Know what, I AM going to explain it again.. In crayon this time for people like yourself who need it.
What's the end result of the three examples you listed? The channels are pulled.
What's the end result of D pulling the channels? The channels are pulled.
See a pattern? The end result is the same from the point of view of the consumer. Feel free to explain how D pulling the channels is materially different than Fox pulling them? Either way, D's subs DO NOT GET TO SEE THEM. And that is the bargaining power that Fox has, the anger of subs who are missing their channels and complain and/or leave.
Bottom line is the channels ARE going to be pulled either way, which is going to piss off the end user either way. The point that you are WILLFULLY IGNORING is that the party that pulls the plug holds the position of power in the negotiations.
It doesn't matter is Fox pulls the channels and holds them hostage or if D decides not to wait for that and pulls them itself. Either way, subs don't get to see them and Fox's main leverage is at work during the remainder of the negotiations.
You can bet your ass that it DOES matter. The past several disputes Fox has had, THEY pulled the plug, which put them into the position of power and FORCED the provider to accept unsavory contract terms in order to get them back. In this case, DIRECTV is in the position of power. They have taken away Fox's ability to hold the channels hostage by taking them hostage FIRST.
Do you really think that Directv won't be doling out discounts for those who lost their programming? That's standard procedure. Hell during the Versus dispute they were handing out free Center Ice subscriptions left and right!
Don't call me ignorant, back up your position.
I don't have to back up my position this time. Your last two posts speak for themselves.
I will concede that pulling the channels would make sense in one scenario that comes to mind:
D realizes that there is some major TV event set to be broadcast on one of the disputed channels in the near future (hypothetically let's say four to six weeks from now). In that instance, it might be best to try to force the issue now because more people will be upset about the missing channels later (when that major event is being broadcast). In this instance, timing would matter and so D's strategy could be important. Outside of that scenario (and I don't think it applies here), I don't see how pulling the channels and impacting consumers could ever help D's bargaining position.
Oh, you mean like last year's World Series? Fox had
NO qualms about using that to buttf**k Cablevision. Hell, they even went so far as to block Cablevision IP addresses from Hulu so people couldn't bypass the TV lockout. See, that's what happens when you let Fox have the position of power. After Nov 1, if there isn't a new contract and Directv doesn't pull them, Fox has total control over the feeds, and can pull them for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Once Fox has pulled them, they own all the power and have absolutely no reason to accept any terms set by Directv.
Again, I want to stress the difference between the threat of doing such a thing and actually going forward with that threat. D's threat effectively nullifies Fox's threat to do just that. However, actually pulling the channels when they can stay up at the existing rate during negotiations does not strengthen D's bargaining position.
Yes it does, and if you would simply pay attention, you would know why.
JerseyMatt, you clearly disagree with what I've stated. I don't have a problem with that. But rather than calling me ignorant and uneducated (which I'm not), back up your statements with facts or a competing theory/explanation that demonstrates why I'm wrong. For the record, restating what you've already said, merely saying (without supporting the statement) that D's stance takes away Fox's leverage, or calling me names isn't a convincing argument.
Again, I HAVE backed up my argument. You just are choosing to ignore it. Which makes you what.. Class? That's right, ignorant.
As for your claim that my "potshots that have zero basis in factual knowledge", and my alleged lack of knowledge of who caved.. True, the details of these deals are kept sealed for this very reason. But there are telling indicators out there if you take 28 seconds to do a search..
Like this little tidbit:
News Corp.’s Fox blocked its programming, including two World Series games, from Cablevision for two weeks, until Cablevision agreed Oct. 30 to pay what it called an “unfair price.”
