In the end, I think Scott's original intent still stands: Anyone who thinks Dish is the only provider who has disputes with networks is ignorant. Take off the blinders....
Its Not Just Dish...
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 123
- Views 14K
-
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
Who knows? Maybe Direct will have their own dispute with Disney come contract time, and channels will be removed? Who has the crystal ball around here?
Then what are you going to say?
Then what are you going to say?
The auto manufactures made their own fate. They keep putting out inferior products against Honda and Toyota. Don't keep blaming the working man for managements mistakes.
Enough of that, but I agree with hall. Didn't Time Warner subs almost miss the oscars this year because of a dispute with ABC? Most cable companies still don't have NFL network!
This is exactly the point I've been making. Uverse may drop all Rainbow channels (unless that has changed), Comcast CEO Brain Roberts being more hard ball than Charlie, DirecTV having dropped VS. for months, and it goes on and on.
You are correct. It is not a defense of Dish; it is just confirmation of business as usual. Although Charlie can be credited for being the among the first to be willing not to pay whatever was demanded even if that meant he could no longer provide the channel to his subscribers.
It's just that a lot of people on this forum seem to follow Dish, but not the industry as a whole, so they think that Dish is the only one "dropping channels." Have we forgotten the mother of all carriage disputes: Disney (ABC) vs. Time Warner a few years ago? That one was ugly and a lot of people lost their ABC locals.
Your point well made, Mr. Scott.
There are two factions here.
One says"I want my channels and I don;t care how muhc they cost." These folks have no issue with paying whatever the provider demands. Theyt can live with it.
The other side says. "I do not want ot pay any more than is necessary. If the price is too high, I will go without or find alternate programming."
This is a situation that perhaps may never be resolved. So be it.
Look folks, every retrans partner runs into contract disputes with programming producers. It is what it is. We just have to deal with it because there is nothing we can do. This is business and that's that.
One says"I want my channels and I don;t care how muhc they cost." These folks have no issue with paying whatever the provider demands. Theyt can live with it.
The other side says. "I do not want ot pay any more than is necessary. If the price is too high, I will go without or find alternate programming."
This is a situation that perhaps may never be resolved. So be it.
Look folks, every retrans partner runs into contract disputes with programming producers. It is what it is. We just have to deal with it because there is nothing we can do. This is business and that's that.
Kick the unions out...That's my opinion....7% and falling....
Ok, so what if some people almost missed the Oscars? It's one show. And it certainly is not the end of the world.
All retrans providers have disputes with program producers. It's the way it is.
Sure we'd all like to keep all the programming we subscribe to.
But there those of us who have budgets to keep and refuse to be fleeced for programs we can learn to live without.
They only remember the dispute that resulted in loss of programming THEY watched.and how many disputes has Dish had?
a lot more than "1"
the answer to your question is "tons"....
Well, technically, if all corporations in an industry act in concert then there is no competition in that industry, and the act is illegal. If some of the corporations act in concert then it's illegal unless the Justice Department lets them merge. In general, however, I believe that just acting in concert, regardless of the consequences, is illegal.
Unions certainly aren't illegal. Laborers are allowed to join unions and bargain collectively. If your argument is that only some of the workforce is unionized, that's fine, but if a corporation is unionized then it has to bargain with that union so the union does have monopoly power in that "market".
Its obvious you haven't spent much time around the RSN's. D* has about 3 times the HD college games and Pro Baseball, Football, Hockey, Nascar Hot Pass, Soccer.
Sunday Ticket is Not the only difference.
No one is claiming D* is God , If that the way you take it then you must be having some doubts about Dish Network yourself.
This thread is titled Its not only Dish,,, But Guess what Guys All Programmers have disputes. This is nothing new!
But how one handles it is a whole other story.
And No
MLB EI, MLB Network, YES Network, becuase the costs are too high.
No
DisneyHD, ESPNews HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD, Weather Cast HD, Fuse, Gol, Man TV,RushHD, MonstersHD, HDNews, RaveHD, UltraHD, TreasureHD, GalleryHD, RushHD, AnimaniaHD, EquatorHD, FamilyRoomHD FilmfestHD, GameplayHD, FUHD, WorldCinemaHD,
Lost All Over disputes.
So that makes me think Dish is the one with the problem.
Last edited:
Those mergers are typically two companies wishing to join for the betterment of both. They are always subject to the scrutiny of the SEC and the US Dept of Justice. So you're spot on...
On the other hand unions are seen as businesses or groups that represent certain employees in a certain industry. They are for all intents and purposes worker "agents"...
BTW there is no law per se that mandates a company MUST do business with a union. Be careful.
Remember unions represent union member workers .Not ALL workers. So in theory, when a union contract expires, the sides have the option to no longer do business. Here, I am XYZ corp. My employees are members of the ABC union...
Our agreement expired yesterday. The ABC union people come to me with a contract demand I am not in favor of. The ABC union refuses to negtotiate.ABC threatens a strike. XYZ's response is "ok, ABC , we no longer wish to do business with you. I am annoucing that this facility is closing. You are free to take your member workers and find them jobs elsewhere."......I now have no workers. But I can close up shop or quickly hire new people and start up again...Or the workers I had, can renounce their union membership and come back to work.
The point is a union does not have absolute bargaining privledges.
Back in the day when unionism was very popular, companies were forced to the bargaining table because even non-union people supported unions. No longer. People that want to work will slide right in and replace a union worker in a New York minute...
If Disney wants to get the dispute ended one way or another why don't they quit "Mickey Mousing" around and go ahead and pull Espn and Espn 2 HD from Dish's lineup. That way they will lose $15 million subscribers (homes and business's). One side would cave in quick! lol
The only whole in your argument, and it is well put, is the UAW. They were given exclusive bargaining rights with the Auto Industry by the Feds many years ago, that is one of the reasons that the US Auto makers are having the financial difficulties that they have. Note that the majority of the foreign brands that have opened plants in the US are non union and they have a very productive work force and are able to contain costs (i.e. no bail out required)
Ross
The alternative to bargaining with a union when its contract expires is to simply hire non-union replacements. I don't know how many firms have actually done that successfully (of course Air Traffic Controllers come to mind) but I will take your word about legality and then assume that a firm with a union shop can theoretically make it a non-union shop when the current contract expires by simply failing to renew the contract and hiring replacements.
Whether you call them agents or something else unions are allowed to do something that I thought corporations were not, in general: have the constituent pieces; i.e. workers collude in bargaining. I would liken this to, say, Chrysler, Ford and GM (pre-you-know-what) discussing wage-bargaining strategy behind closed doors and then sitting down at the table with single representation. Don't know if it's legal or not but it DOES confer "monopsony power" on the firms.
Might as well, they arent listneing to the coustomers any more, they arnt manning up to solve their issues.. They might as well be dead!
