Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Dish Still Plans To Drop ABC Family In 4 Days


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 07:15 PM


www.tvinsite.com/index.as...articleID=


...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 07:30 PM


EchoStar stated that any loyal ABC Family viewers could switch video services to continue to receive the programming.


Thats exactly what cable companies want to hear.

Steve



#3 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 07:33 PM


Of course folks should remember that Charlie wants to buy the other service. And I heard the other day that DirecTV was thinking of dropping Family as well.

No company should EVER tell ANY customer if they dont like sometime to go to another company. I see this as the start of a major downfall for Dish Network.

I hope his comments come back and bite him in the butt and the merger does not go through.

Scott


#4 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 07:54 PM


Charlie has always used that "If you want the sports packages, then go to DirecTV". So..this is nothing new for me to hear this new "If you want ABC Family, go somewheres else". Imagine this scenario:

You love ABC Family. You love to watch Garfield and Friends. However, Dish drops the channel. Where would you go?? Where would you go??

You think: "Gee, I'll Go to DirecTV. They seem never to drop channels. I'll like them so much". Then...you hear the news from Geraldo Riveria on FOX News from Pakistan: "By the way nothings happening here, so I'll report the news. DirecTV has decided to drop Disney's ABC Family on January 1st because they can do it. By the way, I'm a good reporter. You'll Like Me...You'll Really Really Like Me......"

You wonder....where would I go?? Both DBS providers are gonna not have my favorite channel. I'll go to cable. Yeah, they have my favorite 34 radar channels and I love my rates going up 34 times a year.

Then...the shocker:

You read that Time Warner Cable has decided to drop the channel as well. Now you really act really weird and come to the conclusion: Go next door and stalk the neighbors 24 hours a day hoping that they will watch ABC family on their BUD and probably get slapped with a big Restraining Order (a bigger one if its from David Letterman); get a BUD yourself; hope that somebody reconsiders; or never watch the channel again.

There is another option to this scenario that most people forget to consider:

You can always tune to another channel.

Why go through so such just for one channel?? There are other channels out there besides ABC Family.


#5 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 08:14 PM


Brian you don't seem to get it. What other channel is there like ESPN Classic? There isn't one. What other channel is there like ABC Family? Some similar admittedly. What about Fox Sports? Oh we'll still have Rainbow but for how long and if and when that goes will they replace it.

This isn't about ONE channel. This isn't about the fact the Chuck's public reasoning for dropping ABC Family are complete fabrications.

What it IS about is a company that is out to wage a public battle against companies it has a rift with. What this IS about is the loss of channels without seeing even a penny less in programming fees but instead INCREASES. What this is also about is forcing the entirety of Dish subscribers to do what he's always accused DTV of doing ie everyone paying for expensive packages like NFLST...of course in this case it's everyone paying for locals while losing channels of value.

You mention price increases?! LOL Like Dish Network hasn't been guilty of that either. What's more they sure are all about getting people to invest in more hardware aren't they.

Time Warner isn't the only cable company out there and they certainly aren't the best(former subscriber here as well as Charter and a couple smaller ones eventually purchased by them).

Regardless this isn't about ONE channel. We lose two good channels and a bunch of sports channels and we seem to be talking about SEVERAL channels not just one. My gut feeling is that there will be more losses to come and he certainly said nothing to contradict that feeling during his last chat. Lemme guess man it won't be until he cuts something that YOU value that the loss of channels becomes and issue for you. J


#6 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 28 December 2001 - 08:29 PM


The problem here is that Charlie is just dropping the channel because he don't like and (and does not seem to like Disney eaither)

When he first stated he was dropping the channel he said it was due to low raitings (Family is the 13th ranked Cable Channel, 13 out of 150 is really good)

Then he changed his tune to say that ABC wanted to much money for the channel, then we find out that ABC is not changing the rates for Family as DIsh has a really long contract with Family.

So now Charlie is saying hes dropping it because the channel has had to many owners.

What kind of crap is that?

