What a retired Judge explained to me...

[psychotrope]

I know one thing. If I sign up with DirecTV or another provider, I'm going to strike the termination fee clause from the contract while the installer isn't looking. I wish I had struck a few clauses from my Dish Network contract when I had it installed. A lot of customers who are under contract with many different areas of service (such as home security) do that when they first sign up and get away with it. Part of the job of a company that does "Due Diligence" is to go through and check for contracts with clauses that have been struck out by the customer, since these contracts aren't worth as much as contracts that remain intact. All it takes is drawing a line through the undesired paragraph and signing your initials beside it before signing beside the "X" at instillation time (If you can get away with it). Remember that for next time.

 

[Tampa8]

I think some didn't quite get the point of what the Judge was saying. (Or more probably I didn't explain it well....lol)

His example was not based on a monetary fine. It was based on having one of two things happen. You are released from your contract, or Dish provides the channel in some form .....That form very possibly being A La Carte. The time you were forced under contract would be secondary.....yes possibly a rebate for channels lost but not the focus.

Now think about that. Say Dish agrees, and they will add the channel A La Carte. Dish tells Fox we will pay whatever you want, per the Judge we will offer it A La Carte, and charge accordingly. Do you really think Fox wants that? And if Fox refuses, it is now all on them. Now Dish is no longer choosing to not carry the channels. If they were the only ones going A La Carte, just how many people do you think would buy their product especially at the prices they are currently trying to get? And if this became the remedy by courts for these disputes, maybe more program providers would think twice before raising prices so high.

I think Dish has already tried this, but of course the programmers want their channels in a package, and in the package they want. I'm thinking the last thing they want is a Judge making a backdoor decision that affects them in this manner..... Don't think of this as a win or lose for Dish, but rather a remedy provided by the court. And in this, the court is not setting prices or forcing really anything on anybody other than for Dish to live up to their end of the contract - to provide those channels unless it is out of their control.

 

[Bonneville44]

"Changes in Services Offered. We may add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, as well as the prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services, at any time, including without limitation, during any term commitment period to which you have agreed. If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, we have no obligation to replace or supplement such programming, programming packages or other Services. You are not entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change of any programming, programming packages or other Services."

I received no notice whenthey took away the HD feeds of Disney ABC Family and ESPN news, effectively taking them out of the Dish America Packages altogether. Did anyone else? If so please tell me how they notified you.

 

[Bonneville44]

And dish didn't pull them, Disney did, so Again the we may do whatever we like is BS. Dish didn't pay their bill.

 

[navychop]

I know one thing. If I sign up with DirecTV or another provider, I'm going to strike the termination fee clause from the contract while the installer isn't looking. I wish I had struck a few clauses from my Dish Network contract when I had it installed. A lot of customers who are under contract with many different areas of service (such as home security) do that when they first sign up and get away with it. Part of the job of a company that does "Due Diligence" is to go through and check for contracts with clauses that have been struck out by the customer, since these contracts aren't worth as much as contracts that remain intact. All it takes is drawing a line through the undesired paragraph and signing your initials beside it before signing beside the "X" at instillation time (If you can get away with it). Remember that for next time.

I don't think so. I am pretty sure BOTH parties to the contract must initial all changes or such alteration is void.

 

[Bill_KY]

I don't think so. I am pretty sure BOTH parties to the contract must initial all changes or such alteration is void.

Yes, I was under the impression that a contract is a legal binding document that compels both parties to perform as specified.

For instance... The customer is expected to perform (by paying according to the contract for a specified period) and Dish is supposed to perform (by providing programming specified -at the signing of the contract -for a specified period).

However If Dish can change (delete) programming 'at will' (that is now different from when the contract was signed) and arguably did not live up to the service as originally advertised, .....

But however the customer is forbidden to have any recourse and cannot back out of the contract 'at will' without any sanctions because the other party of the contract did not live up to the advertised promises .....

Then is it that contract really legal then, as it is one sided? Are one sided contracts legal ? The problem is who could decide it is one sided? I am not a lawyer...just trying to illustrate a point...

One could argue that one side (the customer) performed in good faith and the other (Dish) did not? And I am not singling out Dish either as it could apply to all providers as well.

Edit>addition...

And more importantly, if Dish threw out some freebies to customers under contract like some PPV credits or free pay tv for a three month period. Does that then release Dish from any claims of breach of contract because Dish "acted in good faith" and tried to make up the perceived loss (from what was originally agreed as advertised at the signing of the contract?) If that is the case, and the customer under contract may not have a recourse...or do they?

