Nope, you keep the $2 ($1 for CBS, $1 for Viacom Basic Channels)
He'll also send out PPV coupons. Just make sure you don't use it for a Viacom movie (just kidding).


----------



## jhickman (Oct 8, 2003)

I haven't read the entire thread, but there's still a good chance I might switch to DirecTV or back to cable.


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

Lurker said:


> What use is a PPV coupon when you are on autopay? I would never trust them to get it right if I were to mail it in without a bill and payment.


Go ahead & give it a try....I've done it & they got it right.


----------



## dswallow (Mar 31, 2003)

jgoggan said:


> Well, to be fair and more accurate -- Dish's stock's CLOSING price never really dropped during the episode. It actually did drop quite a bit as far as trading goes -- but closed back up enough to not really be that bad when just looking at closing values.
> 
> In after-hours trading, the stock dropped from around 36 on Friday the 5th down to 33.75 at channel cut-off Monday night / Tuesday morning.
> 
> ...


Some of that rise is likely attributed to the rumors that began concerning Viacom being interested in acquiring a distribution company of some sort.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jhickman said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, but there's still a good chance I might switch to DirecTV or back to cable.


Be my guess, buy a new dish/recievers. Seems mighty dumb. Oh, enjoy your cable rates rise 6% yearly.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

justalurker said:


> AFTER: (From the 3/11 E* Press Release)
> "Viacom is a leading global media company, with preeminent positions in broadcast ...[/Nick]
> 
> The after is the glowing boilerplate added to ALL Viacom news releases. Look at the bottom of most press releases and you will see one of these "the world will stop spinning without us" statements.
> ...


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

uncdanwrong said:


> To me it looks like both compromised so it's hard to say that either side won or lost. Of course Viacom wasn't willing to compromise at all until members of Congress told them to "get it done". Still the bundling of licensed television stations should be illegal.


I agree. Sounds like Viacom gave Charlie a deal he couldn't refuse on price. Viacom was getting perilously close to anti-trust proceedings and they used a real sweet deal on price to settle the situation quickly. Charlie wisely has chosen to defer the batter over broadcast network retransmission fees to when the Satellite Act renewal comes up this year (I believe). Being a poker player, he knows when to "hold em" and when to "fold em", as the saying goes.


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> Be my guess, buy a new dish/recievers. Seems mighty dumb. Oh, enjoy your cable rates rise 6% yearly.


Yup, I agree, and Brian Roberts (CEO Comcrap) does no fighting for u. He just uses your overbilling to try to buy more companies like Disney.


----------



## dbronstein (Oct 21, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> Be my guess, buy a new dish/recievers. Seems mighty dumb. Oh, enjoy your cable rates rise 6% yearly.


Why buy when you can get a complete DirecTV system for free? Or you can get one with a Tivo for $99. Then you can eBay your Dish exquipment and come out ahead on the deal.

I'm not switching, but I would've if the dispute when out much longer. I checked the D* deals and what I could get for my E* equipment, and I figure I would've come out about $200 ahead. Even if you figure a big markdown on the E* equipment because of a flood, I'd still break even.

Dennis


----------



## mattyro (Nov 26, 2002)

Now that long-term agreement on CBS-HD has been reached, might we see a move to 110* so much more of those who qualify can actually get the channel w/o the dreaded 2nd dish??


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

mattyro said:


> Now that long-term agreement on CBS-HD has been reached, might we see a move to 110* so much more of those who qualify can actually get the channel w/o the dreaded 2nd dish??


IMHO, the 105 plan is still the avenue for CBS HD. When the more powerful sat gets to 105 they may move it there. They have been testing 3 HDs on one Tp at 148, but that could mean Encore HD, Starz! HD, Cinemax HD or maybe some other new channels which have a more direct Revenue generation path might be considered first for 110.
Bravo HD may be part of NBC's Olympics plan.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

Jarrett76 said:


> Easy there earl. Its just a rumor, nothing to get worked up over.
> 
> Here is another link:
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040311/media_viacom_echostar_7.html


This article is so ironic. Read:



> Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Fulcrum Global Partners disagreed. "Certainly it becomes easier for Fox to launch new cable channels when they control DirecTV," Greenfield said. "Time Warner is a more powerful company owning both content and distribution."


