OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[DodgerKing]

fixed.

Sent

 

[bforce]

Let's just say a source from another site whom we Direct subs usually refer to when we get information about Direct. He is often referred to on this site

ETA: I tried to PM you the evidence, but your mailbox is full

I don't know why you felt the need to provide evidence, most people on here know that you know what you are talking about when it comes to DirecTV. I agree with you too, Fox will not pull channels off of *D, the working relationship is too close. They won't even threaten it, hell, the contracts will be signed before it even comes close to that point.

Just for the record, I am fully on the side of Dish in this dispute.

 

[DodgerKing]

I don't know why you felt the need to provide evidence, most people on here know that you know what you are talking about when it comes to DirecTV. I agree with you too, Fox will not pull channels off of *D, the working relationship is too close. They won't even threaten it, hell, the contracts will be signed before it even comes close to that point.

Just for the record, I am fully on the side of Dish in this dispute.

As am I

 

[Greg Bimson]

Care to tell me how I can get the channels I want (Syfy, Comedy Central, TNT, USA, TBS, Food) without being forced to take ESPN and it's high price tag? You can't.

Dish Network created Dish America and AT120. They package the channels they see fit, and sell it to customers.

So if you want a service that provides a la carte, I'd respectfully suggest to start one.

 

[HDRoberts]

Dish Network created Dish America and AT120. They package the channels they see fit, and sell it to customers.

So if you want a service that provides a la carte, I'd respectfully suggest to start one.

And, as I pointed out in that post, the issue seems to be that Fox wants RSNs in those packs. Pack locations are determined more by contract these days than provider choice. And they want to take away my choice.

And as soon as I get that DBS licence and $500,000,000 to build and launch a sat, I'll get right on that.

 

[DodgerKing]

And, as I pointed out in that post, the issue seems to be that Fox wants RSNs in those packs. Pack locations are determined more by contract these days than provider choice. And they want to take away my choice.

And as soon as I get that DBS licence and $500,000,000 to build and launch a sat, I'll get right on that.

Which is another reason why Direct and Fox will not go through this same problem when their contract expires well after 2010. Direct already places their RSNs in their lowest package

 

[bforce]

As am I

I know you are DK.

 

[inazsully]

FYI. I just received, and I assume every other "E" sub in Arizona received, an e-mail from COX telling me that if I switched from "E" COX would include a free HDDVR, 3 months of HBO and Showtime, free installation, a free Wii, their best HD package which includes a total of 270 channels (not all HD of course), for $39mo for the first year. I have my reasons for turning this offer down but I think it shows the potential damage that "E" may face. And COX is only mentioning FSNAZ, Nat Geo, FX. No mention about the probable loss of FOX channel 10.

 

[Greg Bimson]

And, as I pointed out in that post, the issue seems to be that Fox wants RSNs in those packs. Pack locations are determined more by contract these days than provider choice. And they want to take away my choice.

Huh? I'm fairly certain AT120 will exist even if Dish Network agrees to be like every other provider and add the Fox RSN's. That doesn't take away your choice, if the package still exists.

 

[Ghpr13]

FYI. I just received, and I assume every other "E" sub in Arizona received, an e-mail from COX telling me that if I switched from "E" COX would include a free HDDVR, 3 months of HBO and Showtime, free installation, a free Wii, their best HD package which includes a total of 270 channels (not all HD of course), for $39mo for the first year. I have my reasons for turning this offer down but I think it shows the potential damage that "E" may face. And COX is only mentioning FSNAZ, Nat Geo, FX. No mention about the probable loss of FOX channel 10.

A free Wii? Really? That's wild...
Ghpr13

 

[whatchel1]

A free Wii? Really? That's wild...
Ghpr13

It's to make up for all the time one has to waste on the Motorola HDDVR.

 

[chicagonettech]

The various networks and programmers are getting greedy. If they kill the cable companies and satellite companies how are they going to get their programming to the viewer?

For instance ESPN is in over 70+ million homes in a hundred a fifty countries in fifteen languages. In addition to the roughly $5.00 per head they collect for every cable and satellite subscriber they sell $441 million in advertising.

While the technology is such that they could deliver all their programming using the internet could ESPN (Fox) generate nearly the revenue stream they have today? How many homes would be willing to pay $15 - $25 a month each for a family of Fox or ESPN channels?

While losing sports on the satellites would hurt those companies the cable companies are probably almost indifferent. They would still make money selling you the high speed internet connection on which they have an 85% gross profit margin vs. 50% on video. If the cable companies dropped both Fox and ESPN they could reduce their basic rate by $15 - $20 per month. This would be very popular with non sports fanatics and attract additional subscribers.

Without the revenue stream from 70+ million subs ESPN and other sports networks would not have the money to continue paying huge rights fees to leagues and teams.

All the stake holders better figure this out before all of their business models fall apart. There is a limit to what people will pay for sports and if Congress is forced to get involved and mandates ala carte offerings for all channels then that is the end of ESPN as we know it. It will become a niche channel. FOX and everyone else will have to sell themselves just like HBO and Showtime.

Jim

You have stated the issue eloquently!

