Is it possible Dish added some other caveats to this "proposal" that they're not telling the public about? Or are their press releases the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
fox sports dispute
- Thread starter Chuck Summers
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 442
- Views 56K
Have you seen anything from the Fox suggesting something different? I'd think they'd be all over it if it wasn't factual...
At the end of the day, as someone whose had either Directv or Dish since 1995, my bills go up consistently, but I end up losing channels for at least some period of time (and in some cases, forever) every year. I just want to watch TV. I'm not interested in being part of some principled stand and giving up watching the shows we like and want to watch. I'm paying $120 per month. I don't feel like Dish is saving me all kinds of money. If they need to increase my bill $1 a year for the next 2 or three years to keep my channels on, no problem, my bill is going up more than that on a regular basis anyway.
The MLB playoffs are coming up this week, and games are on Fox, and I am going to be royally ticked off if Dish doesn't show them.
The MLB playoffs are coming up this week, and games are on Fox, and I am going to be royally ticked off if Dish doesn't show them.
This man summarizes the stance of 99% of Dish customers. Whether or not they (Dish) care is another thing. The company is in the business to make a profit, sometimes even if that means losing a bunch of customers.
Like I said in one of the other threads (we should combine them) I get double digit increases in my Dish bill regularly, even as I lose my NBC station for over a month, my RSNs, another of my local networks last year for over a month, now more stations.
Does that mean you would have no problem also paying the extra dollars for all those channels that renew each year that other people want to watch but you don't?
Does that mean you would have no problem also paying the extra dollars for all those channels that renew each year that other people want to watch but you don't?
I'm doing that every month I pay my bill. I'm doing that every year or two when Dish gives me an increase in my bill. Until they let me order a la carte I'm always forced to pay for channels I don't watch.
Channel owners would not allow that. It will take a lot more disputes for that to happen.
I assume you know it isn't Dish that's preventing a la carte channel selections, it's the providers that insist on bundling less popular channels in the retrans deals. And those annual increases come in part from the annual increases that are included in the retrans contracts, as well as the new renewals.
Like I said. I've been a satellite subscriber for over 24 years in a row, so I'm really familiar with how they work, the history and evolution of the industry. And it is a combination of choices by the providers. Otherwise every provider would be carrying all the religion and shopping channels, for example. I look at, for example, Youtube TV (been looking at options) - for less than half my bill they cover all the channels we watch, including the Fox Sports channels and regional sports channels, local networks, etc. But no shopping or religion channels. I'm just using that as one example, albeit perhaps not a good one.
But I was just answering your question when you ask am I fine paying the increases for the channels I don't watch. And the answer is just about all of us pay increases constantly from Dish for channels we don't watch. And we still, as in my case, end up not being able to watch networks we DO want to watch.
There was a glimmer of hope earlier this week when the guide information returned, making it look like the channels were about to be restored. That hope was quickly dashed, however, with the guide going back to only showing the dispute message.
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.
...than they used to be? "Closer" is a relative term. Not knowing how truthful the other press releases were/are means that being (slightly) closer to the truth might not be saying much about their truthfulness now.
Not if there is a non-disclosure agreement preventing Fox from saying anything about it one way or the other.
So just imagine how much cheaper the streaming service packages would be if they did offer those channels.
Have you ever seen a one-way NDA where one party can disclose without the other party's permission but the other can't? I've signed well over a hundred NDA's during my career, and I've never seen one...
Yes. I would say more, but I'm not allowed to...
