How to keep channels from charging as much as they want ??

[cditty]

Every so often the government gets a burr up its behind about the merits of competition in the TV channel delivery industry. This was a real boon for Dish and Direct back in the day. However, things have changed a lot since then. Now with content owners charging whatever they want, the service providers either pony up or decide not to carry the channel in the often deluded hope that the network will cave. Occasionally, the service provider wins a minor victory in that the increase isn't as large as was originally demanded. The providers that pony up get help from the money-gouging network blowing their horn about provider XYZ is whom you should switch your service to because it carries their beloved network.

Eventually, providers fall in line and carry the channel at an increased cost. It then passes on that cost to the consumer. If they refuse to carry the popular channel, they lose customers. The only winner in any of this is the owner of the popular network, which makes more money from service providers and from advertising

This limits competition amongst cable/sat companies. The provider with the most customers has a better bargaining position with the networks. I am likely oversimplifying things here, but it seems the best solution would be for the service providers to unite and fight the networks on these increases. Of course, then congress would take action against the service providers for conspiring to fix prices. At least this would bring the problem and its root causes into the public spotlight.

I am unsure if they could unite. Then, the would be colluding together against someone. That is one of the reasons the Direct/Dish merger was not approved. If that had went through, Dish would be eating providers for lunch, because they would be able to make networks ad rates go through the floor if they dropped them.

 

[mike123abc]

The DBS/Cable companies cannot work together since that would cause antitrust issues. So, they are helpless. DIRECTV has a huge advantage over Dish since they are larger. They just get to write into their contracts that they always get the best deal, so if Dish comes out with a better deal on FSN or Disney, DIRECTV will get it automatically.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The cable and sat companies should all just stick together. E*, D*, Time Warner, etc..., just get together, come up with a price that they are going to pay for a channel, and set it at that. They could start putting the squeeze on the networks.
I know this will never happen. It is like asking cats and dogs to team up, but it would work.

I am likely oversimplifying things here, but it seems the best solution would be for the service providers to unite and fight the networks on these increases. Of course, then congress would take action against the service providers for conspiring to fix prices. At least this would bring the problem and its root causes into the public spotlight.

Congress wouldn't need to take action. There is a law that prohibits two or more parties from conspiring to fix pricing. It is both price-fixing and collusion, and highly illegal.

Look, take the example that I am Fox. I want my channels to reach the widest audience possible, as well as get paid a good rate for them. So my contracts with multi-channel distributiors (cable and satellite TV) expire, and I try to renew them in my most favorable terms. That's capitalism at its finest.

It appears one very large sticking point is that Fox wants FX and NatGeo in AT120. Dish Network already has comparable programming in TNT and Discovery in that package, so Fox definitely wants it there.

Dish Network is basically taking the only action afforded to them; they won't come to an agreement, just like any other capitalist including Fox, until they get a deal that is better for them. Meanwhile, Fox is free to negotiate with other companies to improve their position, and Dish Network is certainly free to find replacment programming with other programmers.

It's the classic example of the programming Cold War. The problem for Dish Network is if people subscribing to their higher programming tiers up and leave because of the dispute, as the lowest tier programming subscriber doesn't get these channels. It means a chunk of Dish Network's higher paying customers may move to other cable or satellite companies, and that does put a in the bottom line as well as increase churn.

 

[mike123abc]

Look, take the example that I am Fox. I want my channels to reach the widest audience possible, as well as get paid a good rate for them. So my contracts with multi-channel distributors (cable and satellite TV) expire, and I try to renew them in my most favorable terms. That's capitalism at its finest.

...

It's the classic example of the programming Cold War. The problem for Dish Network is if people subscribing to their higher programming tiers up and leave because of the dispute, as the lowest tier programming subscriber doesn't get these channels. It means a chunk of Dish Network's higher paying customers may move to other cable or satellite companies, and that does put a in the bottom line as well as increase churn.

Well not really capitalism at its finest. You have a sole source of programming (FSN has exclusives on the teams) competing with multiple outlets. FSN knows that Dish cannot get the programming elsewhere, Dish has no choice. If there was lets say another competing sports network, then yes there would be competition. DIRECTV could say have FSN and Dish could have Greg's SN. You as a consumer could decide who had the best coverage of your team and vote by subbing to the provider you wanted.

Now if you want to watch your local team you have no choice but to get FSN. So, either the cable/DBS company has it or not.

Nat Geo and FX are not monopolies. But, it is like Microsoft forcing IE on everyone since it controls Windows. Fox is forcing Nat Geo and FX because it has the monopoly on sports programming.