HD carriage dispute w/ ABC/ESPN/Disney

[tsmacro]

Effective June 22, 2010 the standard-definition feeds of Disney Channel, Disney XD, ABC Family and ESPNews are still available, and you may continue to watch your favorite programs on their regular channel numbers.



DISH Network now offers all customers HD Free for Life, which is possible because we are committed to negotiating fair contracts that allow us to keep our prices low. Disney and ESPN Networks demanded an exorbitant fee for the HD feeds of Disney East, Disney XD, ESPNews and ABC Family – a fee that would be a tax on our customers. After we refused to pay, Disney and ESPN Networks pulled the HD feeds of these four channels only.

[tsmacro]

I thought I read on here somewhere someone saying Dish had a good relationship with ABC/Disney/ESPN. Hmmmm, maybe not so much at the moment it seems. :(

[BillJ]

I just discovered the missing channels and called DISH. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm paying the same as I was paying last month for DISH but suddenly they can't afford to offer these channels in HD. Come on, Charlie.

[Dave]

Lets not blame Charlie for ABC's greed and high cost for carriage. I can watch them in SD as easy as HD. Tell the CEO of Disney, ABC to get off there high money horse.

[sigma1914]

If they pulled ESPNHD & ESPN2HD, then there would be a HUUUUUGE backlash.

[Jables]

As a D* customer who suffered through the VS dispute, I sure hope it takes E* less time to sort things out. Sucks for you guys.

And I'll echo BillJ - I thought the same thing when D* lost VS:

Sat Co: We refuse to pass on these egregious charges to you, our valued customer!
Customer: OK. So we don't get that channel now while you work things out? Do we get to pay less while we're down a channel?
Sat Co: No.

[domingos35]

If they pulled ESPNHD & ESPN2HD, then there would be a HUUUUUGE backlash.

u damn right about that

[James Long]

No Longer Available
9433 DISE (172 HD) Disney (East) 129° TP 18 / 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden
9434 ABCFM (180 HD) ABC Family 129° TP 28 / 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden
9449 DISXD (174 HD) Disney XD 129° TP 27 / 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden
9494 ESNWS (142 HD) ESPNews 129° TP 28 / 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden

I thought I read on here somewhere someone saying Dish had a good relationship with ABC/Disney/ESPN. Hmmmm, maybe not so much at the moment it seems. :(The ESPN lawsuit is still pending ... the relationship seemed good as despite the court case DISH added channels. Apparently not as good as it seemed.

I guess this gives people the answer as to if ESPNU HD will be added any time soon (although sometimes disputes end with new channels).

(According to the court filing, DISH believed their contract with ESPN that included all feeds of ESPN and ESPN2 also included ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD and didn't want to pay extra. ESPN treated their HD feeds as separate channels - and the legal dispute began.)

[n0qcu]

If they pulled ESPNHD & ESPN2HD, then there would be a HUUUUUGE backlash.

If they would pull these that would be absolutely the very best thing that could ever happen.

[0pusX]

this is already is huge issue for me. 3 of those channels are on almost constantly at my house.

[ENDContra]

Hmmm....I can deal with these being gone for a bit, if the end result also gets us ESPNUHD. Any chance of that?

[phrelin]

Well, this may be the dispute to watch to find out just how expensive your TV package will be in the future. I already grumble about how much ESPN is costing me - I could care less if I get it but for anyone to get it we have to pay something like $5-$7 a month extra in the various packages.

I also don't need the Disney Channels but I'm sure it's a significant number in the package cost already.

Whatever Dish agrees to in this dispute will set the tone for future negotiations with NBCU, Time Warner, etc. for the other groups of cable channels. Then will come the local/network negotiations where we know the networks are asking for an extra buck or two along with whatever their affiliates want.

I predict that packages will go up $10-$15 a month or an average of 30% over a very few years. Some will, of course, bitch about Dish or DirecTV or Cox Cable or FIOS. The rest of us will know where to place the blame - at Congress for not reigning in the media conglomerate greed and ourselves for not voting our personal interests.

Leave them off, Charlie, unless you can get an agreement for 10¢ a channel which you should list in detail on the bill along with an email address for Disney Inc.

[0pusX]

Its funny how people say "Good for DISH, take a stand, I dont care about those channels anyways" well what if they channels you and your family watched were taken off, would you be singing the same tune then?

[erosroadie]

Its funny how people say "Good for DISH, take a stand, I dont care about those channels anyways" well what if they channels you and your family watched were taken off, would you be singing the same tune then?

Been there, done that with Versus and D*. Not the same impact obviously as ESPN HD feeds being dropped. Feel sorry for the World Cup fans now watching games in SD...:eek2:

[Conway]

we still have the SD channels of them.. The HD channels will be back soon im sure. I'v seen disputes with dish come to a close rather quickly.

[sigma1914]

Been there, done that with Versus and D*. Not the same impact obviously as ESPN HD feeds being dropped. Feel sorry for the World Cup fans now watching games in SD...:eek2:

It's not ESPN HD or ESPN2 HD....yet. Only Disney Channel, Disney XD, ABC Family, and ESPNews are affected.

[PRIME1]

If you have the HD Absolute package, you don't have them at all right now. What's worse is I just called tech support and they were not even aware of the problem. They had me reset my receiver to try to fix the issue. While that was coming back up I decided to check here, and then I informed her of the problem!

[tsmacro]

I just discovered the missing channels and called DISH. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm paying the same as I was paying last month for DISH but suddenly they can't afford to offer these channels in HD. Come on, Charlie.

Did I miss your post singing Dish's praises all the times they've added HD channels and not raised your bill? After all fair's fair here. Now really being fair this is a carriage dispute, happens regularly, company that owns the channels wants more $$$, Dish understandably doesn't want to pay more. As always they'll hash something out sooner or later.

[JWKessler]

I realize that ESPN - and Disney - are important channels for many Dish customers. However, not everyone is a sports fan or has kids. So why should we be forced to pay higher monthly fees to ESPN or Disney for expensive channels we will NEVER watch?

Perhaps a separate package containing these "semi-premium" channels could be created. People who really wanted ESPN or Disney could pay for the privilege, giving the rest of us a break. I see it a bit like the Platinum package. You have the option to pay a bit more for these channels if you want them, or if you don't care about them you can chose not to subscribe.

I remember when I subscribed to Bell ExpressVU they had named packages like Basics, News, Sports, Kids, Music, Entertainment, Learning etc and grouped several related channels into each package. When you subscribed you could pick the number of packages you wanted, then chose packages until you hit your limit. It seemed like a smart way to handle the situation that was much more fair than what we have.

[phrelin]

First of all, ESPHD seems to be on right now, though DisneyHD and ABCFamilyHD aren't.

Its funny how people say "Good for DISH, take a stand, I dont care about those channels anyways" well what if they channels you and your family watched were taken off, would you be singing the same tune then?Absolutely! We watch a lot on NBCU and TimeWarner cable channels and I'd be right there glaring at them with Dish if I could be at the table.

And I would be particularly mad at Disney because I have been watching the World Cup on ESPN. Talk about blackmail. Viva Univision HD!

Oh, and I'm waiting for the day when the various media giant groups can be purchased in separate packages so we can begin to see what we're paying these companies.

[Stewart Vernon]

I think even Disney knows it would be a mistake for them to pull their main ESPN channels as they are the "bad guy" in this scenario since they are the ones cutting the feed to Dish.

Meanwhile... anyone who thinks that dropping ESPN channels would result in your bill dropping is sorely mistaken. There is virtually no precedent that says if channels are "lost" forever that a package tier would drop in price.

Frankly, I thought this is where we were a couple of years ago... channel providers wanting more money for their HD feeds than their SD feeds... so I'm surprised that this has only come through with the suit from Disney/ESPN here.

You and I might think HD should come with the SD feed... but the channel providers did expend extra money to get those feeds started... and they know the public wants them... so I'm not surprised they are asking for more money.

I hope this gets resolved before it becomes even nastier... but it does seem to address why Dish still hasn't had ESPNUHD.

It might also explain why DirecTV didn't get ESPNUHD until very recently... maybe DirecTV was waiting as well, but just they decided to pay up instead of fight it like Dish usually does.

I'm not naive, though... "we want to keep our prices down to our customers" sounds a lot like "do it for the children" and we all know that when people say things like that... it's never the driving force behind the fight.

[RAD]

I think even Disney knows it would be a mistake for them to pull their main ESPN channels as they are the "bad guy" in this scenario since they are the ones cutting the feed to Dish.

Why is Disney the 'bad guy"?

What if you owned a house and you were leasing it to someone. Before the lease came up for renewal you looked at your costs to own that house and what profit you wanted to make and sent the increase to your tenant a couple months before. The tenant wasn't happy with that increase and proposed a lower amount. This continued going back and forth right up to the end date for the lease, but you like this tenant and would like to keep them so you say they can stay there for a while and continue to negotiate. Months go by and you're still not coming to an agreement and you realize that your tenant has nothing to lose by being stedfast, he's still in your home and isn't paying your increase. So how long would you let them stay there before you pull the plug and kick them out?

And while I don't like price increases as much as anyone it's a fact of life. But the cost for everything that companies use, from utilities to salaries (at least for those Hollywood folks and corporate exec's) also keeps going up and someone has to pay for it.

Just my two cents.

[James Long]

I think even Disney knows it would be a mistake for them to pull their main ESPN channels as they are the "bad guy" in this scenario since they are the ones cutting the feed to Dish.The dispute may not include ESPNs main channels. Pulling channels is leverage. I can't imagine any company not using the fullest leverage possible.
Meanwhile... anyone who thinks that dropping ESPN channels would result in your bill dropping is sorely mistaken. There is virtually no precedent that says if channels are "lost" forever that a package tier would drop in price.We've lost four of the 71 channels in HD 250 Free, four of the 54 in HD 200 Free, three of the 31 in HD 120 Free.
We should demand a discount on our HD packages.

People with HD 120 Free should get 10% off of their $0 per month! :eek2:

[phrelin]

Well, point-of-view is everything. From Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5450S220090506) in May: The Walt Disney Co posted a 26 percent earnings drop on Tuesday as the global downturn ate into ad sales and consumer spending, but company executives said the worst may be over for its key media networks and theme parks businesses....

A relatively strong showing at its cable operations, especially the ESPN sports network, ABC Family Channel and Disney Channel, and a better-than-expected 10 cents per share of restructuring charges helped the company to an earnings beat.I guess I understand a desire to milk the cable operations, but when I read things like the following, I can't help but judge the media conglomerate as a "not very good" guy in the negotiations: Iger also said the company was "optimistic" that an agreement would be reached with the Hong Kong government to expand the underperforming Hong Kong theme park, and that the proposed Shanghai park was awaiting approval from China's central government.Sorry, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to pay an extra buck a month for ESPN/Disney/Family HD because they screwed the pooch with a Hong Kong theme park.

[l8er]

.... Perhaps a separate package containing these "semi-premium" channels could be created. People who really wanted ESPN or Disney could pay for the privilege, giving the rest of us a break. .... Will likely never happen. Many of the providers dictate where (what level) they want their channels so they can count as many possible victims, er, subscribers as possible for their advertisers. (Which affects the rates they inflate for, er, charge advertisers.)

[kariato]

Maybe Dish should offer a special sportless package like the family plan for $5 less a month as a opening shot. Given ESPN lock on being in the basic plan that would scare the living daylights out of them given that I would switch in a second to that plan. In other countries sport are usually not in the base package. The package aimed at Women/Arts including Hallmark, Bravo, A&E, TLC, Oxygen. It would be a great marketing campaign. I know a lot of women like sports but a lot don't. Creating a sportless package would be a hit.

[JoeTheDragon]

I realize that ESPN - and Disney - are important channels for many Dish customers. However, not everyone is a sports fan or has kids. So why should we be forced to pay higher monthly fees to ESPN or Disney for expensive channels we will NEVER watch?

Perhaps a separate package containing these "semi-premium" channels could be created. People who really wanted ESPN or Disney could pay for the privilege, giving the rest of us a break. I see it a bit like the Platinum package. You have the option to pay a bit more for these channels if you want them, or if you don't care about them you can chose not to subscribe.

I remember when I subscribed to Bell ExpressVU they had named packages like Basics, News, Sports, Kids, Music, Entertainment, Learning etc and grouped several related channels into each package. When you subscribed you could pick the number of packages you wanted, then chose packages until you hit your limit. It seemed like a smart way to handle the situation that was much more fair than what we have.

I remember when Disney was a premium channel.

[GrumpyBear]

Will likely never happen. Many of the providers dictate where (what level) they want their channels so they can count as many possible victims, er, subscribers as possible for their advertisers. (Which affects the rates they inflate for, er, charge advertisers.)

You are right about that. Highly doubtful that package rates would go down, by removing ESPN and Disney into Sports and Family/Kids packages. They would include enough channels into the Sports and Family packages that didn't really belong, and get people to buy them anyways, and end up charging more for it. There is NO WAY networks are going to allow for any kind of a la carte system.
I almost missed my 3:30 conference call, as That 70's show didn't autotune today. Granted I ended up hearing some other Noise, Degrassi or something, and it made me aware something was wrong, as I have the SD version of ABC Family locked out.
Glad we at least kept the SD versions until they settle this. Don't watch the channels in question much at all, ABC Family is one of the weaker HD stations as lots of the shows look horrible, but there are some weekend movies the wife and kids like, and I use it for my 3pm alarm clock, when I am home.
If they screwed up ESPN/ESPN2 HD right now I would be really upset, smack dab in the middle of the World Cup, there would be lots of yelling, and both Dish and ABC/Disney would be the bad guys, for millions of users.

[bnborg]

Maybe Dish should offer a special sportless package like the family plan for $5 less a month as a opening shot. Given ESPN lock on being in the basic plan that would scare the living daylights out of them given that I would switch in a second to that plan. In other countries sport are usually not in the base package. The package aimed at Women/Arts including Hallmark, Bravo, A&E, TLC, Oxygen. It would be a great marketing campaign. I know a lot of women like sports but a lot don't. Creating a sportless package would be a hit.

I would go for a lower priced, sportless package in a minute.

[BillJ]

You and I might think HD should come with the SD feed... but the channel providers did expend extra money to get those feeds started... and they know the public wants them... so I'm not surprised they are asking for more money.



We are at a point where HD is close to becoming the broadcast standard. I remember when color TV was at that point. It cost more to produce color programs but neither the broadcast station nor the cable company tried charging the viewer more to watch. It's time everyone involved in delivering TV to viewers realizes HD is the new normal. DISH has taken a step in that direction with Free HD for Life. And today is a giant step backward.

[Stewart Vernon]

Why is Disney the 'bad guy"?

Did you read my whole post, or just the first line that you quoted?

The very next line of my post I explained the companies like Disney have spent money to upgrade to HD transmission so I didn't see it as a surprise that they wanted more money.

"Bad guy" is in quotes because of public perception. IF Dish had cut the channels because they didn't want them, then Dish would appear to be the bad guy... but in this scenario, Disney has cut the feed because they didn't feel they were being paid for these particular channels... so they do appear to be the bad guy, whether they are or are not.

Dish didn't drop these channels... Disney cut the feed. That's why they are the "bad guy" in the scenario.

What if you owned a house and you were leasing it to someone. Before the lease came up for renewal you looked at your costs to own that house and what profit you wanted to make and sent the increase to your tenant a couple months before. The tenant wasn't happy with that increase and proposed a lower amount. This continued going back and forth right up to the end date for the lease, but you like this tenant and would like to keep them so you say they can stay there for a while and continue to negotiate. Months go by and you're still not coming to an agreement and you realize that your tenant has nothing to lose by being stedfast, he's still in your home and isn't paying your increase. So how long would you let them stay there before you pull the plug and kick them out?

Everything you wrote here was completely appropriate and understandable from a landlord's point of view...

BUT

What if the tenant was on a fixed income... and either an elderly person OR a somehow disabled one. Do you not think public opinion would frown upon a landlord for evicting such a tenant even if it was completely just and understandable legally?

That's all I was saying... Sometimes public perception means as much to a company as does being in the right.

Disney might need more money, and be justified in asking... and justified in pulling their feed if Dish doesn't pay more... BUT in this economy, when all of Dish's customers are already griping about this year's price increases... how many on here would happily pay more to Dish to keep these Disney channels on air right now?

IF Dish raised rates yet again to cover these channels, wouldn't everyone scream? So... Disney in a down economy is asking for more money and threatening by pulling the channels if they don't get more money... so to you and I who do not have more money right now, Disney looks like the bad guy for not pinching pennies on their end.

The risk too is that the channels they pulled might not be missed. Customers *might* find they are ok without those channels IF they are off for an extended period of time.

Consider... Dish killed off the Smithsonian HD channel a year or so ago... and people griped at first... but the noise died down and I think I'm the only one to bring it up in many months here as an example!

So... in a dispute for money... Disney takes the risk that customers will complain more about losing the channels than they would about having to pay more for them... and in this economy, that might be a risky maneuver.

[Stewart Vernon]

We are at a point where HD is close to becoming the broadcast standard. I remember when color TV was at that point. It cost more to produce color programs but neither the broadcast station nor the cable company tried charging the viewer more to watch. It's time everyone involved in delivering TV to viewers realizes HD is the new normal. DISH has taken a step in that direction with Free HD for Life. And today is a giant step backward.

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?

I'm sure advertisements were sold at higher rates for color programs than B&W... so broadcasters probably made up some money there in those days.

HD really isn't yet the new normal either... Well more than half of Dish's customers are SD-only customers. I suspect similar ratios are true of Directv and various cable outlets.

Lots of folks got those digital TV adapters to use on existing TVs too.. so lots of OTA people are still in SD land.

[bnborg]

I didn't remember cable being around in the 50's either.

[RAD]

I think even Disney knows it would be a mistake for them to pull their main ESPN channels as they are the "bad guy" in this scenario since they are the ones cutting the feed to Dish.

Meanwhile... anyone who thinks that dropping ESPN channels would result in your bill dropping is sorely mistaken. There is virtually no precedent that says if channels are "lost" forever that a package tier would drop in price.

Frankly, I thought this is where we were a couple of years ago... channel providers wanting more money for their HD feeds than their SD feeds... so I'm surprised that this has only come through with the suit from Disney/ESPN here.

You and I might think HD should come with the SD feed... but the channel providers did expend extra money to get those feeds started... and they know the public wants them... so I'm not surprised they are asking for more money.

