I have an idea if Dish wants to play hardball. It's probably unworkable. Give Showtime, at no additional cost, to everybody who had HBO for the duration of the dispute. It would probably cost Charlie too much, but what a way to up the ante.
Or they know something. Like they might have “high Confidence “ the deal will stick regardless.
I have an idea if Dish wants to play hardball. It's probably unworkable. Give Showtime, at no additional cost, to everybody who had HBO for the duration of the dispute. It would probably cost Charlie too much, but what a way to up the ante.
Since we’re all guessing exactly what’s being negotiated maybe it’s AT&T offering pricing based on the number of subscribers, voiukn pricing? If Dish guarantees x number of subs we will charge you A per sub. You guarantee Y number of suns we will charge you B per sub. But i’m sure it’s totally AT&T’s fault, Dish would never say anything that would make it look like they are partly to blame.I've always had mixed feelings about Dish disputes. They're frustrating, distracting, and inconvenient. But I'm 100% on the side of Dish on this one. No provider should have to guarantee subscribers. This is ATT socializing a TV channel so that they can pay for freebies they give their own customers.
Do we know if the previous contract had a guaranteed subscriber requirement?
Still naysaying.This shouldn't be a surprise, we predicted AT&T would try to freeze out Dish (and other retrans providers) when they took control of HBO. Where are all those naysayers who said it wouldn't happen?
Agree, but I think you should then point your anger to much bigger targets, drug companies are one that pops up to the top of my list.
I'm of the same opinion.i am guessing its charlies way of trying to stop the merger
but hey thats just my opinion
Dish doesn't own Showtime. If they did, they could play the same game ATT is playing with HBO.
Maybe its time for Dish to purchase some premium channels....
Except for all the rural folks who don't have adequate internet access for streaming who then must sign up for AT&T's DirecTV.
I can't believe you don't see the problem with that unless you're an AT&T share holder who doesn't care who gets screwed as long as you make a buck.
That's what this dispute really is about. Dish got left behind while DirecTV / Comast and others were out buying content.
Dish has nothing.
But the government has already set the precedent by allowing Comcast to buy NBC Universal, they let Disney buy ABC. The goring further Shell is not allowed to own any crude oil production or refineries if they have stations to see the product?I'm of the same opinion.
AT&T should've had to sell the vertical parts of the proposed merger. By vertical I mean by them being a content distributor, they should not own/buy content providers. They are perfectly free to create their own content (didn't they do Mr. Mercedes?) but should not be able to own the oldest (45 years) premium channel. They need to dump 'em.
Which makes me wonder if they might get swallowed up in some other kind of merger or hostile takeover.
Give that man a cigar. Charlie spent billions on buying up spectrum licenses, which have cost him billions and maybe he'll make a network some day or just cash out and retire. Others figured out if you want people you buy or service we better have something compelling on it to watch so they bought content.Exactly this. Dish has no content leverage. If they owned some slate of channels, they could play hardball with AT&T. But instead the have spectrum licenses they've failed to do anything with and are at risk of losing.
HBO is the start. Wait for when Turner channels or AT&T SportsNet contracts need to be renewed. Comcast can leverage the NBC slate against AT&T. Dish has nothing.