The Houston Time Warner system doesn't even have Boomerang, and DISH Network does. What use is owning a cable company if all you're channels aren't on it?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

They even gave me a credit for the tax I don't have to pay on the $2.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Watching the Daily Show from yesterday he's talking about echostar hehe  LOL

Some of his quotes

"It's ok with me, Ill come over to their houses and do the show"
"But it's not really about me, It's about SpongeBob. When people don't get their spongebob, people get upset."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Nick said:


> JL, The text shown in red above is not a part of what I originally wrote. Kindly edit your post (#102) to more accurately reflect what I said.


Fixed. I mised a [/QUOTE]

JL


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Lurker said:


> What use is a PPV coupon when you are on autopay? I would never trust them to get it right if I were to mail it in without a bill and payment.


 Actually I have auto pay also and I have mailed in the pay per view coupons before and Have received my credit each time. The key is to write down your account number on the front of your coupon and to actually buy a pay per view and write it down on the back of your coupon.:sure:


----------



## DNSC (Mar 12, 2004)

They only problem I have with all of it is... Dish new this was going happen because they filed an Injuction to prevent this a few months ago. Just like everything with dish it is wait until the late minute and then slam everybody they have on it to fix it, instead of fixing it with out pissing of the consumer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DNSC said:


> They only problem I have with all of it is... Dish new this was going happen because they filed an Injuction to prevent this a few months ago. Just like everything with dish it is wait until the late minute and then slam everybody they have on it to fix it, instead of fixing it with out pissing of the consumer.


The injuction was REQUESTED a couple of months ago because Viacom didn't seem to be cooperative. We would have had this blackout in January if it wasn't for the court agreeing.

The "last minute" was 11:59pm on December 31st. Civility gave them the first extension, then Viacom needed a better reason.

It does seem that the California courts like to give people 30 days before forcing them to face the issue.

NOT accepting Viacom's demands and allowing the contract to expire brought the issue to a head. YOU DON'T KNOW what the final deal was. The surface looks like Viacom won, but secrets are not on the surface. 

In the end, I believe E* customers won. The channels are back, and for AT180's a new channel is coming. AT60's and AT120's get a free preview week of a few channels, and every affected customer gets a $1 or $2 credit ... and a PPV ... for a two day outage.

Lets see cable give a couple of dollars back and a free movie of choice because a few channels were missing for 40 hours.

JL


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

I was out of town on a Spring Break mini-vacation, so the black out didn't affect me at all!


----------



## Bichon (Jun 5, 2003)

Amera64 said:


> Viacom DID NOT want Nicktoon to be in AT60. I know this for a fact because they offered Dish the same deal as comcast and DTV, and Nicktoon is NOT at the lowest Digital tier for comcast, infact it rather expensive. Remember Viacom did not want nicktoon to be in AT60 because they DIDN'T require the same for comcast and DTV and they gave dish the same contract.


Charlie didn't want Nicktoons at all. From the press conference (audio at »biz.yahoo.com/cc/7/40087.html), about 15 minutes in:

He said, "We certainly didn't want to add Nicktoons; we didn't want to add another cartoon channel. We have several of them up there. We have ones from some more independent companies which we'd prefer not to take down; it puts pressure on us not to renew some of those contracts, actually, because we have limited bandwidth. But that was very important to them."

So it wasn't a question of which tier -- he just plain didn't want to add it.


----------



## shilton (Nov 20, 2002)

Bichon said:


> Charlie didn't want Nicktoons at all. From the press conference (audio at »biz.yahoo.com/cc/7/40087.html), about 15 minutes in:
> 
> He said, "We certainly didn't want to add Nicktoons; we didn't want to add another cartoon channel. We have several of them up there. We have ones from some more independent companies which we'd prefer not to take down; it puts pressure on us not to renew some of those contracts, actually, because we have limited bandwidth. But that was very important to them."
> 
> So it wasn't a question of which tier -- he just plain didn't want to add it.


Lotsa bandwidth if we lose about a zillion shopping nets and Bingo TV and Reality Bites, etc. Fact is, Dish has a lot of crap stations up there with the good ones, so what is one more channel Charlie has to add. Maybe if some of the bandwidth weren't fried on this other junk, we'd have Trio and PBS Kids, etc. (oh wait...we can't have pbs kids cause that's another kid's station). Gotta save room for 10,000 more sports stations, etc. After all, we can't miss this week's exciting Cricket Match


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

A long time ago we had Time Warner when ABC went out. The local ABC passed out "Tune To 13" kits (13 is their channel number). I think the kit spliced in an antenna feed of 13 into the cable signal seamlessly. Dishes also sold like mad although unfortuniately we did not get one back then and stuck with "trusty old" analog cable. And we were still pissed off since we were early Digital Cable adopters back in 1998 with TCI.


