Dish HD vs Disney (DISH sort of won...)

Toggle sidebar
Any of you who do not seem to understand what is going on should really pay attention and read up on this. This is a test case Disney is pushing and if in the end they win, you will be paying more, period from every program provider. If you are saying why doesn't Dish just carry the HD, you do not understand what is going on. This is just like when Disney (or others) say if you want our popular channel, you must take the not popular channel, but expanded to a much much more cost to the consumer. Those of you who (like always) threaten that you will "swtich" or "will be packing" to leave Dish, good luck to ya, because this will be happening to every provider, and the real possibility others will just drop ESPN and/or Disney programming. Or, I will be reading your posts moaning about why rates are so high.
Remember, it only takes a couple of major providers to decide not to carry ESPN/Etc.., before Disney has to cave. If others had stood up more force-ably before now we might not be at this point. The best thing that could happen is for Dish, if they lose in the end, to just drop ESPN/Disney at the end of the contracts. If they stay firm, and another provider does the same, Disney (and others) will have no choice but to rethink their position. And you know what, there just may be someone/some people out there who can start up an ESPN alternative. That's not going to happen overnight, and in this economic climate not easy at all, but often something comes along to fill a void or does something better than what is presently available.

Even if Dish could go to all HD (they can't) that would not prevent Disney from charging more for the "Premium" to have HD from them. Again, YOUR cost goes up for in reality nothing.
Keep all this in mind, as you see the always unintentional side effects of Government intrusion, such as demanding PBS be carried in HD. When did that become a right that must be enforced by the Government?
 
Last edited:
Tampa8,
I agree with you totally. I think Charlie has the guts (and possibly the money) to kick Disney to the curb, and I think there's nothing more he would like to do then just that. The problem I then see is how does Charlie make Dish still seem like a viable satellite company, that people will want to subscribe to? For me, it wouldn't matter, because I'm not into sports that much (that's why I chose Dish in the first place), but I'm not the majority out there. I don't know what Dish could offer subscribers to compete with D* and cable. I agree that if ESPN was knocked down a few rungs, some other sports network might be able to really get a foothold, but not until Disney started losing ESPN's contracts with the sport people (NFL, NBA, etc.). With Disney's money flowing though ESPN, no other sports network could pay the bucks ESPN pays to get their programing.
That mouse has long arms and a tight grasp.
Ghpr13:)
 
Tampa8 said:
Remember, it only takes a couple of major providers to decide not to carry ESPN/Etc.., before Disney has to cave. If others had stood up more force-ably before now we might not be at this point.
Click to expand...

Then if other providers know the ramifications if Dish loses, why are they not joining Dish in this lawsuit? Wouldn't it make Dish's lawsuit look more credible to a judge/jury? And according to what everyone is saying, it will eventually affect all other providers, so shouldn't they be supporting Dish BEFORE it's "their turn" to be sued by Disney/ESPN? Or are other providers just going to pay whatever, and pass the increase on to their subscribers? And, while providers may blame Disney/ESPN publicly, subscriber will only "remember" the price increase when they pay their bill....
 
Rwwatson said:
Then if other providers know the ramifications if Dish loses, why are they not joining Dish in this lawsuit? Wouldn't it make Dish's lawsuit look more credible to a judge/jury? And according to what everyone is saying, it will eventually affect all other providers, so shouldn't they be supporting Dish BEFORE it's "their turn" to be sued by Disney/ESPN? Or are other providers just going to pay whatever, and pass the increase on to their subscribers? And, while providers may blame Disney/ESPN publicly, subscriber will only "remember" the price increase when they pay their bill....
Click to expand...

Again, just off the top of my head, a Catch-22 comes into play. If the other providers started rallying with Dish before their contracts are up, then wouldn't someone cry out (Disney) "price setting" or what ever the legal term is for that...I can't think of it right now, but I'm sure it starts with "anti-" .

Ghpr13:)
 
Laddyboy said:
The others lack standing as they are not part of the Disney-Dish contract in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
My point was that they will all have their contracts change to something similar, if Dish loses... So, if they get in now, it saves them time, and money on the legal process, for themselves. Otherwise, if Dish loses, whoever is next up will either just pay (doubtful, because they too would have to raise their rates), or attempt to sue Disney/ESPN (which of course, at this point will be a losing case, if Dish loses now). It is in their best interest, to get involved now! Right?
 
