"Only Charlie Knows" (According to Fisher Communications)

[wsuladesigner]

I have been following the Fisher/Dish Network dispute for a while. I am to the point where I do not know who to blame anymore. I am tired of the finger pointing and endless excuses.

Fisher looks like they are starting to play a little hardball.

http://www.onlycharlieknows.com

I am not trying to stir the pot or anything, but I just had to share. I have to give Fisher some credit, its somewhat clever. Its just too bad that I didn't think about registering that domain before Fisher did.

[harsh]

The launch of an advertising campaign suggests that either Fisher isn't able to do this on their own or they're just not getting what they're holding their breath for.

You have to wonder if Anne got permission to use his photo.

[jsk]

The domain name is registered to a Fisher Interactive e-mail address:

tiller, anne
atiller@fisherinteractive.com
140 4th Ave N
Seattle, WA 98117
US
Phone: 206-404-4255


Source: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/onlycharlieknows.com

[wsuladesigner]

The domain name is registered to a Fisher Interactive e-mail address:

tiller, anne
atiller@fisherinteractive.com
140 4th Ave N
Seattle, WA 98117
US
Phone: 206-404-4255


Source: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/onlycharlieknows.com


I found the "Only Charlie Knows" link right on KOMO's website. Go to http://www.komonews.com/ and look just below the top right hand corner.

[ajc68]

I've heard the commercial several times. Basically, Fisher is saying they have an agreement in principal with Dish for carriage, but Charlie vetoed it. The reason is speculated to be a lawsuit for back royalties being owed to Fisher by Dish. The commercial goes on to say that the lawsuit has no bearing on the current deal, so only Charlie knows why he won't sign off on it. But if that's really the case, it makes it sound like Charlie won't sign off on the new, allegedly agreed upon, deal until the lawsuit is settled.

[david_jr]

I've heard the commercial several times. Basically, Fisher is saying they have an agreement in principal with Dish for carriage, but Charlie vetoed it. The reason is speculated to be a lawsuit for back royalties being owed to Fisher by Dish. The commercial goes on to say that the lawsuit has no bearing on the current deal, so only Charlie knows why he won't sign off on it. But if that's really the case, it makes it sound like Charlie won't sign off on the new, allegedly agreed upon, deal until the lawsuit is settled.

Sounds like it. BTW there is a link there that says Dish drops Young stations. That was a dec 08 story. We still have our Young station in HD so I don't know why they link to it. Unless there are other Young stations in dispute?

[Raymie]

No..I think the HD was the subject of the dispute.

They're linking to similar retrans disputes and (ironically) Scotty's blog post - he's said he was against Fisher all along.

[solmakou]

Does anyone else not care who's fault it is and just wants to watch their local station? I'm sure both sides have blame enough to last a lifetime.

[WebTraveler]

Yes, Fisher is starting to play hardball; the dispute, according to Fisher is that they have agreed to the terms offered by Dish and that has been agreed to by the Dish negotiators, but Charlie says NO. The dispute is the back payments Fisher claims are owed and what are now the subject of the current lawsuit.

The back payments are for a station that is unrelated to all but one of the Fisher stations. Fisher thinks the contract is clear and it is owed and Charlie thinks otherwise.

So in the middle Charlie puts the viewers in the middle of this dispute. Who is right won't be known until the court rules. But the viewers have nothing to do with it and are powerless. Ironically one can call up Fisher or email Fisher's officers and they will talk candidly with you about the situation. Dish, on the other hand simply issues a blanket statement. No matter how much you battle with the executive office no one will ever talk to someone in senior management.

Viewers like me had it and signed off Dish Network and went to Directv; lots of us are switching locally. Enough is enough I said. I was happy for the longest time, but finally said this is ridiculous. I will say this - the programming at Directv is 150% better. Th equipment is not as good, but it is OK. I do have a receiver failing in the first month and one quick call to Directv has them sending a replacement model, call took about 15 minutes total....when I had a receiver problem with Dish that same call took me about 1 1/2 hrs. Directv believed me, answered the phone timely, and was nice in the call....

Honestly guys, the pasture is greener on the other side. And my bill is LESS than it was with Dish. Imagine that? After all that haggling by Charlie on stations charging too much, etc. my bill is LESS....I get my local channel, and I have nice customer service, imagine that?

[WebTraveler]

You have to wonder if Anne got permission to use his photo.

As long as the picture is in the public domain you don't need permission. Fisher is a news organization and has reels and reels of photos in the public domain.

[WebTraveler]

Sounds like it. BTW there is a link there that says Dish drops Young stations. That was a dec 08 story. We still have our Young station in HD so I don't know why they link to it. Unless there are other Young stations in dispute?

To show that Charlie has disputes with everyone over everything and this experience is not isolated. Look at his track record. Some people can't get along with anyone.

[HobbyTalk]

As long as the picture is in the public domain you don't need permission. Fisher is a news organization and has reels and reels of photos in the public domain.

A bit off topic but very few pictures are in the public domain. Almost every picture you will view on the Internet has the copyright owned by someone. It may be true that Fisher has their own picture of Charlie that they own the copyright to (ie, taken by one of their photographers). Being that Fisher is a news org. they would also have a republishing agreement with the major news wires to use their photos.

[willc]

WebTraveler, do you work for Fisher?

Just wondering?

[grcooperjr]

WebTraveler, do you work for Fisher?

Just wondering?

But he does bring up valid points......

I don't work for either, but I switched to Dish because of a DirecTV wanting to charge me $400 per hr10 to upgrade. Multiply that by 7, it's a hunk of change. Direct has been trying their best to get me back, but I don't want to pay the early termination fees to dish.

But I have to say, I should have waited. For the same level of service dish is running me almost 35 to 40% more than DirecTV was for 8 TV’s. Dish is no doubt the King of hidden fees for stuff. Of course if you only have one or two TV ‘s in the house, then the Dish price is a bit better.

And then the other is….. Everyone knows who Charlie is and his temper tantrums. Has anyone ever heard anything on DirecTV's CEO? Or for that matter, Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter? I sure haven’t.

IMHO, Charlie needs to grow up a bit, get rid of the temper or take anger management classes or somthing else, and stop holding his customer base hostage.

On the Fisher side of things....

They need to wake up and smell what they are shoveling too.... They are not a TNT or TBS. They serve a very small customer area comparied to some of the east coast stations. If the fees are true that they want , they are way out of line...

[WebTraveler]

WebTraveler, do you work for Fisher?

Just wondering?

No, do you?

I am a former Dish customer fed up that I couldn't get my local channels and being in the middle of Charlie's war.

