1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Charlie says no to YES

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by tsmacro, Aug 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. goaliebob99

    goaliebob99 Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    Jan 29, 2005
    actually dish does... its called starband.... and dish is moving from that adventure to its own internet service under the dish logo..
  2. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    Apr 28, 2005
    I thought starband died years ago. The only thing they mention on their website is the Earthlink deal.
  3. Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    Apr 16, 2002
    .. and to Drugs as well.... :)
  4. dishjoe

    dishjoe Cool Member

    Feb 28, 2005
    Charlie its been 4 years...haven't you waited long enough. For the love of God please add the damn Yes Network already....dammit..... :mad:

    Also please add the NFL network... the NFL season is just around the corner...

    thank you....
  5. Slamminc11

    Slamminc11 Hall Of Fame

    Jan 27, 2005
    For the love of all that is lavendar Charlie, don't give in. Whatever you do, don't give in for the sake of the other 11.395 million of your customers who couldn't care less about YES and those damn yankees and George Steinbrenner!!!!!!
  6. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    Apr 24, 2002
    Amen. If this deal was blown up for the rest of the world to see, it would raise such a stink that a few congressmen might take up the mantle and force George to accept such a deal. MLB should force them to cut a deal as it hurts their Extra Innings package when E* can't offer it. (Although the rest of country usually sees the game via the other team's braodcast, anyone in the New York market sees a blackout unless it is on free OTA TV).

    Hmmm. I'll give up valuable bandwidth, collect the money, and give you 100% of the revenue. You're right, Charlie is a jerk! Huh?
  7. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 1, 2004
    You are assuming that DVDDAD was correct in his assesment of the deal that was offered. Nobody, except the actual parties to the deal know what transpired.

    As much as I hate Herr Steinbrenner, and what he has done to F up baseball, I can't imagine him turning down revenue like that. Has anybody considered the possibility that he doesn't want to work a different deal with Charlie than the others is because Congress, or whomever, might consider that an unfair practice?

    Charlie should go along with the deal that everybody is getting. Yes, he should jump off the Brooklyn Bridge because everybody else is doing it, because in this case, nobody is getting hurt. (except, perhaps, for Charlie's paw wittle ego.)
  8. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 1, 2004
    Somehow, I think you'd change your (show)tune, if it were LOGO we were talking about.
  9. Charise

    Charise AllStar/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jan 25, 2004
    I don't agree with Gary--I don't want "Yes" under any plan where I have to pay anything for it.
  10. garypen

    garypen Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Feb 1, 2004
    The dictionary defines that as "wrong".
  11. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    Apr 28, 2005

    No one gets hurt except the subscribers who'll have to pay more. And yeah maybe Charlie's ego some too, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Now if we could just find a way to deflate Charlie's and George's ego's both a notch or two, that would be worth paying for!
  12. Slamminc11

    Slamminc11 Hall Of Fame

    Jan 27, 2005
    Gary, as much as I wish Dish would carry Logo, I haven't jumped ship and gone to Direct who has it, comcast who has it, or any of the other providers who are now carrying it. I've not called for Charlie's head on a platter because they haven't offered it, nor have I retorted to calling the people at Dish names (though I have a great repertoire if I ever needed them) for not carrying it. Am I passionate about wanting it? Yes! Am I leaving for the other guys because its not here, no. (okay, I did consider it for about 23 or so minutes when it first "came out")
    Neither would I want it if I had to pay extra for it. I don't watch HERE-TV for that very reason.
  13. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC

    I wonder if we could get a show of hands... How many of the "I want Yes to be added to a basic package" people are also in the "I don't want to pay for channels I don't watch" column?