ABC family looks like it will be adding some good stuff, such as Drew Careys Whos Line Is It Anyways, this channel looks like it is gonna be picking up.

Of course if you read the Multichannel news story then mention that they will continue to guage the channel content and the consumer demand and may add it back then. Meaning that if they drop it and then re add it you can bet it will cost them more money as there will be a new contract for the channel.

Scott


#7 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 02:31 AM


When he first stated he was dropping the channel he said it was due to low raitings (Family is the 13th ranked Cable Channel, 13 out of 150 is really good)

What were they rated when they used to be CBN/Family Channel?
What were they rated when they became Fox Family?

I could be wron, but I think they are 13th now in distribution (number of POTENTIAL viewers) now, not ratings (Number if real honest to goodness viewers).

Then he changed his tune to say that ABC wanted to much money for the channel, then we find out that ABC is not changing the rates for Family as DIsh has a really long contract with Family.

Charlie has ALWAYS mentioned both the ratings AND the money at the same time. Each time I have seen or read comments from him, they are number 1 and number two reasons.

Also, please point to me where in that contract it says that the channel cannot raise its rate X amount? I'm sure you can't because it's not for public consumption. Dish has a long term contract with ESPN too, but the rates went up on this channel 20% two years in a row!

So now Charlie is saying hes dropping it because the channel has had to many owners.

Now you're just making things up yourself! What he did say is that the channel now is not the channel he has a contract for. (And that is the truth!--CBS/Family was nothing like the current channel). He tried to cancel the contract soon after Fox bought the channel (When Fox began to run it into the ground). The problem according to the court ruling preventing him from dropping then Fox Family was that he waited too long after the channel changed hands.

Jump forward a few years, ABC buys the channel and Charlie STILL wants to drop the channel. If the previous court ruling was that he waited too long, they will have to come up with something else this time!

Scott, I know you're mad at Charlie. He cam to your house and did something really nasty in your breakfast one day for some unknown reason. And you've had it in for him since! :) But consider this: DirecTV, Time Warner Cable and several smaller cable concerns have announced their intention to drop the channel for THE SAME REASONS! Are they all under Charlie's evil influence? Or maybe there's something to it? You decide! :)

See ya
Tony


#8 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 08:22 AM


Tony,

Please see the following thread which explains it better then I do. :D Look for the post from logandraven.

pub92.ezboard.com/fxsnews...=357.topic

Happy New Year!

Scott


#9 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 09:13 AM


Quote: "Please see the following thread which explains it better then I do."

Just because idle speculation gets posted in more than one place doesn't make it anything more than idle speculation.

From the statement cited: "So we see that ABC Family was tied for 13th in viewership at last check which contradicts Chuck's comments entirely."

Actually, 13th place is nothing to brag about considering that it is one of the widest carried channels on cable. That is NOT a good rating. I am certain that it was much higher when the contract to carry the channel was signed well before Fox drove it into the ground.

Again quoting the citation: "We have no mention by him previous to these court filings that he felt they were being charged to much for the channel. As I recall he DID say that about ESPN/Classic."

He stated several times on dealer chats that the channel was no longer worth what he was paying after the Fox buy and revamp (destruction). He attempted to drop the channel when Fox radically changed it after purchasing the channel. He was stopped by the courts at that time because he didn't drop it soon enough after the Fox purchase. Due to the ownership change, he is free to drop it now or be locked into the existing contract until late 2005 under terms agreed to when it was a totally different channel.

A Disney statement from this article: www.forbes.com/newswire/2...66732.html

"Even with the additional 250 local channels EchoStar intends to add January 1, 2002, EchoStar has far more capacity (almost 1,000 channels) on its system than the approximately 700 capacity it claims it needs," Disney said in its filing."

And you think picture quality has gone down now!! Disney is stating that Dish can add 300 more channels AFTER adding must carry as things stand TODAY.


#10 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 12:24 PM


I gotta go to work, time is short, so hitting two posts at once.

