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

Dish Retrans Dispute with Fox over 50% Hike (Closed Thread)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by RasputinAXP, Sep 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oct 2, 2010 #321 of 2032
    l8er

    l8er Icon

    624
    1
    Jun 18, 2004
    I for one, am glad that Dish Network said no to a 50% rate hike. The country is in a major recession and has been for two years. Retail businesses are closing right and left because people don't have any extra cash to spend on non-essentials.

    You've got to remember - it's only television.

    The sky won't fall because we don't have a few rarely watched channels that aren't really worth paying more for.

    Fox makes a boatload of money off of the advertising they sell on their channels. Hitting up the end user with rate hikes is just being greedy.
     
  2. Oct 2, 2010 #322 of 2032
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    I agree but also feel that part of that is due to sports lovers being with D* and not E*. Lets face it that is most of what was cut was FSN channels. I would be disappointed if D* cut my FSN (FSSW) but I would get over it. I dont sub to the other ones so no big loss to me. All I am saying is that maybe the outcry is not a loud this time because like I said sports lovers are with D* and not E*.
     
  3. Oct 2, 2010 #323 of 2032
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    From a broadcaster perspective I would think that they dont care about E* having their channels. If they over value their product then they probably feel people will go elsewhere to get the content. While that is true, part of the people would get it free off the internet and some would not leave E*.

    Its a risky game to play to find out who needs who more. All the while the customers are the ones losing out. I am glad that E* did not just role over and take it. I highly doubt FOX wants to lose the ratings or the lost revenue. There should be some sort of cap that these companies can ask for as a increase. No more then 10% increase each renewal or something. Im not sure if that figure would be fair but there could definately be some rules as far as what the channels have to meet in order to qualify for a 10% increase. Im sure the negotiations are much more complex then that but this is getting out of hand.

    One thing this reminds me of is Sprint Wireless stepping out there and going with a unlimited voice, text, and data package lower then everyone else on the market as far as top level carriers go. Its a bold move but could very well pay off in the long run. I have always liked the companies that offer more for less. Is it better to make less off of more people or more off less people? I wonder if we will see one of the television providers go with the same concept and step on there to take a chance to succeed. It would be interesting to say he least.
     
  4. Oct 2, 2010 #324 of 2032
    dakeeney

    dakeeney Legend

    177
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    I know this is old hat but like I've stated before that it would be better for Fox to get maybe a 25% hike than to lose 100% of the revenue. As of now the idiots at Fox have lost just about all the revenue from Dish, and we all wonder why the bussiness world is such a mess. Right now I believe that the Fox network name is MUD.
     
  5. Oct 2, 2010 #325 of 2032
    EW800

    EW800 AllStar

    66
    0
    Oct 1, 2010
    I'm in the camp of being pleased that DishNetwork is not just rolling over on this, however from what I understand DishNetwork is not totally a victim in this either. It sounds like most other carriers have these channels in the lower-end packages, whereas Dish requires a higher priced package. I would guess this means fewer people are watching these channels through Dish, with Dish making more money, so Fox wants a piece of that pie. Am I close?

    I would be curious about how important it is to Fox to get this resolved. I would think their advertisers would be concerned that the potential number of viewers is now less. Could the advertisers force Fox to resolve this or would there be any reason that they would not care?
     
  6. Oct 2, 2010 #326 of 2032
    Yes616

    Yes616 Legend

    181
    0
    Sep 5, 2006
    You bet. It tried to leave a comment siding with Dish and it doesn't show up.
     
  7. Oct 2, 2010 #327 of 2032
    Santi360HD

    Santi360HD Icon

    921
    0
    Oct 6, 2008
    New York City
    Lost in the mix here is Dish also yanked the MSG Network channels...as a New Yorker...getting Dish in NYC is not an option FOR ANYONE at all since they ALREADY do not carry the YES Newtork and now MSG....I am so happy i do not have DISH...I have my Directv and Time Warner available if i needed. Good luck to those affected...
     