----------



## Mike Richardson (Jun 12, 2003)

shilton said:


> Lotsa bandwidth if we lose about a zillion shopping nets and Bingo TV and Reality Bites, etc. Fact is, Dish has a lot of crap stations up there with the good ones, so what is one more channel Charlie has to add. Maybe if some of the bandwidth weren't fried on this other junk, we'd have Trio and PBS Kids, etc. (oh wait...we can't have pbs kids cause that's another kid's station). Gotta save room for 10,000 more sports stations, etc. After all, we can't miss this week's exciting Cricket Match


DUDE. If you take off the damned shopping channels, then DISH LOOSES a considerable revenue stream. THE SHOPPING CHANNELS KEEP THE BILLS LOWER. You don't even have to watch them or acknowledge them AT ALL, but they keep the bills lower. The shopping channels are a necessary evil. Trust me, they are pretty much at the bottom of the chain when it comes to PQ. I'm surprised they don't find some way to stuff all 13 of them onto one transponder where they can all be together.


----------



## Hoobastank (Mar 9, 2004)

Has anyone called to cancel their subscription lately in lieu of another service? I wonder if they try to offer you any special deals to have you stay?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Richardson said:


> stuff all 13 of them onto one transponder


And most of them are on 110, where old-timers with Dish300's can get AT60 and all but a couple Spanish channels in AT120 off of just 119 without seeing them.

(Dish300 @ 119 customers would also lose several PI channels, PPVs, and IIRC OpenTV - but not much else on the English side.)

JL


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

James_F said:


> Forgot they actually had someone on the left coast. How about closing the other "CBS is back thread"?


Heh heh heh. Couldn't you tell from my complaining about "lack of west coast feeds" for the past few years despite the fact that I had a DVR. At least it's good when some joker decides to post his Saturday night special for hacking into DBS and stealing signal.

Just for the record, I was a Dish Network subscriber from September, 2001 until August, 2003. The reason why I left Dish had nothing to do with programming, but rather the DVR. For the entire time I was with Dish, I was using a 501 receiver that was a fee-free receiver. I was looking forward to a larger DVR, but when Dish decided to charge a fee for their inferior DVR software, I switched over to DirecTV.

In regards to the Viacom/Echostar dispute, it is about time that a major channel provider and said no to the ever increasing rates that the cable companies are charged and passed along to the consumer. What upsets me is how childish the dispute became over the past week. We had Viacom running crawls that ended up on all subscribers' screens, not just Dish Network. Dish, in turn, blacked out the message. The fight turned nasty with the phrase "the channels you paid for!"

What bad is that the subscribers ended up being the pawns in the fight, and on the scale larger than the Time-Warner/ABC disagreement in May, 2000. I have to admire Charlie for actually facing the subscribers and telling them that they were not able to reach an agreement. I'm still surprised that some subscribers, when losing a channel for a few hours, were ready to switch. But I can also understand their hesitation because of the outstanding Turner issue, and if there will be a repeat.

If this was part of my favorite batch of channels, my feelings would still be the same. It's also interesting that Nick Toons will be the only the second decent channel to be added (Classic Arts Showcase being the other channel). The TV Guide Channel is a terrible and worthless channel, and I still can't believe that they added more shopping channels and the Bingo Channel. You can see what channels I would like added from my signature.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

This is a guess but it sounds to me like Charlie blinked:

*Two days after the Comedy Channel went dark on Dish Network satellite dishes, the companies agreed early Thursday to a long-term contract allowing EchoStar to offer its customers Viacom's channels at rates EchoStar CEO Ergen called fair.

"Like most negotiations, I don't think we got as good a deal as we wanted, but we got a deal that was good enough," Ergen said.*

*Source*


----------



## Bichon (Jun 5, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> This is a guess but it sounds to me like Charlie blinked:


Answer is in Charlie's news conference with the financial analysts. If you have some time, check out the audio on this link I posted earlier: http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/7/40087.html

Essentially the only thing Charlie got was removal of the historical "dbs penalty", i.e., Dish got the same pricing that cable companies the same size or smaller than Dish were able to get. On the other points, he pretty much had to concede to Viacom's demands.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Mike Richardson said:


> DUDE. If you take off the damned shopping channels, then DISH LOSES a considerable revenue stream.


