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. grog

    grog Godfather

    396
    0
    Jul 2, 2007
    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/10/15/cablevisionfox-fight-is-so-last-century/


    What Cablevision and FOX basically disagree on is pricing. This happened last year, too, when both sides agreed to a one-year contract extension.​

    So last year the Cablevision and FOX could not come to terms with pricing and a one-year extension was started. So for the last year they have been in debate talks over the carriage. Sorry; but if I granted an extension of one year then we could not come to terms and after that period Cablevision called foul I would just tell them to move on. If they don't want to carry then go away.

    AN OPEN LETTER TO CABLEVISION SUBSCRIBERS FROM WNYW
    http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/an-open-letter-to-cablevision-subscribers-from-wnyw

    Cablevision family certainly doesn’t allow arbitrators to set the rates for their cable channels like MSG and AMC. In fact, just a few weeks ago, MSG and MSG Plus went off the dial for millions of DISH Network subscribers – and MSG did not ask for arbitration.​

    http://www.benningtonbanner.com/ci_16352216
    While Fox didn’t dispute Cablevision’s claims, it called Cablevision "hypocritical" because it pays more for two of its sister company channels, MSG and MSG Plus, than it does for all 12 Fox channels. MSG and MSG Plus are owned by Madison Square Garden Inc., which like Cablevision is controlled by the Dolan family. ​

     
  2. CoolGui

    CoolGui Icon

    506
    0
    Feb 8, 2006
    This is not completely true... They do carry the major sports games but not the in depth team news or some of the local high school and college programs. But directv is the same, just dedicated channel number as you mention. This local content is something I'd like to get that's why I'm still trying to find a way to make cable feasible for my family.
     
  3. SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,262
    133
    Jun 6, 2009

    http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/bi...e-as-Fox-TV-fights-with-Cablev?urn=mlb-277579



    Yeah, ya might wanna think about that Rupie. You might be cutting your own throat when it comes to league contracts next time.
     
  4. James Long

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

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Thanks for stating Fox is wrong. Hopefully you will agree that the laws that gave them so much power are also wrong and need adjusting.

    DISH charges for a lot of stuff that isn't specified on the bill. Just because a customer doesn't get locals (grandfathered in a package without them) doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward supporting the points of presence, fiber backhauls and unlink centers needed only for the delivery of locals. Just because a customer subscribes to AT120 or less doesn't mean a portion of their payment does not go toward channels they don't get.

    It was your suggestion that DISH stop charging for locals. How do you suggest they accomplish that? If they reduce their package prices by $5 (as they did with the DISH America packages) would you accept that they are no longer charging for locals? It seems like an impossible challenge to ask DISH to stop charging for something that costs them money to deliver. The cost of the hundreds of points of presence, fiber links and extra uplink centers will make it on your bill somehow.

    They claimed 35 million people. I don't believe they were counting the dog ... but we have a thread for the commercial and another one for counting.
     
  5. AntAltMike

    AntAltMike Hall Of Fame

    3,790
    108
    Nov 20, 2004
    College...
    I haven't been following this as closely as I should have, but I just heard on "TBD", which was formerly Comcast News channel 8, that Fox was threatening to pull its programming from "this network" in a few weeks.

    By "this network", did they mean TBD, or did they mean Comcast cable? I regrettably don't have the wearwithall to scour the 1,900+ posts here to try to find the answer to that question it is is already contained somewhere in this thread.
     
  6. grog

    grog Godfather

    396
    0
    Jul 2, 2007
    While I do agree with FOX charging rates that are two high I also think the rates Cablevision is charging for MSG is also too high.

    But who am I? They feel the market will handle the rates so they ask for that amount. Currently that is their right to do so. If the carrier does not want to pay the rate then they can chose not to carry, this is also their choice.

    What I would like to see is public disclosure of this information. The channel guide from the provider should include the cost of the station as well as the start and end date of the carriage so that those who enter into agreement with the provider has all the information up front on the channels they care about.

    Also; I also think it would be a great idea if removal of stations was do by proxy based on usage. In other words; Dish could send a letter of intent to remove stations which it deems as of little value since the stations are watched by only say 0.2% of the subs.

    Something like this:

    For the stations subject to removal
    [x] Yes remove FOX; I understand my bill will be reduced by $8.00 each month if this channel is removed. I also understand that 67% of the subscribers must also agree to the removal. Checking this box means you vote to remove FOX due to high cost of carriage.

    Another section to scope impact
    [x] I will change carriers if FOX is dropped.

    With the above system in place no one could blame Charlie for removing channels. We could only blame ourselves if we did not vote! :)

     
  7. runner861

    runner861 Icon

    859
    0
    Mar 20, 2010
    A la carte is the only thing that can stop this. When something is a la carte, the network wants its signal to be on every system in order to reach every possible viewer. The network only gets a payment when the viewer subscribes. Right now, the incentive is the opposite: extract large amounts of money from the carrier by pulling the signal and get the signal carried in a basic package at a high per subscriber rate.

