GaryPen said:
Fine, smart guy, then provide your OWN substantiated numbers. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation of merit, and just being a general nimwit.
OLN Dropped by Dish over Programming Disputes
- Thread starter Juan
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 306
- Views 31K
Fine, smart guy, then provide your OWN substantiated numbers. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation of merit, and just being a general nimwit.
I've never watched OLN, and I don't have E* or cable. My problem is buckling to any demands when a programmer over-steps their bounds. I do watch ESPN quite a bit, but I also scream every time an MSO gives in to their "basic tier" demand - along with the ever groing suite of ESPN channels - each with their own carriage fee. I'd rather lose the channel than to have these contracts signed.
We know we're screwed when it comes to channels as popular as ESPN, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If that line extends to include a channel like OLN that has very little demand, what's next? Oxygen, Lifetime 2, SOAP Classics, etc? How do you think Rupert will be marketing all the FOX properties?
Unless you work for Charlie, or Comcast - I don't see how anyone on this forum would support this tactic whether you are a D*, E* or cable sub. I'd love to see the AARP survey their membership to get their opinion of the fact that they pay (IIRC) about $0.11 for FOX NEWS, $0.35 for CNN, and over $3.00 for ESPN. The Capitol building would be stormed by seniors waving their canes in anger looking for blood.
It starts with forced mainstream carriage, then nickel and dime increases in carriage fees, then an expanded channel offerings that multiply the impact. 10 years from now, we could be paying $5 to ESPN and $2.50 to OLN just so they have the ability to outbid each other on major sports contracts.
The result of this is our carriage fees have enabled ESPN to outbid the major (free) networks on major sports, making ESPN even more valuable and necessary, giving them more leverage to jack up their fees even more for the primary channel, and every channel they decide to add. The NFL would never allow it, but ESPN2 could easily outbid FOX or CBS for their NFL package if they so desired. That's backasswards.
Create a channel, give us compelling content, price it and sell it to the MSO's. Let competitive forces dictate how the MSO's position it in their lineup. No more "blank checks" to programmers where they can pay whatever they want to get content from free providers, then send us the bill and we pay for the rest of our lives.
We know we're screwed when it comes to channels as popular as ESPN, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If that line extends to include a channel like OLN that has very little demand, what's next? Oxygen, Lifetime 2, SOAP Classics, etc? How do you think Rupert will be marketing all the FOX properties?
Unless you work for Charlie, or Comcast - I don't see how anyone on this forum would support this tactic whether you are a D*, E* or cable sub. I'd love to see the AARP survey their membership to get their opinion of the fact that they pay (IIRC) about $0.11 for FOX NEWS, $0.35 for CNN, and over $3.00 for ESPN. The Capitol building would be stormed by seniors waving their canes in anger looking for blood.
It starts with forced mainstream carriage, then nickel and dime increases in carriage fees, then an expanded channel offerings that multiply the impact. 10 years from now, we could be paying $5 to ESPN and $2.50 to OLN just so they have the ability to outbid each other on major sports contracts.
The result of this is our carriage fees have enabled ESPN to outbid the major (free) networks on major sports, making ESPN even more valuable and necessary, giving them more leverage to jack up their fees even more for the primary channel, and every channel they decide to add. The NFL would never allow it, but ESPN2 could easily outbid FOX or CBS for their NFL package if they so desired. That's backasswards.
Create a channel, give us compelling content, price it and sell it to the MSO's. Let competitive forces dictate how the MSO's position it in their lineup. No more "blank checks" to programmers where they can pay whatever they want to get content from free providers, then send us the bill and we pay for the rest of our lives.
jimboeau said:and a bigtime liberal to boot
If you think Comcast supporters are the liberals, you are really screwed up. Fighting monopoly abuse is what liberal live for and defending them is what conservatives are united by. Stupid social issues like guns, gods, and gays are completely irrelevant, and only Southerners are gullible to fall for them
Thanks for that unexpected outburst..meanwhile, back at the ranch...I sent an e-mail to EchoStar thanking them for pulling OLN and asking that it not be returned to the channel lineup until they provide the NHL feed and without unneeded and unwanted programming charges absorbed by AP120 subscribers. While I think both parties are culpable (Dish is never completely innocent in these matters), I feel strongly that Comcast is most culpable and their monetary demands for OLN are excessive and unwarranted given the limited appeal of this channel at present.
I would recommend calling or writing E* to voice your support or condemnation (ceo@echostar.com or 888.284.7116) vice resorting to name calling on the Forum.
I would recommend calling or writing E* to voice your support or condemnation (ceo@echostar.com or 888.284.7116) vice resorting to name calling on the Forum.
Or write the NHL, who apparently has the power to forbid Comcast from supplying an "NHL-less" feed to any cable or DBS company - if they chose to excercise that power.
Tom Bombadil said:
Well, since you brought up the point of "a lot of channels", I'm going to ask this question one more time, just to see if I can even get ONE sensible answer, or even ANY answer for that matter:
If Charlie Ergen, lord of all TV lords, king of all DBS kings, saviour to all that is cheap TV, is saving you guys SO much money on your programming, then please explain to me why you guys pay $1 MORE for AT120 over TC, when:
- TC has ALL the same channels that AT120 does, except for Si'TV (I HOPE that someone isn't going to even try & say that it's equivalent of the other dozen missing channels
) - TC has the following channels that AT120 does NOT:
Bloomberg
CNBC World
Discovery Kids (yes, this was just added recently)
Fine Living
Fit TV
Fox Movies
Hallmark
National Geographic
Current TV
OLN (WITH NHL games)
Oxygen
TV One
YES RSN (in the appropriate service areas)
(Notice that I purposely left out shopping & PA channels on both services, since it's really a moot point for this discussion)
Now, in case somebody decides to say:
- "well, E* has Sirius...":
Well, now D* will have XM in a couple weeks, so that's a moot point
- "well, E* is making more money on this than D*..."
