Directv contract with Fox networks coming up...AGREEMENT REACHED

Toggle sidebar
Status
Please reply by conversation.
If people would learn about these things rather than blindly getting pissed off at the wrong party (your gullibility and naivety is what Fox is counting on with those commercials and websites), they would realize that Directv is on YOUR side by doing this.. But no, Fox is exploiting the fact that all they have to do is claim "Well we tried, we offered to let D* keep the feeds but THEY are going to pull them" and people will take it at face value, because they are oblivious to the truth. The main reason Fox is so pissed is because D* took the only leverage they had away from them.

Let's put it this way for anyone who thinks this isn't a "pro customer" move.. The rate hike gets passed to you 100% regardless of the outcome (which is why Charlie didn't care, it doesn't affect his bottom line one bit). Would you rather there be no or a minimal hike (5-10%), or the 40% that Fox is demanding? If D* caves in to Fox, you can guarantee it'll be close to, if not the 40%. With Directv controlling the deck, it'll be closer to nothing.
 
Last edited:
I predict these programmers are going to continue to raise rates until this issue comes to a head.
At that point the providers are going to say "no more".
Pay TV at that point will become a luxury out of reach of the average consumer.
Now, suppose the providers one by one tell the producers to screw off. If there are so few providers willing to distribute the product, the producers will either give in or the pay TV business implodes
 
JerseyMatt said:
If people would learn about these things rather than blindly getting pissed off at the wrong party (your gullibility and naivety is what Fox is counting on with those commercials and websites), they would realize that Directv is on YOUR side by doing this.. But no, Fox is exploiting the fact that all they have to do is claim "Well we tried, we offered to let D* keep the feeds but THEY are going to pull them" and people will take it at face value, because they are oblivious to the truth. The main reason Fox is so pissed is because D* took the only leverage they had away from them.

Let's put it this way for anyone who thinks this isn't a "pro customer" move.. The rate hike gets passed to you 100% regardless of the outcome (which is why Charlie didn't care, it doesn't affect his bottom line one bit). Would you rather there be no or a minimal hike (5-10%), or the 40% that Fox is demanding? If D* caves in to Fox, you can guarantee it'll be close to, if not the 40%. With Directv controlling the deck, it'll be closer to nothing.
Click to expand...

Charlie didn't care? Last I checked, there was a dispute and the channels were off for a month or so. They eventually came back, but you have no idea who caved, so stop taking pointless potshots that have zero basis in factual knowledge.

Also, your argument that D threatening to pull the channels takes away Fox's leverage doesn't hold up when examined closely.

Consumers don't distinguish between who pulled the channels. All the average consumer knows and cares about is that the channels are gone from their provider. Consumer anger at the channels being gone are what provide Fox with leverage. In this case, they can even make D out to be the bad guys because D decided to pull them. But regardless of who consumers blame for the missing channels, the situation makes them unhappy and some will change providers over it. The specter of D losing consumers over missing channels is what creates leverage for Fox, not Fox's threat of pulling them.

D only harms their position by needlessly pulling channels during negotiations. What's the downside of leaving the channels up until talks with Fox break down and Fox pulls them? They don't get to dictate when the channels fall off the system? At least for however long they are left up during negotiations, consumers aren't impacted and won't be angered. If it doesn't work out, there will be plenty of time for the channels to be pulled and consumers to be impacted. No need to hurry that along when the channels can be left up at the current rates.

I'm not a fan of either side holding consumers hostage in these sorts of negotiations. In general, I side with D because the requested price increase is ridiculous (especially in the current economy). However, unless D is just posturing with the threat to pull the stations (rather than actually planning on pulling them), they are being foolish and playing to Fox's bargaining strength.
 
While it is nice to think it could be a tipping point that would cause the providers to balk and say no more, it really won't happen until enough actual subscribers do it. When/if we as subscribers talk with our wallets we get listened to very carefully. Otherwise we get lip service and a bare nod of the head as they announce another rate increase.
 
Sounds like alot of worrying over something that none of us have any say in.
No sense in complaining about something that may not even happen.

When Nov 1st comes, well find out then.
 
dangue said:
Charlie didn't care? Last I checked, there was a dispute and the channels were off for a month or so. They eventually came back, but you have no idea who caved, so stop taking pointless potshots that have zero basis in factual knowledge.