I hope this gets resolved before it becomes even nastier... but it does seem to address why Dish still hasn't had ESPNUHD.

It might also explain why DirecTV didn't get ESPNUHD until very recently... maybe DirecTV was waiting as well, but just they decided to pay up instead of fight it like Dish usually does.

I'm not naive, though... "we want to keep our prices down to our customers" sounds a lot like "do it for the children" and we all know that when people say things like that... it's never the driving force behind the fight.

Did you read my whole post, or just the first line that you quoted?

The very next line of my post I explained the companies like Disney have spent money to upgrade to HD transmission so I didn't see it as a surprise that they wanted more money.

Acutally it wasn't until the fourth section in your post where you mention the costy to upgrade to HD.

"Bad guy" is in quotes because of public perception. IF Dish had cut the channels because they didn't want them, then Dish would appear to be the bad guy... but in this scenario, Disney has cut the feed because they didn't feel they were being paid for these particular channels... so they do appear to be the bad guy, whether they are or are not.

Dish didn't drop these channels... Disney cut the feed. That's why they are the "bad guy" in the scenario.



Everything you wrote here was completely appropriate and understandable from a landlord's point of view...

BUT

What if the tenant was on a fixed income... and either an elderly person OR a somehow disabled one. Do you not think public opinion would frown upon a landlord for evicting such a tenant even if it was completely just and understandable legally?

That's all I was saying... Sometimes public perception means as much to a company as does being in the right.

Disney might need more money, and be justified in asking... and justified in pulling their feed if Dish doesn't pay more... BUT in this economy, when all of Dish's customers are already griping about this year's price increases... how many on here would happily pay more to Dish to keep these Disney channels on air right now?

IF Dish raised rates yet again to cover these channels, wouldn't everyone scream? So... Disney in a down economy is asking for more money and threatening by pulling the channels if they don't get more money... so to you and I who do not have more money right now, Disney looks like the bad guy for not pinching pennies on their end.

The risk too is that the channels they pulled might not be missed. Customers *might* find they are ok without those channels IF they are off for an extended period of time.

Consider... Dish killed off the Smithsonian HD channel a year or so ago... and people griped at first... but the noise died down and I think I'm the only one to bring it up in many months here as an example!

So... in a dispute for money... Disney takes the risk that customers will complain more about losing the channels than they would about having to pay more for them... and in this economy, that might be a risky maneuver.

OK, so the landlord might take some heat but its his right to evict someone if they can't afford their lodging. The public might not be as rough on the landlord when they hear that he gave the tenant 6 months to come to terms with the new rent before eviction, he had plenty of time to find someplace they could afford.

As for your comment about all the Dish customers griping about this years increase I see enough posts from folks still asking about spending a couple hundred on a new 922 and paying a $17/month STB fee so I don't think all the Dish customers are out on the corner begging for money to pay next months bill.

Is Disney taking a risk, probably, but guess it's a risk that their accounts and PR folks said it was worth to take.

[harsh]

I can't imagine any company not using the fullest leverage possible.It would be bad timing indeed. ESPN doesn't want a repeat of the DIRECTV.vs.VERSUS hockey heartbreak.

Then again, the relative impact may depend on how ultimately popular the World Cup turns out to be. DISH might counter with a "preview" of the channels from the Espanol package.

[James Long]

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?Yes. Cable television started in 1948 ... prime time on the networks was all color in 1966-67. Cable continued to grow from it's "community antenna" roots to rebroadcasting satellite delivered programming as TV continued to be more colorful. There was plenty of overlap during the process - with cable helping in some ways by delivering a good signal to those TVs so color reception was possible.

BTW: There was no "cutover". With color compatible with B&W TVs shows and networks converted as funds were available. Consumers did the same. Separate feeds were not needed for color vs B&W.

I'm sure advertisements were sold at higher rates for color programs than B&W... so broadcasters probably made up some money there in those days.Color programs attracted viewers ... advertisers pay for viewers.

HD really isn't yet the new normal either... Well more than half of Dish's customers are SD-only customers. I suspect similar ratios are true of Directv and various cable outlets.I'd like to see better numbers on this. Unfortunately unlike the movement of TV to color the movement of TV to HD isn't compatible with the past. "HD" customers like me have more SD receivers than HD receivers. And even though we are years into the availability of HD it remains a premium service that too many don't see the value in paying extra for.

One company's analysis (https://www.trefis.com/company?article=17340#) places DISH's HD penetration at 3% in 2006 and 20% in 2009 with a prediction of 55% by 2016.

From another source (http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/2010/01/us-hdtv-penetration-increases-to-46/): "A research group conducted a survey and discovered that currently 46% of US households have at least one HDTV in their home. The increase in adoption is due to several factors including the shift away from analog transmission, the decreasing price of HDTVs, and the inability to purchase any other kind of television."

Falling back to the color argument: "Color" becoming the definition of TV is when every set displays a color picture in color. "HD" becoming the definition of TV is when every set displays a HD picture in HD. It has only been a few years since B&W TVs were still a general retail item. We're a long way from every regularly used TV in every home displaying a HD signal (in HD).

One TV isn't enough to say HD is the definition of TV.

[nmetro]

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?

I'm sure advertisements were sold at higher rates for color programs than B&W... so broadcasters probably made up some money there in those days.

HD really isn't yet the new normal either... Well more than half of Dish's customers are SD-only customers. I suspect similar ratios are true of Directv and various cable outlets.

Lots of folks got those digital TV adapters to use on existing TVs too.. so lots of OTA people are still in SD land.

To your first question, cable TV was more of a means to improve broadcast TV signals in fringe areas and was not readily available at the time color broadcast television was available on ABC, CBS and NBC. NBC went full color n the early 1960s, ABC and CBS mid 1960s. At least in New york, independent channels also started showing some color programs in the mid 1960s. We did not get cable until the late 1960s and it was for the purpose of improving signal quality for the New York and Connecticut TV stations.

As fro color TV, most people did not purchase color TV until the late 1960s. Though, our family bit the bullet in 1965, when our old black and white set finally gave out. First thing I saw in color, a New York Mets game on WOR (now WWOR from New York).

As for commercials, many aired in black and white well after broadcast stations were converting to color. But, by the end of 1966 pretty much all commercials were in color.

So, a little bit of broadcast history. By the way, who needed cable (as we have today), the seven New York channels seemed to have more on them back then, then 200+ channels have now. Our ESPN was WPIX and WWOR, our TCM was WNEW, WPIX and WWOR, our DYI, Discover, National Geographic, et. al was WNDT (Now WNET), our Nickelodeon and Disney channel was WPIX, WNEW and WWOR. Our CNN and Weather Channel was the local evening news. Syndicated shows were on WPIX, WNEW and WWOR. And the network channels showed game shows, movies, kids programming, soap operas, news ,parades and a once in a while talk show.

And guess what? It was all free over the air.

[nmetro]

By the way, as for the topic, corporate greed pretty much sums it up. I do not know which is worse, broadcast stations, whose licenses are technically publicly owned asking for carriage fees or private cable channels who keep raising their fees by using excuses like professional sports salaries or "production costs". While in both cases, they air more and more commercials, get higher and higher rates, but this income is not enough. Hence, why I spend most of my time watching TCM, Fox Movie Channel and now EPIX1 and EPIX2. Add in the Encore owned channels. Most everything else on the other cable channels are repeats of recently run network shows. We pay more for less variety.

[KalebD]

this is already is huge issue for me. 3 of those channels are on almost constantly at my house.

Ditto. My Daughter and I watch Disney at least an hour a day. :new_cussi:new_cussi:new_cussi:new_cussi

[coldsteel]

Ditto. My Daughter and I watch Disney at least an hour a day. :new_cussi:new_cussi:new_cussi:new_cussi

Is Mickey fricking Mouse that much better in HD? :nono2:

[James Long]

Then again, the relative impact may depend on how ultimately popular the World Cup turns out to be. DISH might counter with a "preview" of the channels from the Espanol package.MDIAL is already free to all customers ... the Spanish networks are included in AT 200/HD 200 and above. IF ESPN becomes part of this they could air in preview.

Cutting off ESPN during the Nationwide race this weekend would probably have a bigger effect than losing Soccer.

[phrelin]

By the way, as for the topic, corporate greed pretty much sums it up. I do not know which is worse, broadcast stations, whose licenses are technically publicly owned asking for carriage fees or private cable channels who keep raising their fees by using excuses like professional sports salaries or "production costs". While in both cases, they air more and more commercials, get higher and higher rates, but this income is not enough. Hence, why I spend most of my time watching TCM, Fox Movie Channel and now EPIX1 and EPIX2. Add in the Encore owned channels. Most everything else on the other cable channels are repeats of recently run network shows. We pay more for less variety.There aren't a lot of channels out there that you can watch that are not owned or controlled by The Walt Disney Company, Time Warner, News Corporation, NBC Universal, National Amusements, Inc. (the Redstone family which has controlling interest in CBS/Showtime and Viacom), Liberty Media, and Comcast. In fact, if you add Sony, there isn't a lot of content out there that isn't totally or partially owned or controlled by one or more of those companies.

Hence TCM is owned by Time Warner, the Fox Movie Channel is owned by News Corporation, Encore is owned by Liberty Media, the EPIX channels are partially owned by Viacom subsidiary Paramount and MGM which is owned by Sony and Comcast.

[purtman]

Are we now going to change the sticky thread above to say "DISH Network Becomes First and Only TV Provider to Offer 196 National HD Channels"?:lol:

[gor88]

I remember when Disney was a premium channel.

So do I. When Sammons Communications, the former cable company in McComb, MS, went from 12 channels in the basic package to 25 in 1987, Disney was also made available but as a premium channel for $6-7 a month extra. A few years later it magically dropped into the basic package.

As to this whole mess about content providers and their greed, I would LOVE to see Congress (the opposite of progress :D ) pass a disclosure law mandating cable and satellite providers to show how much they have to pay per subscriber for each channel. If channels are negotiated in groups, the price for the group and which channels were required to be added in order to secure broadcast rights. I would bet that such a disclosure would cause a LOT more people to hold righteous anger against the content providers.

[gor88]

By the way, as for the topic, corporate greed pretty much sums it up. I do not know which is worse, broadcast stations, whose licenses are technically publicly owned asking for carriage fees or private cable channels who keep raising their fees by using excuses like professional sports salaries or "production costs". While in both cases, they air more and more commercials, get higher and higher rates, but this income is not enough. Hence, why I spend most of my time watching TCM, Fox Movie Channel and now EPIX1 and EPIX2. Add in the Encore owned channels. Most everything else on the other cable channels are repeats of recently run network shows. We pay more for less variety.

<soapbox value="on">
IMHO, Congress should have NEVER allowed OTA affiliates to get jack from cable and satellite companies!!! They were granted permission to use the public airwaves for the public interest! It is INSANE that I can pick up the OTA signal for free, but have to pay the OTA channel money if I happen to receive the same channel from the cable company. :eek2::nono::nono2::rolleyes:

Back in the late 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, before there was an abundance of non-OTA networks, you might could have made the argument that cable companies were making money off the back of OTA stations. However, in this day and age, the local channels are more or less loss leaders. It's the non OTA channels that the masses subscribe to cable and satellite for, not the locals. The locals are just expected to be included as a courtesy, more or less.
<soapbox value="off">

[James Long]

Are we now going to change the sticky thread above to say "DISH Network Becomes First and Only TV Provider to Offer 196 National HD Channels"?:lol:DISH added seven PPV channels last week ... so there has been gain as well.

[GrumpyBear]

Is Mickey fricking Mouse that much better in HD? :nono2:
Whats funny about that, is That 70's show, looked better on the SD version instead of the HD version. ABC Family and Disney, have had some of the poorer HD feeds. I hope this gets resolved soon, will watch in SD until then.

[sigma1914]

Whats funny about that, is That 70's show, looked better on the SD version instead of the HD version. ABC Family and Disney, have had some of the poorer HD feeds. I hope this gets resolved soon, will watch in SD until then.

As for PQ - Disney HD seems very nice on Directv and Time Warner, but ABC Family was never top notch. It has improved, though.

(Not trolling or stirring the pot.)

[Stewart Vernon]

IMHO, Congress should have NEVER allowed OTA affiliates to get jack from cable and satellite companies!!! They were granted permission to use the public airwaves for the public interest! It is INSANE that I can pick up the OTA signal for free, but have to pay the OTA channel money if I happen to receive the same channel from the cable company

I've said this before in other threads, but it bears repeating here.

I can't speak for all OTA or all markets... but here in my DMA.. years ago, the OTA channels were in a big fight with Time Warner over:

OTA was being given to customers free BUT Time Warner was charging customers for those same channels via cable. The local channels said essentially either give those OTA rebroadcasts for free to your customers OR pay us for retransmission if you are going to charge for them.

Ultimately, Time Warner (and by association once the precedent was set, satellite companies) decided to pay for retransmission so they could charge for the service.

So... while it might seem "unfair" to have to pay for "free" OTA... it is equally unfair for a satellite or cable company to capture that OTA for free and then sell it to you without paying the local station for the right to do so.

[phrelin]

I've said this before in other threads, but it bears repeating here.

I can't speak for all OTA or all markets... but here in my DMA.. years ago, the OTA channels were in a big fight with Time Warner over:

OTA was being given to customers free BUT Time Warner was charging customers for those same channels via cable. The local channels said essentially either give those OTA rebroadcasts for free to your customers OR pay us for retransmission if you are going to charge for them.

Ultimately, Time Warner (and by association once the precedent was set, satellite companies) decided to pay for retransmission so they could charge for the service.

So... while it might seem "unfair" to have to pay for "free" OTA... it is equally unfair for a satellite or cable company to capture that OTA for free and then sell it to you without paying the local station for the right to do so.I totally disagree.

I "pay" the broadcast station by being counted among its viewers and am sold to their advertisers. I pay the cable or satellite company so I don't have to use a 800' tower with amplifying equipment to get the signal the FCC promised me would be free when they licensed the station exclusively for my area.

That's the broadcast model. A free signal broadcast to the air, but I have to pay for (a) the means to receive it (an antenna or the cable or satellite company's antenna and delivery system) and (b) the means to watch it (a TV).

Within the context of the FCC license for a broadcast station, the cable or satellite company is delivering the signal, not selling the content to me. They are selling a delivery service like UPS or FedEx. They have competition - let's liken an antenna to the Postal Service, and cable and satellite to UPS and FedEx. The moment the signal leaves the broadcast stations tower, it is supposed to be free to everyone within their DMA who can receive it. No one ever said that the means to receive it couldn't be a UPS or FedEx.

[RasputinAXP]

And here I was wondering why the hell Handy Manny was SD this morning...

[James Long]

So... while it might seem "unfair" to have to pay for "free" OTA... it is equally unfair for a satellite or cable company to capture that OTA for free and then sell it to you without paying the local station for the right to do so.Cable started with "community antenna" service ... basically shared antenna rental. Each customer paid a few dollars per month for the infrastructure to simply receive an OTA signal and retransmit it via coax to subscribers. The monthly cost was a lot less than buying and maintaining the antenna and tower needed to receive the signal oneself in the rural areas CATV started in. The benefit to the customer was a clear(er) signal. The benefit to the station was more potential viewers.

Then cable expanded. Stations lost some viewers to cable networks and a recession hit all businesses. Stations saw cable companies making a nickle off of rebroadcasting their signal and even though it was helping their advertisers reach more people, they decided they wanted a cut. It snowballed from there.

Cable systems are now required to offer a cheap "lifeline" service including local stations. Free would be nice but the infrastructure isn't free. Someone has to pay to catch the signal, amplify it and deliver it to homes.

I'd like to see free satellite service as well. Every channel that contains advertising should live off of its advertising and not charge me! But that isn't going to happen either. Programmers have discovered a revenue stream and now that they are addicted to getting ad money and carriage fees there is no way to break the habit. :(

DISH will have to pay for the ABC/Disney HD fees ... hopefully a fair rate. It would be nice if providers would just see the value of getting their feeds in front of customers ... but they want cash and viewers. And that's just the way it is.

[Hunter844]

Well look at the brite side...here in a few months Dish can add them back and claim they've added 4 NEW HD CHANNELS!!!!

[tedb3rd]

Good point Hunter!! They can count those channels twice!

But the irritating part is that television (delivery of programming) industry seems to have cornered themselves into bundling channels by parent company/provider and now it's harming consumers. At first, it might have been an advantage--like buy one get one half price... But now it's gotten to the point where it's like you must buy the door and frame also when all you need/want is the doorknob... I know that the SD channels are still available for now but if they are running into this garbage with HD then I'm guessing it's going to be round 2 when SD renewal comes along. Too bad they can't offer more al-carte' or even a 'cartoon package' etc., etc. Sirius/XM has managed to do that and I love it...

But if my kids have to endure standard definition for a few days/weeks if it means my price not increasing.. Well then, it sucks to be a kid for a little while. I think there's a reason that Dish is cheaper than cable... This is probably one of the reasons. If people want fewer 'down channels' they can go to cable... and pay more.

[jclewter79]

According to the other site, E*'s statement about this deal states that they are the low price leader by offering "free HD for life" so they cannot afford to pay fees when they are raised by large amounts. Disney's official statement cites a court decision in washington as upholding their position to ask the amount that they are for the channels in question. Because of the fact that I have not dropped the platinum channels, I still pay the same for HD service this month that I did last month. I am sure that both ends are working toward a solution to the disagreement but, I also hope that Disney understands that a court decision alone is not always enough to pressure Charlie into doing what you want. Just ask TIVO.

[BillJ]

For me it's not a question of getting satellite for free, even the OTA channels. What I object to is broadcasters demanding they be paid twice for the same content because one source is SD and the other HD.

I know we aren't near that point yet, but if DISH or DTV had HD receivers for everyone, they could tell ABC to forget getting paid for SD and just give everyone the HD feed only. HD receivers feed an SD TV just fine.

In reference to earlier comments on the early days of cable, where I grew up the cable companies (initially there were several small ones) had to put their antennas on the top of surrounding mountains and feed the signal to the town below. You couldn't put up a tower tall enough at home to get a signal. Still true in that city.

[Stewart Vernon]

I totally disagree. .

I'm not sure why you would totally disagree with what I was saying.

