OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[HDRoberts]

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.

Yes, it takes my choice. Now I can choose between cutting the cord period, and a reasonable pack for $40. You want a pack that will be $45 or more. I lose the choice of that lower priced pack. Heck, those that wanted RSNs and have the choice of AT120 Plus. So instead of a choice of nothing, AT120 and AT120 Plus, you do, in fact, want to take the middle option.

Ugh, I'll ask again. I, as a consumer, would like to choose to watch my local networks, as well as Comedy Central, SyFy, Food, USA, TBS, TNT, and E!, but without supporting sports at all. Tell me where I can go and get a package where I don't have to subsidize sports, but still contains those channels I'm willing to pay for?

I suspect a lot of people want something similar. Yet, despite the demands of the marketplace, the free market is not providing such an option.

 

[DodgerKing]

Yes, it takes my choice. Now I can choose between cutting the cord period, and a reasonable pack for $40. You want a pack that will be $45 or more. I lose the choice of that lower priced pack. Heck, those that wanted RSNs and have the choice of AT120 Plus. So instead of a choice of nothing, AT120 and AT120 Plus, you do, in fact, want to take the middle option.

Ugh, I'll ask again. I, as a consumer, would like to choose to watch my local networks, as well as Comedy Central, SyFy, Food, USA, TBS, TNT, and E!, but without supporting sports at all. Tell me where I can go and get a package where I don't have to subsidize sports, but still contains those channels I'm willing to pay for?

I suspect a lot of people want something similar. Yet, despite the demands of the marketplace, the free market is not providing such an option.

The problem is, the sports channels actually subsidize the channels you listed, as the sports channels are more popular than many of the other channels. If it was not for the sports channels supporting them, you would actually either pay more for many of the cable channels you want OR these channels would not be able to survive on their own and would not exist.

 

[jimdandyvi]

If some operator isn't willing to make a stand or the FCC/Congress step in and mandate ala carte offerings then everyone is going to pay and pay.

Programmers can play hardball with the stable of channels they control in addition to sports, but not every channel has 100 million subs like ESPN. Losing 12 - 14 million subs to them would be a big deal. Secondly many channels exist only because they can force cable and satellite companies to carry them if they want the flag ship channel. How many screens of ESPN are enough?

Jim

 

[HDRoberts]

The problem is, the sports channels actually subsidize the channels you listed, as the sports channels are more popular than many of the other channels. If it was not for the sports channels supporting them, you would actually either pay more for many of the cable channels you want OR these channels would not be able to survive on their own and would not exist.

The increase I don't believe would be more than the savings associated with not paying for RSNs, ESPNs, and other sports channels.

I would also characterize it as some niche channels benefiting from budging, not from sports. Even then, if a channel cannot make it on its own, isn't that just the free market at work?

 

[ekilgus]

The problem is, the sports channels actually subsidize the channels you listed, as the sports channels are more popular than many of the other channels. If it was not for the sports channels supporting them, you would actually either pay more for many of the cable channels you want OR these channels would not be able to survive on their own and would not exist.

Why is that so hard for me to believe. You would have me believe that these providers give me channels at a substantial discount or even a loss because they make so much money off of their sports channels. Does anyone actually believe this?

 

[Ghpr13]

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

So true! So true!
Ghpr13

 

[Greg Bimson]

Ugh, I'll ask again. I, as a consumer, would like to choose to watch my local networks, as well as Comedy Central, SyFy, Food, USA, TBS, TNT, and E!, but without supporting sports at all.

You don't want to support sports, but in the same sentence you list two networks that have contracts with sports leagues, so in effect you are supporting sports.

 

[Ghpr13]

If some operator isn't willing to make a stand or the FCC/Congress step in and mandate ala carte offerings then everyone is going to pay and pay.

Programmers can play hardball with the stable of channels they control in addition to sports, but not every channel has 100 million subs like ESPN. Losing 12 - 14 million subs to them would be a big deal. Secondly many channels exist only because they can force cable and satellite companies to carry them if they want the flag ship channel. How many screens of ESPN are enough?

Jim

I wonder if the FCC stepped in and demanded a la carte, would programmers then plead with the FCC to allow them to offer a "block" of channels, claiming it would be the only way the programmers could survive, basically defeating the purpose of a la carte for the consumer. I could see the programmers using the very argument that many channels would not have a competing chance against the more popular channels.

