Social Feed

Scott Greczkowski

Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge

Last reply Nov 22, 2006 · posted in DISH Network Support Forum

WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!

The following story has been sent to me by the good folks at the Transmitter News! As soon as I have a URL to it on their site I will post a link to it.

Looks like we DID IT! Thank you to everyone who made their voices heard on behalf of SatelliteGuys members and satellite lovers around the country!

The Senate would need to vote on this still however the fact that there is a bill out there shows that our voices have been heard!!

EchoStar Networks May Be Saved By Senate

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is leading a bipartisan effort to protect home satellite television customers in Vermont and across the country from losing access to some of the most popular television networks.

Leahy, the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee – and the panel's incoming chairman for the 110th Congress – Thursday introduced the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, joined by Senators Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mark Pryor (D-Minn.) and Michael Enzi (R- Nev.). Leahy over the last decade has co-authored two laws that have expanded home satellite service to millions of viewers in Vermont and nationwide. One of the earlier Leahy initiatives has fostered local-into-local satellite service, enabling Vermonters and others to receive local channels in their home satellite program packages.

Leahy's new bill would preserve satellite television service for roughly 800,000 EchoStar consumers around the country, and in Vermont, who are expected to lose it December 1 as a result of a federal court injunction. EchoStar is expected to suspend service to these consumers following a ruling that it violated federal law by providing distant signals to areas that did not need satellite to receive that programming.

The bill strikes a balance between consumer protection and tough enforcement against EchoStar for violating the law. The legislation requires EchoStar to deposit $20 million to be used to cover any future violations.

"This is a reasonable solution that penalizes Echostar for violating the law, while protecting the people who are the real victims of this serious problem: the consumers who are paying for these services," said Leahy.

The bipartisan bill provides a targeted solution by permitting the service to continue under specific criteria, including:

Where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station.

In areas that do not have affiliates of all four networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC), EchoStar could bring in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local station would be harmed.

Stations from neighboring that are considered "significantly viewed" by the Federal Communications Commission, and generally treated as local stations, could be carried, such as the Albany, N.Y., stations which serve Vermont's Bennington County and the Boston-area stations, which serve Windham County.
Here is the statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on introduction of the "Satellite Consumer Protection Act:"

Today I am pleased to introduce the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, and I am proud that Senators Inouye, Snowe, Allard, Rockefeller, Byrd, Salazar, Clinton, Pryor, Roberts and Enzi are among those joining me in sponsoring this important bill. I regret the necessity of this legislation, but I am determined to protect consumers – especially consumers in rural areas such as Vermont.

This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that addresses a problem that soon will face millions of Americans who subscribe to satellite TV services. I realize full well that this bill may not please the major corporations affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to help them, but to help home satellite viewers.

A federal court recently found that EchoStar willfully, flagrantly and repeatedly violated federal law, and I believe that EchoStar should be held to account for its decade of illegal activity. The situation is ultimately quite complicated, but the simplest version is this: EchoStar has been bringing distant network signals to areas that did not need satellite to provide access to that programming. But the penalty for such actions is harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit had no choice: EchoStar will be required to stop retransmitting any distant signals. EchoStar flouted the law, but it is consumers who will suffer. Unless we pass this bill, many rural subscribers around the country will lose access to news and entertainment programming from the free, over-the-air broadcast networks.

The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a practical, narrow, and -- most importantly -- pro-consumer solution to a problem of EchoStar's creation. The court-issued injunction, set to take effect December 1, will prohibit EchoStar from providing any distant network stations to any of its customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection Act, the injunction will apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where EchoStar provides residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our legislation would only permit EchoStar to bring in distant network stations in three situations. First, where local stations are not available from a satellite provider, EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if it compensates the local station. Second, in areas that do not have affiliates of all four networks, EchoStar could bring in a distant signal of the missing network affiliate because no local station would be harmed. Third, stations from neighboring localities that are considered "significantly viewed" by the Federal Communications Commission, and are generally treated as local stations, could be carried.

This legislation would not be complete without an enforcement provision that will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally providing copyrighted content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act therefore imposes real monetary penalties for violating the Act and requires EchoStar to put sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright office to cover any future violations.

