Well thanks to the transparency given to the consumer by the free market, that information is secret.
DISH Comcast Dispute?
- Thread starter bobvick
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 358
- Views 44K
I get where everyone is coming from on all sides of this thread. However, to attack a buisness model is wrong. In a pure capitalistic situation, it's supply and demand. Let Comcast jack up the price for a product that, outside NBC and the sports nets, are laced with reruns. Outside the fore mentioned properties, there isn't much original programing that are in high demand. Even the WWE can be bought Al la carte. So, when they practice bad buisness and their channels are dropped across multiple providers, then they will be forced to either change their buisness model...or go belly up. No need to attack greed on their behalf, so long the mass of consumers continue to want their product, or be like Allen and just want it to say they have it. Personally, their properties are garbage, outside NBC and the sports nets. Therefore, I hope karma comes back to bite them.
Yeah and if dolphins were ants, we'd have serious problems with porpoises in our homes. The networks aren't going to act like a sociopathic hedge fund owner and increase rates 1000%. They try to get as much as they can and restrict as much as they can get away with. For me, the issue with Comcast would be SlingTV, not Dish.
Also, WWE Raw and Smackdown are not available a-la-carte. And it seems that a good amount of people like garbage (see Bravo and TLC ratings).
Also, WWE Raw and Smackdown are not available a-la-carte. And it seems that a good amount of people like garbage (see Bravo and TLC ratings).
But you have to wait 4 weeks for Raw and Smackdown to be available for viewing on WWE Network. And by that time, most of the story lines from then are finished.
Haw! Storylines. But, yes, that is what I meant. It is only available well after the fact.
Yet people are assuming Comcast is "making it harder" for competitors to purchase their content. Huh. Where are those who say they'll "call out bias when they see it"?
Case and point, the only thing people truly care about on those nets are WWE. I'd rather start a battle of politics and religion before trying to reason with a wrestling fan.
Who is making that assumption? It is not an assumption that there is a clear conflict of interest with Comcast being both a major content owner and distributor. Also, they have a history of withholding content from competitors (see CSN Philly).
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,391
- 18,491
Once again, it is amazing that people are jumping on Comcast for this, no one here knows what Comcast is asking for or what Dish is offering, but if Comcast is asking for such a high rate increase then it is a bad business decision for Dish to go to arbitration since the ruling can go in Comcast favor, it might of been better to keep negotiating to get the rate down instead, maybe even losing them for a little while.
Second, if Dish wanted the Comcast Philly Sports Channel, could they also go to arbitration with these rules in place?
Lastly. who cares if Comcast owns Universal and their channels, one it shows what great business minds they are because they have really turned that company around and if Dish wanted to buy cable channels they could of, but they choose to go in a different direction, since Dish is primary a Sat TV service should the government tell them no to buying wireless spectrum for who knows what, of course not.
Second, if Dish wanted the Comcast Philly Sports Channel, could they also go to arbitration with these rules in place?
Lastly. who cares if Comcast owns Universal and their channels, one it shows what great business minds they are because they have really turned that company around and if Dish wanted to buy cable channels they could of, but they choose to go in a different direction, since Dish is primary a Sat TV service should the government tell them no to buying wireless spectrum for who knows what, of course not.
Well, you've ignored the evidence I presented that the "assumption" is based on solid logic and past history. It's more likely the bias lies with the person making claims without backing them up, and has ties to the broadcast industry.
Comcast forced their hand by violating the FCC ruling and breaching the contract by making threats to the public about losing the channels. That is what people are jumping on Comcast about.
First, I don't know what I'm supposed to "see" at "CSN Philly". Second, what logic? Third, I hope you have more than a single example (assuming that's what CSN Philly is) of past history. Do you (or anyone) have proof that Comcast is "making it harder" (the statement posted above) for other MVPDs to carry their programming?
Last but not least, please show me where I've made any claims that either side is in the right in this dispute.
Not only did the Philly situation warrant FCC intervention but as we see Comcast programming is subject to different rules. I wonder why? Then there's their insistence on blurbing everywhere how DISH is going to drop their channels when not a peep from DISH, in fact we had no idea about the negotiations which indicates to me DISH was trying to work it out without arbitration. Then we find out Comcast can't pull their stations even though they said they would be dropped so it was a scare tactic with no truth to it. If I can't make an educated "assumption" on how it must be to negotiate with Comcast on their own programs carried on their own competing Cable network along with the rest of it I don't what would allow it. I don't imagine DISH is fun to negotiate with but they have one objective the best deal for their company. Comcast has two objectives, best deal for their programming, but then also the best deal to compete with other carriers and if they can ask for the moon (as they have for Philly) and in the end not have their programming on a competitor they still may win, unlike Viacom. So no I don't think DISH is more of the villain in this especially being the initiator to use an arbitrator.
It is logical to conclude that the inherent conflict of interest between content ownership and content delivery presents a potential barrier. The glaring example of CSN Philly not being available on either Dish or Direct just reinforces that thinking.
You made claims by proxy by accusing others of bias on one side without backing up those claims.
You made claims by proxy by accusing others of bias on one side without backing up those claims.
