Maybe InHD channels aren't coming soon

[LonghornXP]

Correction, Rupert has to come up with his own HD channels with content thats worth a damn. And all of the content worth watching is already on the major channels. I often scratch my head at this Fox expansion talk.

Wrong again. Do you think Rupert can't be a prick with channels that aren't HD. What if he wanted to be a prick with channels like FX along with many others that are watched channels. He can be a prick with any channels that he owns and he does own many must have channels that pretty much all companies can't survive without.

 

[rad]

I don't see Rupert being such a harda** on this. He needs the cable MSO's to carry his channels more then he needs the InHD channels. So he plays hardball with a Comcast and they drop a bunch of FOX channels, how many millions of possible viewer that would be lost to those channels. Less views less advertising revenue. I think he's doing the smart thing by making the complaint with the FCC and let them be them make the decision.

 

[sateck01]

Don't expect that to be resolved anytime soon. The only way for D* to get them is to for Rupert to come up with his own HD channels and then play hardball with the cable companies. That is standard practice. Voom only file the complain about less than a year ago but we were told that VOOM wanted them since the beginning and CABLE companies (including Cablevision) said NO. This is one positive point that CABLE companies to lure subscribers. I want to be optimistic but I know the long history of how VOOM wanted the channels and CABLE said absolutely NOT (in a very informal way).

i would think they said no to voom because if you give to one, you have to give to all. remember one thing, rupert has 2000 times the clout in this industry that dolan ever had.
and what rupert wants , 99.5% of the time ,he gets

 

[LonghornXP]

I don't see Rupert being such a harda** on this. He needs the cable MSO's to carry his channels more then he needs the InHD channels. So he plays hardball with a Comcast and they drop a bunch of FOX channels, how many millions of possible viewer that would be lost to those channels. Less views less advertising revenue. I think he's doing the smart thing by making the complaint with the FCC and let them be them make the decision.

This is the first step but I'm saying if InDemand doesn't cave in Rupert can hurt them more than they can hurt him. Lets not forget that say if Comcast drops most of the fox owned channels and they file an FCC complaint and plow through that process for 18 months that won't upset Rupert at all and do you want to know why. He won't lose viewers at all. Nearly all of them will switch to one of two companies which would be Dish Network and DirecTV. If 50% of them go with D* that might be a good business move by D* with the hopes that none of them switch back to Comcast. The fact is that the way the system is setup Murdock won't lose viewers because they would become viewers with another company. That is the worst case with the best case being many of them move towards DirecTV.

Now keep in mind that Murdock doesn't lose advertising over this because they get paid by the number of subscribers not where they come from. This would hurt Comcast much more because Comcast offerings local advertising and without the channels and viewers its Comcast that will lose those advertisers.

If you really think this threw Comcast shouldn't tick off Murdock because Murdock might actually have an incentive to play hardball for 18 months until he caves in himself. By that time the damage might have been done to his favor.

 

[rad]

Now keep in mind that Murdock doesn't lose advertising over this because they get paid by the number of subscribers not where they come from.

Are you sure? If the cable channels are similar to OTA channels for setting advertising rates they say that they can provide X number of views, the more viewers the higher the rate they can charge for advertising. So if they lost a Comcast or a TW that's a good chunk of views that would no longer be able to view the channels so what Fox can charge would go down.

 

[CPanther95]

I don't see Rupert being such a harda** on this. He needs the cable MSO's to carry his channels more then he needs the InHD channels. So he plays hardball with a Comcast and they drop a bunch of FOX channels, how many millions of possible viewer that would be lost to those channels. Less views less advertising revenue. I think he's doing the smart thing by making the complaint with the FCC and let them be them make the decision.

He absolutely could and should be a harda** on this. The absence of Fox News alone would cause mass defections from Comcast to satellite. They paid $10 per sub to get carriage of Fox News on cable. It's a whole new ballgame now and when contracts come up again, Rupert has all the leverage.

 

[slacker9876]

...They paid $10 per sub to get carriage of Fox News on cable. ...

LMAO, no wonder they are trying to bury it in him! Turnaround is fair play. I sure as heck will not cough up $3.00/mo for InHD ... heck I am not willing to cough up $0.03 !!!

 

[CPanther95]

FOX paid the cable companies $10 per sub just to get the cable companies to carry Fox News initially. Then signed a fairly long-term contract at only (IIRC) $0.11 carriage fee.

 

[Juan]

He absolutely could and should be a harda** on this. The absence of Fox News alone would cause mass defections from Comcast to satellite. They paid $10 per sub to get carriage of Fox News on cable. It's a whole new ballgame now and when contracts come up again, Rupert has all the leverage.