I for one couldn't begin to tell you what a channel was rated a year ago, two years ago, or five years ago. I would find it hard to believe that they could've been rated all that much higher and as we've seen from channels like TNN programming can and does change which can and does improve viewership.

As for the number of VIEWERS you would be wrong at least so much as the rating put forth by bigpipe were concerned.

Hitting a 2nd post here....13th isn't bad at all! Look at some of the lower rated channels below them...hell drop down to 50th and you'll see that we have a lot of crap channels that could and likely should be dropped long before ABC Family. I suggest checking out the rankings and looking at the carriage before making such broad statements.

Charlie may "ALWAYS" mention both money and ratings at the same time BUT he damn sure didn't do it in regards to ABC Family during his last chat. He specifically mentioned viewership(which is bogus) and when he DID speak about money he spoke about the ESPN charging 20% increases over the past THREE(recent articles claim 2) years.

Scott was right there IS a long term contract which E* is trying to weasel out of on the claims of a change in ownership. There hasn't been any mention of increased costs associated with that purchase. As for dealer chats I don't get them so can't cite them here.

I'm not disagreeing that money is one of the top 2 reasons. I believe that Charlie is angry over the yearly 20% price increases seen from ESPN and is essentially feeling that he's got a new set of balls since it is possible that he will be the head of what will become a monopoly in the dbs market. He is sending a clear message to companies that he will not be gouged and is willing to sacrifice lesser channels to make his point. I STILL DON'T AGREE WITH IT. Why? Because WE are the ones that lose.

Charlie has ALWAYS mentioned both the ratings AND the money at the same time. Each time I have seen or read comments from him, they are number 1 and number two reasons.

"Also, please point to me where in that contract it says that the channel cannot raise its rate X amount? I'm sure you can't because it's not for public consumption. Dish has a long term contract with ESPN too, but the rates went up on this channel 20% two years in a row!"

Yeah and we're hearing about it now! It was Charlie that signed the contracts wasn't it? While I may empathize with his position from time to time I find it extremely hard to tolerate his whining when it was he who made these deals. Not exactly good business to know from the outset what is going to happen and then cry foul years down the line is it.

Back to the Family Channel though....He is claiming three things as the reasons for wanting to dump the channel... low viewership, cost(according to court files), and a change in ownership. I wouldn't even attempt to cite the changes in programming because it's a weak arguement. If anything programming has improved and is going to continue to do so.

As for DTV, TWC, and several other companies considering dropping the channel.....Ever considered that THEY are tired of getting gouged by the same company for channels as well and may have decided to unite in this to send a joint message? Doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. As for DTV though would you expect them to sing a tune different than that provided by Chuck given the pending merger? LOL Not likely.

The following should concern everyone...
"Even with the additional 250 local channels EchoStar intends to add January 1, 2002, EchoStar has far more capacity (almost 1,000 channels) on its system than the approximately 700 capacity it claims it needs," Disney said in its filing."

And you think picture quality has gone down now!! Disney is stating that Dish can add 300 more channels AFTER adding must carry as things stand TODAY."

Yeah exactly. I realize that there are those out there that want locals. I don't however see it as a "make or break" against cable. DBS didn't grow quickly because of locals as their merits were most definitely in other areas. So now we are seeing 250 channels added(which btw Chuck never wanted but hey he's the one that opened the door right) we've seen PQ go down the toilet, buggy ass hardware, have to purchase equipment and pay higher fees across the board and for those channels specifically......And after all of that we have people defending this guys stance on dumping channels and supporting the merger.

My sincerest hope is that the merger doesn't go through, that Charlie's vision of DBS is not the sole vision, and that I don't ever have to say "I told you so" 8-) J





#11 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 08:36 PM


Wow!! People sure do get emotional about this stuff. Get a grip.

Quote: "13th isn't bad at all!"
I keep seeing this "13th" rating quoted here. I believe that it is probably close to correct, but where does this "statistic" come from? Post a URL so that I can verify. Is it the 13th most "watched" channel or the 13th most "carried" channel? There is a BIG difference.