Right.


Mike Richardson said:


> THE SHOPPING CHANNELS KEEP THE BILLS LOWER.


Wrong. Imagine Charlie and Company discussing the 2005 rate increase. Will they say, "Our spreadsheets show that our maximum profit on AT180, given projected churn thresholds, is with a price of $X. But we made a dollar per sub with all the shopping channels, so we'll set the price at $(X-1)."?

Alternate revenue streams do not drive consumer product prices. Cost of ingredients does not drive consumer product prices. The competitive marketplace drives prices, which companies set to maximize immediate profit or market share (aka long-term profit).

The shopping channels are great for the bottom line, but they don't directly affect our bills.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Everyone is forgetting (including me until now) that there is one source of revenue for both Dish Network AND DirecTV. There are a series of channels on both systems that allows a company to do a nationwide broadcast to all of their distributors/stores/etc. You can't see the channels, and sometimes a shopping channel is shut down during the day so that they can use it for a "closed circuit" broadcast.


----------



## DS0816 (Mar 29, 2002)

Ah, but will Dish Network bring in any of the "replacements": Oxygen or PBS Kids? Or is it more like, _the hell with _them_?_


----------



## Goodfella (Mar 8, 2004)

Chris Blount said:


> This is a guess but it sounds to me like Charlie blinked:
> 
> *Two days after the Comedy Channel went dark on Dish Network satellite dishes, the companies agreed early Thursday to a long-term contract allowing EchoStar to offer its customers Viacom's channels at rates EchoStar CEO Ergen called fair.
> 
> ...


I concur Chris and would elaborate on other reasons I feel like I *know* Charles caved but I'm too damn tired now!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

carload said:


> Imagine Charlie and Company discussing the 2005 rate increase. Will they say, "Our spreadsheets show that our maximum profit on AT180, given projected churn thresholds, is with a price of $X. But we made a dollar per sub with all the shopping channels, so we'll set the price at $(X-1)."?


He wouldn't to that math directly, but he would look at the big picture ...
1) Dish Network cost $X to run last year, including fees to programmers, customer service reps, advertising and customer incentives, the electric bill, regulation and lobbyists, shareholder dividends, and assorted other costs too numerous to mention.
2) Dish Network collected $Y for their services, including subscription payments by customers, payments from business leasing BTV channels and other distribution income, payments from the shopping networks and public interest channels, and miscelaneous income.
3) $X - $Y = hopefully a positive number. HOW positive that is reflects what needs to be done with the rates. If that number isn't positive enough they need to look at raising it. How? Perhaps by raising their rates on BTV, shopping channels, PIs and other paying for carriage customers. Or they can look to the subscribers.

Need to raise $9 million per month? Raise everyone's rates $1. Need to raise less? Pick the package with the right level of subscription ... perhaps raise AT120 and up by $1, or AT180 and up by $1, or if it will cover the need just raise AlmostEP by $1. It doesn't matter if the extra cost ($X) was caused by an addition to AT60 or AT180 or paying lobbyists. It gets paid by the group that is big enough to cover the cost.

And of course, balance out the raised prices against the pain threshold of the customer. Some subscriber levels are more accepting of a price increase, but they know (partially from experience) that raising AT120 and above by $1 will lead to some customers dropping down a level (eg: AT120 > AT60 or AT180 > AT120) or dropping the service altogether.

Plus they can caluculate in the "per subscriber" costs of channels. If they do need to raise AT120 and above they could pull a couple of channels from AT180 down to AT120 ... adding to the $X cost of the channels but still increasing the $Y income. This does tend to annoy AT180 and AlmostEP subscribers - but they still get most all of the new channels FIRST and their pain threshold is the highest.

This year it appears that they decided that AT120's and above without locals should be raised $1, but AT120's with locals should not. So AT120 and up got the $1 more but packaged locals dropped to $5. AT180's and up got an extra $1 increase, plus those with HBO as a package with AT120 or higher (including AEP) got another $1. Seeing package level subscriber counts would show just how much $Y they increased this year to cover their $X.

Next year? It is expected that AT60's will get an increase when the guarantee ends. What that increase is has not been determined. Perhaps it will be (as has been done with the new DHA plans) forced purchase of locals. $29.95 whether you get them or not! Perhaps not. AT120 seems destined for growth this year with Sirius Music coming, so forced locals or a price increase would be easy to sell. Bump in a few of the AT180 channels and most AT120's wouldn't jump to AT60 or off E*.