SO WHAT??? I don't give a rat's hiney about a company's cash flow, blah blah blah - all I care about is what the monthly bill is & what I'm getting for it. Since I don't care to worship the ground CE walks on, I DON'T care about his cash flow - just as I do not care about RM's.
OK, so now that you have the facts laid out for you above (yes, these channel counts ARE facts & the monthly cost is a FACT; you can't dance around these):
Why is AT120 more than TC for a dozen LESS channels, if Charlie is SO frugal with the prog costs???
dishrich said:
Is that your moronic answer to any rational discussion about the topic? Scream "Kool-Aid" then try and change the subject? Nothing you asked, or the "facts" you present has anything to do with the topic at hand. Why not address the subject, or does that not allow you to make the same tired point you've been trying to make?
CPanther95 said:I Nothing you asked, or the "facts" you present has anything to do with the topic at hand. Why not address the subject, or does that not allow you to make the same tired point you've been trying to make?
Why don't YOU take your OWN advice & just answer the VERY simple question?
There, I took out the koolaid part, as so NOT to confuse your poor mind now!
Yea, THAT's the way to answer a question - CHANGE THE SUBJECT - good show!
Start a new thread if you want to ask about E*'s pricing policies. I could give a rat's a$$ about their pricing policy because it has no bearing on OLN's right to demand carriage on a particular tier.
You couldn't pay me to drop D* for E* for a variety of reasons. But this crap with OLN and E* could happen to D* or cable just as easily. And if a nothing channel (no offense to OLN fans) like OLN can make such demands, there's not a channel on the "dial" that couldn't pull the same crap, or worse, down the road.
You couldn't pay me to drop D* for E* for a variety of reasons. But this crap with OLN and E* could happen to D* or cable just as easily. And if a nothing channel (no offense to OLN fans) like OLN can make such demands, there's not a channel on the "dial" that couldn't pull the same crap, or worse, down the road.
CPanther95 said:
YOU don't run the place here - I'll leave it where I please, thank YOU!
If a mod has a problem with it, then THEY can tell me to repost or move!
AND, if this isn't about "E*'s pricing policies, I sure dont' know what is...
It has EVERYTHING to do with it, because D* doesn't seem to have a problem with it in the SAME pkg tier that E* does. (just as it is with the YES situation)
Like I said, no real answers (again)...
What does D* have to do with it? Choose D* if you like their packages better. Why does Acura include all options on some models at no additional charge? It's called a business, and they can package/market how they damn well please. Why does OLN get to dictate E*'s tiers?
That's the simple question that you haven't answered except with your own off-topic, irrelevant question.
That's the simple question that you haven't answered except with your own off-topic, irrelevant question.
CPanther95 said:
Well, you just answered your OWN silly off-topic question - because that is how OLN is structuring IT'S business, & it wants it's providers to package THEIR product. If a provider does NOT want to put OLN in a broader distributed pkg, then they do NOT get the NHL - it's simple enough that YOU should be able to understand it. Why is it any better for E* to dictate TO OLN how to run THEIR business? I, for one, sure wouldn't want CE to be trying to run MY business...
Right back at ya'...
So OLN decides to offer an "NHL-less" version (that's their right) and Charlie decides to give the channel the boot rather than submit to their demands, and deal with all the complaints about NHL being advertised but not being delivered (that's their right).
So what's the problem, and why all the hostility to CE regarding the handling of this?
So what's the problem, and why all the hostility to CE regarding the handling of this?
I got an idea, how about you two taking your p*ssing contest outside and then the rest of us can get back on topic.
CPanther95 said:
I don't agree with this, Charlie purchased the Outdoor Life Channel and the programming on it. The OLN Channel has been making a big deal about its NHL deal and has been advertising it up and down, however when its game time everyone but Dish Network saw the advertised NHL game.
Dish was not getting the OLN channel they were paying for, instead they were getting a watered down version of OLN.
I don't blame Charlie one bit for dropping them.
OLN should have aired everything to Dish customers as it did to all of its other customers. If OLN wanted more money or better coverage then this is something that should have been handled at renegoation time.
Scott, that comment was out of context. It was in response to a comment that somehow what OLN was doing was "just business" yet E*'s response was somehow over the line and unwarranted.
Last Tuesday I was at my mother's house on Orcas Island which is serviced by a small cable system. OLN is carried on ***basic*** cable there (the only tier lower: Lifeline).
I tuned over to Channel 37 where OLN normally resides. The NHL was nowhere to be found. That made for TV BBQ cookoff, however, was. Granted, the cable gods there may not have switched to the feed with the NHL games, and they are notorious for poor service and frequent channel blackouts on that system. Even so, it's not a good thing.
I have dish. As far as I'm concerned, I think OLN/Comcast should take their medicine. They paid $70 Million for the NHL, they need the viewers, they need to find ways to get more. You won't accomplish that by finding ticky-tacky ways to withhold the best hook you have to get those eyeballs to your channel - and there are few hooks on OLN's line right now.
I tuned over to Channel 37 where OLN normally resides. The NHL was nowhere to be found. That made for TV BBQ cookoff, however, was. Granted, the cable gods there may not have switched to the feed with the NHL games, and they are notorious for poor service and frequent channel blackouts on that system. Even so, it's not a good thing.
I have dish. As far as I'm concerned, I think OLN/Comcast should take their medicine. They paid $70 Million for the NHL, they need the viewers, they need to find ways to get more. You won't accomplish that by finding ticky-tacky ways to withhold the best hook you have to get those eyeballs to your channel - and there are few hooks on OLN's line right now.
