You'll see the scroll until they have a deal.
Sinclair warns of 112 channels being dropped by DISH next Monday (8/16)
- Thread starter syphix
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 658
- Views 75K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
We have cases and cases of them in the warehouse this week
Sorry to see. I’d wish Dish to dump them, setting a precedent, and Sinclair (& other blood sucker), go away.
Well Sinclair knows that most of their Network stations are available either OTA or through Locast, Both parties are well aware of this, I'm sure there will be no deal involving RSN's unless the price is super low. I for one will not pay a dime extra for any sports channel. Bad enough I pay for ESPN. But at least they'll have NHL in the winter.
Charlie should keep the Slingbox alive and not kill it off as planned. Not everyone has OTA reception. Some family who are Dish subs have had to go through the rare loss of an OTA and my Slingbox allowed them to continue viewing it during the blackout. It kept them from cancelling Dish and getting cable.
FWIW, Aereo truly was perfectly legal. Every Court found that it passed the tests. It was SCOTUS who just didn't like the idea of it existing. It was such a bad ruling that SCOTUS had to publish all manner of qualifications and notices to ignore or NOT apply their ruling to similar technologies and other place-shifting devices and services. They had to scream through the confusion that the Aereo ruling should apply to the Aereo case ONLY! Huh, it can't be considered a real precedent that judges can apply? It was an very long over-reach of SCOTUS, and the often wrong Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in his dislike of the service, but admitted it had found what we call a loophole in the law that did not require payments to the local broadcasters, but that it is up to Congress to close the loophole, not the Courts, and this why every other lower court ruled in Aereo's favor. Keep in mind that the subscribers to Aereo remotely controled the tiny antennas to even go into a position that prevented the antennas from receiving any signal when a subscriber was not viewing their local OTA channel. Under the Scotus ruling, Slingbox is illegal--which of course it is not--and Dish DVR's with Sling such as the H3 are illiegal--which it is not--Cable Cos. cloud DVR services on their servers that meet all requirements to be legal would also be illegal under the SCOTUS Aereo ruling--but of course the Cable Cos. are not violating the law--TiVo's own streaming features of local OTA channels to remote locations and devices would also be illegal--which it is not. OK enough. Just a final thought below:
Congress should just allow the broadcasters to offer their OTA channels to each individual MVPD account (the consumer household) for ANY price it wants, that way they continue to get paid for their content while those who don't want to pay don't get the channel. Of course, the broadcasters/NAB have fought just such a proposal to death a few years ago, but I think it is the ONLY rational solution. Even the MVPD's said they would handle the billing and pass the money on to the broadcasters. Too easy, huh? NAB is in great fear of such an arrangement because far too many people would likely NOT pay a penny for their local OTA's and the broadcasters would likely end up NOT CHARGING ONE CENT for access to their OTA channels because they would need every eyeball they can get when they have to rely ONLY on advertising for their revenue--as it should be and always was. After all, don't we, every citizen of the U.S. OWN the frequencies on which those huge companies make their money, but in return we get "free of charge" programming with commercials that are necessary to pay for the programming. The OTA channels belong to US, and yet they have the nerve to CHARGE US to watch our OTA channels, even AFTER they make all the money on advertising. That's NAB.
FWIW, Aereo truly was perfectly legal. Every Court found that it passed the tests. It was SCOTUS who just didn't like the idea of it existing. It was such a bad ruling that SCOTUS had to publish all manner of qualifications and notices to ignore or NOT apply their ruling to similar technologies and other place-shifting devices and services. They had to scream through the confusion that the Aereo ruling should apply to the Aereo case ONLY! Huh, it can't be considered a real precedent that judges can apply? It was an very long over-reach of SCOTUS, and the often wrong Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in his dislike of the service, but admitted it had found what we call a loophole in the law that did not require payments to the local broadcasters, but that it is up to Congress to close the loophole, not the Courts, and this why every other lower court ruled in Aereo's favor. Keep in mind that the subscribers to Aereo remotely controled the tiny antennas to even go into a position that prevented the antennas from receiving any signal when a subscriber was not viewing their local OTA channel. Under the Scotus ruling, Slingbox is illegal--which of course it is not--and Dish DVR's with Sling such as the H3 are illiegal--which it is not--Cable Cos. cloud DVR services on their servers that meet all requirements to be legal would also be illegal under the SCOTUS Aereo ruling--but of course the Cable Cos. are not violating the law--TiVo's own streaming features of local OTA channels to remote locations and devices would also be illegal--which it is not. OK enough. Just a final thought below:
Congress should just allow the broadcasters to offer their OTA channels to each individual MVPD account (the consumer household) for ANY price it wants, that way they continue to get paid for their content while those who don't want to pay don't get the channel. Of course, the broadcasters/NAB have fought just such a proposal to death a few years ago, but I think it is the ONLY rational solution. Even the MVPD's said they would handle the billing and pass the money on to the broadcasters. Too easy, huh? NAB is in great fear of such an arrangement because far too many people would likely NOT pay a penny for their local OTA's and the broadcasters would likely end up NOT CHARGING ONE CENT for access to their OTA channels because they would need every eyeball they can get when they have to rely ONLY on advertising for their revenue--as it should be and always was. After all, don't we, every citizen of the U.S. OWN the frequencies on which those huge companies make their money, but in return we get "free of charge" programming with commercials that are necessary to pay for the programming. The OTA channels belong to US, and yet they have the nerve to CHARGE US to watch our OTA channels, even AFTER they make all the money on advertising. That's NAB.
