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 1, 2010 #301 of 2032
    chum76

    chum76 Mentor

    41
    1
    Jun 4, 2010
    If Murdock wants to play hardball Dish will either pay up or lose alot of subscribers. If Fox holds tough and wins you can bet the others will be right in line when their contracts are up. These companies are going to price TV right out of everyones homes.
     
  2. Oct 1, 2010 #302 of 2032
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The difference this time is that this is a very large situation that has been brewing with Disney and Fox. These are the giants in the industry and can hurt your business far more than a string of local affiliates in Iowa.

    I'm not saying bankrupt but if they try to take a tack that says that sports becomes even less important and let a lot of channels drop plus lose local Fox affiliates plus Disney, that is a pretty big hit. DirecTV has been living on sports and this would widen that gap tremendously.

    This is not good for Dish or for anybody, really. It is good to have solid providers and choices for us all.

    (And don't forget that the Tivo War is not over yet.)

    I cannot fault Charlie or Fox or ABC/Disney. I know little about the actual situation. I do know that all parties in this are pretty much hard-asses, so we will see what happens.

    Right now, I assume that Charlie pretty much caves in the end but wins enough concessions to save face and to survive financially. That is pretty much what happened with the DirecTV/Versus deal from what an outsider can tell no matter what either side says.
     
  3. Oct 1, 2010 #303 of 2032
    DodgerKing

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    2,045
    0
    Apr 28, 2008
    It looks like it is more than just fee increase. Perhaps Dish is spinning this more than Fox? Fox seems to want Dish to make these channels available in the lower packages, like they are with most other providers

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1002-ct-dish-20101002,0,896521.story
     
  4. Oct 1, 2010 #304 of 2032
    lparsons21

    lparsons21 Hall Of Fame

    4,305
    206
    Mar 4, 2006
    Herrin, IL
    Which would have the effect of raising the rates on those lower tiers if they go along with that. It is all about the money, nothing more, nothing less.
     
  5. Oct 1, 2010 #305 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    A few years ago DISH had the three levels divided at about 4 million customers each. Their "basic" programming package (currently AT120) had 4 million customers, their second level (currently AT200) had 4 million customers and their third level (currently AT250) had 4 million with about a million in either AEP, Family or other levels of programming. (This based on the complaints of a programmer who had a channel in AT200 who thought they had a contract for placement in AT120 - the language specified was referred to having their feed delivered to most customers. When they found out that 4 million basic customers couldn't see them they realized what level they were at. IIRC: DISH won that one, since the channel was delivered to 9 million customers.)

    In any case ... DISH keeps the cost of that base package low by not including ANY of the regional sports channels. One's own local RSNs can be bought for $5 extra. 37 more channels (usually including FX) plus the Sirius music channels are added for $10 more ($15 more than the base package). 41 more channels (usually including Nat Geo) plus mono Musak channels are added for another $10 more.

    Moving a channel down a package adds 4 million customers ... so I can see where Fox would want FX and NatGeo moved down ... an instant increase in subscribers and a huge increase in payments even if the cost per subscriber stays the same. FX moving from AT200 to AT120 would be 50% increase in subscribers ... NatGeo moving from AT250 to AT200 would be a 100% increase in subscribers (using the old estimates).

    Good channels in low packages doesn't help DISH upsell to the higher packages. Bad channels in low packages means DISH is paying too much for the content. The low end package needs to remain at the basic level.

    Fox Sports at the AT120 level? Forget it. That is what YES was demanding and despite the "critical need" for YES that is expressed on this forum ("DISH will die without YES") DISH has held out for years.

    BTW: DirecTV has avoided these problems by not having a low end package. Choice is comparable to AT200 in price and channel selection. Perhaps some day DISH will be forced into ditching the AT120 package completely ... but for now they are trying not to do that. Part of that effort includes keeping RSNs where they belong (in AT120 Plus) and not moving channels down from higher packages unless they are worth the money.

    If I were DISH moving Fox Sports would be a non-starter ... moving FX or NatGeo would require a reduction in per subscriber fees. I really don't see any way of Fox getting all of the channels in AT120. It isn't the way DISH operates. They need that "basic" level of programming for advertising a low rate and serving the millions of customers who want a basic non-RSN subscription.
     
