It is. They forgot to list all of the other Fox owned stations that are not Fox networks.I had though this list would be much larger, but according to wiki, these are the fox O&O stations---
It is. They forgot to list all of the other Fox owned stations that are not Fox networks.I had though this list would be much larger, but according to wiki, these are the fox O&O stations---
I had though this list would be much larger, but according to wiki, these are the fox O&O stations---
Dish-FSN dispute still at impasse | NewsOK.com
According to the above article it seems.......
"The two sides are not actively negotiating and remain at an impasse," FSN spokesman Ramon Alvarez said Monday.
Or maybe we should end this thread.
That certainly could happen, but I doubt it. What I do think will happen is that those that stick around for awhile will get used to what isn't there and find they don't actually care about it at all. That is the one thing Fox doesn't want to happen as it takes away their leverage.
I've not been greatly affected by all this. I never watch the RSNs and only a couple things on FX that I can get via Hulu just fine. And the rest of Fox's channels aren't of any interest to me. The local Fox is not an O&O, so I can still get them, but even if it was, I'd just get them via OTA like I do most of the time now.
Well geeze, gosh dolly, dang garn. Might be like it was when I grew up. OH, THE HORROR!!!![]()
this is how dish negotiates. they walk away and hope the other side will come to them. its what i was told they did to my locals. ive been blaming the local station for years, now im beginning to wonder
Iparsons21,
I agree with what you say, except that when it comes to missing sports programming, people tend to get really upset and want their sports, making them a bit irrational, (as seen in this thread.)
so basically kerry wants to force fox to let cable vision carry them until they reach a contract agreement?
will there be a time limit? what if an agreement is never reached?
its not fair to fox. they will be giving away thier product to free.
goverment regulation is never the answer. deregulation and compitition is
if cablevision doesnt want to pay, customers can switch to another provider that does carry what they want
why do we only have the choice of 1 cable company in most areas?
5 bucks per sub per month? Not sure I can buy that, but if its true, why didnt the providers balk at that too? I mean I'm sure some did did but you didn't hear so much fuss over it.
Fox already gives their programming away for free via OTA and on spectrum that was given to them by us the consumers via the government. Not to mention the absurd amount of commercials that are in that programming nowadays, that we have to watch. It costs cablevision money to supply Fox's signal to consumers that choose not use OTA methods for reception. In my opinion Fox should be paying the distributors for expanding the reach of their viewership. There shouldn't be a cost for basic OTA networks distribution via cable or satellite in my opinion.
Its apprx $4.50 or $5 a month for ESPN and ESPN2 together. I've seen a couple of websites publishing the average monthly cost for cable channels. Add ESPN CL, ESPNU and ESPN News and its well over $5/month. ESPN is by far the most expensive basic cable channel.
Why didn't providers balk over it? Because its been a gradual increase year after year going back to about when ESPN got Sunday Night Football in the late 80's. ESPN became a must have channel for any sports fan. Then DBS came along and if a cable system dropped it they were risking a mass migration to D* or E*.
Whats really troubling is that if New Corps gets $2 or $2.50 a month just for FOX, how long will it be until were all paying the same for CBS, NBC, and ABC? We could be paying $10/month just for freely available channels. And whats really terrible is they'll be forced on every sub, even if you can pick them up OTA.
Its apprx $4.50 or $5 a month for ESPN and ESPN2 together. I've seen a couple of websites publishing the average monthly cost for cable channels. Add ESPN CL, ESPNU and ESPN News and its well over $5/month. ESPN is by far the most expensive basic cable channel.
Why didn't providers balk over it? Because its been a gradual increase year after year going back to about when ESPN got Sunday Night Football in the late 80's. ESPN became a must have channel for any sports fan. Then DBS came along and if a cable system dropped it they were risking a mass migration to D* or E*.
Whats really troubling is that if New Corps gets $2 or $2.50 a month just for FOX, how long will it be until were all paying the same for CBS, NBC, and ABC? We could be paying $10/month just for freely available channels. And whats really terrible is they'll be forced on every sub, even if you can pick them up OTA.
so basically kerry wants to force fox to let cable vision carry them until they reach a contract agreement?
will there be a time limit? what if an agreement is never reached?
its not fair to fox. they will be giving away thier product to free.
goverment regulation is never the answer. deregulation and compitition is
if cablevision doesnt want to pay, customers can switch to another provider that does carry what they want
why do we only have the choice of 1 cable company in most areas?
are they asking for a increase in fee or inclusion in a lower tier?
if its the latter the only people affected would be those with the low tier.
it could also be a combination (ex 10% increase in fee and 40% increase in viewers by inclusion in lowest tier)
until the actual contract is leaked we dont have a 100% accurate view, its all speculation
for all i care put em in the lower tier, i never get that anyway so it wont affect me as much
(this is sarcasm)
but really we need facts, show us the paperwork
AGREE ON NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH MY BLUES GAMES OR MISSOURI TIGEERS GAMES ON FOX SPORTS MIDWEST.I GOT TIRED OF DISH PROGRAMMING DISPUTES WITH THEM LOSING VOOM DISNEY HD CHANNELS AND STILL NO WORD ON THEM AND NOW FOX SPORTS MIDWEST 2 YEARS IN A ROW NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH MY BLUES I SWITCHED TO DIRECT TV AND STILL HAVE DISH UNTIL MY CONTRACT WITH THEM IS UP AND HAVE THE SMALLEST PACKAGE AVAILABLE AND THEY ASKED WHY IM GOING TO THE SMALLEST PACKAGE AND I TOLD THEM ALL THE CHANNELS THEY ARE LOSING TO DISPUTES AND MENTIONED THEM ALL THEY I SAID BEFOREThis all started with losing the VOOM channels with me. All indications are the Dish isn't the one that is playing fair.
With that said, I'm waiting to see what happens with Uverse negotiations with HGTV, FOOD, etc, and if that gets resolved by 11/1 then I'm switching, unless Dish resolves their issues. If Uverse doesn't solve their problem then I'm going to direct.
I'm upset that I can't watch FX national Geo and MY BLUES HOCKEY!
AGREE ON NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH MY BLUES GAMES OR MISSOURI TIGEERS GAMES ON FOX SPORTS MIDWEST.I GOT TIRED OF DISH PROGRAMMING DISPUTES WITH THEM LOSING VOOM DISNEY HD CHANNELS AND STILL NO WORD ON THEM AND NOW FOX SPORTS MIDWEST 2 YEARS IN A ROW NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH MY BLUES I SWITCHED TO DIRECT TV AND STILL HAVE DISH UNTIL MY CONTRACT WITH THEM IS UP AND HAVE THE SMALLEST PACKAGE AVAILABLE AND THEY ASKED WHY IM GOING TO THE SMALLEST PACKAGE AND I TOLD THEM ALL THE CHANNELS THEY ARE LOSING TO DISPUTES AND MENTIONED THEM ALL THEY I SAID BEFORE