Disney does not like Dish.. really!

[rasheed]

Time Warner is up for negotiations with Disney for retransmission on owned OTA channels (such as ABC LA affiliate) as well as cable channels (ESPN family). Disney have started pushing the airways (web ads and radio) about a month before the agreements expire.

The website is at: http://ihavechoices.com/

In general, Disney wants subscribers of Time Warner to know they can switch to other content distributors. While not surprising at all, the website does not indicate Dish as an option in any way. With the lawsuits, drop of HD channels, etc., this was expected, but may not bode well if other carriers pick up customers rather than Dish. I also find it silly that they indicate OTA as an option when ESPN is not an OTA option at all.

It may not be long either before the site is used for Time Warner and Dish customers perhaps.

The Time Warner/Disney agreement is up on 9/2/2010 in this scenario. Because of ESPN really, we know that Disney can hold any cable carrier hostage and do (as the most expensive non-premium cable station in the universes). This is the only way ESPN (or any other cable-based channel) can easily outbid any OTA carrier for major sporting events, packages, etc. I once had an option for a non-basic, non-ESPN package from Comcast (called Basic Plus), but those are far and few these days as any normal base package requires ESPN. ESPN is a good channel, but seems to be the main cause of the distributors pushing back.

Rasheed

[phrelin]

Many of us are cheering Time Warner's push back as well as Dish's efforts. Some aren't so happy. See the discussion HD carriage dispute w/ ABC/ESPN/Disney (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2530207#post2530207).

[altidude]

I'm cheering TW and I almost hate to admit that!

Disney is suffering from revenue loss due to the overall economy and they're simply trying to make it up another way. I don't know if there's a good guy or bad guy here, but I sure don't support what Disney is doing and think that ad, and the web site, is a load of BS.

[tedb3rd]

I like Dish's general attitude about not 'instantly' submitting to price increases by providers. I would rather have some times where I didn't have channels for a little while as opposed to price increases every 6 months (if not more often). True true--they have gone up, but compared to cable, this is STILL a much better dang deal--at least for me.

It would be nice if this were a first step towards al-carte' options like Sirius/XM and from what I understand about DBS in other (non-USA) countries. I know it would be complicated/difficult to 'go back' to an al-carte' but if you think about it, there's a lot of business/stuff out there now due to economy that, 5 years ago would have made you say, "NO WAY!" if somebody had told you then.

Make the Disney (and even other kid channels) an al-carte' add on. You got kids?--get it. No kids, don't get it and don't have to pay for it. When that works, they can do the same with ESPN networks. There are lots of people who watch it, but there's a lot out there who could care less but still paying for it.

"But people would jump ship and go to Direct." ...but if Direct did the same hardball with networks then it ultimately becomes a win-win-win between Dish, Direct, and DBS customers... Disney is being A-hole about it because they know Dish could potentially lose lots of customers to Direct if they (dish) don't eventually pony up and pay the higher prices.

If it were an option, I would have AT120 + Nat.Geo channels + DiY... Even if the cost came up to about the same I'm paying for AT250 right now. At least I could say to myself that I'm not paying for channels I don't watch.

Based on other posts/topics, it seems that's what is a vital "must have" channel for one person is usesless to another... But I've never seen anybody post a comment where they said they watch EVERY channel in the package they have...

[Stewart Vernon]

If it were an option, I would have AT120 + Nat.Geo channels + DiY... Even if the cost came up to about the same I'm paying for AT250 right now. At least I could say to myself that I'm not paying for channels I don't watch.

This statement makes no sense.

I fully understand people wanting options to pick the channels they want... but arguing that you'd be willing to pay the same price for less makes no rational sense.

IF you'd truly be willing to pay more for less, then there's no basis to complain about price increases... because a price increase is almost by definition paying more for less (technically more for the same)...

Reality and people choosing is really why we ended up with the channel packages we have today anyway. Yes companies like Disney force-feed some channels along with others as a package deal... but customers too spoke years ago in the early days of cable and satellite by opting for package pricing that was the same or less than the sum total of just a few channels.

People increasingly over time chose to pay for a tier of channels even if they didn't want all of them, because it cost the same or less than what they wanted.

Kind of like what you do with almost every other purchase. If the value meal at Mcdonald's costs the same or less than your burger + fries would then you take the meal and get a drink that you wouldn't otherwise have bought because you are getting something for free. You don't immediately turn around, then, and complain that you paid for a drink that you didn't want... because in truth you made the choice to buy the package deal that included a drink you didn't want because it gave you more for your money.

This is how the channel package tiers really evolved... and yet people seem to have forgotten this over time.

[Tortolita]

But, you have to consider that if a larger portion of my payment went to the channels I like, then maybe those channels would improve, have fewer commercials, etc. I know some channels with a smaller viewer base may disappear or become very expensive, but that's what happens in a free market.

