So who's jumping ship? and a message to Charlie

[Carroll A]

I am still happy with Dish... The channels that were dropped were not a big loss to me.. That is the nature of the business... D* drops something then there is those who will jump to Dish or Dish drops something and there is those who will jump to D*. As long as I get a good price for my package then I am good to go since Dish has a much better price then what Comcast has here in Rockford for my viewing taste... CC

 

[navychop]

It will be a long time before the Internet backbone can support most households watching HD.

 

[whatchel1]

Just referring to he left

When did Haller switch to Direct?

I know he bought a Tivo for OTA

Just saying Howler split not that he went to D*

 

[KAB]

It will be a long time before the Internet backbone can support most households watching HD.

Amen, Bro!

 

[cincyguy2k4]

Also, All this free HD programming that Charlie has been getting for all of these years, He should refund everyone's HD fees from the start as there was no additional cost other than internal costs at dish, to launch and maintain the programming. Those costs were fixed anyhow as they needed to replace the birds no matter what was beamed to them.

And those Birds are a drop in the bucket....

Another point. I am sure they had to redesign and upgrade those birds to accomodate more HD....something they wouldn't have done unless there was a need.

I'm not defending Charlie 100 percent though. The price increases this year are insane. I have Absolute and saw my bill go up to up to almost 90 bucks a month with 3 boxes. 922, 722, and 722k.....

There is NO way I will EVER EVER drop Absolute .... If I get kicked off...that will be the day I drop Dish. I am already trying to figure out a way to drop at least one box..... Thinking of slinging the 922 to the office to eliminate a 722.

Just wish I could get RedZone on Absolute Would be the perfect plan.

 

[dissident]

honestly jumping ship over 4 channels that will probably return in a couple weeks seems a bit pre-mature. If I jump ship to anywhere after my contract is up, it will be to a big dish and 4DTV for the greatly improved bitrates in the channels.

 

[ryotgz]

I am considering changing to D*, but not because of the channels. But because they have my actual local HDs and the wife is getting tired of not having the real locals. The only thing that keeps me from changing right now is the thought of losing G4 HD.

 

[pawdog]

DirecTV can't even provide sd locals in my area. To me that makes them a second rate provider. (smile)

Can't get me a 5 dollar a month local package, I can't buy your hundreds of dollar sports package.

 

[chuckster_dude]

I do agree, however, that switching just because of a channel dispute is going to lead to disappointment. Channel disputes are unfortunately just a part of the landscape with any payTV provider you pick.

Great point! All the sports enthusiasts who rightly so go to DirecTv were upset when VS disappeared for a few weeks.

History shows it happens......even with cable.

 

[Greg Bimson]

According to Scott, it was Disney that pulled them, not Dish...

thats usually what happens when you refuse to pay

No, it is better than that. Take a look at the 10Q from DISH:

During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C., and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon, and ABC Family. ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.

Dish Network started service of two of the four channels in May, 2008. Within six months, Dish Network then sued Disney for failure "provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon, and ABC Family," even though Dish Network was carrying those channels. ESPN countersued and received a judgment for those channels.

Those channels are off because Dish Network doesn't want to pay judgment rates for those channels anymore and because those channels were never under a no-charge carriage agreement.

Blaming Disney is just like blaming the subscriber that wants to terminate early; maybe Dish Network should have read their contract.

 

[mike123abc]

Dish may have thought they were in the contract terms, but now that the courts have ruled against them they will have to work out a deal with Disney.

It looks like at least we should be happy Disney did not pull all the HD feeds they could have pulled. This could happen if the talks drag out. I would bet Dish will have this resolved fairly quickly since there are more channels at risk. Disney has big leverage.

 

[wingnut10]

Hopefully they get these channels back up soon

 

[Greg Bimson]

Dish may have thought they were in the contract terms, but now that the courts have ruled against them they will have to work out a deal with Disney.

Sort of. It appears there is a contract in place, it's just that Dish Network doesn't want to use it because of the payment terms.

ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.

Disney received word that Dish Network owed some amount of the $35 million, and then later amended their claim for an additional $30 million to cover the newer time period. Disney was granted the judgment of the full $65 million requested, as per the terms of the affiliation agreement. It simply seems Dish Network doesn't want to live up to the payments, so Dish Network must have had an out-provision for those networks.

It looks like at least we should be happy Disney did not pull all the HD feeds they could have pulled.

