If E* drops the Viacom channels...

[SParker]

How many of your guys are switching tomorrow? Just want to get a pulse on the situation. I think I will switch tomorrow if this happens.

[btbrossard]

How many of your guys are switching tomorrow? Just want to get a pulse on the situation. I think I will switch tomorrow if this happens.
I won't be able to switch - my kids will kill me when they can't watch Nick or Noggin ;) .

If all the Viacom channels are gone, I will most likely go back to cable. Even if the channels look bad, at least I can watch them.

/Benjamin

[James Long]

How many of your guys are switching tomorrow? Just want to get a pulse on the situation. I think I will switch tomorrow if this happens.

They will be back. Wouldn't be absolutely STUPID to switch because of a brief outage? :rolleyes:

JL

[SParker]

Well I think I am going to switch anyways when the HD Tivo comes out but I would prefer to wait till then.

They will be back. Wouldn't be absolutely STUPID to switch because of a brief outage? :rolleyes:

JL

[btbrossard]

They will be back. Wouldn't be absolutely STUPID to switch because of a brief outage? :rolleyes:

JLIs it stupid for E* customers to expect that they are going to get the channels that they paid for?

E* is selling a product. If they decide that they are not going to offer the product I want to purchase, why should I continue to spend money with them?

/Benjamin

[Sherlock]

...and if you don't watch any of those channels, would you feel it's fair to have your rates increased so others can?

[btbrossard]

...and if you don't watch any of those channels, would you feel it's fair to have your rates increased so others can?
My rates have gone up to have ESPN available. I have never watched ESPN.

/Benjamin

[James Long]

Is it stupid for E* customers to expect that they are going to get the channels that they paid for?

E* is selling a product. If they decide that they are not going to offer the product I want to purchase, why should I continue to spend money with them?

Temporarily removing a feed is not deciding not to offering the feed. For all you know the channels could be restored Friday or later Thursday. To make a snap decision due to to a temporary outage is ... well I've already said the word. :D

If you're really ticked, ask for a refund. Figure out how many channels in your package were cut, pro-rate the based on total number of channels and number of days lost. THATS how much you are paying for those channels. Include all channels in the package, not just your pet favorites - since on a daily basis you are paying for ALL channels in your package not just your favorites.

Feel free to cancel for any reason you choose. But to cancel for a temporary outage is ... stupid.

JL

[ehren]

I think $10.00 credit a month is about right.

[James Long]

I think $10.00 credit a month is about right.
Sound's like the math the IRS uses to claim taxes. :lol:

JL

[Kevin]

How many of your guys are switching tomorrow? Just want to get a pulse on the situation. I think I will switch tomorrow if this happens.
You guys are overreacting. Do you think that Charlie will allow DOZENS of popular channels to be dropped? No. It would be absolutely ridiculous of Charlie to pull such a folly on his customers. I can see the reasoning behind the dropping of ESPN Classic a while back, but DOZENS of channels being dropped simultaneously? Nah...chill out fellas. :)

[FTA Michael]

Plus there's the coincidence of this hitting at the annual rate hike.

What makes more sense, using ultimately successful negotiations as an excuse for the predetermined rate increase, or having to tell subs, "Your rates went up, but the good news is we got rid of those pesky Viacom channels."?

Not to mention, if the Viacom channels go, would that drop the E* channel count below 60/120/180? ;)

[willy]

GUYS-

The last thing E* wants is to lose these channels. They admitted in a news article that it would be "irrepairable". Every damn conspiracy theorist is thinking "Charlie might drop these channels, and increase our rates."

The rate increase has to do with INFLATION, and nothing with the Viacom deal-- it isnt even through negotiations, so how can they use that as a reason. The bottom line is the company has to answer to shareholders. Period. And when costs to provide the service increase, so do rates, or the company can suffer.

They are trying to *LOWER* costs. This isnt E* holding out for a lower price. They are apparently getting bullied into buying more channels when they just want to renew locals in certain markets.

And to say "Oh I think $10 a month is fair". Well assuming you have the AT150(AT180), that works out mathematically if they remove 42 channels that are available to you specifically. Far from it bud.

