Know what, I AM going to explain it again.. In crayon this time for people like yourself who need it.
Insulting me isn't productive in the least, but if it makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead.
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.
The channels aren't necessarily going to be pulled. According to the D press release that was quoted later in this thread, the contract expired 9/30 and the channels are still here. By your theory, D should have pulled them immediately to increase leverage in negotiations rather than leaving them up this entire month. Has leaving them up given Fox any more leverage? No, but it has kept subs from being aware of the dispute until the impending deadline D set forced both sides to go public with the issue. Again, limiting the impact to subs is to D's benefit. In this scenario, the party that pulls the plug DOES NOT hold the power in the negotiations. This is not some run of the mill contract for widgets that D can pull the plug on and threaten to go to a competitor for alternate widgets. Fox provides unique programming, the results of it being pulled is that D subs lose access to the programming. PERIOD. END OF STATEMENT. The channels going dark are to Fox's advantage, but the typical consumer will blame the provider. You're the one that's WILLFULLY IGNORING this reality. Pulling the channels pre-emptively doesn't give D any positioning power because the result is the same as if Fox had pulled them.
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.
That's non-sensical. In either scenario, the channels are removed and D's subs are left unhappy. This harms D more than the temporary loss in viewership will hurt Fox's advertising revenue.
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!
When did I ever say that I don't expect them to have to give out freebies and discounts to compensate people? That is part of the reason why the channels being pulled plays into Fox's hands. D subs notice and complain and D has to either give discounts or watch subs leave.
I don't have to back up my position this time. Your last two posts speak for themselves.
Yes they do. Yours however do not explain the reasoning behind your statement that "D pulling the channels and holding them hostage puts them in a position of power in the negotiations." You assert this and then contrast it to situations where Fox pulled the channels and won. But THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The channels will still be pulled and D subs will still be upset. The only difference is that D will lose the PR battle because they will be portrayed as the bad guys for pulling the channels during ongoing negotiations.
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.
This is exactly what I mean. However, since the local Fox affiliates aren't in dispute in this case, it doesn't apply (even if there was some delay in the rest of the series that would push the games into November).
Yes it does, and if you would simply pay attention, you would know why.
Oh, I'm paying attention and I'm even willing to change my view on this if warranted. At this point you haven't shown how D's bargaining position is strangthened by actually pulling the channels.
Again, I HAVE backed up my argument. You just are choosing to ignore it. Which makes you what.. Class? That's right, ignorant.
Making an assertion is not the same as backing up your argument.
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:
Yes, Cablevision, World Series- big event that people demanded to see- doesn't apply in this case, see above. And since the potshot I was criticizing was directed at Charlie and Dish, this is also irrelevant.
