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

Should companies be allowed to pull programming during carriage disputes?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by thelucky1, Oct 15, 2010.

  1. thelucky1

    thelucky1 Icon

    983
    21
    Feb 23, 2009
    A recent statement from NY Republican Congressman Peter King noted that a blackout of signals "would be an unconscionable result and unfair to sports and programming fans who have no part in this fight". :(

    Should both sides agree to binding arbitration to ensure a new agreement is reached with no disruption of programming?

    Should the FCC and/or Congress get involved?
     
  2. RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    16,476
    133
    Aug 5, 2002
    Dripping...
    I thought the GOP and especially the Tea Party movement were all in favor of keeping the government out of business and following the constitution? I guess I missed the part about following the constitution unless I can't watch my soap or football game;)
     
  3. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    The government should stay the heck out of it. It is fair commerce between two companies.

    IMHO, if there is no longer a carriage agreement (the contract ran out) then the broadcaster should have the right to pull their programming. Once that contract has run out they should be able to do anything they want.

    However, within the contract period they should be bound to delivering the content agreed upon.

    Mike
     
  4. JeffBowser

    JeffBowser blah blah blah

    2,549
    18
    Dec 21, 2006
    I realize where I am posting this, but....

    TV is NOT a big deal, despite all the angst on this and other TV boards about trivia. They (the Gov't) should be more concerned about the fact that we are rapidly spending this country into 3rd world status, not dumb-arse entertainment options and their piddly arguments amongst themselves.
     
  5. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    King is a bit nutty and has little pull. Yes, companies should be able to do this. No, the government has no place intruding in the matter.
     
  6. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    That's really a good point. The government should have nothing to do with entertainment. I was POed when they spent all that money on hearings for steroids use in baseball. That was MLBs problem or at worst law enforcements but definitely not Congress' problem.

    As far as carriage agreements go, if either side breaches the contract, take it to court. Otherwise everything else that's legal, including pulling programming, is fair game.

    My 3.34¢ FWIW. :D

    Mike
     
  7. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,881
    196
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Yes.

    No.
     
  8. sdk009

    sdk009 Icon

    695
    19
    Jan 19, 2007
    Kihei, Maui, HI
    Except that TV is the biggest reason we are headed to Third World status. Unfortunately more people care about voting for the next American Idol than for their own members of Congress.
     
  9. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Pretty succinct. :D

    Mike
     
  10. TDK1044

    TDK1044 Godfather

    602
    36
    Apr 8, 2010
    +1 :)
     
  11. RunnerFL

    RunnerFL Well-Known Member

    17,054
    312
    Jan 4, 2006
    If the contract has run out and no agreement has been made for a new contract then by all means they have the right to stop broadcasting.

    Say you are a contracted employee at your place of employment. Your contract has run out and no new contract has been signed. Are you going to continue to work for free?
     
  12. evan_s

    evan_s Hall Of Fame

    2,136
    0
    Mar 3, 2008
    I'm really torn.

    On the one hand, it is just TV and I'm all for government staying out of as much as possible. On the other, the government and FCC are already involved by setting up and allowing local or national monopolies for providers of the programming. If a TV provider could negotiate to carry a out of market version of the channel or had some other alternative to get the programming it would be a different story. Living in an area where a programing provider, who is also a TV provider, has apparently been perfectly happy to ask a ridiculous amount for carriage and not have their programming available on DirecTV, Dish or even other cable co's in the area for an extended period of time, I'd love to see the FCC step in and resolve the situation. Luckily, I don't really care too much about the channel as they only have 1 pro team and 1 college team on it and neither really interests me. (Comcast sports north west with the ducks and blazers games).
     
  13. The Merg

    The Merg 1*

    10,289
    35
    Jun 24, 2007
    Northern VA
    !rolling

    - Merg
     
  14. billsharpe

    billsharpe Hall Of Fame

    2,697
    73
    Jan 25, 2007
    Southern...
    Unconscionable result? Hardly

    Fair? Of course not, but lots of things in life aren't fair.

    Arbitration would be nice. FCC/Congressional involvement not so nice.
     
  15. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    I am normally all for the government staying out of the way of businesses etc, but here I do kind of wish they would do a bit more. I think that the channels should have to stay online while the nogetiations are ongoing, as long as the two are still interested in doing business. Pulling the channels should not be allowed to kind of force the company like DirecTV to cave in to the channel owners demand. The costs should be held the same as they were before the end of the contract, and once a new contract is signed they can backcharge, or refund the difference in costs for the amount of time it was carried out of contract.

    As long as the home subscriber is held into their contract, the content provider should not be able to take away channels and still hold them in the same contract. For example if I only subscribed to DirecTV because I wanted to watch Fox and all of the sudden Fox is taken off of DirecTV, I should be able to cancel my DirecTV subscription withouth penalty. Because this is not the way it works, I should not be punished by losing Fox because DirecTV does not want to meet Fox's new demands. Either Fox should have to let DirecTV keep sending out the channel, or DirecTV should have to let customers leave.
     
  16. Xsabresx

    Xsabresx Icon

    1,043
    4
    Oct 8, 2007
    I am sorry but I am not willing to hear/read your comments for anything above 2.92¢ . I'll have to place you on ignore until those demands are met. :D
     
  17. DogLover

    DogLover Hall Of Fame

    2,510
    0
    Mar 18, 2007
    But in that scenario, what motivation would DirecTV ever have to grant a provider a price increase? After all, they can continue to "negotiate" for years, all the while still paying the old rate.

    And there is nothing today that prevents a provider from continuing to provide content while negotiations are ongoing. If they choose to remove content, that is their decision. They are taking a risk doing that. After all, the distributor might decide that the revenue lost from customers that cancel isn't as much as the provider is asking.

    I do feel for those customers that lose channels. However, no one forced them into an agreement.
     
  18. wallybarthman

    wallybarthman Godfather

    363
    0
    Feb 4, 2009
    This is my point exactly. Because DTV and others can contract us and then remove channels (and I know its in our subscriber agreement) the consumer get hosed.

    I don't think the channels should remain on though during a dispute - this gives the provider no real reason to negotiate.

    Binding arbitration sounds like the best option to me. The FCC did then to Comcast when they swallowed up old Adelphia affiliates.
     
  19. anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    My initial reaction was no they should not get involved. If it was a monopoly or they hold monopolistic power then they probably should but as long as there are choices for the consumer then there is less need.

    But maybe the consumer does need some protection. Perhaps there should be waiver of the commitment period if there is a material or substantial change in programming. Then leave it up to the customer to switch if they are unhappy and impacted by the carriage disputes. Let em have their carriage disputes but don't hold the customer hostage during it.

    Question is what is material or substantial. A single channel, no probably not.
     
  20. Mike Bertelson

    Mike Bertelson 6EQUJ5 WOW! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    14,040
    94
    Jan 24, 2007
    Hopefully you'll see my signature before you get your ignore list straightened out. :D

    Mike
     

Share This Page