It is all a game really. And it is the same game played in all sales. Placing your $Y at a place to cover your $X and make a little $$ without losing customers. Any income, including shopping channels, helps take the pressure off of E* to look to their subscribers. If you want programming E* has to pay for instead of shopping channels the customer will have to cover the cost.

JL


----------



## Tornado25 (Mar 11, 2004)

carload said:


> Right.Wrong. Imagine Charlie and Company discussing the 2005 rate increase. Will they say, "Our spreadsheets show that our maximum profit on AT180, given projected churn thresholds, is with a price of $X. But we made a dollar per sub with all the shopping channels, so we'll set the price at $(X-1)."?


Now who's wrong? Don't you think they develop a program to allow them to analyze all revenue streams to arrive at the "our max profit on AT180, given projected churn, is with a price of $X'? Think about it--if they didn't have any shopping channels and had no real ancillary revenue aside from sub fees, then wouldn't "X" logically have to be higher? The revenue collected from shopping channels ALLOWS Dish to arrive at the market driven pricing that you talk about. I mean seriously, if I were the CEO and want to reach some sort of profit goal should I: a) try to extract more money from shopping channels, b) add another channel IF IF! I can do so w/o hurting bandwidth or c) keep the status quo on that revenue stream and simply reset sub fees, knowing that will increase churn to some extent? To me, the best answer is a, right? I can increase profit by Y to get to "X" in an invisible way to the sub--so while cable and other increase, I MIGHT be able to keep the same rate.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Charlie: "We wouldn't be able to survive without CBS."

...and therein lies the real story. Sounds to me that Mel had Charlie by the cajones.


----------



## Goodfella (Mar 8, 2004)

Nick said:


> Charlie: "We wouldn't be able to survive without CBS."
> 
> ...and therein lies the real story. Sounds to me that Mel had Charlie by the cajones.


Yep, not too complicated eh? ;-) I'd also submit he (Charles, the resident hero here  ) would have suffered greatly without Nick, CC, and the some of the others as well.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

cajones = big boxes

cojones = (what you meant to say)

See ya
Tony


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> cajones = big boxes
> 
> cojones = (what you meant to say)
> 
> ...


so he grabbed Charlie by the big boxes, then?? :lol: :lol:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Randy_B said:


> Facts: Dish stock NEVER dropped during this episode. Viacom's did. Winners and losers are defined by the market. Dish didn't have to accept putting the Viacom bundle in AT60 which meant paying Viacom for EVERY subscriber. Witnessed by the only new channel going in the top tier and Noggin staying there.


Short term, I don't think any of this matters. If Dish keeps the consumers and is able to continue to grow, then this was all worth it. If people leave over this (which I don't see too much of it) then he lost. The end game for Dish is keeping existing consumers and continue to add new ones. I've seen nothing to suggest that too many of the existing ones are leaving, and we'll have to wait a couple months to see if any new ones were scared off. 


> DirecTV/Viacom negotiations began before Rupe got the official blessing. Eddie was still spending GM money. Eddie has never had a problem reaching into GMs deep pockets for a deal. That is why NFL ST costs more than it brings in. Not saying bad or good, just the way it is. There is new attitude in the DirecTV front office now. Time will tell how what direction that heads in.


To be honest, that is what I'm scared of. While I didn't support the merger of Dish/DirecTV, I sure as hell never wanted the Aussie to be in charge of DirecTV. For now DirecTV seems quite, but I can only assume we'll see something similar over here within the next year or two. :shrug:


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Stosh said:


> Another troll-like statement.


Please, why is it anyone who doesn't want to have sex with Charles is a troll 


> *Obviously* they fought so they *wouldn't* have to raise rates - that was explicitly stated by Dish from the start. And why would they have to reduce channels? That is just silly.


Cost, either you raise rates or reduce service. Charles has already said he can't afford to pay for the cost of programming, so how does he keep the service? 


> And here's another secret I guess you don't know - things get more expensive over time. If you think Dish, DirecTV, VOOM, or your local cable company will always be able to keep their rates the same, you are living in a fantasy world. So tell me again what I lost by this episode?


I'm trying to not flame you, but we all know this. I have no problem paying more. My DirecTV bill is usually over $100 due to the fact I get so many sports packages. The point is not the rising costs, but the fact Charles can't negoiate without hurting the consumer.


> My question is - why do so many people who don't have Dish spend so much time in the Dish forums spreading their manure?


