Fox Regional Sports Networks Block DISH and Sling TV Customers

NYDutch

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Dec 28, 2013
2,288
2,997
Where our wheels go
I think over time as streaming becomes more ubiquitous, channel dispute based sat and cable carrier switching is going to become less common. Right now for instance, if one of our locals goes dark on Dish, with a few button pushes, I can switch to streaming the network programming from any of several streaming sources, or the actual local OTA. For non-OTA channels, a streaming source is usually available with a few clicks as well. Even the Fox RSN's are on 5-6 streaming services...
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell

osumike

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Aug 1, 2012
880
514
On a roof in Wisconsin
Where I grew up in NW Ohio, Dish blacked out all Tigers games on Fox Detroit, but DirecTV aired every game on the same channel. I was a subscriber to direct just to be able to watch those games, while working for Dish. I still don't understand how that works..
 
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules

antimoz

Livin' the Dream
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Oct 11, 2005
331
65
Western NY
Where I grew up in NW Ohio, Dish blacked out all Tigers games on Fox Detroit, but DirecTV aired every game on the same channel. I was a subscriber to direct just to be able to watch those games, while working for Dish. I still don't understand how that works..
I somehow think it has to do with DirecTV's contracts with the providers. We had a similar situation here in Western NY where the Rangers, Islanders games on MSG were blacked out on what is now Charter/Spectrum and Dish but not on DirecTV. This was over 10 years ago though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules

DWS44

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Apr 14, 2004
6,689
3,832
Rock Hill, SC
The channel removal bothered me for a few seconds, but then I remembered the Hornets have given up on attempting to field an NBA team, so I really have no need to watch the local FOX RSN anymore.
 

Juan

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 14, 2003
24,259
5,104
Moscow Russia
As long as your paying the local station 3 bucks a month..nobody will care
I think over time as streaming becomes more ubiquitous, channel dispute based sat and cable carrier switching is going to become less common. Right now for instance, if one of our locals goes dark on Dish, with a few button pushes, I can switch to streaming the network programming from any of several streaming sources, or the actual local OTA. For non-OTA channels, a streaming source is usually available with a few clicks as well. Even the Fox RSN's are on 5-6 streaming services...
Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!
 

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
Sports players keep demanding millions of dollars and actors keep demanding more money also. Then at every level up, everybody wants more money. I hope they all put themselves out of business.
Salaries didn't go stratospheric until the huge media dollars showed up. The NFL/NHL/NBA contract actually specifies that the players get a percentage of revenue, meaning the contracts don't go up if the money isn't coming in first. MLB is different but still the money is there first then the contracts explode. Why do you thing the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers and Angels usually have the highest payrolls, media money and the size of the market they are in. Personally if the money is there I would rather the players get it than the multi-billionaire owners. Just my 2 cents.
 

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
I think over time as streaming becomes more ubiquitous, channel dispute based sat and cable carrier switching is going to become less common. Right now for instance, if one of our locals goes dark on Dish, with a few button pushes, I can switch to streaming the network programming from any of several streaming sources, or the actual local OTA. For non-OTA channels, a streaming source is usually available with a few clicks as well. Even the Fox RSN's are on 5-6 streaming services...
Wait until the streaming services start requiring contracts to subscribe. I bet it happens within 5 years. Plus the content providers have been giving the streaming services a break on the prices allowing them to get established, just like with NetFlix you can bet the content providers will put the squeeze on when the contracts renew. That is when we'll see a shake out and contracts happen.
 

odbrv

SatelliteGuys Pro
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 21, 2004
967
250
Lubbock, Tx
Sports players keep demanding millions of dollars and actors keep demanding more money also. Then at every level up, everybody wants more money. I hope they all put themselves out of business. Even concert tickets are too high.
You are right on. We have not gone to a movie , concert, or watched a pro sports event for more than 15 years. When you can buy a groups songs and videos for less than 1 concert ticket, we said stop the robbery. Too bad we are in the minority and the robbery gets bigger.
 

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
You are right on. We have not gone to a movie , concert, or watched a pro sports event for more than 15 years. When you can buy a groups songs and videos for less than 1 concert ticket, we said stop the robbery. Too bad we are in the minority and the robbery gets bigger.
How exactly do you propose those athletes and artists put food on the table if nobody pays for the product? The vast majority of music artists are being squeezed out of the business by the pittance that streaming pays them.

Yep, time for me to stop or I will really get political.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nominal

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
8,736
9,196
Missouri/Kansas
How exactly do you propose those athletes and artists put food on the table if nobody pays for the product? The vast majority of music artists are being squeezed out of the business by the pittance that streaming pays them.

