# HBO and Cinemax Removed



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"HBO has removed their channels" ...

DISH Promise | MyDISH | DISH Customer Support (not updated as of this posting)

DISH Customers will not be charged for HBO/Cinemax during the time without the channels.
See the video on the HBO channels (except 300 and 310 which are airing HD Net Movies).


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Why in the World would Dish have a dispute with HBO? This is a premium channel. Dish would just up the price if needed and let the customers decide if they want it. This is going to tick off a lot of customers. The satellite & cable services are already losing customers left and right. This is totally nuts.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Hollywood Reporter: HBO Goes Dark on Dish Network Amid Carriage Dispute

I wonder how much of this is related to the churn numbers stating that "it's too expensive", or having folks drop services and premiums after the last rate hike. Even though I'm with DirecTV, I'm one of those who is ready to dump DirecTV for multiple reason including the fact that only my mom watches the service. My schedule prohibits it. I'm ready to replace DirecTV with.... nothing.


----------



## GoLongAndChopChop881 (Dec 20, 2017)

James Long said:


> *126 changes seen 11/1/18 at 4:06am ET (v17)*
> 
> *New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels NOT Available*
> 304 INFO HBO 2 West added to 72.7° TP 25 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 119° TP 12 Ch 304 - DRM - VOD Link
> ...


As for a blackout crisis, HBO is no longer available on DISH.

*HBO Goes Dark For First Time In Its History Due to Standoff with Dish*


----------



## Legman (Aug 1, 2015)

Waiting for AT&T to start advertising that HBO is available on DIRECTV since they own them too.


----------



## GoLongAndChopChop881 (Dec 20, 2017)

_In a statement to THR, Dish hit back, blaming the blackout on AT&T, HBO's new parent company, claiming that the media giant was using its power to exert "influence over competing pay-TV providers and consumers."_

Remember when DISH teamed up with AT&T in 2006, they're serving AT&T Homezone receivers. But with AT&T|DirecTV in the mid-2010s, it's getting a lot more miserable.

On channel 309, HBO Latino was replaced by a simulcast of DPLCL (Ch 270/827) during the blackout of Univision.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

winter is not coming till 2019 so they can wait


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Reading in a few places, it seems the main sticking point is that ATT wants to be paid for a some number of subscriptions regardless whether or not there are actually that many that subscribe. This action on ATT's part might make for nice fodder in the appeal of the merger going on now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mwdxer said:


> Dish would just up the price if needed and let the customers decide if they want it.


And what if the "price needed" was $25 per service ($50 for both) and DIRECTV's contract still allowed them to charge $10-$15 each? If the price was a pass through with identical markup regardless of carrier HBO raising their price would raise their price on all services. DISH still needs a fair deal to rebroadcast the channels.


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

For me, since I don't subscribe to HBO, is no sad loss.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Chihuahua said:


> For me, since I don't subscribe to HBO, is no sad loss.


That's the problem we look at our own situation only. What if HBO is just the first of many services that a content owner who also has a Cable, online or Satellite service does this with? In fact early on that was a concern that once online took off programming could be in effect denied by negotiating tactics to other services to make you use their online service. That was not realistically possible overall before online services program content was dependent to be seen on Cable, Satellite etc. It is getting towards that may not be the case.


----------



## pogo (Oct 31, 2007)

Sigh. It's always about money. HBO wants more and says that Dish is the bad guy. Dish doesn't want to pay more and says that HBO is the bad guy. Been there, done that. WRT ATT ownership of HBO, and - oh by the way - Dish's main competitor -- that's a non starter. It's about the money. When they come to an agreement about the money, HBO will be back. BTW current subscription cost on Dish was $3 a month less than on D*. Get it? -- M-O-N-E-Y.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

There is an alternative as HBO does stream, via Amazon Prime or HBO Now for $14.99 a month on several devices like the Roku, Fire stick, etc. Through Amazon Prime Showtime is just $8.99 a month. Is HBO really worth that much more? Cinemax is $9.99. Many of the movies HBO runs are available elsewhere for less too.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Could it be that AT&T did this to try to hurt a competitor to its Direct TV. Oh no, they wouldn't do that. And pigs can fly.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

First HBO Blackout Ever; Harms Competition and Consumers; AT&T Unfairly Targets Rural Americans on DISH | Dish

ENGLEWOOD, Colo., Nov. 1, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- DISH and Sling TV announced today that AT&T has made the unprecedented move to pull HBO and Cinemax content from DISH and Sling TV subscribers, after making untenable demands designed specifically to harm customers, particularly those in rural areas, as well as damage competing pay-tv providers.

