Semantics. Of course it was Dish that actually pulled the channels, but after AT&T told them to. AT&T decided that Dish could not have HBO.Cinemax during negotiations, a pressure tactic.
HBO/Cinemax Takedown
- Thread starter DishGuyTX
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 106K
The problem is that this problem is 100 percent political. I am not making any stretch or trying to bring anything political into it.
Dish losing HBO is 100 percent a result of that merger and that merger was political. At&t made payments (bribes) to Michael Cowen to help get it through.
AT&T confirms it paid Michael Cohen for consulting on Time Warner deal
I won't say another word, but that isn't a political debate, it is a fact.
We will never know. My opinion, it's true that At&t wants to vastly restructure how HBO is distributed and that it would greatly increase cost to DISH, and by extension subscribers. That's the intent to get people to drop DISH and get an At&t service and to get HBO likely at a far reduced cost there.
It can also be true that At&t agreed to keep HBO on DISH during negotiations and DISH said if your only negotiation is all subscribers pay there is nothing to discuss and at that point At&t pulled the stations because they feel there is no negotiation.
So technically it was likely At&t who told DISH to pull HBO but their meaning is that by DISH not negotiating in effect DISH pulled them.
As usual, it's the lawyers who will get rich, while we consumers suffer.
If this was only about a cost per subscriber, I would agree with you. But if the article posted earlier is correct, ATT wants Dish to guarantee a minimum number of subscribers. Let's say that minimum is 2M. But only 1.5M sign up. Dish would still have to pay ATT for the other .5M. Couple that with a (presumed) rate increase, and I don't think it's ethical bargaining (note, I didn't say illegal).
Now, I guess there could be a "fair" way to do the guarantee. In that you have different levels and the more subscribers you are willing to guarantee, the less per person the cost is. So if Dish is willing to guarantee .5M, then ATT gets $10/subscriber. If they guarantee 1M, ATT gets $9/each. 2M is $7/each. If Dish isn't willing to guarantee any, the charge is $12. Obviously I made the numbers up, but I don't think that's an unreasonable negotiation tactic.
A La Carte yes. But what was he paying as part of the Everything package...
I don't care who's content it is. It's unfair practice. In essence they are trying to get other providers to pay so DirecTV subs can have it for free. It's a means of persuading customers to leave the competition or for the competition to cover the cost. IT'S A PREMIUM SERVICE!!! It should be this is how much we want subscribers for HBO to pay. This is how much we want subscribers for Cinemax to pay. That's it. The rest is horsecrap and only blindly loyal people don't see it. I hate Comcast, but if Dish owned Starz and was pulling this with Comcast, I'd be singing the same tune. It's a trust like practice. Loopholes were closed with RSNs over less outrageous stipulations.
Also, as a prominent member of Bob's Pit, leave the politics there. This has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with one company's shenanigans, trying to screw over the competition.
If Dish dropped our HBO and Cinemax, how come AT&T requested the takedown?
I love that! Dish refused AT&T's attempt at extorsion. But, that doesn't sound as nice on the Twitter handle.
And if HBO said no? What choice did they have?
Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
As everyone wants to scream leave politics out of it, unfortunately, this is one of the few times where politics has actually molded into satellite discussion. Consideration for that fact should be given. The I hate AT&T comments bring less value to the conversation than what the political ones do because the political comments are relevant in this case.
To the point, they own the content... They can do what ever they want with it. You cant go to a Ford dealership and hop into any Ford and use it just because you think you should have access to it. If Ford wants to give the car away to another part of the company they own that's within their legal right. You might not like it but you certainly can go purchase a car directly from Ford, or any other car dealership that sells Fords, but you can't just hop in and use it because you think you need access to one from your dealership of choice that now has pulled that Ford from the lot. Your even able to go purchase another type of car or in this case (Epix, Showtime, Starz, Ect.) In the case of Dish, Again the company was left behind when it failed to acquire any content. HBO is the same price on the web as it is through any other provider directly available through HBO Now. It's a free market, and the free market is doing what it's doing.
Considering AT&T released a public statement saying they would have done so, yes Dish had the power to do that. WarnerMedia EVEN offered to extend the previous contract while negotiating but that Dish declined. Tell me if the previous contract was good enough to sign back when that deal was made, why not continue on that contract now until the deal can be reached? That dog don't hunt when Dish says ATT pulled the channels.
It depends on a variety of factors. To ask for a minimum sub count isn't unethical and we often see deals like this in a business where so many units are guaranteed. Anyone who has watched Shark Tank on CNBC knows that those types of deals are common in business. Nowhere is it being reported that ATT wanted 9M guarantee or some outrageous number that dish wouldn't be able to achieve. I bet it's more like maintaining the current level and dish didn't want to do that.
Already received a $25.95 credit for HBO/CMAX being gone. I guess I'll be missing those cheesy soft core Porn movies on "SkinaMax" tonight while channel surfing, Awww too bad...
The real kicker is it's the same company that own Direct TV, nice way to eliminate your competition. They should have never allowed the merger of distribution systems (cable & satellite) be taken over by companys that also own the studios, i.e. (Disney, ABC, ESPN, Universal, Comcast) or (ATT with Direct, Time-Warner). No matter what the consumer comes last and the all mighty $$$$ comes 1st.
Yep, I still think it more likely that AT&T is lying, but not a lot more likely. Probably 3:2 odds. Of course, if it is Dish that declined to continue the current contract, I kind of can't blame them if AT&T is coming out of nowhere with unusual terms. Dish is the little guy here, so they probably want to make it clear they aren't going to blink. The mention of arbitration from Dish makes me think AT&T is asking for things that are outside the norm with the subscriber guarantees, especially at the same time subscriber numbers are shrinking over all.
That's a good point into why Dish might not want a subscriber guarantee. Maybe the satellite service is feeling the pinch on cord cutting more than they are letting on. You think they would be able to make up the difference with Sling. The only people who know who's telling the truth are the ones who are in the room.
For me, it actually makes more sense to drop it on Dish and go that route. PQ is better with streaming anyway, if you have enough bandwidth.
Similar threads
