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

No Stanley Cup on Dish

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by mowingnut1, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Firstly... who said Dish had to negotiate anything? Dish has had the NFL Network since last summer, so they may not have had to renegotiate.

    Secondly, please don't mistake mutual desire to renegotiate with one-sided forced negotiations.

    IF (and say IF) Dish renegotiated with NFL Network, then it was their choice to do so.

    But I applaud the decision not to be taken advantage of by OLN.

    I continue to be amazed at the people who want to say Dish is evil for raising rates but also evil for not paying whatever a channel wants. You can't have it both ways people.
     
  2. JohnL

    JohnL Icon

    701
    0
    Apr 1, 2002
    HDme,

    There are reports that OLN could be back on Dish by Saturday, we will see.

    There are a several reports from "Users" that have FTA receivers that an information screen on Dish Channel 151 that states OLN will be back on Dish by Saturday April 22nd, this screen and channel is uplinked but NOT available to current subs.

    I really hope that does happen as I will be missing alot of Playoff hockey that is exclusive to OLN and not Available on my Center Ice package.

    John
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I've seen some of the posts as well, regarding the possible return of OLN.

    If it comes back, then good for the folks who want to watch hockey... assuming NHL comes with the OLN return to Dish. I hope, that as in the LifeTime case, Dish ultimately won the standoff.

    I expect OLN has been hurting from the lack of viewership after shelling out for the NHL exclusive rights... and then being dropped from Dish probably had to lower their ad rates for commercials.
     
  4. TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    5,345
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I posted this on the Channel Chart:

    OLN NEWS!!! Reported by Anyon that there is a slate on channel 151 that states: ""Get ready to spend a little more time indoors... Outdoor Life Network is coming back to DISH Network channel 151! Look to enjoy this year's NHL Playoffs on OLN starting this Saturday the 22nd!"
    Interestingly enough, this channel is no longer FTA to MPEG 2 (Non-Dish Network receivers) as of about 11 PM

    See ya
    Tony
     
  5. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    From Multichannel.com, bold type where my emphasis is added:
    So Dish Network renegotiated a contract with a channel because the NFL games weren't included in the pricing of the current channel.
    Huh?

    NHL lands deal with OLN, OLN then asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NHL games will not be available. It is your belief that this is "one-sided forced negotiations".

    NFL places their late season Thursday/Saturday package on NFL Network, then NFL Network asks for rate increases from their customers, or else the NFL games will not be available. This is also "one-sided forced negotiations".

    Dish Network chooses not to agree to OLN's demands, but says yes to NFL Network.
    But instead be taken advantage of by the NFL Network?
    You can't pat the company on the back for holding the line on a channel that wants to receive a rate increase against their current contract, and then see the company sign a contract with another content distributor that increases the rates while in the middle of a current contract.

    And now it appears that Dish Network has signed with OLN, while in the middle of their current contract.
     
  6. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    The biggest problem here is that you're comparing NFL games to NHL games! :lol: Talk about comparing apples to oranges!
     
  7. JohnL

    JohnL Icon

    701
    0
    Apr 1, 2002
    The other point was that OLN didn't just want a Rate increase but they also wanted their channel to be placed into a lower tier as well, which in essence is a DOUBLE price increase since Dish would have to pay the price increase as well as retransmission fees for thousands more subscribers as well.

    NFL Network just wanted more money.

    John
     
  8. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    OLN wanted the lower tier but we do not know if they wanted more money per sub (although being on a lower tier means more revenue with the sae rate per sub).
     
  9. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Try this:
    tsmacro writes:
    I am not talking content, but everyone else is. Funny how everyone appreciates standing up to OLN for their drastic pricing increases, when the NFL...
    ...receives anywhere from a 100 percent to 275 percent rate hike.
     
  10. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    Well obviously we're talking about what makes business sense here. OLN wants more money for Hockey and Dish says no and the response from subscribers was somewhat underwhelming to say the least, so Dish wasn't risking much by "standing up" to Comcast. On the other hand when talking about the NFL network getting live football games we're in a completely different league here in many more ways than one! So yeah the NFL network gets it's increase because it represents something many more times popular than what OLN has to offer. It just makes financial sense in this case for Dish to quickly negotiate a deal rather than "fight" over this one. Like I said the two networks really can't be fairly compared to each other because the content they offer is just so different $$$-wise.
     