Yep, time for me to stop or I will really get political.
Pro baseball players don't need $232 million dollar contracts to "put food on the table."

I'm a baseball fan, but seriously nobody needs that much money to play a boy's game.
 

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Apr 20, 2014
10,595
4,071
Mesa, Az
How exactly do you propose those athletes and artists put food on the table if nobody pays for the product? The vast majority of music artists are being squeezed out of the business by the pittance that streaming pays them.
Yep, time for me to stop or I will really get political.
I would start by suggesting they get a real job that actually brings a real benefit to the people... if it is about the sport, they won’t mind $50K/year. Question is, how many athletes do it for money and how many do it for love of game. Same with musicians. It’s a service, if less people want that service, then it is a service that is unneeded, correct?
 

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
I would start by suggesting they get a real job that actually brings a real benefit to the people... if it is about the sport, they won’t mind $50K/year. Question is, how many athletes do it for money and how many do it for love of game. Same with musicians. It’s a service, if less people want that service, then it is a service that is unneeded, correct?
Damn near all of the start playing for love of the game, they discover they have a rare talent that allows them to get paid to play a kids game and most of the know it is a kids game. We build billion dollar stadiums for them to play them and watch fanatically on TV. I personally believe that they should get a decent cut of the revenues and except for MLB the contracts specify that a certain percentage of the revenue goes to the players.

If you were offered 10M a year to do your current job would you take or say you know I love my job and it's not really a necessary thing so no thanks. Plus I bet you expect to get paid as much as your peers, why should athletes be any different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nominal

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
Yes. Some of the finest ballplayers of all time turned down more lucrative contracts to stay with a team and city they love.
Most of those guys didn't take huge pay cuts to stay, "hometown discounts" aren't all that common. The only one that really took millions less that I can think of is Brady and well Giselle makes more than he does. Prior to 1970 and the Curt Flood decision it wasn't even and option as you took what the owner offered or didn't play anywhere.
 

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
8,736
9,196
Missouri/Kansas
Damn near all of the start playing for love of the game, they discover they have a rare talent that allows them to get paid to play a kids game and most of the know it is a kids game. We build billion dollar stadiums for them to play them and watch fanatically on TV. I personally believe that they should get a decent cut of the revenues and except for MLB the contracts specify that a certain percentage of the revenue goes to the players.

If you were offered 10M a year to do your current job would you take or say you know I love my job and it's not really a necessary thing so no thanks. Plus I bet you expect to get paid as much as your peers, why should athletes be any different.
You're starting to sound a lot like a pro ballplayer; somebody who thinks they're a celebrity and worth more than they really are. Albert Pujols, is that you?! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: crodrules

Cheddar_Head

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 13, 2008
556
708
Colorado Springs
You're starting to sound a lot like a pro ballplayer; somebody who thinks they're a celebrity and worth more than they really are. Albert Pujols, is that you?! ;)
From your response I will assume you wouldn't turn down that payday.

The money is in the game, should it be? We can debate that all day. I prefer the money go to the performers, sounds like you might own a baseball team and would like to keep all that media money for yourself. ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nominal

comfortably_numb

Dogs have owners, cats have staff
Pub Member / Supporter
Nov 30, 2011
8,736
9,196
Missouri/Kansas
From your response I will assume you wouldn't turn down that payday.

The money is in the game, should it be? We can debate that all day. I prefer the money go to the performers, sounds like you might own a baseball team and would like to keep all that media money for yourself. ;-)
If I were Albert and St Louis had offered me $211 million to stay, (which they did), I would have- not thrown a hissy fit and ran off to LA for $232 million. But that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ncted

ChadT41

THE BEST THERE HAS EVER BEEN
Apr 20, 2014
10,595
4,071
Mesa, Az
Damn near all of the start playing for love of the game, they discover they have a rare talent that allows them to get paid to play a kids game and most of the know it is a kids game. We build billion dollar stadiums for them to play them and watch fanatically on TV. I personally believe that they should get a decent cut of the revenues and except for MLB the contracts specify that a certain percentage of the revenue goes to the players.

If you were offered 10M a year to do your current job would you take or say you know I love my job and it's not really a necessary thing so no thanks. Plus I bet you expect to get paid as much as your peers, why should athletes be any different.
Currently, yes, however if people stop watching them, and stop paying for them, then we now have a service that is needless. So to ask “how do you expect them to do this on pennies”.., well, I don’t, which is why I recommended a real job. If people are done with paying for it, it needs to be understood that their services are no more than a commodity.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Latest posts

Top