OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[flyingsquirrel]

The truth is in the middle. Ie we want the same price but charge you the $1.00 per sub for all of your sub. Last year we only collected on 100 of your sub base well this year we think all of your sub should see our programs so we are going to charge for all of your 200 subs thus a 50% increase to dish, while fox is asking the same per sub.

This is all word double talk or half truths

Ps fox is not telling dish what sub service the programs should be on just how much fox will charge dish.

There are a dozen ways to parse this so that both parties are "Right".

One is that some of the FSN networks don't exist anymore, Like FSN Chicago, which was largely usurped by Comcast Sports Net Chicago. But I have heard that Fox wants Everyone to pay as if there were an FSN. Should dish pay such a fee for me, even though I don't have an FSN in my area?

Another element of that statement is that Dish is the FIRST of the MAJOR providers in this round of negotiations. Fox may have gotten similar terms from other providers, but they are not saying "whom". I don't think it's directv or comcast or U-verse or FiOS. Directv in particular is probably living off of it's sweatheart deal that was negotiated with Fox when both were part of Newscorp.

The next round of negotiations between Fox and Directv are likely to be much less chummy. And the other providers will just agree to what Dish ends up paying.

 

[Greg Bimson]

One is that some of the FSN networks don't exist anymore, Like FSN Chicago, which was largely usurped by Comcast Sports Net Chicago. But I have heard that Fox wants Everyone to pay as if there were an FSN. Should dish pay such a fee for me, even though I don't have an FSN in my area?

Link? I'd be rather surprised if Fox wanted to charge more than $2 per subscriber in Chicago for NO channel.

Another element of that statement is that Dish is the FIRST of the MAJOR providers in this round of negotiations. Fox may have gotten similar terms from other providers, but they are not saying "whom". I don't think it's directv or comcast or U-verse or FiOS. Directv in particular is probably living off of it's sweatheart deal that was negotiated with Fox when both were part of Newscorp.

Link to the "sweetheart deal"? Now that DirecTV is independent, I am fairly certain there probably wasn't a sweetheart deal. DirecTV was a publicly traded company, so even though Fox had controlling interest in DirecTV, so was NewsCorp a publicly traded company, and money had to change hands from one to the other.

Realize that the biggest rumor is both Fox and MSG want their RSN's in AT120. If anyone recalls correctly, this is the sticking point to YES being available on Dish Network. And the first statement rings true to exactly what Fox stated:

"We're not asking anything from Dish that we're not already receiving from our other partners," said Mike Hopkins, the Fox senior executive leading the negotiations across the table from Shull.

Almost every provider has the RSN in the basic, or lowest tier.

 

[RandallA]

Almost every provider has the RSN in the basic, or lowest tier.

Also, National Geographic is in the middle tiers not in the highest.

 

[lsilvest]

It's not often giants fans and dodgers fans agree on sports matters... But I agree with DodgerKing.

Add one more Giants fan. All you have to do is look at the programming. As I said in another thread - follow the money - the population centers get the juice and they are mostly in the east.

 

[jpd31]

Almost every provider has the RSN in the basic, or lowest tier.

Dish Network did provide the local RSN's for any customer that has the Americas Top 120 Plus. DirecTV offers it in the Choice package. Both Dish's Americas Top 120 Plus and DirecTV's Choice are at the same price - $29.95. Our local Time Warner Cable offers the local RSN's. If someone wanted a distant RSN, then all of the provides listed here offers it via a "Sports Pack".

So what does FOX really want?????

I don't see the point in having access to all of the RSN's. I subscribe to the sports pack for NFL Redzone only. I could care less for the other RSN's beside my local ones because they offer about all of the same programming and sports in another network are usually blacked out.

 

[nlk10010]

This is what I find interesting!

So Charlie BS'ing again, Or is FOX??

I'm curious as well: didn't TW have the same dispute and resolve it before any channels were dropped (or was that for the Fox stations alone)? Didn't CV have a dispute with Disney that was resolved with almost no loss of transmission?

Maybe Charlie just wants to earn a higher rate of profit than the others, or perhaps Dish is less efficient and requires lower fees just to turn the same profit.

 

[Yragha]

Anyone's guess on how much longer this thing goes on?

 

[Chris36]

I think going to drag on for weeks or even months just my thoughts.

 

[jpd31]

I'm curious as well: didn't TW have the same dispute and resolve it before any channels were dropped (or was that for the Fox stations alone)? Didn't CV have a dispute with Disney that was resolved with almost no loss of transmission?

Maybe Charlie just wants to earn a higher rate of profit than the others, or perhaps Dish is less efficient and requires lower fees just to turn the same profit.

TWC had a dispute with the FOX stations only, not Fox's RSN. It is the same as what Dish will be going though by Nov. 1.

 

[inazsully]

Anyone's guess on how much longer this thing goes on?