  11. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    In other words agreeing toa new contract in mid term is OK if you like the product but not if you don't.
     
  12. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    This thread is the first place I have seen it mentioned that OLN asked for a rate increase when the NHL was added. Can anyone confirm that?

    I am nott rying to take sides but my recollection is that OLN gave DISH a feed w/out the NHL claiming that theur deal with the NHL required that the network be in basic tiers on all carriers. DISH refused to do that and eventually dropped the channel. But I don't recall a rate increase request at taht time.
     
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    My understanding was that OLN wanted to be in a lower tier. This *may* have actually resulted in a reduction of the per-channel charge since OLN would make more money being in a lower tier with more subscribers.

    Using fake math for a second...

    IF OLN was taking $0.60 per AT180 subscriber and there are 2,000,000 AT180 subscribers, that would be $120,000.

    OLN might be willing to drop to $0.50 per AT120 if there are 3,000,000 AT120 subscribers, yielding $150,000.

    or even $0.30 per AT60 subscriber if there are 7,000,000 AT60 subscribers, yielding $210,000.

    Of course all of my math is fake... but basically OLN could have been asking for less money per subscriber BUT wanting lower placement, which would give them access to more subscribers and yield them more money.

    It's also possible they wanted a rate increase OR keep the same rate at a lower tier... so you can't just separate a rate increase from tier placement.

    At the same time... and I've said this before... if the NFL Network pulled something similar and Dish wasn't able to get fair treatment, I would rather them fight even though I do watch the NFL. I would miss those games if it kept unfair rate increases in check, so I do put my money where my mouth is.
     
  14. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    The comment that has been made in these forums (and in this thread) lately is that OLN asked for a DOUBLE increase by raising it's rate and requesting a lower tier. As far as I know all we really know is that they asked for the lower tier. We know nothing about a requested rate increase---or decrease.
     
  15. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,374
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    First of all: YES! and I don't see anything wrong with that myself. But to be honest here I don't think it has much to do with liking or not liking, but more to do with $$$.
     
  16. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Not liking the OLN position is fine---I was not too thrilled with it either. But that does not mean it is appropriate to change it into something it was not.
     
  17. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Regarding OLN and Dish Network, from Dish's original press release about the OLN dispute, just so we are all on the same page...
    Yet this is exactly what they did with the NFL Network. I would believe most customers don't, "want to pay the additional cost of watching that channel."

    Or, as HDMe pointed out earlier, "You cannot have it both ways."
     
  18. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002

    That ress release indicates that OLN wanted to pass the existing cost on to subs in the lower tier---not that they asked for a "double increase" as is stated in this thread.


    I never said that most of the lower tier (or even origianl AT 180 subs) wanted the charge. I simply said that they did not ask fora "double increase'.


    As for similarity to the NFL Network deal I cannot say. I do not know what that network requested when regular season games were added. It is clear that DISH has an easier time reaching some kind of agreement and that the channel may be included in lower tiers later. But we don't know if they requested more money, wider carriage, or a combination.


    But I agree wholeheartedly that the NFL is far more popular than the NHL and that gave the NFL Network considerably more leverage.
     
  19. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    No, I agree with you Geronimo. The problem is that people quickly jumped on the bandwagon about OLN's audacity to demand an increase (whether in subs or pricing) while in the midst of their agreement with Dish Network. The issue here is that is exactly what the NFL Network did, and Dish Network renegotiated the contract.

    I don't see those same people screaming that the NFL Network has upped their rates during the middle of their contract with Dish Network.
     
  20. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    One distinct difference between OLN and NFL Network is clearly the timing.

    OLN didn't ask for an increase just after they signed the NHL. They waited until the NHL season started, then provided an "alternative" feed to folks who wouldn't immediately pony up for more money. There was literally no time to negotiate, so Dish was in a back-against-the-wall situation, so they reacted with their claws.

    The NFL, on the other hand... made this announcement about starting next season (Roughly September or so before any games will be on their network)... so there is/was plenty of time to negotiate without forcing Dish's hand.

    In my opinion, this is much smarter for the NFL in terms of timing.

    What OLN *should* have done, in my opinion... was to carry the NHL and abide by all previous contracts with companies like Dish for this season... THEN if the NHL coming back and being in all our homes drove higher ratings for their channel they would have been in a much better position to ask for a new contract for the next season AND would have the entire off-season to work negotiations without threats from either side about pulling the channel.
     

Share This Page