bluegras said:
Agreed if not take the ad versions away as I do not watch any SD and reduce our prices. On all packages we pay a high premium for ESPN channels.
Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)
- Thread starter wingnut10
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 226K
-
Server Issues. We are very aware that there have been system issues the past few days. In troubleshooting the system, it has been determined that the issue is at our provider and is hardware related. As of 12:05 PM ET our provider has moved us to a new server.
Things seem to be running better on this new server. However in trying to diagnose the issue (before finding out it was a hardware issue) we made some system changes which we need to undo. So if you find any issues or errors please let us know in the Operations Center Forum.
Thank you for your patience! Sorry for the issue!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Agreed if not take the ad versions away as I do not watch any SD and reduce our prices. On all packages we pay a high premium for ESPN channels.
Perhaps they need a mediator instead of the courts to help settle things dont watch Disney but would like ABC Family in HD.
Disney wanting double the price (1 payment for SD & 1 payment for HD) :down. E* holding their ground on this :up
whatchel1 said:
If E* believes an HD feed has no value, why is there no QVC HD? Shouldn't they just throw in the HD feed as well for what they charge QVC already for just SD? This logic should also apply to KBS, HSN, etc. Seems hypocritical.
Uh, what? Lets see. Not one of those is in HD, nor does Dish pay extra for HD. HD has no extra value, it's the content they pay for. Do you pay more for the channels to be in HD? NO. Dish gives it free for life.
On top of that, it isn't Dish who charges the fee, It's Disney. And for good measure, Dish WON the lawsuit (so far) why would they now pay more?
Trying hard to make some sense of that post.
Last edited:
Tampa8 said:
QVC and HSN are available in HD (fios in Chicago has them, for example). I'm assuming the reason they are not carried on dish in HD is because dish wants to charge them extra. If not, what else could possibly be the reason? Now, if that is the case, how could dish justify wanting Disney to not charge extra for thier HD feeds? On top of that, dish charges subs $100 or requires a 2 year commitment to receive HD programming. Why would they do that if they honestly believed they shouldn't have to pay networks extra for their HD feeds?
It has nothing at all do with paying a second fee. It's about bandwidth. There is very limited space on the WA. I can assure you, people want their RSN's in HD before any of the channels you listed, and probably more than Disney in HD. There is room on the EA, but even there if RSN's went full time HD it will start to fill up unless they start to make more use of 77. No one is clammering for the channels you listed to be in HD. That's why.
Your other assumption is also wrong. The free HD for life, is a business gimmick. If you go with the two year commitment, you will most likely stay for the two years to avoid the fee. If you pay the $99, you will also stay for awhile to get your money's worth. The opposite of what you are trying to say is true. It costs dish to carry everything in HD, in that it is causing them to add satellites, and spend time moving channels around to fit everything, and to use new technology. (MPEG4) They are also faced with getting the WA to MPEG4, and get everyone with the old receivers into new ones. All costs big money. So if anything the two year commitment or the $99 goes towards their cost to provide them, not because they are paying more for them.
Why would you think they are picking on Disney, to not pay a second fee to, and pay someone else a second fee? And how would they have won their lawsuit? If they were paying everyone a second time, your bill would go up far more than it does. This is all Disney. You can be sure, as a poster above pointed out, Dish would simply get the HD feed, and drop the SD one, but most likely Disney will not allow it. Dish is not about to set a precedence and pay Disney twice.
whatchel1 said it quite simply and effectively above.
Your other assumption is also wrong. The free HD for life, is a business gimmick. If you go with the two year commitment, you will most likely stay for the two years to avoid the fee. If you pay the $99, you will also stay for awhile to get your money's worth. The opposite of what you are trying to say is true. It costs dish to carry everything in HD, in that it is causing them to add satellites, and spend time moving channels around to fit everything, and to use new technology. (MPEG4) They are also faced with getting the WA to MPEG4, and get everyone with the old receivers into new ones. All costs big money. So if anything the two year commitment or the $99 goes towards their cost to provide them, not because they are paying more for them.
Why would you think they are picking on Disney, to not pay a second fee to, and pay someone else a second fee? And how would they have won their lawsuit? If they were paying everyone a second time, your bill would go up far more than it does. This is all Disney. You can be sure, as a poster above pointed out, Dish would simply get the HD feed, and drop the SD one, but most likely Disney will not allow it. Dish is not about to set a precedence and pay Disney twice.
whatchel1 said it quite simply and effectively above.
Last edited:
Ill admit, I was playing devil's advocate a bit in my post, but I can't applaud dish for not carrying Disney and ABC family in HD. You are right about capacity, Tampa8.i believe DBS is becoming too outdated to remain competitive with fios and cable for long. Dish just doesn't have the bandwidth. Hopefully Charlie will figure out a way to leverage all these recent purchases he's made to restructure dish's distribution of content, because I can't see this current system lasting longer than 10 years. Heaven forbid if 3D catches on!
But at the moment I don't really care how much more it costs dish for these extra HD channels, they were the ones who implemented a price freeze for the next 2 years, so let them deal with the repurcusions of that gimmick as well, doesn't bother me one bit. Anyway, AEP is now $100/mo, how much worse can it get?
But at the moment I don't really care how much more it costs dish for these extra HD channels, they were the ones who implemented a price freeze for the next 2 years, so let them deal with the repurcusions of that gimmick as well, doesn't bother me one bit. Anyway, AEP is now $100/mo, how much worse can it get?
Last edited:
QVC and HSN Distro feeds are in HD. I get them on C band:
http://www.themusicworkshopchicago.com/satellite/hsn%20hd.jpg
You do know that the shopping channels DO PAY to be on DISH (or your local cable system)
QVC HD has been up in testing a few times on DISH, but has not been officially launched.
Crazy that they haven't gotten this settled yet, and even more so that ESPNU isn't carried in HD. I don't know if I can stand another CFB season seeing a few games in SD!!
Is there an estimate as to when this may be settled as we approach the 1 yr mark??
Scott Greczkowski said:
Yes and that's my point. If dish says Disney shouldn't charge extra for thier HD feed, then dish shouldn't charge qvc extra for carrying thier HD feed.
patrick80639 said:
You are making s big leap in stating that dish is charging qvc extra for hd. It is a big assumption dish is not carrying these channels in hd due to the big out cry from subs.
How many subs leave dish if this happens before rsn go 24/7?
In other words this would be a big customer relation problem for dish.
patrick80639 said:
Qvc rents space.
Dish rents Disney.
Sent from my iPad using The SatelliteGuys app!
Lmao......I can see it now; NEWS RELEASE: DISH to carry all PI's and Shopping channels in HD........