Despite an opposing antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), AT&T acquired Time Warner, including HBO and Cinemax, earlier this year. There were no guidelines set in place to ensure that AT&T "played fair" for HBO and Cinemax subscribers, regardless of their pay-TV provider.

"Plain and simple, the merger created for AT&T immense power over consumers," said Andy LeCuyer, DISH senior vice president of Programming. "It seems AT&T is implementing a new strategy to shut off its recently acquired content from other distributors. This may be the first of many HBO blackouts for consumers across the country. AT&T no longer has incentive to come to an agreement on behalf of consumer choice; instead, it's been given the power to grab more money or steal away customers."

. . .

AT&T is demanding DISH pay for a guaranteed number of subscribers, regardless of how many consumers actually want to subscribe to HBO.

. . .

DISH and eligible Sling TV customers will be credited on their bill for time they do not receive HBO or Cinemax. DISH is also offering customers a free preview of HDNET Movies which showcases the best in box office hits and award-winning films, uncut and commercial free.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

I dont have dish, but this burns me up.....all we do is keep letting these monster companies gobble up every one in there way, at the same time being told how it will save us consumers money!
BS, same thing different day and company.....
So dish subscribers will now pay more for HBO!


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

*I wonder if this is a ploy to force a merger between DirecTV (which AT&T owns) and Dish Network---to be conducted on AT&T's terms.*


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> It seems AT&T is implementing a new strategy to shut off its recently acquired content from other distributors.


This was evidenced on October 26th where it was announced that the niche film streaming service FilmStruck was suddenly shutting down on November 29th catching even partner Criterion off-guard. Add in the October 16th announcement that Korean streaming service DramaFever was shutting down immediately. Plus, the fact that physical media (DVD, CD, BluRay) is being phased out in favor of streaming media.... which can be yanked at any time.

You can sense my frustration about all this carrier disputes by my signature: "In an effort to increase your cable and satellite bills beyond the point of affordability and to further pad the pockets of our executives..." Add in the fact that the amount of compelling content to watch, from my viewpoint, has gone down to practically zero on the pay television services. If it weren't for my mother, I would have cancelled DirecTV years ago and stuck with whatever was available on Amazon Prime. Money talks, and mine wants to say.... goodbye.


----------



## tenpins (Jan 19, 2010)

No, *it'll never happen*. The FCC denied this earlier as Dish was wanting to buy DIRECTV. In some places (Rural America) you're removing a competitor from the market place, i.e. 2 providers to 1.



Chihuahua said:


> *I wonder if this is a ploy to force a merger between DirecTV (which AT&T owns) and Dish Network---to be conducted on AT&T's terms.*


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

James Long said:


> And what if the "price needed" was $25 per service ($50 for both) and DIRECTV's contract still allowed them to charge $10-$15 each? If the price was a pass through with identical markup regardless of carrier HBO raising their price would raise their price on all services. DISH still needs a fair deal to rebroadcast the channels.


Thanks for clarifying. When I first wrote that, I had no idea the reason. This is totally nuts, how AT&T can just charge any amount for a certain number of subscribers, Dish doesn't even have? That cannot be legal. You are right, that sure isn't fair. If people want to get HBO and have streaming, they can get it for the $15 a month.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

AZ. said:


> I dont have dish, but this burns me up.....all we do is keep letting these monster companies gobble up every one in there way, at the same time being told how it will save us consumers money!
> BS, same thing different day and company.....
> So dish subscribers will now pay more for HBO!


I'm a partial cord-cutter and this is one complaint I hear about satellite and cable. If a person can cut the cord, they can then subscribe to the channels they want and deal directly with the programmer.


----------



## GoLongAndChopChop881 (Dec 20, 2017)

Speaking of Rural America, what's the smallest DMA market?


----------



## Al Hobby (Nov 2, 2018)

I think this is a desperate attempt by AT&T to stop customers from leaving DirecTV for Dish. I was planning on doing that in the next couple of weeks. DirecTV is having serious issues with their DVRs after a so called software update that was rolled out mid-summer. A lot of folks including myself hate the new DVR interface even on the rare occasions when it does work right. DirecTV is now telling people that the fix will start rolling out in late December and should be complete a couple of months after that. A lot of folks are tired of waiting. 

