DISH Reaches Long Term Agreement with DISNEY / ESPN / ABC

[mike123abc]

If the Supreme Court rules it as legal then the networks are up a creek without a paddle. Cable/Satellite/IPTV providers may decide to roll their own solution similar to what Aereo does for their markets and tell the networks to shove their retransmission fees.

Just like with autohop, what Aereo does is probably legal. But, unlike Aereo Dish (and DIRECTV/Cable) want other channels from the networks. I could see the networks withholding their cable channels unless Dish (and others) pay the retransmission fees. If Aereo does indeed win the the Supreme Court, I do not see Dish and others being able to get around the retransmission fees.

I would not be surprised if the new Dish/Disney contract included a clause preventing Dish from using an Aereo technique to avoid retransmission fees.... And I bet similar language is being put in every contract with every cable company.

 

[JTBenson]

Just like with autohop, what Aereo does is probably legal. But, unlike Aereo Dish (and DIRECTV/Cable) want other channels from the networks. I could see the networks withholding their cable channels unless Dish (and others) pay the retransmission fees. If Aereo does indeed win the the Supreme Court, I do not see Dish and others being able to get around the retransmission fees.

I would not be surprised if the new Dish/Disney contract included a clause preventing Dish from using an Aereo technique to avoid retransmission fees.... And I bet similar language is being put in every contract with every cable company.

That is a great point. The Big 4 networks all have cable channels that many want so you just can't bypass them.

 

[dare2be]

That is a great point. The Big 4 networks all have cable channels that many want so you just can't bypass them.

The beauty of the extortion model.

My initial thought when this thread started was "we get 'em if we get 'em"

Now, after the price hikes, it's "we better get 'em"

 

[Tampa8]

I would not be surprised if the new Dish/Disney contract included a clause preventing Dish from using an Aereo technique to avoid retransmission fees.... And I bet similar language is being put in every contract with every cable company.

I could not disagree more. That makes it sound like DISH is cornered with no way out and must give up any technology now or in the future. Just as I think it isn't realistic that DISH will simply give up use of the autohop as some posters have said will happen, neither would they ever give up some future use of technology. It would be better to not sign a contract with Disney. Glad carriers didn't just give up rights to use a DVR. I see it as a position of strength that there may be something out there other than the one way now to get locals to the customer. (Two ways with OTA) Give up that strength and then they are cornered.

 

[mike123abc]

I could not disagree more. That makes it sound like DISH is cornered with no way out and must give up any technology now or in the future. Just as I think it isn't realistic that DISH will simply give up use of the autohop as some posters have said will happen, neither would they ever give up some future use of technology. It would be better to not sign a contract with Disney. Glad carriers didn't just give up rights to use a DVR. I see it as a position of strength that there may be something out there other than the one way now to get locals to the customer. (Two ways with OTA) Give up that strength and then they are cornered.

If the networks had thought of it sooner we probably would not have DVRs... Dish could not survive without the networks and all their cable channels. Dish could perhaps suffer through the loss of one of them like Disney, but when they lose the other ones too, they would not survive. Who would subscribe with Dish when they only had a few independent channels?

 

[bellevuecoug]

If the networks had thought of it sooner we probably would not have DVRs... Dish could not survive without the networks and all their cable channels. Dish could perhaps suffer through the loss of one of them like Disney, but when they lose the other ones too, they would not survive. Who would subscribe with Dish when they only had a few independent channels?

Hey, per Dish, the Hopper is the greatest thing ever.

In fact, it is SOOOOO great, who needs all those channels anyway?

 

[osu1991]

If the networks had thought of it sooner we probably would not have DVRs... Dish could not survive without the networks and all their cable channels. Dish could perhaps suffer through the loss of one of them like Disney, but when they lose the other ones too, they would not survive. Who would subscribe with Dish when they only had a few independent channels?

Who is going to subscribe to all the crap that Disney, Viacom, Comcast, Turner etc... puts out, if there is no mass distribution method? They need Sat and Cable providers as much as or more than Dish, Directv and Cable need all of them. The media groups can keep trying to play the providers off one another but at some point people are going to say to hell with it and go with what they can afford even if it means losing some channels.

 

[PortlandChris]

That is a great point. The Big 4 networks all have cable channels that many want so you just can't bypass them.

But that is the point - they both need each other. Dish commands what, almost 15M subs, cut them off and that's 15% of revenue. Can big content companies like Disney, Viacom, Comcast really afford to do that? ESPN made commitments to its sports offerings, for example, based upon the fact it had 100% of the customers it has now, not 85% of them. No company, with existing commitments in place, can afford to give up 15% of it's customers overnight. Disney is also afraid that, say Dish lacks ESPN going forward - no doubt some customers would move on to other providers - how many would stay and be free of the huge minimum payment for something they do not watch anyway? Maybe a few, maybe a lot. If it is a lot, then other providers take notice. It is all a fine balance.

 

[Voyager6]

Just like with autohop, what Aereo does is probably legal. But, unlike Aereo Dish (and DIRECTV/Cable) want other channels from the networks. I could see the networks withholding their cable channels unless Dish (and others) pay the retransmission fees. If Aereo does indeed win the the Supreme Court, I do not see Dish and others being able to get around the retransmission fees.

I would not be surprised if the new Dish/Disney contract included a clause preventing Dish from using an Aereo technique to avoid retransmission fees.... And I bet similar language is being put in every contract with every cable company.

Wouldn't there be some anti-trust issues with this?

