I second that!! We only have one newspaper and it has been totally trashed due to Gannett.
Dish / Gannett Dispute Settled! No Channel Removals!
- Thread starter compubit1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 362
- Views 76K
I second that!! We only have one newspaper and it has been totally trashed due to Gannett.
Can't you see what Gannett is trying to do - Dish is trying to protect the consumer from rate increases yet Gannett and others like them keep demanding more money. Enough is enough!!! I for one am sticking with Dish on this issue. In my opinion, OTA stations shouldn't get retrans fees anyway. They get their $$ from advertisers which is the way it should be. Why should we have to pay extra to watch locals that are forcing us to watch commercials. Since we have to pay for their service, then we should be allowed to skip or "hop" the commercials!!!
the only thing charlie protects is his profit margin.
you rate will go up no matter what comes of this
channels drop, rates go up
channels stay rates go up
if companies know commercials will be skipped automatically, then why pay for the ad space?
it makes it harder to sell.
and honestly its not that difficult to hit the 30sec skip button a few times.
Also, a "200% increase" brings them up to the "market rate"
So the Dish PR says Dish has a pretty sweet deal right now, and way under the "market rate"
I know everyone says they are sick of Dish with channels being dropped but I myself am more tired of the companies that own the channels. They sicken me. It's time they get over themselves and except the fact that times are changing.
If they successfully negotiate with every other provider though, times aren't in fact changing, just the service Dish provides (or doesn't).
Same thing for the Cable Favorites who accept money from advertisers. In fact, I would like the FCC to step forward (as in actually do something meaningful in the interest of consumers) and order that any programmers who accept advertising dollars (especially those who broadcast 10 straight hours of informercials each night) are required to provide their broadcast signals free-of-charge to any licensed MVPD. Why should we be paying CBS, TBS and ESPN to watch their commercial-ladden channels? Programmers who don't accept advertising dollars are free to charge customers (not MVPDs like Comcast, DirecTV and Verizon) fair market price based on the law of suppy and demand brought about by the quality of their programming. In other words, the customer drives the price of commercial-free programming and we all pay the same rate. The Pay TV providers can made money by charging for value-added goods and services.
What the heck could be more fair? If I have to pay extra for for the programming I watch, while in the process a great many subsidized channels eat a bullet...so be it. Good content will survive and we'll free up valuable cable and satellite bandwidth for more worthwhile purposes. I hate paying programmers good money just to see endless amounts of commercials and infomercials being broadcast each day.
You're not going to fix broadcast television until you also fix cable television.
Yep. And has been like that in all the many years I have been with Dish.
Sometimes more entertaining then what the channels actually provide....
Not.at.all.
Another greedy broadcaster that will soon realize how much money they are losing once they are off Dish that can't possibly be made up from the increased fees they were asking for. Let Gannett throw their little tantrum and it won't be long before they come crawling back to the court with their ball and be ready to play like good kids.
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but could you answer this for me? I'm unwilling to give up a major network channel and to be used as leverage by Dish. if they cancel one of the big 4 networks, would that allow me to cancel my contract without penalty? I have hopper, with no OTA, so if I keep dish it's literally impossible for me to get my local NBC channel if it get's pulled next week. I find this to be a breach in my agreement (though, admittedly have not read my contract) with my provider. Do we, as consumers that faithfully pay our bills each month, have any recourse if Gannett and Dish don't come to an agreement?
Not really, I recall in the mid-90's my cable company, CableVision, was routinely having disputes with locals and twice a local was pulled from the line up. Once during the Super Bowl! Ironically, the very station that looks to being pulled now made it very clear then, because there are 2 ABC affiliates within the market area, they were a MUST carry and did not cost the cable company anything. It was suggested that the cable company drop them, keeping the more local ABC station, to cover the cost to keep the other and they were very quick to point out they did not cost anything. I guess those days are long gone and I do not know if the same parent company owned then. I believe this is around the time locals began demanding payment for their content, because it was the cable companies assertion then why should we pay for something we get OTA for free.
nope, it's not a way to break your contract. I'm sure it's in your agreement about channel changes and whatever. These contracts you sign with these providers are one sided to protect them for reasons just like this.
There is no void of contract. You are still responsible for staying the full 24 months.
This is one reason I'd like to see à la carte. One "more worthwhile purpose" of freed up bandwidth is to improve , or rather restore a decent HD picture quality.
Don't forget that Dish is not the only one using you as leverage. The companies that own the channels are doing the same. It goes both ways, not just Dish's fault or any other TV provider.
I can already hear the phone calls from my family in the next few days....our NBC is owned by Gannett
As long as Directv is not in the same boat, Dish will lose because they have no leverage.
But, a nice class action might result since the subscriber is the "decider" and bought or leased a legal device with certain capabilities, and is the one that will be financially damaged.
But, a nice class action might result since the subscriber is the "decider" and bought or leased a legal device with certain capabilities, and is the one that will be financially damaged.