[TSR]

Yes, Fisher is starting to play hardball; the dispute, according to Fisher is that they have agreed to the terms offered by Dish and that has been agreed to by the Dish negotiators, but Charlie says NO. The dispute is the back payments Fisher claims are owed and what are now the subject of the current lawsuit.

The back payments are for a station that is unrelated to all but one of the Fisher stations. Fisher thinks the contract is clear and it is owed and Charlie thinks otherwise.

So in the middle Charlie puts the viewers in the middle of this dispute. Who is right won't be known until the court rules. But the viewers have nothing to do with it and are powerless. Ironically one can call up Fisher or email Fisher's officers and they will talk candidly with you about the situation. Dish, on the other hand simply issues a blanket statement. No matter how much you battle with the executive office no one will ever talk to someone in senior management.

Viewers like me had it and signed off Dish Network and went to Directv; lots of us are switching locally. Enough is enough I said. I was happy for the longest time, but finally said this is ridiculous. I will say this - the programming at Directv is 150% better. Th equipment is not as good, but it is OK. I do have a receiver failing in the first month and one quick call to Directv has them sending a replacement model, call took about 15 minutes total....when I had a receiver problem with Dish that same call took me about 1 1/2 hrs. Directv believed me, answered the phone timely, and was nice in the call....

Honestly guys, the pasture is greener on the other side. And my bill is LESS than it was with Dish. Imagine that? After all that haggling by Charlie on stations charging too much, etc. my bill is LESS....I get my local channel, and I have nice customer service, imagine that?



Less because of introductory prices, read the fine print. Dish Network's base package is STILL 30% lower than DTVs...

And I'm sure Charlie would be happy to say "yes" to the backfees that Fisher wants if you wouldn't mind paying more per month for Dish, but he is haggling for all the 14 million+ customer of the Enterprise and not just you.

[SaltiDawg]

.... Blather redacted.
Viewers like me had it and signed off Dish Network and went to Directv; lots of us are switching locally. Enough is enough I said. ....

I would agree with your conclusion that "enough" is "enough." Why do you keep posting your negative take in a Dish forum? Can we say "trolling?" :rolleyes:

[SaltiDawg]

I a ....m a former Dish customer fed up that I couldn't get my local channels and being in the middle of Charlie's war.
And keeps coming back and back and back to Dish forums and stirs and stirs and stirs the pot. :rolleyes:

Bye.

[Slamminc11]

No, do you?...

OOOO, good one! :rolleyes:

[WebTraveler]

I would agree with your conclusion that "enough" is "enough." Why do you keep posting your negative take in a Dish forum? Can we say "trolling?" :rolleyes:

I guess when you can't win on the facts you just go and attack the poster, try to discredit the poster at all costs. But here the facts are simple. You seem to have a difficult time with FACTS, BUT attack just to attack. Perhaps it makes you feel good or big or something:

1. Fisher has publicly stated that they have met Dish's terms for carriage of their channels. (I suppose Fisher could be lying, but I don't believe they are.)

2. Fisher has publicly stated that they have cut deals with Dish's negotiators to resume carriage, only to be vetoed by Charlie Ergen.

3. Fisher has stated that they believe that their lawsuit for back pay for a station is impeeding resolution. This is why there is a court case.

4. The station referred to in #3 has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the viewing of a substantial number of customers and markets, yet Charlie Ergen is holding all of those viewers hostage who have no power whatsoever in this.

5. There is no reason why Dish could not restore the stations (on it's terms by the way, see #1), pending the outcome of the lawsuit on back compensation for a station that is unrelated. This way they do not continue to destroy their goodwill and trade name and get 99.9% of us out of this issue entirely.

[WebTraveler]

Dish Network's base package is STILL 30% lower than DTVs...

And I'm sure Charlie would be happy to say "yes" to the backfees that Fisher wants if you wouldn't mind paying more per month for Dish, but he is haggling for all the 14 million+ customer of the Enterprise and not just you.

Yes, Dish's lowest tier (outside of Family) is about 30% less than Directv's lowest tier.

But after the lowest tier and when you add DVRs, etc. The spread is not great and in several cases, including mine, it is less w/Directv when you throw in the $5/month phone bundle.

[TomH]

... But the viewers have nothing to do with it and are powerless...



How is this different than it's been for the last three months? You make it sound like this is something new.



Th equipment is not as good, but it is OK.
...

Honestly guys, the pasture is greener on the other side.



Getting worse equipment to get one channel that's temporarily in dispute doesn't sound greener to me. I'll pay a little more for better equipment. Dish and Fisher will eventually settle this dispute. Direct TV will still have inferior equipment.

Thanks for the sales pitch WebTraveler, but I'll stay where I am. I'm glad you're happy with your switch but if we need information on how great Direct TV is we can go over to that board.

[GrumpyBear]

I guess when you can't win on the facts you just go and attack the poster, try to discredit the poster at all costs. But here the facts are simple. You seem to have a difficult time with FACTS, BUT attack just to attack. Perhaps it makes you feel good or big or something:

1. Fisher has publicly stated that they have met Dish's terms for carriage of their channels. (I suppose Fisher could be lying, but I don't believe they are.)

2. Fisher has publicly stated that they have cut deals with Dish's negotiators to resume carriage, only to be vetoed by Charlie Ergen.

3. Fisher has stated that they believe that their lawsuit for back pay for a station is impeeding resolution. This is why there is a court case.

4. The station referred to in #3 has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the viewing of a substantial number of customers and markets, yet Charlie Ergen is holding all of those viewers hostage who have no power whatsoever in this.

5. There is no reason why Dish could not restore the stations (on it's terms by the way, see #1), pending the outcome of the lawsuit on back compensation for a station that is unrelated. This way they do not continue to destroy their goodwill and trade name and get 99.9% of us out of this issue entirely.

Your Point number 3 should be Point #1 and basicly the ONLY point.
The Argument from the begining, has been about Fisher Picking up Stations, the Dish was carrying already, and then wanting back pay for them.
YOU can agree to all the points MOVING forward, nice step forward, but when you have a Lawsuit pointed at somebody's head, its hard for them to sign off the moving forward agreement. Settle the lawsuit, drop the lawsuit, and the Channels will be carried.
Its not much different than an issue I have right now. Its been a long winter, 1st house foundation, with Basement that has 8' ceilings. Moving on to 2nd and 3rd of the season, but house 2 my have to be done by somebody else, as the Builder of that house and I are having a issue over money, no matter how much he tries to sweeten the deal on House 2, its not going to happen until the money issue is resolved on House 1. Sorry you just don't move forward with somebody with a 1 ton Rock hanging over your head. You move forward, after all the back issues are resolved.
Granted thats why the call it moving "Forward".
All the spin, form Dish and Fisher is just spin.