Your local OTA channel provider gives away their signal to the public for free (yes you have to buy a TV and antenna to watch), but they make money through various means such as charging for advertisements. This is why they give that signal away.

The cable/SAT company wants to rebroadcast that to customers because they know their customers want to receive it. Some customers don't want to put up an antenna, others can't receive the signal for various reasons.

IF the cable/SAT company gave the rebroadcast OTA locals for free OR charged only a minimal infrastructure fee to cover their equipment costs... then that would be fine.

BUT... cable/SAT companies make money by charging you more than it costs them to provide those retransmissions of the OTA that they receive for free by picking them up OTA themselves.

They have no legal right to do that unless the OTA gives them permission. And as I said, in my area the choice given was "pay us for the retransmission if you are going to make profit OR give the channels free to your customers as you get them free from us".

It's really about fair use at this point... and applies to things other than just TV.

Back to the topic here... Disney is (per their court case apparently) taking the position that Dish hasn't been paying properly for the HD versions of some of their channels. I'd rather the HD be "free" to me for buying the SD channel... but Disney has the same right to ask for more money.

Dish, of course, has the right to not want to pay... and lose the channels. I hope the channels come back... but am not sure which way this will go.

[JWKessler]

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?

It wasn't called "cable" back then. It was CATV - Community Antenna TV. a company would set up a big tower on a hill in a town, stick a bunch of antennas on it, pull in stations that could not be received with a roof top antenna and distribute the signal through out the community.

A lot of folks still had B&W TVs at this point. Color sets didn't start selling in large number until the late 1960s when their prices started to fall. This is a bit like HDTV where there are still a lot of people using their old CRT SD sets.

One difference is that the CATV operators didn't pay the stations for their signals at that time. The stations saw it as an advantage to them to get their signals out to more viewers. So the cable operators didn't have to make much more of an investment to carry color signals. Perhaps the hardware needed to be a bit more sophisticated to carry the color signal.

I recall when CATV first came to my small town at the eastern end of Long Island, people found they could point their antennas at the amplifier boxes hanging on the poles outside their homes and get free service! Better hardware resolved that problem.

[JWKessler]

I totally disagree.

Within the context of the FCC license for a broadcast station, the cable or satellite company is delivering the signal, not selling the content to me. They are selling a delivery service like UPS or FedEx.

That is an interesting analogy. Imagine if Amazon charged FedEX for the right to carry an item I ordered from Amazon. Of course FedEX would have to pass that additional charge on to me, so it would be like Amazon charging me for the privilege of being an Amazon customer. Of course FedEX could refuse to pay that charge preventing Amazon from delivering the item I ordered.

[James Long]

IF the cable/SAT company gave the rebroadcast OTA locals for free OR charged only a minimal infrastructure fee to cover their equipment costs... then that would be fine.

BUT... cable/SAT companies make money by charging you more than it costs them to provide those retransmissions of the OTA that they receive for free by picking them up OTA themselves.I'd have to argue the "more than it costs" assumption. Infrastructure isn't cheap. EchoStar is operating 160 fiber points of presence to get their signals back to one of the 12 uplink centers they operate for DISH. Due to satellite configurations it is not always the nearest one (although with the replacement of the two uplink E-7 with the seven uplink E-14 it is more likely). The fiber network and additional uplink centers are a cost that is there solely to support locals. DISH has six centers unique to E-12 at 61.5 due to it's spotbeam design. That costs money.

They have no legal right to do that unless the OTA gives them permission.That is where the law needs to be changed. But that is a windmill that isn't worth tilting at.

Back to the topic here... Disney is (per their court case apparently) taking the position that Dish hasn't been paying properly for the HD versions of some of their channels. I'd rather the HD be "free" to me for buying the SD channel... but Disney has the same right to ask for more money.The ESPN lawsuit (as noted near the top of the thread) was over payment. DISH paid for rights to "all feeds" of the ESPN networks it carried. When HD was introduced DISH played the "all feeds" card and demanded carriage of the HD feeds at no extra cost. ESPN balked wanting separate payment for their (then) unique ESPN and ESPN2 feeds (they have since gone to simulcast). See you in court.

What I don't understand is how DISH carried the channels for so long if they were not paying. ABC/Disney could have deauthed DISH's receivers just as easily the day DISH added those channels to the DISH system as now. ABC/Disney *allowed* DISH to carry those channels. And now?

I suspect that ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD are being paid for thanks to the initial ruling of the court saying that they are (or were) separate feeds.

[James Long]

Imagine if Amazon charged FedEX for the right to carry an item I ordered from Amazon. Of course FedEX would have to pass that additional charge on to me, so it would be like Amazon charging me for the privilege of being an Amazon customer. Of course FedEX could refuse to pay that charge preventing Amazon from delivering the item I ordered.
Not quite accurate ... You're paying Amazon for the item. Amazon is paying FedEX for delivery. You're not paying both companies.

What is closer to satellite carriage is not you paying Amazon, but you paying FedEX for the delivery of an item they picked up from Amazon. They are providing a valuable service getting it to you. But who paid Amazon for the item? Did FedEX just pick it up off of the dock without Amazon's permission? What right do you or FedEX have to take the item from Amazon?

With broadcast the items would be on an OTA signal. Your right to take Amazon's "items" would be that you reside close enough to pick it up and they offer the items (a requirement of their FCC license) for free to anyone who can pick them up. Anyone except FedEX and UPS. If FedEX or UPS pulls up to the mythical "free items" bin outside of the warehouse the "for sale" sign goes up. When cable or satellite try to pick up a signal from the "free OTA broadcast" bin they get hit by laws that don't apply to local individuals.

Your right to the free items within the coverage area is secondary to the delivery method. Offered free via OTA isn't offered free via a carrier. But I'm tilting at windmills again.

[phrelin]

Well, let me reiterate: I "pay" the broadcast station by being counted among its viewers and am sold to their advertisers. I pay the cable or satellite company so I don't have to use a 800' tower with amplifying equipment to get the signal the FCC promised me would be free when they licensed the station exclusively for my area.

...the cable or satellite company is delivering the signal, not selling the content to me. They are selling a delivery service like UPS or FedEx. They have competition - let's liken an antenna to the Postal Service, and cable and satellite to UPS and FedEx. The moment the signal leaves the broadcast stations tower, it is supposed to be free to everyone within their DMA who can receive it. No one ever said that the means to receive it couldn't be a UPS or FedEx.

[James Long]

As long as there are laws supporting the practice of OTA broadcasters charging for their signals and withholding them at will we're just tilting at windmills.

[GrumpyBear]

As long as there are laws supporting the practice of OTA broadcasters charging for their signals and withholding them at will we're just tilting at windmills.

+1

[phrelin]

As long as there are laws supporting the practice of OTA broadcasters charging for their signals and withholding them at will we're just tilting at windmills.I'm looking for more people to write their Congressman and two Senators. Since they aren't windmills, poking them with a lance a few times doesn't hurt. Of course, by myself I can't compete with the media conglomerates and their lobbyists. But if we all just ignore what's going on with issues we care about, then we get the government we deserve.

[gor88]

I agree with the login of phrelin and James Long.

Cable started as community antenna television. You weren't paying for content, but rather supporting a community antenna infrastructure and allowing the company providing it to make a fair profit. They should charge for locals to cover equipment and personnel expenses to deliver to us. I would love them for absolutely free, but realize they need to cover expenses and make a reasonable profit.

The OTA stations weren't able to get this money until Congress enacted laws to force retransmission fee negotiations.

Just to note, I was told several years ago that the FOX, WB and UPN (at the time) did not charge rebroadcast fees in the Jackson market. The employee I talked to said that it was much more important to get as many eyeballs as possible for their stations. Hmmm, novel concept.

[James Long]

Stations have the easy choice (every three years) of "Must Carry" or "Consent to Carry". If a station chooses "Must Carry" their signal MUST be carried - but they can't charge.
PBS and other non-comm stations are automatic must carries and cannot choose "consent".

If a station wants carriage over cash they should just elect "Must Carry" and enjoy the eyeballs.

[Flashing_12]

well, for me the HD carriage issue is completely unacceptable and we will likely go back to DirecTV as a result. As a part of the old TurboHD Silver package, we happily received these HD channels and their SD counterparts...and nothing else. It was fine for us, but since the HD versions are gone, the Dish geniuses thought it was a good idea to tick me off by taking away the SD versions unless I upgrade at an additional fee to one of the AT programs. BS. We want out and we will not pay the $75 ETF they are asking for. We've already contacted our local consumer reporter at the local NBC affiliate and I doubt that dish wants a sobbing 7 year old girl on TV saying that Dish Network took Disney away from her. They broke their contract with me and I will go to the competition.

[Ohioankev]

So after TWO not one price increases they pull these HD channels and have the audacity to say that it was because Disney was asking to much. Not that I care about these channels but come on think about DISH networks reason.

[scooper]

Flashing_12 - I doubt you read the contract - and I wouldn't be surprised if you end up paying the $75 ETF to boot.

[Stewart Vernon]

So after TWO not one price increases they pull these HD channels and have the audacity to say that it was because Disney was asking to much. Not that I care about these channels but come on think about DISH networks reason.

To be fair... Disney pulled the channels, not Dish.

As James clarified/reiterated... this stems from back when Dish first launched these particular channels in HD... and it would appear Disney is saying they always wanted more money for these "separate" HD feeds, while Dish thinks they have a contract for "all" Disney/ABC/ESPN feeds.

Also, as James noted, what is weird is that IF Disney was right... why did Dish ever get to launch these HD channels in the first place? We've had them for a couple of years now that Disney apparently is now arguing they've never been paid for it would seem. That seems odd.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be mad at Dish... but given the situation here, I think you either should be mad at Disney OR mad at both. No way is this a Dish-only scenario for blame.

Either they both are screwy... or Disney pulled a fast one.

And regardless of how we feel... I think it is risky for Disney to take this approach (cutting the feeds) right now... as absence doesn't always make the heart grow fonder in the case of TV channels! We adjust our habits and find we don't miss some channels as much as we might think... and then Disney undermines their whole position.

This is kind of what happened with Rainbow and Voom. Not to kick that dead horse... but Dish wanted to only carry/pay for the Voom channels that were the most popular... Rainbow said "all or nothing"... and the end result was that Voom went away and though some of us think fondly and miss some of the channels... we've gotten past it and Rainbow has been hurt more by the lack of carriage of those channels than Dish has.

[Jeff_DML]

my crack dealer stopped sellling me crack...

darn kids are addicted to this channel and now it is gone since I have the HD only package:mad:

If lose HGTV too it will be trouble, was just happy that my bill dropped $5

[habsfan66]

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?

I'm sure advertisements were sold at higher rates for color programs than B&W... so broadcasters probably made up some money there in those days.

HD really isn't yet the new normal either... Well more than half of Dish's customers are SD-only customers. I suspect similar ratios are true of Directv and various cable outlets.

Lots of folks got those digital TV adapters to use on existing TVs too.. so lots of OTA people are still in SD land.

Can you even buy an SDTV any more? Hard to imagine it needs to be around much longer. And now that 3D is coming, HD will soon be the old norm.

[paulman182]

Can you even buy an SDTV any more? Hard to imagine it needs to be around much longer. And now that 3D is coming, HD will soon be the old norm.

I've seen several 7-inch and under portable LCD TVs.

I know, not really what you are talking about, but technically they still make SDTVs.

[JWKessler]

With broadcast the items would be on an OTA signal. Your right to take Amazon's "items" would be that you reside close enough to pick it up and they offer the items (a requirement of their FCC license) for free to anyone who can pick them up. Anyone except FedEX and UPS. If FedEX or UPS pulls up to the mythical "free items" bin outside of the warehouse the "for sale" sign goes up. When cable or satellite try to pick up a signal from the "free OTA broadcast" bin they get hit by laws that don't apply to local individuals.

Your right to the free items within the coverage area is secondary to the delivery method. Offered free via OTA isn't offered free via a carrier. But I'm tilting at windmills again.

Assume I live behind a hill (I do), which would require me to erect a very expensive tower to pick up the free signals from my local stations - which are only 20 miles from me. I can do that and the local stations don't care. But if my neighbors and I decide to split the cost and erect that tower and pay a monthly fee to finance and maintain it, then the local channels can charge us for the signal.

Now I know why I could never be a lawyer.

[jayna_95]

Disney is without a doubt one of the greediest companies on the planet. Only Apple exceeds them in the quest for all our cash.

[greatwhitenorth]

well, for me the HD carriage issue is completely unacceptable and we will likely go back to DirecTV as a result. As a part of the old TurboHD Silver package, we happily received these HD channels and their SD counterparts...and nothing else. It was fine for us, but since the HD versions are gone, the Dish geniuses thought it was a good idea to tick me off by taking away the SD versions unless I upgrade at an additional fee to one of the AT programs. BS. We want out and we will not pay the $75 ETF they are asking for. We've already contacted our local consumer reporter at the local NBC affiliate and I doubt that dish wants a sobbing 7 year old girl on TV saying that Dish Network took Disney away from her. They broke their contract with me and I will go to the competition.

Flashing, can you post the portion of your customer agreement that guarantees you the right to terminate if certain channels are dropped? I'm not sure I've seen that. Also, while I am loath to criticize anyone's parenting style, I have to tell you that making your 7 year old girl cry on TV so you can get out of a $75 ETF shows a serious lack of perspective:nono2:

[coldsteel]

well, for me the HD carriage issue is completely unacceptable and we will likely go back to DirecTV as a result. As a part of the old TurboHD Silver package, we happily received these HD channels and their SD counterparts...and nothing else. It was fine for us, but since the HD versions are gone, the Dish geniuses thought it was a good idea to tick me off by taking away the SD versions unless I upgrade at an additional fee to one of the AT programs. BS.

First of all, :welcome_s but BS on you, actually. You NEVER got any SD version of an HD channel. If you have a duo-TV receiver, TV2 is downrezzed to SD, but you never got the SD version.

Plus, as others have said, Dish did not drop the channels, Disney pulled the feeds on their end.

[Paul Secic]

Was there cable TV during the cutover to color TV?

I'm sure advertisements were sold at higher rates for color programs than B&W... so broadcasters probably made up some money there in those days.

HD really isn't yet the new normal either... Well more than half of Dish's customers are SD-only customers. I suspect similar ratios are true of Directv and various cable outlets.

Lots of folks got those digital TV adapters to use on existing TVs too.. so lots of OTA people are still in SD land.

In the late 50's/60's there were 5 or 6 stations in each DMA. Either you had color or you didn't. Where I live they didn't put cable in until 1966. My parents didn't want cable. But my dad bought a color set in 1964. There wasn't much pressure to buy a color set as there is for HD now. A different era!

[Paul Secic]

Is Mickey fricking Mouse that much better in HD? :nono2:

Nope!

[Greg Bimson]

To be fair... Disney pulled the channels, not Dish.

As James clarified/reiterated... this stems from back when Dish first launched these particular channels in HD... and it would appear Disney is saying they always wanted more money for these "separate" HD feeds, while Dish thinks they have a contract for "all" Disney/ABC/ESPN feeds.

Also, as James noted, what is weird is that IF Disney was right... why did Dish ever get to launch these HD channels in the first place?If I used the search feature on this site correctly, ABC Family HD and Disney East HD became available in May 2008.

Now take a look at the 10Q from DISH:During 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C., and International Family Entertainment (collectively, “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon, and ABC Family. ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.So,to be fair, DISH carried channels that weren't under contract. From the 10Q, it appears that DISH attempted to beat Disney down in court no more than six months after commencing service of at least two of the four channels in question.

This is opinion; there may have been a free-preview of these new HD feeds, so Disney probably granted that wish. This is also opinion, but the only reason to sue to gain access is if Disney wrote a cease-and-desist letter to DISH back in 2008. At that time Dish Network must have been in contact with Disney in order for Dish Network to file a suit demanding access to channels they already were rebroadcasting. That was why Disney had to countersue to gain the $65 million (so far) in affiliation payments (carriage terms).We've had them for a couple of years now that Disney apparently is now arguing they've never been paid for it would seem. That seems odd.Welcome to the court system. The suit was filed no more than six months after service of two of the four channels began, and that suit was initiated by Dish Network. Carriage has continued and the court says Dish Network currently owes $65 million in carriage payments for the four channels.

Dish Network finally had to turn them off to save money. They've been carrying them without a contract for this long.

[James Long]

Assume I live behind a hill (I do), which would require me to erect a very expensive tower to pick up the free signals from my local stations - which are only 20 miles from me. I can do that and the local stations don't care. But if my neighbors and I decide to split the cost and erect that tower and pay a monthly fee to finance and maintain it, then the local channels can charge us for the signal.

Now I know why I could never be a lawyer.You would be fine as long as you didn't dba Kessler cable and become a service provider. TV stations would go after the big fish ... citywide cable companies and satellite providers ... long before neighbors sharing an antenna.

BTW: Echostar (not DISH) operates a delivery system to cable systems via a non-DISH satellite. They sell bulk packages of channels but leave it up to the local system to negotiate carriage of locals (even when satellite delivered).

[Flashing_12]

First of all, :welcome_s but BS on you, actually. You NEVER got any SD version of an HD channel. If you have a duo-TV receiver, TV2 is downrezzed to SD, but you never got the SD version.

Plus, as others have said, Dish did not drop the channels, Disney pulled the feeds on their end.

Actually you are incorrect...under the TurboHD package you receive the SD versions of all HD channels provided..this is why, on my program guide, there are 2 USA's (i HD and 1 not) 2 TNT (1HD and 1 not) etc etc...there were, along with our Disney HD subscribed channels were SD versions of DISE, DISW, DISXD...they are now on the guide as not subscribed, but I am now "eligible to upgrade" to receive these channels that I am already paying for.

[Flashing_12]

Flashing, can you post the portion of your customer agreement that guarantees you the right to terminate if certain channels are dropped? I'm not sure I've seen that. Also, while I am loath to criticize anyone's parenting style, I have to tell you that making your 7 year old girl cry on TV so you can get out of a $75 ETF shows a serious lack of perspective:nono2:

First of all, not that it's any of your business, but I would not have to "make" my daughter do anything. Second, that language does not have to be in the contract..any substantive change to contracted services without the express consent of both parties can lawfully terminate the agreement. This is done all the time with cell carriers when they up their text messaging rates. State law trumps specific language not favorable to consumers in service agreements every time. In most cases, the threat of either negative publicity or a report to the state attorney general is more than enough to get any ETF waived.

