Echostar/Dish Network Pulls Viacom Channels 702
RedWolves2 writes "As was mentioned yesterday, Viacom was trying to warn Dish Network customers over the weekend that its channels were going to be pulled from their service. Well today those channels were finally pulled. 'EchoStar Communications Corp. on Tuesday pulled from service 16 of Viacom's local CBS stations and 10 of its national channels after the companies failed to agree on contract terms and prices.' Echostar will provide a $1 monthly credit to customers who lose programming while the channels are unavailable. Sorry but $1 a month is not exactly a fair trade off. DirecTV sounds like a great choice."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure glad I don't work for Echostar's PR department.
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Informative)
Dav2.718
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good enough (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is, of course, completely different from News Corp. owning DirecTV.
This happened in Columbus a few years back (Score:5, Interesting)
About two weeks before the station was to be pulled from the lineup, Time Warner sent rabbit ears to every customer and included instructions (both written and on their special channel running every half hour). If a customer wasn't sure how to set things up, a tech would even come out before the deadline so that CBS would still work seemlessly. Time Warner took the game to a level the CBS affiliate wasn't ready for.
The end result: Time Warner agreed to carry ONN on digital cable, and the CBS station stayed on regular analog cable. I'm not sure, but I don't believe there was even a rate increase given to the CBS station.
I wouldn't be surprised if these tactics by Viacom end up with the exact same result. Dish may lose a few customers in this, but that's nothing compared to the marketshare Viacom loses if people don't just randomly stumble onto their channel and watch for a half hour. If your station isn't even offered, people just can't watch it, and advertisers just don't want to pay lots of money for that. The price of poker is high here, but I'm pretty sure Viacom's in the position with the most to lose (and the potential gains are only modest).
Re:This happened in Columbus a few years back (Score:3, Interesting)
If Viacom really does decide they're making a mistake, they won't have to twist EchoStar's arm to sign a contract under the previous terms. At that point, Viacom won't have lost much, but E
Re:This happened in Columbus a few years back (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Echostar/DishNetwork hold about 8-9% of 'cable' television subscribers in the US. 8% spread across 5 or 6 networks seems like an awful lot to lose compared to Dish losing a few customers who can't live without South Park reruns.
Re:This happened in Columbus a few years back (Score:5, Funny)
They recently did an add in which Sponge Bob Square Pants told kids that they would never see him again if they didn't get their parrents to drop Dish Network.
That's just hard core.
New Lyrics (Score:5, Funny)
Couch Po-ta-to
Craving for nothing but his MTV
Couch Po-ta-to
If Comedy Central is all that you wish
Couch Po-ta-to
Call up Viacom and demand it on DISH.
Re:Not good enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on how one does the math. If you have lots of channels, and the ones that disappeared are less than 1/30th of the total channels, then to a bean counter it's not so unreasonable.
I agree that it sucks, but if they were to deduct like $5, then you'd expect that 1/6th of the channels were gone, or something like that.
Re:Not good enough (Score:3)
I can't see Viacom holding out on this. If they do, it will set a bad precedent for extorting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Re:Not good enough (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not good enough (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't need more more channels. I only watch a few as it is (HBO, CBS, and SpikeTV). I don't want my rate to go up just because Viacom somehow feels entitled to artificially create more
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Charlie can't unbundle because the content providers won't unbundle.. that's the entire reason for this contract fight...
Geeeze
Re:Suspend service (Score:5, Insightful)
They would, except Dish's contract came up before DirecTVs. If DirecTV doesn't have these problems when their contract comes up, it'll probably be because the standard terms have already been worked out by Dish Network, in the same way that the UAW works out the year's contract with one automaker and then says "OK, this is the deal" to the others.
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Funny)
How about charging people that WANT BET & MTV? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, okay, no South Park is gonna hurt, but that's what the net is for.
I have to give Charlie credit for standing up to viacom.
Re:How about charging people that WANT BET & M (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about charging people that WANT BET & M (Score:4, Informative)
The distributors are not being given a line item veto. They must accept the entire package, or get none of it. Right now, Echostar's calling that bluff and buying none of it.
It's a standoff all right... the only questions are how long this will go on before somebody blinks, and which side will it be?
A great deal (Score:4, Funny)
Viacom is disrupting my TV (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole situation does not affect me, why bother me?
Re:Viacom is disrupting my TV (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud Dish Network for taking a stand on Viacom's monopolistic and unfair rate hikes.