[James Long]

But, you have to consider that if a larger portion of my payment went to the channels I like, then maybe those channels would improve, have fewer commercials, etc. I know some channels with a smaller viewer base may disappear or become very expensive, but that's what happens in a free market.Improve? Maybe. Have fewer commercials? Let me answer that after I stop laughing.

Prohibition (banning alcohol nationwide) didn't work because people already had legal alcohol and were accustomed to having it. It didn't matter how bad it was for them, it was something they had and it is hard to give up something you're addicted to.

Cable networks with commercials face the same problem. They have become accustomed to the income. Commercials have hurt their viewership as people seek out commercial free (or less commercial) ways of viewing the content but networks really don't want to give up the income. They want the best of both worlds ... being paid for carriage as well as being paid by commercials. Getting one to give up commercials would be about as hard as sobering up a drunk. Possible - but you have to break the addiction.

You won't see networks entering "commercial rehab". :)

[Stewart Vernon]

You won't see networks entering "commercial rehab". :)

Exactly... and as further proof on top of what you just said... we've seen more than one thread in recent years complaining about the commercial-free channels running ads for the first time, or putting banners up during a movie, or talking over the end-credits.

So if anything, the pay channels with a higher revenue stream from their customers are considering adding ads to their situations... rather than the other way around.

So no guarantee that more money for the channel automatically equates to improvement.

[Michael P]

I also find it silly that they indicate OTA as an option when ESPN is not an OTA option at all.While it's true ESPN is not OTA (unless you include the radio network by the same name) this negotiation is for more than just the sports networks. Since the negotiations also include the ABC O&O stations it's not silly at all for Disney to mention OTA. Fortunately most DMA do not include an ABC O&O, however the largest do and ironically Toledo too. Toledo got an ABC O&O just-in-case CBS bought their affiliate in Detroit (Scripps' WXYZ). Disney/ABC had O&O's positioned as rim shots to the Detroit market (I guess they also had a Flint/Saginaw/Bay City station lined up too. Either they sold it or there are no Time Warner systems in Flint et.al.).

[James Long]

For clarification, Time Warner's problems with the mouse include OTA channels.
DISH's problem is just the four pulled HD feeds. Nothing else is threatened.

[rasheed]

Hello,

While I agree with everything said, Dish does carry ESPN channels and ABC O&Os. My point was that Disney is not suggesting that Dish is even an option to TW customers (while they suggest DirecTV). This was my thread POV I wanted to indicated. Disney does not even consider Dish a good partner. We know why, but it would seem to be Disney's way of saying -- "We're happy to not direct customers your way from other content distributors who may want to switch."

Rasheed

[Tortolita]

Cable networks with commercials face the same problem. They have become accustomed to the income. Commercials have hurt their viewership as people seek out commercial free (or less commercial) ways of viewing the content but networks really don't want to give up the income. They want the best of both worlds ... being paid for carriage as well as being paid by commercials. Getting one to give up commercials would be about as hard as sobering up a drunk. Possible - but you have to break the addiction.


They may have to in order to survive. I can get all the movies I want from NetFilx and many TV shows from Hulu for a lot less money than Dish or Cable. They may not be commercial free, but usually just have one commercial at the beginning. I already have an Internet connection and a computer capable of decoding encrypted data streams. Why pay Dish or Comcast for redundant hardware/software? I'm not saying this will happen over night, but it wasn't too long ago that ABC, CBS, and NBC were sitting fat and happy thinking they were untouchable.
I'm just saying that stranger things have happened.

[GrumpyBear]

They may have to in order to survive. I can get all the movies I want from NetFilx and many TV shows from Hulu for a lot less money than Dish or Cable. They may not be commercial free, but usually just have one commercial at the beginning. I already have an Internet connection and a computer capable of decoding encrypted data streams. Why pay Dish or Comcast for redundant hardware/software? I'm not saying this will happen over night, but it wasn't too long ago that ABC, CBS, and NBC were sitting fat and happy thinking they were untouchable.
I'm just saying that stranger things have happened.
The biggest problem with that idea, Cable companies are leading the way already in deciding how much Data you can download. They will give you all the bandwidth they can give you, but they don't want you to download/stream to much data. Hulu, Netflix( I LOVE my Netflix) and other Streaming Video Companies, compete directly with the Highspeed Internet providers, as those same providers are also selling a pay for TV system as well.

Cable and Telco's will fight Hulu, Netflix and others, by forcing you to either pay extra for more download data rates, or will shut you off, once you hit a threshold.

[djlong]

Cable and Telco's will fight Hulu, Netflix and others, by forcing you to either pay extra for more download data rates, or will shut you off, once you hit a threshold.

And that's the reason they are lobbying Congress (usually GOP members) to halt net neutrality.

Actually, the telcos might not be so much against it - our local one here (FairPoint, which used to be Verizon before they sold ME/NH/VT) doesn't have a 'cable' presence so, for them, Hulu is another reason that a customer might want FAST (formerly Fios) fiber service.