[GrumpyBear]

First of all, not that it's any of your business, but I would not have to "make" my daughter do anything. Second, that language does not have to be in the contract..any substantive change to contracted services without the express consent of both parties can lawfully terminate the agreement. This is done all the time with cell carriers when they up their text messaging rates. State law trumps specific language not favorable to consumers in service agreements every time. In most cases, the threat of either negative publicity or a report to the state attorney general is more than enough to get any ETF waived.

Well by your reasoning, anytime Dish adds a NEW HD channel, they can't give you the new channel, as it would be a substantive change to your package, without your express consent.
Dish would have to re-sign you up to get the new channels, and would even be able to charge you more, or deny you access to those channels, everytime they changed the channel lineup.

[phrelin]

well, for me the HD carriage issue is completely unacceptable and we will likely go back to DirecTV as a result. As a part of the old TurboHD Silver package, we happily received these HD channels and their SD counterparts...and nothing else. It was fine for us, but since the HD versions are gone, the Dish geniuses thought it was a good idea to tick me off by taking away the SD versions unless I upgrade at an additional fee to one of the AT programs. BS. We want out and we will not pay the $75 ETF they are asking for. We've already contacted our local consumer reporter at the local NBC affiliate and I doubt that dish wants a sobbing 7 year old girl on TV saying that Dish Network took Disney away from her. They broke their contract with me and I will go to the competition.I think you should go to the competition if Disney only-in-SD would cause that level of disruption in your household. But I'm surprised you didn't call the consumer reporter on the ABC affiliate, the Disney owned channel as they surely would have a lot more sympathy.:rolleyes:

[brant]

Can you even buy an SDTV any more? Hard to imagine it needs to be around much longer. And now that 3D is coming, HD will soon be the old norm.

yes; there is a huge market for SD tube tv's.

I have a friend w/ an appliance and electronics store that gets used 27"-32" tube tv's by the truckload.

ironically, several hundred have come from disney resorts as they've apparently been upgrading.


He gets 27" tv's for $20-$30 ea. and sells them for $125 all day long.

Even rear-projection bigscreen SDTV's are in high demand.

[RAD]

ironically, several hundred have come from disney resorts as they've apparently been upgrading.


Yep, they've been putting a ton of LG LCD's into the rooms to replace all those old Sony TV's.

[GrumpyBear]

Problem is, lots of people still have tube TV's that just keep RIGHT on going.
Those people see no reason to buy more TV's when they already have working TV's.

[Stewart Vernon]

Problem is, lots of people still have tube TV's that just keep RIGHT on going.
Those people see no reason to buy more TV's when they already have working TV's.

Yep... my bedroom TV is a 32" tuber from around 1995.

[phrelin]

Yep... my bedroom TV is a 32" tuber from around 1995.Be careful, as after a certain age moving it around can be dangerous - your age, not its.:D

[Greg Bimson]

Not to mention the sheer amount of subscribers that still have non-HD receivers.

[Deke Rivers]

good for Dish for not buying into Disneys rate hikes..I dont want my rates going up for kiddie channels anyway..I would hope most little kids could care less if they are watching in SD or HD anyway

[GrumpyBear]

good for Dish for not buying into Disneys rate hikes..I dont want my rates going up for kiddie channels anyway..I would hope most little kids could care less if they are watching in SD or HD anyway

Some kiddies may see the difference, we don't watch much of the channels in question. What we do watch we have noticed the SD feed looks as good as the HD feed. ABC Family has been one of the worst HD feeds for sometime, I just didn't realize how bad until now.

[laqbn]

We have lost all the Disney channels and since we are Absolute we do not get the SD versions. My kids are pressuring me to switch.

[GrumpyBear]

We have lost all the Disney channels and since we are Absolute we do not get the SD versions. My kids are pressuring me to switch.

What package would you switch to at Direct or Cable, that you couldn't switch to on Dish?

[coldsteel]

Rumor is Disney XD and ESPNews SD feeds have been turned on for Dish America and Absolute subscribers...

[Paul Secic]

You would be fine as long as you didn't dba Kessler cable and become a service provider. TV stations would go after the big fish ... citywide cable companies and satellite providers ... long before neighbors sharing an antenna.

BTW: Echostar (not DISH) operates a delivery system to cable systems via a non-DISH satellite. They sell bulk packages of channels but leave it up to the local system to negotiate carriage of locals (even when satellite delivered).

James:

What is the name?

[James Long]

What is the name?
EchoStar ViP TV (http://www.echostarviptv.com/)
It is fed from AMC16 at 85° and is only available to service providers.

[alxlevin]

Is Disney SD still available? I do not see 172 listed at all in my program guide.

[bnborg]

Is Disney SD still available? I do not see 172 listed at all in my program guide.

It's still on mine. I have 172, 173, and 174 (SD only).

[brant]

Problem is, lots of people still have tube TV's that just keep RIGHT on going.
Those people see no reason to buy more TV's when they already have working TV's.

yeh i've got a 27" magnavox that my grandma gave me for Christmas in 1988 that's still going.

Its had to be repaired a couple of times from lightening damage but the picture is still great. Could've bought a new one for what it cost to fix, but it has sentimental value.

The tv in my kids room is the one my wife had in college that she was given by her parents; its from about 1980 and never had an issue. Has the manual dials for VHF and UHF tuning.

[laqbn]

We are not getting any version of the disney channels.

[BillJ]

FYI -- If like me you lock out the SD versions of channels to only HD shows in the guide or can be tuned, you must unlock the SD versions of the lost ABC channels before you can see them.

[Jim5506]

SD versions of Disney, etc. are not included with HD Absolute, so we do without for a while.

[Geordon]

I have Turbo HD Silver, aka America's Silver. As pointed out by others, DISE and DISW SD are listed as "not-subscribed", DISXD is only available in SD. The wife and kid will love this.:nono2:

[Tsi2quick]

Dish should step up and give those with packages such as Absolute the SD channel in the meantime while they work out the contracts, or reduce our bill.

Those are channels that get watched at our house a LOT.

[scooper]

Or you can change to a subscription plan that has the SD versions in the meantime.
(why does everyone think Dish must do something ?)

[Dave]

I think they (DISH) should just take all the Disney channels off and put up a message on the Disney channels with a Tele and e-mail addess for Disney, and for you as a customer to call Disney and complain about there high cost for your kids to watch there HD channel. If you have 14 million+ calling then you have to react to your public. The object is to keep your bill lower. Not give extra money to Disney because there theme parks cost to much for visitors to visit and ask a TV subscriber to make up the difference.

[Tsi2quick]

Or you can change to a subscription plan that has the SD versions in the meantime.
(why does everyone think Dish must do something ?)

Well I can tell you what Dish is doing in the meantime, and that's charging me for channels I do not get. Is that fair?

To be fair to existing customers that are paying for these channels but not getting them, wouldn't it make sense to either offer SD versions in the meantime or reduce the bill? Why must the customer always be the one that suffers? Dish is not the "victim" here I assure you.

[James Long]

I think they (DISH) should just take all the Disney channels off and put up a message on the Disney channels with a Tele and e-mail addess for Disney, and for you as a customer to call Disney and complain about there high cost for your kids to watch there HD channel. If you have 14 million+ calling then you have to react to your public.DISH has a contract to deliver the SD channels to the "14 million". Most of them could not care less about the HD channels - having them "call Disney" would just give them the response to "call DISH - we're not stopping your reception of the SD channel, DISH is."

Well I can tell you what Dish is doing in the meantime, and that's charging me for channels I do not get. Is that fair?DISH charges you specifically for these channels? Odd. Most subscribers got them as part of a package containing dozens of channels.

[phrelin]

I guess I'm really puzzling over the nature of this dispute. So the precedent to be set here is that the signal carrier pays for the SD signal and separately for the HD signal. So soon we will have to pay double for our packages?

If that happens, I'll never watch a Disney-owned channel again, including the local ABC affiliate.

EDIT: OK, I guess that is the case. From MediaPost (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=130716): Disney said Dish never contracted with it to run those channels. In a statement, Disney said: "The recent New York State Court ruling confirms our position that Dish Network is not entitled to carry ABC Family HD, Disney Channel HD, Disney XD HD and ESPNews HD without paying compensation."

In March 2010, a New York court ruled that Dish owes Disney approximately $65 million under a cable network affiliation agreement, which Dish is currently appealing. Dish carries standard-definition versions of the channels in question, as well as other Disney HD channels, ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD.

...Last year, Dish sued Disney over what it believed were different carriage rates it received, versus the deals that DirecTV and Comcast inked for similar Disney channels. So as far as Disney is concerned Disney and Disney HD are different channels. Expanding their theory then, my ABC affiliate has two channels - KGO 7 and KGO 7 HD. And DirecTV and Comcast have already sold their subscribers down the river to this abominable theory?

[Greg Bimson]

I guess I'm really puzzling over the nature of this dispute. So the precedent to be set here is that the signal carrier pays for the SD signal and separately for the HD signal. So soon we will have to pay double for our packages?I'd puzzle over the nature of the dispute, just because of this...On January 30, 2008, we filed a lawsuit against ESPN, Inc., ESPN Classic, Inc., ABC Cable Networks Group, Soapnet L.L.C., and International Family Entertainment (collectively “ESPN”) for breach of contract in New York State Supreme Court. Our complaint alleges that ESPN failed to provide us with certain high-definition feeds of the Disney Channel, ESPN News, Toon, and ABC Family.This was in Dish Network's 10-K from Q1 2009. Then...ESPN asserted a counterclaim, and then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that we owed approximately $35 million under the applicable affiliation agreements.So, let's read between the lines:

1) Dish Network sued BEFORE they ever provided any of the HD channels controlled by Disney.
2) Dish Network started carriage of these channels in May 2008. Obviously, there wasn't a new agreement hammered out as evidenced by the court case.
3) Disney claimed they were owed money for carriage of those channels under the current affiliation agreement.
4) Disney won.So as far as Disney is concerned Disney and Disney HD are different channels. Expanding their theory then, my ABC affiliate has two channels - KGO 7 and KGO 7 HD. And DirecTV and Comcast have already sold their subscribers down the river to this abominable theory?As a reminder, Dish Network (and most of the other multichannel distributors) charge extra for HD, so why shouldn't Disney charge extra? I'll throw this thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=158726) in as a reminder that Dish Network obviously pays extra for HD feeds.

[James Long]

All the details of the case are noted in the attached order.

[Paul Secic]

I guess I'm really puzzling over the nature of this dispute. So the precedent to be set here is that the signal carrier pays for the SD signal and separately for the HD signal. So soon we will have to pay double for our packages?

If that happens, I'll never watch a Disney-owned channel again, including the local ABC affiliate.

EDIT: OK, I guess that is the case. From MediaPost (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=130716): So as far as Disney is concerned Disney and Disney HD are different channels. Expanding their theory then, my ABC affiliate has two channels - KGO 7 and KGO 7 HD. And DirecTV and Comcast have already sold their subscribers down the river to this abominable theory?

KGO 7 probably has a different contract from Disney.

[RasputinAXP]

I'll throw this thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=158726) in as a reminder that Dish Network obviously pays extra for HD feeds.

Only when they're forced to; the Sinclair holdout is different in my eyes, as is any local net HD dispute.

[phrelin]

As a reminder, Dish Network (and most of the other multichannel distributors) charge extra for HD, so why shouldn't Disney charge extra? I'll throw this thread (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=158726) in as a reminder that Dish Network obviously pays extra for HD feeds.Actually, Dish doesn't charge extra for HD as of June 3.

Now that I read the PDF James provided, I feel like I stepped into the Magic Kingdom. In the background discussion, the ruling states: Defendants license programming networks, consisting of standard definition and high definition programming, to distributors such as EchoStar.That, of course, is not a correct statement. The truth apparently is "Defendants license networks, consisting of exactly the same programming transmitted in standard definition and high definition, to distributors such as EchoStar."

And so the truth of the matter is that Disney, and presumably all the other media conglomerates, actually want to surcharge the price they are charging for their programming if it is available on a carrier in SD? After all, new programming will be produced for HD and "downreszed" for SD.

It is as if in 1958 the networks started charging advertisers for transmitting color commercials in black and white.

[James Long]

Most networks are producing separate HD and SD feeds. Some just centercrop to get the SD, but most I've looked at in both formats at least do different overlays on their HD feed.

Plus there is an additional higher cost for distributing a HD feed (more bits on a bird somewhere). The channels don't have zero costs in having a HD feed.

[phrelin]

Most networks are producing separate HD and SD feeds. Some just centercrop to get the SD, but most I've looked at in both formats at least do different overlays on their HD feed.

Plus there is an additional higher cost for distributing a HD feed (more bits on a bird somewhere). The channels don't have zero costs in having a HD feed.That's true. They didn't have zero costs back in '58 when they went to color. It isn't that I think they have zero costs, it is that I don't see the point of separating contract provisions.

HD is TV unless the media conglomerates decide it's something different. What's happening looks a lot like we're going to have "first class and coach" in the TV business.

If the carriers were to think about how Disney's scheme could be incorporated into their business model, we could relatively soon find ourselves looking at a future with two classes of TV. One would be digital SD, the other would be digital HD, the latter perhaps with 3D.

The plebian class would pay $65± a month for most cable channels in SD. The patrician class would pay $130 a month for most cable channels in HD including some in 3D. HBO etc. would still be available for $12.50 in SD or $25 in HD 3D. The equivalent to the AEP in HD (with 3D when available) would be something like $269.99.

Obviously, this is just speculative thought, but I don't like the idea behind a separate contract provision for HD.

[Greg Bimson]

Obviously, this is just speculative thought, but I don't like the idea behind a separate contract provision for HD.Okay, but...So as far as Disney is concerned Disney and Disney HD are different channels. Expanding their theory then, my ABC affiliate has two channels - KGO 7 and KGO 7 HD. And DirecTV and Comcast have already sold their subscribers down the river to this abominable theory?So what exactly did Dish Network do?The contractual obligation at issue arises out of the following three license agreements: (1) a Distribution License Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2005 (the "ESPN Agreement"), by which ESPN licensed to EchoStar six standard definition networks (the "SD Networks") and two high definition networks (the HD Networks);The six SD Networks that ESPN licensed to EchoStar under the EchoStar Agreement are: "ESPN", "ESPN2", "ESPNEWS", "ESPNU", "ESPN Classic," and "ESPN Deportes,", and the two HD Networks are "ESPN-HD" and "ESPN2-HD".So Dish Network signed an agreement with ESPN in 2005 where they'd have to pay for HD feeds, and the complaint is that, "DirecTV and Comcast have already sold their subscribers down the river to this abominable theory?" It appears to me Dish Network did it, too, and it has taken four-plus years for anyone to realize it.

[phrelin]

Yes and no. ESPN has always been special. Cable and satellite have paid a premium for it for years.

IMHO no one should sign an agreement that combines ESPN channels with any other channel, but apparently it didn't occur to Charlie that he'd be looking at Disney demanding that ABC Family HD is a different channel from ABC Family. In 2005 there was no Disney HD. It began broadcasting on March 19, 2008. ABC Family HD launched around that time also.

In the next go around in negotiations with everyone look for News Corp to refer to FX HD as a separate channel from FX, NBCU to refer to USA HD as a separate channel from USA, etc.

Netflix will look a whole lot better in the future if they can hold their prices down.

[david_jr]

I've got an idea for a new rule: No content provider can charge extra for any HD channel that does not broadcast 100% HD programming. Bars on the sides don't count, even if they say ESPN in them.

[CoolGui]

Did I miss your post singing Dish's praises all the times they've added HD channels and not raised your bill? After all fair's fair here. Now really being fair this is a carriage dispute, happens regularly, company that owns the channels wants more $$$, Dish understandably doesn't want to pay more. As always they'll hash something out sooner or later.

I am not really complaining about the dispute myself, yet... but what is this "not raised your bill".... it gets raised pretty much every year, if you aren't getting that higher bill then you must be special! :)

[James Long]

That's true. They didn't have zero costs back in '58 when they went to color. It isn't that I think they have zero costs, it is that I don't see the point of separating contract provisions.The push for color isn't the same as the push for HD. Color was impressive ... so was adding stereo and sap. Perhaps impressive enough for a channel to charge more for it's carriage. But in 1958? Comparing distribution in 1958 to today is foolish.

HD is TV unless the media conglomerates decide it's something different. What's happening looks a lot like we're going to have "first class and coach" in the TV business.Already there ... except the HD class isn't paying double as you suggested in your post.

There is value added with the provision of the HD feed. Why shouldn't the providers pass on the cost of that added value?

At least most providers are giving a choice. Or at least they have ... I expect the next round of contract renewals to be "you will pay for and carry our HD signal or you won't get the SD version". That may be happening with WE AMC IFC and Fuse. As SD contracts expire leveraging required HD distribution is logical.

[deepen10]

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! I am FURIOUS RIGHT NOW!

ESPNNEWS HD was there last night, i came this morning and its gone? WTF?

Just waiting for my contract to end in October, so I can leave DISH and their disgraceful service.. I'm either getting FIOS or switching back to cable or maybe even DirecTV

[Greg Bimson]

In the next go around in negotiations with everyone look for News Corp to refer to FX HD as a separate channel from FX, NBCU to refer to USA HD as a separate channel from USA, etc.But how do you know this hasn't happened already?

From the court decision James posted, Disney flat out told Dish Network they weren't going to receive the HD feeds of the aforementioned channels. It appears Disney wasn't so thrilled Dish Network didn't pay their bills on time.

And think about it: if you think about every HD channel launch, did it coincide with recently negotiated agreements? Or can you second guess that it is possible Dish Network may not have the correct agreement to add certain HD channels?

[RasputinAXP]

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! I am FURIOUS RIGHT NOW!

ESPNNEWS HD was there last night, i came this morning and its gone? WTF?

Just waiting for my contract to end in October, so I can leave DISH and their disgraceful service.. I'm either getting FIOS or switching back to cable or maybe even DirecTV

Asleep for a week, Rip Van Winkle? :lol:

[deepen10]

Asleep for a week, Rip Van Winkle? :lol:

well I just got on the forums after a while and didn't know they were dropping... but mine didn't go away on the 22nd like the PR said, I was watching ESPNNEWS HD yesterday.. and I had Disney as well. I just noticed they were gone this afternoon.