 

[Yespage]

Wouldn't there be some anti-trust issues with this?

In the US? Anti-Trust? Are you serious?

A company that is a massive cable provider (Comcast) with a history of withholding their content from other competitors was allowed to buy a major distributor of television programming (NBC/Universal). John Sherman has been dead for over 110 years.

 

[dare2be]

I hate to like the post above, but I only do it because it speaks the ugly truth.

 

[Voyager6]

The DOJ and the FTC are still doing antitrust cases. https://www.intelligize.com/blog/recent-merger-antitrust-cases/
The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger approval did have conditions. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/business/media/19comcast.html?_r=0

 

[dangue]

The DOJ and the FTC are still doing antitrust cases. https://www.intelligize.com/blog/recent-merger-antitrust-cases/ The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger approval did have conditions. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/business/media/19comcast.html?_r=0

Yes, but this case isn't a merger or several players in the market colluding to collectively get better terms from another company or group of companies so it's not likely to trigger any sort of intensive anti-trust investigation.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[Voyager6]

Yes, but this case isn't a merger or several players in the market colluding to collectively get better terms from another company or group of companies so it's not likely to trigger any sort of intensive anti-trust investigation.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

Yes but if Disney were to put conditions like you can't use a service like Aereo in order to get our channels, I think the FTC would look into it. Restraint of trade and things like that, you know.

 

[mike123abc]

The content owners (networks) own the copyrights and can license them with conditions as they see fit. It is a balance. HBO now demands HDMI with copy protection on all cable boxes. I am sure they would love it if they could somehow get any copy of a show on a DVR to self destruct too... When Dish had the issue with the Hopper deauthorizing viewing of Premium channel recordings after a subscription termination made me wonder if this is the next demand HBO has made and operators like Dish are getting ready for, but have not officially turned on yet. I would not be surprised if it suddenly happened in the future like the HDMI requirement. These are not anti trust issues as long as they offer similar licensing terms to all.

 

[Tampa8]

Yes but if Disney were to put conditions like you can't use a service like Aereo in order to get our channels, I think the FTC would look into it. Restraint of trade and things like that, you know.

Only if DISH or whoever refuses then contacts the DOJ. If they simply rollover and accept no use of Aereo there is nothing to investigate. It goes to why I said there is no way DISH will agree to not using future technology.

 

[Voyager6]

The content owners (networks) own the copyrights and can license them with conditions as they see fit. It is a balance. HBO now demands HDMI with copy protection on all cable boxes. I am sure they would love it if they could somehow get any copy of a show on a DVR to self destruct too... When Dish had the issue with the Hopper deauthorizing viewing of Premium channel recordings after a subscription termination made me wonder if this is the next demand HBO has made and operators like Dish are getting ready for, but have not officially turned on yet. I would not be surprised if it suddenly happened in the future like the HDMI requirement. These are not anti trust issues as long as they offer similar licensing terms to all.

Putting limitations on the use of content is one thing refusing to sell you content if you do business with another company is something else.

 

[Tampa8]

The content owners (networks) own the copyrights and can license them with conditions as they see fit. It is a balance. HBO now demands HDMI with copy protection on all cable boxes. I am sure they would love it if they could somehow get any copy of a show on a DVR to self destruct too... When Dish had the issue with the Hopper deauthorizing viewing of Premium channel recordings after a subscription termination made me wonder if this is the next demand HBO has made and operators like Dish are getting ready for, but have not officially turned on yet. I would not be surprised if it suddenly happened in the future like the HDMI requirement. These are not anti trust issues as long as they offer similar licensing terms to all.

I see two very different circumstances however. First is demanding a company not use a product outside the reach of the content provider. The other is what the content provider wants to allow for it's own programming. There are limits to that as we all know (Fair use, DVRs etc), but I hate to say it they may have a case to say you can't watch their programming if not currently subscribed. (Freeview is currently subscribed) Lets hope that does not become reality.

 

[mike123abc]

Putting limitations on the use of content is one thing refusing to sell you content if you do business with another company is something else.

It happens all the time. If you sign a contract with Coke you agree not to use Pepsi or other third party colas. In exchange for licensing ABC content from us you agree not to try to circumvent this contract using third party signal acquisition or provide consolidated antenna services or some such clause.

 

[Tampa8]

About as apple and oranges as you can get. First, as I did post, if both parties agree there is no government intervention for that, as both are gaining by the contract. But in addition, Coke isn't in the position to make a demand, they are vying with Pepsi to be seen/used by a client. The Client (Dish as the correlative) holds the cards in your scenario. Coke would simply be negotiating if we pay X we want y. The client if they did not like that could go to Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, whoever and see if they can get a better deal. Nothing like the situation of DISH being held hostage by the Networks, as they are by the affiliates.

About as apple and oranges as you can get. First, as I did post, if both parties agree there is no government intervention for that, as both are gaining by the contract. But in addition, Coke isn't in the position to make a demand, they are vying with Pepsi to be seen/used by a client. The Client (Dish as the correlative) holds the cards in your scenario. Coke would simply be negotiating if we pay X we want y. The client if they did not like that could go to Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, whoever and see if they can get a better deal. Nothing like the situation of DISH being held hostage by the Networks, as they are by the affiliates.

In addition to all that, there is such a thing as accepted practices in an industry. In Hollywood you can be turned down for employment or terminated because you are not pretty enough or have gained too much weight - or are too pretty. Firefighting among other industries have some accepted work rules that would not be accepted in other industries.