
AT&T blacks out HBO, Cinemax for Dish, Sling TV users over carriage dispute - CrankyBear
https://www.telecompaper.com/news/atandt-blacks-out-hbo-cinemax-for-dish-sling-tv-users-over-carriage-dispute--1267375
======
mdasen
I'm surprised to see AT&T acting so aggressively with its Time Warner purchase
so soon. The government argued that the merger would harm consumers and
competition. I expected AT&T to wait a year or two before starting to milk
extra profits - especially since the DoJ has appealed its loss.

After the merger, AT&T removed HBO from its lower-priced wireless plan, raised
wireless prices, raised DirecTV NOW prices, and now this. Frankly, I would
have expected a year or two of AT&T saying, "see, nothing bad happened! If
anything, we're giving consumers more!" Then a couple years later, "because of
inflation, costs, whatever, we're raising prices...it wasn't because of the
merger at all!"

It just seems like AT&T decided to forego plausible deniability. And the
merger is being appealed to the DC Circuit court. Literally the DoJ argued
that AT&T would have, "both the incentive and the ability to raise its rivals'
costs and stifle growth of innovative, next-generation entrants that offer
attractive alternatives to AT&T/DirecTV's legacy pay-TV model—all to the
detriment of American consumers," and that AT&T would have more power in
negotiations with competitors. Now they're proving that.

I'm just surprised that AT&T couldn't wait 18 months. 18 months later, the
merger wouldn't be on people's minds as much and they could argue that the
market had shifted (production costs, more competition from YouTube,
whatever). Doing these things so soon makes a really clear cause and effect.
Waiting gives you deniability.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
They don't care. What's anyone going to do?

Nothing. Nobody is going to do a thing about it.

~~~
j4kp07
Speak for yourself. I vote with my wallet and cut the cord well over 5 years
ago.

~~~
lowtolerance
You don’t pay a telecommunications company of some variety for broadband
access?

------
colechristensen
I am more and more certain that there need to be strict legal blocks to the
vertical integration of content production, content distribution, and
Internet/network services.

Nobody wins when any of these three can be owned by the same interest.

~~~
ur-whale
>I am more and more certain that there need to be strict legal blocks

Sure. More regulation. Just what we need. Well known to solve every problem
known to man.

~~~
mikestew
I'll agree to the first part of your statement, but I'll correct the last:
regulation has solved many, many problems known to man, but not _every_
problem. Let's not be hyperbolic here.

~~~
luhn
I think he was being sarcastic.

~~~
mikestew
I've looked at the HN guidelines, but I'm still confused: is it okay to
appropriate Slashdot culture here? Because: whoosh.

------
briffle
Honestly, I kind of hope Dish and Sling hold out. I don't have cable any more,
but many of my family members do, and constantly complain about rates going up
all the time. If enough cable companies toe the line with HBO, and ESPN, it
would put a stop to that..

~~~
joezydeco
Dish/Dish Network/Sling/Echostar have been involved in these carriage disputes
on and off over the decades. The CEO doesn't willingly give into price hikes
and unilateral changes without a fight. He'll just switch the network off (or
let it get cut off) and apply the viewer pressure until something is worked
out.

2018, Univision: [https://www.multichannel.com/news/ergen-univision-
blackout-i...](https://www.multichannel.com/news/ergen-univision-blackout-is-
probably-permanent)

2017, CBS: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dish-network-drops-
cb...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dish-network-drops-cbs-stations-
contract-dispute-1060631)

2016, Viacom: [https://deadline.com/2016/04/viacom-dish-network-resolve-
car...](https://deadline.com/2016/04/viacom-dish-network-resolve-carriage-
dispute-1201741471/)

2012, AMC: [https://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161019358/wheres-my-amc-
dish-...](https://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161019358/wheres-my-amc-dish-network-
dispute-drags-on)

2010, Weather Channel: [https://www.reuters.com/article/industry-us-dish-
weatherchan...](https://www.reuters.com/article/industry-us-dish-
weatherchannel-idUSTRE64J6X320100520)

2010, Disney: [https://technology.ihs.com/402822/disney-dish-spat-the-
battl...](https://technology.ihs.com/402822/disney-dish-spat-the-battle-over-
hd-carriage-premiums-is-underway)

Full list:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Dish_Network#Prog...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Dish_Network#Programming_disagreements)

Granted, the landscape has changed and it's a lot easier to change streaming
providers than the old days when you had to physically switch out your
satellite system for DirecTV or go back to CATV/Cable.