[Stewart Vernon]

Unless you've got something magical about your setup... everyone lost these particular HD channels on the same day last week. I can't think of any reason or way you could have still had them yesterday.

[HDlover]

This is the perfect time for Dish to turn espn channels into optional pay channels. I wouldn't pay for them and I'm sure so wouldn't a lot of subscribers. That would get Disney thinking about their greed, that we have no control over, with package programing the only way to buy. Hopefully every provider would follow suit. Paying extra for HD channels is ridiculous. If they want me to watch their channels they have to be HD. All channels should be HD AFAIC. Too bad the FCC didn't mandate it.

[coldsteel]

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! I am FURIOUS RIGHT NOW!

ESPNNEWS HD was there last night, i came this morning and its gone? WTF?

Just waiting for my contract to end in October, so I can leave DISH and their disgraceful service.. I'm either getting FIOS or switching back to cable or maybe even DirecTV

Yeah, real disgraceful trying to keep your bill down... :nono2:

[phrelin]

And think about it: if you think about every HD channel launch, did it coincide with recently negotiated agreements?Of course. Otherwise I wouldn't be grumbling about no AMC HD.

But surely they aren't wording the agreements that there are separate channels with programming called FX SD and FX HD each with it's own price. I'm assuming that News Corp is allowing Dish to deliver the programming on FX in both the SD and HD versions with a sufficient fee to cover both.

My hangup is with the language the court used which apparently is what Disney is asserting: Defendants license programming networks, consisting of standard definition and high definition programming, to distributors such as EchoStar.Back in the good old days, we did not talk about color programming and black & white programming depending upon what TV the viewer had. We had programming which some could watch on their color TV in color and some could watch on their black and white TV in black and white.

What disturbs me is that the truth should be stated as follows: "Defendants license networks, consisting of exactly the same programming transmitted in standard definition and high definition, to distributors such as EchoStar."

If then it is argued that Dish's license for ABC Family was only for the SD transmission and it should pay some incremental amount to use the HD transmission, fine! But there is no ABC Family programming and ABC Family HD programming each to be negotiated separately. That language is Orwellian. It's one channel of programming available in SD and HD.

The TV world should be working towards an uniform standard of technology transmitted to everyone - a 16:9 color 1080i (or 720p) 3D capable 5.1 surround sound signal - with the goal of eliminating the SD format.

I don't know why Dish doesn't just tell Disney the only ESPN, Disney and ABC Family channel signals they will pay for is the HD signal. Let's get rid of this double level now. That will save every one money.

[James Long]

But surely they aren't wording the agreements that there are separate channels with programming called FX SD and FX HD each with it's own price.The court documents clearly state that the mouse networks contracts apply in that way. Why not FX's channel?

My hangup is with the language the court used which apparently is what Disney is asserting: Defendants license programming networks, consisting of standard definition and high definition programming, to distributors such as EchoStar.Back in the good old days, we did not talk about color programming and black & white programming depending upon what TV the viewer had. We had programming which some could watch on their color TV in color and some could watch on their black and white TV in black and white.And you had a lot less of it! If you are going to live in the past you must completely live in the past ... give up the benefits of all the improvements made over time.

We've come a long way from "what's a rerun" and people having no concept of paying for TV (more than the price of a set and appropriate antenna).

What disturbs me is that the truth should be stated as follows: "Defendants license networks, consisting of exactly the same programming transmitted in standard definition and high definition, to distributors such as EchoStar."It is not the same. The programming delivered via the programmer's "high definition" network is delivered at a higher quality than the programmer's "standard definition" network.

If then it is argued that Dish's license for ABC Family was only for the SD transmission and it should pay some incremental amount to use the HD transmission, fine! But there is no ABC Family programming and ABC Family HD programming each to be negotiated separately. That language is Orwellian. It's one channel of programming available in SD and HD.You are believing DISH's interpretation, hook line and sinker. An interpretation built out of pieces from different contracts covering different programming that was clearly rejected by the court.

I don't know why Dish doesn't just tell Disney the only ESPN, Disney and ABC Family channel signals they will pay for is the HD signal. Let's get rid of this double level now. That will save every one money.It will also remove programming from the majority of the 14 million customers who can't receive a HD feed. DISH doesn't get to create a HD channel by upconverting SD and they don't get to create a SD channel by downconverting HD. They have to deliver what the network provides as provided for in their contract.

[jclewter79]

It is true that they cannot alter the signal to SD that they are sending out but, they can downrez a signal at the set-top box. Maybe these crazy prices that they will have to pay out to channel providers will justfy the mpeg4 conversion much sooner than we all though a few weeks ago.

[Kent Taylor]

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! I am FURIOUS RIGHT NOW!

ESPNNEWS HD was there last night, i came this morning and its gone? WTF?

Just waiting for my contract to end in October, so I can leave DISH and their disgraceful service.. I'm either getting FIOS or switching back to cable or maybe even DirecTV

Early Termination Fee is only $15/mo.

[James Long]

It is true that they cannot alter the signal to SD that they are sending out but, they can downrez a signal at the set-top box. Maybe these crazy prices that they will have to pay out to channel providers will justfy the mpeg4 conversion much sooner than we all though a few weeks ago.If you have a few billion to spend on replacing working MPEG2 boxes with MPEG4 boxes go for it! The programming fees would be cheaper.

I would also expect providers to have their prices set at "SD Only" and "SD plus HD". Negotiating a HD only price that was less that the "SD plus HD" price may be possible, but I see it as unlikely. Programmers will use ANY excuse to raise their prices. Programmers will use no excuse to raise their prices. It is up to the providers to keep those increases in check.

[Greg Bimson]

If then it is argued that Dish's license for ABC Family was only for the SD transmission and it should pay some incremental amount to use the HD transmission, fine! But there is no ABC Family programming and ABC Family HD programming each to be negotiated separately. That language is Orwellian. It's one channel of programming available in SD and HD.Okay. Let's take that line of reasoning...

Dish Network signed a carriage agreement in 2005 for six SD and two HD feeds of ESPN. Later, they signed a carriage agreement for three SD feeds of ABC Networks, and then another agreement for the SD feed ABC Family.

Dish Network SIGNED the contracts. Later, Disney told Dish Network in no uncertain terms that Dish Network would not be carrying HD programming for the four HD channels that were disputed. Obviously feeling jilted, Dish Network sued Disney and carried them anyway. In an absolute rout, Dish Network has been ordered to pay $65 million and has been told that those channels are not under contract.

So the simple reminder here is that "Orwellian contract" is the one Dish Network signed, and if they didn't like it, they should have tried to renegotiate with Disney in order to get what they wanted. Dish Network was told no, you can't have those channels so they decided to do what they wanted and to go the lawsuit route, and see where that ended up?

It appears to me that if rates are to be kept in check, that Dish Network shouldn't be foolhardy when it comes to trying to get what they want. Dish Network is now in a bit of a conundrum, as their press release over the matter plays the victim card by telling everyone that they have this wonderful HD for Life package and that Disney's pricing is too much. They've been carrying it for free until the court decided that Dish Network must pay.I don't know why Dish doesn't just tell Disney the only ESPN, Disney and ABC Family channel signals they will pay for is the HD signal. Let's get rid of this double level now. That will save every one money.Even with the argument made by James regarding the fact that there are still SD receivers out there, there are just way too may assumptions...

1) that Dish Network has enough clout to demand Disney do anything
2) that a contract for HD only would cost less than the current HD and SD contracts
3, and most importantly) that any savings in costs will be passed along to consumers

I seem to recall this year that Dish Network was touting they weren't raising rates on their programming packages. They then changed their secondary receiver rates and that took the form of a rather substantial increase for anyone with more than two receivers. And now they are raising their programming rates.

[tsmacro]

I am not really complaining about the dispute myself, yet... but what is this "not raised your bill".... it gets raised pretty much every year, if you aren't getting that higher bill then you must be special! :)

Just pointing out that it's kind of ridiculous to expect a credit whenever there's a carriage dispute and a few channels are pulled, if that were the case we should also expect a rate increase as soon as any new HD is added and obviously that's just not how it works.

[James Long]

Note that the $65 million over two years and 14 million customers paying monthly is about 2c per month per DISH subscriber. (Yes, that includes non-HD subs but it also includes interest due to DISH's lack of timely payment.)

I realize 2c/5c/10c per channel adds up ... but I don't believe we're looking at ground shattering prices for HD.

[James Long]

... we should also expect a rate increase as soon as any new HD is added and obviously that's just not how it works.When was the last time the price of HD was raised? DISH has taken some channels out of the original $10.00 package but they have added a lot more than have been moved to Platinum HD.

I remember when $9.99 got you five channels, and the opportunity to see HBO and/or Showtime (if you subscribed to AEP or the premium packages). Now $10 can give you a lot more.

[Greg Bimson]

Note that the $65 million over two years and 14 million customers paying monthly is about 2c per month per DISH subscriber. (Yes, that includes non-HD subs but it also includes interest due to DISH's lack of timely payment.)I still need to read other documents, but from what I gather the interest may not have been ruled upon yet, and depending on the time period awards Disney may yet still be entitled to more damages.

[phrelin]

Perhaps I haven't expressed my concerns very well. Let me try this again, perhaps by starting with the what I perceive as the "TV channel" model for the early 21st century.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area we have KGO 7, a broadcast TV channel owned and operated by Disney/ABC. As of the analog shutdown, it transmits over-the-air digital channels 7.1 (KGO/ABC programming), 7.2 (ABC News/Live Well HD) and 7.3 (ABC7 AccuWeather NOW).

As everyone on this forum understands from this, KGO 7 transmits one over-the-air digital version of ABC network (and KGO local) programming. This is a good example of the early 21st century model of a TV channel.

Here in the 21st century, if you still have an old analog SD 480i TV in 4:3 format, you have to buy a box to convert the one-and-only KGO signal offering network programming. If you have one of those digital-tuner SD TV's folks pointed out to me still can be purchased (in 16:9 format) you already can receive the one-and-only KGO signal offering network programming.

If you have an HDTV - you know, an early 21st century TV like the one I've had since 2003 - you can watch KGO's ABC network programming in its true format, delivered by the one-and-only signal (I'm ignoring the old grumble about stations still using SD programming).

Now we come to cable/satellite providers. Under this TV channel model, there is one channel offering Disney-owned ABC programming in the Bay Area DMA - KGO 7.1 digital HD. For awhile, Comcast continued to offer an analog version, but they are shifting to digital only requiring those with analog TV's to have an additional box. All satellite providers begin with a digital-only signal and have provided one or more analog outputs so you don't have to buy a box for your old 480i 4:3 TV.

My point here is that there is one ABC affiliate channel - KGO 7.1 - being transmitted digitally over-the-air. You must have a digital tuner to receive it. If you watch it on an SD TV, that's your choice, but its native format is 720p 16:9 HD. It is TV in 2010, there is no other version of ABC in the Bay Area.

In 2010, cable and satellite providers should be paying for that one Disney-owned KGO channel, not two. Because that is the way TV works in 2010.

Well, at least that's the way I thought TV works in 2010 until I read this court order. Apparently in the Magic Kingdom (and perhaps in other media conglomerate fictions) two time periods exist simultaneously:

the late 20th century where an SD channel exists offering programming that involves producers, writers, actors, camera operators, set decorators, etc., who live in the 20th century; and
the early 21st century where an HD channel exists offering programming that involves producers, writers, actors, camera operators, set decorators, etc., who live in the 21st century.

By some some miracle of 21st century time travel, Disney (and perhaps other media conglomerate fictions) can deliver a set of programs on one channel from the 20th century as well as a set of programs from the 21st century. And Disney desires ...no... demands that the cable and satellite providers carry both channels of programming and charge me for them.

Me, on the other hand, doesn't see the difference in the programming - it appears to have involved the same production costs - albeit accomplished through the Magic Kingdom's time travel. In fact, it looks suspiciously like the programming's native format is digital 16:9 HD and if there are additional costs incurred, it is to downrez to SD and reformat to 4:3 aspect that was not intended for that.

But some technology-challenged judge at the urging of the Disney folks decided to say (emphasis added): Defendants license programming networks, consisting of standard definition and high definition programming, to distributors such as EchoStar.The problem is the word "programming." According to Wikipedia: A television program (television programme in the United Kingdom, Ireland and many Commonwealth countries) or television show is a segment of content broadcast on television. It may be a one-off broadcast or part of a periodically recurring television series."Programming" is content which could be created in 16:9 color HD 3D and delivered in black and white in the old British 576i format and would still be the same content, the same "programming" at least as I understand the TV-biz language.

I'm not willing to accept without protest an absurd TV business model that would have viewers paying for a black and white 576i channel, a black and white 480i channel, a color 576i channel, a color 480i channel and a color 1080i (or 720p) channel all delivering content originally produced for a color 1080i (or 720p) channel.

And I'm not willing to accept without protest an absurd TV business model that has viewers paying for "only" a color 480i channel and a color 1080i (or 720p) channel all delivering content originally produced for a color 1080i (or 720p) channel.

What has gone wrong here is that just because many people still have 480i TVs, instead of delivering one signal like off-the-air we have satellite and cable delivering two signals and Disney and the court describing them as two separate programming channels.

Now tell me that isn't absurd. Maybe I should pay for better technology, but I shouldn't have to pay to have these companies actually deliver lessor technology. And right now, that is what is going on. Tell me those of us with HDTVs aren't paying for duplicate channels in SD and not even getting some channels now producing new programming in HD?

Give me a cogent argument that says any channel that is native 1080i (or 720p) should be offered or carried in 480i by a cable or satellite company when off-the-air the federal government, the channel, and now Comcast (in some places) have already said if you want to watch it on a 480i analog TV, buy a box to convert it. Otherwise join us in the 21st century, which is now over 10 years old.

After all, WRAL began broadcasting in HD in 1996. The ATSC HDTV system had its public launch on October 29, 1998, with live coverage of astronaut John Glenn's return mission to space on board the Space Shuttle Discovery. That was 12 years ago, or 4 generations by technology advancement standards.

Why should I pay for a 480i signal of ABC Family or Disney or ESPN or any other channel? HD isn't some standard just now available for "early adopters." Certainly in June 2010 high definition TV is "standard" TV.

What don't I understand? I know I'm old, so maybe I've missed something younger folks who grew up with computer technology accept. Maybe a lot of folks have opted for technology to stop with their Commodore 64 PCs and their 480i TVs and we all have to adapt backwards to them?:grin:

[tsmacro]

When was the last time the price of HD was raised? DISH has taken some channels out of the original $10.00 package but they have added a lot more than have been moved to Platinum HD.

I remember when $9.99 got you five channels, and the opportunity to see HBO and/or Showtime (if you subscribed to AEP or the premium packages). Now $10 can give you a lot more.

Yep I agree completely. That's why I was saying it's silly for people to expect a credit because "Dish took away some channels from me and i'm paying the same price."

[inazsully]

I think that sometimes we forget why any channel exists. Profit. Mash was a great show, as was Cheers and Gunsmoke and Law and Order. But they eventually all went away. Why? Because they lost viewers. And why did the networks care? Because it became difficult to sell advertising time. The networks spend millions every year to produce these and all other shows. They eventually fell below acceptable profit margins. Every year we see dozens of new shows replacing shows that didn't make it from a profitability standpoint. Why? To sell advertising. Advertising is where the vast majority of a stations profits come from, not contracts with various cable and sat. companies. I will no longer watch SD, PERIOD. Let the advertisers know that their advertising will fall on blind eyes unless it's in HD. That's where the real leverage is.

[Greg Bimson]

My point here is that there is one ABC affiliate channel - KGO 7.1 - being transmitted digitally over-the-air. You must have a digital tuner to receive it. If you watch it on an SD TV, that's your choice, but its native format is 720p 16:9 HD. It is TV in 2010, there is no other version of ABC in the Bay Area.

In 2010, cable and satellite providers should be paying for that one Disney-owned KGO channel, not two. Because that is the way TV works in 2010.We do not know the status of carriage for OTA contracts. Now that there is no "analog" equivalent, we do not know if multichannel carriers are being forced to pay for both an SD and and HD equivalent. We do know that many station groups (including Sinclair in 2005) mandated separate fees for both their analog and their digital channels. It is quite possible once the analog cut-off occurred there were changes within contracts, either renegotiated or standing in the current agreement.

What we do know is that although there was the ability to pick up both the analog and the digital version of these stations before the analog cut-off, there were many station groups that digitized their analog channel and sent it via fibre to a point of presence. Therefore, that 480i channel existed as the analog station prior to the analog cut-off, and can still exist in that form today, delivered to your provider under contract from the programmer.Why should I pay for a 480i signal of ABC Family or Disney or ESPN or any other channel? HD isn't some standard just now available for "early adopters." Certainly in June 2010 high definition TV is "standard" TV.Yes, and as you pointed out to me, Dish Network finally stopped charging extra for HD as of 3 June 2010, although techically there are extra monthly fees in additional HD equipment. DirecTV still charges for it. I'm fairly certain most cable companies charge extra for it in the form STB rental if not simply an add-on package. So this "standard TV" costs extra.

The reality is that all providers still charge extra for HD, the programmers charge extra for HD, and the easiest (and hardest) way to "fix" the problem is to vote with your wallet and your eyeballs.

[Edit: then again, I see that Dish Network has AT120, AT180, AT250, and then an additional $10 fee for the HD feeds, so they are still charging extra]

[James Long]

I still need to read other documents, but from what I gather the interest may not have been ruled upon yet, and depending on the time period awards Disney may yet still be entitled to more damages.It is confusing ... there is a document from last October that mentions interest but it exceeds the $65 million that has been talked about. There would obviously be additional finance charge due per month that the bill remained unpaid.

The thought was that the base cost, if paid on time, would have been negligible.

[James Long]

My point here is that there is one ABC affiliate channel - KGO 7.1 - being transmitted digitally over-the-air. You must have a digital tuner to receive it.Fine. If you have a few billion dollars you can upgrade every satellite receiver in the country to one that can use the HD feed. Until then, there will be SD channels.

In 2010, cable and satellite providers should be paying for that one Disney-owned KGO channel, not two. Because that is the way TV works in 2010.Pay TV isn't the same as "free" OTA TV.

