Directv contract with Fox networks coming up...AGREEMENT REACHED
- Thread starter Mr Tony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 440
- Views 52K
- Status
Fox is greedy. Fox should ask for more money from the companies that advertise on fox not just its subscribers.
I wouldn't even know that these channels went away unless I read about it here. I haven't watched any of them in months. Don't have a single one of them in my favorites list.
Now who is lying?
I'm going to say Fox News is lying (would not be the 1st time).
Fox says Directv won't keep paying the same price.
Directv says Fox wants a 40% increase, but Fox says "This is not true".
ourpromisetoyou.com
keepmynets.com
[TD="class: capper-top, bgcolor: initial"][/TD]
[TD="class: middle, bgcolor: initial"]
[h=1][/h]
I'm going to say Fox News is lying (would not be the 1st time).
Fox says Directv won't keep paying the same price.
Directv says Fox wants a 40% increase, but Fox says "This is not true".
ourpromisetoyou.com
keepmynets.com
[TD="class: capper-top, bgcolor: initial"][/TD]
[TD="class: middle, bgcolor: initial"]
- Most people are used to inflation and paying slightly more for things they use every day. But no one in their right mind would agree to pay 40% more for those very same items. FOX has challenged our 40% claim as “ridiculous.” Well, they’re exactly right, it’s a ridiculous increase. They can deny whatever they want, but every time we do the simple math, the increase works out to be 40% above and beyond the nearly $1 billion per year we already pay them today. If FOX thinks 40% is “ridiculous,” then we can agree on something.
Last edited:
There are many ways to present numbers.
For example, if D* had 15% more subscribers than they had when they signed their last agreement, or if some of these channels were contracted at a fixed price, and now Fox wants them to pay for both more subscribers and for a 20% price increase, the total D* is paying could be 40%.
If so, then D* would be correct in saying that they are now paying $1B a year and Fox wants a 40% increase to $1.4B. Yet Fox would be correct in insisting they were not seeking a 40% rate increase, for perhaps $150K-$200K is due to having more subs and $200K-$300K or whatever is due to a rate increase.
For example, if D* had 15% more subscribers than they had when they signed their last agreement, or if some of these channels were contracted at a fixed price, and now Fox wants them to pay for both more subscribers and for a 20% price increase, the total D* is paying could be 40%.
If so, then D* would be correct in saying that they are now paying $1B a year and Fox wants a 40% increase to $1.4B. Yet Fox would be correct in insisting they were not seeking a 40% rate increase, for perhaps $150K-$200K is due to having more subs and $200K-$300K or whatever is due to a rate increase.
I would like to now IF INDEED Directv drops those channels, will we see any reduction in our monthly bill?
Last edited:
Highly unlikely that there would be a rate decrease if these channels are dropped.
1) No one knows for how long they would be dropped. If for just 1 month, then the cost of announcing and implementing first a rate decrease then a rate increase would be crazy. Same for 2 months or 3 months. They would get many complaints about any increase after a decrease.
2) If they go away permanently the best we could hope for is for a reduction or elimination of next year's rate increase. For many other channels & networks will be charging more by then. These increases would likely eat up the savings from dropping the Fox channels.
1) No one knows for how long they would be dropped. If for just 1 month, then the cost of announcing and implementing first a rate decrease then a rate increase would be crazy. Same for 2 months or 3 months. They would get many complaints about any increase after a decrease.
2) If they go away permanently the best we could hope for is for a reduction or elimination of next year's rate increase. For many other channels & networks will be charging more by then. These increases would likely eat up the savings from dropping the Fox channels.
I don't think they'll go away permanently. Probably for a few weeks like the Dish-Fox dispute last year.
If they drop them and you call in and bitch about it, they'll give you something. The go-to is $10 off per month for 6 months. If you have hockey issues, you might get them to give you Center Ice (that's what they did when Versus was dropped).
If Directv (and any other company that says " we are here to protect the customer by not giving in.....".) I call bull!!
Reduce my bill immediately when and if these channels are yanked Directv!!!
Reduce my bill immediately when and if these channels are yanked Directv!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
A few weeks? That started the first week of the NHL season and didn't end until baseball started. So well over 6 months. I remember it well as it's how I ended up with DirecTV. Unfortunately now I'm under contract and can't switch so easily.
I hope DirecTV -- and us subscribers -- get a deal for the HD of the Fox channels only being carried in SD. Fox Movie Channel HD. Nat Geo Wild HD (though I haven't seen a list stating that particular channel is in danger of being loss with a fallout in negotiations).
We'd probably get a four-day (or maybe one-week) Sneak Preview period of the HD Extra Pack.
The interesting thing is that we all want D* to hold their prices down.
But the only way they can do this is to be tough in negotiations with networks and channel providers.
If D* (and E*) gave in easily in these talks, all of the channels would hike their prices and our rates would go way up.
Thus I support D* being tough. And if it takes booting these channels off for a while, then do it.
But the only way they can do this is to be tough in negotiations with networks and channel providers.
If D* (and E*) gave in easily in these talks, all of the channels would hike their prices and our rates would go way up.
Thus I support D* being tough. And if it takes booting these channels off for a while, then do it.
- Status
