Explanation of unbundleling Cable Channels

[Axulus]

What?

If you can't figure out why that is a contradiction, you need to mull it over for a bit, because it's clearly not getting through.

They aren't asking for more money for FNC, they are saying they won't allow it to be broadcasted at all unless you pay us more for a couple of our other products.

And therefore they _are_ in fact asking for more money for FNC (regardless if they say it's for FS1 and FS2), since withholding it is the threat they are using. How is that not clear to you?

 

[coloradoatheist]

But look at what has happened with unbundling in the airline industry. People are upset about baggage fees, no meals, etc. Except with the airlines the option is for people not to fly or drive. For cable companies if they make the wrong choice, people forego cable or buy dish. So Comcast has to decide if people will be really happy when they buy 4 channels but it's the same price as as 100 channels.

so, wait... what? not a single word of this makes ANY sense in relation to what you're ostensibly responding to.
so is your argument basically that "once a bundle exists, doing anything to reduce the size or content of that bundle is inherently bad"?
are you saying that a bundle must always necessarily exist, in all circumstances, for all products, always? that's seriously your argument?

No, it's up to the companies to decide how they want to sell their products. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What?

They aren't asking for more money for FNC, they are saying they won't allow it to be broadcasted at all unless you pay us more for a couple of our other products.

And therefore they _are_ in fact asking for more money for FNC (regardless if they say its for FS1 and FS2), since withholding it is the threat they are using. How is that not clear to you?

Probably the part where both sides were in agreement over how much it'd cost to have rights to broadcast FNC and the issue was over FS1 and FS2.

- - - Updated - - -

so, wait... what? not a single word of this makes ANY sense in relation to what you're ostensibly responding to.
so is your argument basically that "once a bundle exists, doing anything to reduce the size or content of that bundle is inherently bad"?
are you saying that a bundle must always necessarily exist, in all circumstances, for all products, always? that's seriously your argument?

No, it's up to the companies to decide how they want to sell their products. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Funny you mention that because that is what is happening and why these a la carte online options are becoming available.

 

[Axulus]

Probably the part where both sides were in agreement over how much it'd cost to have rights to broadcast FNC and the issue was over FS1 and FS2.

Why, in your mind, can't they use the threat to pull FNC to get more money directly for FNC, and yet they can somehow use the same threat to pull FNC to get more money for FS1 and FS2?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Probably the part where both sides were in agreement over how much it'd cost to have rights to broadcast FNC and the issue was over FS1 and FS2.

Why, in your mind, can't they use the threat to pull FNC to get more money directly for FNC, and yet they can somehow use the same threat to pull FNC to get more money for FS1 and FS2?

Because FS1 and FS2 were under a different contract (technically for the original channels Fox decided to rebrand) and not up for renewal. So Fox is more than welcome to ask for money for the channel(s) up for renewal, but not for other channels that they already agreed to rates for. Do contracts mean nothing to you?

 

[Axulus]

Why, in your mind, can't they use the threat to pull FNC to get more money directly for FNC, and yet they can somehow use the same threat to pull FNC to get more money for FS1 and FS2?

Because FS1 and FS2 were under a different contract (technically for the original channels Fox decided to rebrand) and not up for renewal. So Fox is more than welcome to ask for money for the channel(s) up for renewal, but not for other channels that they already agreed to rates for. Do contracts mean nothing to you?

Are you claiming that FNC is already under contract? If so, how can they threaten to pull it? You are they one claiming that contracts mean nothing as it is something completely new you added to the discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because FS1 and FS2 were under a different contract (technically for the original channels Fox decided to rebrand) and not up for renewal. So Fox is more than welcome to ask for money for the channel(s) up for renewal, but not for other channels that they already agreed to rates for. Do contracts mean nothing to you?

Are you claiming that FNC is already under contract?

The contract was due to expire and an agreement was being put forth to renew it. You'll notice the word "renewel" in my posts.

If so, how can they threaten to pull it?

Because they'd allow the existing contract to expire and not sign off on a new one.

You are they one claiming that contracts mean nothing as it is something completely new you added to the discussion.

Seriously? I've been talking about the contracts for several posts now.

 

[Axulus]

The contract was due to expire and an agreement was being put forth to renew it. You'll notice the word "renewel" in my posts.

Because they'd allow the existing contract to expire and not sign off on a new one.

Uh, so they are in fact getting more money directly for FNC since FNC contract is up for renewal and FNC is the one they are threatening to pull, while FS1 and FS2 are already locked in?

Round and round we go. When will it stop? Nobody knows.

