Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

DirecTV sues Lifetime over Dishnetwork contract


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   midnight75

midnight75

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 174 posts
Joined: Jun 25, 2004

Posted 25 March 2006 - 07:20 AM

I wonder if we can now expect to see Lifetime bashing DirecTV on their website like they did with Dish Network. :rolleyes:
'It's time to play the feud!'
Richard Dawson

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   Digital Madman

Digital Madman

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 51 posts
Joined: May 23, 2005

Posted 25 March 2006 - 08:22 AM

Lifetime just cant get enough of that dirty laundry! :D

#28 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 25 March 2006 - 08:25 AM

Lifetime...jeesh. I remove that channel from the "channels I receive" as soon as I get a receiver.

DirecTV is targeting Lifetime to snag new subs? I wonder what the demographic really is for the average Lifetime viewer...
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#29 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 08:29 AM

It does not have to be a smaller company. Such clauses are common and occasionally lead to disputes about which deal is "better."

FWIW our federal government usually insists on getting the most favorable prices when it buys commercial items.

Thats why the Pentagon buys hammers for 100 dollars a piece!rolling !rolling

#30 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 08:34 AM

I wonder how DTV found out the pricing that Dish received. I wouldn't think this is public info. What is the best price today may not be the best price tomorrow. It is a little like buying the latest receiver today at a lowest price of the year sale and then a month later your neighbor buys the same receiver for less. Welcome to the free market system.

..Doyle

D* was forced to carry lifetime real women, E* wasnt..thus E* is paying lifetime less money

#31 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,653 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 10:23 AM

E* is paying less for less content and D* is paying more for more content?
And this is unfair? D* agreed to the deal - they should be held to their terms!

#32 OFFLINE   audiomaster

audiomaster

    DBSTalk Club Member

  • Registered
  • 378 posts
Joined: Jun 24, 2004

Posted 25 March 2006 - 10:43 AM

Can echostar sue both lifetime and direct tv for using a bribe to lure customer away from echostar???


Anybody can sue anybody. We could all sue all of them for causing interruption of our Lifetime programing! For being obnoxious in general. For not having customer service reps that can speak clear English!
Mental anguish? How about not ever being able to be sure a 921 was going to record our favorite show? Or even let us watch it?

#33 OFFLINE   Fl_Gulfer

Fl_Gulfer

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 124 posts
Joined: Apr 28, 2005

Posted 25 March 2006 - 10:50 AM

I don't understand why D* has to pay stations to carry their content. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I would just tell them to keep there programing and put them out of business.

#34 OFFLINE   Michael P

Michael P

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,976 posts
Joined: Oct 27, 2004

Posted 25 March 2006 - 11:33 AM

that is the #1 reason I haven't switched to DirecTV...we have a local 'digital-only on cable' WB affiliate, but Dish doesn't carry it, so I subscribe to WB-11 NYC.
In fact, the only network with local ties I regularly watch is the WB, soon to be the CW.
Smallville, Charmed, the Friday-night comedies are what I watch.
:grin:
Beyond that, I watch NBC's Arena Football games, but use a Terk-brand amplified antenna on my Dish to receive that...oddly enough, its a station around 75 miles away, but comes in better than the local NBC (who happens to also operate that local digital-only WB station)

Let me guess...you are in the Youngstown DMA? I can pick up WFMJ-TV OTA on my 921 here in the Cleveland antenna farm with an indoor antenna. DT is intermittant on the indoor, but I bet once the weather breaks and I put up an outdoor antenna I'll be watching that WB/CW "digital only" station here (as well as WKBN's digital feed of CBS-HD and SD FOX from WYFX). Digital OTA is the way to go, you get subchannels that the DBS providers do not carry.

BTW which NBC are you watching that is 75 miles away? Pittsburgh or Wheeling?
An E* subscriber continuously since February 1997.

