Disney Networks Dispute Recitifed

  • WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!

    If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!

    While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!

    Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!

    CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
I guess I’m different because I think Disney blinked. With ESPN being so important this time of year I doubt they thought Dish would let the channels go offline. Dish likely put a lot of cards on the table especially about streaming and how it’s hurting linear badly. With the well known industry trend of fewer linear customers a case could be made that a reduction in fee’s was warranted, not an increase. Disney and all these streaming services are double dipping and not very good partners. They didn’t want Dish to set a precedent where other linear providers might do the same and cause further disruptions and bad press. Disney would not come out ahead in public opinion if it was widely circulated they wanted this additional BILLION dollars from Dish. When they’re peddling Disney Plus that doesn’t even get you all the important channels linear provides it would not look good. I dunno folks, in the short term Dish had a lot to lose but Disney didn’t need the appearance of exorbitant fees being passed on to customers in this market.
 
The issue with this one is it was such a surprise, and it happened on a saturday during college football season, which is one thing that many that still pay for live tv want to see, well, live. They had little time or recourse to find alternatives for those games if they werent already set up with or familiar with streaming services.

Had it happened on say a wednesday, I doubt the outcry would have been as severe, and some that did swap, would have waited until the weekend or close to it before pulling the plug.
That’s a good point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
The issue with this one is it was such a surprise, and it happened on a saturday during college football season, which is one thing that many that still pay for live tv want to see, well, live. They had little time or recourse to find alternatives for those games if they werent already set up with or familiar with streaming services.

Had it happened on say a wednesday, I doubt the outcry would have been as severe, and some that did swap, would have waited until the weekend or close to it before pulling the plug.

I agree. Nothing like having friends over to enjoy some football only to tune into a message about Disney being greedy.
 
That was the entire point. Disney wanted to produce shock value and an uproar with Dish subscribers in order to build inflated leverage.
So do you think:
A) When the two signed the very first contract, they looked ahead to say "ok, when this expires in 2022, it will happen on a Saturday"? Assuming they keep doing the same dates (starting Oct 1 for three years), that means the last time the contract would have expired on Sept 30, 2019... a Monday.
B) There is language in the contract that prevents Dish from indicating the contract is about to expire?
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
So do you think:
A) When the two signed the very first contract, they looked ahead to say "ok, when this expires in 2022, it will happen on a Saturday"? Assuming they keep doing the same dates (starting Oct 1 for three years), that means the last time the contract would have expired on Sept 30, 2019... a Monday.
B) There is language in the contract that prevents Dish from indicating the contract is about to expire?
Yes. They saw an opportunity with how the date aligned with the contract expiration and rolled with it. Otherwise they could have agreed to keep the channels on past the expiration while negotiating, which happens all the time.
 
To all those who were insulted by the meager $5 compensation that they were offered, are you going to call back and tell Dish that you're giving back $4 of that since the channels were only out for 2 days? Yeah, I thought so. You all got good bargains.

By the time they do that they will probably have spent about 2 hours on hold…
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Yes. They saw an opportunity with how the date aligned with the contract expiration and rolled with it. Otherwise they could have agreed to keep the channels on past the expiration while negotiating, which happens all the time.
Or, the negotiations were going on for so long with neither side budging, so they decided to use this step. It apparently worked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Or, the negotiations were going on for so long with neither side budging, so they decided to use this step. It apparently worked.
Apparently it did. Channel owners have all the leverage, able to pit the service providers' customers directly against them. It's no wonder TV retransmission prices have more than doubled the rate of inflation over the last decade or more (let alone the fiscal irresponsibility of wildly outbidding each other for exclusive content).
 
It's no wonder TV retransmission prices have more than doubled the rate of inflation over the last decade or more (let alone the fiscal irresponsibility of wildly outbidding each other for exclusive content).
Broadcasters charging more for less quality content equals traditional TV decline, all while focus moves over to streaming to push out the mediator and keep the freshly cord-cut holding on. Agonizing industry shift to the dismay of the provider, indeed (Unless youre comcast cus of course mr monopoly there owns a broadcaster of its own).

If we take Dish network through a wholesaler perspective, perhaps all these disputes they've been having as of late implies that this business model isn't working for them as much as it used to and so they end up being highly vocal about it all as it disrupts said business model. Doesn't help that now there's yet another round of damage control to take care of and economy of scale is starting to fracture, so Dish kinda has only one profit avenue left and that is resorting to diversified ventures (Sling streaming, mobility, On Tech, misc services) to stabilize those margins.

Sounds like pacing in circles, but it's pretty QED unless some other industry disruption besides streaming from the media corps is afoot (locast got so close, but alas).
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
So do you think:
A) When the two signed the very first contract, they looked ahead to say "ok, when this expires in 2022, it will happen on a Saturday"? Assuming they keep doing the same dates (starting Oct 1 for three years), that means the last time the contract would have expired on Sept 30, 2019... a Monday.
B) There is language in the contract that prevents Dish from indicating the contract is about to expire?
The Disney contracts seem to be longer. The previous DirecTV deal went from 2014-2019; in 2012 Comcast has had a 10 year contract with Disney. Dish had an 8 year contract signed in 2005 that expired in 2013. (Disney, Dish Extend TV Deal as Talks Continue) The 2005 one expired on Sat, Sept 30, 2005, the next one was Mon, Sept 30, 2013. So it appears that Disney does more than 3 year deals. Maybe this one is 3 years, but historically they appear to be longer than 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Apparently it did. Channel owners have all the leverage, able to pit the service providers' customers directly against them. It's no wonder TV retransmission prices have more than doubled the rate of inflation over the last decade or more (let alone the fiscal irresponsibility of wildly outbidding each other for exclusive content).
Really? MVPDs have no leverage whatsoever? So why is there any negotiation? Why can't the channel owners just say "we want $100 per subscriber per month"? The MVPDs have BIG leverage. They can say "no". People on here seem to be proud that Dish has been willing to say no. If that's not leverage, I'm not sure what is.

And really? Comparing to the level of inflation? I'm pretty sure many products have done that. Now, I totally agree with you about the high dollar amounts paid for exclusive content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
Really? MVPDs have no leverage whatsoever? So why is there any negotiation? Why can't the channel owners just say "we want $100 per subscriber per month"? The MVPDs have BIG leverage. They can say "no". People on here seem to be proud that Dish has been willing to say no. If that's not leverage, I'm not sure what is.

And really? Comparing to the level of inflation? I'm pretty sure many products have done that. Now, I totally agree with you about the high dollar amounts paid for exclusive content.
Dish says no a lot of the time, but every time Dish loses an important channel(s), then they lose subs. If Dish raises their fees, then a lot of people want to cut the cord. They can't win...
 
Dish says no a lot of the time, but every time Dish loses an important channel(s), then they lose subs. If Dish raises their fees, then a lot of people want to cut the cord. They can't win...

This is true. It’s hard to win with a product that is approaching obsolescence. We’re approaching the days where satellite TV is only the best option for consumers who don’t have good high speed internet options.
 
***

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 7)

Latest posts