Dish/Sinclair Dispute

[Stargazer]

So basically Dish Network could tell Sinclair that they choose not to carry any of their channels unless they have them for free for trying to play unfair and they may give in eventually if Dish shows them that they mean business. This could cause Dish Network more than Sinclair seeing how those customers would either remain on Dish Network or go to DirecTv/Cable in which would get the revenue that way. Seems like in this case Dish Network has more to lose than Sinclair.

 

[dtanderson]

Interesting concept. I wonder if I don't make my rent payments long enough and the landlord "refusee to" let me stay in the place and reports it on my credit record I can tell emm it ain't really my fault since they are the ones that "refused" me. The logic is simple, you pay the bill to keep the lights on. If Dish doesn't pay the bill why should Sinclair feel obligated to keep their lights on? It doesn't matter that they do it with everyone. Fact of the matter is you don't get anything free. Even from a Dish promotion program peddled by a CSR. Dish boasts being #1, it only stands to reason to raise the rent so to speak. If it bothers you that much there's always the rabbit ears.

It has nothing to do with Dish refusing to pay them. Dish is already paying them, Sinclair wants more $$. If your landlord rasied your rent $200-300 a month you would not want to pay the extra and would move out.... Dish is doing the same thing Sinclair wants to raise the rent and Dish does not want to pay the extra money, so they are refusing to pay it and Sinclair is threating to pull the channels (evict) if they do not pay more. I stand behind Dish

 

[Mr Tony]

Mustang is anti-dish so I just take it with a grain of salt

but dt you are right...SInclair is just trying to get more money for the same crap they show OTA for free.

 

[MustangLX89]

You've got several options...

1. Ball up and get those "free" ota channels and tell Sinclair to stick it. (not really free considering tax money runs them and you pay taxes.)

2. Tell Charlie to ball up and take the increase considering the overcompression he does to the channels in the first place.

3. Switch providers to someone that doesn't have a problem paying Sinclairs rates.

The fact is Sinclair CAN charge because if what they were doing was illegal the FCC would be all over them.

Iceberg, there are issues with Dish that if they ever did fix them I would return to them and I've stated before what they were. However, that's about as likely as an icebergs chance in hell so I'm not going to hold my breath on that deal. Some of us don't like being rape victims of Charlie. On the other hand it does seem like some of you enjoy it though.

 

[LookIPosted]

Mustang - you should really know something before you start bashing them. Sinclair gets no money from taxes for their stations. Nobody is paying for them except ad revenues. Tax money does not run them. Get you facts straight.

 

[jergenf]

How come DirectTV is not affected by Sinclair's price increase or have they already adjusted their rates?

Also TW cable in Rochester NY does not carry FoxHD because Sinclair wants extra money. The scrolling text message on my Fox-Digital station may be a national message because there's no point in contacting the local cable unless one desires the analog feed (or maybe that's what they meant).

 

[Mr Tony]

Some of us don't like being rape victims of Charlie. On the other hand it does seem like some of you enjoy it though.

I dont feel like a rape victim. I have had them for 5 years now
-havent had an issue with a receiver
-prices are decent

And for S***clair, the WB in my area (KMWB Minneapolis) is affected. If I want WB, I'll see it on my FTA system

 

[Mr Tony]

Mustang - you should really know something before you start bashing them. Sinclair gets no money from taxes for their stations. Nobody is paying for them except ad revenues. Tax money does not run them. Get you facts straight.

true

 

[HokieEngineer]

You've got several options...

...

The fact is Sinclair CAN charge because if what they were doing was illegal the FCC would be all over them.

Sinclair has done plenty in the last year to make me think the FCC would be all over them, but surprisingly, they haven't. Welcome to the Corporate friendly government bizzaro world of BushCo. Mark Hyman 4 life!

 

[Stargazer]

Well since Sinclair is getting away with having two major networks in some markets then maybe they think they can also get away with this?

 

[iKramerica]

It often takes a while for any action to be taken

It takes years of investigation before action is taken in this world, long after the consumer has been royally screwed.

Just because Sinclair isn't being fined now, don't think their practices are legal.

It took a while to find out what Adelphia was up to. It took YEARS to decide that Exxon/Mobil was overcharging for gas. It took a while to find out what Enron was up to. In all those cases, the consumer won't get any money back, but someone was still forced to pay the piper.

As for Sinclair, the government is already pulling back on the ownership levels, after seeing what expanded ownership for any one company does to that market.

And as for "no taxpayer money" going to Sinclair, that is a shell game. The government SELLS bandwidth to other industries, but television networks get to use that bandwidth for free (outside of paying for licenses). The amount these companies should be paying is in the BILLIONS. And the government gave the digital bandwidth away for free as well to "encourage" stations to convert. They will later take back the VHF/UHF spectrum and auction it to other industries (though this date keeps getting pushed back as companies like Sinclair hold off on digital conversion)

So, if a company isn't required to pay billions of dollars to the government that other industries are required to pay, that is lost money that must be made up for in public taxes, and thus Sinclair has indirect taxpayer funding.

 

[Geeke19]

are any of these channels in the list to be shut down

KTLA
WPIX
KWGN
WSBK
WWOR

??

 

[BobaBird]

The list is in post #17 of this very thread.

 

[Sapient]

I dont feel like a rape victim. I have had them for 5 years now
-havent had an issue with a receiver
-prices are decent

And for S***clair, the WB in my area (KMWB Minneapolis) is affected. If I want WB, I'll see it on my FTA system

My impression is that you are up in Duluth. Do they broadcast KMWB up there?

I'm down in the Twin Cities, but I get up to Duluth for at least a few days every year. I guess I don't watch any TV when I am there.

 

[Mr Tony]

My impression is that you are up in Duluth. Do they broadcast KMWB up there?

I'm down in the Twin Cities, but I get up to Duluth for at least a few days every year. I guess I don't watch any TV when I am there.

The Duluth WB is cable only (its a feed for smaller areas...owned by WB)
Duluth has the big 4 (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) & PBS
UPN and WB are cable only

I found out that KMWB is running the scroll FOR EVERYONE TO SEE....including cable, DirecTv and OTA

 

[jergenf]

are any of these channels in the list to be shut down

KTLA
WPIX
KWGN
WSBK
WWOR

??

I hope not because I'm paying extra for those.
Has anybody seen scrolling text messages stating the DN termination?

 

[Mr Tony]

check post 17 of this thread but the owbers are
KTLA-Tribune
WSBK-Viacom
WWOR-Fox
KWGN-Tribune
WPIX-Tribune

 

[jergenf]

slammin
its 1.50 per station or 5.99 for the 5 pack

I'm paying only 4.99 for the package. Maybe I'm grandfathered to that price. If this is wrong then don't tell dish.

 

[Mr Tony]

jergen
there is some different pricing for grandfathered subs out there
4.99-grandfathered rate
8.99-locals/supers grandfathered rate or distans/supers grandfathered rate

everyone else pays 5.99 for Sueprs

 

[Mr Tony]

made this a sticky for a while