Dish sues Disney
- Thread starter rad
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 52
- Views 11K
Is there any proof that ESPN (and indeed other networks in similar situations) have been unfair to DISH while being fair to all the rest? It just seems almost inconceivable that DISH constantly get treated unfairly while the rest rarely ever have similar complaints. It just seems to me that at least once a month, DISH has a complaint like this one directed at a particular network.
E* had contract language that guaranteed they would have best rates, i.e., no one should be getting a lower rate. Other carriers negotiate contracts with Disney. E* discovers they are not getting the best rates. E* sues. This is pretty typical legal behavior regardless of the industry.
ESPN: People are too much into sports.
Disney: Kids watch too much TV.
Drop the channels. Kids spend MORE time PLAYING sports. Two problems solved: TV prices are less, and fewer kids are overweight.
Disney: Kids watch too much TV.
Drop the channels. Kids spend MORE time PLAYING sports. Two problems solved: TV prices are less, and fewer kids are overweight.
Think Dish's mid-year price increase may hold a clue?.
Yes! Dish with 13.1 subscribers should get the same rate as DirecTV with 18.1 subscribers?. You can correct me but I have always seen in business that the more you order the cheaper the rate.So label me confused?.
If what Dish contends is true that they had it in their contract with ESPN/Disney then it doesn't matter what is typical in business. Besides I have seen where a business charges the same for quantities over a certain amount. Perhaps in this case that certain amount is 10 million subscribers.
The deal ends up in court because the 2 deals are probably not exactly the same for different amounts of money. Dish contends DIRECTV is getting a better deal and Dish should be entitled to the same pricing. I am sure ESPN's response will be that it is not the same deal, there are different terms and conditions that have an effect on the pricing so they do not have to cut the price given to Dish.
The judge will have to read both contracts and decided if indeed the most favored nations clause is in effect given the DIRECTV contract.
It could be that DIRECTV entered a contract with a longer term, or agreed to carry and pay for more channels than Dish did. DIRECTV could be qualifying for discounts that ESPN may be giving because of the contract length/channel carriage. ESPN might allow Dish to change to the same contract, but I bet Dish has something that they like in their contract that they do not want to give up and switch.
I doubt it is going to be a simple case.
The judge will have to read both contracts and decided if indeed the most favored nations clause is in effect given the DIRECTV contract.
It could be that DIRECTV entered a contract with a longer term, or agreed to carry and pay for more channels than Dish did. DIRECTV could be qualifying for discounts that ESPN may be giving because of the contract length/channel carriage. ESPN might allow Dish to change to the same contract, but I bet Dish has something that they like in their contract that they do not want to give up and switch.
I doubt it is going to be a simple case.
first of all, its childish to bicker in front of everyone.
second, dish spend 6 million dollars a month sending out bills. please, whats one million dollars to DISNEY??????!!!! they probably spent one million dollars replacing the tires on the cars in the background of their latest children's series.
second, dish spend 6 million dollars a month sending out bills. please, whats one million dollars to DISNEY??????!!!! they probably spent one million dollars replacing the tires on the cars in the background of their latest children's series.
I don't watch any of the ESPN or Disney Junk. Drop emm. If it means a lower bill I'm all for it. If I want to watch hockey I watch NHLCI and I pay for it. I don't expect my neighbor to cover my expense.
We don't have ale cart yet. So just dropping the channels (and these are popular channels) should not be an option. If Dish dropped ESPN or any of the Disney channels, there would be a HUGE uproar which would incur more subscriber loss. And Dish can't afford that at all. Dish needs to keep the sports channels they currently have if they want to keep customers. Many have left Dish for DirecTV (even cable!) over the lack of PPV sports tiers (including myself). So why am I commenting? Because I started as a satellite customer with Dish. I like Dish. I hope to be back someday. So I want Dish to get back on their feet to be on par if not better than DirecTV as they once were (that would be good for DirecTV as well).
I don't ever see DISH being on par with DIRECTV on sports as long as Charlie is running it. He is way to cheap to pay the price they want on the most wanted sports packs. Not that I really care , because I don't watch sports.
"most favored nation" clauses are very very common in business. Probably the most common lawsuit between parties who do sizeable businees with each other. I'd be willing to bet this has NOTHING to do with the $1m (because you're right, $1m is nothing to either company). This is all about the next contract and ensuring that there is some leverage on the E* side (ie we'll drop the lawsuit if you give us x).
I was on the Dish website today and I was a little surprised at how much they are going after DirecTV (here and here).The only sport I care about is MLB. But if you want NFL Sunday Ticket, the Dish Website says that they will NEVER get that because they would have to raise everybody's price to do it like DirecTV does (they claim). If that's true that everybody pays for these PPV sports tiers whether they subscribe to them or not, then I don't blame Dish. But it does lock out a large group out of potential Dish customers who want sports. One thing Dish NEEDS to do though is revamp their advertising campaign. DirecTV kicks their butt in advertising.
As long as we are trying to get the facts straight, can we change the title of this thread, please?
Disney does not control negotiation rights for ESPN; ESPN does their own negotiations. Hearst, which owns 20 percent of ESPN, does not do negotiations for ESPN, either. ESPN handles the negotiations for their own properties.
Dish Network sues ESPN.
Disney does not control negotiation rights for ESPN; ESPN does their own negotiations. Hearst, which owns 20 percent of ESPN, does not do negotiations for ESPN, either. ESPN handles the negotiations for their own properties.
Oh yeah, they definitely need to FIRE the Brady Bunch /Patridge Family advertising agency.
It's even better than that...
It may be in the details, but it is what it is. DISH isn't unhappy with Disney and the Disney channels are negotiated separately from the ESPN suite. But SATS (EchoStar) has nothing to do with that, either.
DISH is Dish Network. SATS is EchoStar. Dish Network is not a unit of EchoStar.
It may be in the details, but it is what it is. DISH isn't unhappy with Disney and the Disney channels are negotiated separately from the ESPN suite. But SATS (EchoStar) has nothing to do with that, either.
Similar threads
