DISH not required to give credits when channels go dark...
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 5K
Anyone who actually bothers to read the agreement they make with Dish already knows this. Most don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's not binding.
YEt the next time a channel is dropped or goes out of business we will see a post threatening a class action suit.
The system is rigged if you asked me.
The system is rigged if you asked me.
That has always been the case.
The disclaimer is designed to protect the company in the event of a loss of a service.
At least someone decided to take action instead of just trumpeting that they know they would win if they did.
Little guy shouldn't have said "I agree to that" and then back out later. Very very simple.
If people used common sense, they'd realize it's not that big of a deal after all. Let's look at Dish's AT120 package - $64.99/mo. It includes 190 channels (according to Dish's website). That works out to....
$0.34 per channel
That's what someone would be "owed" if the outage lasted a month. If it lasts only days, well, it's $0.011 per day.
AT200 = $0.33 per channel
AT250 = $0.31 per channel
I believe that is why people seem to always lose in Court in the end and not just with TV. Airlines and cruises sometimes do not follow the exact itinerary and the contract tells you that you accept that. There was even a suit dismissed against Sony for not having an app anymore it had when the TV was bought. The question is was the essential part of the contract fulfilled. And if a cruise line had dozens of incidents every year of changing the itinerary arbitrarily , or if DISH often just arbitrarily dropped channels a lawsuit would be much more winnable to be able to end a contract or remuneration being possible.
I do support something for the person who signed a contract and within a month or so a channel is dropped for a long enough time to allow the ending of the contract unless they were advised what channels are in or about to be in negotiations. That is not unprecedented. Uverse had (or still does?) a page that told you of contacts nearing their end.
The point is, the little guy loses....as usual....
Now in a perfect world we wouldn't need contracts would we?...The contracts are to protect and big bushiness and corporations.....That contract does nothing for the little guy, except lock HIM into a long term deal....
For those of you that think it fair fine.....Me, they suck like all the rest....I pay my bills, but have no recourse if they fail on your end!
Now in a perfect world we wouldn't need contracts would we?...The contracts are to protect and big bushiness and corporations.....That contract does nothing for the little guy, except lock HIM into a long term deal....
For those of you that think it fair fine.....Me, they suck like all the rest....I pay my bills, but have no recourse if they fail on your end!
I agree there really is no customer protection.
But in the case of this topic, I agree you signed a commitment that basically says , (Pay your bill no matter what, and we can do what we want when ever we want, and you can do a thing about it.)
I see lots of things wrong with the current 24 month commitments from all companies.
But as already stated you signed the contract.
Just keep that in mind when these businesses want you to upgrade, or resign again.
Our cable company doesn't have commitments and I don't think they are a dying business.
But in the case of this topic, I agree you signed a commitment that basically says , (Pay your bill no matter what, and we can do what we want when ever we want, and you can do a thing about it.)
I see lots of things wrong with the current 24 month commitments from all companies.
But as already stated you signed the contract.
Just keep that in mind when these businesses want you to upgrade, or resign again.
Our cable company doesn't have commitments and I don't think they are a dying business.
Really?...How bad you want the service?
The point is and always is, being the consumer you have less and less rights......
Now why do the corporations get to tie your hands but you have ZERO recourse?
And because people stick up for these companies they just go about doing what ever is in there best interest, but you? Pffft
Its a game and we get played.....I have no lobbyist, nor due you.......Dish and Direct do, so we get it socked to us!
But all you people just roll over and kiss there butts.....I speak up and fight when ever I can.
No one is saying that this is a desirable thing. We are just saying that a corporation has the right to sell its product or service under terms of it's choosing (with some limits but not many) and the consumer has the right to go elsewhere at the time of signing if they do not like it.
In this case because the provider cannot guarantee that they can get acceptable terms on every channel (or even that the channels will stay in business) they would be hard pressed to honor any commitment to supply a set group of channels for any length of time.
But yes you can speak up for something different but we are just saying this is the way it is----not that we like it.
In this case because the provider cannot guarantee that they can get acceptable terms on every channel (or even that the channels will stay in business) they would be hard pressed to honor any commitment to supply a set group of channels for any length of time.
But yes you can speak up for something different but we are just saying this is the way it is----not that we like it.