To make you angry. 


> Must be anger or some deep-seated phychological problem....you know the kind of person I mean, there's one in every crowd, who says the sky is gray just because everyone else sees it as blue.


Yes you just described me. That is what happens to those who owned a Dishplayer.


> The kind of people who spread joy - when they leave the room.


Like those who flame other members of this site because they feel they are better than others?


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> Charlie: "We wouldn't be able to survive without CBS."
> 
> ...and therein lies the real story. Sounds to me that Mel had Charlie by the cajones.


Very good point. Shows how important the networks still are to cable and sat companies. I guess the death of network TV is still in the future.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

TNGTony said:


> cajones = big boxes
> 
> cojones = (what you meant to say)
> 
> ...


 :thats: !rolling :rolling: :lol: :hurah:

Thanks for the correction, Tony, but in a Freudianesq retrospective, perhaps I subconsciously meant to say "cajones", as in Dish's HT-in-cajones deal. 

/Nick

(Español illiterate who knows just enough Español to get a Señorita in bed, but not enough to get her out. A simple "Adios, Señorita" seems rather curt. THAT would take some real _cojones_, don't you think?  )


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

justalurker said:


> ... 3) $X - $Y = hopefully a positive number. HOW positive that is reflects what needs to be done with the rates. If that number isn't positive enough they need to look at raising it. ... Need to raise $9 million per month? Raise everyone's rates $1. Need to raise less? Pick the package with the right level of subscription.


I'm sorry to pick on your quote, justalurker, but it's a perfect illustration of the premise that leads to the incorrect conclusion. "Given that E* wants its profits to be $X, Then increases in non-subscriber revenue result in reductions in subscriber rates." That's logical, but it's based on a faulty premise; E* wants every dollar it can get.

What I keep trying to point out that companies aren't trying to balance a budget and there's no magic profit number. E* has a duty to its shareholders to make as much profit as possible. That could be through steps that build long-term market share or through steps that maximize immediate profit.

A company doesn't even need to earn a short-term profit. E* ran deficits for years (it's just now paying them off). Look at XM and Sirius -- they probably can't set a subscriber price that would let them break even (sufficiently high rates would drive away too many subs), at least for the short term.

Companies set prices based primarily on the competitive marketplace. The more they can cut costs or find alternate revenue sources, the better their profits.

Having said all that, revenue from shopping channels can slightly, indirectly hold down subscriber rates by changing the incremental cost of a subscriber. It's definitely not a 1-to-1 relationship; it's more like the way gaining three car lengths has the potential of saving a full minute if it lets you get through a light about to turn red. It's possible that having the shopping channels may, in some years, tip the annual pricing decision in favor of a lower rate. But I maintain that saying shopping channels lower our rates is more often wrong than right.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Charlie speaks to the children 

Just saw a message from charlie on nick letting them know that their favorite shows like SpongeBob Squarpants are back on Dish Network, and thanks them for their understanding


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

carload said:


> "Given that E* wants its profits to be $X, Then increases in non-subscriber revenue result in reductions in subscriber rates." That's logical, but it's based on a faulty premise; E* wants every dollar it can get.


Rasing subscriber rates is not the best way of increasing revenue, as they can lose subscribers that way. ANY alternative income, including shopping channels, helps take the pressure off.

JL


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

[

My question is - why do so many people who don't have Dish spend so much time in the Dish forums spreading their manure? Must be anger or some deep-seated phychological problem....you know the kind of person I mean, there's one in every crowd, who says the sky is gray just because everyone else sees it as blue. The kind of people who spread joy - when they leave the room.[/QUOTE]

roflmao


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

[

/Nick

(Español illiterate who knows just enough Español to get a Señorita in bed, but not enough to get her out. A simple "Adios, Señorita" seems rather curt. THAT would take some real _cojones_, don't you think?  )[/QUOTE]

