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

Fox / Newscorp channels possibly suspended Nov. 1/Now resolved

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Pepe Sylvia, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. Oct 21, 2011 #221 of 1258
    ncsercs

    ncsercs AllStar

    57
    0
    Oct 12, 2007
    I'm unemployed and under contract - if this happens, I'll stop paying contract be damned.
     
  2. Oct 21, 2011 #222 of 1258
    TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,280
    209
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Probably the same as Mike Whites. LOL
     
  3. Oct 21, 2011 #223 of 1258
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    I think there is a middle ground here. Even if DIRECTV is spinning the amount of the requested increase by 4x, that would still be a 10% increase. Isn't that still more than DIRECTV can increase the price to us? :)

    So aren't they still looking out for us and at the same time looking out for themselves? Are those two really mutually exclusive? :)

    Generally I try to see the middle ground in negotiations. Or the common ground at least. Both companies need to increase their income. Understand that.

    And yet I also understand that we customers can't afford to have our costs increase very much each year. Boy do I understand that one right now. :)

    So I'm not very interested in letting News corp demand a larger increase than I'm willing to pay.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  4. Oct 21, 2011 #224 of 1258
    usnret

    usnret Icon

    603
    2
    Jan 16, 2009
    And Nov. 2nd there will still be gravity.
     
  5. Oct 21, 2011 #225 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    Oh yeah. That really smart. It amazes me that when these disputes happen a lot of people want to cancel but when the provider, in this case directv, raises rates most complain. You can't have it both ways. Directv is actually standing up to these networks who are overpaying for sports programming so we don't have to pay more.
     
  6. Oct 21, 2011 #226 of 1258
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    530
    23
    Aug 11, 2008
    Fox recently went on record that it believes that Fox News (about 70 cents a month) will be in the same ballpark with ESPN (5 dollars a month), so this doesn't surprise me. Univision will soon get 1.50 a month, and it's a broadcast channel.

    What does surprise me is the price elasticity of PayTV. I imagine there are families who will go without adequate food or heat, but can't do without their PayTV.
     
  7. Oct 21, 2011 #227 of 1258
    311Man

    311Man Godfather

    276
    0
    Oct 20, 2007
    This should not affect CI games. What this would affect however is those in the local FOX markets could not see the "local" game because it would no longer be carried on D*. I am in Philly market and since CSN Philly isn't available (and probably never will) Flyer games aren't available. Since CI is out of market package the games will still be available.
     
  8. Oct 21, 2011 #228 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    There is no way Fox News will be over $1 a subscriber. News networks stink and don't deserve that much money. Quality programming networks such as USA, FX, etc. don't get more than $1 a subscriber so any news network shouldn't.
     
  9. Oct 21, 2011 #229 of 1258
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    nor am i. Look, I'm very cynical and extremely skeptical of their motivations. From the interviews I've read of Mr. Chang - I'm not a fan. I think he's smug and out of touch. I'm at the very least partially biased. And it's hard for me not to look at my $155 bill and swallow this bitter pill that i am going to have to pay more, ignore a startling lack of meaningful HD additions, and now potentially receive less for my money.

    I know prices go up. And I'm not a crusading against price increases or unwilling to pay more. It's not about the money for me - its about Directv holding themselves accountable to the same standard they hold their customers and their partners to.

    They have no issues telling a provider that their station isn't highly rated enough or doesn't have enough popular programming and therefore they don't deserve a rate increase or perhaps maybe even less. So they demand their providers offer more if they are going to pay more.. And then there's us... Im going to end up paying $165 for the same content next year. My choice, i know. But why is is ok for Directv to tell fox they arent paying more and that Fox has to bring more to the table, and to tell me that i have to pay more regardless and they don't have to change at all?
     
  10. Oct 21, 2011 #230 of 1258
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    DIRECTV is not telling Fox "no increase". They are telling Fox "You is nuts for asking for [10/20/30/40 pick your best guess]% increase."

    What percentage do you think DIRECTV should be willing to accept from Fox?
    If Fox is asking for more than that, what should DIRECTV tell Fox?

    When you get to heart of those questions, I suspect that it becomes hard to believe DIRECTV is spinning so much that Fox is blameless. I am convinced Fox is asking for more, way more than the 4% we customers are willing to pay.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  11. Oct 21, 2011 #231 of 1258
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    Its getting late where I am. Enjoyed the debate. None of it is personal. But again for me - its not just about fee increases. Its about what i feel is D* talking out of both sides of its mouth and employing different conflicting standards where convenient. Too much do as i say, not as i do. I respect if you feel differently.

    Ive already written far more than i cared to :) on expectations networks providing incremental value to receive either modest increases or even receive same pricing, and then not necessarily holding themselves to the incremental value standards in their dealings with customers. So I'll point to another double dealing example. Derek Chang said that he applauded other carriers for taking a stand and going public with these types of unreasonable demands, while at the same time D* earlier in the week decried Belo for going public with their "scare tactics". I'm having difficulty reconciling that this company will at the same time criticize a tactic when its used against them but shamelessly and unabashedly use it on someone else, or that they hold others to standards they do not hold themselves to.

    Do i want to pay more? Of course not. If i saw a 40% bill increase in a few months, would i cancel? Hard question. I've been fortunate through this rough economy. It would give me pause at the very least, but that's completely irrelevant. Many people would cancel. a fool would argue against that. But what i equally do not want is a bill increase that is accompanied by less value in the form of lost networks that i and a lot of other actually watch. We're far beyond Vs territory here.
     