#35 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 12:58 PM

E* is paying less for less content and D* is paying more for more content?
And this is unfair? D* agreed to the deal - they should be held to their terms!

Yes Because D* was forced to carry some useless channel that e* wasnt

#36 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,930 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 01:56 PM

I don't understand why D* has to pay stations to carry their content. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I would just tell them to keep there programing and put them out of business.

I've been saying this for years. Its totally backward. Why should cable and satellite company's pay the channels to have their channels on their systems when those cable and satellite company's are providing a way for the channels to be seen on their services???? The channels should be paying the service providers for providing a way to distribute their channels to customers over their services. :rolleyes:

*Gosh, did that make any sense?* :D

#37 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,889 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 25 March 2006 - 02:22 PM

I've been saying this for years. Its totally backward. Why should cable and satellite company's pay the channels to have their channels on their systems when those cable and satellite company's are providing a way for the channels to be seen on their services???? The channels should be paying the service providers for providing a way to distribute their channels to customers over their services. :rolleyes:

*Gosh, did that make any sense?* :D


Actually it doesn't make sense! When there was only one cable company to choose from it may of made sense, but with a choice of at least three services and in some areas now four, not having a channel could hurt the one carrier that doesn't have it. Thus the deals to carry channels. In the long run each carrier has to decide what will hurt their business if they don't carry something, and what will hurt their business if they don't. So Lifetime, believing their product will be wanted by subscribers tries to get as much as possible to have it carried thinking if the deal is not made, the carrier will loose enough subscribers or not gain as many new subscribers and they will cave. Luckily, Dish calls those bluffs to kind of even the playing field.

#38 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 25 March 2006 - 02:27 PM

Come on, who *really* watches Lifetime. I'd pay $.50 more a month NOT to have it :).
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#39 OFFLINE   Kheldar

Kheldar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 773 posts
Joined: Sep 05, 2004

Posted 25 March 2006 - 05:11 PM

Come on, who *really* watches Lifetime. I'd pay $.50 more a month NOT to have it :).


... says all the MEN in this board. Are there any women around here? What do they think about this?

#40 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 25 March 2006 - 05:39 PM

... says all the MEN in this board. Are there any women around here? What do they think about this?


You could be right. But, most of the women I know don't really care for it either. Some - yes. Most - not so much.

But I'll let others answer for themselves.
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#41 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,653 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 25 March 2006 - 11:26 PM

Yes Because D* was forced to carry some useless channel that e* wasnt

Forced? Nahh. If D* didn't want to carry LRW all they had to do was not sign the renewal/new contract. Whether they could continue carrying LIFE and LMN on a month to month basis or would cease carrying those channels is another issue.

#42 OFFLINE   Kheldar

Kheldar

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 773 posts
Joined: Sep 05, 2004

Posted 26 March 2006 - 12:11 AM

Yes Because D* was forced to carry some useless channel that e* wasnt


Useless? I have spoken with lots of women who upgraded to Total Choice Plus just to get that one channel.

#43 OFFLINE   juan ellitinez

juan ellitinez

    Icon/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 1,980 posts
Joined: Jan 31, 2003

Posted 26 March 2006 - 09:37 AM

Useless? I have spoken with lots of women who upgraded to Total Choice Plus just to get that one channel.

Maybe you should talk to Rupert;)

#44 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 26 March 2006 - 01:18 PM

and don't forget the al-carte channels of the wb and upn that D refuses
to carry




Waht are those/
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#45 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 26 March 2006 - 01:21 PM

Thats why the Pentagon buys hammers for 100 dollars a piece!rolling !rolling



Actrually they don't Juan. Thiose stories are what 25 years old? And as I said these clauses are common.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#46 OFFLINE   Danny R

Danny R

    Goblin the Pug

  • Gold Members
  • 4,885 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2002

Posted 26 March 2006 - 02:09 PM

Wow - this is more fun than a soap show.

