Dish trying to get Disney to kick back some ESPN fees

[david_jr]

Um, NYP is owned by the same owners of Fox News. So the corporate greed angle you mention is spot on.

Fair point, but I would have figured Fox/Di$ney are rivals not bed fellows. On the other hand, Fox might be thinking they are next if Dish wins against Di$ney. The enemy of my enemy...

 

[sam_gordon]

Would it be better that he rescinds the credit from anyone receiving a credit currently, and only offer it to those paying for ESPN, and not receiving any credits already(for any reason) since technically, they are not paying it?

So it would be logical to you that Dish could break agreements they already have with subscribers in order to "pass along" the savings if ESPN gives them a discount? SMH

 

[rvvaquero]

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and ESPN waiving fees. Priceless.

 

[ChadT41]

So it would be logical to you that Dish could break agreements they already have with subscribers in order to "pass along" the savings if ESPN gives them a discount? SMH

what agreement would they be breaking with subscribers? Are you talking about the price lock? Because that would still be locked in.

 

[sam_gordon]

what agreement would they be breaking with subscribers? Are you talking about the price lock? Because that would still be locked in.

My credits are laid out when I resign my agreement. I don't get other credits. Do you get credits randomly handed out to you?

 

[chaddux]

My credits are laid out when I resign my agreement. I don't get other credits. Do you get credits randomly handed out to you?

Absolutely. When one of my local channels was taken down in a dispute, I got a monthly credit, despite being under contract. Dish provided a monthly credit because I wasn't receiving the programming I was paying for, and they weren't paying the provider either (i.e. passing the savings along to me). This is the same situation if ESPN provides a refund to Dish. The consumer isn't receiving the programming paid for, and Dish would not be paying the provider either. Your argument is completely illogical to say that Dish could not provide a credit just because you are under contract. Did you get a refund from your auto insurance company? Did you call them and demand they keep your money?

 

[sam_gordon]

Absolutely. When one of my local channels was taken down in a dispute, I got a monthly credit, despite being under contract. Dish provided a monthly credit because I wasn't receiving the programming I was paying for, and they weren't paying the provider either (i.e. passing the savings along to me). This is the same situation if ESPN provides a refund to Dish. The consumer isn't receiving the programming paid for, and Dish would not be paying the provider either. Your argument is completely illogical to say that Dish could not provide a credit just because you are under contract. Did you get a refund from your auto insurance company? Did you call them and demand they keep your money?

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. My point was *IF* Dish gets money back from ESPN, they should forward the majority of that money (95%?) back to us, THEIR customers. Some on here seem to feel that Dish can just keep that money, and that they give out enough credits as it is.

 

[ChadT41]

You’re correct, your price is laid out with that reduced pricing. That doesn’t mean you get additional credits if everyone else pays less than the normal rate.
As for the gentleman who says he got a credit for dropped locals, keep in mind it is not a requirement for you to receive such credit. You actually agreed specifically that you expect no compensation for dropped channels.
As stated above, the wording of the specific contract matters and as subscribers, our wording is that we do not expect compensation or substitution.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

Any credits we may receive for dropped locals are most likely because the channels aren't available to Dish at all. Unless the ESPN family of channels goes dark, don't expect to receive credits, just because their usual programming isn't available for them to carry.

Is ESPN (and other networks) getting credits from the sports leagues and entities that they broadcast because those sports have shut down? I haven't heard/read anything about this, and I wouldn't expect any credits from ESPN unless they're receiving them from their sports partners.....

 

[osu1991]

Without live sports, cable and satellite providers should cut fees, says Attorney General

Without live sports, cable and satellite providers should cut fees, says Attorney General

The AG estimates that subscribers pay up to $20 a month in extra fees to be able watch live sports channels.

www.wkbw.com

New York Attorney General Letitia James is urging seven major cable and satellite television providers to cut fees during the COVID-19 pandemic, in part, because of the lack of live sports programming, a major selling point for tv channel packages.

Letters requesting fee cuts were sent on Wednesday to Charter Communications (Spectrum's parent company), Altice USA, AT&T Inc., Comcast Cable, DISH Network, RCN Corporation and Verizon Communications.

 

[ChadT41]

That woman will sue anyone for anything. Terrible AG. Outside the contract language, the government should stay the hell out of it. Their only involvement would be through the courts to assess the validity of the contract language only.

 

[sam_gordon]

I've got no problem with Dish asking for a discount. I just feel (barring specific contract language between them and ESPN) that if they get a discount, the "good PR" thing to do would be to pass it along to the subscribers.

