1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DIRECTV HD Channel Anticipation (Official Q3 2010 Thread)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Stuart Sweet, Jun 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,304
    33
    Aug 17, 2006
    I think with D* now getting the releases before Nflix due to the wait, along with Nflix's long waits for everything and the death of B&M, the 1080p VOD is hot for many. The PQ is good, and you can have it right then, as soon as the movie is out.

    I was close to going that route, because Ive tired of Nflix, but a Redbox right by me now offers Blu-rays at $1.65, so no reason to pay D* $5.99.
     
  2. dhkinil

    dhkinil Icon

    662
    2
    Dec 17, 2006
    with all due respect to Sat Racer's posts, under the 2 to tango theory, I find it hard to believe that all contracts do not have a favored licensee clause. Any contract I have negotiated (and I have done quite a few, require that a second licensee gets the same terms or at least equivalent terms (and no, they are not the same) and if not, the first licensee gets to the better deal as well. So, if as an example, TWC pays channel "x" 20¢ per viewer, then D* has a choice, do I pay 20¢ as well and if not and channel "x" makes a better deal with D*, it has to let TWC know and offer it to them. Put another way, the first deal requires a lot of tangoing, but subsequent ones do not. It pretty much comes down to "does the second party want to pay as much as the first and if not, does the channel want to accept a lower rate for existing deals?"
     
  3. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Just because its public (yet) doesn't mean it won't happen.

    Different channels are in different stages of agreement negotiations all the time.

    The good news is we are less than 5 weeks away from knowing just what the next "batch of HD channels" will include.
     
  4. slimoli

    slimoli Hall Of Fame

    1,979
    0
    Jan 27, 2005
    Do you know if "August" means beginning,middle or end of the month ?
     
  5. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Yes, it does. :D:lol:

    Oh...you mean do I know exactly what time in August? ;)

    No. I looked back, and saw that there may be a pattern to the day of the week they do these launches of new HD channels, but not certain times of a month necessarily.
     
  6. dhkinil

    dhkinil Icon

    662
    2
    Dec 17, 2006
    I assume a typo in your first point, but you missed mine, any time an existing contract with a potential for multiple licensees (which a contract between a channel and a distributor would be) has a "favored licensee" clause, I believe that is the correct term, but a lawyer could correct me on phraseology here, negotiations are real simple. I would find it hard to believe a channel and initial carrier would not insist on such a clause. It covers both parties when there is no established market in a non exclusive license situation. And there is no existing market when channel "x" signs its first HD deal with a cable or sat company.
     
  7. Tulsacoker

    Tulsacoker AllStar

    91
    0
    Jun 1, 2010
    plus the agreement could be signed but it will not take effect for many months. I read where Charter Cable have just signed an agreement with Comedy Central HD but the channel will not active until the end of the year.
     
  8. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    All true.

    When the sign those agreements, there are often provisions for potential future offerings.
     
  9. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,288
    912
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Believe it or not, but not all contracts have a "most favored nation" clause. DISH ran into this problem with the contracts for ABC Family, ESPNews, Disney and Disney XD. They assumed that because there was such a clause in another ABC/Disney contract that the clause applied to all contracts. It didn't. (I note a DISH example because the DISH contract has been exposed by the parties through the court system. Normally we don't see the details of contracts, but when the parties go to court one can learn a lot through their claims, counter claims and the court's rulings. It serves to illustrate that not all contracts have the "most favored" clause.)

    Contracts only contain a clause if the clause is in the contract.

    As I said, believe it or not contracts do not all contain that clause.

    For many of the anticipated channels we're talking about in this thread wouldn't the "initial carrier" be someone else. People are complaining that some other carrier has these channels and DirecTV doesn't. Perhaps the other carriers have such a clause and the channels do not want to lose the income from the carriers already carrying their channel by giving DirecTV a better deal. DirecTV either has to accept the deal others have accepted or the provider has to cut their price to the existing carriers with that clause (if it exists).
     
  10. Tulsacoker

    Tulsacoker AllStar

    91
    0
    Jun 1, 2010
    But remember the agreement is with Rainbow Media and I could venture to guess that the deal to add AMC HD would also include a package deal with the other channels in the agreement (i.e. IFC HD, WeTV HD, Sundance, Wedding channel). Say D* does not want to pay to add all 4 of those channels in HD but want two? Right there could be a sticking point. Also I'm sure now with VOD that's another whole issue to deal with.
     
  11. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    WOW....I had to read that statement twice and then sit back on a pillow and take it all in..... :D:lol:
     
  12. judson_west

    judson_west Godfather

    257
    0
    Jun 15, 2006
    DirecTV will have new HD channels when it has new HD channels.
     
  13. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    :eek2:
    :lol:

    So then....how much wood could a Woodchuck chuck? :D
     
  14. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    As much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
     
  15. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,288
    912
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Don't forget a classic from three days ago (225 posts up):
     
  16. georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    Yes, as I've suggested previously that is one back-door way to create a semi-exclusive for a new channel without calling it that --willfully overpay for it and demand a MFN clause, particularly if your number of subscribers is higher than what you'd expect the subsequent carriers to be. The content provider literally won't be able to afford to give anyone else a break.
     
  17. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    I feel so enlightened. :D
     
  18. wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,476
    49
    Aug 16, 2006
    QVC, baby! ;)
     
  19. dhkinil

    dhkinil Icon

    662
    2
    Dec 17, 2006
    yes, but I would bet that D* has a more than ample subscriber base such that it would be better for the channel to accept the lower price and then lower the price for the other provider, plus the channel would also get higher ad rates, the only exception would be D* wanting to pay way less and that seems unlikely, paying way more than the market usually demands is less common these days.
     
  20. Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    Contracts.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page