Fox Blocks Millions of DISH Customers

[Yespage]

Oh no... not Fox Soccer Plus! Without that I...

...wait, Fox Soccer Plus hasn't been worth having in several years.

Regardless, I can survive the loss of FS1, FS2, Big Ten, and FS+. I'm not happy about it, but ultimately with the loss of Champions League on Fox, those channels actually have less and less programming that I want. And I'm not particularly happy with Fox trying to severely strong arm their O&O's this way. Losing Big Ten will probably be the largest source of hurt for people.

 

[sam_gordon]

FOX is choosing to pull its channels from our customers, which we think is unfair. FOX is demanding a double-digit percentage rate increase for continued carriage of its local channels. FOX is also attempting to “force bundle” it’s local channels with unrelated cable networks to get more money, and gain negotiating leverage. At it’s May investor day, FOX executives promoted their plan to increase retransmission revenue by 62 percent, to $2.6 billion by 2022. --Trisha R.

First, these are all talking points right out of the press release in the OP.
Second, is the double-digit percentage rate increase just in the first year or over the life of the contract?
Third, what is the double digit percentage rate increase in actual dollars and cents? If the rate is going from .50/sub/month to .55/sub/month, that's a double digit percentage rate increase, but it means you're squabbling over a nickel a month.

Just to clarify, I'm not defending Fox or saying they should automatically get what they want. Just that both side "spin" the story to make them look better.

 

[ncted]

First, these are all talking points right out of the press release in the OP.
Second, is the double-digit percentage rate increase just in the first year or over the life of the contract?
Third, what is the double digit percentage rate increase in actual dollars and cents? If the rate is going from .50/sub/month to .55/sub/month, that's a double digit percentage rate increase, but it means you're squabbling over a nickel a month.

And, to your point about the annual increases, what if every channel in a package gets a double-digit percentage increase?

 

[Juan]

You can chose whether or not to subscribe...so yes its a free market

So you're making my point that it's not a free market. Contracts, forced bundling of subsidized channels, exclusivity agreements. You're right though, we all do what we have to do with the limited choices offered us.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[comfortably_numb]

And, to your point about the annual increases, what if every channel in a package gets a double-digit percentage increase?

Pass along the cost and let the customer decide. That's the free market.

 

[dare2be]

Bundling is the problem. I don't usually buy bundles in other goods I buy like groceries, furniture, hardware, software, etc. I Know the price of each item I will buy and chose the ones I want at the price I can afford. Each channel should have a separate price and I will chose the ones I want. The argument that bundles are cheaper is erroneous. If each channel in the bundle had a bundle price of $1 and I must take 40 channels for a cost of $40,it is not a good deal if the individual channel cost is $5 and I only want 2 of them for total cost of $10. The channel cost would have to exceed $20 to make the bundle a good deal for me. I would then decide if that is a fair price for me. Most Likely I would decline. Streaming is becoming more like regular shopping without massive bundles.

Right, and with a smaller number of channel owners owning a larger number of channels, who do you think is the driving force behind bundling? It's also the driving force of these disputes, along with price.

 

[DJ Lon]

This is getting to be a bit much, first HBO, then the regionals and now Fox and FS1 and 2 (so much for the MLB playoffs). I know people on this forum get all upset when someone says they're thinking about cancelling their service, but how much more can customers be expected to take?

FS2 (149) has completely disappeared off my guide

 

[Tampa8]

So, my wife wants to watch the NFL game tonight. We'd usually just do OTA when this kind of crap happens, but my antenna is not aimed correctly and the trees have encroached around it such that the antenna is in pretty poor shape. I've had both biceps reattached over the past couple years, so climbing the 50' tower to rotate the antenna is a one-time thing (my arms will wear out quickly). Currently the guide says the game will be on NFL Network tonight and it's currently airing programming. However, this is the first night in which the Thursday Night game is on FOX. Will NFL Network black out the game since I'm allegedly supposed to be able to get it on my local FOX?

Never blacked out on the NFL network. The NFL network IS carrying the FOX broadcast.

 

[sam_gordon]

And, to your point about the annual increases, what if every channel in a package gets a double-digit percentage increase?

Then the customer would get a double-digit percentage increase on their bill?

My point is saying "they want a double-digit percentage" is spin. 10% is double digit, as is 99%.

Is that 10% over the term of the contract? If something costs $1, gets a 3% increase in year two ($1.03), a 3% increase in year three ($1.06), and a 3% in year four ($1.09). That's awfully close to 10%. 4% every year means you're at 12% after the third increase.

IMO, using % is a way to make it sound worse. Again, assuming $1, a 10% increase is .10. So everyone is up in arms because the stations they watch (if they don't watch, they don't care about the blackout) are going up a dime a month?

 

[ncted]

Pass along the cost and let the customer decide. That's the free market.

If you look holistically at the entire market, from content creation to distribution to delivery, an MVPD that passes along whatever cost the channel owner wants to its customers isn't going to be very competitive with one that negotiates better prices for carriage. There is more than one customer in this scenario, and the MVPD (aka, one of the customers) is the one that is deciding not to continue to buy the channel owner's product until they get a better price. That seems pretty free market to me.