~~~
notyourday
I once have sat at the war room table in such a dispute. Typically a carrier
has a weapon which it can use abet reluctantly ( because it can only be used
once every few years ) -- it is dropping the multiple channels associated with
the content provider. Since typically a carrier has a local monopoly on
access, such drop impacts cash flow of the content provider, which needs the
cash flow to create new content.

The problem is that this weapon does not work against AT&T which owns DirectTV
-- Dish would need to drop _all_ AT&T controlled content a the worst possible
time for AT&T - such as right before the elections ( CNN would take a major
hit ) as well as channels such as TBS/TNT/etc, which may not be possible due
to other contracts while betting that AT&T's campaign to switch Dish users to
DirectTV won't be successful ( it will - there's really no difference between
the two providers it is just a question of AT&T having the installation
operation ready )

Dish is a dinosaur of the carriers - it has too many channels and no content
to put on it. Its only long term play is heavy investment in creating its own
programming. Even Netflix and Amazon realized it.

~~~
joezydeco
I always considered RFDTv to be Dish's original programming... =)

------
fomopop
AT&T heavily subsidizes HBO for TV and telecom subscribers. $5 with DTV Now or
free with AT&T Unlimited plan.

They are definitely playing long game if they’re willing to lose 2.5 million
Dish subscribers. HBO makes about $8 per sub from cable companies, so $20m per
month. They are probably trying to push it up to their OTT price ($15).

People can still subscribe to HBO Now. Mildly annoying to get it from a
separate interface or you have bad internet, but at least there are options.

~~~
cheeze
Is HBO Now good these days? Last time I used it, it was _terrible_.

~~~
imgabe
You can also subscribe through Amazon and watch through whatever Amazon Prime
app you use.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
Not really any better of an experience than the HBO Now app, IMO.

------
bobinmoscow
It is time to break up AT&T. Their abuse of HBO customers on Dish network is
an outrage. Senators and Cobgressman from rural districts need to band
together, regardless of party and work together to break up AT&T. I know that
as of today I will never consider switching to DirectTV and I’m going to take
a long look at switching phone and internet carriers. Hey Hey Ho Ho AT&T must
go! Seriously though, the fact that AT&T can get away with this is just
another sign that our government is in steep decline!

------
pasbesoin
Prefix: Speaking generally, with regard to "blackouts" impacting immediate and
short-term, essentially already sold and "committed to" services.

Pertaining to this instance, that would include taking on and honoring the
contracts and commitments already made by your acquisition.

\--

Here's an idea: Regulation that says the moment they do such, they have to
discount all impacted customers' billing by the amount represented by these
services.

And, up the food chain, the other parties lose their corresponding revenue. No
grace period, no exceptions. Every hour of blackout costs them, for what they
are not providing on the packages they've sold customers.

I'd also argue for an additional penalty assessment for lack of notice to
customers of service change.

When it starts costing them all money, negotiations may go a bit more smoothly
and willingly -- and planfully.

"But, contracts!"

Commercial contracts face all sorts of legal limitations. This proposal seems
a pretty simple and purposeful limitation, that is overdue.

\--

P.S. Once it's coded into their systems, it can be generalized. Failed
Internet connectivity? Discount! Missed service call? Discount!

In other words, stop them from externalizing the costs of poor support. (Which
they can do all the more readily in the absence of effective competition, a
known issue here in the U.S.)

P.P.S. You can also see the pressure/incentive this situation provides, for
customers to move to online streaming over a neutral carrier (if they can get
it), for such programming -- including access at time of release as opposed to
through an archive.

~~~
EpicEng
ATT didn't sell it; Dish and sling did, and I'm pretty sure customers aren't
going to continue paying for HBO while it's blacked out. I don't understand
your approach at all.

~~~
pasbesoin
My fault, for reacting more to another headline about "blackouts", than to the
specifics. I've tried to clarify, a bit, in my original comment.

Customers make commitments, both contractual and personal in terms of time and
effort and availability, to media distribution purchases. I think they have a
right to receive the product they paid for. If that product fails or changes
substantially, they have a right to recompense -- to a corresponding
adjustment, at least.

They get jerked around by the big media companies: Programming and
distribution.

Make those companies absorb the costs of their own machinations and failures,
instead of passing them on -- financially and otherwise -- to relatively
captive customers.

~~~
EpicEng
I still don't understand why ATT would pay anything here. Dish customers
aren't going to be paying for HBO any longer (until it returns), and this sort
of logic would never allow any supplier to raise their prices.