I live in an area without high speed internet so the steaming HBO is not an option.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

GoLongAndChopChop881 said:


> Speaking of Rural America, what's the smallest DMA market?


Per this report: Glendive, Montana which has 4,030 television homes, or about 0.004% of all television households.

I ran an analysis of the Neilson markets about a year or so ago and still have the spreadsheet. This is what I saw:

The top two markets, New York City and Los Angeles, cover 11.18% of television homes.
The top five markets, (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas/Fort Worth) cover 19.133% of the television homes.
The top eight markets covers 25.599% of the television homes.
The top ten markets covers 29.816% of the television homes.
The top sixteen markets covers 39.318% of the television homes.
The magic "top twenty markets" cover 44.575% of the television homes.
The top 25 markets cover 49.687% of the television homes.
Markets 26-65 cover the next 25%
Markets 116 to 210 (Glendive, Montana) cover the bottom 10% of television homes.
Markets 145 to 210 cover the bottom 5% of television homes.
Markets 186 to 210 cover the bottom 1% of television homes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Chihuahua said:


> I wonder if this is a ploy to force a merger between DirecTV (which AT&T owns) and Dish Network---to be conducted on AT&T's terms.


AT&T doesn't want to own DISH and doesn't need to own DISH. They would not mind if DISH (and the rest of their competition) would shrivel up and die. But (in my opinion) they will never buy DISH.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> And what if the "price needed" was $25 per service ($50 for both) and DIRECTV's contract still allowed them to charge $10-$15 each? If the price was a pass through with identical markup regardless of carrier HBO raising their price would raise their price on all services. DISH still needs a fair deal to rebroadcast the channels.





mwdxer said:


> Thanks for clarifying. When I first wrote that, I had no idea the reason. This is totally nuts, how AT&T can just charge any amount for a certain number of subscribers, Dish doesn't even have? That cannot be legal. You are right, that sure isn't fair. If people want to get HBO and have streaming, they can get it for the $15 a month.


I wrote that as an example of a bad deal. The press release revealed that the price was not the issue, paying for subscribers who do not want HBO is the issue.

I do not know how many people subscribe to HBO/Cinemax via DISH but HBO is certainly making it easier to cut DISH (and the other providers) out of the equation. A "pay for one million subscribers or don't carry our channels" demand is bad but could be acceptable if their are a couple million HBO/Cinemax via DISH subscribers. Such a demand would be unacceptable if there were 800k or 500k HBO/Cinemax via DISH subscribers. (These numbers are for illustration only.)


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

James Long said:


> I wrote that as an example of a bad deal. The press release revealed that the price was not the issue, paying for subscribers who do not want HBO is the issue.
> 
> I do not know how many people subscribe to HBO/Cinemax via DISH but HBO is certainly making it easier to cut DISH (and the other providers) out of the equation. A "pay for one million subscribers or don't carry our channels" demand is bad but could be acceptable if their are a couple million HBO/Cinemax via DISH subscribers. Such a demand would be unacceptable if there were 800k or 500k HBO/Cinemax via DISH subscribers. (These numbers are for illustration only.)


But....Is that legal?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Probably legal. I don't believe the negotiators would ask for such things without checking with the lawyers. It does make sense to ask for a minimum number of subscribers.


----------



## David p (Nov 3, 2018)

At this point I believe that HBO is honestly not to be blamed.... as a former Dish Employee of 7 years I can say I have seen this coming big time... however i did not expect HBO will be the one to show them the importance of equal power ... it has come time to let dish know they are not as important as they make them selfs believe to be.... other broadcasters should take a page from HBO playbook as well... personal experiance I support HBO on this ... although they are not blameless either.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Ridiculous!! It's not HBO, it's AT&T.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

David p said:


> At this point I believe that HBO is honestly not to be blamed.... as a former Dish Employee of 7 years I can say I have seen this coming big time... however i did not expect HBO will be the one to show them the importance of equal power ... it has come time to let dish know they are not as important as they make them selfs believe to be.... other broadcasters should take a page from HBO playbook as well... personal experiance I support HBO on this ... although they are not blameless either.


disgruntled employee is my guess!


