This isn't your typical Dish channel takedown. I'm not defending Dish, I'm appalled at AT&T's strongarm tactics.
Some are assuming that's the case. We don't know what's really going on.
This isn't your typical Dish channel takedown. I'm not defending Dish, I'm appalled at AT&T's strongarm tactics.
Some are assuming that's the case. We don't know what's really going on.
![]()
![]()
Now that's funny!
Let me add gasoline to the fire here.
Who do you believe more? Crooked Charlie or big bad AT&T?
So far Charlie has the worse track record
Hopefully someone else try's again with a different network design and different equipment
Sent from my iPhone using the SatelliteGuys app!
Logic would say this. It's a premium service, which is the least likely to go into a dispute. AT&T sets the price and the subscriber to the premium pays the price. Why would Dish have issue with having the premium, unless AT&T had an unreasonable provision in the discussion?Some are assuming that's the case. We don't know what's really going on.
But again, it's a premium network. There should be little negotiation. AT&T should say "your subscribers pay this, and you give that money over to us." Done.
Right, and AT&T wouldn't have the means or opportunity to make such a strongarm move if they didn't own both HBO and DirecTV. This dispute with a premium network wouldn't happen without that situation, which the yellow fence people just can't see.My two cents, AT&T chooses to drop the channels long enough to get the customers that would switch providers to Directv or stream the service to gain by cutting out middle man, figuring that all the subscribers will do so within a few months and after that they wouldn't have as much to gain by keeping HBO off of Dish so they can then at that point negotiate a more fair deal with Dish to get the remaining customers back.
.....
My two cents, AT&T chooses to drop the channels long enough to get the customers that would switch providers to Directv or stream the service to gain by cutting out middle man, figuring that all the subscribers will do so within a few months and after that they wouldn't have as much to gain by keeping HBO off of Dish so they can then at that point negotiate a more fair deal with Dish to get the remaining customers back.
Right, and AT&T wouldn't have the means or opportunity to make such a strongarm move if they didn't own both HBO and DirecTV. This dispute with a premium network wouldn't happen without that situation, which the yellow fence people just can't see.
Yes. As discussed here ad infinitum, HBO wants a minimum payment regardless of the number of actual subscribers.Exactly. This is what I always thought it was, which is why I was surprised that we would ever run into a distribution issue with a premium. There had to have been something else added to the contract that wasn't to Dish's liking.
Logic would say this. It's a premium service, which is the least likely to go into a dispute. AT&T sets the price and the subscriber to the premium pays the price. Why would Dish have issue with having the premium, unless AT&T had an unreasonable provision in the discussion?
More than likely, AT&T set a number of must have subscribers, which Dish knew it wouldn't reach based on recent numbers. Most likely AT&T knew this as well. If this is the case, why would AT&T do this? More than likely, because they knew no matter what they would be able to screw over Dish. Either, they get greater money to DirecTV subs getting HBO for free, and Dish now loses a bit of its competitive edge as it has to raise rates, or the channel goes dark and Dish subs jump to DirecTV.
As for Dish, it is possible that Charlie said rolls the dice, I'm not paying them. But again, it's a premium network. There should be little negotiation. AT&T should say "your subscribers pay this, and you give that money over to us." Done.
Yes. As discussed here ad infinitum, HBO wants a minimum payment regardless of the number of actual subscribers.