[screamingmonkey]

If E* dropped these channels (and I don't think they are that stupid) not only will I drop them but I will file a complaint with the State Attorney Generals office for false and deceptive advertising, since they advertised that these channels are available, and I subscribed because of those channels being available. It is a valid complaint, especially if they don't give people notice that they are removing them (the cable company always gave 30 days notice of removing a channel).

I know some people claim it is foolish to drop the service becuase of a brief removal of a channel, but no, it isn't. If Echostar does not care enough about their customers that they are willing to use them as pawns, then screw 'em.

[willy]

SIGH--- I agree with 80% of what you say.

Do you have a right to switch? YES- and I probably will too *if* the channels are dropped.

I know some people claim it is foolish to drop the service becuase of a brief removal of a channel, but no, it isn't. If Echostar does not care enough about their customers that they are willing to use them as pawns, then screw 'em
Huh? Did you read my post? What makes you think you are being treated like a pawn? Read the Reuters article on the lawsuit announcement last night. Echostar refuses to be bullied into BUYING ADDITIONAL CHANNELS, when it is only trying to renew ones it carries currently. Trying to save you money is apparently "treating you like a pawn", and shows they "dont care about your customers".

You *should* move to cable. A company tries to make a smart deal and not get bullied into spending more $$, and you get upset at them for that. I really dont get it.

[RAD]

Echostar refuses to be bullied into BUYING ADDITIONAL CHANNELS, when it is only trying to renew ones it carries currently. Trying to save you money is apparently "treating you like a pawn", and shows they "dont care about your customers".


Now they know how their customers feel where all we want is a specific channel but we have to pay for a bunch of others we don't want.

[willy]

Now they know how their customers feel where all we want is a specific channel but we have to pay for a bunch of others we don't want.
Yep, you are right. They should change thier policy and get a list from RAD on what channels he wants, and stop feeding all other channels through to america. ;)

You have to make everyone happy... there will always be channels that folks dont want.

[screamingmonkey]

Huh? Did you read my post? What makes you think you are being treated like a pawn?

Because they are threatening to drop channels we already have in order to renew rights to OTHER channels. Threatenind Viacom with "we will drop your channels - screw you" at the expense of the Dish subs is using me as a pawn. Negotiate away, but don't threaten to drop the channels, like they always do, which punishes the subs as much as the provider. I returned as a Dish sub after being on cable for a year BECAUSE of some of the MTV Network channels (Noggin as an example) that my cable provider was not offering at the time.

This isn't about the Viacom channels, per se, it is about renewing the CBC O&O channels at a fair price. Our cable company ASKED the subs whether to renew a channel at a higher rate, or remove it from the system. Dish thinks I would want to lose a BUNCH of Viacom channels rather than pay a higher rate. I do not want rates to go up, but if they have to in order to keep the channels I already have, then so be it. I already pay more because of some channels I don't watch (ESPN). I would mind the NickToons channel, so if they add, they add it. I really hope they do, my kids would love it.

Anyway, I think people have jumped to conclusions on this whole matter. Nowhere I have seen a report that Dish is considering removing the MTV Network channels, only the CBS O&O's.

[willy]

You are mistaken.

The lawsuit press release says DISH is trying to negotiate renewal of CBS locals, and Viacom wont renew then unless E* buys new channels along with the renew.

So, E* isnt threatening anything. Its more like they CANT renew what they have without buying more, and they refuse to just be bullied into spending more $$. Do you agree?

Here's the direct quote:
In its lawsuit, EchoStar said Viacom had insisted in negotiations that any deal for rights to the local CBS affiliates must include arrangements for Viacom-owned cable networks, including a new offering, Nicktoons.