Quote: "drop down to 50th and you'll see that we have a lot of crap channels that could and likely should be dropped long before ABC Family"
Many of the lower rated channels PAY to be carried rather than CHARGING to be carried. There is a big difference. If the people at Echostar (along with DTV and Time Warner) feel that due to changes to the channel it is no longer worth carrying for what is charged, they should drop it. This is precisely what they are doing. I am sure that they have looked at all the channels and found that this is one channel that is way out of wack for what it offers and the sale provides the chance to fix this.

Quote: "He specifically mentioned viewership(which is bogus)"
Why is it bogus? If viewership is dropping it is not bogus. Why are TW and DTV doing the same thing if it is bogus?

Quote: "Scott was right there IS a long term contract which E* is trying to weasel out of on the claims of a change in ownership."
The change in ownership clause is part of the contract, nothing weaseling about it at all. Dish tried to "weasel" out of the contract after TFC was sold to Fox and the changes FOx began making made it apparent that the channel would not remain what it was. The problem is, Dish waited too long in filing to drop the channel and so were stuck with it under the terms of the contract (and a court decision). Dropping it now is simply good business to avoid a similar situation.

Quote: "I'm not disagreeing that money is one of the top 2 reasons. I believe that Charlie is angry over the yearly 20% price increases seen from ESPN"
Since Dish tried to drop the channel when Fox bought it I don't think that ESPN really has anything to do with it (other than the added cost to programming that ESPN creates). I don't believe that this is a vendeta against Disney to get even for ESPN increases. History says differently. If Fox Family were sold to any other provider the result would have been the same.

Quote: "He is sending a clear message to companies that he will not be gouged and is willing to sacrifice lesser channels to make his point."
A GOOD thing.

Quote: "As for DTV, TWC, and several other companies considering dropping the channel.....Ever considered that THEY are tired of getting gouged by the same company for channels as well and may have decided to unite in this to send a joint message?"
It's a consperacy (I don't know if it is left or right wing though).

Quote: "As for DTV though would you expect them to sing a tune different than that provided by Chuck given the pending merger? LOL Not likely."
Actually, they HAVE to do what is good for DTV until all approvals are in and the deal is done. If they are taking their cues from Dish, they are opening themselves wide for a class action suit from the shareholders. I would say, it is VERY likely they would sing a different tune or sing out of tune if it is best for DTV. They have no choice in this matter.

Quote: "DBS didn't grow quickly because of locals as their merits were most definitely in other areas."
I would be willing to speculate that the growth of DBS has been much greater in areas where locals are offered if compared to those where they are not. I can stand firmly on this, being a Dish dealer in an area where DTV offers locals and Dish doesn't. DTV, since adding locals here, is basically killing Dish sales in this area BECAUSE of locals, even though Dish is more than holding their own on a national basis. PREDICTION!!: I predict that when all locals are carried in a market and this advantage is taken away from cable we will see a significant upturn in DBS growth rates.

Quote: "have to purchase equipment and pay higher fees across the board and for those channels specifically"
And WHERE did you hear that you will have to purchase equipment to receive locals? As I am sure you are aware, this is specifically prohibited and Dish has stated that you will not have to purchase any other equipment to get your locals if your locals are offered to you. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of statement puts everything else you say in a very suspect light. If you are going to try to debate this, get the emotions under control and stick to FACTS. There is no need for fabrication.

GO MERGER!!


#12 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 10:02 PM


Ok I did some research tonight on this.

Lets follow this trail.

It all started on the late november Retailer Charlie Chat when Charlie said...

Dropping FOX Family/ABC Family..."We don't intend to renew this channel based on falling ratings and our inability to come to an agreement with Disney on this particular channel. So we've given notice that on 12/31, we will take this channel off of the air."
-Dropping ESPN Classic..."Our contract is up and we don't intend to renew that contract. ESPN has raised thier rates 20% for the last 3 years and ESPN Classic is another costly channel for us, and we just want to keep our price increases as low as we possibly can...."
-"At this point in time these channels are scheduled to terminate on 12/31...we'll have announcements to our consumers on December 10th, on the next chat so that they are well aware of that."