----------



## GoLongAndChopChop881 (Dec 20, 2017)

patmurphey said:


> Ridiculous!! It's not HBO, it's *AT&T!!!!*


Let's take an example of Cricket Wireless, a prepaid service if for Rural America, sorry Verizon. When it came in 2014, you might say it was the happiest place in the wireless world and it has more of AT&T's 4G LTE coverage than T-Mobile or Sprint, but T-Mobile expanded their 600 Mhz band coverage in rural areas. How about Consumer Celluar, it still uses AT&T and T-Mobile's network, expanding to rural areas.

Yet we need DISH to watch HBO, but with low viewership in rural areas.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

OK, aren't we all use to these rediculous money grabs by now?

I didn't sign up with Dish years ago for HBO. Personally I think cinemax is a better choice, but that's me. 
That being said, I can live out the rest of my life without HBO. Or Cinemax, for that matter.

What is really getting old is being held hostage for a price increase.

AT&T isn't playing nice, and as a former direct sub 9 years ago they [AT&T] are still sending me all kinds of discounts, including a $300.00 visa to come back. [ and I was only with them 2&1/2 years before I left]

I can honestly say over the years Dish customer service was above and beyond whatever Direct offered. Too bad dish cut the "at the end of your call leave a comment" thing. I think it put the employees on their toes.

I put a lot of importance in CS. 
However, price, like everyone else, is the main thing.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Whatever, HBO is now not getting any of my money. When they come to an agreement with Dish they'll get some of my money again. In the mean time I'm not in danger of running out of things to watch.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I don't directly blame HBO for it. AT&T is the owner and call the shots unfortunately. That is what you get having to deal with mega companies that own everything in sight. Used to be we have many smaller companies.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

mwdxer said:


> I don't directly blame HBO for it. AT&T is the owner and call the shots unfortunately. That is what you get having to deal with mega companies that own everything in sight. Used to be we have many smaller companies.


Like "Ma Bell" back in the day? Oh wait, it was actually named AT&T back then too!


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Here's another twist in the story. I had assumed AT&T pulled the plug on HBO on Dish after reading the original stories. Now AT&T says they didn't cutoff the channels and had intended to let Dish customers keep HBO while the issues were negotiated. They say Dish shutdown the channels on their own. Maybe a good start would be for everyone to take a lie detector test.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

When a contract expires there is usually one of two claims made. One is that the carrier offered to continue to carry the channels without a contract and the channels refused and the other is that the channels offered to be carried without a contract and the carrier refused. The truth is that even "carriage without a contract" requires a contract. The channel's content is covered under copyright laws - DISH must have HBO/Cinemax's permission to rebroadcast the channels. Verbal or a handshake agreement isn't enough to protect the parties from misunderstanding whether or not permission is in place. While it doesn't have to be a full multi-year agreement, a contract extension is still a contract.

When a temporary extension is offered there must be terms. Are the channels extended under the old contract and the renewal prices take effect when a final contract is signed or will the new contract be retroactive? DISH would not want to make a commitment to pay more during the extension than they are paying now. HBO wants the new terms as soon as possible. "Intending to allow the channels to be carried during negotiations" isn't a written agreement that will protect both parties.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

James Long said:


> When a contract expires there is usually one of two claims made. One is that the carrier offered to continue to carry the channels without a contract and the channels refused and the other is that the channels offered to be carried without a contract and the carrier refused. The truth is that even "carriage without a contract" requires a contract. The channel's content is covered under copyright laws - DISH must have HBO/Cinemax's permission to rebroadcast the channels. Verbal or a handshake agreement isn't enough to protect the parties from misunderstanding whether or not permission is in place. While it doesn't have to be a full multi-year agreement, a contract extension is still a contract.
> 
> When a temporary extension is offered there must be terms. Are the channels extended under the old contract and the renewal prices take effect when a final contract is signed or will the new contract be retroactive? DISH would not want to make a commitment to pay more during the extension than they are paying now. HBO wants the new terms as soon as possible. "Intending to allow the channels to be carried during negotiations" isn't a written agreement that will protect both parties.


