OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[mdram]

If FOX wants to use the public airwaves for free, then they should be expected to provide the same to the cable and SAT companies for free as well. If they don't want to provide the programming for free, then they are free to create FX2 and put all their valuable content there and charge whatever they think they can get away with. I never understood why we all just accepted that government supplied airwaves are free to some and not to others. If they don't like the arrangement they can surrender the airwaves.

by your logic the cable/sat company should also provide the retransitted channels for free.
they are not paying to use them, so why should they be allowed to charge you?
fox provide you the channels free ota. if the cable/sat company wants to attract you to them by carrying them also then they should transfer part of that fee to fox
dish charges $5 for locals iirc, how much of that is passed one? in some cases none if the station is enacting must carry.

let the free market decide, not the goverment

 

[osu1991]

by your logic the cable/sat company should also provide the retransitted channels for free.
they are not paying to use them, so why should they be allowed to charge you?
fox provide you the channels free ota. if the cable/sat company wants to attract you to them by carrying them also then they should transfer part of that fee to fox
dish charges $5 for locals iirc, how much of that is passed one? in some cases none if the station is enacting must carry.

let the free market decide, not the goverment

That is not the same argument. There are franchise fees and taxes imposed on the cable and sat companies if they want to provide service in areas. They are not just given it. The broadcast groups are not paying anything for the tv spectrum they were given.

 

[BobMurdoch]

If they (the cable/SAT guys) incur an expense to receive them and pass them through (fiber optic lines, satellite bandwidth, etc.) I don't hold any ill will with them recouping them plus an overhead fee. My beef is with a broadcaster who gave it away for free for generations, and is now trying to charge us for something that they give away for free and make their money with advertising they sell. I REALLY have a beef with a broadcaster who tries to ram through a 115% year over year increase in an economy that is still in severe distress for many (I'm making 50% less than I did 3 years ago and working the same amount of hours). I hope they hold out for months. I'll stop watching FOX shows, get my football from the Red Zone Channel, and not watch any new shows from FOX. I can always rent a boxset of Fringe or watch Hulu on our new Google TV that will come online shortly (and I WILL be flipping the setting that bypasses Hulu's attempt to block them - see Engadget for the story)

 

[Greg Bimson]

I never understood why we all just accepted that government supplied airwaves are free to some and not to others. If they don't like the arrangement they can surrender the airwaves.

Because the government only started auctioning all spectrum in the late 1990's?

 

[dangue]

by your logic the cable/sat company should also provide the retransitted channels for free.
they are not paying to use them, so why should they be allowed to charge you?
fox provide you the channels free ota. if the cable/sat company wants to attract you to them by carrying them also then they should transfer part of that fee to fox
dish charges $5 for locals iirc, how much of that is passed one? in some cases none if the station is enacting must carry.

let the free market decide, not the goverment

That assumes that the free market would actually work. When in comes to sports programming providers like fox have a de facto monopoly. People have a choice of switching distributors (Dish, Direct, cable, etc.), but there's no way to switch to an alternate content provider, they don't exist.

So that makes it a choice between paying whatever the providers demand (with no ceiling anytime soon- all distributors' rates will creep up) and deciding to forego the content altogether.

That is not an efficient market, the broadcasters/providers have too much power for the free market to work. When you take into account that consumers don't have the ability to negotiate for themselves with individual broadcasters (a la carte) and the nature of fixed price multiuser carriage agreements, it's not like market prices can be incrementally adjusted until supply and demand come to their natural balancing point.

All in all, statements saying that the free market can fix this seem naive and misguided at best. This is a broken marketplace and without any regulation I don't see it magically fixing itself anytime soon.

It's a shame that IPTV solutions like MLB.tv black out live local team broadcasts. If there was any form of viable alternative for live sports viewing, the market would behave more normally and could self-correct without government regulation.

 

[BobMurdoch]

NOT the broadcast networks. They were all given free of charge the digital bandwidth if they had an analog VHF or UHF frequency in a given area that they "leased" for zero dollars or whatever you want to call it. They paid zero for the rights to deliver signals over government owned spectrum.