I agree as the big corps and charging too much. But at least locals are not forced on the viewers if they do want them. But some want their net's at nearly any price (It seems anyway), and they drop a service when they cannot get the channel(s) they want. If Locast survives as they continue to ad cities, in time people can get locals in their DMA.
Didn't someone already do that, just not Dish and Sinclair? I want to say it was Viacom and I can't remember the other party, but Viacom decided they had too many channels for someone to ever say no, until someone said no. Turns out nobody gave a damn and Viacom eventually caved. This is why Dish gets into so many disputes. We might have a happy little 13 and counting page thread yapping about it but the majority just don't care. They've figured out that jumping ship does nothing. Dish vs Sinclair, Dish vs Grey, Dish vs X, what's the common villain? Dish, right. Wrong. You have been manipulated to think that, but Dish vs Sinclair, Cox vs Sinclair, Comcast vs Sinclair, X vs Sinclair, NOW who is the common villain? And the first thing Sinclair trots out each time is "here's the number to cancel your service". Go ahead, cancel. Because Dish does not, should not, and will never care. Do the math. If Sinclair wants a billion dollars, just take the number of Dish subscribers and divide that into 1,000,000,000. You're not going to pay that, Dish is not going to pay that, Cox is not going to pay that, and so on. And when you fall for it and jump ship, you'll fall for it again next time Sinclair does it and you might wind up right back where you started. It's called "churn" and they all plan for a certain amount of it.
I am one of the fortunate ones who can receive all of my locals with an antenna in my attic. Therefore at my last negotiation with Dish, my locals were dropped. Since the OTA stations directly integrate into my H3, I have lost nothing except PTAT and disk space since the signal is mpeg2. I can easily live with both limitations.
Corporations such as Sinclair make a lot of their money from the fees for locals. They owe it to their stockholders to make money. However Dish owes it to their stockholders to also make money. What really gets to me is the massive bundling. Disney is a perfect example. If a satellite or cable company wants to pay a lot of money to get ESPN then they also must pay a lot of money to get all of the other Disney properties. And all of these costs are passed on to the consumer. With ESPN we seem to have to live with it. However locals are a different story. We have Locast, Hulu, Paramount+, etc. All can coexist with Dish. Yes they cost extra but take away the $12 for Dish and you can probably get what you want. Just my opinion and your situation may vary.
Corporations such as Sinclair make a lot of their money from the fees for locals. They owe it to their stockholders to make money. However Dish owes it to their stockholders to also make money. What really gets to me is the massive bundling. Disney is a perfect example. If a satellite or cable company wants to pay a lot of money to get ESPN then they also must pay a lot of money to get all of the other Disney properties. And all of these costs are passed on to the consumer. With ESPN we seem to have to live with it. However locals are a different story. We have Locast, Hulu, Paramount+, etc. All can coexist with Dish. Yes they cost extra but take away the $12 for Dish and you can probably get what you want. Just my opinion and your situation may vary.
Agreed - each channel should stand on it's own.
There'd be a lot less channels and probably more quality content.
I wonder why doesn’t Dish just do an Orby and provide OTA to all new connections, and have the locals be optional/asked for during contracting. Is it the price of the tuners/antennas? The extra complications with the install (like the aesthetic of an indoor antenna, or the extra coax run/band pass filtering needed to add OTA to the Hopper run)? Or maybe something in the contract with current local providers that stipulate that they should only provide an OTA setup if necessary?
I think the main issue is a lot of their subs are in rural areas and unable to receive all their OTA channels reliably.
Yeah, thought about it a little more and there is that. Also, PTAT. To some with H1/H2 its a big deal due to the low amount of tuners, and Dish's main talking point when they want to upgrade your stuff.
Dish Won't Drop Sinclair Local Affiliates For Now, Two Sides Reach Temporary Extension
With Sinclair’s agreement with Dish set to expire tonight, the two sides reached a short-term temporary extension that will keep Sinclair-owned CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC affiliates and Tennis Channel from going dark …
thestreamable.com
I see it was posted yesterday...Sorry. I'm subscribed to this thread and didn't receive a notification???Dish Won't Drop Sinclair Local Affiliates For Now, Two Sides Reach Temporary Extension
With Sinclair’s agreement with Dish set to expire tonight, the two sides reached a short-term temporary extension that will keep Sinclair-owned CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC affiliates and Tennis Channel from going dark …
There was probably so much flack on both sides and both companies do not want to lose out, they are coming to the table. People still have the power, if they use it. The sad thing is many do not. They just put up with everything. We are paying for locals and need to put pressure on. Is Sinclair demand such an increase, we need to let them know, we will not put up with it. Maybe some of that is happening. For a channel that is free OTA and Sinclair wants Billions of fees is not right. I wish it was before the locals could charge. Dish & Direct were better off and yet the locals still wanted to be carried. After all, the more viewers they have the more ads they sell.Dish Won't Drop Sinclair Local Affiliates For Now, Two Sides Reach Temporary Extension
With Sinclair’s agreement with Dish set to expire tonight, the two sides reached a short-term temporary extension that will keep Sinclair-owned CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC affiliates and Tennis Channel from going dark …
