Dish loses Fox News.

It's interesting that it just appears to be Fox News and Fox Business. Usually, these negotations would be for all channels owned by a company...in this case, that would also include the regional Fox Sports channels as well as broadcast Fox and whatever else Fox owns.

---

@baseballisback wrote:

It's interesting that it just appears to be Fox News and Fox Business. Usually, these negotations would be for all channels owned by a company...in this case, that would also include the regional Fox Sports channels as well as broadcast Fox and whatever else Fox owns.

---

That seems to be why there is a balckout. Fox wants to bundle the contract togther and Charlie is playing hardball again.

I guarentee they get it back in less time than U-Verse gets back NHL Channel and Hallmark Channels... oh yeah, U-Verse is now going on 3 + years without them. Everyone has their likes and dislikes and believe me I would love to not have Fox news but I dont think U-Verse subscribers have any room to throw rocks while living in a glass house.

---

@jhy1978 wrote:

I guarentee they get it back in less time than U-Verse gets back NHL Channel and Hallmark Channels...

---

True, but Fox News, and especially the combination of channels that Fox provides, is more popular than either Hallmark or the NHL channels.

This is why the tax code needs to be gutted (and no more writeoffs for anyone). And the relevance to the Dish vs Fox topic? With no writeoffs, corporations can't lazily pour money into advertising and then expect reimbursement from the government. Then there would be less emphasis on advertising (and more focus on actual product quality). Then maybe the arrogant networks wouldn't be able to demand exorbitant ad fees, and then the megamedia conglomerates wouldn't be able to strongarm cable/satellite/IPTV providers.

The reason why we can't have a la carte is due to these megamedia conglomerates demanding that the carriers (Dish, AT&T, et al) carry "all the channels" that that megamedia conglomerate owns. Makes me wish AT&T would have a service similar to Hulu, but the difference would be that you could use the DVR & receivers to review the shows that were streamed earlier. I'd pay extra for this. But the megamedia criminals would protest this move, as it would allow us to watch each show as we want, and royalties go directly to the producers of the show, instead of being siphoned off by the useless networks.

Besides, the networks need to go. I tire of seeing shows butchered to add another ad (I've seen this on various channels; when I've previously seen an episode, then I can notice when a minute has been sliced off to make room for yet another ad or two). And my "favorite" is when a show has subtitles, but the network is spamming another promo on the screen during the show, and it blocks the subtitles.

I love U-Verse. But I'm seriously entertaining the thought of going to Hulu (or some other similar service)....only because the megamedia conglomerates are such bullies. I'd prefer to keep the DVR & other functionality of U-Verse. Currently, I'm hoping that AT&T keeps track of what we watch, so the royalties can be directed accordingly. With IPTV, it's easier to trace what we watch.

(And if advertisers want us to watch their ads, they need to air ads that aren't condescending & annoying. And I don't buy things just because a celeb says so.)

You do know that a la carte pricing for TV channels would make having cable more expensive.

---

@americangame wrote:

You do know that a la carte pricing for TV channels would make having cable more expensive.

---

and did you know that playing cards with Kenny Rogers gets old pretty fast? 😉

---

@americangame wrote:

You do know that a la carte pricing for TV channels would make having cable more expensive.

---

Perhaps. But then again, when I primarily watch 20 channels instead of the other 980, it might be cheaper for me.

But yes, all of us are fully aware that a la carte will never happen, because the network execs would pout.

---

@RobertB703 wrote:

---

@americangame wrote:

You do know that a la carte pricing for TV channels would make having cable more expensive.

---

Perhaps. But then again, when I primarily watch 20 channels instead of the other 980, it might be cheaper for me.

 

But yes, all of us are fully aware that a la carte will never happen, because the network execs would pout.

---

If you primarily watch just 20 channels, then you might be better of not having any cable or satellite service. Instead, I would recommend a good rooftop or attic antenna, and watch free over-the-air television with all of the main channels and sub-channels that are available.

__________________________________________________________

---

@dwinth wrote:

---

@RobertB703 wrote:

---

@americangame wrote:

You do know that a la carte pricing for TV channels would make having cable more expensive.

---

Perhaps. But then again, when I primarily watch 20 channels instead of the other 980, it might be cheaper for me.

 

But yes, all of us are fully aware that a la carte will never happen, because the network execs would pout.