  12. Oct 22, 2011 #232 of 1258
    sum_random_dork

    sum_random_dork Icon

    911
    18
    Aug 21, 2008
    I read up a little on this earlier today, a few interesting points came up. DirecTV is out of contract the end of Dec on the O/O locals, and Jan 31 on FoxNews. Basically from what I read the feeling is DirecTV went public now to force the hand of FOX. If they waited until Dec when the NFL playoffs are a month away the issue would be much bigger and they could lose subs. Wait another month and lose FoxNews you'd have a mass exodus of customers. Complain and say what you want about Fox News, but there is no channel with more loyal viewers out there. The only channel that could rival it would be ESPN most any other channel people will be mad it goes, but take one of those two away customers leave and leave quickly. So DirecTV played their hand, airing this in public now and taking the power away from Fox, if they waited for a month and didn't say yes to the current Fox #s they'd lose a lot more. It's a calculated move to say the least but DirecTV is getting lucky because there is no NBA season to worry about fans getting upset for missing their local NBA team on their local FSN.

    Basically DirecTV needs Fox News and the O/O stations. Fox needs DirecTV for all the other channels for their audience counts.
     
  13. Oct 22, 2011 #233 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    I'm glad you said you love DirecTV and aren't leaving. I can respect you opinion. I get so tired of people complaining about their monthly cable/satellite bill and then want to bitch when their service provider stands up for their customers and won't pay these outrageous fee increases that get phased along to the consumer. I'm a huge sports fan but I'm so fed up with how much networks are paying for the rights to air sporting events. It's annoying. Not trying to bash the PAC 12 conference but in. O way did that conference warrant the huge contract ESPN and Fox just gave them. That's a perfect example of why our satellite bills are so high.
     
  14. Oct 22, 2011 #234 of 1258
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    530
    23
    Aug 11, 2008
    Problem is, once one PayTV distributor agrees to pay exorbitant fees for one channel (let's say everyone agreeing to pay about 5 dollars a month for ESPN), everything is priced off it. In the same way that when you're conducting an analysis to buy a company you come up with comparable transactions.

    ESPN is far more popular than FoxNews, but News Corp will argue that it's not 6.7x as popular. And News Corp will retain the services of a consulting firm (McKinsey, BCG) which will make a solid quantitative case for 2.00 dollars a month. They will settle at 1.50. And going into a presidential election, no PayTV company will refuse.

    Who do I blame? The distributor who initially gave in to ESPN.

    -------------------------------------
    http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2011/03/fox-news-channel-expects-signi.php

    Carey declined to say how much Fox News will be asking for or with which distributors it will be negotiating, the story notes. It adds that the last time Fox News entered renewal negotiations, in 2006 and 2008, it was able to triple its fees in some deals to 75 cents per subscriber per month.
    -------------------------------------------
     
  15. Oct 22, 2011 #235 of 1258
    je4755

    je4755 Godfather

    406
    4
    Dec 11, 2006
    Based on DirecTV’s warning about the possible loss of 20+ networks, I looked for NHL CI channels on Comcast to ascertain their availability in HD. During the search, I pleasantly was surprised to find BBCA HD, H2 HD and Nat Geo Wild HD in the 800 range. Not sure how long they have been there (TiVo failed to provide its usual alert about channel additions), but this revelation constitutes one positive effect of DirecTV’s imbroglio with Fox. I just hope an agreement can be reached before November 1 or, at worst, shortly thereafter.
     
  16. Oct 22, 2011 #236 of 1258
    tulanejosh

    tulanejosh Godfather

    446
    10
    May 23, 2008
    I hear ya... i think it two things really. Sports is a huge part of it. Probably the biggest - especially where a network like FX is concerned with CFB and UFC coming on line. Fox gave the UFC i think ~700MM 7 yr contract. That money has to come from somewhere.

    But I think it's also Hulu's and Netflix. The digital storm content provides are caught up in has if nothing else alerted content providers to the "perceived" value of their content.

    I'm not really bitching about the bill btw. I hope that's clear. I more than likely would pay the increase, albeit begrudgingly.
     
  17. Oct 22, 2011 #237 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    ESPN has a ton of programming that warrants being the most expensive channel(s) on pay tv. Do they deserve $4.08 per subscriber just for ESPN? Probably not that much but they are spending a lot for a lot of programming. What does Fox News warrant to deserve $1 a subscriber? Absolutely nothing. News networks don't deserve that much. I will never understand why people watch those crap news networks. Bunch of savages that run those networks. Had enough of it. :)
     
  18. Oct 22, 2011 #238 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    I completely understand you. That's why I'm glad you said you love DirecTV and aren't switching. Don't mind you bitching if you aren't going anywhere. And you're right. The money has to come from somewhere and it always ends up coming from us, the consumer. It's annoying. Sports rights are outrageous right now. So tired of it and I'm a huge sports fan.
     
  19. Oct 22, 2011 #239 of 1258
    FenixTX

    FenixTX Godfather

    480
    6
    Nov 11, 2005
    I don't think you have to worry. I don't believe we will lose any Fox networks. A deal will be reached. But if we do it won't last longer than a week or two tops.
     
  20. Oct 22, 2011 #240 of 1258
    Avder

    Avder Hall Of Fame

    1,395
    0
    Feb 6, 2010
    I would love to. Do you know where I could find this information? PM me a site if you know it.

    Well to be fair, considering the percentage of americans who are obese, we could all use a cut to our collective food budgets, and as long as it ant freezing you can always put on a sweater and keep the heat down low.

    But lacking entertainment can drive certain people crazy. Better to be entertained and a little hungry than well fed and bored, I guess. *shrug*
     

Share This Page