This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate interests of broadcasters who have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it serves the interests of the people who are the innocent bystanders and the real victims of this emerging problem: the consumers who are paying for these services.

178 Replies · 30041 views

Load Replies (178) Reply Legacy View

ac3750

Nov 20, 2006

It's about choice and the freedom to choose!

If I live in one city, but would like to view programming from accross the country, I should have the right to do it because the technology is here to do it. By not letting me choose, I feel it is now a restraint of trade or monopolistic behavior, both of which are not acceptable in my book!

I don't really care what has happened in the past...what is the right thing to do today. Don't take away or restrict the freedom of the consumer to choose his or hers programming.

simply put...Don't Restrict...let me choose what I want to see and pay for it accordingly...weather or not I have the ability to recive local programming or not.

HDTVFanAtic

Nov 21, 2006

ac3750 said:
If I live in one city, but would like to view programming from accross the country, I should have the right to do it because the technology is here to do it. By not letting me choose, I feel it is now a restraint of trade or monopolistic behavior, both of which are not acceptable in my book!

I don't really care what has happened in the past...what is the right thing to do today. Don't take away or restrict the freedom of the consumer to choose his or hers programming.

simply put...Don't Restrict...let me choose what I want to see and pay for it accordingly...weather or not I have the ability to recive local programming or not.

BS

The technology exists to download music from the internet bypassing the wishes of the copyright holder. It's illegal as well.

Just because technology exists doesn't mean its your god given right to get something that doesnt belong to you or you have no right to.

Why this site claims to ban hackers who do the same thing theft of copyrighted material - yet allows for this non-sense is comical.

ac3750

Nov 21, 2006

HDTVFanAtic said:
BS

The technology exists to download music from the internet bypassing the wishes of the copyright holder. It's illegal as well.

Just because technology exists doesn't mean its your god given right to get something that doesnt belong to you or you have no right to.

Why this site claims to ban hackers who do the same thing theft of copyrighted material - yet allows for this non-sense is comical.

I am not advocating theft of copyright material...I am just advocating access to it paying any and all fees, royalties, etc...Let that be my choice and most importantly my right as a consumer...

HDTVFanAtic

Nov 22, 2006

ac3750 said:
I am not advocating theft of copyright material...I am just advocating access to it paying any and all fees, royalties, etc...Let that be my choice and most importantly my right as a consumer...

You still fail to get it through your head that the station in Sacramento does not have the right to sell you CBS material in Cleveland.

You cannot buy it from them. They don't own it. And likewise, they cannot grant Dish or Directv the right to sell it to you either - as they don't own it.

Why do you continue to run about the basic concept of ownership?

You do not have any god given right to it.

Just as in the OJ Simpson Book, if Fox wants to shelf it - they own it - its their right. You have no right to see it just because you want to see it.

So yes, it is theft - as the person does not have a legal right to sell it to you - no more than the DVD counterfeiter on the street corner.

ac3750

Nov 22, 2006

HDTVFanAtic said:
You still fail to get it through your head that the station in Sacramento does not have the right to sell you CBS material in Cleveland.

I would think that CBS, or any national network for this matter, wouldn't object to where a consumer picked up their content. ratings is what it's all about.

You cannot buy it from them. They don't own it. And likewise, they cannot grant Dish or Directv the right to sell it to you either - as they don't own it.

Ok...if they don't own it, then there is no copyright issue with the local station then...

Why do you continue to run about the basic concept of ownership?

To me, it is simple...or basic as you put it...either a station owns the content or they don't...if they do, then the station has the right to sell or not sell as they see fit. If they don't, then it's not up to the station to decide who views the content.

You do not have any god given right to it.

God has nothing to do with this topic...I am saying that our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights grant us the right to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

Just as in the OJ Simpson Book, if Fox wants to shelf it - they own it - its their right. You have no right to see it just because you want to see it.

I agree that the content owner has this choice/right. Just as anyone has the same right to publish and/or distribute. But once the owner decides to make it available, we all have the right to receive regardless of where we live.

So yes, it is theft - as the person does not have a legal right to sell it to you - no more than the DVD counterfeiter on the street corner.

I, again, am stating that I do not advocate obtaining illegal content weather it be receiving premium content without paying for it or an illegal made copy of a DVD. I am advocating that it is my choice and my right to buy that DVD from any place I so choose weather it was from my local DVD store, or a store located across the country. It's called the free market.

