EchoStar reaches tentative agreement to continue carrying Turner channels

[lee120]

EchoStar reaches tentative agreement to continue carrying Turner channels

SANDY SHORE

Associated Press


DENVER - EchoStar Communications Corp. said Thursday it has reached a tentative deal with Turner Broadcasting, sparing Dish satellite customers the possibility of losing CNN, TBS and other channels.

"We have an agreement in principle and we're still working out the details," EchoStar spokesman Steve Caulk said. He declined additional comment.

The announcement ended months of negotiations between the two companies over programming fees that Turner Broadcasting pays to EchoStar, and came a little more than a month after EchoStar and Viacom Inc. settled a similar conflict.

A spokeswoman for Atlanta-based Turner did not return a telephone message seeking comment. Turner Broadcasting is part of Time Warner Inc.

EchoStar's contract with Turner Broadcasting System Inc. expired on Dec. 31. The companies agreed to an extension that kept Turner programming on the Dish network, but EchoStar warned this month that it could drop the programming if the dispute were not resolved.

EchoStar has 9 million subscribers nationwide.

On March 9, EchoStar pulled the plug on Viacom Inc. programming in a dispute over fees, leaving Dish viewers nationwide without MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, BET, Nickelodeon and other Viacom channels. About 2 million Dish subscribers also lost programming from CBS, which is owned by Viacom.

The two sides quickly reached a deal, restoring Viacom programming to the satellite network two days later.

ON THE NET

http://www.dishnetwork.com

http://www.turner.com

Source (http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0329_BC_EchoStar-Turner&&news&newsflash-financial)

[bcw]

"The announcement ended months of negotiations between the two companies over programming fees that Turner Broadcasting pays to EchoStar"

???

[Jacob S]

That is very questionable, sounds like someone got it backwards. I bet Turner did not want the same thing happening to them that happened to Viacom. I think Dish wanted to set an example to the other program providers so that they would be less likely to have issues with them.

[MattS]

I know alot of people that hate Viacom since the "issue" with them and Dish. Alot of people are saying that Viacom is a monopoly. Which in some ways it is. But that is up for discussion.

Turner probably didnt want this same kind of "feelings" to come back on them, if they couldnt reach an agreement.

[homeskillet]

You mean I will have to watch more Braves games huh?

[amit5roy5]

That is good this thing has been resolved.

[have satv will travel]

I know alot of people that hate Viacom since the "issue" with them and Dish. Alot of people are saying that Viacom is a monopoly. Which in some ways it is. But that is up for discussion.

Turner probably didnt want this same kind of "feelings" to come back on them, if they couldnt reach an agreement.


Turner and Viacom Suck !

[anon]

Turner and Viacom Suck !

Turner, Viacom, Disney, NBC, Universal, Fox all suck. Echostar would be better off without all of their duplicative commercial & repeat-ridden channels. They wouldnt be missed. A small # of customers would churn but it significance would be a drop in the bucket. They would still have a strong loyalty from their home shopping porn international DVR commercial zapping customer base, substantial that E can profiteer from.

[juan ellitinez]

Turner, Viacom, Disney, NBC, Universal, Fox all suck. Echostar would be better off without all of their duplicative commercial & repeat-ridden channels. They wouldnt be missed. A small # of customers would churn but it significance would be a drop in the bucket. They would still have a strong loyalty from their home shopping porn international DVR commercial zapping customer base, substantial that E can profiteer from. thanx charlie
:D :hurah: :lol:

[Brownside]

Turner, Viacom, Disney, NBC, Universal, Fox all suck. Echostar would be better off without all of their duplicative commercial & repeat-ridden channels. They wouldnt be missed. A small # of customers would churn but it significance would be a drop in the bucket. They would still have a strong loyalty from their home shopping porn international DVR commercial zapping customer base, substantial that E can profiteer from.

LOL! You must be on crack...:lol:

[MattS]

The channels that Viacom own have a target audience from 5-12 and 18-35. That there alone is about 1/3, if not more of E* current customer base.