This is one of the most concise, common sense post that I've seen in a long time. It really put it into perspective for me. Thanks.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

James Long said:


> When a contract expires there is usually one of two claims made. One is that the carrier offered to continue to carry the channels without a contract and the channels refused and the other is that the channels offered to be carried without a contract and the carrier refused. The truth is that even "carriage without a contract" requires a contract. The channel's content is covered under copyright laws - DISH must have HBO/Cinemax's permission to rebroadcast the channels. Verbal or a handshake agreement isn't enough to protect the parties from misunderstanding whether or not permission is in place. While it doesn't have to be a full multi-year agreement, a contract extension is still a contract.
> 
> Do you think Dish will get HBO/Cinemax back?
> 
> When a temporary extension is offered there must be terms. Are the channels extended under the old contract and the renewal prices take effect when a final contract is signed or will the new contract be retroactive? DISH would not want to make a commitment to pay more during the extension than they are paying now. HBO wants the new terms as soon as possible. "Intending to allow the channels to be carried during negotiations" isn't a written agreement that will protect both parties.


----------



## SDWC (Dec 14, 2005)

Interesting article, the author appears to imply that this dispute is an early sign that the DISH long-term model may become obsolete.

5 Big-Picture Issues Behind the AT&T, Dish Network and HBO/Cinemax Feud


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

SDWC said:


> Interesting article, the author appears to imply that this dispute is an early sign that the DISH long-term model may become obsolete.
> 
> 5 Big-Picture Issues Behind the AT&T, Dish Network and HBO/Cinemax Feud


The way we watch TV and listen to music has changed. Even Dish & Direct know this with their online streaming. How long will it be that having satellite service will not be feasible? The cost of putting up the satellites and maintaining them is very expensive. In another 5-10 years, is there going to be enough revenue to support them both? With the future, if Dish loses more premium movie channels, where does that leave them? Used to be that if Dish lost HBO, we were stuck, unless we wanted to switch providers. Now many of us, can just stream the service with ease. A few key strokes and we have it. As time goes on, more rural areas will be getting some kind of faster internet service too. We can bypass Dish, Direct, or Cable. There are a ton of apps you can sub to getting a cable/satellite service via the Roku or Fire TV now. Spectrum plans to sell their cable pack via streaming in the near future. Over a million have already cut the cord. The hand writing is on the wall.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

satcrazy said:


> OK, aren't we all use to these rediculous money grabs by now?
> 
> I didn't sign up with Dish years ago for HBO. Personally I think cinemax is a better choice, but that's me.
> That being said, I can live out the rest of my life without HBO. Or Cinemax, for that matter.
> ...


I got Dish in 1999 and installed it myself, bought the equipment as I wanted access to LA/NY Nets and the Super Stations. This was before we had locals. I still like Dish and I will stay with them. But living in rural Oregon we do not have access to many diginets, with Dish adding many of them has really been a plus. HBO is not the reason I have Dish. I do have high speed, so I can stream HBO here off the Roku/Fire TV though.


----------



## david91722 (Oct 10, 2010)

Dish has officially dropped HBO/Cinemax from the channel line-up. Are they gone for good?


----------



## Willh (Jan 1, 2009)

david91722 said:


> Dish has officially dropped HBO/Cinemax from the channel line-up. Are they gone for good?


possibly since AT&T won't play nice with Dish, but i expect HBO/Cinemax to play a huge part in a future dispute between Dish & AT&T/Warner Media over the Turner Networks or AT&T Sportsnet.

Sent from my RCT6873W42M using Tapatalk


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

I suspect they are gone for a long time but ultimately this dispute will go through the courts where AT&T will lose. Meanwhile I want my HBO/Cinemax but where can I go? If AT&T can take it away from Dish they can take it away from Comcast and every other provider in the future. And I won't switch to Direct TV.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

Can you stream? I picked up HBO via a stream after the loss on Dish. It works.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

mwdxer said:


> Can you stream? I picked up HBO via a stream after the loss on Dish. It works.


I ended up subscribing via Charter streaming TV for less than I was paying Dish for HBO/Cinemax. I still have Dish for the rest. What most folks don't know is that AT&T offered to keep the channels on at the current rate when they started the negotiation. Dish wants folks to think that _they_ (AT&T) pulled the channels to cause customers to call them and demand it back. Charlie needs to catch up with the times. I've had Dish for nearly 3 years. I am overall happy with it. But not happy with things like BBC News not being offered in my near top tier package. The one that is carried is only in SD, as is alot of channels.

