HDNet suing D* over package move

[charper1]

Devils' advocate asks:

Who's to say the the new HD Tier they were moved to ISN'T the most widely distributed? Isn't that the stipulation? It doesn't say they must remain in the lowest cost tier.

I also agree that there should be just ONE HD pack and price; but once again I think you have two very ego driven parties trying to play semantics with words. It appears to me that DirecTV may be right legally, but that Cuban knows he may very well have the viewers behind him and that likely the original spirit of the contract may be in question. The court case is only a way to force a settlement; not really determine who is right from who is wrong; it rarely ever is and at the end of the day the end user will still end up paying more because that is always the nature of any business/market.

 

[rad]

Or another way to look at it, there currently is no HD package, you pay the "HD Access" fee which is for using HD hardware and right now all HD programming is free as part of that HD access fee. They're now creating a HD programming package and moving selected channel from the free HD which comes with the HD access fee to this new HD programming package.

 

[tf51d]

I think it's going to be hard for D* to convince a judge or a jury that a tier with 4 or 5 HD Channels will be more widely distributed than a tier with 95 HD Channels. (Based on D* projected 100 Channels by year end) Plus the wording specifically says the HD tier! Also since having the current HD tier is a prerequisite for having the new tier, by definition it can not be the most widely distributed, the best it could do is be equal, and that is 100% of the people signing up for HD also buys this tier, which we all know will not happen!

 

[raoul5788]

Like I said in a different thread, I think they should make the hd package a premium, charging $12/month or less if you have more than one premium, and include all of the hd channels in it, excepting the HBO's, etc.

 

[Mike0616]

Actually ESPN has been very loud in complaining that its channels should always be included in base packages. You can find a great number of examples with ESPN fighting distributors to have their channels not part of a sports or premium package. I doubt they would give up a fight on their HD channels either.

And the UNAVAILABILITY of ESPNU on base packages anywhere I am familiar with (D*, E*, or comcrap) proves that even ESPN doesn't have enough muscle to flex to make this happen. You have to get additional packages in all cases to get that channel.

 

[Mike0616]

The below paragraph is why I believe Mark Cuban will win. (see the picture)

All that proves is that an EDITED version of the contract is quoted there. The part that is replaced (omitted) with the "..." is what would really be interesting.

After reading their petition to the court, all I could do is laugh. The suit will be decided on the basis of the contract taken as a whole, not an "edited edition" of it.

 

[Mike0616]

Actually, it's difficult for HDNet to fleece anyone but distributors, since viewers don't pay them directly. The only objective way to judge people's interest in their channel is by ratings (though imperfect). If people have continued to watch HDNet at the same level in spite of the new channels, people are voting for HDNet with their eyes.

I don't have any rating data, but I am sure some resourceful person here does. It would be most informative.

Per TV Week, "Universal HD and HD Net are currently not rated." (Nielsen to Report HD Ratings - TVWeek - News

 

[riffjim4069]

I see that HDNet is going to give ESPN, ABC, CBS, and NBC a run for their money with their afternoon showing of college football titans Wabash versus Depauw. HDNet need to get rid of their "I am a premium channel" attitude and realize they now have to compete with a bazillion other HD channels. VOOM HD and the HDNets should have joined forces and mass-market their wares when the opportunity presented itself back in May 2005.

The INHD and INHD2 channels are now MojoHD. I wonder what they will call HDNet and HDNet Movies in the future? We will be calling them BankruptHD if they don't change their tune...and dance routine a la Mark "Fred Dispaire" Cuban. Tthe HDNets are in trouble! Rather than innovate and differentiate (something they did years ago), this company has elected to go the Tivo route who sues anyone making a recording device. Piss poor! Although I do not know the specifics of the contract, I find it difficult ot have much sympathy for the HDNet or anyone else who sits on their arse and cries "foul" when they get left behind.

Go DirecTV!!!

 

[agregjones]

And the UNAVAILABILITY of ESPNU on base packages anywhere I am familiar with (D*, E*, or comcrap) proves that even ESPN doesn't have enough muscle to flex to make this happen. You have to get additional packages in all cases to get that channel.

A number of cable companies tried to move ESPN (not ESPNU) into tiers over the last few years. A few even had ad campaigns blaming ESPN for increasing prices to customers. To my knowledge, ESPNU has never been pushed as a basic cable channel.

 

[underscore]

This happens all the time with Cable, especially sports networks.

 

[Mike0616]

Actually ESPN has been very loud in complaining that its channels should always be included in base packages. You can find a great number of examples with ESPN fighting distributors to have their channels not part of a sports or premium package. I doubt they would give up a fight on their HD channels either.

A number of cable companies tried to move ESPN (not ESPNU) into tiers over the last few years. A few even had ad campaigns blaming ESPN for increasing prices to customers. To my knowledge, ESPNU has never been pushed as a basic cable channel.

OK, I thought you were talking about all of the ESPN channels, 2, U, classic, news, etc. I have seen the varying channels on different packages on different content channels (cable companies, etc.) On the local cable company's setup, you have to get add-on packages to get ESPNU, Classic, and News. As I was getting several more channels, the additional cost was seen as reasonable to get the added coverage.

And, yes, have seen those campaigns where ESPN & the content conveyor were accusing the other of financial greed. Good case of pot calling kettle black, in both cases.

 

[fxstsb]

I hope that Mark Cuban gets screwed in every deal he enters from now on.

 

[vurbano]

Devils' advocate asks:

Who's to say the the new HD Tier they were moved to ISN'T the most widely distributed? Isn't that the stipulation?

I guess D* has horns and a spiked tail.

 

[vurbano]

I think it's going to be hard for D* to convince a judge or a jury that a tier with 4 or 5 HD Channels will be more widely distributed than a tier with 95 HD Channels.

Bingo

 

[Jimbo]

I hope that Mark Cuban gets screwed in every deal he enters from now on.

I hope he wins his battle,
Why would you want to pay extra to see a channel we already get for a designated price ?

The decided to take any channel that does NOT have a SD channel and make us pay extra for that. Mark Cuban is trying to but a stop to that. :up

Jimbo

 

[agregjones]

Devils' advocate asks:

Who's to say the the new HD Tier they were moved to ISN'T the most widely distributed? Isn't that the stipulation? It doesn't say they must remain in the lowest cost tier.

Since the HD Extra Pack requires HD Access, that would be fairly difficult.