DirecTV files complaint reguarding INHD and INHD 2

[chad73]

DIRECTV Cries Foul on HDTV Fees
The satcaster says a cable consortium is overcharging it to carry two high-def channels.
Special to TVPredictions.com


Washington, D.C.. (June 29, 2005) -- DIRECTV is accusing a cable consortium of setting an illegal pricing structure for two High-Definition TV channels.

The satcaster filed a complaint today with the Federal Communications Commission. Federal laws prohibit cable companies from making exclusive agreements with their affiliates.

But DIRECTV says the consortium, which includes Comcast, Time Warner and Cox, is charging it more for high-def channels, INHD and INHD 2, than it charges cable operators. The satcaster says the action is negatively affecting its business.

DIRECTV currently does not carry the two HDTV channels, which are on many cable systems.

In Demand, which produces the two channels for the cable consortium, charges cable and satellite operators a different fee based on their number of digital subscribers. Because all DIRECTV subscribers receive their signals digitally, the satcaster says it is being unfairly charged. (Many cable subscribers have yet to sign up for "digital cable.")

Consequently, the complaint says, In Demand wants to charge DIRECTV $3 per subscriber compared to just 67 cents per Comcast subscriber. (Approximately 40 percent of Comcast subscribers are "digital" subscribers.)

“By structuring its pricing in this way, In Demand would charge DIRECTV four-and-a-half times the price it charges Comcast, and at least three times what it charges Time Warner for their INHD subscribers,” DIRECTV says in its complaint.

"We have had numerous discussions with (DIRECTV) about carriage of our high-definition networks INHD and INHD2, and we believe that the allegations in the company's complaint are completely without merit," In Demand said in a statement

[jdspencer]

Hmmm. Just another reason I won't go back to TWC in my area. I could see a slightly larger fee, but 450%, no way.

[lazaruspup]

Hmmm. Just another reason I won't go back to TWC in my area. I could see a slightly larger fee, but 450%, no way.

And that statement has what to do with the fact that On Demand charges too high of a price for DirecTV to have INHD..? This is a battle between On Demand and D*, not each cable co. and D*. You can't turn EVERYTHING into a negative light towards cable.

[Newshawk]

And that statement has what to do with the fact that On Demand charges too high of a price for DirecTV to have INHD..? This is a battle between On Demand and D*, not each cable co. and D*. You can't turn EVERYTHING into a negative light towards cable.

(Newshawk shakes his head... :nono2: )

Didn't you read the press release? Let me quote the relavant passage:

But DIRECTV says the consortium, which includes Comcast, Time Warner and Cox, is charging it more for high-def channels, INHD and INHD 2, than it charges cable operators. The satcaster says the action is negatively affecting its business.

Oh, and let me give you a definition:

con·sor·ti·um:

1. An association or a combination, as of businesses, financial institutions, or investors, for the purpose of engaging in a joint venture.

From www.dictionary.com

InDemand IS cable, specifically the big three cable companies. They are using a pricing structure that is at the very least unethical, if not downright illegal. Just about everywhere (at least where the government is not involved in pricing) you pay less as the volume purchased increases. With the INHD pricing aimed at D* (and E*), the satellite companies pay substantially more for a greater volume of subscribers. It would be just like Coca Cola charging you 50 cents for one can of soda, $6 for a six pack and $24 for a 12 pack.

Actually, as a survivor of John Rigas & Co. for 10 years, I have to counter that you CAN "turn EVERYTHING into a negative light towars cable." :mad:

[jdspencer]

More discussion going on here. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=554504

[lazaruspup]

(Newshawk shakes his head... :nono2: )

Didn't you read the press release? Let me quote the relavant passage:



Oh, and let me give you a definition:



InDemand IS cable, specifically the big three cable companies. They are using a pricing structure that is at the very least unethical, if not downright illegal. Just about everywhere (at least where the government is not involved in pricing) you pay less as the volume purchased increases. With the INHD pricing aimed at D* (and E*), the satellite companies pay substantially more for a greater volume of subscribers. It would be just like Coca Cola charging you 50 cents for one can of soda, $6 for a six pack and $24 for a 12 pack.

Actually, as a survivor of John Rigas & Co. for 10 years, I have to counter that you CAN "turn EVERYTHING into a negative light towars cable." :mad:

Yes, and by consortium it IS a separate entity. I looked into the financials before I replied. One cannot blame a bad birthday party on every little kid at the party, when no one knows who pooped in the pool. :nono2:

[n8dagr8]

My question is why is D* wasting time with this? Are they really going to add INHD1&2? They aren't much different from HDNet/Movies. My folks have cable so I have seen them. I wouldn't mind if D* dropped HDNet et al and got INHD but I don't see the need for both. I mean, ****, they have the right to broadcast ESPN2-HD and they aren't!

[harsh]

My question is why is D* wasting time with this?Could it be that they just can't stand having been trumped by E* on the Voom stuff?

More is better, isn't it?

With the explosion of DVR users, it is obviously more necessary than ever to run a movie two or three times per day just in case your timers didn't fire.

[jdspencer]

I'm not holding my breath, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if DirecTV came through with a big blockbuster announcement about HD. :)