Thank you for posting that. All this time, I thought it stood for Democatic National Committee.
Fox Blocks Millions of DISH Customers
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 514
- Views 53K
Thank you for posting that. All this time, I thought it stood for Democatic National Committee.
Anyone can play the speculation game. Try this:
Most likely Dish is trying to build on, or at least maintain, their already established ala carte model (which is unique in the industry) of making locals optional, optional sports in the flex pack, and they are trying to make sports and other channels optional in their other main packs, and Fox and Sinclair are balking.
It's a lot more complicated than any of us can surmise.
BTW, the evidence I presented supports my claim much more than whatever hat you pulled yours out of. So mine is much more likely.
Last edited:
Tweet from Sports Business Journal
John Ourand
✔@Ourand_SBJ
https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/1177330771167711241
Source: This morning, Fox executives told Dish Network that it could keep its channels live while negotiating a new deal. Dish rebuffed the offer.
55
5:15 PM - Sep 26, 2019
John Ourand
✔@Ourand_SBJ
https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/1177330771167711241
Source: This morning, Fox executives told Dish Network that it could keep its channels live while negotiating a new deal. Dish rebuffed the offer.
55
5:15 PM - Sep 26, 2019
Tweet from Sports Business Journal
John Ourand
✔@Ourand_SBJ
Source: This morning, Fox executives told Dish Network that it could keep its channels live while negotiating a new deal. Dish rebuffed the offer.
55
5:15 PM - Sep 26, 2019
And what where the stipulations they had to meet to keep them live?
As did I, but then just reading a few of his political posts cured me of that.
As a guess, if Maine were to pass that some providers would just stop providing there, possibly giving less choice and the not outcome hoped for. Or make the a la carte very expensive.
There would no question be a minimum or the provider will correctly just refuse because there is a cost just to keep an account, problems etc. So I would look for either a basic service charge or still requiring some kind of package of X amount of channels as a minimum. So if someone wants to pay, say $35 for a very few channels plus whatever receiver/DVR fees I can see some people willing to do that rather than pay $70+ for lots of channels many they don't watch. Per channel would be much higher but monthly bill much lower. Keep in mind locals will cost something like $12 to $15 alone. I maintain there are not as many subscribers as some think who only want a handful of channels. Certainly there are some and for those who have little money to spend I can see this helps them.
One other possible problem, some channel's companies will not allow separate channels and I don't think a State law can change that.
Comcast, cable broadcasters sue to block Maine law allowing customers to choose their channels
Dish Network Customer would be the correct guess, yes....
It's not like there isn't a valuation of the Fox stations in terms of what Directv, Comcast, etc. all pay. My guess is that everyone is paying around the same amount.
I also heard on Bloomberg business that Fox has offered to allow Dish to keep showing the channels as they negotiate, as a sign of good faith, and Dish turned it down.
I also heard on Bloomberg business that Fox has offered to allow Dish to keep showing the channels as they negotiate, as a sign of good faith, and Dish turned it down.
And Dish claims they offered to keep the channels on while they negotiate but Fox turned them down. Everyone spins.
And, I offered to leave my TV off completely during the negotiations............and they both turned me down.
I doubt that is spin I 100% believe it. What is also true however is FOX or whoever is in the dispute knows the real pressure is when the channels are gone.
Believe what? BOTH sides claim they would leave the channels up during negotiations and the other turned them down.
So either one is flat out lying or they're both spinning. Pretty sure it's the latter.
It used to be that the threats would be there, and then you'd get up the morning after the deadline and your station would still be on. Actual blackouts were fairly rare, especially for the locals/networks. More like the Directv/ATT dispute with Sinclair last week. I'm in a temp apartment (Dish still at the house) for business and it has ATT uVerse and the banner has been going for a couple of weeks on the ABC and CW locals, Friday was the deadline, Saturday morning banners were gone and channels still up.
I would think that the providers would realize that the channel losses and blackouts only hurt them, and lobby hard in congress for arbitration laws that set increase guidelines and arbitration rules and no blackouts. People who are TV geeks like all of us (if you spend time reading a satellite forum you're a TV geek) are a huge minority, arguing over who's at fault, 99.5% of subscribers only know they suddenly can't watch their local MLB team or NHL team on their RSN, they can't see the MLB playoffs, they can't watch the premiers of Chicago Fire or Empire or Gray's Anatomy, but their $120 Dish bill just came out of their autopay.
I would think that the providers would realize that the channel losses and blackouts only hurt them, and lobby hard in congress for arbitration laws that set increase guidelines and arbitration rules and no blackouts. People who are TV geeks like all of us (if you spend time reading a satellite forum you're a TV geek) are a huge minority, arguing over who's at fault, 99.5% of subscribers only know they suddenly can't watch their local MLB team or NHL team on their RSN, they can't see the MLB playoffs, they can't watch the premiers of Chicago Fire or Empire or Gray's Anatomy, but their $120 Dish bill just came out of their autopay.
But in the real world, the one who takes the most damage is the provider. The vast majority of viewers only know suddenly the company they pay to watch TV isn't showing them the channels they're paying for. Period. They don't get pissed off at Fox or ABC or the RSN, they get pissed off at the company they just paid their monthly bill to. Their neighbor with (other provider) is watching their shows, but they can't.They do not give a damn about negotiations, they just want to get home from work, eat dinner, and watch TV.
Makes you wonder why some enterprising reporter just doesn't get someone from Fox on one call and someone from Dish on another and them conference them together. Might be interesting while it lasted, which probably wouldn't be long.
Yes, exactly what I said the program owner doesn't allow the channels to remain during negotiations. Thus I 100% believe DISH that they offered to keep them up and pay whatever the new rate is for that time.
I believe that AND I believe Fox offered to leave the channels up. Both sides can make the claim and neither lie. What other requirements were put into that into place? That's why it's "spin". Put out the bare amount of facts to make you look good and your opponent bad.
"Dish took down the channels". 100% factually correct. There was a switch, button, mouse click, something within the Dish realm that was pressed by a Dish employee that turned the transmission off. What's not being said is Fox wouldn't allow Dish to continue transmitting the signals. Spin.
Similar threads
- Locked