Tampa8 said:
Any of you who do not seem to understand what is going on should really pay attention and read up on this. This is a test case Disney is pushing and if in the end they win, you will be paying more, period from every program provider. If you are saying why doesn't Dish just carry the HD, you do not understand what is going on. This is just like when Disney (or others) say if you want our popular channel, you must take the not popular channel, but expanded to a much much more cost to the consumer. Those of you who (like always) threaten that you will "swtich" or "will be packing" to leave Dish, good luck to ya, because this will be happening to every provider, and the real possibility others will just drop ESPN and/or Disney programming. Or, I will be reading your posts moaning about why rates are so high.
Remember, it only takes a couple of major providers to decide not to carry ESPN/Etc.., before Disney has to cave. If others had stood up more force-ably before now we might not be at this point. The best thing that could happen is for Dish, if they lose in the end, to just drop ESPN/Disney at the end of the contracts. If they stay firm, and another provider does the same, Disney (and others) will have no choice but to rethink their position. And you know what, there just may be someone/some people out there who can start up an ESPN alternative. That's not going to happen overnight, and in this economic climate not easy at all, but often something comes along to fill a void or does something better than what is presently available.
Click to expand...
Agreed except the option for the alternative source appearing. As it stands ESPN3 is the alternative source. They have the rights to the games, not any other network. If Dish dropped Disney, even for a short time, Dish would have to do something big to keep customers happy. Losing ESPN is one of the largest losses for many.

Keep all this in mind, as you see the always unintentional side effects of Government intrusion, such as demanding PBS be carried in HD. When did that become a right that must be enforced by the Government?
Click to expand...
Somehow you managed to swerve a really nice post into a derail. What in the world does PBS in HD have to do with Disney charging twice for the same content?
 
Rwwatson said:
My point was that they will all have their contracts change to something similar, if Dish loses... So, if they get in now, it saves them time, and money on the legal process, for themselves. Otherwise, if Dish loses, whoever is next up will either just pay (doubtful, because they too would have to raise their rates), or attempt to sue Disney/ESPN (which of course, at this point will be a losing case, if Dish loses now). It is in their best interest, to get involved now! Right?
Click to expand...

How can they get in now? They can't get involved in the lawsuit other than cheerleading because they are not party to the contract and thus the lawsuit. I'm sure they are all rooting for things to go Dish's way.
 
We or at least I am not aware of this situation with any other provider YET. Perhaps it's the wording of the Dish contract that Disney found to be vulnerable to this, and if they win, they will insist on in future contracts. Perhaps other contracts are coming up and Disney will then address it. Maybe another provider just paid the ransom? Whatever the case I agree with the others, I'm not sure there is any standing for others to be involved.
 
Even if they drop ESPN and Disney our rates will still go up. Our rates always go up even and it does not matter if they carry or drop the channel so all of your arguments are full of it. A few million to Dish is chump change. Pay up because even if you don't our rates will still go up.
 
reddice said:
Even if they drop ESPN and Disney our rates will still go up. Our rates always go up even and it does not matter if they carry or drop the channel so all of your arguments are full of it. A few million to Dish is chump change. Pay up because even if you don't our rates will still go up.
Click to expand...

Yea they will you are correct.However if ESPN/Disney has their way the $2.50 average per yr rate increase will be more like $7 per yr.I don't want that do you?
 
Barry Erick said:
That will happen some day when the supplier says the SD is a waste. There is precidence for paying for both SD and HD. Dish did that with broadcasters when there was analog for sd and digital for HD (whether it was in digital SD or digital HD). THe broadcasters demanded seperate payment for the digital per subscriber than the already existing analog. Same program.
Click to expand...

And many stations only got their analog uplinked until the cut over date due to that. I worked for a station that that is exactly what happened. So you would have to show to me that E carried both w/ a contract stating it was OK.
 
Ghpr13 said:
Tampa8,
I agree with you totally. I think Charlie has the guts (and possibly the money) to kick Disney to the curb, and I think there's nothing more he would like to do then just that. The problem I then see is how does Charlie make Dish still seem like a viable satellite company, that people will want to subscribe to? For me, it wouldn't matter, because I'm not into sports that much (that's why I chose Dish in the first place), but I'm not the majority out there. I don't know what Dish could offer subscribers to compete with D* and cable. I agree that if ESPN was knocked down a few rungs, some other sports network might be able to really get a foothold, but not until Disney started losing ESPN's contracts with the sport people (NFL, NBA, etc.). With Disney's money flowing though ESPN, no other sports network could pay the bucks ESPN pays to get their programing.
That mouse has long arms and a tight grasp.
Ghpr13:)
Click to expand...
One word to all you sports nuts. Velocity.
Mark Cuban's got the $$ and has already started moving that way.
 
Rwwatson said:
Then if other providers know the ramifications if Dish loses, why are they not joining Dish in this lawsuit? Wouldn't it make Dish's lawsuit look more credible to a judge/jury? And according to what everyone is saying, it will eventually affect all other providers, so shouldn't they be supporting Dish BEFORE it's "their turn" to be sued by Disney/ESPN? Or are other providers just going to pay whatever, and pass the increase on to their subscribers? And, while providers may blame Disney/ESPN publicly, subscriber will only "remember" the price increase when they pay their bill....
Click to expand...

That really will through the gov into the middle of it. Can we say ANTI-TRUST.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top