Re:Viacom is disrupting my TV (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Viacom is disrupting my TV (Score:3, Funny)
I'm mad enough, that I'm going to stop watching Viacom. Oh, wait. That's no good. It's really the products I should boycott, but I don't see any commercials (ReplayTV). Ok! I'm going to start watching commercials Viacom, so I cannot buy the products they advertise! Wait, that doesn't sound like much fun.
Re:Viacom is disrupting my TV (Score:4, Interesting)
Before discrediting the value of a complaint, consider that the whole "indecency crackdown" insanity came about because the FCC received a whole bunch of complaints about Janet's melon. If enough people register their displeasure at Viacom's irritating crawls showing up on unaffected cable networks, maybe the FCC will do something about it.
While you're there (Score:4, Insightful)
Might as well complain about the root problem instead of the symptoms.
It got local coverage (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it was an NBC station who reported of the CBS station being yanked. The CBS station however was owned by CBS.
Sure... support Viacom (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if you want to support Viacom's unfair business practices. If they didn't force bundles on the networks, none of this would be going down. Viacom's 'bundling' is certainly no more ethical than Microsoft's 'bundling' that we all hear so much about...
Re:Sure... support Viacom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure... support Viacom (Score:5, Informative)
What is actually hapening here is that Viacom is saying to Dish Network something like "We're not going to let you have the CBS stations and MTV and VH1 and the others you WANT unless you take the other 10 stations we offer which noone wants".
I bet Dish would love to be able to offer packages where you can pick and choose, but they are (in some cases) prevented from doing this by the Viacom's of the world.
Re:Sure... support Viacom (Score:5, Informative)
I have a little brother and sister (3 and 7 yrs old) and for whatever reason, the can't get enough of the stuff on there...
And I can't imagine what Survivor fans are going to do... (another thing I'm not a fan of). But some people just want to see watch that programming, no matter who owns it or usually, what they're doing for business practices. DirecTV sounds like a great choice now for some people because it's still offering those stations...
Re:Sure... support Viacom (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, I like that Dish isn't bowing to the corporate pressure. That's good.
The problem is that they aren't giving me the serivice that I am paying for (if I was a Dish customer, that is).
But, I have DirecTV and I don't think I'm supporting Viacom's business practices. I have the top package (plus one or two premium channels) so I am PAYING EXTRA to get lots of channels. This is a fight for the base subscriber. Not me. Viacom is being stupid, but whether they're right or wrong my service would stay the same if this was happening to DirecTV (as Dish should do for people with the higher packages, IMHO).
As for the Microsoft argument, I don't think that fits. The problem with Microsoft is that their software (like IE) is the default and it's already there while competitors have to have their software downloaded... and installed... and blah blah blah. If I want MTV and get Nickelodean bundled, that doesn't prevent me from watching Cartoon Network in any way. Both Nick and 'Toon are there, just as easy to tune to (just a different number). The barries for entry are the same (unlike IE versus Mozilla or Opera). Viacomm is being cheap, but it's not like MS doing it.
Now if Viacom demanded that to carry their channels you COULDN'T carry compeditors (like Disney owned channels) that would be different.
Of course, the consumer shouldn't know about ANY OF THIS. The FCC/FTC should have stepped in by now and put Viacom in their place. Isn't trying to drive someone's customers away unless they pay you more money demanding "protection money" and therefor racketeering? This must at LEAST be against "must carry" and fair trade.
The idealist in me hopes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the realist in me knows that my cable bill will go up a few dollars regardless. (Yes, I have cable, but I'm sure Comcast will find a way to increase my bill too.)
Re:The idealist in me hopes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The idealist in me hopes... (Score:4, Informative)
See, just because you pay, say, $35 per month for 70 channels does NOT mean each channel costs $.50. The company receives cable channels over a satelite feed and there's not really too much rhyme or reason as to which channels come down on which satelite. So really, to get ANY channels at all, they'd have to charge you a base cost for each satelite your channels were carried on. After that base cost, the cost for them to provide you with an additional channel is close to nil...basically, the cost of multiplexing hardware, the way content licenses are currently issued.
But the additional overhead of maintaining a custom channel delivery database, customer service training and so forth is not worth it. It's just easier to give you the whole block of programming and you can watch what you want. It actually costs them LESS to do it this way, which means it costs YOU less to do it this way.
In short: you're asking them to do a lot more work. That means it'll be more money. Ala Carte doesn't make sense for the business, so it won't happen...at least not until all programming is available on demand (something satelite will never be able to offer). On Demand makes sense for the business, because it sells digital boxes, which in turn sells PPV, etc...
poor guys.... (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with $1 off a month? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? When you're paying $6.50 a month, lose some channels, and then pay $5.50 a month what more would you expect? Free home delivered meals for a week out of every month? Sacrifice of the director's first born?