Nick you crack me up,,,,roflmao


----------



## ibooksrule (Feb 16, 2003)

who cares about nicktoons gosh we have boomerang which has no commericals and the best cartoons put there none of this stupid boring catoons that nick shows. i think spongebob squarepants and there other shows are so stupid. i mean come on you have cartoon network and boomerang and then nick shows catoons most of the day why do we need some other channel showing stupid cartoons. cartoons are not cartoons anymore they arnt for kids they are stupid.pbskids im sure has better shows then nicktoons by far. i grew up watching pbs with mr rogers and seseme street those were just good down to earth shows. mr rogers was so nice and calm he was just great. if kids watched stuff like that and cartoons like bugs bunny and scooby doo we wouldnt have so much trouble. im sorry but we should add some better channels to dish gosh there are some good christian/religious cartoons out there like vegitales that we should have on there and dish should carry the movie channels they do in the at180 that way we dont have to subscribe to the movie channels just to get them. and for those who want to swtich to Dtv go for it they have alot less channels then dish. i hear people complaing im leaving im going to directv well then go but you are going to lose some great channels and i use to worl for dtv and thier customer support is horrible. you call up and have a problem with your receiver they will tell you to call hughes or samsung or sony and then you call them they tell you its a dtv problem and you go round and round. the one and only thing directv has over dish is the combo tivo units those are awesome compared to dishes pvrs im sorry but dishs pvrs just do not compare. 
thanks


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

James_F said:


> Please, why is it anyone who doesn't want to have sex with Charles is a troll?


I know of no one (other than his wife, I hope!) that wants to have sex with Charlie. Personally, I never have ever been overly "brand loyal". I go for the best offer I feel I get at a given time, but that doesn't mean I'll stay with the same brand of car, TV, television service, or whatever, forever. I just haven't seen any compelling reason yet to leave Dish. Certainly this episode didn't hurt me in any way, in spite of your unfounded insistance that it did.



James_F said:


> The point is not the rising costs, but the fact Charles can't negoiate without hurting the consumer.


This "hurting the consumer" business is an assumption on your part, totally subjective, with no objective basis in fact. Many people here have expressed their total lack of being "hurt", but I guess you choose to ignore that. No doubt some people did feel hurt, but that is on them, and means nothing to the rest of us, and isn't a universal truth. If some people left Dish because they missed one day of reruns on CBS, well, good for them; I hope they felt it was worth the time and expense to do so. Maybe we would have been bettter off if Charlie had caved to Viacom from the beginning and instead of losing the Viacom channels for a day (oh, the inhumanity! The tragedy!), our rates would have to go up? That would be better for the consumer?



James_F said:


> Like those who flame other members of this site because they feel they are better than others?


Huh? I never said that I was "better" than anyone else, nor would I. My comments were no harsher than yours. All you did was flame Dish and the subscribers here who have expressed their feelings that we were NOT hurt by this episode, in spite of you trying to tell us that we were. Believe what you want, but don't expect the rest of us to bow to your bitter opinions.

And again, if you aren't a Dish subscriber, your negative thoughts here mean damn little. I certainly don't go into the DirecTV or VOOM forums to blast them, and I don't understand your need to do so here. We know the pros and cons of Dish better than any outsider with an attitude problem does.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

_Okay folks, it has been a long and interesting week. Last I looked, the clock said 12:56 which means the weekend for almost everyone. Time to kick back and relax and chill for a while. - *Holtz*_


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Stosh said:


> <snip>


You sure are wasting much time posting about me and ignoring the fact that Charles doesn't know how to run a large company. He gave in to Viacom as I expected and the end result was hurting the consumer because they couldn't get their local CBS.

I've never flamed a Dish consumer at all, just Charles. For some reason you feel the need to inject yourself into the conversation for no reason and I'm fine with that. Defend the man all you want, but he wasted all the consumers time here with this.

I'm glad you think you know me and think I care about DirecTV. I think they are screwing the consumer too and its only a matter of time before this crap happens over there.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

End result...high sat. bills next year. That's what happens when corporate America owns a large percentage of TV, radio and other services such as electricity, phone, etc.. You better hope in the future there is not just one sat. provider or 'buckle up' for constant rate increases!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sikma said:


> End result...high sat. bills next year.


If an extra dollar makes the difference between this year and "high". 

Actually, it could. I suspect a more creative path will be taken*, but for some $1 more will be the straw that broke the camel's back.

JL
* One more creative option would be to keep the "with locals" price the same but raise the "without" price $1.


----------



## Stosh (Dec 16, 2003)

James_F said:


> You sure are wasting much time posting


And you keep replying :lol:



James_F said:


> the fact that Charles doesn't know how to run a large company.


Well, in spite of your false impression that I "love" Charlie, I'd say anyone who has built a multi-million dollar, multi-million customer-base company in around 8 years has done pretty good! But I'm sure *you* know how he could do better! :lol:



James_F said:


> He gave in to Viacom as I expected and the end result was hurting the consumer because they couldn't get their local CBS.