[WebTraveler]

Your analogy is completely flawed. You and your builder are two parties. You pay the builder and if there is a dispute it is between you and the builder. No one is affected besides the two of you.

In this case there is the station, the viewers/customers, and Dish Network. This is three parties (or more if each customer is considered party). Count them. Each needs each other in this process.

Dish makes no money if customers cancel because of this and go to an alternate provider. The station is not making any money if viewers can't watch. But the station is making money if it's viewers change providers. The customer won't pay for something he is not getting.

None of us know the details of the private contract between Fisher and Dish. Fisher feels it is right. Dish apparently feels it is right. But the fact remains that there are a LOT of customers in the middle.

Oh, also watch the story on KATU's website about how potential customers call Dish and are told that, yes, Dish does carry KATU. The reporter calls over and over again over multiple days and is told the same thing by Dish - that Dish carries KATU. Even after raising the issue to Dish's HQ the lying continues by Dish's customer service personnel. So, if Dish really doesn't want KATU then why does it continue to tell potential customers it is being carried by it?

The FTC matter?

The Dish-TIVO matter?

Fact is Charlie must like having lawsuits in place. He constantly is a party to them. He is akin to that angry neighbor who cannot get along with anybody on the street. Charlie has so much petty anger inside of him.




Your Point number 3 should be Point #1 and basicly the ONLY point.
The Argument from the begining, has been about Fisher Picking up Stations, the Dish was carrying already, and then wanting back pay for them.
YOU can agree to all the points MOVING forward, nice step forward, but when you have a Lawsuit pointed at somebody's head, its hard for them to sign off the moving forward agreement. Settle the lawsuit, drop the lawsuit, and the Channels will be carried.
Its not much different than an issue I have right now. Its been a long winter, 1st house foundation, with Basement that has 8' ceilings. Moving on to 2nd and 3rd of the season, but house 2 my have to be done by somebody else, as the Builder of that house and I are having a issue over money, no matter how much he tries to sweeten the deal on House 2, its not going to happen until the money issue is resolved on House 1. Sorry you just don't move forward with somebody with a 1 ton Rock hanging over your head. You move forward, after all the back issues are resolved.
Granted thats why the call it moving "Forward".
All the spin, form Dish and Fisher is just spin.

[WebTraveler]

How is this different than it's been for the last three months? You make it sound like this is something new.



Getting worse equipment to get one channel that's temporarily in dispute doesn't sound greener to me. I'll pay a little more for better equipment. Dish and Fisher will eventually settle this dispute. Direct TV will still have inferior equipment.

Thanks for the sales pitch WebTraveler, but I'll stay where I am. I'm glad you're happy with your switch but if we need information on how great Direct TV is we can go over to that board.

There is a difference between "not as good" equipment and "worse." A big difference.

Also, let's consider I save $4 a month, so $48 a year with Directv.

Is the equipment bad? No it's not. It is just not as good.

[solmakou]

Your analogy is completely flawed. You and your builder are two parties. You pay the builder and if there is a dispute it is between you and the builder. No one is affected besides the two of you.

In this case there is the station, the viewers/customers, and Dish Network. This is three parties (or more if each customer is considered party). Count them. Each needs each other in this process.

Dish makes no money if customers cancel because of this and go to an alternate provider. The station is not making any money if viewers can't watch. But the station is making money if it's viewers change providers. The customer won't pay for something he is not getting.

None of us know the details of the private contract between Fisher and Dish. Fisher feels it is right. Dish apparently feels it is right. But the fact remains that there are a LOT of customers in the middle.

Oh, also watch the story on KATU's website about how potential customers call Dish and are told that, yes, Dish does carry KATU. The reporter calls over and over again over multiple days and is told the same thing by Dish - that Dish carries KATU. Even after raising the issue to Dish's HQ the lying continues by Dish's customer service personnel. So, if Dish really doesn't want KATU then why does it continue to tell potential customers it is being carried by it?

The FTC matter?

The Dish-TIVO matter?

Fact is Charlie must like having lawsuits in place. He constantly is a party to them. He is akin to that angry neighbor who cannot get along with anybody on the street. Charlie has so much petty anger inside of him.



Your breakdown of his analogy is flawed, in his scenario the buildings do have a third party the people that will be living/renting space there. They are being negatively effected even though they are not part of the dispute. Everyone loses just have to wait for someone to blink.

[tigerwillow1]

I watch Portland locals OTA and I'm boycotting KATU. Their in-your-face whining about Dish sounds too much like a toddler who needs to be sent to his room.

[Raymie]

Ironic call letters...

they can be called a coc-KATU, a ka-KATU, or whatever bird suits you.

[WebTraveler]

Your breakdown of his analogy is flawed, in his scenario the buildings do have a third party the people that will be living/renting space there. They are being negatively effected even though they are not part of the dispute. Everyone loses just have to wait for someone to blink.

Huh?

"The people that will be living/renting there? They are being negatively effected even though they are not part of the dispute."

How can people be negatively impacted that will be living there at some undetermined point in the future? Explain that one.:confused::confused:

Talk about flawed logic. Yours is worse than Grumpy Bear's.

[TomH]

There is a difference between "not as good" equipment and "worse." A big difference.

Huh??? Guess you'll have to explain that difference. To me it's the same thing so go ahead then and replace "worse" with ""not as good" in my statement and it's still valid. So you pay $4/mon less for $4/mon less in features. You're still going to have equipment that's worth $4/mon less when this is settled and I'll have my better equipment.

I'm just trying to figure out why you care about this so much? You've changed providers, we've heard your pitch, why are you trying the hard sale so much to people who don't really want to hear it? If you have some news then lets hear it. If you're just here to try and get people to switch to Direct TV then nobody cares to hear it.

[GrumpyBear]

Your analogy is completely flawed. You and your builder are two parties. You pay the builder and if there is a dispute it is between you and the builder. No one is affected besides the two of you.

In this case there is the station, the viewers/customers, and Dish Network. This is three parties (or more if each customer is considered party). Count them. Each needs each other in this process.

Dish makes no money if customers cancel because of this and go to an alternate provider. The station is not making any money if viewers can't watch. But the station is making money if it's viewers change providers. The customer won't pay for something he is not getting.

None of us know the details of the private contract between Fisher and Dish. Fisher feels it is right. Dish apparently feels it is right. But the fact remains that there are a LOT of customers in the middle.

Oh, also watch the story on KATU's website about how potential customers call Dish and are told that, yes, Dish does carry KATU. The reporter calls over and over again over multiple days and is told the same thing by Dish - that Dish carries KATU. Even after raising the issue to Dish's HQ the lying continues by Dish's customer service personnel. So, if Dish really doesn't want KATU then why does it continue to tell potential customers it is being carried by it?

