OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[jonesy99]

Hell yeah, those news channels have to go, why would I want a 24/7 news channel (in HD btw) when I can check the news on the internet?

lol, statements like that are at least part of the reason for price increases.

 

[wolfjc]

Swanni take # 3

News Analysis
Fox vs. Dish, Cable: When Will It End?
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (October 19, 2010) -- In my view, Fox's programming blackouts on Dish Network and Cablevision could extend until November, or later. And here's why:

Since Friday at midnight, Cablevision viewers have been blacked out from watching the Fox Network because the companies can't reach a new carriage agreement. The impasse has prompted a dozen or so elected officials (and many Cablevision viewers) to urge Fox to either modify its demands or accept third-party, binding arbitration.

Considering the political pressure, you would think that Fox would be ready to compromise, right?

Wrong.

Since October 1, Dish Network subscribers have been blacked out from watching Fox's regional sports channels, FX and National Geographic Channel. And Fox is threatening to deny Dish access to Fox's local channels on November 1 if it does not reach a new pact for those as well.

So Fox has to be extremely careful not to compromise in the Cablevision deal because it would pressure the company to accept a similar compromise in the Dish negotiation. Two compromises could leave a lot of money on the table, in Fox's view. (Similarly, Fox doesn't want a third-party arbitrator determining what it pays Cablevision because the terms would likely then be applied to the Dish deal, not legally, of course, but practically.)

But what is a compromise? And what's the best deal that Fox can get from Cablevision and Dish?

At this point, it's difficult to say because the Dish negotiations over the local channels aren't likely to heat up until a few days before the November 1 deadline. Fox doesn't have a good feel on what Dish will pay to continue carrying its local channels.

So it's hard for Fox to accept terms with Cablevision without knowing how the Dish talks will play out. What Fox accepts from Cablevision will greatly influence what Dish will ultimately have to pay. If the company accepts a certain price from Cablevision, it could turn out to be much lower than what it could have gotten from Dish.

Most industry analysts believe the two disputes are not connected. But they are linked together in a way that makes it difficult for Fox to accept a new agreement with just one company.

That's why it's likely that the Fox-Cablevision battle will last at least until the final week of October, when the Fox-Dish negotiations get more serious. And it's possible that Fox-Cablevision will last until November if the Fox-Dish talks are not productive until after their Nov. 1 agreement expires.

 

[HDRoberts]

Losing the main argument? Fox has signed up most of the known universe so that FSN is in the lowest tier of programming, yet Dish Network is special and requires a more special deal? And as I said, if FSN (and MSG and YES) are placed in AT120, it will still be AT120 and it doesn't take away consumer choice. It just changes the price.

My choice is a package that lacks RSNs. I will lack that choice. It is that simple.

It seems the thrust of your argument is "Everybody's doing it." Hmm, guess, by your argument, I should have joined my friends in doing cocaine as a kid.

Are you not one of those saying let the market work? Is Dish not just developing a distinguishing product that consumers choose or don't choose? Should we not let the market choose if it is a successful product? Heck, you in a previous post encouraged me to start my own distribution system with a similar distinguishing product. But one already exists, to an extent. Instead, you argue in favor of Fox protecting themselves from the market by making it impossible for people to eliminate their product without eliminating all pay TV.

And has to purchase them in a package, as offered by a pay-TV provider, unless of course he can go the Hulu and Netflix route.

And should not the market determine package contents?

Paying for channels they don't want? Everyone pays for a package of channels, whether some channels included aren't watched is irrelevant. This creates the false impression that if users remove those channels their bills would come down. Dish Network refused the terms given by Fox so the FSN channels, FX and NatGeo were removed, and no one automatically received cheaper pricing.

Because they are hoping the situation is only temporary, and they provided additional programming to many customers.

I can empathize, but people are paying for a package of programming created by a pay-TV provider, yet have a misguided belief that they can dictate how their pay-TV provider packages the channels believing they can save money.