---

If you primarily watch just 20 channels, then you might be better of not having any cable or satellite service. Instead, I would recommend a good rooftop or attic antenna, and watch free over-the-air television with all of the main channels and sub-channels that are available.

__________________________________________________________

---

A lot of shows are now being released elsewhere after their debuts on the tradiitional TV channels.

It's not just the network execs that would pout, but the writers, actors/actresses, lighting and sound people, editors, all their families, all the businesses they patronize, etc.

But, let's say you watch TLC. How many people watch TLC? They'd still have those same bills, regardless of how many people watch. Instead of charging their viewers $15 or $18 each, they can charge millions of people maybe $1.20

HBO charges ala carte. They charge something like $14 or more for HBO. FOX Soccer Plus charges $15 *just* for that one channel. ESPN is one of the most-expensive channels and they charge all subscribers quite a bit...I think it's over $5, *just* for ESPN. Add more for everything else ESPN. U-Verse has a lot of international channels that are ala carte. Most of them are $10 or more.

If you want your bill to go down and you don't want to cancel, do you really need that highest tier? If you *do* need the highest tier, call the retentions department every few months. No matter what your tier is, call the retentions people. If you politely remind them your bill is too high, they'll give you a discount. When that discount ends, call back. Another trick is to try to cut down your internet speed. I have 6Mbps and am perfectly happy.

20 channels times $10 per channel at ala carte pricing (less than HBO, Starz, Fox Soccer Plus) is 200 per month.

20 channels times $5 per channel at ala carte is still $100 month.

---

@dwinth wrote:

If you primarily watch just 20 channels, then you might be better of not having any cable or satellite service. Instead, I would recommend a good rooftop or attic antenna, and watch free over-the-air television with all of the main channels and sub-channels that are available.

________________________________________________________________________

I watch Science, BBC America, SciFi (well..."SyFy"), FX, Spike, and several others that are not OTA channels.

But even then, some of the aforementioned networks have crossed the line (erratic ad breaks causing missing of program ending....this was back during the pre-DVR days, or recently....promos blocking subtitles, or chopping program time to add ads). Therefore, I'll likely eventually downgrade U-Verse and watch more shows via streaming (to bypass the cocky networks entirely). Because I'd rather watch the shows directly via streaming (Hulu, etc) and pay less for unimpeded programming, rather than pay more for ads & butchered programs. (At least the DVR mitigates the condescending ads.)

(Streaming also affords pausing & rewinding/FF, so it has the same functionality as a DVR.)

If the DVR wasn't available, I wouldn't have any cable/satellite service. And I must say this....AT&T sometimes screws up big time on decisions....but when it comes to network conflicts, I side with AT&T (or Dish, etc)....100%. The networks air ads, and butcher the programs, then demand AT&T pay more for the "privilege" of carrying the channel. If AT&T tells a network to get bent, and I "can't see a program", well....I can see the program, because I'll stream it.

(And I hope Dish sticks to their guns. Fox is decent, but it's not "all that", and it's not worth extorting 3x the money from Dish. You, reading this....go up to your boss and demand a 3x raise, and see what happens. Why is Fox any different? There are other options. Right is right, and Fox is wrong.)

Hey AT&T....the precedent has been set!!

http://blogs.denverpost.com/techknowbytes/2014/12/17/dish-first-pay-tv-company-integrate-netflix/14786/

Since the U-Verse infrastructure could easily afford the bandwidth, we could use the U-verse equipment to stream shows.

One could go to the dark side with XBMC.

Dish and Fox News announced today that they had  reached a carriage agreement.

"ENGLEWOOD, Colo. and NEW YORK, Jan. 15, 2015 – DISH Network L.L.C. and FOX News Network, L.L.C. announced today that they have reached a multi-year agreement for carriage of FOX News Channel and FOX Business Network. These channels are now available to DISH customers with qualifying programming packages.

Tim Carry, FOX News and FOX Business executive vice president of distribution, and Warren Schlichting, DISH senior vice president of programming jointly stated:

“We thank the viewers of FOX News and FOX Business and DISH customers for their patience throughout this process.”

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2015/01/15/dish-and-fox-news-reach-content-carriage-agreement/

________________________________________________________________

Wow, Dish customers went through exactly 26 days without Fox News.  I wonder how many of them switched to Direct TV during that time?