Put things into perspective!
Re:What's wrong with $1 off a month? (Score:5, Informative)
Comedy Central (Score:4, Interesting)
You think the Cable Company would be falling over themselves to get me back, but they're making me wait 5 days to get Cable!!!
Re:Comedy Central (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comedy Central (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comedy Central (Score:3, Informative)
See, in the early 90's, at about the same time, Viacom's MTV Networks created a channel called Ha! and Time Warner's HBO Networks created a channel called The Comedy Channel. The stations were more or less redundant to each other, and neither could get any traction at getting onto cable systems since digital cable hadn't come out yet and space was tight. The system owners were mostly waiting
Re:Comedy Central (Score:5, Insightful)
Actions like this are the reason that Content providers should NOT be in the business of owning the delivery mehcanism as well. Customers like you are the reason that this happens.
SCREW VIACOMM (Score:5, Interesting)
of all the viacom channels they offer, the one i want is comedy central. that's it. but i still have to get mtv, nickelodian (sp?), and all their other crap. I DON'T WANT IT.
but i have to get it whether i want it or not, because that's the only way viacomm will sell it.
remind anyone of a certain software companies business practices? you want Windows? you're getting IE and WMP bundled together.
good for dish network sticking standing up to them. hell, i'll probably sign up tomorrow in support of the stance they're taking.
Yet more SCO popping up in this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't
DirecTV (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a DirecTV subscriber, but I've really got to admire Dish' handling of this. Granted, $1/mo. doesn't seem sufficient.
One gripe I have with DirecTV isn't really DirecTV's fault, as evidenced by this thing with EchoStar: why do I have to sit down every couple of months to erase all of the CRAP from "Channels I Receive" list (freestanding TiVo), and pay $50/mo. for the 10 channels I regularly watch?
Packaging isn't just DirecTV/Dish' fault, but the fault of the conglomerates' anti-competitive muscle flexing. You know, if I had to pay $2.00 per month for that channels I do watch (plus $10 for HBO), I'd still be at $50/mo., but I'd be much, much happier about it because I'd know (or at least feel) that I was in control of it.
They can keep their overpriced content (Score:5, Interesting)
So I'm of a mind to send a message to Viacom: keep your content, I won't miss it. THPHHHHHHHHT! (with apologies to Bill the Cat). I'm much more interested in channels like SciFi, BBC America, IFC, and those wacky independent channels like Worldlink TV.
Re:They can keep their overpriced content (Score:5, Funny)
Sucks to be a Dish subscriber (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do I say this? Because I'm sick and tired of the scrolling on my screen whining about this, it doesn't affect me, I don't care. If MY cable company yanks these channels you can bet I WILL scream bloody murder, having a 3 year old, many of these channels are viewed quite a lot around here.
If I WERE a Dish subscriber I'd be plenty pissed right now though, and probably no longer a subscriber.
However this on-air squabbilng was somewhat entertaining, overall I really couldn't care less and would prefer not to see the scrolling on my screen.
Damn! No music on MTV! (Score:5, Funny)
I have DishNetwork (Score:4, Insightful)
He makes a couple of good points. According to him, their situation is like 'a consumer who goes to the gas station that is selling gas at $1.50 a gallon but ask you to pay $2.00 a gallon and after you buy gas, they ask you to buy carwash and wiper fluids'. Also, if CBS is really intetersted in getting consumer confidence, then they would've allowed Dish Network to air the channel to its 1.6 million subscribers.
[Rant mode]
Am I annoyed as a consumer? Hell yes. If I pay for the service, it's operation should be fairly transparent. I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK about companies bitching with each other. If you are running such a big corp, then its your responsibility to forsee and handle problems. I am not taking anybody's side when I say this but this is getting out of control. Companies there are more interested in making the buck without caring about consumer sentiment/service.
[/Rant mode]
Re:I have DishNetwork (Score:5, Interesting)
And how would you have anticipated & resolved this problem if you were the president of Dish? Raised everyone's rates? Viacom is being a bully & trying to blackmail Dish into paying an unfair price and force them to carry channels that they don't want to. I don't know how long the negotiations have been going on, but Viacom really doesn't have much to lose here, so I doubt that they've made much in the way of concessions. Why should they. I think that Dish really deserves applause for there decision to stand up to to the bullies under the circumstances.