Well, you must be privy to some information no one else here has, since no one knows exactly what compromises either side made in the settlement! But you obviously will continue to believe that Charlie "gave in", just as you believe that the customers were "hurt" by this in spite of so many of us *knowing* we weren't! Must be a lovely private world you live in, where you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions...


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Stosh said:


> Well, you must be privy to some information no one else here has, since no one knows exactly what compromises either side made in the settlement! But you obviously will continue to believe that Charlie "gave in", just as you believe that the customers were "hurt" by this in spite of so many of us *knowing* we weren't! Must be a lovely private world you live in, where you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions...


Well thanks for putting this into a better perspective. I actually thought you and other Dish subs might enjoy watching content rather than Charles' talking head telling you he "can't" afford Viacom. I was mistaken and I'm sorry.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> But you obviously will continue to believe that Charlie "gave in", just as you believe that the customers were "hurt" by this in spite of so many of us knowing we weren't! Must be a lovely private world you live in, where you don't let facts get in the way of your opinions...


From SkyReport, dated 15 March 2004:


> It appears Wall Street shares EchoStar's view on the resolution of the Viacom carriage dispute: You can't always get want you want.
> 
> In a note released Friday, Marc Nabi of Merrill Lynch pointed out that EchoStar wasn't able to de-couple CBS retransmission agreements from requirements to carry Viacom networks. "Management characterized the agreement as fair, but in the end made more concessions than desired," he said.
> 
> ...


So two analysts on Wall Street believe Echostar caved.

I personally think this disagreement between Echostar and Viacom was done for a completely different reason that what is stated here. The next media mega-merger that comes up in front of the FCC and FTC/DOJ may be scrutinzed even more than normal. The government entities may be interested in just what kind of power a newly-combined company may have in the marketplace. I honestly believe the Viacom/Echostar conflict surfaced because Echostar is trying to get more conditions placed on a possible Disney/Comcast merger.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> "However, we wonder if EchoStar gave in on many of its demands - just two days after DISH pulled off Viacom's programming - to avoid having two issues overhang the stock: the carriage dispute and the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigation into accounting improprieties," Eagan said. "EchoStar appeared to have gained little from pulling the Viacom channels out of their packages."


Issues overhang the stock? E* closed up both days that Viacom was off.

There will always be nay saying "experts" that claim to know it all. That is their job, to tell us what, in their esteemed wisdom, will happen. But they are just psychics without crystal balls. They might as well do their predictions with Tarot cards, or by consulting John Edwards (the guy that speaks to dead people, not the vice presidential candidate).

The channels are on, the price is paid, and all the rants in the world won't solve this argument. Perhaps it is time to watch a little TV instead of arguing over it?

JL


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2004)

I got one thing out of the channel blackouts....

In watching Charlie talking, he sure says "uhhm" A LOT!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Stosh said:


> I think it will be prorated to account for the lenght of time the channels were gone. I estimate we'll get a 10.67 cent refund.


For your 48 hours of "inconvenience" you will get....

$1 for Viacom Channels
$1 for CBS Locals if affected.
a $3.99 PPV coupon......

AND 8 years of peace with Viacom due to the long term bill so your eighth grader will be graduating college by the time you have to face this again (with Viacom at least)........

Fox is supposedly next on the list, but there is a huge difference there as Rupert agreed to mandatory binding arbitration before a shutdown would occur (the Faustian bargain he had to make to land his big fish, D*)

I haven't heard anything about Turner's channels, but since those channels (the news ones at least) are hemorraging viewers, I doubt they will risk pulling the plug. Then again Time Warner is calling the shots instead of Ted Turner so who knows.....


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Wyoming_Companion said:


> Sorry to feel a damper on the joy and celebration, but we were hostages and pawns in the Dish/Viacom negotiations.....
> 
> We were used.....most people are o.k. with that, perhaps, but I'm not.
> 
> I'm looking for a good DirecTV deal......


Hey what about BETJazz? CBS owns it. I had it on Digital cable from AT&T back in 1999. I liked it.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Obviously, Viacom isn't as interested in promoting BET on Jazz (odd name, eh?) as in promoting NickToons. My guess is that Viacom sees the toyetic revenue stream from its Nick properties as a reason to make sure everyone gets to watch Rugrats instead of Ramsey Lewis.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Jazz is never really promoted anyway. People who listen to it don't need to be told where it is while watching Survivor. :shrug:


----------

