Should Fox Pay Our ETF?

[radtech]

Well, since Fox has decided to with hold their programming and since everything I read from them suggests that we should switch providers so that we can receive their programming, then I think it is only fair that Fox should pony up and pay all of our ETF's. After all, it is through Rupert Murdoch's greed that we are all in this position.

Now, that said. Please keep in mind that I am holding both parties accountable. I have sent an email to Fox stating that if they did not stop behaving as children and negotiate to get a deal done in the next several weeks, that I would never watch a program on any Fox channel ever again!

I also sent a similar email to the president@dishnetwork.com stating the same thing. I have no desire to be caught in the middle of a pi**ing contest between two billionaires.

C'mon Fox, PONY UP for those ETF's! Be a Man! After all, we all know Charlie won't! :rant:

Ed

 

[mdram]

fox did not decide to withhold thier programming
dish decided not to pay for it
it you dont pay your sub to dish they will cut you off too

if you dont want an eft in the future pay full price for everything, and dont take any promos
they have to recover thier money somehow

 

[kikenovic]

and they're gonna tell you, "one customer doesn't make a difference".

I don't know, maybe, perhaps, 10 or 12 million subs not switching providers, may, possibly make a difference.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

fox did not decide to withhold thier programming
dish decided not to pay for it
it you dont pay your sub to dish they will cut you off too

No thats not it. DISH wanted to keep the programming on while negoations continued and FOX said no and pulled their signals.

 

[radtech]

fox did not decide to withhold thier programming
dish decided not to pay for it
it you dont pay your sub to dish they will cut you off too

if you dont want an eft in the future pay full price for everything, and dont take any promos
they have to recover thier money somehow

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Fox did in fact decide to withhold their programming. Fox should have done what was in the best interests of their viewers and continued to provide the programming under the terms of the old contract while a new contract was being negotiated. They could have easily set a 30 or 90 day deadline. But no, they decided to play hard ball and pull their programming.

I am well aware of the terms of my contract because I read every word of the E* customer agreements before signing up. I have no qualms about paying the ETF and walking away! But, you can be sure if I do, that I will never watch another Fox program and I will never use E* as a pay tv provider in the future. I am thoroughly disgusted with both parties in the dispute.

Furthermore, I am doing what I can to pressure for a settlement. I have started contacting the major advertisers on my RSN and notified them that I will not purchase their products or do business with them in any way until Fox settles this ridiculous dispute! :rant:

Ed

 

[yaz96]

Well, since Fox has decided to with hold their programming and since everything I read from them suggests that we should switch providers so that we can receive their programming, then I think it is only fair that Fox should pony up and pay all of our ETF's. After all, it is through Rupert Murdoch's greed that we are all in this position.

Now, that said. Please keep in mind that I am holding both parties accountable. I have sent an email to Fox stating that if they did not stop behaving as children and negotiate to get a deal done in the next several weeks, that I would never watch a program on any Fox channel ever again!

I also sent a similar email to the president@dishnetwork.com stating the same thing. I have no desire to be caught in the middle of a pi**ing contest between two billionaires.

C'mon Fox, PONY UP for those ETF's! Be a Man! After all, we all know Charlie won't! :rant:

Ed

Good luck with that, Ed!

 

[dangue]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Fox did in fact decide to withhold their programming. Fox should have done what was in the best interests of their viewers and continued to provide the programming under the terms of the old contract while a new contract was being negotiated. They could have easily set a 30 or 90 day deadline. But no, they decided to play hard ball and pull their programming.

I am well aware of the terms of my contract because I read every word of the E* customer agreements before signing up. I have no qualms about paying the ETF and walking away! But, you can be sure if I do, that I will never watch another Fox program and I will never use E* as a pay tv provider in the future. I am thoroughly disgusted with both parties in the dispute.

Furthermore, I am doing what I can to pressure for a settlement. I have started contacting the major advertisers on my RSN and notified them that I will not purchase their products or do business with them in any way until Fox settles this ridiculous dispute! :rant:

Ed

If you're never going to watch Fox programming again if you have to pay an ETF and leave, then why leave? Gaining Fox back won't make a difference since you won't be watching those channels anymore.

 

[radtech]

If you're never going to watch Fox programming again if you have to pay an ETF and leave, then why leave? Gaining Fox back won't make a difference since you won't be watching those channels anymore.

Because I am holding E* just as responsible for this fiasco as I am Fox. If they cannot reach a settlement within the next few weeks, I refuse to support either company in the future.

BTW, my calls to the major advertisers on my RSN are paying dividends. I have received calls back from the corporate PR departments from two of these companies. Not only are they highly concerned about losing good customers, but one of them alluded to the fact that they have asked Fox for compensation, since they are not reaching their intended number of viewers.

Ed

 

[sca]

i thought the email was ceo@dishnetwork.com

 

[radtech]

The president@dishnetwork.com is the email address given in Charlie's add. I'm guessing it is set up just for comments on the Fox dispute. The ceo@dishnetwork.com is for all matters.

Ed

 

[Peter Parker]

I realize that people are upset but Fox has no obligation to pay your termination fee.

 

[cditty]

I guarantee you that if Fox pulls all of its OTA that the government will step into this one. The government does not like OTA to be pulled by either party.

 

[mdram]

why? people can still get it free with an antenna, they way the fcc originally authorized it

remember cable was originally developed to bring tv to people that were out of range of broadcast towers
it then grew into the monster it is today

 

[kvnfl]

News Corp is at war with providers. It looks like they are trying to find reasons to kill networks. The article below has real world numbers on the increased cost of carriage. All the increases are in excess of 400%!

Fox-Cablevision Battle Factored Into Stocks: Analyst - 2010-10-13 19:09:59 | Multichannel News

 

[dishburgh]

why? people can still get it free with an antenna, they way the fcc originally authorized it

Wouldn't this be the opposite of what the FCC intended with "must-carry" ?

 

[LER]

Wouldn't this be the opposite of what the FCC intended with "must-carry" ?

The stations have an option:
1) Must Carry (they get carried, but get no $$)
2) Retransmission Consent (They negotiate a fee from the providers)

These Fox O&O's (and others in the group) are opting for #2, and the fees they are asking for are (in Dish's opinion) excessive.

 

[mdram]

must carry?
my localsare not carried by anything but cable
D* is uplinking in nov, but they will not negotiate with dish, they are asking for more then dish will pay. sound familiar?

 

[dishburgh]

Wouldn't this be the opposite of what the FCC intended with "must-carry" ?

The stations have an option:
1) Must Carry (they get carried, but get no $$)
2) Retransmission Consent (They negotiate a fee from the providers)

These Fox O&O's (and others in the group) are opting for #2, and the fees they are asking for are (in Dish's opinion) excessive.

I was referring more to the original assertion:

...free with an antenna, they way the fcc originally authorized it

and how -- by today's standards -- this idea seems archaic and contrary compared to the more recent passage of (cable and DBS) must-carry. I really don't think today's FCC is really expecting or prefers everyone to simply put up an OTA.