The FTC matter?

The Dish-TIVO matter?

Fact is Charlie must like having lawsuits in place. He constantly is a party to them. He is akin to that angry neighbor who cannot get along with anybody on the street. Charlie has so much petty anger inside of him.

Hmm,
I guess I should have said I am the General Contractor overall, but do all the Foundation work for this particular builder. I have 4 main builders I build houses for. I MAKE no money when when the builder screws up the house plans, makes last minute changes, with the Future owner, that doesn't get passed on to me in time, or hires some other Lame to dig the pit for the foundations, and causes me extra work.

This trickles to my employees, as well as other Contractors, as I wont dig the holes for the Plumber, I have eqiupment in the way, so the Framer can't work, not to mention the Electrician, Drywaller, Painter, and Tile guy, who are all wondering when I will be starting on house 2 and whats the hold up with house 1, and who is the builder for house 3 using for contractors for different services. This trickles to Thier employess as well, no building hours means guys just sitting around not making money, as well as thier schedules with other builders. As well as the Owner of the house,(This is one of many Pre-Sales of the year)
So its not just between me and the Builder( A person that owns a plot of land and has home plans, that markets the plot of land and home plans to a buyer, and then needs people to actually build the house). So when there is OUTSTANDING money matters, smart Business people, and REALLY SMART General Contractors, settle the money issue before getting into bed with the person on the next project, NO MATTER how many projects/houses, you have already done. Working with, a I have Credit with you or a debit with you on the last project leading into the next project just leads to BIGGER problems.

This is the same case as whats going on with Fisher and Dish, both saying that they have agreed on going forward points, the sticking point is the money that Fisher Thinks it deserves, for stations Dish was already carrying, when Fisher bought those Stations. You can't move forward until the lawsuit over the money is resolved, or the money issue is resolved and the lawsuit is dropped.

[ajc68]

I watch Portland locals OTA and I'm boycotting KATU. Their in-your-face whining about Dish sounds too much like a toddler who needs to be sent to his room.

I thought it was Fisher that was running the ads, not KATU. I'm sure they are making them put it on all their websites as well.

I also don't understand people's beef with D* equipment. I've had the HD-DVR for a couple of years now, and it works fine and I love being able to do the remote record. It was a little buggy when it was first released, but that was a couple of years ago. And don't forget Tivo and D* are hooking up again too.

It's too bad that Charlie is letting this lawsuit get in the way of his paying customers when it doesn't need to.

[GrumpyBear]

I thought it was Fisher that was running the ads, not KATU. I'm sure they are making them put it on all their websites as well.

I also don't understand people's beef with D* equipment. I've had the HD-DVR for a couple of years now, and it works fine and I love being able to do the remote record. It was a little buggy when it was first released, but that was a couple of years ago. And don't forget Tivo and D* are hooking up again too.

It's too bad that Charlie is letting this lawsuit get in the way of his paying customers when it doesn't need to.
Every year about August I think about changing over to Direct, the NFL Sunday Ticket is tempting.
Lack of the following features: Dual Live Buffers, PiP, Autotune, a Channels that I get feature, being able to record from this point foward, or from start of show, rewinding a touchdown, or a soccer goal hit record, and then stop, the recording( use this alot for Coaching Soccer) and a way to Archive off shows I want to keep, and a built in OTA tuner I can record, always keep me away. Not to mention that annoying Bonging noise the TV makes anytime I hit the wrong button in the wrong screen, while at my Brother in laws, when I do my comparison shopping.

[WebTraveler]

Huh??? Guess you'll have to explain that difference. To me it's the same thing so go ahead then and replace "worse" with ""not as good" in my statement and it's still valid. So you pay $4/mon less for $4/mon less in features. You're still going to have equipment that's worth $4/mon less when this is settled and I'll have my better equipment.

I'm just trying to figure out why you care about this so much? You've changed providers, we've heard your pitch, why are you trying the hard sale so much to people who don't really want to hear it? If you have some news then lets hear it. If you're just here to try and get people to switch to Direct TV then nobody cares to hear it.

Let's back up here. The two receivers are comparable. Each has it's own features. Dish's DVR is only marginally better than Directv's. Directv has significantly more options on it's DVRs than Dish's DVR. Dish's DVR is more user-friendly. But I expect in time that I will learn the expanded features like the back of my hand.

Using the term "worse" for "not as good" is simply a negative way of looking at life. It's the "glass is half full" versus the "glass is half empty"

[WebTraveler]

Every year about August I think about changing over to Direct, the NFL Sunday Ticket is tempting.
Lack of the following features: Dual Live Buffers, PiP, Autotune, a Channels that I get feature, being able to record from this point foward, or from start of show, rewinding a touchdown, or a soccer goal hit record, and then stop, the recording( use this alot for Coaching Soccer) and a way to Archive off shows I want to keep, and a built in OTA tuner I can record, always keep me away. Not to mention that annoying Bonging noise the TV makes anytime I hit the wrong button in the wrong screen, while at my Brother in laws, when I do my comparison shopping.

I can record from this point forward. I have dual live buffers. I can do PIP, I can program the receiver to display channels I get. I can rewind a touchdown.

There is no off DVR archive storage.

Not sure what your brother in law has, but I do have those features.

[HobbyTalk]

From everything I have read on the D* side, the HR2x series of receivers does not have DBL.

[GrumpyBear]

I can record from this point forward. I have dual live buffers. I can do PIP, I can program the receiver to display channels I get. I can rewind a touchdown.

There is no off DVR archive storage.

Not sure what your brother in law has, but I do have those features.
YOU have DLB and PiP on a Direct HRXX box?!?!?! If so you are the ONLY Direct user to have DLB and PiP on a HRXX Box.
As for Channels I get function, why program it, like a Favorite, and have to edit it when new channels come online? A simple single push of the guide Button should take care of it. Didn't know they had fixed the Rewind a touchdown or a soccer goal and let you record and then stop the recording so you only had to have 2 min's of recordings. That would be new too, if so thats nice to hear. I also didn't know they had fixed the Record function that allows you to record from this point forward, or from beginning of show. That would be new too, you should update Steve and Que on these features you have. Granted you still leave off, the Built in OTA Tuner for recording, and AutoTune which is used every single day at your house, mulitple times during the day, and YES there is a Archive with the VIP Series machines.

Had to edit real quick, Wife wanted me to add the pop up get when trying to change the channel, when the channel has a buffer. Keeps somebody from changing a channel by accident when so body is out of the room, you just swap over to the other buffer instead.