Also, your argument that D threatening to pull the channels takes away Fox's leverage doesn't hold up when examined closely.

Consumers don't distinguish between who pulled the channels. All the average consumer knows and cares about is that the channels are gone from their provider. Consumer anger at the channels being gone are what provide Fox with leverage. In this case, they can even make D out to be the bad guys because D decided to pull them. But regardless of who consumers blame for the missing channels, the situation makes them unhappy and some will change providers over it. The specter of D losing consumers over missing channels is what creates leverage for Fox, not Fox's threat of pulling them.

D only harms their position by needlessly pulling channels during negotiations. What's the downside of leaving the channels up until talks with Fox break down and Fox pulls them? They don't get to dictate when the channels fall off the system? At least for however long they are left up during negotiations, consumers aren't impacted and won't be angered. If it doesn't work out, there will be plenty of time for the channels to be pulled and consumers to be impacted. No need to hurry that along when the channels can be left up at the current rates.

I'm not a fan of either side holding consumers hostage in these sorts of negotiations. In general, I side with D because the requested price increase is ridiculous (especially in the current economy). However, unless D is just posturing with the threat to pull the stations (rather than actually planning on pulling them), they are being foolish and playing to Fox's bargaining strength.
Click to expand...

Get a clue.

In the Fox/Dish dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.
In the Fox/Cablevision dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.
In the Fox/TWC dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.

Are you seeing the pattern here? Obviously Mike White does..

You don't know what you're talking about (very obvious since you've blatantly ignored what I've explained twice already about why they won't keep the channels up), so by posting this crap you're only proving how oblivious you really are. You are an uneducated consumer, hence you are PART of the problem. YOUR IGNORANCE is what Fox is taking advantage of. The quicker you learn that, the better off we all are.
 
Last edited:
JerseyMatt said:
If people would learn about these things rather than blindly getting pissed off at the wrong party (your gullibility and naivety is what Fox is counting on with those commercials and websites), they would realize that Directv is on YOUR side by doing this.. But no, Fox is exploiting the fact that all they have to do is claim "Well we tried, we offered to let D* keep the feeds but THEY are going to pull them" and people will take it at face value, because they are oblivious to the truth. The main reason Fox is so pissed is because D* took the only leverage they had away from them.

Let's put it this way for anyone who thinks this isn't a "pro customer" move.. The rate hike gets passed to you 100% regardless of the outcome (which is why Charlie didn't care, it doesn't affect his bottom line one bit). Would you rather there be no or a minimal hike (5-10%), or the 40% that Fox is demanding? If D* caves in to Fox, you can guarantee it'll be close to, if not the 40%. With Directv controlling the deck, it'll be closer to nothing.
Click to expand...

"Charlie didn't care" I take umbrage with this! I work for DISH and our customers told us OVERWHELMINGLY that they wanted the matter settled. So we listened to them and settled with Fox. They pretty much said we don't care if you raise prices just settle this so that is what we did.

This is my opinion only and is not an official position of DISH Network.
 
Last edited:
JerseyMatt said:
Get a clue.

In the Fox/Dish dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.
In the Fox/Cablevision dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.
In the Fox/TWC dispute, FOX pulled the channels and held them hostage.

Are you seeing the pattern here? Obviously Mike White does..

You don't know what you're talking about (very obvious since you've blatantly ignored what I've explained twice already about why they won't keep the channels up), so by posting this crap you're only proving how oblivious you really are. You are an uneducated consumer, hence you are PART of the problem. YOUR IGNORANCE is what Fox is taking advantage of. The quicker you learn that, the better off we all are.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Don't call me ignorant, back up your position.

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.

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.

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.
 
I did back up my statements. Several times in fact. You're picking and choosing what you want to acknowledge, and that's a very ignorant thing to do. Go back to page 10 and read it until you can understand it. I'm not explaining it again. And I'm not calling you names. I'm stating the FACT that you are ignorant and an uneducated consumer. All the evidence to back THAT up is in your last two posts.
 
Know what, I AM going to explain it again.. In crayon this time for people like yourself who need it.

dangue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cashcobra said:
"Charlie didn't care" I take umbrage with this! I work for DISH and our customers told us OVERWHELMINGLY that they wanted the matter settled. So we listened to them and settled with Fox. They pretty much said we don't care if you raise prices just settle this so that is what we did.