My $5.00, although I think your figure is low and the actual amount is closer to $10.00 per subscriber - buys me NOTHING, because we do not watch sports channels.

Not only do we not watch sports channels, but we are getting tired of paying for those who do.

TAKE AWAY ALL OF THE SPORTS CHANNELS FROM MY SUBSCRIPTIONS - THEY ARE ALL BLOCKED.

THEN LOWER MY BILL BY THE COST OF THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS.

 

[HDRoberts]

Huh? I'm fairly certain AT120 will exist even if Dish Network agrees to be like every other provider and add the Fox RSN's. That doesn't take away your choice, if the package still exists.

Yes it does, as it will raise the price of that pack as expensive RSNs are added. Plus, I get to tell MLB, and NBA I don't care for overpriced sports by not subbing.

 

[Hemi 6.1]

Just got confirmation that the current contract between Fox and Direct does not end until well into 2011.

So about 1 year.
Thats not that far away.

But, Most likly by then I'll be a cable subscriber, since they seem to be putting out more HD now then D*, and the carry comcast Philly in HD as well as Red Zone,YES,more locals HD DVR that can now use an external hard drive, 15 MBPS for what seems less then D* can offer.

 

[jimdandyvi]

If Dish had the guts to be modify their business plan and drop all high priced sports channels (Fox ESPN Comcast , etc. ) Dish could cut the cost of all their packages by $10 - $20 bucks depending on how much they were marking the sports channels up.

While they would lose several million subscribers who are sports fanatics, how many subscribers would they gain from households that would find a hundred channel package for $23 - $28 very attractive? In my opinion they would gain more subscribers than they would loose.

Jim

 

[HDRoberts]

If Dish had the guts to be modify their business plan and drop all high priced sports channels (Fox ESPN Comcast , etc. ) Dish could cut the cost of all their packages by $10 - $20 bucks depending on how much they were marking the sports channels up.

While they would lose several million subscribers who are sports fanatics, how many subscribers would they gain from households that would find a hundred channel package for $23 - $28 very attractive? In my opinion they would gain more subscribers than they would loose.

Jim

Problem is, those sports channels control more than sports. Disney owns not only ESPN, but the Disney Channel and ABC Family. Fox has (obviously) FX, Nat Geo Wild, Fox Movie Channel, and so on. Comcast owns E!, Style, and G4 (not to mention Versus, but that is also a sports channel). Going without sports would also const them much other programming. I have to agree, your option sounds great, but programmers have already guarded against that.

 

[tvropro]

I

While they would lose several million subscribers who are sports fanatics, how many subscribers would they gain from households that would find a hundred channel package for $23 - $28 very attractive? In my opinion they would gain more subscribers than they would loose.

Jim

C band has packages without sports and fewer channels. In the past few years the cost is almost a high as with the sports channels on pizza. Do you really think Dish would give that saved money to the subscriber? They would pass 10% on to the sub and put 90% in their pocket. So in short you would end up with less for a couple bucks less.

 

[tvropro]

Problem is, those sports channels control more than sports. Disney owns not only ESPN, but the Disney Channel and ABC Family. Fox has (obviously) FX, Nat Geo Wild, Fox Movie Channel, and so on. Comcast owns E!, Style, and G4 (not to mention Versus, but that is also a sports channel). Going without sports would also const them much other programming. I have to agree, your option sounds great, but programmers have already guarded against that.

If you want to look into the future with this look at the past with the big dish. The programmers own not only sports but basic channels. Fox for one wanted to force the bud to carry all or nothing at high rates so C band bailed. Disney is another one, although Disney is a popular channel and one would think they would want to promote it anyway they can since there are in a battle with Nick for number one. They asked insane rates for it because they are associated with ESPN. ESPN came up with a lame excuse about blackouts preventing them from selling to c band digital. Actually when Disney and ESPN were alacarte on the big dish. They were some of the most expensive channels out there rivaling HBO.

The greedy programmers got smart and are now forcing the all or nothing rules and going after where the money is being made on pizza and cable. I don't think they care if they loose a provider over cost. They will just jack the cost up for the rest of them. There has to be a tipping point of how much Joe sixpack will pay. I think they are approaching it very fast.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Huh? I'm fairly certain AT120 will exist even if Dish Network agrees to be like every other provider and add the Fox RSN's. That doesn't take away your choice, if the package still exists.

Yes it does, as it will raise the price of that pack as expensive RSNs are added. Plus, I get to tell MLB, and NBA I don't care for overpriced sports by not subbing.

It might raise the price, but it didn't take away your choice. AT120 would still exist.

And once again, you don't subscribe to "ESPN" or "FSN", you subscribe to AT120. The only check you write is to Dish Network, for a subscription to AT120. You aren't telling the sports teams or leagues anything: the lowest tier receives ESPN, so MLB and NBA are indirectly receiving money from you anyway.

 

[DodgerKing]

So about 1 year.
Thats not that far away.

But, Most likly by then I'll be a cable subscriber, since they seem to be putting out more HD now then D*, and the carry comcast Philly in HD as well as Red Zone,YES,more locals HD DVR that can now use an external hard drive, 15 MBPS for what seems less then D* can offer.

He just said well beyond 2010. It could be more than that. I doubt it though