[GrumpyBear]

From everything I have read on the D* side, the HR2x series of receivers does not have DBL.
I almost posted this link in the What are your thoughts on DLB, on the Direct side of things. All those users, and all those votes about just that one feature, and to think they give it to a brand new user, and not to anybody else.

Granted I haven't lost a channel or a local station in 12 years with Dish that was important to me, and I am not sure what I would do if I lost channels, I watched, and were important to the list stations I want to have, or the a group of channels the wife and kids wanted as well.

I can see the View points of people being upset with a lose of something, when they are paying good money for a service.

[WebTraveler]

Grumpy Bear, one thought on your analogy:

You may have a dispute with the builder, but if you keep your employees danging and out of work for awhile over this then at some point they'll walk. Right now, in this economy that may not be so quick, but when the economy picks up again they will walk from you if they can't get paid.

That's really my situation....after four months without the local channel it seems to me that is enough. My channel is not coming back anytime soon. I want to watch some ABC shows and can't. I don't have a contract. I also bought a second HDTV and wanted to get a HDTV receiver for that TV; with Dish they want another 24 months to get that receiver....why on earth would I want another 24 months of this havoc? So it made sense for me.

[WebTraveler]

Also, I guess I don;t have PIP. I thought I had two outputs and could set up the TV's PIP feature. I guess I can't. Oh well on that one.

But I can definately push the record button at anytime to record a show that has started, etc.

[GrumpyBear]

Grumpy Bear, one thought on your analogy:

You may have a dispute with the builder, but if you keep your employees danging and out of work for awhile over this then at some point they'll walk. Right now, in this economy that may not be so quick, but when the economy picks up again they will walk from you if they can't get paid.

That's really my situation....after four months without the local channel it seems to me that is enough. My channel is not coming back anytime soon. I want to watch some ABC shows and can't. I don't have a contract. I also bought a second HDTV and wanted to get a HDTV receiver for that TV; with Dish they want another 24 months to get that receiver....why on earth would I want another 24 months of this havoc? So it made sense for me.
Now you have a good analogy, and a good comparison. Right now I do have employees that need more work, but its slow all over, and there are other contractors that kind of need to move along. So we all are in the process of staying or jumping ships to greener pastures, just like you and others effected by the Fisher vs Dish fight.
I have lucked out, and never had to go through this, and I am not sure how I would handle it or how long my patience would last. All my contracts have a 31 day clause be for action is taken, so as you can see I am not overly patient myself.

[WebTraveler]

Now you have a good analogy, and a good comparison. Right now I do have employees that need more work, but its slow all over, and there are other contractors that kind of need to move along. So we all are in the process of staying or jumping ships to greener pastures, just like you and others effected by the Fisher vs Dish fight.
I have lucked out, and never had to go through this, and I am not sure how I would handle it or how long my patience would last. All my contracts have a 31 day clause be for action is taken, so as you can see I am not overly patient myself.

So basically the longer this goes on the more risk Dish has with it's customers leaving, which renders even returning the channels mute. Whether it is a conscious business decision or simply Charlie stubborness is not clear.

[TomH]

Let's back up here.

a.k.a. "backpeddeling". It's funny how Direct TV's DVR is getting better every time you post.


The two receivers are comparable. Each has it's own features. Dish's DVR is only marginally better than Directv's. Directv has significantly more options on it's DVRs than Dish's DVR. Dish's DVR is more user-friendly. But I expect in time that I will learn the expanded features like the back of my hand.

Using the term "worse" for "not as good" is simply a negative way of looking at life. It's the "glass is half full" versus the "glass is half empty"

We're getting into semantics but, Dish's DVR is better than DirectTVs and will still be better after the settlement.

By the way, with the "glass half full" vs. "glass half empty" argument, it's not a negative view on life but should be taken from the standpoind of what's being achieved. If I'm filling the glass I would call it half full. If I'm emptying the glass then it would be half empty. If I'm switching to a new new DVR then it's either better or worse. If I'm moving to a DVR that's not as good as the old one then it's "worse" not "not better". It just sounds strange to try to force everything in a positive phrasing. You're just negating a positive which is still a negative. Maybe it's the mathematician in me but it's exactly the same thing, gets to the point better and doesn't sound like a politician talking.

But then I'm not trying to convince myself that the switch to Direct TV was the right thing to do.

[SaltiDawg]

...

But then I'm not trying to convince myself that the switch to Direct TV was the right thing to do.
Exactly! :rolleyes: lol

[GrumpyBear]

So basically the longer this goes on the more risk Dish has with it's customers leaving, which renders even returning the channels mute. Whether it is a conscious business decision or simply Charlie stubborness is not clear.
Where Charlie/Dish will lose money from users switching or leaving, Fisher is losing money in Advertising Revenue, and they have already LOST x amount of Viewers watching, and Revenue already. For Dish its a Trickle effect, users may leave, but not all and not all at once. Fisher on the other hand LOST all the Dish Viewers in All markets with a single push of a button. Less viewers the less money, and it effects them RIGHT NOW.
I think its Funny how Fisher says its all Charlies Fault, we have an agreement, and then go on to admit that the Fisher Lawsuit is whats really holding things up. Talk about being Stubborn, demanding money for Stations that were already being carried by Dish, before Fisher bought those stations.

[GrumpyBear]

Also, I guess I don;t have PIP. I thought I had two outputs and could set up the TV's PIP feature. I guess I can't. Oh well on that one.

But I can definately push the record button at anytime to record a show that has started, etc.
Record from this point forward was only part of it, you still can't record an entire event with a single click in the onscreen options when you hit record, midway through a show.
The HRXX's aren't that bad, and seem to be pretty stable now. Just to many missing features though. I could list even more if you want to, but the ones Listed are the ones that are really important to me, and my Family.

[david_jr]

I think its Funny how Fisher says its all Charlies Fault, we have an agreement, and then go on to admit that the Fisher Lawsuit is whats really holding things up. Talk about being Stubborn, demanding money for Stations that were already being carried by Dish, before Fisher bought those stations.

I believe the issue for Dish was that the stations you mention that were being carried by Dish prior to Fisher ownership had declaired "Must Carry" and Dish was forced to carry them. Dish does not feel that they should have to pay back fees on stations they were forced to carry by FCC rules. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And we're not talking chump change here either. We're talking millions of dollars.

[GrumpyBear]

I believe the issue for Dish was that the stations you mention that were being carried by Dish prior to Fisher ownership had declaired "Must Carry" and Dish was forced to carry them. Dish does not feel that they should have to pay back fees on stations they were forced to carry by FCC rules. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And we're not talking chump change here either. We're talking millions of dollars.
Oh I totally agree. Fisher Communcations is way off base on this one. Asking for money for a service that Dish had to carry, and they even want money from Dish that predates, Fisher owning some of these stations. They want the money from when Dish started carrying them. Let Fisher Drop the lawsuit and see how fast things move foward then.