And I'm not willing to accept without protest an absurd TV business model that has viewers paying for "only" a color 480i channel and a color 1080i (or 720p) channel all delivering content originally produced for a color 1080i (or 720p) channel.Your protest is duly noted. You, sir, have done your duty and tilted at the windmill. :D

In the real world we pay because we can't get the content for free. Those who can get the content for free (via OTA or legitimate distribution sites such as Hulu) don't have to pay for the classic cable/satellite distribution model. If you want to play the cable/satellite game you must play by the rules that the industry follows ... and, logical or not and whether you or I agree with them or not, those rules involve paying for the feed and paying a little bit more to have the feed in better quality.

[James Long]

Edit: then again, I see that Dish Network has AT120, AT180, AT250, and then an additional $10 fee for the HD feeds, so they are still charging extraDISH Network still allows their customers to pay $10 per month for the basic HD packages (HD120, HD200, HD250).
DISH Network also offers free HD packages (HD120 Free, HD200 Free, HD250 Free). The Free HD packages require a commitment, autopay and paperless billing, or the payment of a one time $99 fee. Customers who had HD & Platinum HD before June 3rd were automatically converted to the HDxxx Free package appropriate to their level of programming - with no commitment/autopay/paperless or extra cost.

HD is free ... or it is $10. It all depends on how and when you got HD.

[Greg Bimson]

Looks like I need to read a heck of a lot more:1. The amount of interest with respect to the calculation of interest after the 30th day is allocated as follows:a) ESPN = $42,562,834 plus pre-judgment interest of $8,080,758
b) ACNG = $9,287,094 plus pre-judgment interest of $1,907,481
c) IFE = $2,715,904 plus pre-judgment interest of $486,158This is the $65 million that was awarded.

This all has to do with the interest accrued for failure of Dish Network to pay Disney in a timely manner.

I have to wonder, which means I'll have to dig up (or James will :) ) any documentation regarding damages for carrying channels without compensation. With a successful counterclaim, Disney can now walk back into court and demand damages for carrying four HD channels without compensation.

[phrelin]

I recognize that I'm tilting at windmills, guys. I expect to pay for technology costs and my own tastes. I can't go to one of the all-HD packages because there are channels missing, some like AMC Dish offers only in SD and some like BBC and FX aren't in the all HD packages. And I can't cancel Disney channels in my AT200 package.

Nor do I know who all at Dish decided it was ok to uplink the Disney and ABC Family HD feeds or why they thought that. I thought a contract had been negotiated when they were added. If they didn't, then they'll have to pay.

With that said, I still think it's stupid for cable and satellite companies to lock themselves into contracts that pretend that SD and HD feeds of the same channel are two channels. What this fiction means is that sometime around 2018-2020 the cable and satellite companies will want to quit offering SD, but the media conglomerates will not want to lose that 2-channel revenue.

Also, providing an SD feed of the content does not mean a carrier has to seek out two signals from the network. Even if Dish has to offer MPEG2 SD feeds because of the boxes out there, it can do so by reformatting and uplinking the HD channel content (in letterbox top and bottom bars). Heck, they already screw with the HD content they get and send out as MPEG4 HD. They shouldn't need to buy two channels from Disney or anyone else.

It's just weird that when broadcast channels go HD, OTA viewers get what they get including a "hey, you gotta get a box." But when a cable channel goes HD, the cable and satellite companies must buy two signals termed by the court as different programming.

[l8er]

.... must buy two signals termed by the court as different programming. In thinking back - there have some instances where the HD version of a channel had an entirely different programming lineup than the SD version. (HGTV is one example). But I think those days are long gone now that digital (and to some extent HD) is becoming the new standard. So paying twice for the same programming is ridiculous (at the distribution level).

[altidude]

I just want my DisneyXD HD back. "Kick Buttkowski" and "Phineas and Ferb" in SD just isn't right.

[Michael P]

but the channel providers did expend extra money to get those feeds started Some did but others not so much. Case in point CMT "HD". I've yet to see real HD on CMT HD. For the Blue Collar Comedy film they had 16 X 9 formatted image within a letterbox! There are other examples too. Bottom line many of our new "free" HD channels are not ready for HD at all.

[sigma1914]

Some did but others not so much. Case in point CMT "HD". I've yet to see real HD on CMT HD. For the Blue Collar Comedy film they had 16 X 9 formatted image within a letterbox! There are other examples too. Bottom line many of our new "free" HD channels are not ready for HD at all.

There's been a few shows in HD on CMT. Their recent awards show was HD.

[BillJ]

I remember when $9.99 got you five channels, and the opportunity to see HBO and/or Showtime (if you subscribed to AEP or the premium packages). Now $10 can give you a lot more.

Back in the mid 90's my cable company charged $10 for a single HBO channel. And the audio wasn't in stereo because they wouldn't spend the money to install the right equipment at their download site. (They were giving us OTA network channels in stereo at the time.) That's what drove me to become one of DISH's early customers. I got several HBO channels all in stereo for my $10.

[tlouwhite]

It more and more becoming the case where a channel will down res its HD for its SD feed. So, in essence the SD feed creates MORE work since the HD feed already exists.

That's why you see station IDs and game scores 1/6th of the way into the screen rather than in the corner and the outside edges of a 16X9 feed devoid of graphics.

[lparsons21]

For all the discussion of this here and in other satellite svc sites, I'm amazed that the volume is so low about it. And in casual conversations with friends that have Dish, there is nothing except noticing it. No real complaints.

That doesn't bode well for Disney because if the viewers aren't complaining loudly, then Dish has little incentive to bend. Maybe it is because the HD on the channels isn't so hot, or doesn't matter much.

[Tony S]

For all the discussion of this here and in other satellite svc sites, I'm amazed that the volume is so low about it. And in casual conversations with friends that have Dish, there is nothing except noticing it. No real complaints.

That doesn't bode well for Disney because if the viewers aren't complaining loudly, then Dish has little incentive to bend. Maybe it is because the HD on the channels isn't so hot, or doesn't matter much.

I wouldn't have even known that the Disney HD channels were missing if I hadn't read about it here and on the other site.

The Disney channels are mostly for kids...Yes, I know some adults watch it too, but primarily it is kids who watch these channels. Most kids don't care/notice if it is HD or SD. They can still watch their shows in SD, so most of them won't care.

If Disney forced Dish to remove the regular ESPN HD channels you would see a lot of protesting, but ESPN news in SD is not that different from ESPN news in HD...so again, most people don't care that much.

[James Long]

I'd notice more if Kyle XY was still in production ... there might be something good on ABC Family but I have not looked at any of the four channels intentionally.

The last thing I saw on ABC Family was a few weeks ago when visiting inlaws and flipping channels on their cable system (SD, of course). I saw the beginning of The 700 Club. Right before the show there was a warning slate about the views expressed, etc. Obviously it was their fault for selling out, but seeing such a dire warning before the only show left from the original format reminded me of what has changed over the years. "Christian" programming became "family" programming (perhaps less offensive) and then became part of the monolithic ABC/Disney corporation.

I probably should set a timer for Who's Line ... that seems to be worth watching.

[phrelin]

Actually, ABC Family focuses a lot on teen angst and serious problems and has a Monday night lineup that is unusual:

"The Secret Life of the American Teenager" started out addressing the struggle of a middle class 15-year-old girl who found herself pregnant after one experience at band camp. The problem with the show is that gradually became focused on who's having sex or is going to have sex - including the parents, who seem to sleep around and get pregnant inadvertently. The show, now in its third season, has had decent ratings. But we dropped it from our schedule last season as did one other member I know of.
"Huge" is about seven teens from different backgrounds attending a weight loss camp and about their individual journeys of self discovery and issues of self-esteem, friendship, rivalry, romance and body image. Nikki Blonsky ("Hairspray") is the name star. It was on our schedule to check out, but with the HD channel gone it disappeared from our recording schedule.
"Make It or Break It", now in its second season, is about the world of high stakes (world class/Olympic class) gymnastics. It's good. But with too much already recorded, the loss of HD made it disappear from our schedule also.

According to a news release the two returning shows have high ratings among Females 12-34, Women 18-34 and Viewers 12-34. We don't have any of those in our household. But it doesn't mean that these shows don't have something to say to every demographic.

Of course, if they just disappear from one's recording schedule, they have nothing to say.:sure:

[lparsons21]

I never watched ABC Family with any regularity, just not my kind of channel being a bit older than that demographic. But what I did see was bad HD, sometimes even worse than SD. So for me, these channels missing in HD are absolutely no issue and when I'm around kids that watch Disney, they don't seem to care whether it is in HD, SD or crapovision as long as it is on the screen! :)

[lparsons21]

If Disney forced Dish to remove the regular ESPN HD channels you would see a lot of protesting, but ESPN news in SD is not that different from ESPN news in HD...so again, most people don't care that much.

At the rates ESPN reportedly charges, I doubt that will happen. You can only rape people so many times... :)

[Stuart Sweet]

Really? I'm not sure anyone's raping anyone here. Let's scale it back a little. Thanks.

[lparsons21]

How about if ESPN was only offered as an alacarte item? We'd see just how much they think it is worth and we'd also see how many would pay their rate. Might be interesting.

But, yeah, my hyperbole gun went off a bit quick, sorry...

[James Long]

How about if ESPN was only offered as an alacarte item? We'd see just how much they think it is worth and we'd also see how many would pay their rate. Might be interesting.Programmers want a certain amount of money for their programming ... regardless of how many people are watching. ESPN isn't going to get a discount from the major sports for having less viewers ... they are going to get dropped. So there is no way that they will ever agree to being a la carted - or anything less than "in every home" in the lowest package, the most basic level.

The rate is only as low as it is because DISH delivers the channel to 14 million subscribers. Put ESPN in AT 200 and watch what DISH pays per subscriber go up. Make it a la carte and watch it go way up. (Assuming that ESPN would ever allow a la carte.)

[phrelin]

Really? I'm not sure anyone's raping anyone here. Let's scale it back a little. Thanks.How about if ESPN was only offered as an alacarte item? We'd see just how much they think it is worth and we'd also see how many would pay their rate. Might be interesting.

But, yeah, my hyperbole gun went off a bit quick, sorry...Hmmm. Well guys, I have no problem with the word "rape" in this context as it has more than one meaning.

The 4th definition at Dictionary.com: "an act of plunder...." Now, "plunder" 2nd definition is: "to rob, despoil, or fleece." And we find for "fleece": "to cheat someone." So I'm not so sure it was simply hyperbole.

Disney knows that a channel like ESPN is seriously sought by ⅓ of the viewing public and not desired by ⅓ of the viewing public. It also knows that it can charge more than the norm for a cable channel because of the ⅓ who want it. The option is to have the ⅓ that wants it pay for it. But that might not bring in enough profit.

So the big media conglomerate says to the cable and satellite companies, if you want this channel you will have to pay five times what a cable channel usually costs for every customer you have, not just for those who will subscribe to it. The cable and satellite companies know if they don't pay for the channel, they would have no chance to include among their subscribers the ⅓ of the viewing public for whom it is "must see TV" plus some of the ⅓ who want to watch it once-in-a-while.

I'm among the ⅓ of the viewing public that wouldn't pay extra to get the channel even at normal cable channel prices. But I'm forced to not only pay for it but to pay far more than I pay for cable channels I want.

I do resent the fact that movie aficionados have to buy premium movie channels that come in separate packages for around $15 a month but sports fans get to have me subsidize their ESPN premium channel package.

Do I feel cheated, fleeced, plundered and ...yes... raped (4th definition)? You betcha. And for me that is not hyperbole, as I know that one channel in my "America's Top 200" represents around 10% of the cable channel package monthly cost. And to get the channels with scripted programming that I want, I have no option but to pay.

[Stewart Vernon]

That doesn't bode well for Disney because if the viewers aren't complaining loudly, then Dish has little incentive to bend. Maybe it is because the HD on the channels isn't so hot, or doesn't matter much.

That's kind of what I was going for earlier in the thread when I posted that Disney was taking a big risk here at forcing these channels off-air in hopes it would pressure Dish to pay more to have them.

In this economy, and given the content of the actual channels... Disney might be finding out that their channels weren't worth what they wanted to charge for them... which will only strengthen Dish's resolve in negotiations.

[Stewart Vernon]

I do resent the fact that movie aficionados have to buy premium movie channels that come in separate packages for around $15 a month but sports fans get to have me subsidize their ESPN premium channel package.

This, though, is all a matter of how the channels themselves have decided to get their money.

HBO could negotiate carriage in a lower tier and at a lower rate and be in a package that most customers get... if they wanted to do this. I can only guess that HBO feels they make more money at $15 per subscriber than they would if they added to a lower tier and got more subscribers.

I'm not sure if they are correct or not.

There are lots of premium movie channels in other tiers... The Encore channels (Action, Western, etc.) are in a non-premium tier with Dish... and some HD channels like MGM, HDNet Movies, Indie, Retro, & Epix are all in a $10 tier that includes a bunch of channels from different providers.

As far as I'm aware, no one but HBO (or Sho, or Starz, or whatever) is preventing them from negotiating to be in a lower tier if they dropped their per-subscriber rate.

[Stewart Vernon]

FYI, I want to 2nd Stuart's request to avoid the comparisons to bordering hyperbole.

This is a family forum, and there are some comparisons that are just not appropriate and conjure up images that do not fit well within this forum or help the context of the discussion in any meaningful way.

Thanks.

[deepen10]

Disney is without a doubt one of the greediest companies on the planet. Only Apple exceeds them in the quest for all our cash.

how is Disney greedy? DISH is the enemy here for being cheap! They need to put up or shut up. This is just bad customer service by DISH Network.

[coldsteel]

how is Disney greedy? DISH is the enemy here for being cheap! They need to put up or shut up. This is just bad customer service by DISH Network.

Whatev. I know I do not want to pay $5 more a month so you get Mickey frigging Mouse in HD. Heck with that.

[Greg Bimson]

So the big media conglomerate says to the cable and satellite companies, if you want this channel you will have to pay five times what a cable channel usually costs for every customer you have, not just for those who will subscribe to it. The cable and satellite companies know if they don't pay for the channel, they would have no chance to include among their subscribers the ⅓ of the viewing public for whom it is "must see TV" plus some of the ⅓ who want to watch it once-in-a-while.Oh, but for someone that has been rather big on the history of television, it is ignored here. :) ESPN was one of the first cable networks. It happens to be one of the most-watched cable networks. And it was on basic cable from day 1.

Somehow the theory is espoused because of its cost, ESPN should somehow be moved away from basic (i.e., the lowest tier) packages. How would ESPN in their right mind move their channels from the lowest package to some other package?

[phrelin]

This, though, is all a matter of how the channels themselves have decided to get their money.That is true. It is also true for an extortionist or an armed robber.As far as I'm aware, no one but HBO (or Sho, or Starz, or whatever) is preventing them from negotiating to be in a lower tier if they dropped their per-subscriber rate.HBO Inc. has about 40 million subscribers for HBO packages and Cinemax packages in the United States, each of whom pay around $15 a month for the package they want. Time Warner owns HBO. HBO has a product, they price it to make a profit, they sell it to cable and satellite companies that can resell it to customers who want it. It is a straightforward business model that succeeds.

ESPN is operated by Disney. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN) we learn: "According to an analysis published by Barron's magazine in February 2008, ESPN 'is probably worth more than 40% of Disney's entire value... based on prevailing cash-flow multiples in the industry.'"

As I noted above from a May Reuters article (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5450S220090506): "The Walt Disney Co posted a 26 percent earnings drop on Tuesday as the global downturn ate into ad sales and consumer spending.... A relatively strong showing at its cable operations, especially the ESPN sports network ... helped the company to an earnings beat. ...The company was "optimistic" that an agreement would be reached with the Hong Kong government to expand the underperforming Hong Kong theme park...."

The Disney folks have a business model of their own with regard to ESPN. They have a product, they price it extremely high compared to other cable channels, they sell it to cable and satellite companies but only if the cable and satellite companies compel customers who don't want it to pay for it. That, too, is a straightforward business model that succeeds.

Dictionary.com says "hyperbole" means "obvious and intentional exaggeration." No descriptive word, whether literary or common, that I'd apply to the Disney/ESPN business model would be an exaggeration IMHO. But I will not offer those words here.:nono2:

[Kent Taylor]

[QUOTE=phrelin;2517840Hmmm. Well guys, I have no problem with the word "rape" in this context as it has more than one meaning.

The 4th definition at Dictionary.com: "an act of plunder...[/QUOTE]

If you have to drill down to the 4th definition, I have a problem with the word.

[phrelin]

If you have to drill down to the 4th definition, I have a problem with the word.Again, I will refrain from appearing to use "hyperbole" about Disney.

But the word in question from its Latin source originally meant "to seize, carry off by force, plunder." Thus, from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women) regarding a most famous historical story told by Livy and Plutarch with appropriate bleeping: The R*** of the Sabine Women is an episode in the legendary history of Rome in which the first generation of Roman men acquired wives for themselves from the neighboring Sabine families (in this context, r*** means abduction—raptio—rather than its prevalent modern meaning of sexual violation). Recounted by Livy and Plutarch ('Parallel Lives' II, 15 and 19), it provided a subject for Renaissance and post-Renaissance works of art that combined a suitably inspiring example of the hardihood and courage of ancient Romans with the opportunity to depict multiple semi-clothed figures in intensely passionate struggle. Comparable subjects from Classical Antiquity are the Battle of the Lapiths and Centaurs and the theme of Amazonomachy, the battle of Theseus with the Amazons.

The R*** is supposed to have occurred in the early history of Rome, shortly after its foundation by Romulus and his mostly male followers. Seeking wives in order to found families, the Romans negotiated unsuccessfully with the Sabines, who populated the area. Fearing the emergence of a rival society, the Sabines refused to allow their women to marry the Romans; consequently, the Romans planned to abduct Sabine women. Romulus devised a festival of Neptune Equester and proclaimed the festival amongst Rome's neighbours. According to Livy, many people from Rome's neighbours attended, including from the Caeninenses, Crustumini, and Antemnates, and many of the Sabines. At the festival Romulus gave a signal, at which the Romans grabbed the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men. The indignant abductees were implored by Romulus to accept Roman husbands.

Romulus offered them free choice and promised civic and property rights to women. According to Livy he spoke to them each in person, "and pointed out to them that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying the right of intermarriage to their neighbours. They would live in honourable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and — dearest of all to human nature — would be the mothers of free men."And thus, with a strong literary sense, I am not uncomfortable with the 4th definition.