 

[ekilgus]

Doesn’t anyone see the bigger picture? I believe that if FOX prevails all the other retransmitters (Direct, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will accordingly be hit with these massive increases when it’s time for their renewals.
Additionally, if FOX prevails it will open the flood gates for all the other providers to demand massive rate increases.
Cable/satellite TV will become significantly more expensive and it will be the norm to see large increases in ones bill most likely more than once a year and I can easily see the America’s everything package cost jumping to well over $200 a month fairly soon.
There doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done to keep this from happening except for perhaps ala cart.

 

[DodgerKing]

I don't understand what the 1st sentence means. The 2nd sentence is just saying that you have nothing to help us know any different than what has been said previously.

Just got confirmation that the current contract between Fox and Direct does not end until well into 2011.

 

[Greg Bimson]

NOT the broadcast networks. They were all given free of charge the digital bandwidth if they had an analog VHF or UHF frequency in a given area that they "leased" for zero dollars or whatever you want to call it. They paid zero for the rights to deliver signals over government owned spectrum.

Because the government never "leased" or auctioned spectrum for television. In the 1950's and 60's, you applied for a license if you wanted to broadcast. Auctioning spectrum did not occur until the late 1990's. Besides, Dish Network doesn't lease spectrum, yet they obviously use the airwaves licensed by the FCC, so why can't they provide TV for free?

And let's not forget one of the other reasons for the digital transition: more efficient use of bandwidth. Television bands were reduced from channels 2 to 83 down to 6 to 51, and the government was able to auction off all that spectrum.

Cable/satellite TV will become significantly more expensive and it will be the norm to see large increases in ones bill most likely more than once a year and I can easily see the America’s everything package cost jumping to well over $200 a month fairly soon.
There doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done to keep this from happening except for perhaps ala cart.

Sure there is. Stop consuming. Especially if you want "everything".

 

[jonesy99]

Doesn’t anyone see the bigger picture? I believe that if FOX prevails all the other retransmitters (Direct, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will accordingly be hit with these massive increases when it’s time for their renewals.
Additionally, if FOX prevails it will open the flood gates for all the other providers to demand massive rate increases.
Cable/satellite TV will become significantly more expensive and it will be the norm to see large increases in ones bill most likely more than once a year and I can easily see the America’s everything package cost jumping to well over $200 a month fairly soon.


There doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done to keep this from happening except for perhaps ala cart.

Agreed. this is real tip of the iceburg right now, does anyone recall who started the move a while back to charge for ota tv?

 

[mdram]

the free market can fix the system. if people stop paying the high prices for teh sports, then directv/fox/ect wont be able to pay the leagues the large prices, they will fall. as long as directv cana afford to give the nfl 1bill a year for exclusive rights they will be the only one with nfl ticket, and the price will reflect that. why can you get mlb extra inning for under 200 a year but ticket is over 300?
same goes for the regional sports networks
fox isnt getting those game rights for free, someone is getting paid

 

[ttlax]

Doesn’t anyone see the bigger picture? I believe that if FOX prevails all the other retransmitters (Direct, Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) will accordingly be hit with these massive increases when it’s time for their renewals.
Additionally, if FOX prevails it will open the flood gates for all the other providers to demand massive rate increases.
Cable/satellite TV will become significantly more expensive and it will be the norm to see large increases in ones bill most likely more than once a year and I can easily see the America’s everything package cost jumping to well over $200 a month fairly soon.
There doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done to keep this from happening except for perhaps ala cart.

Well, according to Fox, they are only asking for the same they are already receiving from other providers. Someone is lying here, I don't know who, but it stinks.

 

[lparsons21]

Well, according to Fox, they are only asking for the same they are already receiving from other providers. Someone is lying here, I don't know who, but it stinks.

Well I don't think either are lying. Twisting the truth to make themselves appear better is more like it.