[Rondo1]

I've been a Dish Network customer since 1996. I have drank the DISH kool-aid the entire time. Suggesting to friends why Dish was the better offering, etc. I loved how being a Dish customer we had Charlie Chats and Tech Chats that kept us more geeky types ;) informed. I have always been an EVERYTHING PACKAGE person as I love having the option to watch whatever I can. I also have a pretty large home with 5 boxes online at one point. Today it's down to 3. But now, I'm done. I've done enough research to finally bite the bullet and move on. I'm going to DirecTV. I simply am fed up with Dish Networks seemingly constant renegotiation battles and lack of some channels that I want that they've been talking about for YEARS yet has done nothing. Even with the most recent Fisher issue - it doesn't really bother me because I also have OTA and so I still watch and record from Seattle's KOMO 4. But not all of my boxes are HD and thus those that are not - I can't watch KOMO.

Based on what I've learned in my research - DTV offers better On Demand, better PPV, the ability to program via network or cellphone (without a SLING device, more HD channels and a channel that I want to have that Dish simply isn't carrying. All of this combined has made the decision pretty easy.

In all honesty, I was actually shocked when I learned what DirecTV had accomplished. I had spent so much time drinking the kool-aid that i didn't keep up to date on what the differences were. I also never liked TIVO's service and back in the day Tivo was DTV's primary DVR service. So today, its time to move on. I'm going to DirecTV. I really enjoyed my time on Dish, but these most recent disputes and lack of adding the channels that I want to see has done the trick for me. It's going to cost me money to switch, but I think I've waited long enough. I guess I'll see some of you over in the DirecTV forums soon! :D

Have a good one!
-Ron

[WebTraveler]

I believe the issue for Dish was that the stations you mention that were being carried by Dish prior to Fisher ownership had declaired "Must Carry" and Dish was forced to carry them. Dish does not feel that they should have to pay back fees on stations they were forced to carry by FCC rules. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. And we're not talking chump change here either. We're talking millions of dollars.

Regardless of whether it is right or wrong to pay for local stations, the law does provide that is the case. Charlie just wants to pocket it all. Like I said, my bill is less....

HD Choice Xtra DVR - $75.99
Plus 2 addl HD receivers - $10.00
Total $85.99
Less: ($5) qwest bundle.
Total $80.99

Dish DVR Advantage - $57.99
HD - $10
250 pack - $10
plus addl HD Receiver - $12
less $3 credit
Total $86.99


(Oh $1 credit for loss of KATU - $85.99)

Point is that with Directv I pay less and get the channel. Where is the extra cash going.

I did have a $350 charge for the 2 addl advanced receivers when I signed up for Directv, but I receive $21 off a month for 12 months and a $50 friend referral credit. ($294); so a $56 net charge for me, which is offset by two things: (1) I needed to upgrade to a second HD receiver with Dish, which I had to sign up for 24 months and pay $150 (or so, fee changes all the time), (2) lessor monthly charge.

The ONLY downfall is that the Directv HD DVR is not as user friendly and is missing a few options (I just discovered I don't have PIP), but has a lot of other options. So marginally I give the edge to Dish on this, but you don't have to put up with Charlie Ergen.

Seriously folks. Dish is a losing battle. I supported them for quite some time, but enough is enough Charlie may have had the brains and savy to get the company started and grown, but now that the company has matured it is sick and ill.

[GrumpyBear]

Well, I can program my two ViP622's, without having a Sling device anywere on my network. SlingGuide is something if you don't use, sign up before you leave and try it. HUGE difference then sending a request to Direct, and letting Direct pass on the request to your DVR. Remember that the HRXX box's will need a addon to be able to watch anything OTA, and even then you can't Record OTA.
You may want to look at the Comparison's so you see the features in the Hardware you will be missing. There are quite a few, DLB, Autotune, and Channels I Get(Subscription), and you may want to find a buddy and play with the Direct guide, its not overly user friendly, granted these are just a begining in features. If you aren't a Tivo Fan, remember Direct is now getting back into bed with Tivo right now.

Were Dish/Charlie have disputes with Stations, Direct seems to like to drop favorite Features, when they make changes in hardware, or promise things and 1-2 years later the hardware feature isn't there or what would be better is also still missing.

Enjoy the channel(or Channels) that Direct has the Dish doesn't carry, we all PAY for the service's and its not cheap no matter what. Programming is important to some, and for others Hardware is. I would be more worried about Programming but to many "so" called HD channels have such little HD content.

[HobbyTalk]

Regardless of whether it is right or wrong to pay for local stations, the law does provide that is the case. Charlie just wants to pocket it all.

If these stations were "must carry" stations, that same law says that the carrier does not have to pay for those must carry stations. If this is the case then why should Charlie (and in the end YOU) pay for something you are not required to pay for?

[scooper]

I'm not speaking for Dish - but I'd imagine their position on this is something like this.

2 groups of stations - group A was Fisher owned at the start of the last election period or those acquired with retrans consent agreements with Dish, group B are the stations acquired since then that were previously Must Carry.

Group A is no problem.

Group B - From the date that this negotiation is concluded, they will be treated the same as the Group A stations. This shouldn't be a problem for either side.
HOWEVER - Dish has drawn a line in the sand that says we will not pay for the retransmission of Group B stations in the past when they were using Must Carry for the previous election period.

If Fisher wants the agreement with Dish to go forward, they will have to drop their demand for retransmission for the Group B station for the previous election period, and also drop the lawsuit requesting that.

And Yes - Federal law is on Dish's side for this one.

[GrumpyBear]

I'm not speaking for Dish - but I'd imagine their position on this is something like this.

2 groups of stations - group A was Fisher owned at the start of the last election period or those acquired with retrans consent agreements with Dish, group B are the stations acquired since then that were previously Must Carry.

Group A is no problem.

Group B - From the date that this negotiation is concluded, they will be treated the same as the Group A stations. This shouldn't be a problem for either side.
HOWEVER - Dish has drawn a line in the sand that says we will not pay for the retransmission of Group B stations in the past when they were using Must Carry for the previous election period.

If Fisher wants the agreement with Dish to go forward, they will have to drop their demand for retransmission for the Group B station for the previous election period, and also drop the lawsuit requesting that.

And Yes - Federal law is on Dish's side for this one.

Could imagine the out cry if Dish at the time you recommitted to a 2yr agreement,(for whatever reason new hardware, new package, discount whatever) and then said oh, we are charging x amount of dollars now for something you were getting for Free for the last 2 years, now you need to pay Dish back for 2 yrs worth of service on that product, to continue on getting the your service. Everybody would FLIP out, yet some think that Dish should have to pay for something they HAD to carry, there wasn't a contract for, made a new contract going forward, only to have Fisher say, great, we like the price going forward, but YOU have to PAY us back for that Free service at current rates Please. What a CROCK from Fisher.

