Fox v. Cablevision: STAGGERING increases!

[TheKrell]

I don't watch enough on FOX to warrant the cost of an antenna, and what I do watch I can live without, so...

IMHO your position is seriously flawed, and I (frankly) don't watch Fox either. What you get with an OTA antenna is a LOT. You not only get better PQ on the HD channels, including getting some channels in HD that are only SD on Dish, but you also get a surprising number of subchannels, none of which (that I know about) are currently on Dish at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but OTA subchannels may never be carried by Dish.

 

[rufwork]

I don't watch enough on FOX to warrant the cost of an antenna, and what I do watch I can live without, so...

But a pretty good antenna is only $20, probably less than you'll pay for a year of Fox if Dish does cave and makes you pay a little more per month.

Here's what's making me a little upset -- if Dish isn't paying Fox for these channels anymore, why am I? Dish is making more money by not carrying Fox. I haven't seen a rate decrease during the dispute, have you? And with 120+, the "+" is almost all sports channels, about half of which, it seems, are from Fox, and dark.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

I would need a Cell Phone tower to get OTA locals in my area.

 

[The Fat Man]

I think I opened Pandora's Box.

 

[sam_gordon]

If you take Dish for example and look at their profits last year they made about $6/sub per month. I would hardly call that profiteering on Fox's signal (which Dish is estimated to have paid $.25-$.50 per sub/month depending on the market). I have not looked at Cablevision's P&L to make a similar comparison, so will use the Dish one since Dish's contract with O&O Fox comes up at the end of the month.

If Fox is successful and gets their $5/month/sub that would wipe out almost all of Dish's profit per sub over their entire array of channels. What happens when the other 3 networks want the same deal? The cable/DBS company will have to raise prices to compensate, they are not going to lose their profit.

You the sub end up paying. Is it worth $20/month more to get the locals over cable or DBS vs free OTA? This is what Fox wants.

I wasn't referring to the Fox dispute. I was referring to the folks who say OTA stations shouldn't charge DBS/cable for retransmission. The .25-.50 per sub/per month charge is what I've been hearing too. Obviously anytime ANY channel raises prices to Dish/Direct/Cable, they will in turn raise prices to their subscribers.

 

[sam_gordon]

sam_gordon,
With all due respect, I think your analogy proves just the opposite point. If my blog is free to all who want to read it, and it's making money from ads, then the reason I can ask for an increase in the cost of ads on my blog is due to the number of people reading it. Now if "Z" comes to me and tells me they can send my free blog to people who don't have internet, then I've just increase my readership, thus allowing me to up my ad rates. So why shouldn't "Z" be able to charge for that service to their subs? Why should I be able to charge them for my blog, when they're supplying me a service?
But you might say, Well the only reason "Z" wants to carry my blog is because so many people want it and it helps "Z" get more profits. Yes, that's right...but without "Z" I can't get my blog to all these other people who want it, and these people that want it are the same people my advertisers want to reach, again, allowing me to increase my ad rates.
Like I've said in the other thread on this subject, to me, channels that sell ads and also charge carriers to carry them, are "double dipping" the consumer.

Ghpr13

So ESPN (for example) shouldn't charge Dish to carry them? After all, if it wasn't for the DBS/Cable companies, ESPN would have ZERO viewers. By YOUR argument, ESPN is "double dipping" the consumer also.

BTW, you're not wrong about anything... it is a symbonic(?) relationship. Assuming the locals charge the cable companies for carriage, shouldn't they also be charging the DBS companies?

 

[john262]

I doubt if taking all Newscorp content off from Dish would cause Newscorp to go under. I think it would hurt Dish more than Newscorp as a lot of Dish subscribers would leave for another provider such as Directv.

 

[Slamminc11]

IMHO your position is seriously flawed, and I (frankly) don't watch Fox either. What you get with an OTA antenna is a LOT. You not only get better PQ on the HD channels, including getting some channels in HD that are only SD on Dish, but you also get a surprising number of subchannels, none of which (that I know about) are currently on Dish at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but OTA subchannels may never be carried by Dish.