    Think about it...
  14. DVDDAD

    DVDDAD Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    Dec 21, 2002
    I wasn't privy to the negotiations, however that is what Charlie said about the negotiations himself, during a Charlie Chat. Now, one can argue that Charlie wasn't telling the truth when he said that, but not telling the truth about the negotiations would have left him open to a law suit from YES and Steinbrenner. I believe Charlie was telling the truth. If you don't like the fact that E* doesn't carry the YES channel, take Charlie's advice and get Cablevision or DirecTV. That's what I will do, if I can't get the Met's new channel on Dish when it launches.
  15. matty8199

    matty8199 Icon

    Dec 4, 2005
    You are WAY WAY WAY off on this. The reason CSN Philly isn't available to D* or E* is because Comcast ONLY distributes the signal by landline/microwave. Since their signal isn't distributed by satellite, they're under no legal obligation to offer their signal to DBS providers - and why would they? They use that as leverage to keep millions of people in the Philadelphia area (where Comcast is pretty much the only cable system available to most people) from switching to satellite, since they wouldn't be able to see their local teams if they did so. If Comcast ever made CSN Philly available to D* and/or E*, they'd have a mass exodus of customers and lose a ton of money in the process.

    Until the law is changed, you will NEVER see CSN Philly on satellite.
  16. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    May 14, 2003
    NO to YES!!!!!

    My service is expensive enough as it is. It sucks that so much sports is crammed down our throats and bundled together in the AT (insert your package here). It is high time that all sports was removed from the AT packages and offered as a pay per view option or sports only package. There is enough sports on broadcast television no reason to hold the rest of us hostage.
  17. Hound

    Hound Icon

    Mar 20, 2005
    All channels carrying professional sports including ESPN should be a la carte by law
    and available to any subscriber, no matter who is the provider.
    However, it will take either Congress or the FCC to mandate this. Subscribers to
    pay TV (cable or satellite) are saddled with a "sports tax" and are contributing to
    multimillion dollar athlete salaries. The "sports tax" is the requirement of ESPN and
    various regional sports networks that the channel be carried in a basic package.
    This has to stop. This is the reason why athlete salaries have ballooned.
    Comcast through its vertical integration is the most egregious provider of
    sports programming. Comcast buys sports programming and provides it to its
    own cable customers and then gives their own cable customers less programming
    (less channels) from non Comcast sources and charges their cable customer generally more than other satellite providers and competing cable systems. Comcast then withholds the sports programming from other providers, unless the sports programming is placed in a certain tier, so Comcast can collect a monthly fee
    from most of the other providers' subscribers. In the case of Philly CSN, Comcast
    found a loophole to withhold it from satellite providers. Write to the FCC, your
    senator or congressman and complain.
  18. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    Apr 24, 2002
    What they need to do is come up with some loophole to allow Extra Innings subscribers to see the games. MLB has to find a way to override the impasse. If the Mets go dark this year as well...... they will have no local baseball allowed in the NY/NJ/CT/PA areas they claim.

    However, my gut feeling is that the Mets will cut a deal. They need ot help pay off the new salaries they added and leaving a million customers in the NYC market offline is not the way to help get their network profitable as quickly as possible. The Mets do not have the same cache as the Yankees (yet thankfully, they also don't have the ego or sense of entitlement that Steingrabber has). The next discussion should be with MSG/FSNY to find a way to mewrge these channels which are shells of their former selves....
  19. UTFAN

    UTFAN Legend

    Nov 11, 2005
    Chas and company offered YES to come on, and keep all the money they could collect. But Steinbrenner wanted the rest of us who don't give a hoot in hell about the Yankees (or pro baseball for that matter) to pay.

    In otherwords, Steinbrenner, when challenged, didn't believe in his own product. I have no grudge against Steinbrenner, except when he sticks his hands in my wallet.

    So thanks Chas, for saying a huge NO to YES!

  20. Michael P

    Michael P Hall Of Fame

    Oct 27, 2004
    The new "Family Pak" is a way out of paying ESPN. A similar situation was mentioned on another thread where I believe Time Warner Cable is starting a digital teir sans any sports networks or networks that include sports even part time (such as F/X).

    It's not just Charlie fighting the programmers!

    Someone mentioned MASN as not being carried on E*. If memory serves me correctly, the MASN games are carried on an ALT channel, since MASN is not yet a 24 hour operation.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page