These quotes were posted by KenB at www.dbsforums.com/ubb/For...00522.html

CABLEFAX reported the following on Nov 30, 2001 (CableFAX/PBI Media via COMTEX) -- EchoStar [DISH] CEO Charlie Ergen told folks on a recent online "Charlie Chat" that he intends to drop ABC Family because of low ratings. DISH said the remark wasn't written in stone, but that the change of ownership certainly puts their distribution contract up for re-negotiation. Family is already at the table with several cable ops (Cablevision [CVC], Charter [CHTR] and Mediacom [MCCC], according to several reports), which are none too thrilled with Bob Iger's intention to turn the 'Net into another ABC dumping ground. CableFAX, Vol. 12, No. 232


Then it was reported in the Multichannel News on 12/18/2001
www.tvinsite.com/index.as...articleID=

"If EchoStar drops ABC Family, the network will fall from the 11th most widely distributed ad-supported network to No. 22, the suit said."
"ABC Family has a 10-year affiliation deal with EchoStar's Dish Network -- a pact that expires in August 2005"

As far as the rainings go according to this post Family is ranked 13th out of all cable channels.

pub92.ezboard.com/fxsnews...=281.topic

Basic Ad-Supported Cable
11/26/01 - 12/02/01
Mon-Sun Prime (Wk 1)
Rank Net Rtg (000) Shr
1 ESPN 2.4 2,025 3.7
2 TNT 2.3 1,955 3.6
3 LIFE 2.0 1,690 3.1
4t TBS 1.6 1,375 2.5
4t TOON 1.6 1,270 2.5
6t NICK 1.4 1,221 2.2
6t USA 1.4 1,187 2.2
8 CNN 1.3 1,073 2.0
9t A&E 1.2 1,017 1.9
9t FOXN 1.2 925 1.9
11 DISC 1.1 903 1.6
12 TNN 1.0 825 1.5
13t FAM 0.9 746 1.4
13t TLC 0.9 724 1.4
13t SOAP 0.9 160 1.3
16t AMC 0.8 659 1.3

Then the Multichannel News reported the following at www.tvinsite.com/multicha...eakingNews

Schwimmer insisted that EchoStar’s intent was not to negotiate a better price for the channel, but to drop it due to its multiple changes in ownership over the past five years.

In its legal filings Thursday, EchoStar stated that any loyal ABC Family viewers could switch video services to continue to receive the programming.

Multichannel news also reported the following....
www.tvinsite.com/multicha...rchResults

ABC Family, which has a 10-year affiliation deal with EchoStar's Dish Network — a pact that expires in August 2005 — claimed in the suit that the DBS company wants to drop it due to a ratings decline, the need for channel space to comply with must-carry obligations, and to get lower license fees.

Now as far as DirecTV thinking about dropping ABC family this quote is taken from the same above article.

While DirecTV executives would not comment, sources close to the situation said the DBS provider is seriously considering pulling the plug on the revamped service, citing the network's change of ownership.

Then in a press release issued this weekend Dish reported the following...

Because of what it contends are spectrum capacity constraints, EchoStar has told consumers it would drop channels to comply with federal ``must-carry'' rules requiring satellite companies to carry programming from all local broadcast stations in areas where they carry at least one station. from biz.yahoo.com/rf/011228/n28175553_3.html


Then there was this statement from Mark Lumpkin of Dish Network taken from www.tvinsite.com/multicha...rchResults

'Its [ABC Family] pricing has not gone down, and yet its ratings have fallen,' Lumpkin said.

So if you research this like I did you will see all the misinformation going around on why Dish is dropping ABC Family.

Is it due to the price? Some quotes indicate this (even though there is a contract in effect till 2005)

Is it because of too many owners?

Is it because of must carry?