Dish needs to work harder to keep customers. This isn't helping customers, only hurting them in the long run.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

xmguy said:


> What most folks don't know is that AT&T offered to keep the channels on at the current rate when they started the negotiation.


Thank you for identifying HBO as AT&T ... it is part of the problem, but tell the full story.
While AT&T apparently was not looking for a price increase what they were looking for was (as stated): "AT&T is demanding DISH pay for a guaranteed number of subscribers, regardless of how many consumers actually want to subscribe to HBO."

That minimum subscriber level forces DISH to pay for people who do not want the content. HBO is a premium channel package, no customer should be forced to pay for the content.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

xmguy said:


> I've had Dish for nearly 3 years. I am overall happy with it. But not happy with things like BBC News not being offered in my near top tier package. The one that is carried is only in SD, as is alot of channels.
> 
> Dish needs to work harder to keep customers. This isn't helping customers, only hurting them in the long run.


Totally agree. I contacted Dish in regard to BBC World, which I am paying $10 extra a month just to get the channel. No cheaper way to get it, even streaming. I asked them if they could add it to AT250, but they claimed it has something to do with their contract. Which I cannot understand. I would figure why keep it in a news add on under flex? Few people can view the channel. I had to get a card and then add the News Pack for the $10. Every other channel in that pack is in AT250. If it was added to AT 250, then many could watch it. Add to that both Charter (Spectrum) has BBC World as well as Direct in their main packages.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

xmguy said:


> I ended up subscribing via Charter streaming TV for less than I was paying Dish for HBO/Cinemax. I still have Dish for the rest.


_How did that work? I have Spectrum for internet and phone. When I went to check out their streaming packages, I got directed to their regular cable packages, not streaming. If I understand you correctly, you got HBO/Cinemax less than you were paying with Dish? Could you just sub to those alone?_


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

BillJ said:


> I suspect they are gone for a long time but ultimately this dispute will go through the courts where AT&T will lose. Meanwhile I want my HBO/Cinemax but where can I go? If AT&T can take it away from Dish they can take it away from Comcast and every other provider in the future. And I won't switch to Direct TV.


Why would you think this will go to the courts? It won't. Dish may try but then they'd lose...


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Why would you think this will go to the courts? It won't. Dish may try but then they'd lose...


Unfortunately AT&T can sell their programming services the way they want to. I doubt Dish will do anything. But AT&T (HBO) did lose quite a few subs from Dish. However, if HBO sells their streaming service for the same amount as they do through Dish, then if a sub gets the service directly from HBO, they get to keep the whole $15. I have no idea how much profit Dish made on HBO, but whatever is was, HBO can sell it directly. It costs less to stream too. No Satellite transponder time to pay for...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mwdxer said:


> Unfortunately AT&T can sell their programming services the way they want to. I doubt Dish will do anything. But AT&T (HBO) did lose quite a few subs from Dish. However, if HBO sells their streaming service for the same amount as they do through Dish, then if a sub gets the service directly from HBO, they get to keep the whole $15. I have no idea how much profit Dish made on HBO, but whatever is was, HBO can sell it directly. It costs less to stream too. No Satellite transponder time to pay for...


They still had to have all the same,infrastructure, and streaming costs them a ton of money too, no one pays for servers and bandwidth for the Ir stuff for them.

The entire thing sounds fishy to me. If it was any other provider I'd believe them more, it dish spins thing to such an extreme I often doubt what they proclaim is really the entire truth. (Not that I side with att, but dish is the worst at this imho) And if HBO said keep it up while negotiating then I definitely think dish is in the wrong. Plus, If dish wanted real leverage they should have waited till a week before game of thrones premieres.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> They still had to have all the same,infrastructure, and streaming costs them a ton of money too, no one pays for servers and bandwidth for the Ir stuff for them.
> 
> The entire thing sounds fishy to me. If it was any other provider I'd believe them more, it dish spins thing to such an extreme I often doubt what they proclaim is really the entire truth. (Not that I side with att, but dish is the worst at this imho) And if HBO said keep it up while negotiating then I definitely think dish is in the wrong. Plus, If dish wanted real leverage they should have waited till a week before game of thrones premieres.