ThomasRz

Nov 22, 2006

ac3750 said:
I would think that CBS, or any national network for this matter, wouldn't object to where a consumer picked up their content. ratings is what it's all about.

Surely you understand that there is more to a network feed than the primetime lineup? There is local content. Local content varies according to, well, locality. If every network feed were identical there would probably be no issue. Except for those who claim that PQ out of NY is so superior to East Elbow, IA that they must have DNS.

Ok...if they don't own it, then there is no copyright issue with the local station then...

This statement makes no sense. Could you rephrase? The important notion is that the DBS (E*, D*, X*...) is essentially the bagman for the programming (things like Charlie Lies, er Chat excepted). Does UPS own your Hickory Farms Sausage and Cheese package until they deliver it to you?

To me, it is simple...or basic as you put it...either a station owns the content or they don't...if they do, then the station has the right to sell or not sell as they see fit. If they don't, then it's not up to the station to decide who views the content.

Correct as far as it goes. If the station owns the content (i.e. is the copyright holder) then they must license it for use. However there are multiple copyright holders that are involved. That is why, please pay attention, the statutory license exists. Congress has removed some of the rights of the owners in order to make network signals easily available to the unserved. Without this license, the copyright holder (be it a network, local affiliate, production company, syndicator) could prevent any and all distribution of the material - by any means. Congress has conditioned this license. It is up to those who utilize the license (e.g. E*) to meet those conditions or face the consequences.

God has nothing to do with this topic...I am saying that our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights grant us the right to life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.

God has everthing to do with everything but to your point, your (sort of) quotation is from the Declaration of Independence not the Bill of Rights nor any part of the Constitution. But even if it were, your (implied) contention that it would grant you unfettered access to DNS is preposterous and silly.

I agree that the content owner has this choice/right. Just as anyone has the same right to publish and/or distribute. But once the owner decides to make it available, we all have the right to receive regardless of where we live.

Not at all. Part of the rights that the content owner has is to determine when, where and to whom to license its use. In this case, as mentioned above, Congress has removed part of that power and substituted its own judgment with regard to DNS.

I, again, am stating that I do not advocate obtaining illegal content weather it be receiving premium content without paying for it or an illegal made copy of a DVD. I am advocating that it is my choice and my right to buy that DVD from any place I so choose weather it was from my local DVD store, or a store located across the country. It's called the free market.

And if the distributor decides not to provide the DVD to your local store, do you have the right to hijack a truck carrying it (or have a store employee do it for you) even if you leave behind cash in the amount of the retail price (+tax)?

Capitalism works.

ac3750

Nov 22, 2006

ThomasRz said:
And if the distributor decides not to provide the DVD to your local store, do you have the right to hijack a truck carrying it (or have a store employee do it for you) even if you leave behind cash in the amount of the retail price (+tax)?

Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

ThomasRz

Nov 22, 2006

ac3750 said:
Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Ok, let me broaden the proposition. If the owner of X doesn't want to sell it to you because you live in State A. Tough. Just because the owner sells it to people in State B (or is forced by the government to sell X to a defined group in State C) gives you no right to purchase it even if X is delivered by the same trucking company to lawful purchasers. Geographical restrictions are often imposed. Let's say you live in Arizona. Can you buy a handgun from a dealer in Texas? No. Even if you pay Ernie's Gunrunning and Transport Company a premium to deliver it. The product in either case has NOT been made available to anyone with the cash to pay for it. Either is available to individuals who are LEGALLY QUALIFIED to purchase the product. I know you wish it would be otherwise but it isn't. If you want to make DNS (or handguns or whatever) freely available for purchase - get the laws changed. However, I suggest that you come up with a stronger argument than it doesn't matter if "X" is a DVD, DNS, or a S&W 629. There are public policy reasons for discriminating among products. It is not done just to make you unhappy. Even when the private sector has freedom to do things it doesn't because it doesn't make business sense. How many times have you seen a McDonalds across the street from another McDonalds? I would guess never. Now how many times have you seen a Burger King next to a McDonalds? Fairly often. There are sound business reasons for all of these actions. If you don't understand them, I suggest you take some classes at the local community college. I am not being flip. It will help you understand the concepts.