[Nick]

The channels that Viacom own have a target audience from 5-12 and 18-35. That there alone is about 1/3, if not more of E* current customer base.What about that there 13-17 demographic? :rolleyes:

[busboy789]

What about that there 13-17 demographic? :rolleyes:
The 18-35 are the ones that pay the monthly programming fees in order to keep the 5-12 year olds happy. Parents realize that the 13-17 group cannot be made happy with whatever is done :D

[catman]

I think what is gonna have to be done is the FCC step in and tell the networks " NO " . The networks feel they can raise at wimm . If they go bankrupt to bad . They don't care about the average joe .

[Geronimo]

I don't see the Government having jurisdiction to do something like that. Bit what do I know.

[RichW]

The two places where the gubbamint might have jurisdiction is in the exclusive bundling of services.

First, making retransmission rights of OTA stations contingent upon a cable or sat company carrying non-OTA may be an unfair use of a federal broadcast license as judged by the FCC. No one has yet brought that issue up as an FCC complaint.

Secondly, bundling several "cable" channels without offering an ala carte option may be viewed as an unfair business practice by the DOJ or FTC. Again, neither side has pursued that, nor probably do they want gubbamint intervention. But the principle of law here is the same as the Microsoft DOJ suit.

[Steveox]

Yeah spike Tv RULES!! when WWE RAW is on!!!Only if dishnet airs TNA on PPV now.I just cant get enough wrestling!!!

[Chris Blount]

Well, it's official:

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=dish&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=521785

[garypen]

It looks like CNN was indeed part of these negotiations.

[James Long]

It looks like CNN was indeed part of these negotiations.
Yeah, so much of it was couched in contrary rumors it was just an annoyance. At least the deal was struck and the channels didn't blink out.

JL

[Geronimo]

The two places where the gubbamint might have jurisdiction is in the exclusive bundling of services.

First, making retransmission rights of OTA stations contingent upon a cable or sat company carrying non-OTA may be an unfair use of a federal broadcast license as judged by the FCC. No one has yet brought that issue up as an FCC complaint.

Secondly, bundling several "cable" channels without offering an ala carte option may be viewed as an unfair business practice by the DOJ or FTC. Again, neither side has pursued that, nor probably do they want gubbamint intervention. But the principle of law here is the same as the Microsoft DOJ suit.


But that has nothing to do with the post I responded to.

[garypen]

If anybody in this forum is familiar with government intervention, it would be Geronimo. I'm sure he'd say that there is nothing they won't intervene in, if it benefits them or their corporate sponsors.

[RichW]

But that has nothing to do with the post I responded to.

How do you know for sure? I have not read anything concernig what the disagreements were about, but it is very likely that costs of bundled channels and in which tier they must be placed were part of the controversy. It always is when it comes to multi-channels producers.

Forcing a cable or sat company to buy an all-or-nothing bundle of channels could be considered an unfair business practice if it got pushed before the FCc into the courts. Since teh negoptiations and settlements are private and were done without public intervention, we will probably never know the issues of disagreement.

[Baywoof]

I heard an interesting advertisement on the Radio today (I live in the Houston area). The ad claimed that CNN, TCM, a cartoon channel (can't remember which one) was being removed from the Dish Network and to call either your cable company or DirectTV to get these channels. Even though that the Turner negotiations have been settled, the advertisement must have either been already scheduled by an advertiser having the expectation that Dish would turn off Turner programming this weekend or some unscrupulous advertising.

[garypen]

In my area, Comcast continuously airs deceptive commercials claiming bogus problems with satellite reception or "slow" DSL service.

[Geronimo]

This was thje post I responded to:

I think what is gonna have to be done is the FCC step in and tell the networks " NO " . The networks feel they can raise at wimm . If they go bankrupt to bad . They don't care about the average joe .

I said I saw no government jusrisdiction.

Then came

"The two places where the gubbamint might have jurisdiction is in the exclusive bundling of services."

But since the original post was about networks raising prices on a whim and never mentioned bundling services I just don't see how it applies. That's all.


As for my views on Govt. intervention I am no Roger. But I will concede that the Government has been known to deal less than forthrightly with the aboriginal people of North America. I presume that Garypen was alluding to that situation. But THAT has nothing to do with satellite TV.

I hope everyone has a great week.