Isn't that what you say when it is said the market should decide? This may boarder on political, but it seems incongruous to say the government has no place regulating it, and that the market should decide, and then say that the consumers that make up the market have no say in what is going on.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Here's the argument:

I can empathize, but people are paying for a package of programming created by a pay-TV provider, yet have a misguided belief that they can dictate how their pay-TV provider packages the channels believing they can save money.

From The Fat Man:

As for Greg B, dude, why do you need to have these arguements. You and I had it out over retransmission fees, now your arguing with someone else over their choice to not pay for sports. Just as someone else stated, you try to make up these side arguements to try to get off the main one, because the opisition's opinion makes sense.

Does it? HDRoberts wants TNT and TBS, both of which have sports programming on it. If the argument is that he doesn't want to pay for sports, then why does he want channels that provide sports?

Then comes the differing opinions:

say leave the sports in
take out the shopping channels, religious channels, mtv, vh1, cnn, msnbs

The packages are there to provide variety and price points, created by the pay-TV provider in order to increase their bottom line. Dish Network has basically three tiers with a bunch of a la carte premiums, and if "consumer choice" were involved, one could literally see hundreds of packages, but I can bet the price points wouldn't be all that different. Heck, check the price point of what was Dish Network's Family package. It was barely under AT120, but was missing some seriously viewed channels, including ESPN. So forgive me when I state that the removal of sports channels will lessen your bill, when it doesn't appear that way.

And yet there is a programmer(Fox) who believes they can dictate to providers where to place their programming?.Seems like Fox wants to be like ESPN and will do anything(like pulling programming or dropping internet access if they could) to get what they want.

When two parties wont budge off of positions and cannot negotiate a mutual agreement, it it called an impasse. Fox has the right to want inclusion of FX and FSN into AT120. Dish Network has the right to refuse. And it is for those reasons those channels are missing from Dish Network at this moment.

Fox is refusing to work with a pay-TV provider until they get what they've received from most of their other pay-TV partners: the ability to have FX and FSN in the lowest tier. Is Dish Network that special to bully a programmer into continuing with a lesser offer?

Problem is Dish Network has a right to place programming where they want to,and the day they can't then Dish Network might as well change it's name to Fox's Dish Network!.

Then they should have called themselves ESPN's Dish Network, because they've ate the ability to place programming in tiers when they allowed ESPN in the lowest tier.

Just because you think Fox's demands are unreasonable doesn't mean the rest of the distributors haven't received what they've wanted for over a decade.

 

[Greg Bimson]

My choice is a package that lacks RSNs. I will lack that choice. It is that simple.

Most people don't make choices because of what it doesn't contain, but I can understand that.

I could quote more of these arguments about "the free market", but will take this one...

Isn't that what you say when it is said the market should decide? This may boarder on political, but it seems incongruous to say the government has no place regulating it, and that the market should decide, and then say that the consumers that make up the market have no say in what is going on.

Consumers have a say, but the important issue is that people are still paying. They refuse to vote with their wallets, and leave pay-TV altogether.

But let's not forget that the programmers also have a say, which is also a bastion of the free market. Why should Fox treat Dish Network any differently than DirecTV, Comcast or the Time Warner groups, pay-TV providers that have placed their programming on the entry-level tier? Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

 

[dangue]

Most people don't make choices because of what it doesn't contain, but I can understand that.

I could quote more of these arguments about "the free market", but will take this one...Consumers have a say, but the important issue is that people are still paying. They refuse to vote with their wallets, and leave pay-TV altogether.

But let's not forget that the programmers also have a say, which is also a bastion of the free market. Why should Fox treat Dish Network any differently than DirecTV, Comcast or the Time Warner groups, pay-TV providers that have placed their programming on the entry-level tier? Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

Because there is a segment of Dish consumers that don't want to pay for the RSN and therefore subscribe to the 120 package instead of the 120+ package. They are speaking with their wallets by not paying for something they don't want. What Fox wants is to eliminate that basic market functionality by removing that option from consumers.

Consumers choosing that they want pay tv is not the same as consumers choosing that they are fine with paying for RSNs. They simply have no other choice with other providers. For you to say that consumers choose pay tv so they choose to pay for RSNs is the market working as intended is not correct. The market working as intended would be consumers being able to choose to pay for something without having to choose to pay for something else.

