They gave notice as soon as they knew it would be down. It was in the guide, on the channel.
As far as acceptance, the use of the service is acceptance, and continued use is ratifiying that acceptance. You can sue them, but if they push back even slightly, you'll lose. The contract is well written to layout the expectations. There is no compensation that should be accepted as none of us pay for any specific local channel. Even with channels being removed, you recieve more than advertised, so no false advertisement(they do that on purpose). Also, in the contract and service agreement, it lays it out quite well that they reserve the right to remove channels, and that the customer agrees to no expectation to compensation.
Folks, before asking these question, please read the documents, and then if anything is still questioned, ask about it. I promise better results. Keep in mind, that whether you like or dislike what is in the agreement, and whether you agree or disagree currently with what's in the agreement, it is still the agreement that will be adhered to.
Scott, thanks for that notice, about the locals and possible separation. That is extraordinary news, and may be a giant step for what is needed. I really hope they separate it out per local. The down side i see is that when a channel goes down, the customer will automatically go to "I pay for that channel". If it is separated out, then Dish could cancel the channel and charge and say "no you don't".
On a side note, the need to protect local stations is over. I wish that regulation would just go away, and allow the opportunity for competing locals in outside markets. That would do more for consumers than anything. The stations have to offer something the customer is willing to buy otherwise the customer will get a better distant. Basically, less government interaction and control and truly create a free market. The locals can still keep their ad dollars and licensing through the FCC for OTA... but once you ask for money, you lose your protection from that provider.
As far as acceptance, the use of the service is acceptance, and continued use is ratifiying that acceptance. You can sue them, but if they push back even slightly, you'll lose. The contract is well written to layout the expectations. There is no compensation that should be accepted as none of us pay for any specific local channel. Even with channels being removed, you recieve more than advertised, so no false advertisement(they do that on purpose). Also, in the contract and service agreement, it lays it out quite well that they reserve the right to remove channels, and that the customer agrees to no expectation to compensation.
Folks, before asking these question, please read the documents, and then if anything is still questioned, ask about it. I promise better results. Keep in mind, that whether you like or dislike what is in the agreement, and whether you agree or disagree currently with what's in the agreement, it is still the agreement that will be adhered to.
Scott, thanks for that notice, about the locals and possible separation. That is extraordinary news, and may be a giant step for what is needed. I really hope they separate it out per local. The down side i see is that when a channel goes down, the customer will automatically go to "I pay for that channel". If it is separated out, then Dish could cancel the channel and charge and say "no you don't".
On a side note, the need to protect local stations is over. I wish that regulation would just go away, and allow the opportunity for competing locals in outside markets. That would do more for consumers than anything. The stations have to offer something the customer is willing to buy otherwise the customer will get a better distant. Basically, less government interaction and control and truly create a free market. The locals can still keep their ad dollars and licensing through the FCC for OTA... but once you ask for money, you lose your protection from that provider.
