Nope. Fox agreed to let FS1 be carried under the Speed contract price agreement so they could meet the sub numbers they were promising at launch
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Dish/Fox Sports 1 NCAA Football Dispute?
- Thread starter Deadlocked
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 176
- Views 18K
Nope. Fox agreed to let FS1 be carried under the Speed contract price agreement so they could meet the sub numbers they were promising at launch
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
The original contract was for a motorsports network. If the ratings were better I imagine Fox would blackout the baseball games too
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
So, you're saying they can breach their original contract by discontinuing one channel before the contract is up, agree to honor the existing contract with the new channel, and then breach the contract again by demanding more money. Must be nice.
If that's a breach of contract charge against Fox, then I would almost have to think that Charlie Ergen or Joe Clayton, or whoever is in charge at Dish, should take NewsCorp to court for billions of $$$$$. This, to me, is a major serious crime that Mr. Murdoch (or better yet, Mr. Murder-Dock) is trying to get away with. Fox definitely will NOT get away with this.
Lots of speculation here so let me pile on. I'm also unclear as to how this does not violate the arrangement between Fox and DISH. They have an agreement for FS1 to be on DISH *right now*.
Not an agreement "until FS1 actually shows something people want to see". DISH has a right to show the channel until the agreement is up . . . whether it is the morphed SPEED agreement, who cares?
In the last few years with DISH and these fights, I have seen a lot of wonky s__t. Remember when they banned AMC to the bizzarre high channel range before they dumped them altogether? How about the grueling 9-month "yes,no,maybe" agreement with ESPN and Disney? Did it really need to take nearly a year to figure that out or is DISH just really really bad at this?
How about one frigging year without channel drama? I don't care whose "fault" it is. WE get screwed. So sick of the lawyers, the fights, the nonsense. Put customers first for once.
Also, kudos to DISH for claiming they are protecting us - higher costs (!), shudder! - I get it - it's to my benefit not to be able to watch my PAC12 school on the only sat provider for the PAC12 Network. At least their message is a consistent one. Consistency is tough to find these days.
Not an agreement "until FS1 actually shows something people want to see". DISH has a right to show the channel until the agreement is up . . . whether it is the morphed SPEED agreement, who cares?
In the last few years with DISH and these fights, I have seen a lot of wonky s__t. Remember when they banned AMC to the bizzarre high channel range before they dumped them altogether? How about the grueling 9-month "yes,no,maybe" agreement with ESPN and Disney? Did it really need to take nearly a year to figure that out or is DISH just really really bad at this?
How about one frigging year without channel drama? I don't care whose "fault" it is. WE get screwed. So sick of the lawyers, the fights, the nonsense. Put customers first for once.
Also, kudos to DISH for claiming they are protecting us - higher costs (!), shudder! - I get it - it's to my benefit not to be able to watch my PAC12 school on the only sat provider for the PAC12 Network. At least their message is a consistent one. Consistency is tough to find these days.
Again, their contract is for the channel. But they do not pay for the viewing rights on specific games, if it is to high. Same exact situation with fox sport south and Peachtree tv. Except the contract had to be redun on that one, because they got completely bought out. FS1 just got rebranded
Just the way it is, me included. Fox is the greedy bastard but Dish will take all the blame.
Its time I do some evaluation of all the competition. I've loved Dish equipment but I just dont see the value in all the tv packages and fees upon fees with all providers anymore. We pay a bunch of money for tv filled with ads and on screen popup garbage and still get caught in the middle of disputes and used as pawns. It appears I can get a package from Cox that has all basic cable channels in HD with out any sports for $40 a month including a digital box if I want to save some money during the non football months. Just adding the espn and fox sports nets adds another $30. It's time for me to look around and make some decisions about what I really want to pay.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Its time I do some evaluation of all the competition. I've loved Dish equipment but I just dont see the value in all the tv packages and fees upon fees with all providers anymore. We pay a bunch of money for tv filled with ads and on screen popup garbage and still get caught in the middle of disputes and used as pawns. It appears I can get a package from Cox that has all basic cable channels in HD with out any sports for $40 a month including a digital box if I want to save some money during the non football months. Just adding the espn and fox sports nets adds another $30. It's time for me to look around and make some decisions about what I really want to pay.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Welcome pack no HD so is worthless to me and DA is still missing many channels and is not cheaper. Surprised the heck out of me. Dish really isnt competing anymore except on Hardware and I have a standalone Sling Box so that isnt even a reason to stay.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
If you pay attention to this specific kind of dispute, it's clear to me games are specifically listed. So, when a channel has some games that DISH can show, but then an RSN gets those games, those added games are not part of the contract with the RSN and the RSN wants more money. DISH (CORRECTLY) then says we were allowed to show those games till you claimed them, and now you want to charge us in the middle of an existing contract. Where do we (DISH) get compensation for the games we just lost? If DISH had the right to any/all games on an RSN there would be no dispute, so it must be when games are added that were not previously being shown by an RSN or channel it is outside the scope of the contract.
I think the problem for DISH is that it happens in the middle of a contract. In the end they probably would end up paying but during an negotiation where they have more leverage. By doing it this way, the RSN or in this case FOX has all the leverage. DISH can't decide to drop the channel, but FOX can demand more money or withhold programming.
I think the problem for DISH is that it happens in the middle of a contract. In the end they probably would end up paying but during an negotiation where they have more leverage. By doing it this way, the RSN or in this case FOX has all the leverage. DISH can't decide to drop the channel, but FOX can demand more money or withhold programming.
So you will lock out a channel you do watch, that you are paying for anyway. That will certainly make them come to an agreement.
This is like the VS. episode when VS. told all the MVPD's they had to pay more money NOW, in mid-contract, to air any of the NHL games. Dish and Comcast refused (and I think another cable co--DirecTV paid) and just couldn't air the NHL games. But Charlie dropped VS completely. However, it was lees than 2 weeks when VS came crawling back to Dish. Let's hope cooler heads prevail, but Charlie is dealing with Rupert Murdoch. Would we expect anything less than the highest degree of greed from old Rupert.
I can't imagine that anyone would negotiate for a "special event" clause in their contract that permits this opportunistic extortion.
Fox needs to live within their means just like everyone else.
Fox needs to live within their means just like everyone else.
Remember these are not new college games, these are the same games that used to be on FX. Fox just move these games to a different channel. Why does DISH have to pay more now?
That's the crux of the matter, same as baseball games moving from one channel - where the games were seen on DISH, to another usually an RSN and now in mid season or contract they want to charge DISH for them.
The thing that is unclear is whether the regular Pac 12/Big 12 games are part of this dispute or not OR these early opening week non-conference games are the additional games mentioned. The devil is in the details. We have Dish's position laid out. Fox/Fox Sports 1 won't comment. Basically they won't tell us the Fox side of the dispute.
From the way I understand it Fox broadcasted those games on one channel to keep viewer numbers up.
Now that these games are for schools(that have been successful sports programs and by successful I mean winning games) that can generate a large viewer base now so Fox moved them to their own channel.
Fox did something similar with Braves games in the Atlanta market, so I don't think it's too much of a speculation to figure out Fox's side of the dispute.