  8. Oct 2, 2010 #328 of 2032
    dakeeney

    dakeeney Legend

    177
    0
    Aug 29, 2004
    You just about hit the nail right on the head. Advertisers are indeed worried about the total number of viewers. The less viewers the less their product is seen by the age group they're targeting. When you lose 14 million viewers then that's alot of dollars the ad agency is missing out on. I suspect some of the advertisers are urging Fox to get a grip and do whatever they have to do to get this thing settled. As a former broadcaster I know first hand that if you don't have the audience then you are not going to get the best ads, and folks that translates into lost money!
     
  9. Oct 2, 2010 #329 of 2032
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Ah, but therein lies the rub...

    FX, NatGeo and the FSN's aren't getting to 14 million subscribers. Dish Network doesn't provide any of them in their lowest programming tier, which at last last count is take by 4+ million subscribers. So technically, this dispute only affects just under 10 million subscribers, and those are the higher paying subscribers.
     
  10. Oct 2, 2010 #330 of 2032
    inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    806
    4
    Oct 3, 2006
    The impact of FSN channels is under valued here. Perhaps only 4 million subscribers buy the package that includes these channels but local MLB games and NBA games and NHL games and college football games constitute multiple viewing each week and often several viewings each day. I would also say that the passion for your local teams far outweighs the passion for missing "Sons of Anarchy". It's also a marketing fact the the age demographic of passionate sports viewers are above average spenders. Now if the lose of NFL Sunday games is thrown into the mix?????
     
  11. Oct 2, 2010 #331 of 2032
    Boston_bill

    Boston_bill Icon

    631
    0
    Jul 23, 2009
    I know some people in AZ are not pleased that they are losing Fox Sports Arizona especially with the NBA season starting soon. They say they'll switch to DirecTV to watch the Suns. I'm glad I have D*
     
  12. Oct 2, 2010 #332 of 2032
    Paul Secic

    Paul Secic Hall Of Fame

    6,226
    23
    Dec 16, 2003
    My FOX affiliate is owned by COX, but I go to bed by 8PM just to get out of my wheelchair. I hope this dispute is over cheaply for the ones who watches FOX channels. I dabble with NATGEO now & then.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2010 #333 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Yep ... they have their own announcement video with Ira Bahr ...
    www.GreedyMSG.com has the details - and there is another thread here about it.


    BTW: Channels 136 and 186 have been renamed ... that should help with the confusion over what is airing there.
     
  14. Oct 2, 2010 #334 of 2032
    ehren

    ehren Hall Of Fame

    1,179
    0
    Aug 2, 2003
    Next year Dish will just raise rates again anyways?
     
  15. Oct 2, 2010 #335 of 2032
    joshjr

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    4,807
    84
    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    At some point that is going to change. Probably later rather then sooner but people will not always be willing to pay $3 more a month year after year especially those of us that have not had a raise in 3.5 years. While I am not looking to drop anything I have with D* anytime soon, I dont want to continue to pay more and more each year or I might have to look into dropping some programming or receivers or something.

    It was hard to swallow that we (D* Subs) paid a rate increase and then lost VS for awhile. It happens. Dont think it wont be the same for E* even if this dispute dont get settled.
     
  16. Oct 2, 2010 #336 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,324
    914
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Probably ... a dollar or two on most packages seems standard. AT120 didn't see an increase this year (other than in name). It doesn't include the RSNs.

    If rates go up it certainly wouldn't do well to send that increase to one provider. The way things are going it seems all the providers want a raise.
     
  17. Oct 2, 2010 #337 of 2032
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    14,947
    296
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    As we discuss this whole retrans fee dispute, keep in mind that News Corp and Rupert Murdoch taking on Dish and Charlie is changing the scope and focus of the legal landscape.