It's going to go on until somebody comes up with a solution. So let's give them some. If we have 4 million subs at the 120 pkg price, Drop the 120 pkg and make the 120+ pkg the lowest tier. That should make FOX happy and Charlie only has to hit a small percentage of his subs with a $5 rate increase. Or keep the 120 pkg and up the 120+ pkg $5. I can live with that. Hell, we're all going to get a bump anyway by the time this gets done (probably more than $5). Might as well bite the bullet now.

 

[mike123abc]

It's going to go on until somebody comes up with a solution. So let's give them some. If we have 4 million subs at the 120 pkg price, Drop the 120 pkg and make the 120+ pkg the lowest tier. That should make FOX happy and Charlie only has to hit a small percentage of his subs with a $5 rate increase. Or keep the 120 pkg and up the 120+ pkg $5. I can live with that. Hell, we're all going to get a bump anyway by the time this gets done (probably more than $5). Might as well bite the bullet now.

Given the YES situation, Dish knows how many subs they will lose by having the price increase forced on them. They seem to have data that they get more customers with the current system than they lose by not having the RSN. Actually the opposite may happen. Dish might decide that not having the RSNs and a $5/month cheaper package gets them more customers than they lose.

 

[radiator65]

I currently have Dish Latino Max with Multi- Sports. With fees and all it is $82.99. There are 2 channels not in Latino Max with Multi-Sports that I wish I had: Fox News (please don't judge) and ESPNU. The reason I have stayed with the Latino pack is for FX (I really enjoy Sons of Anarchy and The League). Of course with FX gone I have no reason to keep the Latino Max package. I have looked at getting the Top 120+ with the Multi-Sports package which adds NFL network and Latino bonus pack the total for that would be: $ 88.99. The only thing is I don't want to make these changes and then the dispute be resolved and have to change everything back within a couple days. If this goes on for a a few weeks SOA and the League will both be over anyway. Any advice?

 

[lsilvest]

I currently have Dish Latino Max with Multi- Sports. With fees and all it is $82.99. There are 2 channels not in Latino Max with Multi-Sports that I wish I had: Fox News (please don't judge) and ESPNU. The reason I have stayed with the Latino pack is for FX (I really enjoy Sons of Anarchy and The League). Of course with FX gone I have no reason to keep the Latino Max package. I have looked at getting the Top 120+ with the Multi-Sports package which adds NFL network and Latino bonus pack the total for that would be: $ 88.99. The only thing is I don't want to make these changes and then the dispute be resolved and have to change everything back within a couple days. If this goes on for a a few weeks SOA and the League will both be over anyway. Any advice?

#1 - no judgement - I applaud your forthrightness and choice of information sources. Those that would judge do so due to a lack of capacity for logical reasoning and the initiative to seek out facts. (I'll take the heat for you).

If 2 programs are all you are missing and are otherwise happy, just watch them online at the FX website (very good PQ) and wait it out. If you were missing some sports that were important, then it may not be as easy a decision. Also, if you are dependent on the Fox locals (no OTA option) and yours is in jeopardy it also makes the decision more difficult.

 

[kcburk]

An article I sent Ergen

Found an article I thought you might find interesting. It says in so many words what I have felt for several years, and why I myself have waited so long to get pay TV "service". You need customer loyalty. Gain that loyalty by respecting our right to choose and allowing us real choice with ala carte programming. Stop making us pay for channels we have no interest in.

Sincerely,
Kevin Burk
A New Subscriber in Hernando, MS who could just as easily become a former subscriber.


Are Pay-TV Providers Getting Hit By a Perfect Storm in Q3?

Thursday, September 16, 2010, 10:12 AM ET
posted by: Will Richmond The U.S. pay-TV industry, which as a whole lost multichannel video subscribers for the first time in Q2 '10, may be heading for a soft 3rd quarter as well. As Multichannel News reported yesterday, Time Warner Cable's CFO Rob Marcus said at a conference this week that Q3 "video net losses are pacing ahead" of where they were in Q3 '09. He attributed the downturn to recession-related factors of high unemployment, high home vacancy rates and slow new home formation. Though that's a fair explanation, it's only one element in a perfect storm pay-TV operators now find themselves battling.

Aside from the above recession-related matters, pay-TV operators are also up against belt-tightening that's rooted in basic household economics. As Craig Moffett at Sanford Bernstein pointed out in a note last weekend, in the past 25 years, cable and satellite spending has increased from 1/2 of 1% of discretionary spending to 1.4%, a growth rate that's triple other household discretionary line items.

This spending increase has been helped along by rising incomes, decreasing savings rates and spending shifts away from adjacent categories like video rentals. But now this dynamic has flipped: income growth has turned negative and savings rates are increasing. As a result, cable and satellite industry reliance on price increases to propel top-line growth aren't sustainable. Moreover, the household-level financial squeeze inevitably leads to pay-TV subscribers closely examining the monthly bill, with an eye to dropping less valuable services (e.g. premium channels, additional set-top boxes, etc.). This is turn may help explain HBO's lower subscriber count.