Sigh... typical submission bias. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'm majorly impressed that dish is not bowing to Viacom's demands, as most cable companies AND direct tv have always in the past. I also don't know how anyone could make a case on
Secondly, to everyone but the highest teer (who already recieve every channel), they've added multiple channels until this battle is over. The added networks include FUSE (formerly Much Music) and several additional Disney Networks (to replace Nick.)
I think Dish has handled this issue the best they could, and I think they're closing stock price (Up) reflects what people think of them vs Viacom (who incidentally closed down on the stocks.)
Re:Another explanation for stock price UP (Score:3, Insightful)
They're clearly saving more than $1 per customer by not paying Viacom. If they quit paying Viacom now and pissed off customers can't cancel until the next month, they're still going to make a lot of extra dough this month. Even if pissed off customers could cancel immediatly, many won't.
I see a "1.., 2.., and 3. Sell Stock
What's wrong with this picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Something isn't right here.
Microsoft bundles a bunch of crap, makes you take everything, and charges out the ass, and everyone gets all up in arms about it.
Viacom does the same damned thing, and you start bitching about changing to DirecTV...a company that already caved in to Viacom's unreasonable demands.
And I hate to break it to everyone, but while $1 doesn't sound like a whole lot, that probably is about right for what carrying Viacom adds to the package price for each customer.
Let Charlie know! (Score:4, Informative)
I personally will be sending an email expressing my feelings that even though I am dissappointed to lose Comedy Central for an undetermined amount of time, I stand by Dish Network in their stance against Viacom.
channel bundling / Hollywood studio parallel (Score:3, Insightful)
There is an important parallel with what is happening here and what happened to the Hollywood studio system in the 30s and 40s. Hollywood studios owned most of the theaters at that time outright but there were some independents that were trying to stay in the game. The studios would work with these indeprendents, but in order to get a good A movie they would force the theaters to take 4 or 5 crappy B movies as well. This was found to be an illegal practice in the vertical integration lawsuits that concluded after WWII.
This is almost the exact same situation... but now it's actually legal. It was made legal by Ronald Reagan who explicitly made vertical integration legal again (as part of his deregulation program) early in his presidentcy.
It's an anti-cometitive practice and it hasn't always been allowed. There is a good reason bundling was made illegal in the trustbuster days and it should be illegal again... and the practices of both the cable companies and providers like viacom are a great example. Not all regulation are "undue hinderances."
DirecTV a great choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it now? [slashdot.org]
Figures..... (Score:4, Informative)
To the Directors;
I want to convey my sincere regret over the fact that Viacom has decided that punishing the customers of EchoStar in their dispute with the satellite provider is 'good business'. The only solution Viacom has offered to the EchoStar customer base in response to this debacle is "Current EchoStar/DISH Network subscribers who would like to continue receiving BET, CBS, Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, VH1, and all our other channels can easily switch to one of these reputable operators. We urge them to do so." This offhand dismissal of the reality of our collective situation indicates to me that Viacom is completely out of touch with the audience it serves. Many of EchoStar's customers have significant investment in equipment and annual contracts and cannot afford to quickly switch providers as your press release suggests.
By punishing your *indirect* customers, the audience of your shows, you are also punishing your other customers, your advertisers. By refusing to negotiate in good faith with EchoStar, and by denying temporary access to your content during negotiations, your advertisers are losing PAID access to millions of customers of the products and services advertised on your content stream. If you have no regard for the audience of your shows, perhaps you should take the pulse of your advertisers to see how they feel about the current conflict.
I, for one, have taken the time to notify all of the advertisers who have paid *you* for access to *me* through your content stream. I have indicated that the reason I am not making a purchasing decision regarding their products and services is due to *your* intransigence. They are losing thousands of dollars in disposable income a year due to *your* inability to negotiate with EchoStar.
I blame you, not EchoStar, for this impasse. I have notified your advertisers that I will boycott all of their products and services until this issue is resolved. I will also watch carefully all future Viacom acquistions and voice my opinion regarding each proposal to the appropriate regulatory authority (i.e., FCC, SEC, USDOJ). This situation has certainly cast any future consolidation of the entertainment industry in a poor light.
Holding Public Airwaves Hostage (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Viacom's cable channels? The only one that has any redeeming qualities is Noggin. The fact that Viacom wants to FORCE everyone who wants to watch any of their channels to subscribe to ALL of their channels is just wrong.
Even worse, they're using their powers as a media juggernaut to deceive the public. You know that story they keep telling about how Dish Network just raised its rates by $3 per month for no reason and yet refuse to pay an extra 6 cents per month for Viacom's programming? It's an outright lie.
First, not all Dish Network subscribers had their rates raised AT ALL... and many of those who did see a rate increase saw a much lower increase than $3.
