VDog,
The answer is maybe. Most of the Fox Affiliates are not owned directly by Fox Networks. So if your local Fox Affiliate is independently owned then the answer is your Fox Affiliate would be staying put.
John
OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD
- Thread starter zippyfrog
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 3K
- Views 475K
VDog,
The answer is maybe. Most of the Fox Affiliates are not owned directly by Fox Networks. So if your local Fox Affiliate is independently owned then the answer is your Fox Affiliate would be staying put.
John
Cablevision is running ads they will lose channel 5 and 9 in NY tomorrow if fox does not reach a deal with them
You can do that, but who are you going to go to? Comcast has no reason to take it any easier on DirecTV or any other cable company, as they are all competitors.
Dish is taking much of the flak right now for balking at ever-increasing carriage fees, but they're certainly not alone. And it's a certainly that DirecTV has or will do so eventually in the future as well.
I would probably go to DTV. And if they do it, I will move somewhere else. I am not going to just take it up the rear from Dish because another company MAY do it too sometime in the future. Why would I continue to pay the same amount of money while I continue to lose channels? GOLTV, The disney HD's, ESPNClassic, ESPNNewsHD, FX, NatGeo, local fox sports channels, local fox channel, etc...
This is so frustrating. Who's next after this one? Do they want us to carry Dish and Directv so we can watch our shows on whichever service happens to carry that channel?
People are so quick to complain when channels go, but never seem to praise when channels get added.
Swanni's take on the FOX Dish fight
Commentary:
Fox vs. Dish: It's Not Their Fault
By Swanni
Washington, D.C. (September 30, 2010) -- Today is the last day that Fox and Dish Network can negotiate a new programming agreement allowing the satcaster to carry FX, National Geographic and 19 Fox regional sports networks. If a new agreement is not reached, Dish will be forced to remove the channels, both HD and SD, from its lineup.
In the last week, as the battle has escalated, Fox and Dish supporters have taken turns pointing fingers, blaming each side for the impasse. Fox has suggested that Dish is too cheap to pay a fair rate for the channels. And while Dish management has been oddly quiet during the fight, its supporters at Internet message boards have lambasted Fox, saying they are greedy.
Well, they're both wrong. Neither Fox or Dish should be blamed for the disagreement which is likely to deny Dish's 16 million viewers the right to watch some of their favorite channels.
Seriously, it's hard to blame them when you consider their positions. Fox wants more money for their channels; Dish wants to give less. What's hard to understand about that? It's just business.
So who is to blame?
The Federal Communications Commission.
This is not the first time that a network and TV provider has gone to war over programming fees. In fact, in the last year or so, there have been several fee fights that have resulted in either channels being pulled off the air or last minute agreements. (In June, Dish was forced to drop four Disney high-def channels when it could not reach a new carriage agreement with the programmer; the channels are still off the air.)
However, despite calls from congressional leaders to get involved in these fights, the FCC has sat on its hands. The agency, which has no trouble getting worked up over a televised nipple slip or a naughty word spoken on the radio at 6 a.m., has concluded that it's best for the free market to work out these issues.
Even if millions of American viewers are held hostage by these fee fights, the FCC doesn't seem to care. The agency won't get involved on behalf of the consumer.
It's a ridiculous, irresponsible position and one that could be easily reconciled. All the FCC needs to do is to establish a 'baseball-style' arbitration process for program fee disputes.
The FCC should force TV programmers and TV providers to enter arbitration if they can not reach an agreement one week prior to the end of a carriage agreement.
The arbitrator would determine how much the TV provider should pay for the programmer's channel after hearing arguments from both sides. And the channels would stay on the air until the arbitrator's decision is handed down.
I believe this is something the FCC and the Obama administration can order under existing federal law. But if it looks like the policy would be challenged in court, Congress could pass specific legislation to give it a legal boost.
Failure to implement a baseball-style arbitration at this time will only lead to more carriage battles -- and more times when consumers lose their favorite channels.
Commentary:
Fox vs. Dish: It's Not Their Fault
By Swanni
Washington, D.C. (September 30, 2010) -- Today is the last day that Fox and Dish Network can negotiate a new programming agreement allowing the satcaster to carry FX, National Geographic and 19 Fox regional sports networks. If a new agreement is not reached, Dish will be forced to remove the channels, both HD and SD, from its lineup.
In the last week, as the battle has escalated, Fox and Dish supporters have taken turns pointing fingers, blaming each side for the impasse. Fox has suggested that Dish is too cheap to pay a fair rate for the channels. And while Dish management has been oddly quiet during the fight, its supporters at Internet message boards have lambasted Fox, saying they are greedy.