All this will work out in the end. The corporate heads will figure something out that they both like or can live with. Then WE get to tell them how well we like what they did with our checkbooks/credit cards. When they do, I will decide to either keep with Dish since they have more of what I want, or just say 'a pox on all your houses' and cancel it all out.

I've got projects that I've procrastinated more than long enough that I could be working on. I could hone my golf game more. Learn to play the 4 organs I own better. Maybe even write some sappy teener song for them!

 

[whatchel1]

Just got confirmation that the current contract between Fox and Direct does not end until well into 2011.

You gonna share as to where this info is available?

 

[Barry Erick]

I have an issue with that statement
BUT the FOX station went from UHF to VHF after the digital transition, and is broadcasting at a lower power than the ABC UHF station.

UHF power vrs VHF power are apples and oranges. You can't compair them. It takes tens of times more power for UHF than VHF. Signal Strength does it.

Where I retired from, the 2 V's we had on digital were 30kw. The U's are in the Hundreds. From the same antenna farm, to my home, about 15 air miles away, the V signal shows higher on the signal levels (which are signal and quality) than any of the other 7 U's. All have excelent levels, however.

 

[fredp]

I've got projects that I've procrastinated more than long enough that I could be working on. I could hone my golf game more. Learn to play the 4 organs I own better. Maybe even write some sappy teener song for them!

Your absolutely right Lloyd, there is life without TV. When the dust settles it will cost us more regardless of who wins. The checkbook is the ultimate judge.

 

[DodgerKing]

You gonna share as to where this info is available?

Let's just say a source from another site whom we Direct subs usually refer to when we get information about Direct. He is often referred to on this site

ETA: I tried to PM you the evidence, but your mailbox is full

 

[whatchel1]

UHF power vrs VHF power are apples and oranges. You can't compair them. It takes tens of times more power for UHF than VHF. Signal Strength does it.

Where I retired from, the 2 V's we had on digital were 30kw. The U's are in the Hundreds. From the same antenna farm, to my home, about 15 air miles away, the V signal shows higher on the signal levels (which are signal and quality) than any of the other 7 U's. All have excelent levels, however.

Not really. Digital doesn't work as well when using VHF than UHF. Know this from experience of working as an eng. The last station I worked at that was VHF digital didn't carry out as far as the UHF's in the area. Part of it has to do w/ FM harmonics that blast certain VHF frequencies. High VHF are hit hard by the harmonic problems especially 9 & 10.

 

[Barry Erick]

VHF HIGH channels (ch 7 to 13) work well with digital if you understand it and can educate you viewers. I am a retired broadcast engineer who was in charge of the digitals and solved many peoples problems. The biggest problem was antenna installers who installed UHF only antennas because "This market is all UHF:. Well, it was as NTSC. get the right broadcast antenna, make sure there are FM fitters to help folk in the area of a strong FM whos second harmonic lands on you and give them away. We were 11 and 13 and 11 was being hit, but the filters solved it for many people living close to those sites, including 2 cable companies. The filters cost us less than $3. each

 

[HDRoberts]

the free market can fix the system. if people stop paying the high prices for teh sports, then directv/fox/ect wont be able to pay the leagues the large prices, they will fall. as long as directv cana afford to give the nfl 1bill a year for exclusive rights they will be the only one with nfl ticket, and the price will reflect that. why can you get mlb extra inning for under 200 a year but ticket is over 300?
same goes for the regional sports networks
fox isnt getting those game rights for free, someone is getting paid

By having the Dish America pack, I'm doing just that, or at least the best I can. I'm not supporting the sports networks. But Fox wants to change that. Apparently the dispute is largely about placement, that is, Fox wants everyone that subs to have the RSN. Then how can the market decide? We will have no way of giving our money to the channels we want while withholding from those we don't.

Heck, even that only works for RSNs for Dish only. Care to tell me how I can get the channels I want (Syfy, Comedy Central, TNT, USA, TBS, Food) without being forced to take ESPN and it's high price tag? You can't.

The only thing that can fix this mess is a la carte, and since that will cost programmers and providers both big bucks (but saving consumers all of those bucks), that isn't happening, even though that is what the market wants.