But why would Dish purposely lose a big service like HBO? It is not like Univision. There must be something to the story. But if AT&T said keep it up while we negotiate things, it is odd Dish took it down . But why have such demands, if the sub can just go directly to the website and get it? I was told that Tegna did not remove their channels from Dish, Dish still had them, but could not run them without a contract. I'll bet, it is never the case, the programmer removes the service, but Dish does. But it sounds better to always blame the programmer. But in the case of Tegna, I do believe them as I know people there, at least in Portland.

I know it costs a lot of money, but I would think satellite transponder fees would be even worse.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

From a purely technical standpoint, of course it's Dish that "removes the service". With no contract in place, they cannot legally supply the service to their subscribers, so the fault lies with whom or what is holding up the contract agreement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Exactly. No contract, no carriage. I don't know why people expect DISH (or DIRECTV) to carry channels when there is no contract.

DISH and AT&T/HBO could negotiate a short extension ... But it would need to be on terms both would accept. The terms as presented by AT&T are not accepible to DISH.

(Just like the terms Pac-12 offered to DIRECTV. Accepting a bad deal is not good.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Most services will happily continue to carry channels while negotiating under the same old terms. DIRECTV carried HBO for what was it two years without a contract in the past?

Dish did the same thing with tnt and they saved tons of money for a while since they didn’t just discount every customer how much money they where no longer paying tnt for. To me that was disingenuous to their customers. 

Maybe they are doing it now to save the money for any customers they gave heavy discounts to for HBO, I can’t say obviously. But dish is always more adversarial with programmers than pretty much any other provider. They are the only ones who consistently seem to not take up anyone on keeping channels up on the current contract month to month while negotiating. So yeah there is a difference. 

And offering to keep the same contract in place while negotiating means there would be a contract in place. 

How often does dish use HBO for new customers for free and things of that nature?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

How many of those programmers are still offering month to month extensions since they've found how effective it is to hold the subscribers for ransom? Why don't they accept when Dish offers a "make good" extension?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> And offering to keep the same contract in place while negotiating means there would be a contract in place.


You are assuming AT&T made that offer (extending same terms). I don't believe that for one minute.

Higher prices are causing subscribers to cut back on programming. Read the DIRECTV forums and you will see that even your beloved provider has customers cutting back. DISH's profit margins are not as high as DIRECTV's were back in the days before AT&T (now DIRECTV's profits are buried in a division with other services). Nearly every paid channel wants more money ... especially those channels losing subscribers. HBO's compromise is to keep the rate they are charging DISH the same but the catch is that HBO wants a minimum number of subscribers. Meanwhile HBO is undercutting the distribution deal by selling service directly to DISH customers via streaming. HBO has changed from being a partner with DISH to being a competitor to DISH. Asking DISH to pay HBO for the subscribers they are luring away is adding insult to injury.

Extensions are typically short and rare. DIRECTV did NOT carry HBO without a contract. Perhaps the contract was short term such as month to month but there MUST be an agreement in place for carriage to occur.


----------



## tivofan2018 (Oct 19, 2018)

i asked dish last night if they would get hbo and cinemax back and the rep just said they didn't know if they would ever get those channels back!!! though if att wants dish to pay for a certain subs and people are not subscribing to it then yes i think that's BS to. why should dish have to pay if people are not subscribing to programming


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

tivofan2018 said:


> i asked dish last night if they would get hbo and cinemax back and the rep just said they didn't know if they would ever get those channels back!!! though if att wants dish to pay for a certain subs and people are not subscribing to it then yes i think that's BS to. why should dish have to pay if people are not subscribing to programming


Any programmer can demand anything they want as they own or control the content. AT&T now owns Direct TV. Don't think Direct TV would like to hurt Dish, so Direct would get more subs? Big business is cut throat. I did not go to Direct TV when Dish lost the channel. I subbed to the streaming service direct from HBO.


----------



## altidude (Jan 13, 2010)

mwdxer said:


> I did not go to Direct TV when Dish lost the channel. I subbed to the streaming service direct from HBO.


Same here. I've subscribed to HBO Now until Dish gets HBO back in the lineup.


----------



## mwdxer (Oct 30, 2013)

I guess we will find out when we get it back..... The streaming service works find for me. I have HBO on Demand on the Roku and the channels are on Demand plus Live on the Fire Stick. So that works for me. There is nosavings in buying HBO through Dish directly, the same cost $15.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH is now promoting HBO Now on channel 301 and on their website:
HBO Now Alternative Viewing | MyDISH | DISH Customer Support


----------