Well, they're both wrong. Neither Fox or Dish should be blamed for the disagreement which is likely to deny Dish's 16 million viewers the right to watch some of their favorite channels.
Seriously, it's hard to blame them when you consider their positions. Fox wants more money for their channels; Dish wants to give less. What's hard to understand about that? It's just business.
So who is to blame?
The Federal Communications Commission.
This is not the first time that a network and TV provider has gone to war over programming fees. In fact, in the last year or so, there have been several fee fights that have resulted in either channels being pulled off the air or last minute agreements. (In June, Dish was forced to drop four Disney high-def channels when it could not reach a new carriage agreement with the programmer; the channels are still off the air.)
However, despite calls from congressional leaders to get involved in these fights, the FCC has sat on its hands. The agency, which has no trouble getting worked up over a televised nipple slip or a naughty word spoken on the radio at 6 a.m., has concluded that it's best for the free market to work out these issues.
Even if millions of American viewers are held hostage by these fee fights, the FCC doesn't seem to care. The agency won't get involved on behalf of the consumer.
It's a ridiculous, irresponsible position and one that could be easily reconciled. All the FCC needs to do is to establish a 'baseball-style' arbitration process for program fee disputes.
The FCC should force TV programmers and TV providers to enter arbitration if they can not reach an agreement one week prior to the end of a carriage agreement.
The arbitrator would determine how much the TV provider should pay for the programmer's channel after hearing arguments from both sides. And the channels would stay on the air until the arbitrator's decision is handed down.
I believe this is something the FCC and the Obama administration can order under existing federal law. But if it looks like the policy would be challenged in court, Congress could pass specific legislation to give it a legal boost.
Failure to implement a baseball-style arbitration at this time will only lead to more carriage battles -- and more times when consumers lose their favorite channels.
I disagree. The US is a free enterprise system. Why would you want big government to tell two non government businesses what to do? It's not Canada and the CRTC you know!
You don't realize how much a pain the CRTC can be.
You don't realize how much a pain the CRTC can be.
That was what I was seeing on the end of the commercials during Sons Of Anarchy this week. Are you seeing this at other times than the commercials?
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable how Dish continues to struggle with these negotations, that their customers should never even hear about.
I have said it before but will say it again.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
People are going to be pissed if DISH drops the channels.
If DISH keeps the channels then people are going to be pissed that their bill is going to go up.
Again Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I do know that DISH really WANTS to keep these channels.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
People are going to be pissed if DISH drops the channels.
If DISH keeps the channels then people are going to be pissed that their bill is going to go up.
Again Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I do know that DISH really WANTS to keep these channels.
Normally DISH is the one who advertises thse disputes, but they have been quiet.
FOX on the other hand has been the one advertising it... hell LOG OUT of SatelltieGuys and look at our homepage All the Google Ads are about this dispute from FOX. (I am actually considering blocking these ads since our ad revenue has dropped via Google since the FOX ads are the only ones being shown... and NO ONE IS CLICKING ON THEM.)
If I do drop the ads it has nothing to do with censoring FOX, its all about paying the bills here.
Do people actually click on the ads?
I hope from the heart that you mean that.
Customers should not lose channels, period. Let me decide if I want to pay more for the channels I want, at least give me the option to choose.
Because a zip code alone isn't accurate enough. Where I work is zip code 45066 and people in the north part of this zip get Dayton OH locals; people in the south part get Cincinnati OH locals. Of course, with Time Warner Cable, people get *both* in some cases (though at 8pm, they get syndicated programming on the duplicate network).
Offer the channels, even if it means raising the price. I decide if I want to pay for the channels or not.
OK then Scott, why don't you ask Charlie how many MORE price increases does it take a year to keep these channels and the ones you already lost? 3 maybe 4 more?
How's the 922 working out?
D* doesn't seem to have this issue NEARLY as often, and my D* bill is about $15 less per month .
So now what?
We supposed to feel bad for Charlie, because he loses millions apon millions of $$$ because his sneaky crap and gets Sued, and now he can't afford to pay what everyone else pays..
D* has a Billion dollar deal with NFL ST alone, and they seem to not have nearly the trouble as Dish Network does with the networks.
The network has to allow the channel(s) to be offered independently. The networks want their channels to be packaged together or offered in a certain tier. This way, they can ask for "x" cents per subscriber of package "a".
When this is resolved, let's see if NatGeo remains in the highest or 2nd highest tier that Dish offers.