I do believe that when Rupert purchased D* One of covenants with the FCC is that he wouldn't play hardball with his cable channels. I think specifically he could not charge a competitor more than he would charge D* to carry the same channel. Granted its "funny money" for fox but I think Mr Murdoch's only recourse was to file a complaint with the FCC

 

[CWS_kahuna]

I sure as heck will not cough up $3.00/mo for InHD ... heck I am not willing to cough up $0.03 !!!

This is the attitude I like to hear about us getting new HD content .

 

[slacker9876]

FOX paid the cable companies $10 per sub just to get the cable companies to carry Fox News initially. Then signed a fairly long-term contract at only (IIRC) $0.11 carriage fee.

Ahhh now I get it! My bad.

This is the attitude I like to hear about us getting new HD content .

Listen here is my deal. I had been a TC Premier customer for a long time. With the NFL ST debacle I downgraded my package to TC, and as a part of that NFL ST revenue pledge I have said I will not go back to that level until D* begins to provide value again. D* currently has a worse HD offering than the antenna on my roof ... it is not leadership, value or quality. I expect all 3 for my money. More directly to your point, for $100/mo and 2 sports packages (ST & CI) over 7 years I EXPECT to get all the programming that is offered by my provider.

High Definition is the standard ... not an add-on

 

[cr0mag]

IMO, the truth of the matter is that given Rupert's leverage through his ownership of Fox, he can put quite a squeeze on the other companies. Now, they can all get into a "my thingie is bigger than your thingie" dispute if they want to and hand a ton of $$$ to lawyers on both sides, but in the end D* will get InHD at a reasonable price, or ALL of the fox spinoff networks will become a very highly priced commodity to the cable providers who stand in Rupert's way.

Look at it this way... All of the HD viewers would really like to see InHD (I'm one myself). By contrast, many many more viewers of SD and HD really enjoy their Fox News Channel, FX, Fox Movie Network, etc.

Rupert's simply got a bigger stack of chips to play with and no one can buy him out of this hand.

It's only a matter of time....."Assimilation is inevitable.... Resistance is futile"

 

[sateck01]

dont forget ,, FOX SPORTS. the 3000 pound gorrilla across the country in national and regional sports feeds

 

[cr0mag]

dont forget ,, FOX SPORTS. the 3000 pound gorrilla across the country in national and regional sports feeds

No kidding... That would really tick off some cable providers...

 

[Bear]

This is the attitude I like to hear about us getting new HD content .

How's this: I would gladly pay $3/mo for InHD1 and InHD2, or I would freely guive up ESPN-HD!

 

[Barney]

How's this: I would gladly pay $3/mo for InHD1 and InHD2, or I would freely guive up ESPN-HD!

Unless your favorite College team is playing & is covered by ESPN-HD or maybe some year or decade from now.......ESPN2-HD

Barney

 

[Plywodstatebum]

I don't see the problem, It ain't like InHD has original programing, They show almost the same stuff as HDNet, and the Other HD Movie Channels. They need to get some Original HD Channels, Like Voom had.

 

[fredfa]

I am sure Rupert Murdoch will play hard ball as best he can.
But:
He promised the FCC (under heavy pressure, not surprisingly led by Comcast and TW especially) that if NewsCorp was allowed to gain control of DirecTV, it wouldn't engage in "unfair" pricing policies.
If such practices were ever were alleged by MSOs, mandatory arbitration was to be employed.
Obviously the cable companies want one set of rules when they control the programming, and in totally different set of rules when they want the programming.

 

[LonghornXP]

I am sure Rupert Murdoch will play hard ball as best he can.
But:
He promised the FCC (under heavy pressure, not surprisingly led by Comcast and TW especially) that if NewsCorp was allowed to gain control of DirecTV, it wouldn't engage in "unfair" pricing policies.
If such practices were ever were alleged by MSOs, mandatory arbitration was to be employed.
Obviously the cable companies want one set of rules when they control the programming, and in totally different set of rules when they want the programming.

That is his plan. By starting to play hardball he can say in his defense that if he can't be unfair why are these cable companies allowed to be unfair. That means that Murdock can force the FCC to make their choice about the InHD matter and if they make the wrong choice (allow InHD to be unfair) that opens up everything to debate with the laywers. The FCC also has to be fair and have the same rules for all companies so if they rule one way for one company that now applies to all companies. Now granted this goes much deeper than this but that is the general idea of what Murdock is trying todo.

 

[Barney]

Just wondering, why didn't D* do this a year ago? Why now?
So it'll be a year or more for a decision...........FCC still hasn't said yes to the sale of Rainbow1 to DISH.........how long has this been? Also, we have a new leader in the FCC (Powell retired). Going to get interesting...........& we have a long wait.........D* may love the rumors going on.....we need to stop the rumors.....just my $0.02 though.

Barney