Your argument is akin to the following hypothetical: Let's imagine that consumers can only buy peanut butter if they agree to buy jelly. If they absolutely hate jelly and have no use for it they can either forego both peanut butter and jelly or pony up the money for both. Since they absolutely love it, but can't have peanut butter alone, some consumers go ahead and buy both because the option of no peanut butter doesn't work for them. That is not the market working properly with respect to jelly, that's jelly producers forcing consumers to accept jelly in order to receive the peanut butter they really want.

 

[jonesy99]

Most people don't make choices because of what it doesn't contain, but I can understand that.

I could quote more of these arguments about "the free market", but will take this one...Consumers have a say, but the important issue is that people are still paying. They refuse to vote with their wallets, and leave pay-TV altogether.

But let's not forget that the programmers also have a say, which is also a bastion of the free market. Why should Fox treat Dish Network any differently than DirecTV, Comcast or the Time Warner groups, pay-TV providers that have placed their programming on the entry-level tier? Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

So the argument is because everyone else is doing it? And because ol Charlie doesn't want to that makes the whole deal his fault? Hmm...I don't give a rats ass if he is protecting his margins, It's still the right thing to do.

 

[Jhon69]

The problem is, the sports channels actually subsidize the channels you listed, as the sports channels are more popular than many of the other channels. If it was not for the sports channels supporting them, you would actually either pay more for many of the cable channels you want OR these channels would not be able to survive on their own and would not exist.

Most people don't make choices because of what it doesn't contain, but I can understand that.

I could quote more of these arguments about "the free market", but will take this one...Consumers have a say, but the important issue is that people are still paying. They refuse to vote with their wallets, and leave pay-TV altogether.

But let's not forget that the programmers also have a say, which is also a bastion of the free market. Why should Fox treat Dish Network any differently than DirecTV, Comcast or the Time Warner groups, pay-TV providers that have placed their programming on the entry-level tier? Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

I can answer that because that's the way it has been with Dish Network programming packages,until now for some reason(probably some Fox suit) thinks their sports programming is just a important as ESPNs.No Thanks we have got 1 we don't need 2.

The best situation would be to put all the sports channels in the Sports Package.

As for FX and Nat Geo?.Ya good luck with that.

 

[Jhon69]

You betcha!

 

[HDRoberts]

HDRoberts wants TNT and TBS, both of which have sports programming on it. If the argument is that he doesn't want to pay for sports, then why does he want channels that provide sports?

Because they contain programming other than sports. Rizolli and Isles. Seinfield reruns. Conan. Law and Order reruns. And so on.

 

[R0ss]

Bottom Line is if I loose the local Fox Affiliate on November 1 Dish will loose a customer. Much of the Broadcast TV we watch is on Fox we also prefer the local news from our local Fox channel, so it will be by by Dish and Hello to who ever is not fighting with Fox, more than likely direct.

Ross

 

[HDRoberts]

I could quote more of these arguments about "the free market", but will take this one...Consumers have a say, but the important issue is that people are still paying. They refuse to vote with their wallets, and leave pay-TV altogether.

But let's not forget that the programmers also have a say, which is also a bastion of the free market. Why should Fox treat Dish Network any differently than DirecTV, Comcast or the Time Warner groups, pay-TV providers that have placed their programming on the entry-level tier? Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

Because Dish asks. If Fox really thinks its programming is all that, they won't mind giving people a chance not to pay for it, because people will not choose a pack that lacks them.

If they think it has added costs, they can recoup that by asking for a nominal extra charge per sub to be in a higher pack compared to what they offer the others.

And, of course, the most simple reason is because they have done it for Dish for years. RSNs have been out there almost as long as Dish. But just now they are having a problem?

And, by the way, you now admit consumers should have a say? I agree. Now, where do we get a say?

