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

Fox / Newscorp channels possibly suspended Nov. 1/Now resolved

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Pepe Sylvia, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. Oct 23, 2011 #361 of 1258
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I certainly don't disagree with any of that, other than the "nobody ever said" part. There are certainly several here attempting to portray DirecTV as some sort of hero in this. DirecTV's motivation for resisting the increase is exactly the same as Newscrops for seeking it, yet we're supposed to perceive this as a struggle between "good" vs. "evil".

    Obviously, the best thing that can happen for subscribers is that DirecTV negotiates the lowest carriage rate possible. That may help keep the next annual increase lower than if they had not.

    But, just to pose a different question: Let's assume that DirecTV is successful in that, what does Newscorp do then? Do they bite the bullet and continue providing everything that they do currently, or do they make changes to account for the loss in revenue?
     
  2. Oct 23, 2011 #362 of 1258
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    None..they would still be under contract, so even if they switch again, DirecTv will get the coinage from them :)
     
  3. Oct 23, 2011 #363 of 1258
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    There's no "good" side in this dispute.
     
  4. Oct 23, 2011 #364 of 1258
    irlspotter

    irlspotter New Member

    132
    1
    Dec 14, 2006
    I thought the FCC passed a law that keeps the channels operational during a carriage dispute. How can D* hold its customers hostage by turning off the channels while negotiations continue.
     
  5. Oct 23, 2011 #365 of 1258
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    That's what I thought, too. DirecTV better have a FCC ruling come November 1st.
    http://www.thewrap.com/media/column...indie-channels-during-carriage-disputes-29655
     
  6. Oct 23, 2011 #366 of 1258
    Santi360HD

    Santi360HD Icon

    921
    0
    Oct 6, 2008
    New York City

    as did I with a threat of a YES Network pull this past April, which didnt happen..I am very happy I still have the HD non DVR box from Time Warner in my other room. But wont be happy at all if there is a pull.

    I also rustled some feathers so to speak when I posed a question this past April. In that the same way Sixto can spot channels in test, can one really tell who is telling the truth, by finding out crunch time who pulls the plug will it be D* or Fox?. I got some convoluted answers that swayed more to uphold someone's honor in answering and really didnt get a concrete answer, just that negotiations are in progress and no one had to be proven to be a liar..Felt like a very politically correct answer, thus which many of you guys here are smart enough to know any PC answer doesnt really answer anything..

    ok techies, I'll ask again..I respect many of the opinions and takes from all you guys, yes even the fanboys...here goes

    IS THERE ANY WAY? to tell who actually does a channel pull?

    so can it be proven If D just shuts off the signal claiming Fox is unreasonable..which by D* SHUTTING OFF PROVES them TO BE LIARS..

    or

    If Fox themself stops sending the signal...


    and for fear of too much truth...would any of those in the know even allow this forum let alone this site to really know!!! who REALLY shuts off a signal. Would the technological fact of this truth be too much to handle?
     
  7. Oct 23, 2011 #367 of 1258
    RML81

    RML81 Legend

    111
    0
    Jul 3, 2011
    I don't know if anybody else has said this yet, so I'll go ahead and throw it out there. I read in the WSJ that Directv's agreement to carry the Fox broadcasting network expires on December 31 and the agreement for Fox News Channel ends on January 31, 2012. So we could be doing this all again very soon?
     
  8. Oct 23, 2011 #368 of 1258
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I don't see any "evil" side either. It's just business, the law of supply and demand.
     
  9. Oct 23, 2011 #369 of 1258
    RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    No. There is no way on the consumer end to see who pulls the plug.

    If Directv pulls the plug they will replace the content with a placeholder slide. The transponder assignments will remain.

    If Fox pulls the plug, Directv will put up a slide in place of a blank feed. Transponder assignemnts will remain.

    Only those at the uplink centers will know who cut the feed.
     
  10. Oct 23, 2011 #370 of 1258
    RobertE

    RobertE New Member

    8,024
    0
    Jun 9, 2006
    Could have fooled me. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Oct 23, 2011 #371 of 1258
    Stuart Sweet

    Stuart Sweet The Shadow Knows!

    37,060
    287
    Jun 18, 2006
    Ladies and gentlemen...

    Your moderators sincerely regret having to say this, but there have been far too many political posts in this thread. This is not the appropriate place to voice your opinion on Fox News or any other news or politically-oriented channel. This thread is about the contact dispute between DIRECTV and Fox/News Corp.

    I have instructed the staff that starting immediately, thread bans and infractions will be issued without warning to anyone who continues to bring politics into this thread.

    Any questions, please PM me.
     