Is it because of poor ratings?

Dish Network has not had a definae reason for the dropping of this channel. Much of the outrage from folks like me is not that they are dropping the channel, but the spokespeople for Dish (Charlie included) have not stuck to their story on why the channel is being dropped.

These various explanations on why ABC Family is being dropped should show folks how poorly managed Dish Network really is. It really is too bad Dish was a stellar company up untill the start of 2001 then things went downhill from there.

Scott





#13 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 29 December 2001 - 10:53 PM


First of all let me thank Scott for not only keeping up on three different forums worth of information(God knows that's not easy!) but for also going out and doing the hoof work to substantiate all of what's been put forth by so many including myself.

Now to the address the other post.....

"Wow!! People sure do get emotional about this stuff. Get a grip."

Emotional? Not likely. A bit frustrated that a lot of people talk and talk and talk yet don't do any of their homework yes. Pick holes in peoples posts while not reading them all the way through as well as taking cheap shots at them personally is annoying as well 8-)

"I keep seeing this "13th" rating quoted here. I believe that it is probably close to correct, but where does this "statistic" come from? Post a URL so that I can verify. Is it the 13th most "watched" channel or the 13th most "carried" channel? There is a BIG difference."

See my comments above and then see Scott's last post. Aside from that I have posted the url to that very link not once but twice thank you.

"Why is it bogus? If viewership is dropping it is not bogus. Why are TW and DTV doing the same thing if it is bogus?"

Because if you believe that statistics that have been provided then it's pretty clear that the channel is doing just fine collectively. I can't make you believe something that you don't want to believe so statistics or no statistics I doubt it will make a difference. As for why TWC and DTV might be doing the same thing read my last post.

"The change in ownership clause is part of the contract, nothing weaseling about it at all. Dish tried to "weasel" out of the contract after TFC was sold to Fox and the changes FOx began making made it apparent that the channel would not remain what it was. The problem is, Dish waited too long in filing to drop the channel and so were stuck with it under the terms of the contract (and a court decision). Dropping it now is simply good business to avoid a similar situation."

We will simply have to agree to disagree here. My perception (Note MY perception not yours) is that E* was looking for an excuse to dump the channel to make a point. Aside from that they got the added bonus of freeing up some space for locals. Dropping it now, or at all for that matter, is NOT a good business decision, it is a poor one. It is a channel that by statistics is highly watched and is valued by a great many. Dumping it for less than credible reasons that are so easily seen through is quite simply a stupid business decision.

"Since Dish tried to drop the channel when Fox bought it I don't think that ESPN really has anything to do with it (other than the added cost to programming that ESPN creates). I don't believe that this is a vendeta against Disney to get even for ESPN increases. History says differently. If Fox Family were sold to any other provider the result would have been the same."

Again we'll have to agree to disagree. But since you bring up "History" then I think "History" dictates that Charlie has had problems with Murdoch/Fox for some time and has also had problems with Disney. At some point even for the purposefully deaf, dumb, and blind, the fact that two successful channels owned by Disney and a group of Fox Sports channels ending up on the chopping block has to be more than coincidence.

"A GOOD thing."

No actually it's not. WE, the subscribers, lose programming. WE, the subscribers, don't get replacement programming. Again WE, the subscribers, don't get a subscription reduction.

Aside from that we could come to a point where companies tire of Charlie's complaining and public lambasting of them and simply say "Screw you Chuck we'll cater to cable subscribers" take their programming with them and eventually cost a potentially merged single dbs company subscribers in the process. Numbers bub are everything and even with a merged company they don't have the numbers that cable provides.

"It's a consperacy (I don't know if it is left or right wing though)."

I never said it was a conspiracy but there have been companies that have agreed to team up against others since business began. How about a good many pc companies doing so against MS, how about DTV and a good many retailers.

"Actually, they HAVE to do what is good for DTV until all approvals are in and the deal is done. If they are taking their cues from Dish, they are opening themselves wide for a class action suit from the shareholders. I would say, it is VERY likely they would sing a different tune or sing out of tune if it is best for DTV. They have no choice in this matter."

