OFFICIAL DISH / FOX ORDEAL DISCUSSION THREAD

[lparsons21]

Good analogy, SC.

In all this we've been inundated with discussions here and in other places, news stories, blogs, you name it. But the bottom line in all of this is that we've got some companies trying to maximize their profits, which is what they are supposed to do. We as subscribers are only part of the negotiations because we write the checks, otherwise we have no say or effect on the outcome.

Charlie is the relative good guy in this, imo. But only relative! He says he is concerned about our bills, but he wasn't concerned much when he raised the 'lease fees' on the equipment. He did that without concern for what we are paying and the raise in those fees should put to the lie that they are 'lease fees' at all, it is strictly a fee because we can fee.

Fox and other content providers are seeing that the ad revenue isn't supporting them in a manner they want to become used to, so they are looking for more money. All of them are watching how this plays out. If Fox is the relative winner, then get ready to get bent over as the other content providers come to the table.

 

[RedWings]

All of them are watching how this plays out. If Fox is the relative winner, then get ready to get bent over as the other content providers come to the table.

Depends on how much bargaining power they have. Fox has those local affiliates plus some local sports networks. That is some serious bargaining power.

 

[lparsons21]

Depends on how much bargaining power they have. Fox has those local affiliates plus some local sports networks. That is some serious bargaining power.

Fox is the one testing the waters for the others basically and it is because as you note, they have the most bargaining power. But the others are not toothless either.

 

[jonesy99]

Dunno about that, there arent as many O and O stations as you might think, yes there are some for whom fox negotiates for however. Even if dish caves, we shouldnt. What happens with this will determine in large part what we will be paying for tv in the coming months and years.

 

[The Fat Man]

"Programming is subject to change"

It's right there in the agreement you signed with Dish Network. So it doesn't matter if a network does "change my and Dish's agreement"; the agreement you signed gives Dish Network the right to change programming in any package.

Dude, I'm done with you. You want to be right, you're right! the guy doesn't have the right to want to pay for a package without any sports. As you said, it's in the contract. The only way that I will waste anymore time with you is if one day I happen to come across you and give you a dunce slap (little tap to the forehead, NOT THREATENING TO HARM YOU IN ANY WAY). Now go and celebrate all by your little lonesome behind your computer.

 

[Jhon69]

Dunno about that, there arent as many O and O stations as you might think, yes there are some for whom fox negotiates for however. Even if dish caves, we shouldnt. What happens with this will determine in large part what we will be paying for tv in the coming months and years.

And one of the best benefits with Dish Network is during hard times subscribers can go down to AT120($40. a month) for a cheaper price per month or some have reported being able to go back to Dish Family.

Plus there's the little fact that if you own your equipment you can go as low as locals only with a $6. dollar no package fee.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The entire point I've been getting at is if you don't like the way the business operates, don't give up your hard-earned money and then complain about it. These companies only care about their bottom line, and if you care about your own bottom line more, don't give them the power by continuing to subscribe, as you are only making matters worse.

 

[The Fat Man]

The big deal is that the system is broken. I'm not complaining, I was supporting a guy who said that he didn't want to pay for a 24/7 sports channel. You got into the whole "well TBS has sports and TNT has sports" and so on and so on. The guy said that he wouldn't like to flip the bill for FSN, he didn't like flipping the bill for ESPN as of now. People are just speaking their minds and you are playing semantics. "You don't pay for ESPN, you pay for the 120 package". He doesn't like it, and quite frankly, if you don't like his, my, or anyone elses complaining, you have a choice to ignore our posts. As I said, I'm done, I make a quick comment to support another poster, now I'm stuck playing pong with you. I have better things to do. Bye Bye!

 

[The Fat Man]

P.S.,

If that was your point, other people have said that before without this game. Say what you mean and this crap wouldn't even happen.

Edit

To everyone who had to read through this garbage, sorry, I'll try not to get into these stupid disputes again.

 

[tstolze]

Now Missouri is trying to get involved, from a quick scan it appears they feel as Dish dropped the channels, I thought I saw the Fox pulled them...

Koster accuses DISH of violating settlement agreement | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

http://www.ksdk.com/news/pdfs/dishletter.pdf

 

[Laddyboy]

Now Missouri is trying to get involved, from a quick scan it appears they feel as Dish dropped the channels, I thought I saw the Fox pulled them...

