Well this isn't as hopeless of a cause as I thought. All I can say to Dish is SETTLE. I, along with most other distant network subs I assume, would probably be willing to pony up a $1 extra a month for the service if this is what it takes to offset settlement costs. They are worth it to me, it's less costly (in terms of my time) than what it would take to cancel Dish and get a D* setup.
EchoStar in Talks With Networks
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 34
- Views 5K
Here's a solution.
Dish offers $2 out of the $5 per month it raises per subscriber to be split up amongst the broadcasters with OTA rights in those areas. They have already done without the ad revenue for years as people went elsewhere. In exchange for looking the other way, they get a corporate welfare check to replace any phantom ad revenue they think they might get if everyone were forced to play by the rules they think they are entitled to ad infinitum.
E* gets to keep the channels, the affiliates get shut the hell up money, and rural America can put down the torches and not storm Capitol Hill over the issue....
Dish offers $2 out of the $5 per month it raises per subscriber to be split up amongst the broadcasters with OTA rights in those areas. They have already done without the ad revenue for years as people went elsewhere. In exchange for looking the other way, they get a corporate welfare check to replace any phantom ad revenue they think they might get if everyone were forced to play by the rules they think they are entitled to ad infinitum.
E* gets to keep the channels, the affiliates get shut the hell up money, and rural America can put down the torches and not storm Capitol Hill over the issue....
Charlie might have been absent from the phone call on purpose. If he has been banging heads with some of these people for a few years, then a common tactic is to remove the combatants from the table and let cooler heads work things out.
I doubt Charlie would put a vacation over a negotiation that could potentially cost him a few hundred million dollars in revenue.
Or perhaps Charlie was out in the back warehouse, putting 381 stickers over the 811 logos.
I doubt Charlie would put a vacation over a negotiation that could potentially cost him a few hundred million dollars in revenue.
Or perhaps Charlie was out in the back warehouse, putting 381 stickers over the 811 logos.
This wasn't tripe:minnow said:
ABC owns ten of their affiliates. That means there are 190+ affiliates of ABC owned by others. The ABC Affiliate Board which represents those 190+ affiliates has also filed suit.
So, most ABC stations are not happy with Dish Network.
The rest of the networks are under a simliar structure. So to say a "handful of broadcasters" are unhappy would be incorrect.
Perhaps you should start picketing infront of your local network affliates..They are the one's causing all the troubleChris Walker said:
Its probably divded out between all distant subs and not all of them have all the channels.pdxsam said:
Or do like me and don't frequent businesses that advertise on locals. And make sure the locals know that you are doing that.
Quote
The rest of the networks are under a simliar structure. So to say a "handful of broadcasters" are unhappy would be incorrect.
Unquote
I believe I read somewhere else that it is a "handful of broadcaster groups or associations" but really never seen how large this total group is.
Maybe besides streaming internet, he'll get some more superstations created so that each Network has a SuperStation and then it won't be called a DNS.
The rest of the networks are under a simliar structure. So to say a "handful of broadcasters" are unhappy would be incorrect.
Unquote
I believe I read somewhere else that it is a "handful of broadcaster groups or associations" but really never seen how large this total group is.
Maybe besides streaming internet, he'll get some more superstations created so that each Network has a SuperStation and then it won't be called a DNS.
i personally think and hope they are very close to accepting a deal to end this. you could hear it in his voice when he said its been going on for 8 years. they are tired of it and just want to move on. i do think they have quietly and not so quietly used the audit team this last spring to go through all subs and check us out for everything you can think of (receiver stacking/locals/distants/telephone connections/smart card updates/your correct address and phone number) they will weed out the ones that got through the system to get dns and tighten the requirements to enshire this is not in question again. after that and forking over some extra money to the nets they will probably settle.
What if Dish reaches a deal with all but mother Fox (sorry - couldn't help that ) and her respective affiliates? Could / would the FCC step in because of possible violation of the stipulations imposed when Newscorp took over Direct TV?
As for the "alternate method", my guess is "E" has already reached a deal with ABC & NBC for an HD feed deal similar to the one with CBS but Fox won't play in the same sandbox.
) and her respective affiliates? Could / would the FCC step in because of possible violation of the stipulations imposed when Newscorp took over Direct TV?As for the "alternate method", my guess is "E" has already reached a deal with ABC & NBC for an HD feed deal similar to the one with CBS but Fox won't play in the same sandbox.
No. There aren't any violations. The open access stipulations for the NewsCorp takeover of DirecTV are when it comes to contract disputes. This is not a contract dispute.waltinvt said:
I disagree with this. Dish Network is already rebroadcasting all local O&O NBC stations in HD, except Hartford. It doesn't help NBC to do the same deal that CBS did with Dish Network.waltinvt said:
Personally, I don't believe there is an "alternate method". If there was, this lawsuit and the impending injunction wouldn't matter. If anything, I believe Dish Network will continue to break the law. How many times during the course of this suit did Dish Network get their hand slapped? Would an injunction actually stop that type of obstinance?
rdinkel said:
I doubt this is the case but would be good if it was. Dish will go along with the turning off of distants for SD but will now see who qualifys under HD for distants. This would actually be in Dish's favor if they have approved studies to see the actual people that can receive a grade B "HD signal". Maybe this is why they have not yet activated the distant HD signals because they want to keep the qualifcation methods completely different. This would also increase the number of HD recivers out there if you are now required to get an HD reciver in order to get distants. If this were the case then the number of people qualifying for distant signals could actually increase and make dish even more money and really tick the heck out of the NAB. The stations would actually have to send an HD signal to their viewers in order to keep them from getting HD distants. The customers without an HD television could just have the receiver downrez the channels to 480I. Win-win situation for even more people than before. Okay this likely isn't the case but would be sooooo cool if it was. I know I would take the upgraded distants. Okay back to the real world and out of my dream state.
Voyagerbob
JUST Add the rest of the locals that are missing in the last 40 dmas already. Then they could also do hd distants for rvrs and truckers as voyager bob suggests and everyone would be happy.
I wouldn't be happy. I like having timeshifting capabilities (and PVR failure insurance, I record both versions of critical shows ESPECIALLY during stormy nights where rain fade might be an issue )