  6. Oct 2, 2010 #306 of 2032
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    They have Family, and Select...both low end packages...just not advertised.
     
  7. Oct 2, 2010 #307 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    DISH also has Family and other off the books packages. As with DirecTV, these special packages are not part of the tier system. (Family is not a subset of AT120 like AT120 is a subset of AT200.)
     
  8. Oct 2, 2010 #308 of 2032
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    So if they got rid of the Tier system, they could put the channels in any package they wanted?

    Ive always wished they had a Sports Pack (with ALL the sports channels), a Earth Pack (Nat Geo, Discovery, etc), a Oldies package, a Kids package, a God package, etc. Charge whatever they want for each one. Let the customers pick which ones they want. Not exactly ala carte, but better than the current system. And how could Fox demand Fox News be in the Sports package? (As an example)...
     
  9. Oct 2, 2010 #309 of 2032
    levibluewa

    levibluewa Icon

    629
    2
    Aug 13, 2005
    WA, OR, CA
    Nice analysis James! Very nice! I'd just add that as an old HD Absolute sub I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 for my local RSN via the Sports Pack (I realize it's now at $7 for a "qualifying package")..........

    Oh, and I'll bring up the dead horse...the reason I switched to DISH from Directv in the 1st place back in 1997.....the Superstation Package...I'd love it if Charlie would give us the HD feed.
     
  10. Oct 2, 2010 #310 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Only if they could get the channel providers to agree. The trouble is programmers (like Fox) who look at the now 14 million customers and want all of their channels delivered to all of the customers ... whether they are watched or not. I suspect that if one took away the tier system we wouldn't end up with Canadian style theme packages, we'd end up with provider based packages ... all of the Viacom channels for $$$, all of the Fox channels for $$$, all of the ESPN/Disney channels for $$$, all of the NBC Universal channels for $$$. Although that sounds appealing (support your favorite channel provider) I believe we are better off with a tiered system where people can make a choice to cut back their channel selection to save money and still get some variety. Even with that setup channel providers still would be vying for satellite space. Demands for a carrier to make a channel available for subscription would still exist ... and we could end up with losing all of a provider's channels if a carrier refuses to add a new channel to the lineup. There will always be disputes.

    As long as channel providers refuse to sell their channels unbundled we're stuck with the system we have. Far from perfect but workable. It could be worse!
     
  11. Oct 2, 2010 #311 of 2032
    grog

    grog Godfather

    396
    0
    Jul 2, 2007
    I did notice that come November 1 it could be worse. Since I am in St. Louis area and live far enough out that channel 2 is not 100% for OTA.

    I know 'American Idol' just won't be the same without ......BUT I LIKE IT!
    I know 'Glee' is just not that good.....OK>
    I know 'House' is not as good... BUT I LIKE IT!
    I know 'The Simpsons' is pure crap....OK>
    I know 'Football' We don't need no stinking football... :mad:
    I know 'World Series' If it was not for Dish removing the channel you would not have had time to go to Walmart!

    I think it may be much worse... I don't see FOX playing nice for the next table sessions...

    VOOM ===> FOX be gone!

    http://getwhatipaidfor.com/home/story/view/359

    On November 1, 2010 DISH Network may also no longer carry the Fox Broadcasting Company, which includes some of America’s most popular broadcast programming, including American Idol, Glee, House, The Simpsons, National Football League games, and the World Series because DISH’s contract with Fox’s television stations is expiring in the following markets.

    * Atlanta
    * Austin
    * Boston
    * Chicago
    * Cleveland/Akron
    * Dallas
    * Denver
    * Detroit
    * Gainesville, FL
    * Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC
    * Houston
    * Kansas City
    * Los Angeles
    * Memphis
    * Minneapolis
    * Milwaukee
    * New York
    * Orlando
    * Philadelphia
    * Phoenix
    * St. Louis
    * Salt Lake City
    * Tampa
    * Washington D.C.
    * Baltimore (MyNet 24)
     
  12. Oct 2, 2010 #312 of 2032
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    This is an interesting point to expand upon to me... because when FOX or anyone demands to be in the lowest tier package, that is exactly what it means... that they want everyone to be required to subscribe to their channel.

    I think a lot of people miss that, or because they like the channel they are ok with it.