And this quote below sounds more like its VIACOM that is threatening removing the channels, NOT Echostar:
In a lawsuit filed with a federal court in San Francisco, EchoStar said Viacom, which owns the top-rated CBS broadcast network, had threatened to withdraw rebroadcast rights for CBS stations in 15 major cities as of Wednesday.
Nowhere do I see that E* is planning on pulling ALL Viacom channels because of this dispute. Again, I fail to see what E* is doing wrong in your opinion. If you were Charlie.. What *exactly* would you see as the solution? Succumb to the Viacom bullying and buy more channels that you dont want (== another rate hike)? Or try to negotiate more? Or file a lawsuit for unfair trade like he has?

[Geronimo]

Well you are going to switch providers a lot. My local cable company has problems from time to time as well. Do does D*. But if you want to keep switching ----go ahead.

[greggg]

I don't think anyone is leaving due to a brief outage, but the more it looks like it is permanent, I and I am sure many thousands would leave.

[willy]

I think E* agrees:

By contrast, EchoStar argued that it would suffer an "irreparable loss" if 1.6 million of its subscribers in cities such as San Francisco lost access to popular CBS programming because of the contract dispute.

[SParker]

Well I think I am going to switch when the HD Tivo comes out and I would be a new sub to DTV so I should get a nice deal on it. It just looks like a better piece of equipment than the 921. I still want to see some more info on the HD Tivo however. I would of switched today and got a DTivo if these stations would of been gone and paid the full price for the HD Tivo later. I have been with E* for almost 5 years now. It is nothing personal I just think it is time to go over to D* and get in on the Tivo features like season pass etc.

[greggg]

I live in a Chicago suburb and am already planning a superbowl party. Chicago is a huge football town. Before anybody calls me a moron for thinking E* would let the superbowl go, I agree it won't happen. The post before me is excellent though. E* can't tell its customers about all the wonderful alternatives to CBS on the one hand and on the other argue in court about how many customers they would lose if CBS went away.

[Chris Walker]

It is nothing personal I just think it is time to go over to D* and get in on the Tivo features like season pass etc.

I've had Tivo and now have 2 508's, the "season pass" type features that Tivo users go on and on about are worthless IMO. I actually like my 508 MUCH more as a pure PVR than my Tivo, the reciever itself is FAR better.

[RAD]

I got a pair of Replay's to replace the 508 and 501 I had with Dish. I can say that the name based recording is something that Dish should get. My wife is an ice skating nut and when the season came along was always bugging me about recording this or that and got mad if something got messed up. No I just have the Replay record any new show that has ice skating and wham, she's a happy camper. She's found shows that she didn't know that they were on.

[James Long]

Echostar refuses to be bullied into BUYING ADDITIONAL CHANNELS, when it is only trying to renew ones it carries currently.
One of those channels they are being bullied into carrying is NickToons, which is a long standing request (it has even come up on Charlie Chats). They keep saying that they are "in negotiations". Apparently in this case, they are negotiating NOT to have this channel.

Saying "carry our locals" to have any chance of renewing cable channels is wrong, but E* has made plenty of deals that require one channel to get another they want.

And yes, E* did give notice on December's Charlie Chat repeated throughout the month that Viacom channels were coming up for renewal and *MAY* be pulled if a deal wasn't met. Evidently he didn't believe it to be a major issue since he spent so much more time on Time Warner's "Turner" channels. It looks like Charlie was wrong.

If talks fall through Viacom will pull the locals and E* will have no choice to stop airing channels they no longer have a right to air. Only channels remaining under contract could be carried. The "cable" channels are only authorized until the end of the contract (December 31st). Any airing without an extension would be illegal. E*'s hands are tied. They MUST have a contract to carry any Viacom station.

JL

[BobMurdoch]

Look for Charlie to trash Viacom on Monday's Charlie Chat. Hey, the best thing he can do is tell the truth and put all his cards out. In the end I think he will cave and carry Nicktoons, but he will finagle a way to get them cheaper than Viacom wants as they reach some midnight deal.

I remember a few years ago when Time Warner in new York tried dumping ABC when they tried a similar stunt. In that situation, Time Warner was painted as the villain as they yanked the channel during sweeps month in May when ABC was offering a three week negotiating period which would have pushed the negotiations into the summer when reruns would have been on and it would have been less painful in the ratings. It also would have reduced Time Warner's leverage.