It doesn't hurt to be aware of what were once well-known historical tales, particularly related to women having property rights in ancient times which were methodically and legally denied them in this country for many decades. But I will refrain from further use to avoid contaminating the impressionable young minds perusing this web site.:grin:

[James Long]

As fun as dictionary threads are this thread is already far enough off track ...
DBSTalk is a family friendly forum. The use of the term can be offensive.
The common meaning is too strong to ignore.

Please do not use that term nor discuss it's use any further. PM any moderator if you have further comments on the subject.

James Long
http://www.dbstalk.com/images/ranks/supermod.gif

[Stewart Vernon]

HBO Inc. has about 40 million subscribers for HBO packages and Cinemax packages in the United States, each of whom pay around $15 a month for the package they want. Time Warner owns HBO. HBO has a product, they price it to make a profit, they sell it to cable and satellite companies that can resell it to customers who want it. It is a straightforward business model that succeeds.

You didn't exactly refute my point though... but maybe you didn't mean to?

My point was... HBO charges $15 right not for standalone and only gets people who subscribe to HBO.

HBO could very well agree to take $5 (for example) per subscriber and opt for placement in a basic cable tier... and they might more than triple their # of subscribers and raise their profits by doing so.

I assume, though, that at the moment they have decided that is not the best way to profit.

Meanwhile, channels like ESPN have been in basic cable almost as long as basic cable has been popular (yes, I know cable predates ESPN... but ESPN is one of the earliest non-local channels, along with HBO).

[paulman182]

My problem with some of this argument is that once we eliminate ESPN because it is the most expensive basic cable channel, then we will still have a basic channel that is the most expensive. Eliminate it, and we have another channel that is the most expensive...where do we stop?

There is not more of an outcry from Dish customers because they are accustomed to this type of behavior from their provider.

I subscribed to Dish for many years and wish they were more considerate of their customers and, more importantly, their corporate image. The company is run like a small-town cable system.

[phrelin]

You didn't exactly refute my point though... but maybe you didn't mean to?

My point was... HBO charges $15 right not for standalone and only gets people who subscribe to HBO.

HBO could very well agree to take $5 (for example) per subscriber and opt for placement in a basic cable tier... and they might more than triple their # of subscribers and raise their profits by doing so.

I assume, though, that at the moment they have decided that is not the best way to profit.

Meanwhile, channels like ESPN have been in basic cable almost as long as basic cable has been popular (yes, I know cable predates ESPN... but ESPN is one of the earliest non-local channels, along with HBO).No I didn't literally mean to refute your point. IMHO a public interest element exists in this "dispute." But it won't be recognized until it is too late and those who have the power to examine and correct inequities have abandoned that task.

HBO effectively was started in 1972 by Charles Dolan on his Sterling Manhattan Cable. Soon, using a network of microwave towers, he was distributing its signal. The first program and film broadcast on HBO tarnsmitted outside his cable system was "Sometimes a Great Notion." It was carried on a CATV system in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (a plaque commemorating this event is found in Wilkes-Barre's downtown Public Square). By September 30, 1975, using satellite transmission HBO became the first TV network to continuously deliver signals via satellite when it showed the "Thrilla in Manila" boxing-match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier.

Four years later ESPN started with the debut of "SportsCenter" hosted by Lee Leonard and George Grande on September 7, 1979.

To put it bluntly, I think HBO's business model is great. I think ESPN's approach constitutes an unjust exaction - it forces anyone who wants a decent general selection of cable channels to pay 10%± more for the package.

And while I recognize that there must be a channel group that is the next highest cost to the ESPN channels in my AT200, I can't find such a group that has a comparable single-interest orientation that can exact a price at near that level.

I would argue that the ESPN group of channels could be sufficiently profitable using the HBO model and that the cost of what ESPN Inc. delivers would result in a price comparable to HBO as a premium package.

My concern - and in the case of Disney, my concern isn't unfounded - is that the media conglomerates could add their broadcast network charges into their packages. Thus, we could easily see Fox become part of the News Corp package and - using the Disney/ESPN approach - add an extra $3 to the package and require that channels such as FX be included in the lowest tier package. Soon the broadcast networks would leverage an exaction of $15-$25 into all packages.

So here we are. The loss of HD Disney and ABC Family likely won't result a great outcry.

But Charlie has to know that without an agreement with Disney for ABC Family HD, he ultimately could find himself without the single-interest ESPN package, unfortunately far and away the most expensive and most demanded part of almost all cable channel packages.

It is not an overstatement to note that the loss of ESPN would threaten the survival of Dish Network. So, looking at the big picture, whether or not we pay extra for ABC Family HD could determine the financial well-being of one of the largest carriers of TV signals.

Hence IMHO a public interest element exists in this "dispute."

[Paul Secic]

You didn't exactly refute my point though... but maybe you didn't mean to?

My point was... HBO charges $15 right not for standalone and only gets people who subscribe to HBO.

HBO could very well agree to take $5 (for example) per subscriber and opt for placement in a basic cable tier... and they might more than triple their # of subscribers and raise their profits by doing so.

I assume, though, that at the moment they have decided that is not the best way to profit.

Meanwhile, channels like ESPN have been in basic cable almost as long as basic cable has been popular (yes, I know cable predates ESPN... but ESPN is one of the earliest non-local channels, along with HBO).

If HBO were in a regular package it would be censored.

[Stewart Vernon]

If HBO were in a regular package it would be censored.

It wouldn't have to be...

None of those Encore movie channels included in the "250" tier are censored... Nor are MGMHD, HD Net Movies, EPIX, etc.

Even the HD Net (not movies) channel airs uncensored stuff late at night...

So there's really no reason they'd have to be censored if they wanted placement in a different package.

On a different/similar (contradiction) note... I like some sports, but am not a fanatic. I like ESPN, and I like having it in my basic package. I would pay for it a la carte, but I don't know what my limit would be... Would I be willing to pay $10-$15 for it by itself? I don't think so.

Thing is, this is true of everything. As already noted... if you cross ESPN off the list, then something else becomes the "most expensive" channel in the basic tier.

[Stewart Vernon]

So here we are. The loss of HD Disney and ABC Family likely won't result a great outcry.

But Charlie has to know that without an agreement with Disney for ABC Family HD, he ultimately could find himself without the single-interest ESPN package, unfortunately far and away the most expensive and most demanded part of almost all cable channel packages.

It is not an overstatement to note that the loss of ESPN would threaten the survival of Dish Network. So, looking at the big picture, whether or not we pay extra for ABC Family HD could determine the financial well-being of one of the largest carriers of TV signals.

Hence IMHO a public interest element exists in this "dispute."

Agreed. I think both Dish and Disney know this... hence why Disney has not made a threat to pull all of their channels because of Dish's "transgressions"... and why Dish hasn't opted to stop carrying those other channels while disputing these.

Dish knows losing ESPN would be a big deal. Disney also knows that losing multi-millions of subscribers would be bad.

I think that's why we see the battleground on some of their "lesser" channels... Dish wants to prove that they shouldn't pay more because their customers don't want to pay more... and Disney wants to prove the channels in HD are being undervalued.

I agree that the "winner" in this likely shapes other similar disputes. You can bet that if Disney wins, other channels will raise the same point with their HD feeds next time around.

[inazsully]

So where do the advertisers come into this picture? They can't be happy that many viewers are not seeing their product.

[Stewart Vernon]

So where do the advertisers come into this picture? They can't be happy that many viewers are not seeing their product.

Exactly... this is part of the risk Disney is taking... because losing all those eyes on those HD feeds means the advertisers are going to come back and want to pay less for those same ad-spots... and Disney will take a hit there at some point.

[James Long]

So where do the advertisers come into this picture? They can't be happy that many viewers are not seeing their product.Viewers are seeing it fine ... in SD.

The networks have probably lost a few "I refuse to watch SD" viewers and a few more who have HD only packages - but the channels are still available to most customers. The commercials are available too.

[tsmacro]

Viewers are seeing it fine ... in SD.

The networks have probably lost a few "I refuse to watch SD" viewers and a few more who have HD only packages - but the channels are still available to most customers. The commercials are available too.

Yeah so far this won't have much impact on advertisers. Sure the primetime lineup on abc and maybe some big shows and/or games on the cable channels probably use the old traditional method of selling individual slots to advertisers for x amount of $ depending on ratings. However most of the advertising these days in these situations are sold "in bulk" so to speak. Basically you pay x amount of $ to have your ad randomly show up at any given time across all the companies various channels. Usually these rates are based on the number of "potential eyeballs" could be on those channels at any given time. Of course "potential eyeballs" is figured out by coming up with how many millions of people subscribe to the packages that include those channels across all providers. So right now any reduction in "potential eyeballs" is negligible I would guess based on the channels involved and the fact it's only happening on one service provider and as has been already pointed out those channels with their ads are still showing up in SD.

[Greg Bimson]

So right now any reduction in "potential eyeballs" is negligible I would guess based on the channels involved and the fact it's only happening on one service provider and as has been already pointed out those channels with their ads are still showing up in SD.Ah, but here is the other side of that equation:

We know that Disney's line was Dish Network was not entitled to those four HD channels according to the affiliate agreements. So how exactly was Dish Network carrying those four HD channels from May 2008 to June 2010? I am guessing during the lawsuit, Disney simply opened them up in case there was a problem, with the expectation that payment would follow once the suit was decided.

I have a feeling those eyeballs weren't counted in Disney's side of the equation.

Besides, the Disney XD HD channel and the Disney HD channel don't have much in the way of commercials, so for those channels it is a wash.

[Stewart Vernon]

Besides, the Disney XD HD channel and the Disney HD channel don't have much in the way of commercials, so for those channels it is a wash.

Are you watching different versions of those channels than I've been watching?

I have seen lots of commercials on those channels when I watch. Granted I haven't watched in months... but they run commercials even during their own Disney-produced movies... and all the stuff on DisneyXD has traditional commercial breaks 2-3 times per half hour just like any other channel I've watched.

[deepen10]

wow just noticed the ESPNEWS SD channel is gone.. WTF DISH!!??

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

[James Long]

wow just noticed the ESPNEWS SD channel is gone.. WTF DISH!!??

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!Still on my receivers. Seems like a personal problem.

Check your locks/favorites lists/ etc to make sure the channel isn't hidden.

[garys]

Or have Dish rehit your receiver.

[deepen10]

Still on my receivers. Seems like a personal problem.

Check your locks/favorites lists/ etc to make sure the channel isn't hidden.

No, I have not hidden it.. I'm on the ALL CHAN setting. It's "green" in my Guide and says I'm not subscribed to it. I have the DISH America HD package. I was getting the ESPNEWS as of last night at 11 pm.

[James Long]

No, I have not hidden it.. I'm on the ALL CHAN setting. It's "green" in my Guide and says I'm not subscribed to it. I have the DISH America HD package. I was getting the ESPNEWS as of last night at 11 pm.If it is green in your guide then it is a PERSONAL problem with your receiver. DISH has not pulled the channel ... there is a problem with your subscription.

I see in other threads where you were complaining about not getting the SD versions of the channels weeks ago ... now you claim that you were getting ESPNEWS last night? DISH America HD is a HD package. ESPNEWS is a SD channel.

[nmetro]

ESPN NEWS SD is working fine here. So, it must be at your end.

[TBoneit]

You didn't exactly refute my point though... but maybe you didn't mean to?

My point was... HBO charges $15 right not for standalone and only gets people who subscribe to HBO.

HBO could very well agree to take $5 (for example) per subscriber and opt for placement in a basic cable tier... and they might more than triple their # of subscribers and raise their profits by doing so.

I assume, though, that at the moment they have decided that is not the best way to profit.

Meanwhile, channels like ESPN have been in basic cable almost as long as basic cable has been popular (yes, I know cable predates ESPN... but ESPN is one of the earliest non-local channels, along with HBO).

You may be paying $15 to your provider for HBO. Your provider is keeping a substantial portion of that $15 to cover distribution costs and a profit for carrying HBO.

Sadly I expect that programming costs will go up at a obscene pace for many of the popular channels. Example NYC locals will most likely at some point not opt for must carry.

[deepen10]

If it is green in your guide then it is a PERSONAL problem with your receiver. DISH has not pulled the channel ... there is a problem with your subscription.

I see in other threads where you were complaining about not getting the SD versions of the channels weeks ago ... now you claim that you were getting ESPNEWS last night? DISH America HD is a HD package. ESPNEWS is a SD channel.

um yea... but I get every single other HD channel in my package in an SD version as well. Only ESPN, Disney and ABCfam were dropped from both HD and SD versions. I talked to DISH yesterday. they told me the same crap, that I have an HD only package.. And they told me that I have to upgrade to top 120 for 15 bucks more on my bill plus either a new 2 year commitment or a $99 upfront charge.
But then how do you explain me getting SD versions of all of my other HD channels as we speak? I have always received SD versions of all of my HD channels since 2008!

[James Long]

ESPNews, ABCFamily, Disney and Disney XD are not available in HD via DISH and are not in your HD only package. Why is it that you feel that you should get channels that are not available in HD in your HD package?

[deepen10]

ESPNews, ABCFamily, Disney and Disney XD are not available in HD via DISH and are not in your HD only package. Why is it that you feel that you should get channels that are not available in HD in your HD package?

How is that possible? When i get ALL of my HD channels alongside their SD counterparts? I have had both SD and HD channels in my "HD" package since 2008. I should still get ESPN, Disney and abcfamily in SD.. This is really messed up..

[scooper]

How is that possible? When i get ALL of my HD channels alongside their SD counterparts? I have had both SD and HD channels in my "HD" package since 2008. I should still get ESPN, Disney and abcfamily in SD.. This is really messed up..

How about "What package are your parents subscribing to ?" - That will answer alot of questions....

[sigma1914]

How about "What package are your parents subscribing to ?" - That will answer alot of questions....
See below.
No, I have not hidden it.. I'm on the ALL CHAN setting. It's "green" in my Guide and says I'm not subscribed to it. I have the DISH America HD package. I was getting the ESPNEWS as of last night at 11 pm.

[scooper]

"DIsh America HD" is not a package -

But in any event - any of those "Dish America HD" packages will NOT include the SD versions of the channels in the package. If he wants that- he should subcribe to the ATXXX +HD package that is equivalent to his current package.

[deepen10]

"DIsh America HD" is not a package -

But in any event - any of those "Dish America HD" packages will NOT include the SD versions of the channels in the package. If he wants that- he should subcribe to the ATXXX +HD package that is equivalent to his current package.

then how do you explain me getting SD versions of like 20 something HD channels?
And DISH America HD is a package. It is in my DISH Network.com account info.
I did talk to DISH online, they told me the same thing.. that I should upgrade to top 120 and add HD (my bill would increase 25 bucks plus either a new 2 year agreement or a $99 fee for HD) Then I told the woman that I have been getting all of the SD channels. She then said I shouldn't be getting them if i don't pay for them? That's straight up BS. I can see every HD channel I have in SD, except for those ESPN, Disney and ABC family as of this past week.

[James Long]

How is that possible? When i get ALL of my HD channels alongside their SD counterparts? I have had both SD and HD channels in my "HD" package since 2008. I should still get ESPN, Disney and abcfamily in SD.. This is really messed up..Well there's your problem. As a HD only customer you should not be getting SD versions of channels not available in HD.

[sigma1914]

then how do you explain me getting SD versions of like 20 something HD channels?
And DISH America HD is a package. It is in my DISH Network.com account info.
I did talk to DISH online, they told me the same thing.. that I should upgrade to top 120 and add HD (my bill would increase 25 bucks plus either a new 2 year agreement or a $99 fee for HD) Then I told the woman that I have been getting all of the SD channels. She then said I shouldn't be getting them if i don't pay for them? That's straight up BS. I can see every HD channel I have in SD, except for those ESPN, Disney and ABC family as of this past week.

Is it 20 something or every channel?:confused:

[scooper]

then how do you explain me getting SD versions of like 20 something HD channels?
And DISH America HD is a package. It is in my DISH Network.com account info.
I did talk to DISH online, they told me the same thing.. that I should upgrade to top 120 and add HD (my bill would increase 25 bucks plus either a new 2 year agreement or a $99 fee for HD) Then I told the woman that I have been getting all of the SD channels. She then said I shouldn't be getting them if i don't pay for them? That's straight up BS. I can see every HD channel I have in SD, except for those ESPN, Disney and ABC family as of this past week.

I explain it by someone screwed up on authorizing your receivers. They gave you MORE than you're paying for - so count your blessings ...

[Kent Taylor]

He does sound like a "I'm counting my blessings" kind of guy, doesn't he? :)

[deepen10]

Is it 20 something or every channel?:confused:

there are only 28 HD channels in my package counting locals. then there are a few SD channels. I also get an SD counterpart of all of those HD channels.

Well there's your problem. As a HD only customer you should not be getting SD versions of channels not available in HD.

then explain this: "However, thankfully, the standard-definition (SD) versions of those four channels are still available on DISH Network, along with ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD."

http://www.tv.com/dish-network-drops-4-disney-hd-channels-over-carriage-fee-dispute/webnews/102801.html

what I'm saying is.. that all this time I have been getting SD and HD versions of the ESPNEWS, Disney and ABC family. But after this new dispute thing, they are gone.
I know what you are saying, that in the current packages, I should only be getting HD only. But my guide says otherwise. It's not my fault if DISH screwed up authorizing my receiver. I should be getting those three channels in SD.

[scooper]

there are only 28 HD channels in my package counting locals. then there are a few SD channels. I also get an SD counterpart of all of those HD channels.



then explain this: "However, thankfully, the standard-definition (SD) versions of those four channels are still available on DISH Network, along with ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD."

http://www.tv.com/dish-network-drops-4-disney-hd-channels-over-carriage-fee-dispute/webnews/102801.html

what I'm saying is.. that all this time I have been getting SD and HD versions of the ESPNEWS, Disney and ABC family. But after this new dispute thing, they are gone.
I know what you are saying, that in the current packages, I should only be getting HD only. But my guide says otherwise. It's not my fault if DISH screwed up authorizing my receiver. I should be getting those three channels in SD.


No - with an "HD only package" - you should NOT be getting those channels in SD AT ALL.