 

[Juan]

ESPN has had no live sports programming on for a month. The only reason to have ESPN is for live sports programming. This would be like TCM not showing classic movies or MTV not showing music videos... okay that second one was a bad example. ESPN's whole purpose doesn't exist right now. With Brady is Tampa, there is almost nothing to even talk about now.

I'm paying less for Starz than people are paying for ESPN at the moment... but I'm getting movies on Starz and almost no advertised programming on ESPN (well, if I got it). So ESPN is not providing sports programming, why should Dish be paying for it.

And it does go down the chain, why should ESPN be paying for the rights to broadcast certain things, if those events aren't happening. But Dish is right to ask for a refund.

Mtv hasn't shown music videos in years

 

[ChadT41]

So we are saying the same thing. I think the only difference is I am saying that should only apply to those already not receiving a discount. If you’re receiving a discount, then there would be no reason to discount again.
I guess the best example is trying to stack coupons at a grocery store. The reason why most grocery stores now say on their ads and coupons “coupons cannot be combined” or “discounts cannot be combined”.

 

[sam_gordon]

So we are saying the same thing. I think the only difference is I am saying that should only apply to those already not receiving a discount. If you’re receiving a discount, then there would be no reason to discount again.
I guess the best example is trying to stack coupons at a grocery store. The reason why most grocery stores now say on their ads and coupons “coupons cannot be combined” or “discounts cannot be combined”.

What do you qualify as a "discount"? Say I get $10/month in exchange for signing a 2-year contract. Does that mean I shouldn't get a discount?
PP says he got a discount because his local was dropped. Does that mean he shouldn't get a discount?
A new subscriber is paying a discounted rate, does that mean they shouldn't get a discount?

All of these discounts were given knowing how much Dish had to pay ESPN per subscriber. So if Dish now gets a refund or discounted rate from ESPN, why should that not be passed along to the subscriber?

My grocery store gives you the opportunity to sign up as a "valued customer" (whatever it's called). The sign up costs nothing (aside from giving your contact information). The "valued customers" get discounted pricing on MANY items as long as you produce the card. Then the customers use coupons on top of that.

 

[Nebugeater]

So we are saying the same thing. I think the only difference is I am saying that should only apply to those already not receiving a discount. If you’re receiving a discount, then there would be no reason to discount again.
I guess the best example is trying to stack coupons at a grocery store. The reason why most grocery stores now say on their ads and coupons “coupons cannot be combined” or “discounts cannot be combined”.

Not to get off track but coupons have said that for YEARS and YEARS

 

[ChadT41]

What do you qualify as a "discount"? Say I get $10/month in exchange for signing a 2-year contract. Does that mean I shouldn't get a discount?
PP says he got a discount because his local was dropped. Does that mean he shouldn't get a discount?
A new subscriber is paying a discounted rate, does that mean they shouldn't get a discount?

All of these discounts were given knowing how much Dish had to pay ESPN per subscriber. So if Dish now gets a refund or discounted rate from ESPN, why should that not be passed along to the subscriber?

My grocery store gives you the opportunity to sign up as a "valued customer" (whatever it's called). The sign up costs nothing (aside from giving your contact information). The "valued customers" get discounted pricing on MANY items as long as you produce the card. Then the customers use coupons on top of that.

Correct, if you are receiving a discount for any of those reasons, then no further discount should be expected. The exception would be a TWOS credit.

 

[sam_gordon]

Correct, if you are receiving a discount for any of those reasons, then no further discount should be expected. The exception would be a TWOS credit.

So Charlie gets to keep all the money he saves because ESPN isn't putting out live sports, but the customers (who are the ones who WANT the live sports) get nothing? Ok.

 

[ChadT41]

So Charlie gets to keep all the money he saves because ESPN isn't putting out live sports, but the customers (who are the ones who WANT the live sports) get nothing? Ok.

Nope, the customers that want live sports would get a discount. The ones that wouldn’t be getting an ADDITIONAL discount, are the ones currently receiving a discount already. Their bills are already reduced. That is the point.

 

[dare2be]

Nope, the customers that want live sports would get a discount. The ones that wouldn’t be getting an ADDITIONAL discount, are the ones currently receiving a discount already. Their bills are already reduced. That is the point.

My bill is being reduced by $5 for 3 months as compensation for my troubles because of a billing snafu that was subsequently fixed and reimbursed. So I shouldn't receive an additional discount others get if ESPN lowers their rates temporarily?