OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[Proton]

Who they are? They're ultimately News Corp., the parent company, owned by Rupert Murdoch (FoxNews). Surprise, surprise; they also own 36% stock in Direct TV. So they're going to trash Dish so they can get you to sign up with Direct which in turn gives them more money. They're "free market guys" don't cha know.

Great post............That pretty well sums up Fox's hidden agenda

 

[jonesy99]

there is 1 thing that would stop it

ala carte

if people had to pay for each channel, then the carrier could ad a small fee for distrobution, you would see prices drop.
why? to attract customers, when prices got to high, people would drop them.
they would level off at a certain price point.
its called free market, it works, always has, always will
when you bundle and dictate whats carried prices go up

Good luck with that, providers would go under quickly if subs were paying for what they actually watched, not to mention networks losing big time because no one wants ten channels of crap to watch one sports network. Theres no good model for a la carte to work yet and until there is, this sh*t is going to continue.
Lets see, so at some ridiculously high price like say 3 bucks a channel, you actually watch maybe 10 or 12 channels? Even thats a high estimate so your bill would be what then, 36 bucks a month plus whatever fee the provider tacks on, as opposed to what you pay now, likely more than that. No one makes money that way, sure the subs win, but there'd be no one left to provide or sell content after a short time.

 

[jonesy99]

Who they are? They're ultimately News Corp., the parent company, owned by Rupert Murdoch (FoxNews). Surprise, surprise; they also own 36% stock in Direct TV. So they're going to trash Dish so they can get you to sign up with Direct which in turn gives them more money. They're "free market guys" don't cha know.

Gee go figger.......
learn something new every day,,

 

[mdram]

Good luck with that, providers would go under quickly if subs were paying for what they actually watched, not to mention networks losing big time because no one wants ten channels of crap to watch one sports network. Theres no good model for a la carte to work yet and until there is, this sh*t is going to continue.
Lets see, so at some ridiculously high price like say 3 bucks a channel, you actually watch maybe 10 or 12 channels? Even thats a high estimate so your bill would be what then, 36 bucks a month plus whatever fee the provider tacks on, as opposed to what you pay now, likely more than that. No one makes money that way, sure the subs win, but there'd be no one left to provide or sell content after a short time.

sure they would, dish would put on whatever was needed to keep running, like they do now
what would happen is worthless stations would go under (ie home shopping)
before cable/sat/ect stations made thier money on ads, they can do so again

so you would pay a basic cost for service, lets say $15 a month
then $1-$3 per channel
your more likely to get more channels if the price is low, its an incentive to the station.
you pick 30 channels and the total comes to $60 a month
so your bill is $75 a month
similar to what you have now, but without all the fluff

 

[lparsons21]

I thought News Corp got out of D* ownership a while back. Am I wrong?

 

[Voyager6]

I thought News Corp got out of D* ownership a while back. Am I wrong?

Liberty Media now owns Directv. DIRECTV, Inc. - DIRECTV Completes Merger Transaction with Liberty Media

 

[B_Kranski]

I think the problem is that each provider thinks they all deserve a bigger piece of the billions of dollars being spent on entertainment each year. That includes both Dish and Directv and all the channel providers...not only that but when each channel is owned by fewer and fewer companies, they are going to charge more because they know they can because subs will complain about losing 5 or 6 channels rather then losing 1 channel. I also agree raising prices when the economy is bad buisness. (dish included) Most people are not getting cost of living raises, and alot of other things like energy prices and food prices are skyrocketing during this ill economy. So my question to all the people is this...Why should you have to pay more for entertainment when in general most Americans are not making more money? The problem on both sides is greed. And with greed will come losses, eventually people will get tired of paying outragious prices and they will just buy the basics in life because that is all they will be able to afford, and then these big entertainment industries will be hurting more and more, and prices will continue to rise because less people subscribing means that the people that are left will have to cover the costs, until there is just not enough demand and the companies will fail. My opinion screw all the big companies and there greed, I hope they all fail! I am just tired of costs always rising faster then raises at work (which I am still getting amazingly). So in recap...I say pay what you are willing to pay and put up with what you are willing to put up with until you are tired of it...then just get free tv ota (fall is a great time for that with all the new programs)

 

[jonesy99]

Liberty Media now owns Directv. DIRECTV, Inc. - DIRECTV Completes Merger Transaction with Liberty Media

Is that so?
News Corporation profile and media properties at MediaOwners.com

Well ok, its an older article.