Second, the programming fee increase that Viacom is asking for is substantially more than 6 cents over the course of the contract. 6 cents per month is just the first year. Think "Columbia House"... those first few CDs may only cost you one cent, but then you're stuck buying a few dozen more at $20 a piece.
Third, they are also trying to force Dish Network to carry additional channel(s) that they don't want to carry. This also adds additional costs as they need to add equipment and manpower to support the additional feeds as well as using up additional bandwidth on their satellites.
Finally, Viacom is trying to claim that since they've successfully negotiated contracts with all of the cable providers and DirecTV that this is Dish Network's fault. What they neglect to mention is that the terms of their contracts with the cable companies and DirecTV are SIGNIFICANTLY more favorable than what they're offering Dish Network... especially the cable companies. That's due in part to Federal laws that set forth specific rules for how much local broadcasters can charge cable companies for rebroadcasting their signals. These regulations don't apply to satellite providers and so the local broadcasters take the satellite companies to the cleaners.
Viacom is urging people to call and cancel their Dish Network service. Dish Network is urging customers to call and complain to Viacom (and their advertisers... good idea) but what EVERYONE needs to do... whether you're a Dish Network subscriber or not is call your lawmakers and get them to start paying attention to the damage caused by companies like Viacom who are allowed to control such a significant chunk of the media without any effective controls placed on them.
Re:Holding Public Airwaves Hostage (Score:3, Interesting)
The last thing we need is more government involvement in media companies. Look at what has happened to broadcast radio.
Let the companies flesh it out themselves. Dish Network does not have to carry Viacom and they chose not to. If you don't like it, go to another provider. Viacom has a product they want to sell in the form of bundled programming - I see nothing wrong with that. If y
Pot, Kettle, Black (Score:4, Insightful)
With that in mind, Echostar has done away with a lot of these issues. They've dropped long term contracts and hardware lease fees, they've developed respectably advanced hardware that minimizes the number of receivers you need in order to watch TV in multiple rooms, and they've added service options for people who seriously think they need professionals to climb up on their roof and nudge their dish every few weeks. In short, they've invested hundreds of millions trying to create a quality proposition to compete with cable. Bearing that in mind, I have no problem believing that a 7 cents per consumer increase in programming price would result in a measurable, if not significant, decrease in Echostar's operating profit.
Of course, as long as we're forced to pay for programs we don't watch in spite of the fact that we all have technology in our home that would empower us to only watch the channels we're interested in and pay the content providers who produce something worthwhile, we'll all have to put up with this crap in one form or another. Whether it's having to miss your Star Trek reruns because the company that ones the network that broadcasts the reruns that you want to see wants the company that allows you to receive those transmissions to force you to receive a cartoon channel that aforementioned company also happens to own and to pay seven cents for the privilige or something a simple as having television that's worthwhile being pulled off the air because ratings measure average viewing habits of incredibly average people with a below average degree of reliability, and executives multiply that by how much money they think they can suck out of these poor average people and equate the resulting dollar value to the word 'good' doesn't really matter. The only people actually being screwed are us, the consumers. If we're not being screwed, they're not doing their job. This whole discussion comes down to nothing more than 'who has the right to screw us more?'
What really needs to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to see a carte blanche system but it will never in our lifetime. Still, something where there are like 20 5-channel groups for me to pick out my channels would be awesome. They could charge me 3$-5$ per group and we'd all be happy.
Get your facts straight... (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what? Echostar doesn't own you anything. You should be glad they are giving you that discount, and you'd know it if you actually read the agreement they provide service under. Here's the related section of the agreement:
"G. Changes in Services offered. DISH Network reserves the right to change the Services that we offer, and our prices or fees related to such Services at any time. If the change affects you, we will provide you notice of the change and its effective date. The notice may be provided on your billing statement or by other communication permitted under Section 9B. In the event of a change in the contents of any programming, programming packages or other Services, you understand and agree that we have no obligation to replace or supplement the programming, programming packages or other Services previously offered that have been deleted, rearranged or otherwise changed. You further understand and agree you will not be entitled to any refund because of a change in the contents of any programming, programming packages, or other Services previously offered."
From http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/aboutus/RCA/in
DirecTV sounds like a great choice.
Make sure you learn to read their agreement when you sign up. Don't cry about about it after the fact.
Re:Get your facts straight... (Score:4, Funny)
I believe that would be called Bait and Switch.
Re:Get your facts straight... (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that would be called Bait and Switch.
Except that they'ev updated their programming lineup to omit the Viacom disputed channels. No deception there.