[Ron Barry]

I know this is a little off topic here... Remember the IBM's micro-channel architecture. Well this is exactly what IBM tried to do. They tried to use the micro-channel architecture to have its OEMs pay royalties for its AT bus that they currently was using. In other words if you wanted to use the micro-channel you needed to pay back fees for the AT bus and that was one of the reasons the micro-channel never really got farther than IBM machines. The consumers of the technology said no way as they should have..

If this is the case with this discussion the same goes.. Sorry but that is just not cool. Of course there is always two sides of the story, but if this true... then Fisher needs to pull back on trying to capture past revenue unless there was an agreement made at that time in my opinion.

[GrumpyBear]

I know this is a little off topic here... Remember the IBM's micro-channel architecture. Well this is exactly what IBM tried to do. They tried to use the micro-channel architecture to have its OEMs pay royalties for its AT bus that they currently was using. In other words if you wanted to use the micro-channel you needed to pay back fees for the AT bus and that was one of the reasons the micro-channel never really got farther than IBM machines. The consumers of the technology said no way as they should have..

If this is the case with this discussion the same goes.. Sorry but that is just not cool. Of course there is always two sides of the story, but if this true... then Fisher needs to pull back on trying to capture past revenue unless there was an agreement made at that time in my opinion.

Now if only Dish was able to supply an alternative for the Fisher Users, Like EISA Bus, or the short lived VL Bus. Makes you wonder if during disputes like this how fast they could be resolved if Dish was able to let users view an alternative market space. Kind like my white area days(man do I MISS THOSE)

[WebTraveler]

If Fisher wants the agreement with Dish to go forward, they will have to drop their demand for retransmission for the Group B station for the previous election period, and also drop the lawsuit requesting that.

And Yes - Federal law is on Dish's side for this one.

Charlie has made no secret that he does not believe there should be compensation for broadcast channels. Unfortunately the law says that unless a station requests must carry to retransmit it requires some form of fee.

Aside from the low tier package, Dish is more expensive than Directv IF you choose to have DVRs. Otherwise, it's either more or pretty close. Why would a new customer do this? Pay more for less?

Why would a new customer sign up for Dish if that person wants ABC (or CBS or whatever the local affiliate may be) programming? Seems to me that Dish has placed itself at a major competitive disadvantage if this is the position.

For example, since the Pac 10 is on ABC, you'd lose that with Dish in the big markets, Portland and Seattle.


I think viewers are overwhelmingly choosing providers other than Dish. Look at how many Dish lost last year and how many Directv gained.....pretty significant difference.....

[WebTraveler]

If these stations were "must carry" stations, that same law says that the carrier does not have to pay for those must carry stations. If this is the case then why should Charlie (and in the end YOU) pay for something you are not required to pay for?

Maybe they were must carry in the past?????? I don't know what you are even talkiing about

[scooper]

Charlie has made no secret that he does not believe there should be compensation for broadcast channels. Unfortunately the law says that unless a station requests must carry to retransmit it requires some form of fee.

Aside from the low tier package, Dish is more expensive than Directv IF you choose to have DVRs. Otherwise, it's either more or pretty close. Why would a new customer do this? Pay more for less?

Why would a new customer sign up for Dish if that person wants ABC (or CBS or whatever the local affiliate may be) programming? Seems to me that Dish has placed itself at a major competitive disadvantage if this is the position.

For example, since the Pac 10 is on ABC, you'd lose that with Dish in the big markets, Portland and Seattle.


I think viewers are overwhelmingly choosing providers other than Dish. Look at how many Dish lost last year and how many Directv gained.....pretty significant difference.....


You either didn't read the entire post, or picked a few remarks without context.

I very specifically stated that the problem stations were those that Fisher had acquired who were using must carry at the time of their acquisition by Fisher. For those - no way should Dish have to pay retrans fees during the time they were still Must Carry. If Fisher thinks they should - that negotiation isn't going to go anywhere.

[Ron Barry]

Ok... This Moderator not is not pointed at anyone specifically.. Just a general heads up as some of the thread wondered into the weeds a bit.

This thread is about the "Only Charlie Knows" ad and some I can see some opinions on the issues that are the basis of the ad itself. Where we have wondered off topic is on the discussions of DirecTV vs Dish and comparisons between whose hardware is better. Lets try and stick to the topic.

Dish vs DirecTV discussions from this point on will be removed without warning as being off topic. We have wondered far enough.

[GrumpyBear]

Maybe they were must carry in the past?????? I don't know what you are even talkiing about
Yes a MUST Carry in the PAST. No contract, no Fee's. Fisher wants to be PAID for things that Dish had to carry in the past, and Fisher and Dish didn't have a contract for those stations. Yes the Only Charlie Knows ad, brings up the point that the going forward price is all set and ready to go. Problem is Fisher wants to be Paid for things in the PAST, things Fisher wasn't even involved for the entire time.
How in the world can you expect Dish to settle on a price or pay a price that Fisher thinks its owed, when there was no money involved with the stations in question? Are you telling me you would Pay a price for something after you used it for several years for free, Just so you could use it in the Future?
Most Sane people wouldn't do that, and would think the person asking was Freakin NUTZ. You want to Blame somebody, Look at the NUT that wants to be paid for something they didn't DO.

[WebTraveler]

Yes a MUST Carry in the PAST. No contract, no Fee's. Fisher wants to be PAID for things that Dish had to carry in the past, and Fisher and Dish didn't have a contract for those stations. Yes the Only Charlie Knows ad, brings up the point that the going forward price is all set and ready to go. Problem is Fisher wants to be Paid for things in the PAST, things Fisher wasn't even involved for the entire time.
How in the world can you expect Dish to settle on a price or pay a price that Fisher thinks its owed, when there was no money involved with the stations in question? Are you telling me you would Pay a price for something after you used it for several years for free, Just so you could use it in the Future?
Most Sane people wouldn't do that, and would think the person asking was Freakin NUTZ. You want to Blame somebody, Look at the NUT that wants to be paid for something they didn't DO.

But you are just speculating that is the issue - that Dish wants cash for stations carried for free in the past. Fisher says that is not the case, that per agreement they owe Dish.

I don't know who is right as I do not have any real facts. Yes, Fisher will talk to me and clearly state their side of the issue, Dish just says "no comment."