LOL If you say so.

"PREDICTION!!: I predict that when all locals are carried in a market and this advantage is taken away from cable we will see a significant upturn in DBS growth rates."

It's possible.

"And WHERE did you hear that you will have to purchase equipment to receive locals? As I am sure you are aware, this is specifically prohibited and Dish has stated that you will not have to purchase any other equipment to get your locals if your locals are offered to you. The fact that you have to resort to this kind of statement puts everything else you say in a very suspect light. If you are going to try to debate this, get the emotions under control and stick to FACTS. There is no need for fabrication."

You know it's pretty clear that you've chosen to debate most of this without the "FACTS". Being a retailer as you claim I would've expected you to have a better understanding of things. Anyway since you've been such an ass about all of this, have chosen to put everything I say in a "suspect light", lol and then have the audacity to accuse me of not providing "FACTS" or indeed fabricating information....then here....

www.dishnetwork.com/conte...ndex.shtml

But since you are too lazy to do your homework I'll quote from the page....

"Promotions!

Your local networks are available on our DISH 500 system."

Further.....

www.dishnetwork.com/searc.../index.asp

The last page straight up tells people that a DISH 500 is required.

What part of people _have_ to purchase a DISH 500 dish in order to obtain locals do you not grasp? I don't know about you but I consider that a requirement to which one would _have_ to buy additional equipment in order to obtain them. Although I do suppose that they could take two older dishes and point them at different satellites 8-)

I sincerely hope that in the future we can avoid any such discussions that might lead you to make many of the comments you have in your last post. J


#14 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 31 December 2001 - 12:20 AM


Scott... Thanks for the hard work.

Some of the numbers in the ratings really are surprising to me. I am amazed that TBS is up as high as it is. I am also surprised that TNN is up there after their changes. I would have expected TLC to be up a bit higher and am amazed SOAP is ahead of some of the channels that it is. Considering the distribution (limited cable distribution and a mid tier basic on dish) that Fox News has I am surprised that it is as high as it is. Also surprising is seeing E! and VH1 down at the very bottom of the list. Being a news and info junkie myself, the above comments don't reflect my normal viewing habits, just my impression of what I figured people watch.

As for the reasons for dropping the channel, I would say that cost, too many owners and poor ratings are all inter-related. The channel costs too much for the lowered ratings it gets since the Fox buyout (assuming, of course, that it did in fact drop in ratings) and the programming changes they made. They tried to drop the channel after Fox changed it and were prevented from doing so because of the court decision (didn't drop it in time). The sale to Disney (ABC) allows the channel to be dropped, so, another change in ownership is the reason for it being dropped at this time. I doubt that must carry has much to do with the situation, although they obviously need the space until the spot beam bird is in place.

Do you know by chance where historical cable rankings can be found. It would be interesting to see where TFC was in the rankings before it was sold to Fox and compare it's movement over time.

As far as the comments on customers switching providers if they want ABCFamily, he has always said this in relation to sports programming, so it is fitting that he would say the same here.


#15 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 31 December 2001 - 12:23 AM


Yep, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on everything down to:
"You know it's pretty clear that you've chosen to debate most of this without the "FACTS"."

The big topic lately has been the addition of must carry on side satellites. I was under the assumption that this is what you were talking about. If you currently have locals (in other words, if your locals require a Dish 500 and you have a dish 500) and must carry channels are added at the side slots you will not have to purchase any equipment for the NEW channels. This is what is required under must carry. The extra dish and switch will be provided. If you are adding locals now for the first time then, yes, you will have to buy a Dish 500. There is no reason that this policy should change. This is a policy that the great infallable DTV has had in my DMA since they launched locals, except with them the older customer had to not only buy a new dish, but also a new receiver since they didn't have the forsite to think of multiple slots. directv.com/advanced_prod...pment.html
At least with a commitment to programming Dish provides a way to get the Dish 500 for free and they at least have provided a Dish 500 with all new systems for quite some time. DTV still doesn't provide a two (or three) slot dish as standard equipment.