Koster accuses DISH of violating settlement agreement | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
http://www.ksdk.com/news/pdfs/dishletter.pdf

It wouldn't be the first time a politician got something wrong although I have no firsthand knowledge of the dispute. You would have thought they would have sought out both parties' views before going public. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. There should be a forthcoming response from E*.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The big deal is that the system is broken. I'm not complaining, I was supporting a guy who said that he didn't want to pay for a 24/7 sports channel. You got into the whole "well TBS has sports and TNT has sports" and so on and so on. The guy said that he wouldn't like to flip the bill for FSN, he didn't like flipping the bill for ESPN as of now. People are just speaking their minds and you are playing semantics. "You don't pay for ESPN, you pay for the 120 package".

Fine, I'm playing semantics.

The point is unless you are subscribing to one of the premium movie packs, people are paying for a package of channels, not a single channel.

So Dish Network has this AT120 and this AT120+, which is AT120 packaged with your local RSN. I have no idea how Dish Network managed to pull that one off for the past five-plus years or so, but kudos to them.

However, Fox does have a legitimate gripe. Just like how Dish Network, or for that matter any pay-TV provider, has promo pricing, it does end. And Fox is now trying to end theirs.

It is easier to deconstruct the argument. "I want a package without sports" is a wish, not a reality. Yes, AT120 provides the ability not to have an RSN, but does not provide the ability to have a package without sports, as ESPN, TBS and TNT are all in that package.

We all must make choices that are given to us. Sometimes, a compromise is in order when balancing pricing and availability. I just don't like the argument that "I want a package without sports", when the packages are created by someone other than the customer. It means a compromise was made somewhere, and subscribing to a package and complaining about it is self-defeating.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It wouldn't be the first time a politician got something wrong although I have no firsthand knowledge of the dispute. You would have thought they would have sought out both parties' views before going public. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. There should be a forthcoming response from E*.

In the letter, the State AG mentions that Dish Network signed an agreement with the State of Missouri to "end deceptive business practices", and apparently the State AG feels Dish Network's actions regarding this "dispute" constitutes a deceptive practice.

 

[Hall]

Koster is grasping when he says customers "would not have entered into an agreement" if these channels weren't available "for the duration of the contract" when that same contract says channels may be added or dropped ! He's an attorney, I presume, so he thinks one can pick the parts of a contract they like and ignore other parts ?

When he mentions pro-rated bills, I'd do what I mentioned elsewhere: Take the monthly rate, divided by the number of pay channels, multiply by the # of channels currently lost (it varies based on what package a subscriber gets and if they get the regional sports channels), and give back that amount. It's not likely to be more than $1 per month ! As for letting Missouri residents out of their contract, Dish could consider that... I'm willing to bet a few dozen people will actually do it.

 

[ohioankev]

I just got a questionaire from FOX and the questions were basically Did you call DISH and complain ? Would you switch providers ? Do you know when your contract is up ? Do you know Dish could possibly drop FOX and MyNet on Nov 1st ? Would you switch providers ?

I made it known by my answers that I support Dish Network.

 

[meStevo]

If anything that's what any congressional involvement should accomplish, if a provider is determined to be acting unreasonably when it comes to restoring channels that were available when a customer started their commitment then they should be released from it.

The issue Missouri is bringing up is that the channels ceased to be provided by Dish, doesn't matter who pulled them, they're not on the service and so the service is not performing to customers expectations. Whether the Dish TOS allows them to avoid that entirely is what is being challenged. Arguing about who dropped who is just splitting hairs.

 

[jonesy99]

If anything that's what any congressional involvement should accomplish, if a provider is determined to be acting unreasonably when it comes to restoring channels that were available when a customer started their commitment then they should be released from it.

The issue Missouri is bringing up is that the channels ceased to be provided by Dish, doesn't matter who pulled them, they're not on the service and so the service is not performing to customers expectations. Whether the Dish TOS allows them to avoid that entirely is what is being challenged. Arguing about who dropped who is just splitting hairs.

Seems kinda moot, no judge is going to rule against dish if they have no control over what got pulled.

 

[meStevo]

Seems kinda moot, no judge is going to rule against dish if they have no control over what got pulled.

The terms are what's being challenged, and if it's determined Dish is being unreasonable then it's certainly not moot. Dish has control by working out a reasonable contract for the content. Now I see why you guys are banging the 'Fox pulled the channels' drum so loudly, so that you can frame Dish as a victim. The customers are the only victims here, who's objectively at fault is a pretty ambiguous gray area due to a distinct lack of facts.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The terms are what's being challenged, and if it's determined Dish is being unreasonable then it's certainly not moot.

That's the problem. Yes, there is an agreement between Dish Network and the subscriber. There is also an agreement between Dish Network and the State of Missouri. That agreement is just as valid as the customer agreement.

 

[Hall]

...and if it's determined Dish is being unreasonable then it's certainly not moot. Dish has control by working out a reasonable contract for the content.

Who determines what is "reasonable" ?