 

[bluegras]

Now.you know why with all these disputes. Most people are cutting the cord and getting rokus

 

[ncted]

Then the customer would get a double-digit percentage increase on their bill?

My point is saying "they want a double-digit percentage" is spin. 10% is double digit, as is 99%.

Is that 10% over the term of the contract? If something costs $1, gets a 3% increase in year two ($1.03), a 3% increase in year three ($1.06), and a 3% in year four ($1.09). That's awfully close to 10%. 4% every year means you're at 12% after the third increase.

IMO, using % is a way to make it sound worse. Again, assuming $1, a 10% increase is .10. So everyone is up in arms because the stations they watch (if they don't watch, they don't care about the blackout) are going up a dime a month?

So, say the AT120 content costs are $60 per month (just a guess -- it is an $80-something package). A 10% increase across all channels each year is $6 this year and then $6.60 next year and so on. That seems pretty excessive when inflation remains a fraction of that. If it is only 10% over the three year term of the contract, that isn't so bad.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Now.you know why with all these disputes. Most people are cutting the cord and getting rokus

Yep. If Dish wants to go out of business, they're on the right track.

I used to make the prediction that Dish would remain as a niche provider for rural areas. I now believe they'll be gone in less than 5 years if they don't rethink their strategy. Rural customers need to have these channels available because they don't have access to broadband. Dish should pass along the costs to the customer and become that niche product.

 

[sam_gordon]

So, say the AT120 content costs are $60 per month (just a guess -- it is an $80-something package). A 10% increase across all channels each year is $6 this year and then $6.60 next year and so on. That seems pretty excessive when inflation remains a fraction of that. If it is only 10% over the three year term of the contract, that isn't so bad.

But all Dish is saying is "it's a double digit percentage increase". Notice they're not saying if that's 10% every year (I agree that would be excessive), or 10% over three years. This is the "spin".

 

[dare2be]

If you look holistically at the entire market, from content creation to distribution to delivery, an MVPD that passes along whatever cost the channel owner wants to its customers isn't going to be very competitive with one that negotiates better prices for carriage. There is more than one customer in this scenario, and the MVPD (aka, one of the customers) is the one that is deciding not to continue to buy the channel owner's product until they get a better price. That seems pretty free market to me.

Yes, that is free market, until you factor in that that the "product" is the entire suite of channels from that owner. Pay for one, pay for all extortion.

Right now I enjoy the freedom of the Flex Pack and being able to add and remove sports, news, locals, and a variety of other channels on a whim. If part of the dispute is to maintain that choice, or create more choice for the consumer, I'm all for it.

 

[ncted]

But all Dish is saying is "it's a double digit percentage increase". Notice they're not saying if that's 10% every year (I agree that would be excessive), or 10% over three years. This is the "spin".

Given the other disputes in recent memory, I'd wager the ask is closer to 10% per year than 10% over three years. The Nexstar-AT&T dispute had Nexstar reportedly asking for a 3x 2x increase over the proposed term.

Edit: corrected multiplier.

 

[ncted]

Yes, that is free market, until you factor in that that the "product" is the entire suite of channels from that owner. Pay for one, pay for all extortion.

Right now I enjoy the freedom of the Flex Pack and being able to add and remove sports, news, locals, and a variety of other channels on a whim. If part of the dispute is to maintain that choice, or create more choice for the consumer, I'm all for it.

Yeah, I was ignoring the oligopoly angle, but it is there as well. It gives the channel owners more leverage, which forces the MVPDs to resort to more drastic measures to try to maintain their ground.

 

[sam_gordon]

Given the other disputes in recent memory, I'd wager the ask is closer to 10% per year than 10% over three years. The Nexstar-AT&T dispute had Nexstar reportedly asking for a 3x increase over the proposed term.

Sigh. "Reportedly" according to who(m?)? The providers all say "we're only asking for a reasonable increase, one already agreed to by other MVPDs". That's spin also. Or do you think the providers all lie and MVPDs tell the truth and nothing but the truth? And as I said before, percentages can be misleading.

 

[tspangle]

IMO, there are no "good or bad" guys among the channel owners or the service providers. They are all trying to maximize their own profits, which is fine, of course. And I don't envy Dish, either. They have much less leverage in this situation. If their customers decide they want the Fox channels badly enough, the majority of them have the ability to get them from local cable, DirecTV, streaming, etc. So, Dish can fight them, but only to a point. They have to try to walk that line between potential subscriber losses and paying more carriage fees.

I also wonder if they might be playing a dangerous game by encouraging people to look at OTA. Folks might just see how much free content is out there and decide they can just go with an antenna and a cheap streaming bundle to supplement it.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Folks might just see how much free content is out there and decide they can just go with an antenna and a cheap streaming bundle to supplement it.

That's what I did. I get 48 channels OTA and I have YTTV. Never looked back.