The timing of subscribers' closer spending scrutiny is exacerbated by the recent prevalence of inexpensive or free over-the-top video choices. With millions of people now freely watching broadcast network shows on Hulu or the network sites, a new realization is dawning that there's a lot of good stuff available online. In addition, paid services like Netflix and Redbox provide inexpensive augments to free. And whereas online viewing has been handicapped by being tethered to the computer, the proliferation of cheap connected devices (e.g. Apple TV, Roku, boxee, Blu-ray players, gaming consoles, etc.) means convenient TV-based viewing of online delivered content is just ahead for millions of households.

Some of the earliest effects of the recession/belt-tightening/online viewing dynamic are likely playing out with one specific segment that has reliably delivered seasonally-strong Q3 subscriber gains for the many pay-TV operators: college students. While it's admittedly anecdotal, I've heard several stories in the past few weeks of cost-conscious parents declining to fund pay-TV subscriptions in their college-age kids. It turns out the kids aren't pushing hard for pay-TV anyway; they're accustomed to watching what catches their fancy online or not watching at all, with their attention diverted to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or other pursuits.

Add it all up and the pay-TV industry is facing a perfect storm in Q3 '10. When the financial results start coming in, it's likely we'll see a continuation of the softness that began in Q2. While it's tempting to attribute all of the weakness to the recession, there are other factors at work as well. How the pay-TV industry chooses to react to these newly challenging circumstances will say a lot about its future prosperity.

Are Pay-TV Providers Getting Hit By a Perfect Storm in Q3?

 

[sA :: Shaggy]

NAT GEO BACK (Not)

Didn't see this posted anywhere else.

If it has been then delete.

I am seeing on my 922 that Nat Geo is back on ch. 190

 

[dangue]

Didn't see this posted anywhere else.

If it has been then delete.

I am seeing on my 922 that Nat Geo is back on ch. 190

I see it in the guide as well. Unfortunately, I'm DVRing a few things so I can't verify the actual programming. However, 136 is still listed as HDnet Movies and not FX.

 

[mule401]

Sorry thats National Geographic Wild. Its a different channel that was not affected.

 

[dfergie]

Retitled... yup that's wild.

 

[wolfjc]

Swanni's take on the FOX Dish fight #2

Dish vs. Fox: Who's Losing?
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (October 12, 2010) -- The fee fight between Dish Network and Fox Networks is now in its 12th day with no end in sight. Both companies have escalated the rhetoric in recent days, blaming the other for Dish subscribers being denied access to the Fox-owned FX, National Geographic Channel and 19 regional sports channels.

At this point, there would appear to be no winners or losers in the battle over whether Dish should provide additional compensation to Fox to carry the channels. (Their old fee agreement expired on September 30.) The one exception, of course: the Dish viewers who can't watch some of their favorite channels; they are clear losers.

However, another loser is rapidly emerging from the fog of loud charges and hysterical ad campaigns. And that loser is Dish Network.

The satcaster may be justified in saying that Fox is asking for an "excessive" fee to carry the FX, etc. It may even be right to suggest that Fox is trying to scare Dish viewers with the threat that they will lose their local Fox channels on November 1 if a new agreement is not reached for those channels as well.

But Dish is in a precarious position in the fight. The company has a long history of getting entangled in nasty legal scraps with industry partners, be it TiVo (six-year DVR patent war continues); Disney (Dish recently removed four Disney HD channels after the two sides could not reach a new programming pact; the channels are still off the air.); MSG (another programming fight has forced Dish to remove the sports channel from its lineup); Voom (Dish dumped Voom's HD channels from the air although it was a minority stake holder; a lawsuit ensued).

And I could cite perhaps a couple dozen more cases over the last decade.

You see, Dish CEO Charlie Ergen believes in playing hardball at the negotiating table. It often appears that Dish doesn't mind denying its customers a favorite channel for awhile if it means a few more dollars in its coffers.

But I have to think that many Dish subscribers are losing patience with this approach. How do you subscribe to a TV service that doesn't give you confidence that your favorite channels will be there when you tune them in. (Or, in the case of TiVo, it's possible a judge will rule that Dish must disable its DVRs at some point.)

The longer the battle with Fox, the more likely that Dish subscribers will bolt and sign up with a different TV provider, such as DIRECTV. And if Dish doesn't sign an agreement to keep the Fox affiliates, it could be a disaster. Again, Dish viewers can only take so much.

This is a case where Ergen needs to put his ego and even his principles on the shelf and make a deal with Fox. He doesn't have the luxury not to.

 

[chuckster_dude]

I think the biggest piece of this is the removal of regional sports channels.

I can find the content of alot of national channels elsewhere on the Web but when you start removing content unique to my geographic area, then I think that becomes the turning point for many subscribers. And doing it to a sports channel.....where the masses have at least some interest in their local teams.....hurts the most.

Removing something like ESPN News HD and still having the SD version is tolerable for the majority. But the FOX and MSG battles are more personal to the customer and that makes a big difference.