My IP lawyers would never agree to an NDA like that.Yes. I would say more, but I'm not allowed to...
My IP lawyers would never agree to an NDA like that.Yes. I would say more, but I'm not allowed to...
Well, with your long experience with sat TV, I would also assume you know that the shopping and religious channels pay Dish for inclusion, not the other way around. And those channels are not included in your package channel count.
You suggested you would be ok paying an extra $1/mo to get the channels you want, but that would also mean paying the extra dollars for all the other channels that other people want to avoid disputes. And once that started, there would be no limit to how much the providers could demand, since they would know the subscribers will have to pay it since the carriers wouldn't need to bother negotiating any more since they can just pass the cost on to the subscribers no matter how much it is. Of course then we'd all be yelling at Dish/Direct/etc. about the high package costs.
DirecTV had 120 NEXSTAR locals go dark last July and 17 locals go dark in June. The NFL Network and Red Zone are dark on ATT TV Now and U-Verse. And of course there's the pending Sinclair outage. Spectrum had 33 Tribune channels go dark last January. And on and on... My typical annual increase from Dish has been just $5 for a number of years now or about 4% of my bill, a long way from "double digits".I'm not saying never negotiate. Duh. But I'm saying that I pay for increases constantly from Dish, and yet every year I have to go without channels we want to watch every night. Somehow Directv, and almost every other provider has managed to negotiate acceptable deals with, for example, the RSNs. If Dish was was 50% less for the same thing than other providers I'd say, OK, Dish keeps their prices lower than other providers so I can choose to put up with not watching the TV shows I want to watch to help them be the low cost provider. Though that kind of defeats the purpose of why I pay a TV provider. But they aren't cheaper. I hear all of this "but if Dish didn't make us go without our ABC affiliate for months or without our local sports channels we'd be paying double the prices!" Yet we get regular double digit (since that gets thrown around a lot in terms of what the channel owners are asking for) increases in our bills, and Dish is not cheaper than Directv for equivalent packages, I've switched back and forth, and certainly not cheaper than several other options. I just want to watch the shows I want to watch. And I know, we all have options (that's why I'm looking at things like YTTV,) But a TV provider that doesn't let me watch the MLB playoffs, or the NFL game on Sunday, or the new fall network shows on my local affiliates, isn't a good deal if it's $2 a month cheaper.
DirecTV had 120 NEXSTAR locals go dark last July and 17 locals go dark in June. The NFL Network and Red Zone are dark on ATT TV Now and U-Verse. And of course there's the pending Sinclair outage. Spectrum had 33 Tribune channels go dark last January. And on and on... My typical annual increase from Dish has been just $5 for a number of years now or about 4% of my bill, a long way from "double digits".
Never said it wasnt factual. But if you dont think BOTH sides are spinng the "facts", you've either drank the Dish Kool Aid or you're niave.Have you seen anything from the Fox suggesting something different? I'd think they'd be all over it if it wasn't factual...
Well, they resolved the Sinclair dispute with no black outs. FWIW. I'm glad you're happy with Dish. I'm looking at other options, no decisions made yet (I do really like the Hopper 3 hardware and the Dish software system. A lot.)
There will always be movement between Dish, Direct, and the cable companies as some subscribers keep looking for greener pastures. The crux of the problem is the greed of the providers that have come to see retrans fees as a cash cow that they can milk for more and more money. As more carriers jump in and dig in their heels, the tide may change. If Congress does its job and modernizes STELAR to reflect current market conditions, that may be a tidal wave in itself. Billion dollar fee increases cannot continue...In terms of common ground: I think we all agree that the entire non stop dispute and black out routine, that has become routine, has to stop somehow. Most people aren't as fanatical as we are here, they don't read satellite TV forums, they just know they pay to watch TV and when they lose a channel and can't watch TV, most of them blame their provider no matter what is scrolled across the bottom of their screen. They pay their provider to provide them the channels and they don't care about details, they expect to watch what they're paying for. Ask the installers here what happens when people lose their channels. No matter whose "fault" it is, it is ultimately bad for the provider. Dish will lose subscribers over the loss of RSNs and the Fox channels. 99% of people won't care about the details. They just know, I pay ($85, $120, etc) each month and you're telling me I can't watch the fall premier of these shows, or the MLB playoffs, or my favorite NFL team this weekend? Screw this and goodbye. Will they run into it where they run to? Maybe. But Dish has already lost them.
I'm sure it's all more complicated than any of us here have speculated about. Best we can do is just ride it out, try to get credits, or switch to another provider.Why doesnt Fox dispute Dish's claims? Who knows. Maybe it's too complicated.
Good! Maybe Sinclair is in the mood for resolving disputes. Lets keep that trend going, Sinclair!Well, they resolved the Sinclair dispute with no black outs.
This is the way that Directv operates. I was with them during the Raycom dispute, when the channels were removed. When the channels returned, the official announcement was about a short-term extension, not a long-term deal. A long-term deal never was officially announced as far as I know, but the channels stayed on.If the Sinclair dispute has been resolved, why is it still on AT&T TV Promise - DIRECTV, DIRECTV NOW, U-verse? My guess is there's been a short term extension, not a resolution.
...just like professional athletes do.
Well, lets see, this thread is called "fox sports dispute" and some of the channels involved in the other dispute are branded as "Fox Sports" so I can see where the confusion would arise. Perhaps if this thread were re-titled "Fox Sports Net (FSN) Dispute" it would help make things less confusing.I'm sure it's all more complicated than any of us here have speculated about. Best we can do is just ride it out, try to get credits, or switch to another provider.
Speaking of complicated, there are 4 threads going on regarding the two different disputes, and the conversation flips frequently in each thread between the two disputes. What makes it even more confusing is that the FSNs that this thread is about aren't even owned by Fox anymore.
The confusion lies in the name. FSNs are owned by Sinclair, even though Fox is still in the name.
Now, where would you get that idea?My guess would be they don't want to make a drastic name change during the last week of regular-season baseball, and I'd agree with that strategy. Do it in the off-season.
Unfortunately, they acquired them too close to the start of the NHL and NBA seasons for them to change the name now, and risk confusing viewers. My best guess is that the name will change around the start of next year's MLB season. This will give them plenty of time to promote the name change, and make fans aware of it before the season starts.
DISH Promise | MyDISH | DISH Customer SupportDoes anyone know how we will know if Dish is still negotiating with the FSN Regional channels or when we should just assume that the channels are gone for good?