Come to think of it, I guess we will probably have to agree to disagree on the above also.


#16 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 31 December 2001 - 05:56 PM


Disney has won an temporary restraining order in court today against Echostar, thus barring Echostar to drop ABC Family. The order is temporary though and there is still a chance that in 10 days Echostar will drop the channel. Now...what will Echostar do next? I have read that Echostar may drop ESPN Classics now and this might happen at Midnight tonight. So, keep an eye out tonight at Midnight to see if the channel is gone from your EPG.




#17 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 01 January 2002 - 02:06 AM


And that really brings up the question of how many people own DISH 500 systems and how many don't. I know a good many people, including myself, saw the DISH 500 as a very expensive joke when it was first released.

They weren't anywhere near 500 channels, wouldn't be for the foreseeable future, and it was an expensive addition for little in return.

Having come from a satellite provider, Primestar, that truly worked as a CE device should ie simple, tell it what to do and it does it, I found the DISH 500 to me nothing more than a gimmick and little over the past couple years has led me to believe otherwise 8-)

Is the upgrade program they have in place a good one? I guess that depends upon the person. For me personally I have no desire to spend an extra $10 per month for 50 channels of which I'm only interested in five. I also very much dislike the idea of essentially railroading people into paying by credit card.

Having discussed such issues in these forums for going on 3+ years(regarding various companies) I can tell you that from a consumers perspective they don't like credit card pay either.

We may or may not agree on all of that 8-) In general I simply feel that dbs companies should make usage of their products easy. Considering all the issues revolving around bad receivers, bad coding, switch problems etc over these past few years it appears to me that E* has made a distinct shift away from "easy". Pointing one satellite dish at multiple satellites also falls into that category, albeit loosely, in that it simply adds complication to the equation. J


#18 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 01 January 2002 - 06:36 PM


Quote: "I simply feel that dbs companies should make usage of their products easy. Considering all the issues revolving around bad receivers, bad coding, switch problems etc over these past few years it appears to me that E* has made a distinct shift away from "easy". Pointing one satellite dish at multiple satellites also falls into that category, albeit loosely, in that it simply adds complication to the equation."

I am one of the "lucky" dealers in that I have sold VERY few DishPlayers. While I am an early adaptor, I don't force the philosophy on my customers. I will not get into the 721 until I KNOW that it has good software and a trackrecord. I will buy one immediately as my showroom unit, but I won't promote it to customers until it has proven itself to me first.

As for the multi-slot dishes, they are just as simple to install as single slots if the pole is mounted properly and the angles set properly. I ALWAYS find the satellites in under one minute. From the customer's viewpoint, there is only one slot. Most don't even know that the dish is pointed at two slots in the sky and I don't even mention the fact unless they ask why the dish looks like it was installed by a drunken sailor (here in Florida the skew is rather extreme) or they are somewhat technically inclined. I then tell them about the two slots and skew angles that make it work. The program guide, being totally integrated, and the receiver operation gives no clue as to the two slot fact.


#19 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 01 January 2002 - 10:39 PM


Well I want you to know that despite our previous disagreements I very much appreciate knowing that your customers come first and that a products trackrecord is important to you.

When living in Wisconsin I first had Primestar. The only time I ever had a problem they were quick to arrive, ascertain what the problem was, and then fix it. Later when I went with E* we had a local company like you. They cared about the people that they sold products to and stood behind everything they sold. It really does make a huge difference.

I am concerned about the direction E* has taken with receivers over the past couple of years. The DP and the 501 immediately come to mind. It is almost as if the mindset has changed from the CE model of stable performance to one more like the pc industry in which problems are expected. I don't know what you see on your end but since there have been so many new dbs subscribers over the past few years that have no previous experience with dbs I find such people to be far more accepting of hardware/software issues than long time subscribers. J





Protected By... spam firewall...And...