Welcome to DBSTalk
- Start new topics and reply to others
- Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
- Get your own profile page and make new friends
- Send personal messages to other members.
EMAIL FROM DISH REF: viacom/tbs CHANNEL DISPUTE
Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:02 AM
Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:11 AM
Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:15 AM
I thought the Turner stuff was already resolved.
so did i. maybe the csr doesn't know what she was talking about.
Posted 04 March 2004 - 12:08 PM
Posted 04 March 2004 - 12:25 PM
Posted 04 March 2004 - 08:42 PM
I have to agree with Gary again
Posted 04 March 2004 - 10:39 PM
They just had a temporary resolution for the Turner channels, until they can get things resolved with them on prices.
Good lord: DISH should buy Disney at this rate so we have some channels left in a couple years. They could call themselves "DISHney"; that's the way Sean Connery says Disney anyway...
Posted 05 March 2004 - 08:51 AM
It'll only happen if both feel they have to to survive.
These programming disputes seem to be getting more and more common. Part of Charlies game is to get the customer riled up and make sure the provider looks like the bad guy.
Owning some content might keep everyone playing nice.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 09:33 AM
I emailed dish about the viacom dispute and got a reply back yesterday. the csr just stated that the courts gave an extension to dish which we all knew already and they were still in negotiations.. that was all she said about the viacom dispute. she also advised that a dispute was also going on with turner broadcast systems regarding their channels : boomerang, cnn, cartoon network and turner classic movies and headline news. she advised they are negotiating with them as well and if tbs doesn't lower their rate increase dish would have to drop these channels from the lineup. i didn't even know of a dispute with tbs , does anyone else know of the dispute with tbs stations.?
Why does Dish have such difficulty negociating??? I say Dish needs to revise their packages putting the higher priced channels in the higher packages. Channels like GAC and Hallmark should be in the lower one while channels that are expensive like ESPN, Fox Sports, TBS, FX, should be in the higher ones.
Dish has to be making money off of us since their Top 180/locals is $49.99 vs Directv's Total Choice Plus/Locals is $42.99. Those encore theme channels are not worth $7 for sure.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 09:40 AM
And putting ESPN, TBS etc in the highest price package would anger millions of subscribers. These are the most popular and wanted channels by a large # of viewers, and thats why they are in the most common package. Otherwise folks would switch to other providers giving these channels at a cheaper price.
C'mon.. dont ya get it? "Subscribe to Dish and we give you GAC and Hallmark in our base plan!! If you want ESPN you have to pay more!!!" Who would YOU choose?
And to your comment "Dish must be making money off us." Well--- yea--- what do you expect? A company to work for the good will of the people and not turn a profit? Clueless....
Posted 05 March 2004 - 09:52 AM
I can't believe it. I'm like... what did I sign up for? Well... if they do disappear, at least nowadays I could get them on digital cable, or DirecTV for that matter.
Good lord: DISH should buy Disney at this rate so we have some channels left in a couple years.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 10:07 AM
Posted 05 March 2004 - 10:50 AM
Man you people are just not thinking.
Do you think Viacom gives the same deal to all providers? I didnt sit in on the neg's but I'd bet my paycheck that Viacom makes deals independently between providers.
And its not one channel. Its several channels that Viacom demands be in certain packages. Charlie does not want to add them and starve more bandwidth, much less include them in packages where each channel is selected for marketing reasons of E*'s.
He's not going to :
- Be forced to carry what he doesnt want
- Be forced to pay more for these channels (which he doesnt want in the first place)
- Let Viacom tell E* how to structure its packages.
I dont see pride in the equation.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:37 AM
it has no basis for it. also i don't want to lose more channels. many of these channels are for kids and family. i understand if you don't have kids these channels like tvland and nick wouldn't be an issue to you. i am paying 50 bucks a month for the 180 pack and the idea is to increase channels not take away from them. the only solution to be fair for all would be to ala carte the viacoms to the people who want them. if charlie really cared about his customers he would request feedback from us on what channels we want, but no all he does is decide for himself what channels to carry. thats why we have bingo tv, byu tv and the other 20 crap stations. drop them and he could afford the viacoms.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:44 AM
But letting viacom demand what channels E* carries and in what packages sets a bad precedent. Viacom has no business telling E* how to run its business, and demanding a high price from E* in return.
DirectTV can ABSOLUTELY have a drastic change in deals between the two companies. I know "a major company" that gives its product to one customer for .03 on the dollar. And another customer for full price. Just to give you some idea that corp. politics can cause drastic diff's. In this case, maybe D* already has more viacom channels in its lower packages, and Viacom thinks E* needs to beef this up. Bottom line is that its not Viacoms decision.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 11:58 AM
Posted 05 March 2004 - 12:05 PM
Posted 05 March 2004 - 02:35 PM
E* is arguing that it wants to negotiate a fair price for the retransmission of CBS O&O OTA stations, but that Viacom should not be allowed to require E* to carry new cable channels or renegotiate existing cable channel contracts before agreeing to let E* retransmit the CBS stations.
Maybe E*'s right, and if so, winning this case could keep a lid on retrans agreements across the country, or nudge Congress into creating a formula for compensating OTA broadcasters in lieu of station-by-station negotiations.
Posted 05 March 2004 - 02:42 PM