Ghpr13

 

[Jonhern]

Yes, it takes my choice. Now I can choose between cutting the cord period, and a reasonable pack for $40. You want a pack that will be $45 or more. I lose the choice of that lower priced pack. Heck, those that wanted RSNs and have the choice of AT120 Plus. So instead of a choice of nothing, AT120 and AT120 Plus, you do, in fact, want to take the middle option.

Ugh, I'll ask again. I, as a consumer, would like to choose to watch my local networks, as well as Comedy Central, SyFy, Food, USA, TBS, TNT, and E!, but without supporting sports at all. Tell me where I can go and get a package where I don't have to subsidize sports, but still contains those channels I'm willing to pay for?

I suspect a lot of people want something similar. Yet, despite the demands of the marketplace, the free market is not providing such an option.

Well, if you don't mind paying for the Spanish channels, you can get all those with the exception of E for $40 with dish Latino Dos, thats the everyday price, not the promotional. Includes hd as well and you can get hd free. Not sure if it does or does not include the RSNs, but it does not include the Espn channels, which are the most expensive ones, plus no fox news, one of the more expensive non sports channels.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I wonder if the FCC stepped in and demanded a la carte, would programmers then plead with the FCC to allow them to offer a "block" of channels, claiming it would be the only way the programmers could survive, basically defeating the purpose of a la carte for the consumer.

Oh, there are a few problems with this scenario...

The FCC has no authority to demand a la carte. No one authorized the FCC to do this.

One of the last "unbundling" mandates came in the form of the court decision against the NFL and DirecTV over Sunday Ticket. The courts forced an offer other than just a full-season package. So at then end of all of it, at this time you can purchase a $300 season package, or any given Sunday for $50.

So if it boils down to offering a la carte, it is unknown if the pay-TV providers would jump at the chance. The problem here is one needs to take a look at what a la carte offerings there currently are. There aren't many, and of course, if the pay-TV providers offer packages, then that defeats the need of offering a la carte.

 

[dangue]

You don't want to support sports, but in the same sentence you list two networks that have contracts with sports leagues, so in effect you are supporting sports.

Give it up. HDRoberts is correct, Fox wants to take away consumer choice by moving programming to the lowest tier. Period, end of story. Attempting to change the subject because you're losing the main argument doesn't contribute anything. HDRoberts listed several channels that he wants. That some of them occasionally show sports and therefore paying for those channels pays for sports is irrelevant. Those are the channels he wants, regardless of the reasons, and he'd like to be able to get them without paying for other channels that are dedicated to sports 24/7.

Attempting to characterize Fox's demands as not removing consumer choice because the 120 package will still exist in it's new enlarged form is ridiculous. To take your assertion to the extreme: if Dish were to enter into contracts with all providers that stated that they would carry all programming on their lowest/basic tier (morphing the 120 package into the 250 or even the Everything package), this wouldn't impact consumer choice because consumers could still choose to subscribe to that newly expanded lowest (and now more expensive) tier or not. Clearly, that is not correct.

 

[dangue]

So if it boils down to offering a la carte, it is unknown if the pay-TV providers would jump at the chance. The problem here is one needs to take a look at what a la carte offerings there currently are. There aren't many, and of course, if the pay-TV providers offer packages, then that defeats the need of offering a la carte.

That is the system we currently have, providers imposing packaged channels on distributors via multiyear contracts and distributors providing consumers with tiered packages based on those contract obligations. This results in many consumers paying for channels they don't want/need. Many would argue that this creates a need for a la carte rather than destroying the need.

Personally, I like a variety of programming, so even if a la carte were available, it probably wouldn't be for me and my household. That being said, I can completely empathize with those that have no interest in certain types of programing, but are forced by the current system to pay for it.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Give it up. HDRoberts is correct, Fox wants to take away consumer choice by moving programming to the lowest tier. Period, end of story. Attempting to change the subject because you're losing the main argument doesn't contribute anything.

Losing the main argument? Fox has signed up most of the known universe so that FSN is in the lowest tier of programming, yet Dish Network is special and requires a more special deal? And as I said, if FSN (and MSG and YES) are placed in AT120, it will still be AT120 and it doesn't take away consumer choice. It just changes the price.

HDRoberts listed several channels that he wants.

And has to purchase them in a package, as offered by a pay-TV provider, unless of course he can go the Hulu and Netflix route.