My position is completely fine. I'm going to going to go out and pay for an antenna and then set it up to watch Fox. If Fox decides to pull it off the air so be it. I will live without it. I will not watch their shows off the Internets, and I won't watch it off an antenna. Will me deciding to boycott them make a difference in their ratings? No, probably not, but if they want to play that game fine. But please don't expect me to work to try and get their signal. They aren't worth it IMO. If they are there after Nov. 1 fine. If they aren't, then good riddance as far as I am concerned!
As far as getting more channels thru OTA, I can't keep up and watch the crap that is out there (I delete stuff off the DVR without watching every week) now, so adding more channels that I probably won't spend the time to watch is a waste of time and energy.
Not sure how that makes my position flawed, but whatever...

 

[Ghpr13]

So ESPN (for example) shouldn't charge Dish to carry them? After all, if it wasn't for the DBS/Cable companies, ESPN would have ZERO viewers. By YOUR argument, ESPN is "double dipping" the consumer also.

BTW, you're not wrong about anything... it is a symbonic(?) relationship. Assuming the locals charge the cable companies for carriage, shouldn't they also be charging the DBS companies?

In regards to ESPN: Not really, because ESPN is not a free OTA channel, and in your analogy, you stated that it was a free Blog supported by advertisers.

As for networks charging the cable companies, I again feel this should stopped or at least a limit set on how much each local can charge for carrier rights, and that this charge be the same for all Free OTA ad supported channels, in every state for all DBS/Cable companies.

I do agree that the free OTA networks and the DBS/Cable companies have a or should have, an symbiotic relationship.

Ghpr13

 

[The Fat Man]

Ghpr13 has gotten to my original point. Sam Gordon is in support of the exact opposite that I believe.

The simple question is that if a company gives a service (which network television is) away for free by one means, do they have the right to demand reparations (retransmission fees) from someone who used the service for financial gain? I personally believe that two things, which actually contridict each other. I feel that these broadcast networks have a right to feel that their product shouldn't be charged for without given them a piece of the cut. On the other hand, I feel that they don't have the right to cry and moan that someone is making money off the service that they chose to give away for free in the first place. It's that old playground rule "finders keepers" So I get stuck.

For me, the logic that makes the most sense is to regulate the retransmission of network tv, and say that due to the fact that these are free to air networks, you can't charge your subs to pick them up. That means that if I want ISPTV or Cable or Satallite to send me the signal of network television they can only charge me the use of their equipment. Then the question would change to: Is it right to charge a pay tv provider to retransmit a signal that's given away for free? That answer is (in my opinion) is no.

I said before that another way of justifying a retransmission fee is to charge an OTA reception fee. Sam brought up ESPN. I feel that they have the right to ask for a fee, because their product is only available through pay tv. FSN/FX/Nat Geo are the same, but FOX is Free to air, so either change that status or stop crying. Really, take the time to make your signal so strong that nobody would even need pay tv to get it, that's how you will end someone using your signal.

Cablevision and Dish are far from saints in this matter, I'm chosing to mention where I feel FOX is wrong. It's just that All I have to say about them is stop screwing your customers through rate increases and then you will save face. It's a quick statement. For FOX, it needs a little explaining (or in the case of late posts, alot).

 

[Claude Greiner]

Let's just hope whoever wins the world series does it in 4 games to give fox less leverage

 

[IcEWoLF]

I hope dish pulls all of fox offerings. I know dish will see a Hugh increase in it's sub base as their is at least 1 to 3 million folks who would like to see newscorp go under and will switch to dish.

Wrong...
If Fox is gone then so is millions of subscribers from Dish will leave too....many people love those channels.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Wrong...
If Fox is gone then so is millions of subscribers from Dish will leave too....many people love those channels.