 

[ksen]

Because FS1 and FS2 were under a different contract (technically for the original channels Fox decided to rebrand) and not up for renewal. So Fox is more than welcome to ask for money for the channel(s) up for renewal, but not for other channels that they already agreed to rates for. Do contracts mean nothing to you?

Are you claiming that FNC is already under contract? If so, how can they threaten to pull it? You are they one claiming that contracts mean nothing as it is something completely new you added to the discussion.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/fox-pulls-channels-dish-network

Dish blamed Fox for introducing other channels into negotiations despite those not being included in the contract up for renewal.

 

[Axulus]

Are you claiming that FNC is already under contract? If so, how can they threaten to pull it? You are they one claiming that contracts mean nothing as it is something completely new you added to the discussion.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/fox-pulls-channels-dish-network

Dish blamed Fox for introducing other channels into negotiations despite those not being included in the contract up for renewal.

ksen believes corporate press releases that paint themselves as victims are the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

"Fox blacked out two of its news channels, using them as leverage to triple rates on sports and entertainment channels that are not in this contract."

So "triple rates" = an amount of some sort, we'll call it X - able to be extracted by credible threats of blacking out two of its news channels

Why couldn't Fox extract X directly for these two channels in the contract under negotiation, using the very same threat?

To keep it as simple as possible, the threat to pull/black out two channels allows them to extract X additional value, no matter how the threat is used.

It could be claimed to be used to "triple rates" on other channels, it could be claimed to be used to sell them iced tea from China for an X price. What is _claimed to be happening_ and what is _actually happening_ when one examines the facts and economics of the situation at hand can be very different.

 

[prideandfall]

No, it's up to the companies to decide how they want to sell their products. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

except that isn't actually your position as borne out what you've been saying - because you're saying that "if you don't like it, don't buy it, and never try to change it, and never speak out against it, because if you do you're wrong and you're persecuting the poor corporations, and why can't you just accept that they're always right?"

i don't have cable, because i have no interest in bundles or having 300 channels of crap. i don't like it, and so i don't buy it.
if channels were available a la carte, i would actually probably buy a set of channels - so, i don't see any problem with someone like me suggesting that a la carte channel options are a good thing, and being as how me and other consumers are quite literally The Market, this comes back again to the question you totally dodged:
if your defense of your proclamation that Corporations are infallible gods is hinged on the idea that Corporations are kept in check by, and beholden to, The Market... and if The Market is basically nothing more than the collective will of the consumers, than how you rationalize shitting on consumers (ie, The Market) exerting pressure on the Corporations to get desired changes?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The contract was due to expire and an agreement was being put forth to renew it. You'll notice the word "renewel" in my posts.

Because they'd allow the existing contract to expire and not sign off on a new one.

Uh, so they are in fact getting more money directly for FNC since FNC contract is up for renewal and FNC is the one they are threatening to pull, while FS1 and FS2 are already locked in?

I'll hold your hand.

Fox has one contract for FNC and FNBC and another contract for what is FS1 and FS2. The contract for FNC was up for renewal. The two agreed on the FNC rate. But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract, which was not up for renewal. Dish didn't want to, didn't need to. So Fox says no more FNC if you don't renegotiate FS1 and FS2.

Round and round we go. When will it stop? Nobody knows.

Well, if you bothered to learn what actually goes on with these negotiations, you would be so befuddled and clueless.

 

[ksen]

ksen believes corporate press releases that paint themselves as victims are the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

That wasn't a corporate press release I linked to so . . . no?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/12/fox-pulls-channels-dish-network

Dish blamed Fox for introducing other channels into negotiations despite those not being included in the contract up for renewal.

ksen believes corporate press releases that paint themselves as victims are the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

"Fox blacked out two of its news channels, using them as leverage to triple rates on sports and entertainment channels that are not in this contract."

So "triple rates" = an amount of some sort, we'll call it X - able to be extracted by credible threats of blacking out two of its news channels

Why couldn't Fox extract X directly for these two channels in the contract under negotiation, using the very same threat?

More bad arguments. You are asking why Fox didn't do X, when they did Y. They did do Y. So why they didn't do X would be a question for you to pose to them.

To keep it as simple as possible, the threat to pull/black out two channels allows them to extract X additional value, no matter how the threat is used.

Except that the two were in agreement with the actually contract being renewed. The value was over two other channels already under contract. If Fox wanted to up the rates on FNC and FNBC in order to make up for revenue they couldn't get with FS1 and FS2, they could have... but they didn't. You do understand the difference between doing something and not doing something.

 

[laughing dog]

This thread is utterly fascinating. Unbundling may or may not save an individual consumer depending on that consumer's preferences. Unbundling is coming via competition from the internet. HBO is just the start. And I strongly suspect that this unbundling will save most consumers, via the competitive effect on prices and the unbundling of undesired channels.