    The well-publicized recent battle between News Corp and Time Warner Cable (along with Bright House) and the ongoing battle with Cablevision were ...well... affecting local cable service. Dish, on the other hand, puts the issue instantly at the nationwide regulatory level.

    It will be interesting to see if News Corp will pull local Fox broadcast stations. Murdoch is simultaneously arrogant and politically aware.

    His arrogance would require him to pull the stations if Charlie remains stubborn. But....

    If his political awareness kicks in, he has to understand that pulling the "affiliate" in the five largest DMA's plus Washington D.C. would cause some consternation on Capitol Hill as many of the rules were revised over the years to allow the Australian company to get that big a share of American TV (yes, I know they "reincorporated in Delaware in 2004).

    Then we had the big uproar in June 2003 over the FCC's move to increase by 10% the number of local TV affiliates a network could own - from 35% to 45%.

    Even a Republican controlled Congress had trouble with that. After first voting to keep the ownership cap at 35%, both the House and Senate raised the aggregate cap to 39% by attaching a rider to a massive funding bill. The 39% cap allowed News Corp/FOX to keep all their stations.

    (I won't even bore you with the problems of the June 2003 rule change regarding ownership in one market of TV stations/radio stations/newspapers/cable system subsequently overturned in the courts. Just keep in mind how much of American broadcast and print news media is owned by News Corp.)

    What's more interesting is what appears to be a significant coincidence (or timing error by News Corp) to the benefit of Dish Network. The Cablevision contract is set to expire on October 15th. If Fox doesn't reach an agreement with Cablevision, New York City and Philadelphia stations will be pulled along with some cable channels. If that happens, is News Corp going to also pull the New York City and Philadelphia local channels on Dish???

    The World Series on Fox is scheduled to begin October 27 with the 5th Game November 1, assuming there is one. Do News Corp execs really think they could pull local stations off of cable and Dish Network right before a Congressional election without repercussions?

    Does Murdoch think he has enough clout to ignore a potential backlash in Congress and pull his owned broadcast stations to force an increase in pricing on his regional sports cable channels?

    Up to this point, the feds have not intervened in retransmission disputes. But if billionaire Charlie and Cablevision billionaire owner Charles Dolan hang tough, billionaire Rupert might precipitate federal action.
     
  18. Oct 2, 2010 #338 of 2032
    A2736

    A2736 Cool Member

    24
    0
    Feb 10, 2006
    Are they planning to drop FSC , FSC+ and FSC Espanol. I am still getting them
     
  19. Oct 2, 2010 #339 of 2032
    TBoneit

    TBoneit Hall Of Fame

    2,294
    7
    Jul 27, 2006
    Reminds me of States bond issues. They almost always pass. I remember one that failed to pass in recent years. They seem to always get enough votes to pass since it's found money. No one seems to think they'll have to be repaid in the future.
     
  20. Oct 2, 2010 #340 of 2032
    E91

    E91 Godfather

    341
    0
    Oct 7, 2008
    Yup. Back when I had Dish, I called a few times to find out why there was so little HD coverage of my favorite team (Islanders). The real reason was that DISH does not have access to MSG HD and, thus, does not have the right to broadcast any of the games carried by MSG in HD.

    The Center Ice package gives you the access to games that the provider already owns the rights to WITHIN market. You're simply buying access out of market.

    This was the only real reason I dropped DISH. I loved the product overall, but was sick of watching games in SD on my glorious Samsung LCD.

    I hate to say it but if I was Charlie I'd probably tell Fox to screw themselves - at least with regard to the sports channels. Dish doesn't compete well with D* when it comes to sports - so why bother? IMO, Dish generally beats D* with regard to overall pricing and many prefer their DVRs and receivers. So, why not just specialize - focus on those potential viewers who aren't all that interested in sports coverage?

    I personally don't watch any sports regularly except the NHL and maybe college football. So, if I wasn't fired up about getting CI this season, I'd probably prefer DISH over D*.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page