You can catch the movie version later this month on Lifetime of course. Starring Stockard Channing and other B-list actors. ;)
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

#47 OFFLINE   IneedHelp

IneedHelp

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 9 posts
Joined: Mar 26, 2006

Posted 26 March 2006 - 07:56 PM

Doesnt anybody rememeber what happened with dish and lifetime? know we know it wasnt dish's fault!! it was lifetimes! Hello!!!

#48 OFFLINE   Link

Link

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,744 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2004

Posted 26 March 2006 - 08:30 PM

I found it interesting that our local cable company Mediacom is adding Lifetime Movie Network to the basic lineup as of March 31st and taking it off the digital cable package. Just what everyone wanted I'm sure!

#49 ONLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,452 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 27 March 2006 - 07:14 AM

"extremely disappointed in Lifetime's
failure to live up to their contractual
commitments"


SkyReport - March 27, 2006

DirecTV, which is suing Lifetime for alleged breach of
contract, said in a statement released Friday that it
attempted to resolve its dispute with Lifetime out of court,
but the programmer was reluctant to work out its differences
with the satellite TV company.

In the statement, DirecTV said it's "extremely disappointed
in Lifetime's failure to live up to their contractual
commitments to us. We engaged in lengthy discussions with
them in an attempt to resolve our disputes outside of court,
but in the end, we had no choice but to file the suit when
Lifetime refused to make a meaningful offer of compromise."

Lifetime said it wouldn't comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit detailed an agreement the companies reached in
January that aimed to switch EchoStar/DISH Network customers
to DirecTV. At the time, EchoStar and Lifetime were engaged
in a program carriage dispute.

Through the deal, Lifetime would send select individuals a
$200 check if they switched to DirecTV from DISH Network, the
lawsuit stated. DirecTV said that while it was negotiating
terms of the $200 offer, Lifetime was negotiating a new
affiliation agreement with EchoStar.

A day after DirecTV and Lifetime executed their agreement,
Lifetime and EchoStar concluded a multi-year deal covering
DISH Network distribution of the programmer's content, the
lawsuit stated. Soon after, Lifetime "retracted" the $200
check deal by sending a retraction e-mail to those who
received the offer, and "repudiated" its agreement with
DirecTV.

Also at issue is an earlier agreement between the companies
in which a "most favored nation clause" reportedly aims to
prohibit Lifetime from entering into a more favorable
agreement with another pay-TV distributor for delivery of
its networks. If another distributor is given a lower rate
for carriage, Lifetime is obligated to offer that rate to
DirecTV, the satellite TV company's lawsuit stated.

DirecTV said it's seeking compensatory damages in the
litigation.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission

#50 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 27 March 2006 - 09:20 AM

E* is paying less for less content and D* is paying more for more content?
And this is unfair? D* agreed to the deal - they should be held to their terms!

From the SkyReport article:
Also at issue is an earlier agreement between the companies
in which a "most favored nation clause" reportedly aims to
prohibit Lifetime from entering into a more favorable
agreement with another pay-TV distributor for delivery of
its networks. If another distributor is given a lower rate
for carriage, Lifetime is obligated to offer that rate to
DirecTV, the satellite TV company's lawsuit stated.

The issue is probably that DirecTV is carrying Lifetime Movie Network in Total Choice. Dish Network's deal moved LMN into the high-tier, AT-180. DirecTV probably is fighting for the choice to move the channel into Total Choice Plus, to limit the expense of carrying the channel.

It is this "most favored nation" status that causes most of these fights. For example, the reason that YES cannot drop their price to be on Dish Network is because if YES drops their price, then all current carriage contracts with all other providers then get reduced. These agreements aren't particularly negotiated in a vacuum; the programmer usually knows where they need to be in relation to other contracts.

It appears that in addition to Lifetime caving into Dish Network, they've forgotten the basics of their own business. This is the first time that Lifetime itself was negotiating for carriage, as Hearst had done the negotiating for both Lifetime and their own broadcast properties for a while.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...