Viacom Response (Score:5, Informative)
Viacom Press Briefing on EchoStar Pulling our Networks
March 9, 2004
Remarks by Mark Rosenthal, President and COO, MTV Networks:
For the past few months, as this situation with EchoStar has unfolded, we've been trying to take the high road, speaking just to the larger issues and trying to ignore the gross distortions and inaccuracies that Charlie Ergen and EchoStar have been flinging around. There comes a point, however, where you have to respond, if only to set the record straight. And that's why we're here today - and we appreciate your taking the time to join us.
As we said in our statement last night, we are disturbed and disappointed by EchoStar's decision to pull the plug on our channels. This is channel yanking by a distributor on an unprecedented scale. This is not something we wanted to happen or would ever want to happen. We are broadcasters and programmers, and the most important relationship we have is with our viewers. The idea that something or someone would disrupt that relationship -- particularly in an effort to extort a better deal for themselves -- is, to us, really reprehensible. And, additionally, as consumer oriented people, it really bothers us to see a company treat its customers with such disregard.
EchoStar has been trying to paint itself as the victim in this situation. To hear them tell it, they were forced to pull the plug on our networks to protect their subscribers from the "exorbitant" rate increases and unfair carriage requirements we were trying to "foist" on them.
In a word, that's ludicrous.
Here are the facts:
First of all, EchoStar is hardly some small mom-and-pop operation that is being pushed around. It has more than 9 million subscribers -- 10% of all multichannel homes and 43% of all satellite households. It is the fourth largest distributor in the U.S. and as a result it has enormous negotiating power.
Faced with the clout that comes with having that massive distribution, we've been doing everything humanly possible we can -- for months now -- to finalize a deal with them. As I said before, the last thing we ever want to do is wind up in a situation where our viewers can't get the channels and shows they love. So in our negotiations with EchoStar, we were extremely flexible and offered substantial compromises.
Now I hope you will keep in mind that every cable and satellite operator negotiates these sorts of agreements, and we have been able to establish and maintain solid business partnerships with virtually all of them. The sole exception is EchoStar/DISH Network.
Along these lines, I would also point out that over the years there have been thousands of successful marketplace negotiations between broadcasters and cable and satellite distributors involving the packaging of retransmission consent rights with cable carriage. In all those cases, only one company ever had a problem with it. That's right -- it was EchoStar, which complained to the FCC about the same "packaging" practices it challenged in its recent lawsuit against Viacom.
As it happens, the FCC decisively rejected EchoStar's complaint, pointing out that Congress established a detailed regulatory scheme that permits broadcasters to negotiate retransmission consent and cable carriage together. For the same reason, the Federal district court judge who is hearing EchoStar's case against Viacom recently denied EchoStar's motion for a preliminary injunction and gave us permission to deauthorize (which we did not do) EchoStar's carriage of CBS if we were unable to work things out.
It's also worth noting that EchoStar has a history of bringing frivolous lawsuits and has been sanctioned or admonished by federal judges several times, including in a litigation with CBS when they were found by a Federal judge to have engaged in "clearly willful" copyright violations. Just this week, a federal judge sanctioned EchoStar in yet another an antitrust case they brought.
Anyway, we could not have worked harder to
Re:Viacom Response (Score:5, Insightful)
At least until DirecTV's contract negotiation comes up...
Viacom is the scum of the earth (Score:5, Interesting)
Frankly, Viacom are the scum of the earth. I used to respect the Daily Show as one of the last bastions of fair and balanced (TM) news reporting available. Jon Stewart and the other correspondents seem to be the only (fake) news reporters that actually tell things the way they are, but for some strange reason they are totally silent about this news story, which is one of the biggest news stories on CNN and all other major news networks. I'm sure Viacom has given them a hush order or some other such mandate, but it really stinks of media bias.
I've lost a lot of respect for the Daily Show today, which used to be one of my favorite programs, and I'm seriously considering starting an email campaign against Viacom.
For those of you wanting to give Viacom a piece of your mind, here is the contact information for the CEO:
Mel Karmazin
M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm - (212) 975-6500
or better yet, call him at home on the weekend at:
(212) 956-1007
Cheers, and down with massive media conglomerates.
Re:Viacom is the scum of the earth (Score:5, Informative)
Dead channels (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely they would be better served by killing the underperformers, thus reducing their TCO for the "corporation" as a whole and making more profit on the channels that they did send...
Seems to me that they should concentrate on making their offerings have more appeal if they want them to be generally available through cable and satellite. If the channels do not appeal to a large segment of the public then make them subscription channels, separate in their own right, and give the cable or satellite operator a share of the proceeds. That's a win-win-win. Consumers don't have to have the "martha stewart" channel, the cable/satellite co does not have to pay for it, and the provider gets pay per view dollars.