I still believe that Dish Network had to have dropped the channels. After all, it was only these four channels that were subject of the original suit. Dish Network now no longer carries them.

 

[whatchel1]

Try again

Sort of. It appears there is a contract in place, it's just that Dish Network doesn't want to use it because of the payment terms.Disney received word that Dish Network owed some amount of the $35 million, and then later amended their claim for an additional $30 million to cover the newer time period. Disney was granted the judgment of the full $65 million requested, as per the terms of the affiliation agreement. It simply seems Dish Network doesn't want to live up to the payments, so Dish Network must have had an out-provision for those networks.I still believe that Dish Network had to have dropped the channels. After all, it was only these four channels that were subject of the original suit. Dish Network now no longer carries them.

E* didn't drop them Disney made them turn them off. That was stated more than once here. E* was forced to do what happened. Disney is playing hardcore w/ the gambler that is really hardcore also. Let;s see if Charlie has a Ace up his sleeve. I would like to see something like the weather channel take place.

 

[SpaethCo]

E* didn't drop them Disney made them turn them off.

Potato potato?

Are the channels any more available if E* shut them off vs Disney stopping the feed?

 

[Greg Bimson]

E* didn't drop them Disney made them turn them off. That was stated more than once here.

By one person without coroborating evidence...

Piecemeal the evidence I've put together:

DISH sues Disney six months after making HD feeds available of four channels, because Disney wasn't providing Dish Network those channels. Sounds like double-speak to me.

Disney countersues that Dish Network should pay $35 million for the four channels based upon the current affiliation agreement. When the courts say that Disney is definitely owed some money, Disney then amends the counterclaim to include another $30 million, and the court grants Disney the entire $65 million amount.

There is an agreement there. Dish Network doesn't want to use it. There is an agreement there. The court awarded $65 million because of it. There is an agreement there. Dish Network doesn't say there isn't; they say they are trying to keep costs low. There is an agreement there. Disney stated there is an agreement there, just that there wasn't an agreement without fees.

Here. Let me say it: Dish Network had to drop the channels because they didn't want to keep paying those fees ordered by the court. There. I said it. Now it must be correct.

 

[whatchel1]

Scott

By one person without coroborating evidence...

Piecemeal the evidence I've put together:

DISH sues Disney six months after making HD feeds available of four channels, because Disney wasn't providing Dish Network those channels. Sounds like double-speak to me.

Disney countersues that Dish Network should pay $35 million for the four channels based upon the current affiliation agreement. When the courts say that Disney is definitely owed some money, Disney then amends the counterclaim to include another $30 million, and the court grants Disney the entire $65 million amount.

There is an agreement there. Dish Network doesn't want to use it. There is an agreement there. The court awarded $65 million because of it. There is an agreement there. Dish Network doesn't say there isn't; they say they are trying to keep costs low. There is an agreement there. Disney stated there is an agreement there, just that there wasn't an agreement without fees.

Here. Let me say it: Dish Network had to drop the channels because they didn't want to keep paying those fees ordered by the court. There. I said it. Now it must be correct.

That 1 person was SCOTT why does he need to have collaborating evidence. I doubt him not 1 iota. If you do then you just are very strange as far as I'm concerned. He's always up on the latest correct info about E*.

 

[Greg Bimson]

That 1 person was SCOTT why does he need to have collaborating evidence. I doubt him not 1 iota. If you do then you just are very strange as far as I'm concerned.

Because it doesn't make any sense.

Under the existing affiliation agreement, Dish Network has been forced to pay $65 million from at least May 2008 to late 2009. All Disney needs to do to collect is go back to court. It is in Disney's best interest to have Dish Network continue to carry the feeds under the current terms. It would not be in Dish Network's interest.

If Dish Network told Disney they are appealing and won't pay a cent, then Disney (once again) would ask Dish Network to cease and desist carrying the four channels. It isn't like Disney won't sue; they can simply attach continuing payments to this case.

That's why it makes no sense.

 

[tedb3rd]

If I wanted to pay more for more HD channels that I didn't watch, I would switch to DirecTV. Thanks Charlie, for offering a choice. Don't be a sissy. Stay with your strategy. Dish is big customer to them so they will negotiate too when they realize you're not bluffing.

 

[Uncontrol]

What do you mean they have taken away Encore and TMC Xtra? I still have them.

I still have them, just not in HD.