    People on this board criticize the a la carte idea as unworkable--it will result in higher rates and fewer channels. I'm not sure, and they aren't either. This has not been tried on a large scale.

    Perhaps it will never happen, but a la carte across the board should be tried. The incentive will be to lower the price of each channel in order to get more viewers. Whether it is achieved by the carriers presenting a united front and forcing the program providers to go along, or whether by government regulation, the time for a la carte is here.

    One thing is certain: The current system is broken and is no longer sustainable.
     
  8. GrumpyBear

    GrumpyBear Hall Of Fame

    3,236
    0
    Feb 1, 2006
    I think its one of the Reason all the Cable companies, Direct and Dish, want the FCC to create binding arbitration for situations like this and its about time for it too. Big fear for Fox, ABC, and others with binding arbitration, is the leaks that could comeout on exactly how much they charge each provider. Broadcasters like the veil of secrecy, and don't want favoritism to be exposed.
     
  9. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    TBD was not Comcast News Channel 8, it was Newschannel 8. It is not owned by Comcast, it is owned by Allbrittion Communications, the owners of WJLA (Channel 7) in DC. It is available on other cable systems in the area, including Fios.

    I am sure they were talking about TBD itself although I am not sure what Fox programming is on it.
     
  10. kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    974
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    Maybe what the government should do, is give some attention to training installers how to receive DTV signals, and making some laws that require access to OTA antenna feeds in large buildings.

    BTW, the "major networks" have nothing to do with the terrestrial distribution of their signals, beyond the O&O stations they own. That's all up to the local affiliates.
     
  11. spiketoo

    spiketoo Cool Member

    68
    6
    Sep 24, 2007
    Nothing disparaging, but I find your analogy to be hyperbole and myopic. Money is the 'drug' here. 'Revenue' was the gateway phase. 'More revenue' is the 'harder' phase. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. In fact, the DEA considers it a Class I narcotic while the basis of crack is considered a Class II - not much diff other than a Class I has no accepted medical use.

    There is no way to 'fix' an addiction to money.
     
  12. bbexperience

    bbexperience Cool Member

    15
    0
    Jan 4, 2007
    Not this again...
     
  13. inazsully

    inazsully Icon

    862
    13
    Oct 3, 2006
    I do not think that ala-cart can work for all of the reasons given earlier. But I wonder if the packages offered can be more varied even if specific packages cost more and included less channels. How about a sports package that include the current Platinum package for instance? At say $15 mo, those that didn't care for sports could save $15 mo and I'll except paying an extra $10 mo for Platinum (or something else of value) in order to get my RSN's. Several different package combo's could be offered allowing Dish to maintain their overall profit margin and the subs to streamline their package to more suit their viewing desires.
     
  14. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Don't worry. A la carte has no chance of happening. This folks who bring it up will get tired of talking about it eventually.
     
  15. DodgerKing

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    2,045
    0
    Apr 28, 2008
    Don't be so sure. The days of paid TV packages through a provider are numbered. Eventually cable companies will mainly be bandwidth providers and most people will get their TV through antenna and/or internet.
     
  16. garn9173

    garn9173 Icon

    530
    2
    Apr 4, 2005
    straight from a cable executive's mouth:

    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22839308?hilite=bainch

     
  17. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    No, they don't get too tired of it.

    The problem is right here...

    Dish Network has AT120, AT200 and AT250. Programmers want to negotiate for the right to be placed into those packs. Until those packs are removed and not replaced, a la carte won't work. Programmers will not accept it. This isn't c-band, no matter how much everyone is trying to make it out to be.
     
  18. MilFan

    MilFan Legend

    126
    0
    Sep 13, 2010
    NHL already underway, 8 days til NBA season. Then local Fox pulled.

    Basically, 10-14 days until mega **** storm.

    Get this done Fox and Dish.
     
  19. James Long

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

    46,193
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And then the building owners could charge a fee for antenna access to pay for said antenna, the broadcasters would then pitch a fit that the building owner is "making money" from redistributing their signal (horrors!) and then the building owner will have to pay a royalty to the station. Plus poor quality TV stations would sue the building owner for installing an antenna good enough to pick up some stations but not all stations in the area. "required OTA access" would be more than simply putting up an omni and hoping for the best.

    In other words we've tried that. That is how we got to where we are today.
     
  20. DodgerKing

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    2,045
    0
    Apr 28, 2008
    A la cart will not be channels provided by the provider. It will be viewers paying to watch a program or paying a monthly fee for unlimited specific content. IOW, it will be viewer choice provided via the internet. It does not matter what a cable exec believes or what a TV company thinks. The only thing that matters is what the customers decide to do, and they will have to adjust due to the demand by those TV viewers. When these viewers decide to stop paying cable and DBS providers and start paying for streaming and movie downloads instead, both the provider and the networks will have to adjust accordingly
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page