boy921

Nov 22, 2006

This may have been discussed already but I can't find it. Okay, I don't know how it works but does the network give all of its programming to the affiliate station for free? If so then I can see the programming being made available to everyone from any location via DNS. If the affiliate station has to pay to show the network programming, then I can see where they would have a problem letting anyone in their market get it from elsewhere. Then too maybe the network wants viewers to see their programming from the respective markets. How does this actually work?

ac3750 said:
Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

cariera

Nov 22, 2006

ac3750 said:
Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Actually I believe that this is "less silly" than you think as some dvds and dvd players are regionally encoded (or have been in the past). This seems to be done to limit distribution and ensure the owner of the product gets paid.

TNGTony

Nov 22, 2006

ac3750 said:
Now this statement you made is silly. Think about what you just stated. If a DVD is available for sale (legally) in a store located 500 miles away from where I live, you are implying that I have no right to purchase it because I do not live there.

My point, simply, is that once content has been made available, where you live should not be a factor for access to it.

Real world situation.
Coors Beer could not be legally sold nor commercially transported except in certain regions of the country before national distribution some time in the 80s. This was due to the MANUFACTURER'S Distribution deal. It had nothing to do with any other laws. Remember the movie "Smokey and the Bandit?". Remember the story line? No actual theft was involved in the movie. But the act of trucking Coors to Georgia was bootleging.

Something that survises to this day: If you go to a Coca Cola bottler they will NOT sell you product unless you are selling it in "their" territory. Period. You have to go to the bottler in that region. No exceptions. If you get caught going to the wrong distributer they will CUT YOU OFF! This happened to WAL*MART (Sam's Club)

[edit]... another point. Nothing...absolutely nothing is illegal or stopping you from driving the 500 miles and watching the distant station directly. What is illegal is some one else taking the distant station and selling it to you against the wishes of the station in question. The question is not about primary viewership. The question is about redistribution!

See ya
Tony

ThomasRz

Nov 22, 2006

boy921 said:
This may have been discussed already but I can't find it. Okay, I don't know how it works but does the network give all of its programming to the affiliate station for free? If so then I can see the programming being made available to everyone from any location via DNS. If the affiliate station has to pay to show the network programming, then I can see where they would have a problem letting anyone in their market get it from elsewhere. Then too maybe the network wants viewers to see their programming from the respective markets. How does this actually work?

I'm sure someone will provide the grisly details about the network affiliate system. My point is that it really doesn't matter. The legal owners of the product have the right to control it. In the case of OTA, they have said that anybody with the technical capability (by sticking an piece of metal in the air) may receive their programming for personal use. In the case of cable, for the most part, they have lost some rights on redistribution - the theory (very simply stated) is that cable is essentially performing the same function as OTA, often providing a better quality signal. However you don't see the cable company in West Undershirt, NE rebroadcasting WABC out of New York or WMAL from Baltimore. Funny how cable customers don't seem to howl about this like DBS types do. Whatever the financial relationship you, as a customer, can opt to receive your local network stations OTA or by cable, depending upon your preferences and availability. Likewise you can, in most cases, receive them via DBS. What you cannot do is receive out of market network signals (by DBS or cable) unless you are legally qualified to do so. I suppose since DBS doesn't require a physical connection it was naturally open to abuse.

View all replies (178)

ewindowman

Lifetime Supporter

Last reply 2 minutes ago · posted in DISH Network Support Forum

Dish Bankruptcy - Business as Usual

Looks like dish is Bankrupt. Filling tomorrow Tuesday June 30th

471 Replies · 16738 views

Load Replies (471) Reply Legacy View

Reactions: Foxbat, FTA4PA and LQQK

slow_poke_pete

Yesterday at 6:38 PM

https://www.phonearena.com/news/att-reshoring-customer-care_id184650

Meanwhile att is getting rid of overseas call centers

Reactions: Almighty1, Bobby, HipKat and 1 other person

comfortably_numb

Yesterday at 6:52 PM

slow_poke_pete said:
https://www.phonearena.com/news/att-reshoring-customer-care_id184650

Meanwhile att is getting rid of overseas call centers

Too bad their service is expensive and their coverage sucks compared to the other two of the Big 3

Reactions: charlesrshell

Juan

Yesterday at 9:50 PM

comfortably_numb said:
Too bad their service is expensive and their coverage sucks compared to the other two of the Big 3

Was that a back door compliment for Verizon?

Reactions: charlesrshell

dishstaller

Yesterday at 10:00 PM

slow_poke_pete said:
Meanwhile att is getting rid of overseas call centers

Too little too late.

I can actually shed some light on the corp attitude towards call centers.

2015-2017 I was on the Viasat Dealer Council. They would fly us out to CO or CA and wine and dine us. Pretty cool but I was there to give my input because I was a top retailer and I wanted things to improve.
Anyway, at one of the meetings I brought up the fact that customers constantly complained about the overseas call centers. The VP of the company told me that I just didn't understand....those people cost something like 25% of what US employees would cost. Well, as usual when I went out to these meetings, I was loaded for bear....ie facts. I gave them an example of a customer who spent over an hour with one of these call centers and still never got her issue resolved. She called me the next morning after we opened and I had her situation fixed in 2 minutes. I told him "So you guys paid this overseas call center X amount but the customer still wasn't taken care of. I on the other hand, and a US call center probably would have as well because there wouldn't have been the language barrier, had her taken care of in 2 min. so your savings just went right out the door because a US call center would have taken care of her and MANY other customers while your overseas call center did nothing more than PISS off a customer.
Blank stares was all I got.

And THAT was when I realized just how incompetent most of the people are who run these companies. It WAS an enlightening experience.

Reactions: fmj77, slow_poke_pete and charlesrshell

Almighty1

Today at 5:30 AM

Even 23 years ago, Verizon was known for having quality customer service. T-Mobile had quality customer service too but just poor mobile service. AT&T when it was still known as AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless both had poor customer service. This was when all three were providing customer service from the U.S. so even in the U.S., some companies are still better than others as it still depends on who they hire. That's the same reason AT&T Broadband Inc. which was basically their Cable TV never gotten far and got sold to Comcast.

Reactions: charlesrshell

comfortably_numb

Today at 9:26 AM

dishstaller said:
And THAT was when I realized just how incompetent most of the people are who run these companies

I wouldn't call it incompetence necessarily, it's just that the customer is only a device now, the old idea that you need to spend money to make money has been forgotten. They're not looking at the long game. They're looking at immediate exposure and shareholder value. Spending a lot of money on local call centers might be a good long term investment, but it doesn't do anything for them in the short term. That's what the blank stares were about, they thought YOU didn't get it.

Reactions: charlesrshell

comfortably_numb

Today at 9:27 AM

Juan said:
Was that a back door compliment for Verizon?

And TMO. If anybody's lagging behind the most, it's ATT.

Reactions: navychop and charlesrshell

ERSanders

19 minutes ago

The short term financial thinking by MBAs is what killed Xerox. Ask me how I know!

Reactions: charlesrshell and comfortably_numb

navychop

2 minutes ago

So you have a MBA?
:devilish

Reactions: charlesrshell

View all replies (471)

Scott Greczkowski

Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU! Cutting Edge

Last reply 14 minutes ago · posted in The Chit Chat Club

Song Name Game Part 3!

Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!

So let the game continue!

The last song was added by Bobby who posted...

One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters

CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!

Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game

Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.

Example:

Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow

Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio

Another example:

Ride the Lightning -- Metallica

Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne

Get it?

An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....

68798 Replies · 2689242 views

Load Replies (68798) Reply Legacy View

Reactions: c-spand

hwkn

Today at 2:39 AM

FIND Your Way Back-Jefferson Starship

Reactions: dishstaller

ClarkGable

Today at 5:51 AM

Working My Way Back To You - The Four Seasons

Reactions: RaiderPower, dishstaller and FTA4PA

dishstaller

Today at 8:07 AM

Don't Look Back - Boston

Reactions: RaiderPower

harshness

Today at 10:03 AM

Please Come to Boston - Dave Loggins

Reactions: RaiderPower

Bobby

14 minutes ago

Come A Little Bit Closer - Jay and the Americans

View all replies (68798)

dfergie

Staff member HERE TO HELP YOU!

Last reply 27 minutes ago · posted in The Chit Chat Club

Gas Price Info With National Gas Temperature Map

Stumbled across this ... http://www.gaspricewatch.com/USGas_ZipSearch.asp
I found no local prices, although it did show stations at my location...
Added these to this post...
USA National Gas Temperature Map
State By State Gasoline Taxes
Gas Buddy

Ethanol Free Stations

5574 Replies · 463192 views

Load Replies (5574) Reply Legacy View

Bobby

Yesterday at 11:04 AM

Regular$5.299
Premium$5.859
Diesel$7.599
at Costco, Rohnert Park.

harshness

Yesterday at 4:41 PM

Finally! Some big movement in California diesel pricing (and no, there is no such beastie as a diesel "winter formula").

Crude (combined pricing) is around $90/barrel now, so prices should have, at least, fallen in step with the crude futures.

dishstaller

Today at 8:19 AM

harshness said:
Finally! Some big movement in California diesel pricing (and no, there is no such beastie as a diesel "winter formula").

Just curious here.....then why is diesel so much higher out there than it is elsewhere. Bobby just posted $7.59/gal, locally it is $5.59.....that's two bucks difference. :eeek

harshness

46 minutes ago

dishstaller said:
Just curious here.....then why is diesel so much higher out there than it is elsewhere.

California has a ~93¢ per gallon consumer tax rate on automotive diesel, along with significantly higher refinement standards.

The fact that consumers can only buy some new full-sized truck models and a couple of vans with diesel power makes the fuel an odd duck in refinery priorities.

osu1991

27 minutes ago

$3.50-$3.52 around Tulsa and $3.45 in OKC

View all replies (5574)

ts27330

Today at 9:47 AM · posted in Cable Television and Fiber Providers

Charter/Spectrum tv app works with more brands

The Charter/Spectrum tv app has been updated to make it downloaded with more tv brands. I recently added it to my LG Oled tv.

0 Replies · 16 views

Replies Reply Legacy View

Bobby

Supporting Founder Lifetime Supporter

Last reply Today at 9:27 AM · posted in DISH Network Support Forum

4K Events Discussion Thread

This thread is a place to discuss the 4K events that appear on channel 540. We are getting, at this point, one college football game a week. Let's hope there is more coming.

1938 Replies · 302195 views

Load Replies (1938) Reply Legacy View

Reactions: Rixos, DWS44 and charlesrshell

long_time_Dish

Oct 23, 2026

No NASCAR in 4K on Sunday? Bummer...

Reactions: charlesrshell

Jim5506

Oct 24, 2026

long_time_Dish said:
No NASCAR in 4K on Sunday? Bummer...

It's on Prime.

Reactions: charlesrshell

long_time_Dish

Oct 24, 2026

Jim5506 said:
It's on Prime.

Ah, ok, thanks!

Reactions: charlesrshell

Foxbat

Oct 24, 2026

The World Series Game 1 quality was excellent, the Dolby Surround put us in the seats. Thanks, Dish!

Reactions: charlesrshell

sasmith

Yesterday at 9:22 PM

Not seeing many 4k games on the 148 channels lately?

Also I do not see the 4KFox channel on 148-01; I also do not subscribed to our Local Houston channels.

Maybe I need to subscribe to locals or add the National Action Pack? Not sure the extra cost is worth it??

thx for any info or suggestions

S

Reactions: charlesrshell

jsmit86

Today at 9:27 AM

sasmith said:
Not seeing many 4k games on the 148 channels lately?

Also I do not see the 4KFox channel on 148-01; I also do not subscribed to our Local Houston channels.

Maybe I need to subscribe to locals or add the National Action Pack? Not sure the extra cost is worth it??

thx for any info or suggestions

S

Most of the 4K action on the 148-xx channels will be on Saturday for College Football. For whatever reason, the guide does not show the games until later in the week. The Fox Big Noon game will show up, and there will usually be a couple of other games, some on Fox, and some on ESPN.

I don't know if you need to be subscribed to locals to get them.

Reactions: charlesrshell

View all replies (1938)

dishstaller

Pub Member / Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Today at 8:50 AM · posted in The Chit Chat Club

FDA issues new warning for Ozempic - can cause eye-stroke

Now after reading this story I walked away thinking that this is being blown out of proportion because of the incredibly low numbers of those affected.....BUT....I've read posts by some of you who are taking this drug so I figured it was worth posting.