Let's say I'm a lumber supplier and happen to be the only supplier in the
world capable of manufacturing AwesomeWood. I want to raise my prices, but
some contractor/land owner decides they won't pay. But they really like
AwesomeWood. Does the manufacturer now owe the contractor/land owner
compensation? Seems silly.

~~~
pasbesoin
Speaking generally (not to this specifically): Cable company offers customer
package that has X. Then gets into dispute with provider or distributor of X
-- a pricing fight -- and X goes away. Customer keeps paying for the package
they were sold.

Again, speaking generally, if cable company had to, hour one, cut customer's
bill by the portion that X represents. If, in other cases where
provider/distributor of X is still getting paid essentially out of customer's
pocket for X, that too has to stop.

Maybe these sudden blackouts would go away.

In this case, as I understand it, ATT bought HBO. ? -- I can't even keep up
with all the mergers, anymore; that kind of rings a bell.

Suddenly, a couple of months later, pricing/contract dispute makes HBO go away
for these customers. They should get a discount on their packages, and I'd
love to see ATT eat it for not honoring the relationship HBO had with these
downstream providers and providing some continuity.

At least in this case, if they have decent high speed internet (Sling at least
implies this, for part of them), they can get HBO through another avenue. Does
HBO stream directly, now? I know you can subscribe to their... "channel"?,
addon?, through Amazon Prime video and presumably (without requiring eating
the $120/year cost for Prime) through Amazon video.

In other cases, customers may not have such a ready, easy option for
alternative access. No high speed internet (Dish customers, maybe). Or content
that doesn't stream (some sports). And this lack of options all the more so,
in past but still recent and relevant years.

In many cases, due to lack of options, or to one-time cost and time barriers
(getting another physical distribution channel set up, if one's even
available), customer subscription choices are significantly "sticky".

Every time these big media companies "fight it out", with blackouts and such,
they are imposing costs on those customers. Costs they can externalize,
because customers are "stuck" with them in a marketplace that is severely
lacking in effective competition.

Finally, that lack may be lessening -- IF those customers have access to
adequate, affordable, and neutral data delivery. Something that remains untrue
or under threat, for many customers.

Anyway, I hope I made some sense, here.

As for me, I spent 16 years with only one high-speed Internet option, because
the one competitor in this area chose not to repair or replace the ancient and
degraded copper line along my back lot line. And that was after they received
approximately 750 million in tax breaks and other... "gifts", I have to call
them, from the state, in return for a commitment to deploy "universal" high
speed Internet access to the entire state (with a little wiggle room for hard
to reach areas) -- years prior. A commitment they promply reneged on and spent
money lobbying to get out of.

That was what is now called ATT, by the way.

So here, I see another instance of their shafting customers, because they can.

Make them pay. Nothing else works -- well, there's been no effective political
will to throw their executives in prison, yet. (Were there, I'm not entirely
dubious that criminal activity could be found in some of their behavior.)

------
fady
AT&T continues to act like an old dinosaur with it's crude business tactics,
shady telecom deals/mergers and practices. Why hurt customers? This looks bad
regardless who's right.

~~~
notyourday
Dish/Sling are not AT&T customers. They are the middleman that prevents AT&T
from having a direct access to the customers.

------
nradov
Those are all luxury entertainment products. No one actually needs them, and
hopefully a temporary black out will remind viewers that they can live just
fine without that video content.

~~~
sandworm101
Well, in a past career I worked in film/TV. I needed them. This is an industry
like any other. It employs lots of people. Things like blackouts and, in my
day, writers strikes impact the livelihoods of a great many.

Now facebook, _that_ is pure luxury that we can all do without. And don't get
me started on air travel. Get out and walk. Take a train.

~~~
eumenides1
I don't think you want to compare industries and determine the importance by
the number of workers.

Facebook is trying to be a content platform for everything. If it had it's
way, it would be YouTube++. To be locked out of YouTube these days would be
pretty bad if you wanted to be a vlogger. And Air Travel is pretty critical
for remote towns in America. Train isn't really competitive for cross america
travel in terms of time even if we have to put up with all the security
theater.

~~~
sandworm101
Read the post again. Take it a little less literally. Do you really thing that
I meant that people should literally walk instead of flying? I was saying that
the OP's description of the film/TV industry as a "luxury" and that people
should "get outside" was just as ridiculous as my description of Facebook or
air travel. This is a tech forum. I was illustrating the point by re-telling
the narrative in terms more understood to this crowd, with the hope that doing
so would create some empathy in the minds of readers. But of course this is HN
where metaphor is too complex a concept.

For the Sheldon out there: When you see someone equate two wildly different
things, such as FLYING and WALKING, that is code for _not literal_ and you
should examine the wording in context. There is probably another meaning, one
often opposite to that literally described by the text. And if you don't
understand what I mean by "Sheldons" then I give up.

Wow, that was too much typing. It is almost like metaphor allow us to express
complex ideas with far fewer words than literal description of the facts. I
wonder if anyone else has discovered this trick?

