The way you guys are always defending Dish, I am going to start calling you "Charlie's Angels", referring to Charlie Ergen, of course.
dishstandsbyyou gives you a great credit for fox dispute
- Thread starter bluegras
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 807
- Views 76K
- Status
LOL!
I am an Angel, but not Charlie's by any stretch.
"Dish is censoring your news" is an outright, provable falsehood. That is my only point.
I am an Angel, but not Charlie's by any stretch.
"Dish is censoring your news" is an outright, provable falsehood. That is my only point.
I already asked how to sign up to get paid on my non-work hours, so I too can be a member of the DDL, Dish Defense League. Can I get paid to be one of Charlie's Angels, too?
Mitch, when Fox counters with things that are patently untrue, and we respond with the truth, you've got to be looking through an awful biased lens to say we're defending Dish. I guess we are when Fox is flat-out lying, with comments about Dish attempting to "censor" Fox, or keep Fox viewers from "hearing the truth". Do we have to go into detail for you why these statements are false? Or, would attempting to explain that get yet another irrational comment from you about how we're Dish cheerleaders or other nonsense?
I probably can't answer that and keep this thread from getting off the rails, and potentially locked. And for anybody who may think I am biased for Dish against Fox, I actually preferred to get my news from Fox. Not the opinion programs like Hannity, O'Reilly, etc, but the actual news part. I'd prefer we had it back, but Fox's actions during this dispute really disappoint me. They've thrown some absolute falsehoods out there, and sadly, a lot of their viewers will believe it. I know, they call in.
Don't need to be on the phone to understand that. Just read these forums.
It was not.
I saw it myself when it was still a live page.
The graphics are still on the fox server:
http://www.keepfoxnews.com/wp-content/themes/Trim/images/thank-you-FOX.png
http://www.keepfoxnews.com/wp-content/themes/Trim/images/fox-resolution2.jpg
True that. But the folks in this board, even the ant-Dish folks, have been (relatively) rational compared to some of the people that call in. I have had to handle these calls via return calls in ways that you're aware of.
The most fervent ones won't even answer the return calls, but when they leave a message after doing the survey...whew, some of those blister my ears.
I saw it as well, it was obviously put up in error. What would be the point of photoshopping it?
OK, I'll arbitrate. Give Fox the increases they are asking for...but put their channels on an add-on subscription...everyone wins ( except for the customer of course...but will then be more transparent ).
The problem is not the renewal rate for Fox News and Fox Business. That rate was pretty much agreed upon, or close. The sticking point, is that Fox wants to add the other channels, like Fox Sports 1 and one other one (FXX, right?) to the discussion, and there is still a contract on that.
Customers have short memories, too. I was around back when the AMC dispute was going on, and people would tell agents "I would happily pay an extra $5 or $10 per month to get AMC!". I always wonder if any of those people complained when the price increased the following year for the programming packages.
A lot of people feel that way, but as you've been here, you understand why an agreement hasn't been reached, right?
That's why I specifically said "their channels" ...meaning all involved <g> They "could" also reduce current packages with those channels based on old rates when they separate them to their own sub...would ease the customer complaints for many.
Yeah...never happen...just trying to arbitrate logically vs. emotionally <g>
Yeah...never happen...just trying to arbitrate logically vs. emotionally <g>
Actually, Fox would LOSE on that model because they know that few households would actually value that channel compared to the majority who don't, and this is why we do NOT have an "a la carte" system. Fox's ad revenue would drop severely.
- Status