  12. Oct 23, 2011 #372 of 1258
    Santi360HD

    Santi360HD Icon

    921
    0
    Oct 6, 2008
    New York City

    So there is a way to tell..very nice!! Thats what I've been wallowing in ignorance since April when i questioned the YES Network proposed pull to those on that forum... Thank you Rob..

    and just how sworn to secrecy are these keymasters of this info, if & when crunch time comes????

    I mean as paying customers Im pretty sure I speak for alot of folks in that for you interrupting a service IM PAYING $$ for (yes im aware of the fine print) i'd really like to know ...just who is really doing what for me in my best interests (so they think)..
     
  13. Oct 23, 2011 #373 of 1258
    kenmoo

    kenmoo Legend

    206
    0
    Oct 3, 2006
    Thank you Stuart.

    I just read the whole 15 pages of this thread. Lot's of various theories and opinions on the actual topic mixed in with all the political and complaining comments. I never get the numbers correct but doesn't ESPN charge 3-4 times what the other sports content providers charge? My opinion is that Fox and Comcast have decided to challenge this price structure in the Sports sector.

    Sports content subscriber fees are a goldmine. In the SF Bay Area Comcast has been taking over on regional sports content. Just last week Fox Sports was the winning bidder on soccer World Cup content. Look at the bidding war for the future Olympics. To me this whole subject goes back to when and how ESPN negotiated the huge fees they get today. That event set the future negotiations for everyone else.

    It would seem logical that if Comcast and Fox win bids on future sports programing they have probably outbid ESPN for the events. Look at the money involved in these new event contracts. Of course they have to raise their sub fees to pay for the new content.

    Our problem as consumers is that we don't have access to the real numbers to make a judgement call on what increases are fair. 40% seems very unreasonable to me but I don't know the facts. If Comcast and Fox Sports continue to win bids for future sporting events that ESPN currently has, does anyone expect that ESPN will lower its rates because they have lowered their content cost by losing the bids? I think not.
     
  14. Oct 23, 2011 #374 of 1258
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Explain who's acting "evily". Company A believes their product is worth a certain amount, Company B disagrees and is not willing to pay it. Neither is willing to move at the moment, nothing "evil" about that.
     
  15. Oct 23, 2011 #375 of 1258
    Santi360HD

    Santi360HD Icon

    921
    0
    Oct 6, 2008
    New York City
  16. Oct 23, 2011 #376 of 1258
    lwilli201

    lwilli201 Hall Of Fame

    3,189
    28
    Dec 22, 2006
    Missouri
    Technically I do not think it is possible for FOX to physically cut the feed to Directv. Since the feeds are on a satellite that feeds Dish and all the MSO's it would be Directv that would terminate the retransmission to D subs. The circumstances for the turn off is another thing.
     
  17. Oct 23, 2011 #377 of 1258
    eileen22

    eileen22 Godfather

    427
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    Philadelphia...
    I am watching ST, channel 710 right now (a Fox broadcast), and when time ran out in the first half, there was a penalty on the last play. The announcers were just about to talk about the penalty when the screen changed to an ad starting with ATTENTION DIRECTV CUSTOMERS, and then a 35 second ad ran saying that DirecTV will stop carrying certain Fox channels. It stated many of the programming and channels that will be affected, and ended with a screen showing a website keepmynets.com and a phone number, suggesting to call to find another provider, and also showing the Dish Network logo. They cut away from the ad before the entire number was read by the announcer, and then it was back to the game in progress, with the ball about to be snapped. It looked like someone flipped the switch to commercial prematurely. Then when the half actually did end, the ad ran again.
     
  18. Oct 23, 2011 #378 of 1258
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    I don't think my local teams will be able to be watched without my local rsn, even if I where to up for the sports pack. If that would work, I'd do it, but I don't think it will.
     
  19. Oct 23, 2011 #379 of 1258
    je4755

    je4755 Godfather

    406
    4
    Dec 11, 2006
    Although, if DirecTV wants to reinforce the impression its resistance to Fox is grounded in a desire to protect subscribers, not merely the bottom line, it might prove useful to announce publicly a reduced price for the Sports Pack (and perhaps CI, should there be lessened availability of HD broadcasts) while the dispute lasts.

    Less appealing alternatives would be instructing CSRs to offer rebates when responding to individual complaints or, indeed, forsaking reimbursement altogether.
     
  20. Oct 23, 2011 #380 of 1258
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,536
    1,087
    Nov 13, 2006
    Don't know the rules, it's possible the NHL owns the ci packages and requires all providers to make their games available to the customers regardless of contracts for the actual channels to the providers. Would probably mean you'd only be lacked out of your teams local broadcast, but still get all the others. Maybe. I think that's how MLB works.
     

Share This Page