DISH Enters Deal with ROKU
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 188
- Views 35K
Kind of funny how some of these unauthorized offerings are not available on other platforms in the United States, including Dish, but the powers that be choose to limit them and deem that we should be paying. In the cases like the United Kingdom that charges tv licensing fees to anyone who wants to watch, that makes sense to charge people watching on a Roku in the United States. However, for other channels that are free broadcasts in their country of origin, I won't pay to watch here. I'm not speaking of pay channels in their country of origin like CNN International, but channels like (repeat from earlier) CBC.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Heck,I'm fairly confident that Charlie isn't Spanish.
I've always had a feeling that all these online streaming providers that people keep raving about will end up charging more for their services the more subscribers they get. Everyone thinks they'll save all kinds of money by cutting out cable and satellite and going with online services. That may be true now but just like anything, the more customers need the more the product need needs to be produced. The more product that needs to be produced, the more man power you need to produce it. More man power means more cost to the company and who pays for that cost? The customer.
If products like Roku boxes become the main source of veiwing, expect them to charge more for their services. Remember when satellite was new to the game? Their programming was cheap. Now that it's a mainstream thing and everyone wants more and more, they need to charge more to keep up with demand. It's just the way these things seem to go and doesn't surprise me at all.
If products like Roku boxes become the main source of veiwing, expect them to charge more for their services. Remember when satellite was new to the game? Their programming was cheap. Now that it's a mainstream thing and everyone wants more and more, they need to charge more to keep up with demand. It's just the way these things seem to go and doesn't surprise me at all.
That's always the stupidest argument one can make.
A. "Hater" are often no such thing. They are people who are pointing out negative facts, or negative opinions based on fact. Sorry if those facts get in the way of your opinions.
B. Offer a reasonable rebuttal to the haters' hate, if they truly aren't making a convincing argument.
This is NOTHING like that.
If the NFL paid DirecTV to remove all other sports programming other than that provided by the NFL, then THAT would be exactly like it.
GaryPen said:
Sorry but that's wrong. The NFL is the content creator, just like the original international broadcasts. Direct and Dish are distributors of that content. Direct paid the NFL for Sunday ticket exclusivity, cutting out any competition for the content. Dish paid Roku for platform exclusivity for the international content, cutting out competition from other international channels on the Roku platform. It's not a perfect comparison since it's content exclusivity versus content exclusivity on a single platform, but close enough to question the divergent opinions of individuals' views towards Direct's actions versus Dish's actions.
Nope. My analogy is completely correct. In this case, Dish is the content provider just as the NFL is with Sunday Ticket, and Roku is the distributor of that content just as DirecTV is with Sunday Ticket. Dish limiting all International content on Roku to that provided only by Dish is EXACTLY the same as if the NFL were to limit all sports programming on DirecTV to that provided only by the NFL. Pretty simple. Apples to apples.
Your comparison of what DirecTv is currently doing with Sunday Ticket is a totally incorrect analogy to the Roku/Dish deal. Your example is better compared to TV Japan being available exclusively via satellite on Dish. I don't think anybody objects to those sorts of exclusive deals, at least not on a moral or ethical level, even if they find it annoying or inconvenient. (Myself being one of those annoyed by the latter.)
The divergence of opinion towards DirecTV and Dish regarding Sunday Ticket and Roku, respectively, is because they are not analogous.
How can you say (with a straight face) that Dish is the content provider? Are they producing the channels, negotiating programming and handling scheduling? No, they're not. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to even suggest that Dish is the content provider. They've worked out a distribution rights agreement with the providers and an additional distribution agreement with Roku. So your "apples to apples" comparison is anything but accurate.
Dish secured an exclusivity deal for international content on a platform, Roku. Just like Direct secured an exclusivity deal for Sunday Ticket on a platform, linearly broadcast television. My comparison would end up being even clearer if the NFL ever chooses to adopt an MLB.TV style alternative to Sunday Ticket. Direct would still have exclusivity as to that content on the one distribution platform, linear TV, but not another platform (online distribution). In this case, Dish has secured exclusivity on international offerings on one platform, Roku.
If you don't want to accept that, that's fine. We can agree to disagree.
So what programming went away because Sunday Ticket went exclusive with DirecTV? That's the problem with this deal, lost in the semantics arguments and blind defense of Dish, and and that's why it's not an apples to apples comparison.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
meStevo said:
The ability to get Sunday ticket through any other provider. I don't know the history of Sunday ticket, was it ever non exclusive?
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
DirecTV didn't offer every game on Sunday before locking up Sunday Ticket. It would be a more valid comparison if DirecTV signed Sunday Ticket and the agreement was that only NFL Sports could be shown on DirecTV - unless other sports/providers act nicely in which case they might grant permission. That's a more 'apples to apples' comparison.
meStevo said:
That equates Direct TV to Roku in this case and that's not how I see it. Both Dish and Direct secured rights to content to the exclusion of all others distributing that content.
Anyhow, I'm done with this topic. Bottom line, less choice is bad for consumers. But if you're a consumer, blame Roku for entering into the deal. Dish, like Direct with ST, saw an opportunity to gain content distribution exclusivity and went for it. Taking pot shots at Dish and not at Direct for similar activities is a double standard that I'm willing to point out. Direct has no obligation to non Direct subs who can't get ST because they don't have Direct; similarly, Dish has no obligation to non Dish Roku package subs who can't get programming because they don't sub to what Dish offers. Respective bad guys are the NFL and Roku for entering into the agreements and thereby limiting consumer choice.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
I being pessimistic on this. I think I may just get rid of mine. I built a HTPC that can do much more than just stream. Also I've been told I can't get the $10 per month for the extra it's gonna cost me to stream this stuff if I go above my cap.
No, that's over simplifying it to try and get out of the corner you've painted yourself into with this comparison. Since you are done though no point breaking down all the reasons you're still wrong. Thanks!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I think you guys missed the whole point that dangue was making. You direct a lot of ire towards Dish, when in reality, Roku is 100% responsible for making a deal with the evil empire.
I think the point is that teenagers are the future consumers with disposable income who often develop the manner in which they acquire content, products, services, and keep it with them for just about most of their life. The teens are a generation not averse to the PQ disadvantages of acquiring content on the internet, slow stream, pixelation and all. Considering they will probably earn less money than their parents due to our economy, they will view traditional MVPD's as expensive and unnecessary and gravitate to the technology they know and love so well to obtain content, and I mean LEGAL content in the form of their beloved APPLE product: Apple TV or other on-line MVPD. That is why Dish wants to be in the game, too.
Well with ST & Directv I can understand, but these are international TV stations, should they not dictate or charge dish carriage fees?
Just because the medium the channel is received is through the internet and not on one of Charlies satellites, I think these stations should be charging Charlie, carriage fees!
If Roku was streaming these channels for free, then of course they're (TV Stations) streaming online for free, so no fees, But if Dish and Roku are making money off these "Public Domain" channels then carriage fees should apply.
Just because the medium the channel is received is through the internet and not on one of Charlies satellites, I think these stations should be charging Charlie, carriage fees!
If Roku was streaming these channels for free, then of course they're (TV Stations) streaming online for free, so no fees, But if Dish and Roku are making money off these "Public Domain" channels then carriage fees should apply.