You are sure right. The main problem for the first few years with mass acceptance of satellite tv in the 90s was a lack of local channels. Once they started adding them in 98 and 99 , the sub base grew quickly. Without network tv ,most will look to cable or Directv to get them.

 

[HDRoberts]

There are two chances:

1. Get an antenna

2. If the FCC thinks that cablevision and fox are not bargaining in good faith, the may try to order arbitration on that case. And that may spill over into the dish-fox case. So arbitration may be ordered in that one as well.

Me, I have an antenna.

What stinks is here in Cleveland, the affected Fox (WJW) has a weak 11kW signal on VHF. Since the transition, they are notorious for having reception problems.

 

[RedWings]

So dish loses channels yet charges you the same and some of you are willing to buy an antenna instead of finding another provider?

Talk about giving dish a reason not to try to get your channels back.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

So dish loses channels yet charges you the same and some of you are willing to buy an antenna instead of finding another provider?

Talk about giving dish a reason not to try to get your channels back.

:up

Yep, they would rather pay more for less,and on top of it buy more equipment just to make up the difference of what they are not getting, rather then Admit Dish Network is the problem and move on !

They say love is Blind,, I guess they are right.

 

[zim2dive]

I have yet to miss the channels.. and I certainly don't want Dish to give in the to demand that all these channels (and their cost) be added to the base tier packages.

$20 now for an antenna (I already had one) to avoid several $$/month (>> $20 over the long term)... simple math says an antenna is a good investment.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Originally Posted by tomcrown1
I hope dish pulls all of fox offerings. I know dish will see a Hugh increase in it's sub base as their is at least 1 to 3 million folks who would like to see newscorp go under and will switch to dish.

Me too I would love to see Charlie Lose all his subscribers.
That would be payback enough for me, for all his Lies, and BS Fees.

 

[zim2dive]

Originally Posted by tomcrown1
I hope dish pulls all of fox offerings. I know dish will see a Hugh increase in it's sub base as their is at least 1 to 3 million folks who would like to see newscorp go under and will switch to dish.

Me too I would love to see Charlie Lose all his subscribers.
That would be payback enough for me, for all his Lies, and BS Fees.

But what would you and Bob do with all of your free time that you now waste posting in threads for a service you don't even subscribe to?

 

[Hemi 6.1]

But what would you and Bob do with all of your free time that you now waste posting in threads for a service you don't even subscribe to?

I'm not sure what Bob would do, You can ask him face to face.

But I most likly wouldn't have to devote my time anymore trying to un-Brain wash all of you guys from Charlies years of BS and Lies.
I guess, some of you like giving money to untrustworthly people. But Many don't!

Everyone has a right to know good or bad about a company, and right now I haven't seen anything good come from anything Charlie has done.
Dragging his customers down with him every single time is not a company that , we should consider a safe bet.

I've seen very Minimal Price differences with E* services compaired to others, Imagine Dish Had YES, or MLB, How about ST. You think your bill would be the same as D* customers. NO way, It would be more, Way more!

Right Now you don't even have Several major Networks, and your still only a Few $$$ shy of the average D* and Cable customer.

When is enough enough?

4 rooms of service with D*

Choice Ultimate $68.99
HD and DVR $17
3 Addtional rooms HD DVR $15
Total $100.99

4 rooms with E*
Top 250 $64.99
HD and DVR $16
3 addtional HD DVR rooms $30
Total $110.99
Or 3 addtional HD rooms. $21
Total $101.99

Do the math!
So why do you pay more then us when you don't have Fox networks,MSG Networks,ESPN/ABC/Disney,YES, MSG,MLB, Nascar Hot Pass, NFL ST,MLB EI And lots of others as well.

Lets hear how this Dispute is good for anyone. Dish Clearly isn't that cheap to begin with.
Maybe instead of getting hit with Huge lawsuits, he could stop ripping companys and customers off, and maybe for a change apply his earning to maybe offering its customers programming options,Sports pack options and stop Dropping channels, because your lawsuits are cutting into your profits.