Oh, but what if those dollars are not forthcoming? Well then, provider, you have learned that your offering is not wanted. Shut it down immediately. First law of the free market.
Dealing with Echostar (Score:4, Informative)
Supervisors have a fair bit of authority. If you make it clear that there is some program on one of those channels that you NEED to watch if you are going to keep their service, they will be more than willing to write more money off of your account.
1 month of everything for free is not out of the question if you play it right and you get the right supervisor at the right time. Hold out, never accept their first offer and you'll go far.
LK
Viacom is trying to extort money... (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the reason these bills are skyrocketing is that companies like Viacom are burdened with huge debt.
They can't raise their advertising rates because they don't have the Nelson ratings... get this: Viacom brings us MTV and the likes of Howard Stern. There have been huge public outcries against such programming aired on MTV, Howard Stern and Viacom's other channels/shows. The media response has always been: "If you don't like what you see, change the channel." So that's exactly what people have done. They can't raise advertising rates without the ratings, so they're losing advertisers. Their debt is getting out of control, so they turn to the distributors.
Viacom has told its distributors, specifically Dish Network, that it is raising its rates by six cents per-channel, per-subscriber, per-month. If I were a subscriber to Dish Network, this would mean my monthly bill would need to go up nearly a buck. This is completely outrageous in an industry where 1/4 of a cent in increases is big.
Needless to say, this equates to millions of dollars per-year in added revenue without having to change a single business practice. [Read: easy money]
I say that if Viacom wants more money, they should start underwriting movies and television that people want to watch, just like everyone else.
I applaud Dish Network for putting their foot down.
I say: SUPPORT DISH NETWORK, BOYCOTT VIACOM!
Was Viacom planning this? (Score:5, Informative)
Was Viacom planning ahead of time on Dish not giving in to their demands, so they could try to "teach them a lesson" by pulling the channels? What's with all the anti-Dish stuff aired by Viacom on their stations? Viacom keeps pointing the finger at Dish, basically stating that the channels were "removed."
Maybe Viacom was setting out to cause harm to Echostar, who has a history of refusing to bend over and take it when it comes to price increase demands. Or maybe I'm being a little on the conspiracy theory side of things. But I wouldn't put such a thing past them. Everything they're doing (the banners, the anti-Dish stuff, etc.) only keeps pointing the finger at them and away from Echostar.
In case it wants to change, here's the whois for the domain:
Registrant:
MTVN Online Partner 1 LLC (SMQELJVTUD)
1515 Broadway
8th Floor
Attn Pier Borra
New York, NY 10036-5794
US
Domain Name: ILOSTMYFAVORITECHANNELS.COM
Administrative Contact:
MTVi-Admin Contact (35876815O) mtvi-admin@mtvigroup.com
MTVi-Admin Contact
MTVi Group
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-5794
US
+1 212 846-3367 fax: +1 212-654-9068
Technical Contact:
Amirian, Brian (36553847P) amirianb@mtvi.com
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
US
212 846 3223
Record expires on 16-Jan-2006.
Record created on 16-Jan-2004.
Database last updated on 10-Mar-2004 02:46:42 EST.
I applaud DishNetwork (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't be switching to DirecTV.
Will Kenny die? (Score:4, Funny)
You're all looking at it all wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Try channel 347 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are people suggesting to simply go to DirectTV when this is not the issue at hand. Isin't that extremely short sighted.
If it works against Dish, you don't think DirecTV would be next?
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Informative)
Sort of. Dish has cheaper low-end packages (e.g. Dish has a $29.99 package with 60 channels and locals) but after you get to the mid-range packages DirecTV gets more competitive (about $2 more expensive usually).
Dish originally had the capacity to deliver more channels, but thanks to the launch of the 4S and 7S satellites DirecTV now has the lead. This may change with the launch of Dish's next satellite.
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Informative)
Dish has always had the upper hand on capacity. Here's the list of DirecTV satellites (via lyngsat [lyngsat.com]):
101 - DirecTV 1R/2/4S
110 - DirecTV 6
119 - DirecTV 5
I don't know where DirecTV 7S is, it isn't listed.
And DishNetwork run satellites:
61.5 - EchoStar 3
105 - AMC 2
110 - EchoStar 6/8
119 - EchoStar 7
121 - EchoStar 9
148 - EchoStar 1/2
151 - EchoStar 4
That's a *LOT* of broadcast power. And with the Turbocoding (soon to be 8PSK) used on 105/121, that's twice the bang for the buck. Not to mention the option of 7/8 FEC [satsig.net] over straight 5/6 QPSK FEC (all that DirecTV supports), they have much more to play with. They can squeeze a bit out of the failing transponders by setting the FEC to 1/2.