 

[Ronnie-]

The Politics of Programming Disputes

HDRoberts started a thread if anyone wants to talk about the politics of the whole thing. Feel free to join in.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Ahh, and let's say I agree with most of the points raised, but then add this caveat:

If Fox feels that Dish Network is not a partner because Dish Network requires a special deal, then why would anyone expect Fox to come to an agreement regarding any of their programming?

And the corollary to that: if Dish Network then proceeds to add the RSN's and FX to AT120, then what?

 

[dangue]

And the corollary to that: if Dish Network then proceeds to add the RSN's and FX to AT120, then what?

Then the consumers that would have picked the 120 Package over the 120+ Package have lost that choice and will be forced to pay for RSNs that they don't want.

It would be interesting to see if Dish would just allocate the increase to the basic package or if it would spread it around in the cost of all packages to avoid a large increase in their basic tier of programming. I'd imagine that all subs would end up sharing some percentage of the burden.

 

[The Fat Man]

Here's the argument:From The Fat Manoes it? HDRoberts wants TNT and TBS, both of which have sports programming on it. If the argument is that he doesn't want to pay for sports, then why does he want channels that provide sports?

I don't want to pay for porn, but The Movie Channel still has it and it's part of the 250 package. So why pay for The Movie Channel? Because it has other offerings that I enjoy, so I simply lock out the porn. HE DOESN'T WANT 24/7 Sports programming. How hard is it to realize that?!?

Don't tell me that you don't like certain programming on certain channels, but would still pay for the channel (I refuse to say network due to our other arguement).

 

[Greg Bimson]

I don't want to pay for porn, but The Movie Channel still has it and it's part of the 250 package. So why pay for The Movie Channel? Because it has other offerings that I enjoy, so I simply lock out the porn. HE DOESN'T WANT 24/7 Sports programming. How hard is it to realize that?!?

How much do you pay for The Movie Channel per month? Black out all of the private information and show me how much you pay for The Movie Channel.

Why should Fox relent and create a special deal for Dish Network? And no one seems to be able to answer that.

Because Dish asks. If Fox really thinks its programming is all that, they won't mind giving people a chance not to pay for it, because people will not choose a pack that lacks them.

I offered to buy a Ferrari for a dollar. I also offered to become a Dish Network AT250 customer as long as I received the promo rate for the rest of my life.

And in other news, Fox doesn't have to accept Dish Network's offer, just like neither of my offers above were accepted. Welcome to Capitalism 101.

Yes consumers have a choice. Dish Network has chosen to offer AT120 and AT120 with RSN's. But keep in mind Dish Network at one time offered HD Absolute, an HD-only package, and some people have received calls to switch them off of the package because it is no longer offered and some people have received a $6 access fee increase.

Things change.

 

[spiketoo]

Ahh, and let's say I agree with most of the points raised, but then add this caveat:

If Fox feels that Dish Network is not a partner because Dish Network requires a special deal, then why would anyone expect Fox to come to an agreement regarding any of their programming?

And the corollary to that: if Dish Network then proceeds to add the RSN's and FX to AT120, then what?

Then I get my damn hockey back and I can unsub from this thread

 

[Brent72]

Maybe this question has already been covered in this thread, but at 198 pages I wouldn't begin to know where to find it. Regarding the NBA League Pass, if the feed for a team's home game is provided by one of the Fox RSN's(let's say the Lakers on Fox Sports West), will you be able to watch those games on LP this season or not and will they be in HD? I've read conflicting reports on how this is all going to shake down and with the season starting next week I need to decide whether I should keep Dish or go to DIRECTV, who I know will have all the games in HD for certain.

 

[rapidturtle]

In an interview that I heard yesterday with Dennis Swanson, who is with Fox, it seems that sports has something to do with them asking so much money. They want to be able to bid against ESPN for things like College Football, NFL, MLB, and Nascar. Dennis Swanson did mention about loosing some collegiate sports to ESPN, recently.
The radio host then mentioned that nobody would get a deal like ESPN's. I think he mentioned that they get $4 per subscriber. He said ESPN was just in the right place at the right time. I'm not sure what the deal is, or when it was signed with ESPN, or even why they got such a great deal with the providers, but it sounded like this was one of Fox's major concerns.