Dish Network: Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 644
- Views 88K
Dune said:
Yes, the producers own their productions and yes they contract the broadcast rights. But how do the producers come up with the money to produce in the first place? In the case of theater productions, that's what determines where it goes next after the theater runs are over.
Years ago it was just rich individuals and major production houses (MGM, 20th Century Fox, Buena Vista, etc) but with the advent of "Home Video" (even back to early vhs & beta) other sources of money became available in advance to the movie makers in exchange for first run home video release rights. Next in line are PPV rights, then premium movie channels like Starz, HBO, etc followed finally by network TV.
It's all about maximizing how many times and how much money they can get out of any given production.
Ideally they get the first big chunk from you at the theater - maybe your kids even go more than once. Then it's quickly (relatively) followed by home video where it stays just long enough to get everybody that held out from going to the theater and maybe even some that did. Within weeks (and it varies with each production and how it was contracted) it's on PPV, then 3 or 4 months later on Starz, etc
Internet will never "replace" the above strategy until it can provide that same level of revenue. Even if it were possible to legally download movies & tv shows that could be watched on a full size tvs at the same PQ as we're used to seeing, they're not about to circumvent all those other sources of money - at least not at less than $50 a download. And that's assuming they can eliminate the impact pirating would have.
As to the issue of who pays who I did some googling. It appears that the Big 4 have pretty complex models right now. They are generally referred to as "revenue sharing arrangements in which the affiliates make contributions for specific purposes (e.g. NFL rights) but receive payments for some services and "bounties" for others.
BTW the first agreement for the affiliates to pay was signed in 1999 by Fox affiliates. The original article is old but this should take you to a cache.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ts&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=16&client=firefox-a
It is less clear who pays who overall. The one article I saw that hada clear statement was this one http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_localtv_intro.asp?media=6
which states "The contracts in most cases require that the networks pay the stations compensation for airing their programs. In recent years, however, the networks have done a number of things to try to end this arrangement, such as demanding that affiliates contribute to the cost of paying the multi-million-dollar contracts to broadcast sports events and reducing or eliminating compensation altogether."
While it does not talk about how much each side sends to the other it does confirm taht the nets are still paying the stations something when it says " the networks resent the fact that they are paying affiliates 4 percent (in big markets) to 20 percent (in smaller ones) of a station's total revenue, while the networks alone shoulder the costs of developing programming."
and that is not broken down by network (or anything else) so the compensation model is clearly more complicated than i thought---but the changes are faitrly recent.
BTW the first agreement for the affiliates to pay was signed in 1999 by Fox affiliates. The original article is old but this should take you to a cache.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ts&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=16&client=firefox-a
It is less clear who pays who overall. The one article I saw that hada clear statement was this one http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_localtv_intro.asp?media=6
which states "The contracts in most cases require that the networks pay the stations compensation for airing their programs. In recent years, however, the networks have done a number of things to try to end this arrangement, such as demanding that affiliates contribute to the cost of paying the multi-million-dollar contracts to broadcast sports events and reducing or eliminating compensation altogether."
While it does not talk about how much each side sends to the other it does confirm taht the nets are still paying the stations something when it says " the networks resent the fact that they are paying affiliates 4 percent (in big markets) to 20 percent (in smaller ones) of a station's total revenue, while the networks alone shoulder the costs of developing programming."
and that is not broken down by network (or anything else) so the compensation model is clearly more complicated than i thought---but the changes are faitrly recent.
Last edited:
Dune said:
Well at least for now I think that the networks represent a higher revenue stream. A few years from now that may change but foe now I don't see the studios abandoning the networks en masse.
that I agree with---and it is happening now. But the earlier psoter indicated taht all it would take for the nets to be history was a little out of the box thinking. I don't see that for awhile.
srbond said:
LOL...earlier in this thread and others you indicated it would happen virtually overnight because you were fired in the broadcast field and had an axe to grind. Now its not for a while.
Can you please keep a consistent timeline for at least one thread?
Geronimo said:
Call it what you want, but affiliates were giving up revenue (i.e. less local spots) to pay for Football rights in the early 90's. If you want to argue when it was actual money changing hands from affiliate to network, that might well have been Fox in 1999.
However, you left out an important detail. Networks did pay the affiliates per spots run 30-40 years ago and it was a known rate per market - even published in the Broadcasting Yearbook each year.
However, as I stated, to correct the post about Networks paying affiliates, that has not happened in decades - as no money changed hands.
Now the Networks are able to do as you noted.
Yet another reason to the posts of why the networks must replace $28 Billion+ in revenue a year if you want to find programs streaming on the web.
And you can't do it half way - you do that - you end up affording the fine quality programming like UPN and WB has had for the past few years, lol.
BigFella said:
If Fox's response was due today, that does not mean there will be a ruling today; just that they were to return their response to the court today. The court can take as long as it wants.
I understand and I guess I should clarify - Does anyone know what Fox had to say today? Is it a matter of public record?rockymtnhigh said:
BigFella said:
Yeah, THAT is a good question. Alas, I don't have a clue as to the answer. Its a court record, so it most likely is public; I just don't know how long it would take for it to make it into the electronic record of the case.
IPTV = Type in your zipcode to get access so that we can have blackouts of the programs you get locally even if you are getting those local programs from the IPTV provider.
According to James Long at DBSTalk.com:
District Web PACER (v2.4)
[ RECENT EVENTS FROM THE DOCKET REPORT FOR CASE: 1:98cv02651 ]
9/15/06 1011 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Fox Broadcasting for leave to file Combined Reply (gp) [Entry date 09/18/06]
9/18/06 1012 ORDER Granting [1011-1] unopposed motion for leave to file combined reply to the two memoranda filed in opposition to its motion for entry of injunction (Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 9/19/06) [EOD Date: 9/20/06] (ss) [Entry date 09/20/06]
[END OF DOCKET: 1:98cv2651]
District Web PACER (v2.4)
[ RECENT EVENTS FROM THE DOCKET REPORT FOR CASE: 1:98cv02651 ]
9/15/06 1011 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Fox Broadcasting for leave to file Combined Reply (gp) [Entry date 09/18/06]
9/18/06 1012 ORDER Granting [1011-1] unopposed motion for leave to file combined reply to the two memoranda filed in opposition to its motion for entry of injunction (Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 9/19/06) [EOD Date: 9/20/06] (ss) [Entry date 09/20/06]
[END OF DOCKET: 1:98cv2651]
To make this somewhat simple, Fox filed a motion with the court on 31 August, asking the District Court to do what the Appeals Court told it to do: issue the permanent injunction.
Dish Network had until 12 September to reply. Once Dish Network replied, the four affiliate boards also filed a brief in support of the settlement.
All Fox did was ask the judge to allow their single brief to be the combined reply for both Dish Network's and the affiliate board's filings. This is simply the motion granting Fox the power to file a combined reply, which was due Thursday, 21 September (which was earlier today).
Dish Network had until 12 September to reply. Once Dish Network replied, the four affiliate boards also filed a brief in support of the settlement.
All Fox did was ask the judge to allow their single brief to be the combined reply for both Dish Network's and the affiliate board's filings. This is simply the motion granting Fox the power to file a combined reply, which was due Thursday, 21 September (which was earlier today).