This is my opinion only and is not an official position of DISH Network.
Click to expand...

I didn't see this before.

No, sorry, don't buy it. Unless you're a rich, tax-evading moron like Warren Buffett or Tim Geithner, people don't just volunteer to pay more for the same exact service. They call up and bitch about it and you give them whatever discount is in the contingency plan. They don't tell you 'please charge me more for something that I'm already being overcharged for'.

Seriously, it's insulting for you to assume that we'd all buy that load of crap.
 
Outside of Sports, does anyone watch FOX anyways ?

I record shows on a regular basis weekly and not ONE of them is on FOX.

They are as bad as NBC in the overall scheme of things.
 
From the D* website:

Why am I seeing an on-screen message or announcement saying I could lose several of my favorite Fox channels?

We have been in discussions to renew our agreement with News Corporation (News Corp) and Fox for its Fox Sports channels, FX and some other national channels. The agreement, which expired at midnight on Sept. 30, does not involve either your local Fox station or Fox News, so those services are not affected.

We have a fundamental disagreement with News Corp over its demand that our customers pay 40 % more for the same Fox channels they already receive. That's simply unfair. Since they will not budge, we are forced to take extreme measures. We have told News Corp that unless they come back with a reasonable price that will protect our customers from excessive increases, we will suspend several of their channels on November 1.

When it comes to providing the best experience at the most reasonable value, everyone is accountable, and so we want to prevent News Corp/Fox from treating you any differently. We recognize that this situation will cause short-term inconvenience, and we respectfully ask for your patience. We believe these actions will help keep your monthly bills under more control over the long term.



So all this complaining is over the RSN's and FX ?
 
Ah, deja vu all over again. In my opinion, both companies have so much money tied up in each other, this will simply hurt both. Don't think that if this drags on, FOX will lose sponsoring money from DirecTV. DirecTV is putting it's reputation as the "sports provider" on the line. Cable will take shots at this, as will Dish.

Also, I need to find the Dish/FOX dispute thread, and read through its hundreds of pages. Because I have never seen any official claim or non official claim from anyone tied with Dish saying that they caved. Considering that went on for a month, I don't think they caved. When the channels are pulled for a few hours to a few days, I see that as the provider caving. DirecTV must have leverage in the situation, but if those channels go next week, that's their last good card to be played. In the court of public opinion, they're the bad guys.
 
Jimbo said:
Outside of Sports, does anyone watch FOX anyways ?

I record shows on a regular basis weekly and not ONE of them is on FOX.

They are as bad as NBC in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Besides Football, I only watch the Sunday Night Cartoons. I used to watch Fringe, but since they moved to Fridays, I keep forgetting about it. But I can always catch up on it online. I agree NBC still sucks but at least Comcast is trying to make it better (compared to what Jeff Zucker did.)
 
espaeth said:
Sons of Anarchy and Rescue Me on FX.

There is quite a bit a good programming on the National Geographic Channel as well.
Click to expand...

Yep, but because he does not watch any of those, nobody does/should...Oh btw, RSN? not a big deal? All of my local teams play there except the Lions. Really? Not a big deal? Love the close mind, too funny!!
 
Jimbo said:
Outside of Sports, does anyone watch FOX anyways ?

I record shows on a regular basis weekly and not ONE of them is on FOX.

They are as bad as NBC in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...
FNC is the most popular news channel by a long shot (often more viewers than all other combined in some time slots) and one of the most viewed channels on paid TV.

Local FOX has some popular shows outside of sports.

My wife likes NatGeo
 
DodgerKing said:
FNC is the most popular news channel by a long shot (often more viewers than all other combined in some time slots) and one of the most viewed channels on paid TV.

Local FOX has some popular shows outside of sports.
Click to expand...
Not to single you out, but since others have mentioned it I think it's important to reset here:

The channels involved are FX, National Geographic Channel, Speed Channel, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Soccer Plus, Fox Movie Channel, Fox Deportes and FuelTV. Some of you may also lose the 13 Fox Sports regional networks that televise some college football and NHL hockey into your home communities. Your local FOX broadcast station and Fox News Channel are not involved.
Click to expand...
Source: DIRECTV – Our Promise To You | FAQ

Local FOX stations (ie, shows like House, Fringe, Glee, etc) won't be affected, nor will FOX News.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top