.

.

 

[chicagonettech]

. . . If I sign up with DirecTV or another provider, I'm going to strike the termination fee clause from the contract while the installer isn't looking. I wish I had struck a few clauses from my Dish Network contract when I had it installed . . .

Remember, if you strike clauses from your contract, there are several things which must occur, at minimum, prior to the modified contract taking effect - per my corporate attorney:

• You must INITIAL the changes you make;
• You must IN ITAL every page of the contract at the bottom of the page - because you made a change anywhere on the contract;
• The installer is not allowed to make contract changes on Dish Network's behalf;
• Dish Network must ACCEPT the changes and countersign the contract;
• Dish Network must send a signed copy of the contract, with the changes, back to you.
• Other language in the Dish Network Contract may specifically prohibit the making of changes to the pre-printed contract, except in specially pre-printed areas of the contract where options are specifically available.

Just stryking a clause does not a contract change effect.

 

[Claude Greiner]

If I had a dollar everytime someone told me that DISH Network was breaking their contract with them and they had the right to cancel because they didn't carry so and so channel anymore, I would be a rich man.

The fact of the matter is that Pricing, programming and packaging is subject to change and is spelled out in the contract.

Its a no win situation for Dish because if they don't drop the channel, then they raise the price and people will still have the same argument saying they didn't agree to the higher price.

The real problem here is the consumers who jump providers the second there is a problem, the more subscribers who cancel over a programming dispute the more likely the provider will cave in to the price increase and will raise the rates.

Its an endless cycle, and I see no end to it.

 

[DishSubLA]

Couldn't a class action result in a change of business procedures rather than a monetary award be more productive? I agree that a one time financial award of $5 to every Dish subscriber would not benefit anyone. An award of forcing Dish (and other providers) to go À la carte would do more to benefit the consumer. If Dish lost, then other providers might have to change their practices as well to avoid a class action.

But therein lies the problem, if Dish loses and is forced to change to A la Carte, what if Fox and the other program providers refuse to play along and allow their channels to be offered that way. Like how could Dish offer A La carte if the program providers refuse to let them offer their channels that way? It is a catch 22 situation...

However IF Fox and other program providers could ALSO be the target of this class action. Maybe a class action could 'shake things up' in favor of the consumer. If that were the case, then if Dish lost the class action...then Fox and other program providers would be enjoined ('forced') to comply with A La Carte.

While some could argue that the free market is at play here. One could use the supermarket analogy of if you want to buy a loaf of bread, milk and eggs. No one should force you to buy forty other products from the supermarket just to get that loaf of bread, milk and eggs.

Some might argue that using the supermarket analogy is not fair and that there are overhead costs involved. Agreed. However one could counter that claim with the Sams Club analogy. You have to pay a yearly membership fee there, but if you want a loaf of bread, milk and eggs and nothing else. You may do so without being forced to buy forty or fifty other items to get that bread, milk and eggs.

So whether you shop at Sams, Walmart or Krogers, you don't have to buy forty items in order to get the three items that you want. Those stores do not charge you to use their shopping carts while shopping, they do not charge you for the air conditioning or heating in the stores nor do they charge you for the use of their bathroom if you need it. You buy what you want, pay for it and leave...no additional charges...except in the case of a Sams membership.

So suppose you have to pay a yearly membership fee to Dish, but then if you only want three items or thirty items pay for it and that is it. Does that sound fair? Sure it does.

So what about Equipment like the STB, dish and installation? So how do other services work? Prepaid cell phones, you have to buy the phone and then pay up front in order to use the minutes. Sounds pretty fair.

So...you want satellite service. Buy the equipment and pay for installation, pay a yearly fee, pay in advance and pick the channels that you want. Sounds simple..

There is no ruling from any court that can force Dish or any other provider to offer a la carte only. That is beyond the court's authority. That leaves Congress as the only body, authorizing the FCC to carry out the law, as the only hope of ever compelling providers to offer channels, and thereby preventing content owners from requiring other channels in addition to one channel under consideration for contract--and that worked pretty well for the consumer as LIL's were affordable--A la carte to consumers. The problem is that such an act of Congress really does interfere with the free market system and even liberals would have a problem getting involved here as an A la carte system would make it next to impossible smaller channels that serve a multi-cultural niche, such as Si or MTV3 or Mundo 2, or BET or such channels since they could no guarantee access to at least the number of subscribers at a given package level. DOA!