E* needs to get out in front of this and show the details to as many people as possible. If Nicktoons is going to cost $1 a month per subscriber than it may be something Charlie can elicit sympathy for trying to block.

Either way, I see Viacom getting their way and the new channel being added. The $ involved are probably the last holdup.

Charlie has zero friends in Congress so I wouldn't look in that direction for any relief. (He doesn't spread money around Rupert does, so look to the rejection of his takeover bid for evidence of how Washington deals with people who don't play ball. Bill Gates learned this lesson the hard way too).

[FTA Michael]

E* needs to get out in front of this and show the details to as many people as possible. If Nicktoons is going to cost $1 a month per subscriber than it may be something Charlie can elicit sympathy for trying to block.But what if Nicktoons is more like $0.10/month, and Charlie just doesn't want to carry the channel because he'd rather use the space for a +$0.25/month shopping/PPV/bingo channel?

[James Long]

At this point ANY channel addition would have to be carefully measured. It sounds like BingoTV is an income channel that will only need to be full channel video during the games on Wednesday night. At other times that bandwidth can be used for E*'s internal use, with a slate put up for 104.

A *LOT* of shuffling on 110 would empty a transponder for two HD channels, but at this point the only extra income that would bring would be subs that would be more likely to buy the HD pack if it were 5 channels instead of 4 or who don't subscribe to HBO/SHO or want another HD movie option (other than PPV).

NickToons and the others would probably be popular in their nitch ... but would that transponder space be better used for something else? A hard question.

The only other option is to make other channels suffer by increasing compression or reducing FEC. Squeezing more channels on transponders is hazardous. PQ is a bigger issue than lack of channels.

It's a game. Hopefully E* plays well.

JL

[Mike123abc]

The problem is that it is not just a "nicktoons" issue... These large media companies like Viacom, Disney, Time Warner all have lots of channels they want to force cable/DBS providers to carry, and carry in the broadest possible package. If every provider had its way all their channels would be in AT50/60.

Dish/DIRECTV/cable companies all fight to get the packages at the lowest possible prices and carry only the channels they want to carry. Dish appears to fight a bit harder, it looks like DIRECTV gave in, or saw value in the channel.

[Mark Holtz]

(sigh) Where is Dish going to get the extra bandwidth from? If push comes to shove, the channels that will be dropped will be the PPV channels, not the home shopping zone channels.

I think that everyone has been rallying for "Good Life TV". I have been on a personal crusade to get "International Channel" and "C-SPAN 3" as well as YesterdayUSA radio.

But ultimately, the problem is that whatever channel gets added, there will be a niche audience. Once those channels are on, people will scream and moan if they are taken off. Heck, there are people still PO-ed that Dish elected not to carry YE$ network.

Unfortunately, as the system stands, we can't vote channels off our TV island, only remove them from our favorites lists.

[James Long]

(sigh) Where is Dish going to get the extra bandwidth from? If push comes to shove, the channels that will be dropped will be the PPV channels
I believe that will be the answer, especially since PPVs are assigned more bandwidth than the average channel. I wonder how much E* will lose when they have to give up a couple of "theatres" of showtimes?

Tonight my EPG shows they have Sinbad on two channels, a Jim Carrey double feature, four channels of Bruce Almighty, three channels of Lora Croft, three chanels of Terminator 3, four channels of Nemo, four channels of X-Men, and eleven more single channel movies, plus 539 ES-PPV. (I have 61.5, which explains some of the extra channels.) Plus there are the sports PPVs which seem to be half empty (or half full). 20 channels showing seven movies plus 11 channels showing one movie each? They will probably have to scale back to two airings of each movie, and only do a third if it is letterboxed. That would give them more space.

But would it hurt their income? A two hour movie block starting every hour on two different channels? Longer movies would break that plan. Would E* make less on PPV if they had to reduce the frequency of airing?

All part of the math that E* has to do.

JL

[BobMurdoch]

In four years, I've bought two PPV events.... A Destiny's Child concert and The Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

Kill a few PPV channels to make room if you have to.