This results in many consumers paying for channels they don't want/need. Many would argue that this creates a need for a la carte rather than destroying the need.

Paying for channels they don't want? Everyone pays for a package of channels, whether some channels included aren't watched is irrelevant. This creates the false impression that if users remove those channels their bills would come down. Dish Network refused the terms given by Fox so the FSN channels, FX and NatGeo were removed, and no one automatically received cheaper pricing.

That being said, I can completely empathize with those that have no interest in certain types of programing, but are forced by the current system to pay for it.

I can empathize, but people are paying for a package of programming created by a pay-TV provider, yet have a misguided belief that they can dictate how their pay-TV provider packages the channels believing they can save money.

 

[The Fat Man]

I agree with HDRoberts, people should have CHOICE to say forget the 24/7 sports networks. This is coming from a guy who has the 250 and once had the multi-sports pack. I love them, but if you HDRoberts have no use for them, you shouldn't have to pay for them. As for Greg B, dude, why do you need to have these arguements. You and I had it out over retransmission fees, now your arguing with someone else over their choice to not pay for sports. Just as someone else stated, you try to make up these side arguements to try to get off the main one, because the opisition's opinion makes sense. You've been here a lot longer than most of us, say your opinion and stop trying to talk down to evenryone else.

 

[mdram]

i say leave the sports in
take out the shopping channels, religious channels, mtv, vh1, cnn, msnbs

 

[Jhon69]

Losing the main argument? Fox has signed up most of the known universe so that FSN is in the lowest tier of programming, yet Dish Network is special and requires a more special deal? And as I said, if FSN (and MSG and YES) are placed in AT120, it will still be AT120 and it doesn't take away consumer choice. It just changes the price.And has to purchase them in a package, as offered by a pay-TV provider, unless of course he can go the Hulu and Netflix route.Paying for channels they don't want? Everyone pays for a package of channels, whether some channels included aren't watched is irrelevant. This creates the false impression that if users remove those channels their bills would come down. Dish Network refused the terms given by Fox so the FSN channels, FX and NatGeo were removed, and no one automatically received cheaper pricing.I can empathize, but people are paying for a package of programming created by a pay-TV provider, yet have a misguided belief that they can dictate how their pay-TV provider packages the channels believing they can save money.

And yet there is a programmer(Fox) who believes they can dictate to providers where to place their programming?.Seems like Fox wants to be like ESPN and will do anything(like pulling programming or dropping internet access if they could) to get what they want.Problem is Dish Network has a right to place programming where they want to,and the day they can't then Dish Network might as well change it's name to Fox's Dish Network!.

 

[Jhon69]

The problem is, the sports channels actually subsidize the channels you listed, as the sports channels are more popular than many of the other channels. If it was not for the sports channels supporting them, you would actually either pay more for many of the cable channels you want OR these channels would not be able to survive on their own and would not exist.

i say leave the sports in
take out the shopping channels, religious channels, mtv, vh1, cnn, msnbs

Correct take out the channels that basically have to pay to be there on satellite and replace them with channels that Dish Network has to pay for?

What's wrong with that picture,well nothing much that higher prices won't solve.

 

[kikenovic]

Well, if you don't mind paying for the Spanish channels, you can get all those with the exception of E for $40 with dish Latino Dos, thats the everyday price, not the promotional. Includes hd as well and you can get hd free. Not sure if it does or does not include the RSNs, but it does not include the Espn channels, which are the most expensive ones, plus no fox news, one of the more expensive non sports channels.

Hell yeah, those news channels have to go, why would I want a 24/7 news channel (in HD btw) when I can check the news on the internet?

 

[jonesy99]

This is all hilarious, all of us believe that we shouldnt have to pay for crap we don't want or watch, but at the end of the day there's nothing we can do about it. Seems it's the only way providers can sustain their bloated pockets and even more bloated list of garbage that passes for legitimate programming. In a perfect world, people could get what they want with minimal hassle, but this is America, land of the greedy and these corporate blowhards haven't got the message from john q. that they're sick of paying for useless crap. That's going to take time and a lot of effort to achieve. Because I guarantee at this moment there's some empty suit in an office thinking up some new useless crappy channel they can use as fodder to boost revenue.

 

[inazsully]

With many providers offering attractive packages to jump from "E" to them, what do you think will happen if on November 15th we still have FOX unavailable?