 

[Mr Tony]

Yes Liberty owns Directv

The service was launched on June 17, 1994 and is now owned by The DirecTV Group, which is controlled by Liberty Media.

The DirecTV Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png

 

[lparsons21]

Yes Liberty owns Directv

The service was launched on June 17, 1994 and is now owned by The DirecTV Group, which is controlled by Liberty Media.

The DirecTV Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the responses. That is what I thought I knew.

 

[inazsully]

Great post............That pretty well sums up Fox's hidden agenda

FOX's agenda isn't hidden at all. They feel that their product is worth more than they have been charging Dish. Maybe they are correct maybe not. Dish May agree or disagree but they want to hold the price line. How about an arbitrator? I'll be the arbitrator for free. Split the difference idiots. You want 50% and I want 0%. Let's settle on 25%. Hasn't just about all of us at one time or another tried to sell something? Usually if one person say's "let's split the difference" the sale gets done.

 

[datwell]

Let me get this straight - they want to raise rates in the middle of the worst economic decline since the 1930s? I have to agree with old Charlie on this one.


--Doug

 

[mdram]

Let me get this straight - they want to raise rates in the middle of the worst economic decline since the 1930s? I have to agree with old Charlie on this one.


--Doug

charlie just wants to be able to raise the rates and keep it all
re:dvr fee increase

 

[dvrexpander]

Let me get this straight - they want to raise rates in the middle of the worst economic decline since the 1930s? I have to agree with old Charlie on this one.


--Doug

Exactly... why can't people see this is beyond me but that all mighty $$ trumps all but I would imagin this has to trickle down to the advertising dept too someone is wanting more money and it may not just be FOX.

This thing better be resolved before NCAA basketball season gets started. Living in ACC country, there are several games on FSN.

I can live with ESPN-U in SD (for now, that needs to hurry up as well) but NO FSN will drive me over the top.

Ugg.. I'd rather eat dirt than watch ESPNU in SD!!! But how about those Hokies!?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Liberty Media now owns Directv. DIRECTV, Inc. - DIRECTV Completes Merger Transaction with Liberty Media

I thought Libery Media was now Majority owner, but News Corp still held a small chunk.

 

[jonesy99]

charlie just wants to be able to raise the rates and keep it all
re:dvr fee increase

How many of us have and use two separate dual tuner dvrs? I mean 6 bucks for one isnt really that bad is it? If you're that much of a tv addict to have 2 then maybe you should pay the 17 bucks lol.

 

[GoWulfpack919]

Exactly... why can't people see this is beyond me but that all mighty $$ trumps all but I would imagin this has to trickle down to the advertising dept too someone is wanting more money and it may not just be FOX.



Ugg.. I'd rather eat dirt than watch ESPNU in SD!!! But how about those Hokies!?

LOL

 

[silvanthalas]

what if you were down to, lets throw a silly number out there, 25 channels and still paid the same amount?

Ok, and how many of the channels that you pay for now are you actually watching on a regular basis?

I bet for most people it is well under 25. Pretty much everybody is mostly paying for crap they'll never watch.

 

[mdram]

How many of us have and use two separate dual tuner dvrs? I mean 6 bucks for one isnt really that bad is it? If you're that much of a tv addict to have 2 then maybe you should pay the 17 bucks lol.

i use it to record show. i dont like commercials
i watch recorded shows while others record.

 

[Mr Tony]

How many of us have and use two separate dual tuner dvrs? I mean 6 bucks for one isnt really that bad is it? If you're that much of a tv addict to have 2 then maybe you should pay the 17 bucks lol.

I've got 2 dual tuner units...record lots of stuff and when there are conflicts it helps

Oh and I only pay $5 extra for the 2nd DVR...yes I have D*