    Even if they didn't get a direct rate increase, moving to the lowest tier would result in more revenue... which in turn would mean Dish would need to raise their price on the lower tier.

    The more channels move down, the less incentive and value there would then be in the higher tier and thus harder for Dish to sell those.

    I hope this gets resolved positively and quickly... but I don't have a feeling yet. Neither this nor the Disney dispute really has made big public news... In fact, I don't see quite the outcry that I remember during the LifeTime negotiations a couple of years ago... which is interesting to me.

    FOX and Disney are big names... and sports is big... but not nearly the publicity or online forum outcry for these recent channel losses as compared to supposed lesser channels. Heck, people were madder about losing the Voom channels and nobody other than Dish customers had those to even offer.

    So it might be a while... but I doubt it will cost Dish in the long run. I really think FOX and Disney are in for a rude awakening that the channels they are fighting over here are just not going to be missed as much as they think.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2010 #313 of 2032
    grog

    grog Godfather

    396
    0
    Jul 2, 2007
    I 100% agree and feel the lack of Fox Sports only effects a few sports fans.

    The removal of FOX in 31 days if that happens would be a different matter. The point as I see it is FOX is using the removal of FOX network in 31 days as the pressure method to resolve the current dispute and as I see it if they don't get what they want we may see this go to court.

    It is VOOM all over again.

    I could be wrong but that is how it is looking to me.

     
  14. Oct 2, 2010 #314 of 2032
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Sort of the same thing the providers are doing to US. Only thing in our favor is we can switch providers. Gosh I miss C band ala carte programming.
     
  15. Oct 2, 2010 #315 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The removal of Fox TV in those selected but populous markets will probably be the end of the dispute. If we don't see resolve by Monday I won't expect resolve until November. (I am willing to be surprised.) Although I wonder if these are two separate contracts ... there may be agreement on the NatGeo/FX/FoxSport contract and not the Fox TV contract or vice versa. Or will Fox hold up a perfectly agreeable contract renewal for Fox TV as leverage to get extra money out of NatGeo/FX/FoxSport?

    If it is all one big happy contract then we need to redo "the math" (so to speak) as to what a 50% increase actually is. Both sides seem to be saying what they need to to push their side of the argument. I suppose it is a waste of time trying to understand it ... but if there is nothing on TV. :)
     
  16. Oct 2, 2010 #316 of 2032
    adkinsjm

    adkinsjm Icon

    925
    2
    Mar 25, 2003
    Dish or any provider forced to pull channels loses the PR war. Customers don't care about hyperbole on dozens of websites, they just want to watch certain channels, something that can't happen with Dish right now.
     
  17. Oct 2, 2010 #317 of 2032
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    Is it just my imagination, or are the comments being left on this site rather, oh, one sided in favor of FOX? I am sure out of all those comments, someone would be on DISH Networks side. Could they be editing them, and only leaving the ones that favor FOX?
     
  18. Oct 2, 2010 #318 of 2032
    phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,051
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Hmmm. Well I posted this earlier:
    I find it hard to believe that investors in Oak Hill Capital Partners which in 2008 acquired for $1.1 billion eight Fox network affiliates from News Corp are going to be thrilled to endanger the stations' ratings further so Rupert Murdoch can make more money on the regional sports networks. Those stations are:

    [​IMG]

    Investors include Bill Gates and Nike founder Phil Knight who aren't stupid. Stupid would be being dragged into this dispute.
     
  19. Oct 2, 2010 #319 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They are just passing on what they can get.

    Major channel providers are not selling channels a la carte to carriers. They are selling packages. It reminds me of the difference between a "buy one get one free" sale and a "half off" sale. On a bogo one has to buy two to get the discount ... one is full price. On a half sale one can buy one at half price.

    Fox is offering NatGeo, FX and the FoxSports channels (and possibly Fox TV OTA) as a bundle. A bundle that they are not willing to break ... although the expired contract did allow DISH to place the three channels in different programming tiers, delivered to a different number of customers.

    If DISH offered the three channels a la carte carriage with each customer deciding if that channel was worth paying for do you think Fox would accept carriage? I think not. And that is where the root of the problem is.
     
  20. Oct 2, 2010 #320 of 2032
    James Long

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

    45,938
    1,023
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    You think? :rolleyes: Who is paying the bill for that server? :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page