[James Long]

there are only 28 HD channels in my package counting locals. then there are a few SD channels. I also get an SD counterpart of all of those HD channels.I assume the "few" SD channels are in the 9400's or are other "public interest" channels DISH is required to carry?

then explain this: "However, thankfully, the standard-definition (SD) versions of those four channels are still available on DISH Network, along with ESPN HD and ESPN2 HD."

http://www.tv.com/dish-network-drops-4-disney-hd-channels-over-carriage-fee-dispute/webnews/102801.htmlOne MUST be a subscriber to the appropriate programming package to get the channels. Hustler HD is available on DISH network but you're not going to get it on your receiver without paying the requested subscription price. If you want to guarantee your reception of the four channels you MUST subscribe to the appropriate SD package.

But my guide says otherwise. It's not my fault if DISH screwed up authorizing my receiver. I should be getting those three channels in SD.No, you shouldn't. Your guide having a channel in green is showing that if you give DISH a little more green you can view the channel. The popup that appears when you select a green channel makes that abundantly clear. You can view this channel today by upgrading your subscription.

[Kent Taylor]

84 posts ago, deepen10 began this discussion. Nothing has changed nor has anyone convinced him of anything. Let's please put away the troll food and continue discussing the original subject.

[deepen10]

[QUOTE=James Long;2521442]I assume the "few" SD channels are in the 9400's or are other "public interest" channels DISH is required to carry?

they are TVGN, my9, and PBS, SHNBC, MALL, QVC, MUSIC, CSPAN, NASA.. and of course those 9400s..

[deepen10]

No - with an "HD only package" - you should NOT be getting those channels in SD AT ALL.

well I get EVERY OTHER "HD" channel in an SD version in my guide. I told you I watch those SD channels a lot, when shows or movies are in stretchovision. Its' a good way to watch them in their native view on the SD channels. I have been doing it for the last 2 years.. So there is some mixup with DISH when they activated my receivers. Maybe back in 2008, they were giving SD counterpart channels, but now they stopped with new packages? But if I get SD channels for all of my available HD channels today, then ESPN,Disney and ABCFamily should also be available. Of course, I know they are not "available" in HD anymore. Maybe thats the problem. and once they solve this dispute to get those channels back, obviously I wont' care. But until then, I should get the SD versions. I am still paying for them.

I understand everything you're saying, but I just feel like if I get all my other "HD" channels in SD counterparts, then these 3 that they removed should still come.

[James Long]

I understand everything you're saying, but I just feel like if I get all my other "HD" channels in SD counterparts, then these 3 that they removed should still come.The key word is "removed". As a HD only package the SD channels shouldn't be included (other than the PIs required by law and the shopping channels required by contract). If you get them that's great ... but don't expect them. Especially for channels that are not available in HD.

[Calvin386]

84 posts ago, deepen10 began this discussion. Nothing has changed nor has anyone convinced him of anything. Let's please put away the troll food and continue discussing the original subject.

I agree. Could we please stick to the topic?

Shouldn't the rest of the discussion be put under a thread titled Stuff nobody cares about.

[deepen10]

The key word is "removed". As a HD only package the SD channels shouldn't be included (other than the PIs required by law and the shopping channels required by contract). If you get them that's great ... but don't expect them. Especially for channels that are not available in HD.

alright.. I guess i'll just have to wait it out and hope DISH resolves this dispute. atleast I still get ESPNHD and ESPN2 HD.. or else I would be fuming.

[cwade0]

My package is Dish America Silver and I also get both the HD and the SD feeds of all the channels in my package. I often watch the SD feed on my second, non-HD TV in my bedroom because the formatting looks better on my small bedroom tv. For several days I got the SD feed of Disney XD, but now that is off also.

Frankly, I don't see why Dish doesn't leave the SD feeds on for their Dish America customers just to keep them happy. I am new to Dish, I've been a customer for only about 6 months, and I chose them over Direct TV because the Dish America packages allowed me to get HD programming so cheaply... and with 2 young Disney fans, I chose the silver package to get Disney XD in addition to Disney HD. In order to get the same channels from an America's Top-whatever package, it would tack $20+ onto my bill. :mad:

It seems that signs are not pointing to this being resolved quickly and my kids are really missing their Disney channel this summer!

[scooper]

Then why don't you change your subscription to a package that HAS them in SD ?(AT200 + HD), for example ?

[cwade0]

In order to get the same channels from an America's Top-whatever package, it would tack $20+ onto my bill. :mad:



See above.

[deepen10]

My package is Dish America Silver and I also get both the HD and the SD feeds of all the channels in my package. I often watch the SD feed on my second, non-HD TV in my bedroom because the formatting looks better on my small bedroom tv. For several days I got the SD feed of Disney XD, but now that is off also.

Frankly, I don't see why Dish doesn't leave the SD feeds on for their Dish America customers just to keep them happy. I am new to Dish, I've been a customer for only about 6 months, and I chose them over Direct TV because the Dish America packages allowed me to get HD programming so cheaply... and with 2 young Disney fans, I chose the silver package to get Disney XD in addition to Disney HD. In order to get the same channels from an America's Top-whatever package, it would tack $20+ onto my bill. :mad:

It seems that signs are not pointing to this being resolved quickly and my kids are really missing their Disney channel this summer!

THANK YOU!! FINALLY someone who gets me. :joy::joy:

[scooper]

We get you - you don't get us on how to fix it if it is that important to you....

[deepen10]

We get you - you don't get us on how to fix it if it is that important to you....

the only way to "FIX" it is for DISH to stop being greedy and selfish. They need to give me those channels in SD while they are working on getting the HD versions back. it is just fair that way. I should be getting the channels I am paying for (ESPN, DISNEY, ABC FAMILY), whether it's in HD or SD.

[phrelin]

the only way to "FIX" it is for DISH to stop being greedy and selfish. They need to give me those channels in SD while they are working on getting the HD versions back. it is just fair that way. I should be getting the channels I am paying for (ESPN, DISNEY, ABC FAMILY), whether it's in HD or SD.The Disney folks have clearly stated that ESPN, Disney, and ABC Family are different channels than ESPN HD, Disney HD, and ABC Family HD. That's Disney's whole point here, confirmed and upheld by the court.

No it's not fair and that fact is not Dish's fault. But Disney has the only investor relations web site I've ever seen with no place to send an email, so I guess you'll just have to got to one of the theme parks and yell at Micky Mouse.

[sigma1914]

the only way to "FIX" it is for DISH to stop being greedy and selfish. They need to give me those channels in SD while they are working on getting the HD versions back. it is just fair that way. I should be getting the channels I am paying for (ESPN, DISNEY, ABC FAMILY), whether it's in HD or SD.

No, they don't need to give you the SD version. You pay for a HD only package, not SD...you want SD, pay the price for SDs.

[scooper]

the only way to "FIX" it is for DISH to stop being greedy and selfish. They need to give me those channels in SD while they are working on getting the HD versions back. it is just fair that way. I should be getting the channels I am paying for (ESPN, DISNEY, ABC FAMILY), whether it's in HD or SD.

BZZZT - wrong answer - the way to "FIX" it is for Disney to stop being so greedy.

[deepen10]

No, they don't need to give you the SD version. You pay for a HD only package, not SD...you want SD, pay the price for SDs.

If you read my other posts, you would know that I do receive SD versions of every HD channel in my package. I did receive SD versions of Disney, ESPNHD and ABC family up until the last 2 weeks.

[sigma1914]

If you read my other posts, you would know that I do receive SD versions of every HD channel in my package. I did receive SD versions of Disney, ESPNHD and ABC family up until the last 2 weeks.

If you read other posts, then you would know you weren't supposed, as multiple people have told you. :rolleyes:

[cwade0]

If you read other posts, then you would know you weren't supposed, as multiple people have told you. :rolleyes:

How do you know we're "not supposed to" get the SD version? It's not some sort of mistake. All Dish America subscribers (that I know - my father, a neighbor, and a friend, as well as the dude you all keep bashing, all have the same package I do) get both the HD and SD versions of the channels in their packages. I also get some SD only channels, mainly QVC and that type of stuff, but some others such as TOON West, a country music channel, a few religious networks, a few spanish language channels, etc.

The dude's whole point, and mine as well, is that it is bad business practice on Dish's part. I did my research on prices/channel lineups when I joined Dish about six months ago. The main reason I paid the extra for Dish America Silver was for Disney XD HD. There are a limited number of channels that you get when you upgrade to the Silver, and since Disney XD is one of them, I feel that I am paying Dish for it (whether they in turn pay Disney is between Dish and Disney, not between me and Dish).

Whether or not I am "supposed to" get the SD channels is irrelevant. I AM "supposed to" be getting the HD channels. If they can't give me what I am paying for, they should be providing the next best alternative. Not telling me I'm S.O.L.

[James Long]

Whether or not I am "supposed to" get the SD channels is irrelevant. I AM "supposed to" be getting the HD channels. If they can't give me what I am paying for, they should be providing the next best alternative.The next best alternative for a customer who is not paying for SD channels IS allowing you to continue to receive the rest of the channels you actually pay for.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/RCA.pdf
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.

DISH has, from time to time, offered replacement programming when a channel is temporarily not on the programming lineup but they are under no obligation to do so. Just part of your agreement with DISH.

[cwade0]

Furthermore, read Dish's official statement:

DISH Network offers all customers HD Free for Life, which is possible because we are committed to negotiating fair contracts that allow us to keep our prices low. That is why we could not agree to the significant fees requested by Disney and ESPN Networks for the HD feeds of Disney East, Disney XD, ESPNews and ABC Family. We continue to talk with Disney and ESPN Networks and hope to reach a fair resolution. In the meantime, DISH Network customers can enjoy the same programming on the standard definition versions of these channels.

I would love to be enjoying the SD versions of these channels while I wait.

[James Long]

Where on DISH Network's website do you find that "official statement"?

[cwade0]

Where on DISH Network's website do you find that "official statement"?

Come on now... you know Dish hasn't posted jack about this whole fiasco on their website.

The official statement is the one released to all the media outlets, such as CNBC, etc. Google "CNBC Disney vs Dish 4 HD Channels Pulled From Air"

Unfortunately I can't post a link since I'm a new member.

[cwade0]

Come on now... you know Dish hasn't posted jack about this whole fiasco on their website.

The official statement is the one released to all the media outlets, such as CNBC, etc. Google "CNBC Disney vs Dish 4 HD Channels Pulled From Air"

Unfortunately I can't post a link since I'm a new member.

Here are two links:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37857261/Disney_vs_Dish_4_HD_Channels_Pulled_From_Air

http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2010/06/disney-pulls-4-nets-from-dish/

[James Long]

Come on now... you know Dish hasn't posted jack about this whole fiasco on their website.Exactly. Yet you and other HD only customers seem to have this wild believe that you, specifically, were promised SD replacement channels. You were not.

The HD only packages seem to be the forgotten stepchildren of DISH Network with no acknowledgment of their existence on the DISH Network website (except for on the "my account" pages of some customers). It is obvious the HD only people were overlooked in the quick statement that was apparently sent out. It should be obvious by now that HD only customers should not expect SD channels that are not in their HD package, no matter how strong their desire for said channels.

[cwade0]

You're missing the whole point. My point is not that I was "promised" SD replacement channels. My point is that it would be good business practice to provide them.

[sigma1914]

You're missing the whole point. My point is not that I was "promised" SD replacement channels. My point is that it would be good business practice to provide them.

It'd be a good consumer practice to pay for what you want.

[cwade0]

It'd be a good consumer practice to pay for what you want.

I pay my bill every month. I selected the programming package that included the channels I wanted, and paid my bill monthly. DISH is the one who didn't pay for what they wanted. Again... I have been a good consumer. Dish is being a crappy business.

[platup]

It'd be a good consumer practice to pay for what you want.

Sorry I can't take the defenders anymore and had to chime in.

I WAS paying for what I wanted! Dish highly promoted their TurboHD plans for over a year. They listed the Disney Chanel and others as part of the plan and with no warning they pulled the channels. Now I have the choice to continue to pay until the end of my contract and not receive the channels I (my kids) want or extend my contract and up my monthly bill. Using the logic of the defenders on this post I should be happy about that! Hell, I should be happy if they pull all my channels except for the shopping channels and be thankful they would have me as a customer. To top it all off, I was paying for Disney HD and Dish apparently wasn't. So they were selling me something they didn't have the rights to sell... Well I have a bridge I would like to sell cheap if there are any takers.

[coldsteel]

You're missing the whole point. My point is not that I was "promised" SD replacement channels. My point is that it would be good business practice to provide them.

Nope, you were given them as a courtesy then they were removed. There's no 'promise' to give you jack-diddley. Read what James posted again:


http://www.dishnetwork.com/downloads/legal/RCA.pdf

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.

[lparsons21]

Ah yes, the old 'we can do anything but you still have to pay us the same or more' clause. I keep thinking some hot shot law firm will take up contracts that are so one sided and see about the fairness to both parties. I'm of the non-lawyerly opinion that they wouldn't hold up if a real lawsuit was ever filed.

[GrumpyBear]

Ah yes, the old 'we can do anything but you still have to pay us the same or more' clause. I keep thinking some hot shot law firm will take up contracts that are so one sided and see about the fairness to both parties. I'm of the non-lawyerly opinion that they wouldn't hold up if a real lawsuit was ever filed.

Carriage contracts like that have been challenged, and will continue to be challenged for years. Carriege contracts like that have, been up held over the years.
Its that same language in the contract that also allows all carriers to just ADD stations to a package as well. Its one of the reasons so many Broadcasters want to negotiate, what package level they are in upfront.

I do understand the viewpoint of those in the HD only packages. Its the risk you took though when going with a HD only contract, and this kind of stuff happens all the time, with all the carriers, everytime a contract comes up, for renewal, only real difference is this effects just the HD side and not the HD and SD side of things with the channel just disappearing all together.

[wreck]

Isn't the point that customers signed up for HD only package with a expectation that those 4 channels would be included? If Dish takes away 4 of those channels without replacement -- aren't they breaching a reasonable contract?

[James Long]

I'm of the non-lawyerly opinion that they wouldn't hold up if a real lawsuit was ever filed.I'm of a similar based opinion that if these long used clauses in contracts were beatable they would not be in contracts.

[Paul Secic]

BZZZT - wrong answer - the way to "FIX" it is for Disney to stop being so greedy.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wreck]

I'm of a similar based opinion that if these long used clauses in contracts were beatable they would not be in contracts.

I'm certainly no lawyer - but in basic business law classes I had, they taught that simply stating "we are not liable for our actions" doesn't neccessarily free you from your liabilities. If you are negligent - you are negligent. As an somewhat similar example:
A roller rink cannot simply put a sign up that says we are not liable for injuries. If they are negligent - they are negligent and can be held accountable.

There has to be a REASONABLE case for substantially not delivering what you promise.

[runner861]

Ah yes, the old 'we can do anything but you still have to pay us the same or more' clause. I keep thinking some hot shot law firm will take up contracts that are so one sided and see about the fairness to both parties. I'm of the non-lawyerly opinion that they wouldn't hold up if a real lawsuit was ever filed.

This is what would be called a class-action lawsuit. When those are filed many people will complain that if the suit is won or settled they only received a few dollars, yet the attorneys received a substantial amount of money. Of course, the attorneys are the ones who did all the work.

What "hot shot law firm" would want this case? And why? Is there any aggrieved party who is seeking relief?

Contract clauses can also be addressed via the legislative process, usually at the state government level.

[GrumpyBear]

Isn't the point that customers signed up for HD only package with a expectation that those 4 channels would be included? If Dish takes away 4 of those channels without replacement -- aren't they breaching a reasonable contract?
Only if Dish and ABC/Disney were still under contract, with each other, would Dish be in breech of contract with the HD only Sub's.

No carriage contract is in place. Dish isn't obligated at all to carry the channels. If you read the news, ABC/Disney pulled the HD feeds, so Dish couldn't show them if they wanted to anyways.

Dish and ABC/Disney both created the problem for even allowing the channels to be carried with no contract in place. Nothing is guaranteed in the Carriage world as contracts come all the time, and companies go out of buisness.
If a Carrier was forced to carry all channels, once that channel, was put into a package. Broadcasters would have them bent over a barrel, using red hot pokers, when it came up to renewing carriage rights and fees.

So once the contract between the Carrier and Broadcaster is up, and hasn't been renewed, the Carrier and the Broadcaster both have the rights to terminate the Feeds. This is exactly what is going on here, no contract in place, equals no feeds.

[lparsons21]

Contract clauses can also be addressed via the legislative process, usually at the state government level.

You mean by the same politicos that are getting their 'campaign contributions' from these same corporations? Uh, huh...

[James Long]

There has to be a REASONABLE case for substantially not delivering what you promise.The reasonable case is that ABC/Disney is no longer providing the HD channels to DISH. DISH cannot deliver that which is not provided.

The definition of what was promised would also have to be looked at. For the vast majority of customers more channels have been added to their agreement than have been removed (23 channels added this year alone, including Platinum HD).

[wreck]

The reasonable case is that ABC/Disney is no longer providing the HD channels to DISH. DISH cannot deliver that which is not provided.

The definition of what was promised would also have to be looked at. For the vast majority of customers more channels have been added to their agreement than have been removed (23 channels added this year alone, including Platinum HD).
I agree to a point. If the subscriber signed up when there were say 50 HD channels and that number was reduced substantially (I don't know what that number would be) -- I think the subscriber has a point.

[deepen10]

How do you know we're "not supposed to" get the SD version? It's not some sort of mistake. All Dish America subscribers (that I know - my father, a neighbor, and a friend, as well as the dude you all keep bashing, all have the same package I do) get both the HD and SD versions of the channels in their packages. I also get some SD only channels, mainly QVC and that type of stuff, but some others such as TOON West, a country music channel, a few religious networks, a few spanish language channels, etc.

The dude's whole point, and mine as well, is that it is bad business practice on Dish's part. I did my research on prices/channel lineups when I joined Dish about six months ago. The main reason I paid the extra for Dish America Silver was for Disney XD HD. There are a limited number of channels that you get when you upgrade to the Silver, and since Disney XD is one of them, I feel that I am paying Dish for it (whether they in turn pay Disney is between Dish and Disney, not between me and Dish).

Whether or not I am "supposed to" get the SD channels is irrelevant. I AM "supposed to" be getting the HD channels. If they can't give me what I am paying for, they should be providing the next best alternative. Not telling me I'm S.O.L.

thank you for backing me up! I didn't know others had the same issue, but atleast you understand my point completely. :joy: