Local Sinclair group channels have increased Dish networks costs for their programming and dish is fighting back by protesting the rate hikes. So what are they doing, advertising on sinclair stations that Directv is not losing these channels but Dish network is. Strange this never happens to Directv. If I was dishes lawyers I would definitely be pulling DTV and Sinclair into court. Both companies have strong republican ties. News Corp. Which owns Fox News also owns DTV. Sinclair group is also responsible for the restrictions satellite companies have now for distant network services. When honesty returns to the FCC may they nail em all.
Dish network customers may lose programming messages
- Thread starter edchuckndoug
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 7
- Views 2K
This has all been settled already. They came to an agreement last week.
http://www.sbgi.net/misc/dish.shtml
http://www.sbgi.net/misc/dish.shtml
Why is it that Dish Has a problem with all the channel providers, this is my second time returning to dish and they are having issues.
lilexecutioner said:
Let me put this in a way that most of us would understand:
I would say that this is the difference between giving in to the playground bully's and standing up to them. Most every other provider caves in and gives up their lunch money to the companies like sinclair and the like while Dish has decided that their (and our) lunch money is more important than just giving it away. Dish may sometimes get beat up in the process and sometimes doesn't win, most of the time the end up coming away with the respect of those bully's that next time they will think twice before threatening to take everyones money. You can blame Charlie all you want, but too bad their aren't more people with the balls to stand up to the bully's of this world! Be it in television or in other things that affect our world. Sometimes I wonder if we ever graduated from those playgrounds of grade school and junior high??? The teachers and playground monitors usually didn't do anything about it then, and there aren't any around to do it now, so I say Thank You Charlie for standing up and not taking it. We could all learn a bit from it I think!
Charlie has more control over the company than what most would of other companies. He seems to take pride in his company and likes to be able to stand up as he does and be in control. This can be a good thing in our case.
I know that some people do not understand this, but the owner of a small cable company explained it to me this way....
Signal providers get to make demands such as how much a provider has to pay them per subscriber and which tier they get to be on.
The gentleman explained to me that a popular sports channel had made a huge demand from him. They wanted twice as much as the previous agreement and they had to be on the basic tier, the tier right above the 2-22 service.
He said that he explained to them that he could not possibly pay them that amount because he was in direct competition with a very large company and could no raise his rates. He said that he would have to make the channel a pay channel.
They came to an agreement and he kept the channel lineup the way it was.
He also explained to me that a huge part of the basic bill was that particular sports channel. That really sucks for me because I don't watch sports channels. I would be happy to have a lower bill and no sports; I know I'm in the minority.
So there you have it. The companies have a lot of power when it comes to these things.
It's our own faults. Go to Starchoice's or Bell Expressvu's websites sometime and see how much variety they can offer their customers.
It is my understanding that he reason why the Canadian signal providers can offer more selection, not paying for channels you do not want, is that their laws don't allow companies to be as demanding on this issue. The owners can't say things like, "My channel has to be a part of your basic tier."
The only way to fix the problem is to complain to our local representatives. I saw a special concerning this issue on CSPAN
So, don't get mad at E* for trying to making a huge fuss over these things. At lease E* has the nerve to stand up and let people know why their bills might go up. When they have to raise the rates, customers always blame the signal provider, not the channels! E* just wants people to know that it is not their fault.
Also, the Canadian signal providers are not as greedy, When you pay for "locals", you get them from 5 time zones. I understand that this is allowed because private groups do not own the stations; I think I read that on a thread here.
It would be very nice to be able to have multiple time zones here. You could actually watch all the primetime programming from all the networks.
If we could have pick and pay for the channels, or even small $5 groups like the Canadians do it, we would not have to pay for things we would not want.
Signal providers get to make demands such as how much a provider has to pay them per subscriber and which tier they get to be on.
The gentleman explained to me that a popular sports channel had made a huge demand from him. They wanted twice as much as the previous agreement and they had to be on the basic tier, the tier right above the 2-22 service.
He said that he explained to them that he could not possibly pay them that amount because he was in direct competition with a very large company and could no raise his rates. He said that he would have to make the channel a pay channel.
They came to an agreement and he kept the channel lineup the way it was.
He also explained to me that a huge part of the basic bill was that particular sports channel. That really sucks for me because I don't watch sports channels. I would be happy to have a lower bill and no sports; I know I'm in the minority.
So there you have it. The companies have a lot of power when it comes to these things.
It's our own faults. Go to Starchoice's or Bell Expressvu's websites sometime and see how much variety they can offer their customers.
It is my understanding that he reason why the Canadian signal providers can offer more selection, not paying for channels you do not want, is that their laws don't allow companies to be as demanding on this issue. The owners can't say things like, "My channel has to be a part of your basic tier."
The only way to fix the problem is to complain to our local representatives. I saw a special concerning this issue on CSPAN
So, don't get mad at E* for trying to making a huge fuss over these things. At lease E* has the nerve to stand up and let people know why their bills might go up. When they have to raise the rates, customers always blame the signal provider, not the channels! E* just wants people to know that it is not their fault.
Also, the Canadian signal providers are not as greedy, When you pay for "locals", you get them from 5 time zones. I understand that this is allowed because private groups do not own the stations; I think I read that on a thread here.
It would be very nice to be able to have multiple time zones here. You could actually watch all the primetime programming from all the networks.
If we could have pick and pay for the channels, or even small $5 groups like the Canadians do it, we would not have to pay for things we would not want.
I agree with you wholeheartedly along with many others here. If the Canadian companies can do it then we should be able to as well. Maybe someday we will be able to do that but until then, there is nothing us citizens can do except vote with our wallet or do without (tv or money).
