Fox News Sues Echostar
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 202
- Views 27K
According to what I just read on Liberty's web site, the shares that they own are belonging to News Corp. Not DirecTV. So therefore, News Corp still ultimately is the majority shareholder of DirecTV. Although Liberty is the majority shareholder of News Corp.
Why would they? It's not "compelling programming"?
But infomercial channels, hey let's add 10 more!
Unfortunately, if this results in any programming being pulled, I'd bet that it's not just Fox News that would go. I'd think it would be all of the News Corp. channels (and that's quite a few channels).
Then FN should not have said in the lawsuit the date was after 01/07. If your logic has merit it should not only be good after 01/07, rather from the beginning.
No. Liberty owned a minority (19%)interest in Fox News which in turn owned a minority (39%) interest (but the right to manage) DirecTV. In a tax free exchange NewsCorp gave Liberty the minority interest in DirecTV in return for the shares of NewsCorp that Liberty owned.
The sale has not gone through but if and when it does Liberty will own 395 of DirecTV and none of NewsCorp.
Last edited:
Wow more good news from Dish i like seeing that the company i give money to every month is getting sued again maybe they should have a place on my bill that says lawyers fee next to my programing. Charlie what have you gotten yourself into now.
They are no doubt arguing that but DISH is no doubt arguing that they are different packages. Both arguments have some merit snd some internal logic.
I made this complaint to Dish when I first joined. I did not want to move up ten dollar package just to get a standard channel.
I am surprised that it took this long.
It is no secret CNN and others carried on the lower tier have a certain bias and by denying the opposite bias equally they clearly have some issues to account for and come clean on.
I am surprised that it took this long.
It is no secret CNN and others carried on the lower tier have a certain bias and by denying the opposite bias equally they clearly have some issues to account for and come clean on.
"The most widely available" would be the cheapest package any way you look at it. All Dish subscribers can afford at least the 100 package. Not all Dish subscribers can afford the 200 package due to financial reasons of the individual. Therefore, common sense dictates that the top 100 package is the most widely available package. It doesn't matter if more subscribers subscribe to the top 200, not all can afford it.
Fox made the deal to be in the most widely available package the way it would ask that a cable company offer it in its analog tier, which would be the most widely available package to cable subscribers based on the fact that that is what all the cable subscribers can afford.
This all boils down to Charlie's liberal politics and that ongoing myth that Fox News is right wing news. Charlie needs to take the emotion out of it and offer Fox News (the most popular news channel) in its 100 package. I have said this before that Dish should switch Fox News and CNN or MSNBC (the less popular channels) and offer Fox News in the top 100 and CNN/MSNBC in the top 200. That makes better business sense, since Fox News does get better ratings.
You put in quotes "widely available" but the relevant phrase is "Widely distributed". Now either could be interpreted to be the lowest tier but they are two different phrases.
Goodbye millions of subscribers... you are obviously not a business minded person with your comment about "[Fox] News"
MSNBC and FNC are in the same tier. CNN is in the Top100.
Since the channel has been in the 2nd tier of programming since at least 2001 (maybe since it was added to Dish), why the lawsuit now, and why only try to recoup money from the first of the year?
Since the channel has been in the 2nd tier of programming since at least 2001 (maybe since it was added to Dish), why the lawsuit now, and why only try to recoup money from the first of the year?
Just a thought but perhaps the current deal began in 2007. i do not know that to be fact but it would make sense of what we are reading.
From Scott's OP:
The first statement is correct, but is not a new development. It has always been carried in the 2nd tier. The second statement doesn't make sense at all, especially the "since or about" part. As if something changed in January. Even if something did change, why did it take a whole year for them to file a suit?
Also in Scott's OP is reference to the original agreement, dating back to 1998.
First the HDNet dispute, now this. Its like they had some intern this summer go back through all their agreements to find loopholes and gaps to exploit.
I found a press release from the original launch, it was launched in the 2nd tier of programming, which at the time was the Top100:
EchoStar Launches FOX News Channel | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com
EchoStar Launches FOX News Channel | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com
All of that leads me to believe that Fox is caliming that the current deal is being violated and not necessarily the original deal.