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:4, Informative)
As for DirecTV's vs. Dish, all I know are these few things:
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Their DVR is nothing great. DirecTIVO beats it hands down. They do have a dual tuner unit but it's expensive. A lot of my friends have DirecTIVO but I don't really care that much about it. I don't have time to watch that much TV.
Their customer service was always top notch when I called it. Didn't need to very often though. We've been using them for a lot of years and I've only called them about 5 times, mostly to add channels.
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Interesting)
Dish came out with a DVR before directTV did. I got mine free, it has one tuner. There is a new model with two tuners.
The downside to DirectTV is that it will soon be owned by Rupert the liar Murdoch. So unless you want a programming lineup that is as 'fair and balanced' as faux news it is best avoided.
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Funny)
Why would anybody on Slashdot be concerned about that?
Oh, wait...
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Funny)
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody has to capture and encode all of those DivX movies we download.
LK
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:3, Interesting)
BBH
PS, your GUI rocks.
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is an extortionist a "great choice"? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember Smartcard Reader/Writers?
DirectTV is the company that's been extorting thousands of dollars from everybody who ever bought one - regardless of whether they ever used them, or intended to use them, to rip off DirecTV's signals.
When did we stop boycotting people who use extortionist threats to block techies from getting access to technological devices?
Are we all going to start doing business with SCO while we're at it?
Re:Since when is an extortionist a "great choice"? (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you.
It seems that here, only computer stuff has ties with freedom....
To all the /.ers, for your informations, here is the EFF summary of the problem.
Satellite TV giant DirecTV has sent ominous letters to an estimated 100,000 individuals, accusing them of purchasing "pirate access devices" and threatening to haul them into court for stealing television channels. The letters tell the unlucky recipients that the prospect of an expensive legal battle will go away if they pay up, usually to the tune of $3,500. Yet, in too many cases, the targets of the letters never intercepted DTV's signal; they're only guilty of owning smart card technology. This dragnet is catching innocent security professionals, hobbyists, and entrepreneurs. Without proof of a violation of law, DTV's unsubstantiated threats to sue are an abuse of the legal system. As if that's not bad enough, DirecTV has filed over 20,000 lawsuits against purchasers of smartcard technology, employing an army of lawyers to squeeze even more costly settlements out of individuals nationwide. Ask your Members of Congress to initiate an investigation into DirecTV's misuse of the law and blatant disregard for the public's right to use technology.
Regards,
jdif
Re:DIRECTV was already a great choice (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fundamental purpose of a DVR is to record and playback programs, and the rest is all gravy. The vast majority of people will find that DIRECTV's DVR is far and away the best because they don't need or don't care about those other features.
I agree that it would be great if DIRECTiVo's could do all that Series 1/Series 2 standalones can do, and if all of our platforms were more open to video extraction. But the core competency of TiVo standalones and especially DIRECTV's TiVo-based DVR is vastly superior to all others, and when it comes down to it, that is what matters the most to most people.
I feel the need to reiterate that although I work for TiVo, my opinions are entirely my own.
Re:Which is better? Dish or DirecTV (Score:5, Informative)
Second Disclaimer: I really don't have any loyalty to the company.
The channels you'll be missing are basicly Nick, Commedy Central, BET, VH1, MTV(1 & 2), Nick GAS, and a few others of little consequence.
DirecTV and Dish are functionaly interchangable as far as service, channels (at least normaly), and price are concerned (Dish is only significanly cheeper at its lowest tier).
Equipment wise it's a tough call. Personaly, I prefer Dish's DVR522. The reason is that it is a PVR/DVR unit available through the Digital Home Advantage plan with dual tuner capability. Dual Tuner DVRs are hard to find in the satelite industry. A recent software upgrade allows you to actualy set up a recording on the TV2 location from the TV1 location, thereby effectively making this a poor mans substitute for the 721 recevier.
If you don't qualify for DHA though, it's more or less a draw. Your choice, but I'd look into the equipment etc that you're installing to make that call.
Re:Which is better? Dish or DirecTV (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Forget DirecTV and Dish Network... (Score:3, Informative)
The 30-some channels they also offer are just the regular old channels you get with any other satellite service.
The box costs 900 dollars to buy.
Plus, as of april, they're losing about 6 of their sports channels due to licensing agreements.
Sti