But my POINT is regardless of whatever the facts are Directv is not having a dispute problem and they cost less when you add it all up. So Directv is presumably paying and Dish is not. Dish is grossing more per subscriber (if you add in all the DVR, receiver fees) (notwithstanding the bargain 100 package), but you get less for it. That is more cash to line Charlie's pockets.

[GrumpyBear]

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2058615#post2058615

Read your #3 again. As well as the rest.
Fisher can say all it wants to, with a PENDING Lawsuit that THEY filed, it will be extremely hard to settle things. If Fisher was really committed to its Viewers they would drop the lawsuit all together, and settle it in the going forward agreement.

As for Dish or Direct being cheaper it all depends, in your case its cheaper, in my case, Direct is more expensive by $25 a month. That doesn't even count what I would have to spend in New HomeTheater, Cables, and TV's so I don't lose everyday functions.

[scooper]

Webtraveler - you have your terminology backwards.

"MUST CARRY" means the multichannel provider that is retransmitting local stations are doing so at THEIR expense, with no consideration being given to the station except they are carried for viewing.

"RETRANSMISSION CONSENT" means that the station and the multichannel provider have made an agreement wherein the station agrees to let their signal be broadcast in return for some consideration (could be money, could be having a sister station carried, etc.).

MUST CARRY is usually used by smaller stations (think your local independents, or maybe a CW / My Network TV). RETRANSMISSION CONSENT is usually for the Major affiliate stations. PBS and other NCE (NonCommercial and Educational) channels are under a different set of rules, but essentially - they are also Must Carry.

Now, in view of these definitions - you should be able to see that it is Fisher that is looking for consideration for past Must Carry stations.

[WebTraveler]

Scoopper, never said otherwise. Might want to look what I wrote. You make a lot of assumptions. I am not even sure you read what I write before you launch off into something else. What I said is that there is speculation on Fisher vs. Dish, but none of us know for sure. I also said that Fisher believes they are owed money for back pay for a station. Dish says otherwise. I don't know who is right, and contrary to what you think, neither do you.

What I have said (AGAIN) is that even if this is all the case, Directv is paying the fees AND is less costly in many cases, so where is this extra cash going? Charlie's pockets? Dish has higher operating costs? (With less subscribers and that number going less daily, there are obviously fixed costs that are ratably higher now?)

Webtraveler - you have your terminology backwards.

"MUST CARRY" means the multichannel provider that is retransmitting local stations are doing so at THEIR expense, with no consideration being given to the station except they are carried for viewing.

"RETRANSMISSION CONSENT" means that the station and the multichannel provider have made an agreement wherein the station agrees to let their signal be broadcast in return for some consideration (could be money, could be having a sister station carried, etc.).

MUST CARRY is usually used by smaller stations (think your local independents, or maybe a CW / My Network TV). RETRANSMISSION CONSENT is usually for the Major affiliate stations. PBS and other NCE (NonCommercial and Educational) channels are under a different set of rules, but essentially - they are also Must Carry.

Now, in view of these definitions - you should be able to see that it is Fisher that is looking for consideration for past Must Carry stations.

[WebTraveler]

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2058615#post2058615

Read your #3 again. As well as the rest.
Fisher can say all it wants to, with a PENDING Lawsuit that THEY filed, it will be extremely hard to settle things. If Fisher was really committed to its Viewers they would drop the lawsuit all together, and settle it in the going forward agreement.

As for Dish or Direct being cheaper it all depends, in your case its cheaper, in my case, Direct is more expensive by $25 a month. That doesn't even count what I would have to spend in New HomeTheater, Cables, and TV's so I don't lose everyday functions.

Well I was told by Fisher that they considered this, but what makes Dish honor the next agreement if they didn't honor the last? That is what I was told anyway. You read into it what you want.

Do you really trust that you are getting the truth from Charlie Ergen? I think this man would sell his mother if it made economic sense for him. I think it will be interesting on how this works out.

You all demonize Fisher, but again, Directv must be paying Fisher and it's rates are not dramatically higher and less in a lot of cases, including mine.

Just curious Grumpy Bear, what package do you have that makes it $25 a month MORE?

[bobukcat]

Do you really trust that you are getting the truth from Charlie Ergen? I think this man would sell his mother if it made economic sense for him. I think it will be interesting on how this works out.

You all demonize Fisher, but again, Directv must be paying Fisher and it's rates are not dramatically higher and less in a lot of cases, including mine.



It's not like D* hasn't had some re-trans/contract disputes in the past with other stations, it happens.

Do I believe everything Charlie Ergen and E* say, no. Do I believe everything that [insert any name you want in here] says, no. As for E* not commenting on it, that is really the norm when there is on-going litigation and Fisher may indeed have what they publish come back to haunt them during the legal proceedings / negotiations.

[WebTraveler]

. As for E* not commenting on it, that is really the norm when there is on-going litigation and Fisher may indeed have what they publish come back to haunt them during the legal proceedings / negotiations.

Maybe, maybe not. According to Fisher Dish represents only 8% of its viewers. How this breaks down by market is unclear, but in some markets Fisher owns two stations, so total impact by Dish is probably less than 8% in markets with only one station. http://seekingalpha.com/article/125771-fisher-communications-inc-q4-2008-earnings-call-transcript?source=feed&page=-1

I moved from Dish last month. My neighbor is in the process. 102,000 net other people in Q4 of last year left Dish, while 300+K moved to Directv. So who is really being hurt by all of this? Unless Dish has a lot of local customers that do not have local channels (they might, another neighbor of mine apparently doesn't subscribe to locals), this is not making things better.

[RasputinAXP]

Well I was told by Fisher that they considered this, but what makes Dish honor the next agreement if they didn't honor the last? That is what I was told anyway. You read into it what you want.

So you're buddy buddy with someone on the inside of Fisher and you want to come here and proselytize?

Dish didn't have a previous agreement to honor with Fisher. Fisher purchased a station Dish already carried on a Must-Carry basis. In the process of their acquisition of the station, Fisher changed it to Retransmission Consent and declared that Dish owed them back money from the time they purchased the station going forward to when the previous Must Carry agreement was terminated.

If you're off Dish and happy with Direct, then can't you just shuffle off to that side of the Mason-Dixon line and quit trolling?

[Ron Barry]

I closed this thread until I have a chance to take a look at it. It should re-open shortly.
Updated.. Since we already have a thread on the Fisher/Dish issue and we have obviously wondered off-topic, I am going to keep the thread closed. If you want to discuss the issue further use thread for discussion. If you do, keep to the topic of Dish vs Fisher. DirecTV vs. Dish comparisons are not on topic for these type of threads. We have a lot of other threads dedicated to that topic.

So if you are interested please see the threads below
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=149114&highlight=Fisher+Communications
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=147828&highlight=Fisher+Communications