Are customers happy with the Airline unbundling?

Some are and some are not.

 

[Axulus]

Fox has one contract for FNC and FNBC and another contract for what is FS1 and FS2. The contract for FNC was up for renewal. The two agreed on the FNC rate. But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract, which was not up for renewal. Dish didn't want to, didn't need to. So Fox says no more FNC if you don't renegotiate FS1 and FS2.

So renegotiating FS1 and FS2 gave Fox X additional value out of the deal, correct? And to obtain this X additional value, a threat to pull FNC and FNBC was used, correct?

So why on earth could this very same threat not be used to add X to the FNC/FNBC rates under negotiation as there is no "agreed upon price" until the contract is signed? You still have not offered any explanation for that.

Fox could say "buy tea from us from China for X as part of this contract, or we'll pull FNC/FNBC". And yet, if you translate, what they are really saying is "pay us X additional for FNC/FNBC, or we won't sign the contract". The claimed price of the tea is completely irrelevant since the tea isn't the bargaining chip being used. Similarly, the claimed price of FS1 and FS2 are completely irrelevant because FNC/FBNC are the bargaining chips, and therefore the value/price extracted is in fact for FNC/FBNC, regardless of what people say (hint - corporations don't always tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and what is stated in a contract and the underlying economics can be completely different).

 

[ksen]

Fox has one contract for FNC and FNBC and another contract for what is FS1 and FS2. The contract for FNC was up for renewal. The two agreed on the FNC rate. But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract, which was not up for renewal. Dish didn't want to, didn't need to. So Fox says no more FNC if you don't renegotiate FS1 and FS2.

So renegotiating FS1 and FS2 gave Fox X additional value out of the deal, correct? And to obtain this X additional value, a threat to pull FNC and FNBC was used, correct?

So why on earth could this very same threat not be used to add X to the FNC/FNBC rates under negotiation as there is no "agreed upon price" until the contract is signed? You still have not offered any explanation for that.

Fox could say "buy tea from us from China for X as part of this contract, or we'll pull FNC/FNBC". And yet, if you translate, what they are really saying is "pay us X additional for FNC/FNBC, or we won't sign the contract".

Fox couldn't pull FS1 and FS2 as they were still under contract. If they pulled those two channels they would have been under breach of contract.

However, FNC/FNB were still being negotiated and thus available for use as leverage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fox has one contract for FNC and FNBC and another contract for what is FS1 and FS2. The contract for FNC was up for renewal. The two agreed on the FNC rate. But Fox wanted to renegotiate the FS1 and FS2 contract, which was not up for renewal. Dish didn't want to, didn't need to. So Fox says no more FNC if you don't renegotiate FS1 and FS2.

So renegotiating FS1 and FS2...

FS1 and FS2 weren't up for renewal. The contract for those channels still had a bit of life left in it.

...gave Fox X additional value out of the deal, correct? And to obtain this X additional value, a threat to pull FNC and FNBC was used, correct?

No. FNC and FNBC were up for renewal, that contract was about to expire. Fox wanted to toss out another contract involving FS1 and FS2 to roll that into this contract in order to triple the rates (for channels that show less programming now than they did originally, I might add). Dish didn't want to. They didn't need to. There was already a contract on hand for FS1 and FS2, why renegotiate higher rates for channels you already can show for lower rates... until that contract comes up?

So why on earth could this very same threat not be used to add X to the FNC/FNBC rates under negotiation as there is no "agreed upon price" until the contract is signed? You still have not offered any explanation for that.

I don't have to answer that question. Fox does.

Fox could say "buy tea from us from China for X as part of this contract, or we'll pull FNC/FNBC". And yet, if you translate, what they are really saying is "pay us X additional for FNC/FNBC, or we'll pull them".

The analogy is crap again because under your analogy, Fox was already under contract to supply tea from China for a 1/3rd the rate they wanted to raise it to.

 

[Axulus]

Fox couldn't pull FS1 and FS2 as they were still under contract. If they pulled those two channels they would have been under breach of contract.

However, FNC/FNB were still being negotiated and thus available for use as leverage.

I never claimed they could? Not sure how anything I said ever implied otherwise. In fact, that is the very point I've been making all along: all the value of the threat being made resides with FNC/FNBC and only with FNC/FNBC, and therefore any money obtained from the threat to pull these channels is really _part of the price_ being charged for these channels.

I don't know how I can make it any more clear - I'm done at this point. If it isn't clear for you and Jimmy by now, then it simply will never be comprehended.

 

[laughing dog]

In addition, cable companies tend to be local monopolies (sometimes duopolies), so there is less competition from other possible sources of TV programming.