~~~
eumenides1
Re-reading and honestly. I just don't think your response to thread OP was
clear in the way you have imagined it.

You mention walking vs flying as an appeal to extremes, but you dropped in
trains right after. That takes away from your point at the critical moment.
And your Facebook as a luxury comparison just doesn't really get your point
across. It's not like you told me to sell my children to fix my financial
troubles.

------
jedberg
> The spokerperson said until a resolution is found, customers should look for
> other ways to access HBO.

Do you want piracy? This is how you get piracy.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
I would have dropped the price of HBO Go to half and remove the cable
requirement for Sling and AT&T.

------
xfitm3
This is the kind of behavior that drives cord cutting. Unacceptable IMO.

~~~
mikestew
_This is the kind of behavior that drives cord cutting_

And drives them right into the arms of the HBO Now $15/month plan. Oh, yeah,
cord-cutters have 'em so torn up at HBO, they're crying rivers of gold bars
over there.

~~~
homero
Theyre already on it [https://www.keepmyhbo.com/](https://www.keepmyhbo.com/)

------
anonytrary
> AT&T acquired HBO when it bought Time Warner for USD 85.4 million

Holy crap, I didn't know this. That seems like absolute peanuts.

Edit: As pointed out, the article dropped a factor of 1000. Mildly
infuriating, to the say the least. I guess they pointed it out at the end of
the article, shame on me then.

~~~
howlingfantods
That should be 85.4 billion. Seems like a misprint.

~~~
anonytrary
[https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/media/att-time-warner-
rulin...](https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/media/att-time-warner-
ruling/index.html)

Yep, just looked it up to verify, I thought it was fishy as hell. Shame on the
original article, that's such a silly misprint.

------
reaperducer
This kind of dispute between content providers and content distributors
happens all the time.

Comcast - Disney - AT&T - Nextstar - Sinclair, etc... It's an everlasting
dance that's been doing on for decades.

The only reason this is interesting to the HN community is because it's
happening to Sling. But if Sling wants to play on the level of Scripps,
Gannet, etc... it has to play by those rules, and expect these sorts of things
to happen.

I'm not saying AT&T is right here. But I witnessed at least a dozen of these
temporary content blackouts in my previous life in broadcasting. Just because
your TV company doesn't have towers doesn't mean you get a free pass.

~~~
ninth_ant
No, it doesn’t happen all the time. In fact the article is quite clear that
this never happened with HBO before the merger.

And also no, Sling being included is not the only reason this is interesting.
It’s interesting because it’s a major telco using their newly acquired content
as an anticompetitive bludgeon, in direct violation of their quite recent
promises to the contrary.

~~~
reaperducer
_No, it doesn’t happen all the time._

Yes, it does. You are correct that this is the first dispute between HBO and
Sling. But as I stated, this _type_ of dispute between content creators and
content distributors happens all the time.

Welcome to professional broadcasting. So much for the SV "disruption"
strategy.

~~~
Retric
It's more than that it's the first between HBO and _anyone._ Plus it occurred
right after a merger with one of slings competitors.

------
homero
What the hell, I'm paying extra for hbo on dish and it's blocked? AT&T is
disgusting, commercials are coming that's what. They ruined hbo.

~~~
nradov
So quit watching HBO. Problem solved.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Oh right, I knew there was a reason everyone was terrified when HBO let itself
be bought by AT&T.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Why would anyone be terrified? You can just go to hbo.com and pay $15 for it.

~~~
_grep_
That's probably why AT&T has the upper-hand in this case. People can just
stream HBO. This hurts rural customers who don't have reliable internet
connections, though.

~~~
what_ever
Plus streaming gets counted against data quota.

------
anonytrary
> We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.

I don't think I've ever been to this site in my life, but they claim I've used
up my free articles. Clearing cookies solves this.

------
exabrial
I cannot wait for cable/sat networks as content providers to come to an end.
Everything should be on-demand, leaving the only purpose of cable or sat being
live events like sports.

~~~
jerrysievert
I don't see that happening in the near future, at least not until there is
ubiquitous 5g coverage that is affordable.

*posting from a place where there's no cell signal and the only internet access available is satellite (the POTS is too noisy for modem connection)

------
OpenBSD-reich
BitTorrent over Tor (or I2PSnark, which needs more <3) is the superior
solution to bad guy big-media. It's free and only needs a minimal amount of
patience.

~~~
ec109685
Or pay the 9 a month for the content you consume.

~~~
rickycook
or use your power as a consumer to vote with your wallet, which is almost
always the overall response on HN to someone complaining about a monopoly

it just so happens that it’s real easy with content!

