The OFFICIAL DISH / HBO Thread

[dishdude]

Both parties have yet to deny that a guaranteed subscriber limit wasn't part of the negotiations. Scott pointed it out as well. That's from where my deductions come.

We don't know if that's part of the current contract, if that's an agreement HBO has with other providers, or if that is even standard in the industry. For all we know Showtime has a similar contractual clause.

HBO claims they offered to extend the current contract while negotiations continued and Dish refused.

 

[lucky86]

I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that they either increased the price demand per sub exponentially, and/or want X amount per month regardless of the subscribers.

 

[The Fat Man]

Well, if that is the case, I wouldn't take that deal if I were Charlie, even if it costs me $0.02/sub to deliver the channels, I'd want to get at least that much from the deal to cover my costs, preferably more as subscriber numbers will fluctuate over time.

That could be an alternative for Dish, unless Dish notices that HBO subscriptions have been declining, and they know that by adding up the cost, less people will subscribe. I believe that Time Warner had guarenteed subscriber amounts, and AT&T simply set it to a number that Dish felt was unreasonable.

Another point of irony, Liberty Media owned both DirecTV and Starz. This crap never happened under that ownership.

 

[glynnp]

If HBO doesn't come back to DISH will the sky stay up there on it's own ?

 

[lucky86]

Probably because Liberty Media isn't a bunch of a$$ hats like ATT.

 

[The Fat Man]

We don't know if that's part of the current contract, if that's an agreement HBO has with other providers, or if that is even standard in the industry. For all we know Showtime has a similar contractual clause.

HBO claims they offered to extend the current contract while negotiations continued and Dish refused.

We don't, but we can theorize that AT&T set a high demand, as Dish never had a past issue with HBO and Cinemax. Also, what good is an extension, if AT&T won't back off their demands.

 

[Tampa8]

With exception of those who can not stream or stream reliably I don't see not having HBO as a sky is falling thing and as I have posted I am an extremely long subscriber to HBO. I can get it in any number of ways. Losing content that can not be streamed without a Cable/Sat subscription could be closer to the sky is falling depending the channel/content.

What is or appears could be the sky is falling is the content owner also being a direct competitor to other Cable/Sat companies.

 

[JSheridan]

Well, if that is the case, I wouldn't take that deal if I were Charlie, even if it costs me $0.02/sub to deliver the channels, I'd want to get at least that much from the deal to cover my costs, preferably more as subscriber numbers will fluctuate over time.

If I recall correctly Charlie has always been a firm believer in the 20% rule. If you can't make 20% on it then it isn't worth handling.

 

[sam_gordon]

Also, what good is an extension, if AT&T won't back off their demands.

Because it servers the customers? You know, that entire PR thing? Dish has nothing to lose by granting an extension, assuming they still pay ATT the same cost as the old contract. The only thing Dish has to gain by refusing the contract is pissing off customers and putting them "against" ATT.

 

[The Fat Man]

Because it servers the customers? You know, that entire PR thing? Dish has nothing to lose by granting an extension, assuming they still pay ATT the same cost as the old contract. The only thing Dish has to gain by refusing the contract is pissing off customers and putting them "against" ATT.

Again, unless they knew it was an all lose situation. If they knew that AT&T won't get off their demands. Have an extension just to have this mess in a few weeks or a month?

 

[sam_gordon]

Again, unless they knew it was an all lose situation. If they knew that AT&T won't get off their demands. Have an extension just to have this mess in a few weeks or a month?

So your only downside to agreeing to the extension is you'll have to fight the battle later? In the meantime, you keep your subscribers happy. Now, if part of the extension agreement is Dish would pay in arrears based on the new contract, I get it. But assuming the extension keeps the same contract terms, I'm sorry, I don't see a downside to agreeing to the extension.

 

[navychop]

Because it servers the customers? You know, that entire PR thing? Dish has nothing to lose by granting an extension, assuming they still pay ATT the same cost as the old contract. The only thing Dish has to gain by refusing the contract is pissing off customers and putting them "against" ATT.

I suspect the extension would be at the NEW terms to be negotiated. Not a good deal for Dish if they instituted minimum # of subscribers.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[rvvaquero]

So your only downside to agreeing to the extension is you'll have to fight the battle later? In the meantime, you keep your subscribers happy. Now, if part of the extension agreement is Dish would pay in arrears based on the new contract, I get it. But assuming the extension keeps the same contract terms, I'm sorry, I don't see a downside to agreeing to the extension.

DISH doesn't want to fight the battle later, they want to fight it right now while the courts are watching.

 

[The Fat Man]

So your only downside to agreeing to the extension is you'll have to fight the battle later? In the meantime, you keep your subscribers happy. Now, if part of the extension agreement is Dish would pay in arrears based on the new contract, I get it. But assuming the extension keeps the same contract terms, I'm sorry, I don't see a downside to agreeing to the extension.

Extensions aren't indefinite. So, agree to an extension that you are sure to disagree to later?

 

[Tampa8]

Extensions aren't indefinite. So, agree to an extension that you are sure to disagree to later?

Not agreeing to an extension of terms you also won't agree to later is a form of negotiation in itself. You make it clear you would rather not have them than at those terms. It starts the clock that At&t has to decide how long they are willing to go not getting Millions from Dish subscribers. If forever why delay with the extension otherwise it's At&t's next move.

Sent from my SM-N950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

I wouldn't be surprised at all that both Dish and AT&T are being unreasonable for their own reasons. The difference comes down to whether AT&T is behaving monopolistic against their only competitor for Satellite customers. I have my opinion on that, but it could really go either way

 

[long_time_DNC]

I wouldn't be surprised at all that both Dish and AT&T are being unreasonable for their own reasons. The difference comes down to whether AT&T is behaving monopolistic against their only competitor for Satellite customers. I have my opinion on that, but it could really go either way

I think that is precisely what is happening and why AT&T should never have been permitted to own HBO/Cinemax...

 

[Claude Greiner]

I do remember the deal for Cinemax was 50% of whatever Dish was charging their customers.

So Dish made the price $.01 cent for a year if the customer took auto pay.

I remember HBO was irritated about that and it ended several months later.

But like I said earlier, we don’t know what the deal is

 

[ncted]

I do remember the deal for Cinemax was 50% of whatever Dish was charging their customers.

So Dish made the price $.01 cent for a year if the customer took auto pay.

I remember HBO was irritated about that and it ended several months later.

But like I said earlier, we don’t know what the deal is

LOL

 

[sam_gordon]

I suspect the extension would be at the NEW terms to be negotiated. Not a good deal for Dish if they instituted minimum # of subscribers.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

OK, I'll bite. Based on what? It's equally possible the extension would be at the old terms. Obviously no one here knows the terms, so your guess is as good as mine.