Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Mar 5, 2004.
Charlie never recommended leaving, but he did show you the door. Again I ask: why should he be loyal to you if you're not loyal to him? If you feel the only way you will be happy is with those channels your way right away, he is saying go because he can't provide you with them right now.
Well, I can't get Comcast.
Viacomm has been running crawls and commercials on all of their channels, including those E* is not dropping telling customers to call E* and complain. They are even lying saying that channels like Spike and TV Land will be dropping, even though they're not. They are wording it so as to say it is E* removing them and Viacomm has no part in it which is also not true. I think that is childish.
Charlie has suggested calling ViaComm as well as your congressman. Charlie's methods are boiler-plate business tactics that have been used for a lot longer than he has even been in business. I notice that most of your posts seem very one-sided in that you seem to believe this is all Charlie's fault which I can understand considering Viacomm is trying very hard to make it appear that way. But it is not the case. The blame is shared.
Viacomm has done nothing but bash E* in this entire ordeal. Charlie has yet to say a single duragotory thing. He has defended his company which I believe he has the right to do, but he has kept it professional. Sending crawls out to millions of customers telling lies like Viacomm is doing is almost slander. Who really is childish here?
Neither can I :lol:
There is always Voom or DirecTV.
I don't know...call me crazy, but if I was running a Sat TV Company, I'd be trying to find every way possible to make sure that one single person didn't lose faith in Dish because of this. It doesn't look good when the CEO comes out on TV and says....'well, I don't know what's going to happen, maybe you'll have to try our competitors' or something along those lines. It makes the company look weak.
Why not come out and say something like this? "We're really sorry about the loss of these channels, but we encourage you to stick with us through this. We are trying our best to get them back as soon as possible. To make up for this, and to thank you for being patient we are going to offer you all X, Y, or Z".
As long as X, Y, or Z isn't a 1 dollar credit, he'd probably go a long way to keeping more customers in the flock. That's just my opinion. I don't think he did any service to his company by even introducing the possiblity that customers should/could go somewhere else.
E* total subscribers are just under 10 million. D* is just over 16 million. Where do you get only a 1.5 million sub difference? Not to mention that Rupert owns much more than D*, such as Newscorp and overseas Satellite companies.
That's the thing - some of us don't really CARE who is at fault. I didn't contract with Viacom. I want their content, and I subscribed to Dish network to receive it (along with other channels). I'm in an O&O area, so now I lost one of my major networks. That is unacceptable. Charlie can try and point people at the advertisers, or at the local stations, or at Viacom - but in the end it is his problem. He runs Echostar - he offers services that include Viacom's content, he is responsible for maintaining those contracts. If he offers to his customers a rate of x dollars that will not change for y months, and his suppliers of content (read: Viacom) increase his costs, that it not the customers problem until y months have lapsed. This didn't happen overnight, and his stubborn nature that so many people are defending is costing us in services that we have paid for. Viacom is by no means in the right here, but like I said - none of us do business with Viacom. I don't care if Viacom is run by hell spawns and is trying to extract $600 per customer instead of $0.06 from Dish - Dish needs to get this fixed.
Get your facts straight D* has less than 12 million.
"Facts" are just flying everywhere in this thread.
1/30/2004 http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/sacramento/story/8184993p-9116316c.html (best I could find quickly)
Again, is Charlie fighting for his company or for the customer? Both. It's kind of like, if you love someone you have to let them go. I know, bad analogy but does make the point. Charlie doesn't want to lose a single customer but he knows that some customers are going to leave. Why fight them on it? Help them out and wish them the best. It's called caring for the customer. Charlie is going to protect the interests of his company no matter what and if by doing that some customers choose to leave, he is going to help them do so. He will have a better product in the long run. He never once encouraged customers to leave, he just offered to help those who make the decision to do so. I don't see the flaw in this.
Ok, sorry I underestimated that D* count but that 12.2 is pretty new. The last count I saw must have been the Q4 count. Anyways, it's nowhere near 16 million.
Well, you were closer, and I only added your quote to my post after I saw you'd posted before I did about it.
We're also nearing the end of 2004Q1, so I'd expect both of those figures to be a bit low by now, too. Maybe by 300,000-400,000.
Reuters says the two sides say they're making progress.
Quotes that support my old theory that Congress/FCC won't let this linger:
"We're making progress and I think we'll have a resolution in a very timely fashion," (CBS exec veep Martin) Franks said to the U.S. House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunciations.
... Lawmakers were particularly keen to see an agreement since many of their constituents were calling their offices to complain and because the popular national college basketball tournament starts next week and airs on CBS.
E* never guarenteed you those channels. They only guarenteed you a package with a certain number of channels in it. Check your service agreement. You agreed you would receive a certain number of channels. He is not responsibile for maintaining those contracts at all, he only is responsible for providing you with the number of channels in your programming package. It is not HIS stubborn nature, it is all of them, Charlie and the CEO of Viacomm included. To blindly sit here and say HE needs to fix it and Viacomm has no part in this is ignorant. That's like saying if Rupert drops all of FOX tomorrow (because he owns them) and you can't see it on DISH, it's Charlie's fault.
Right, you get to become a disgruntled DirecTV customer in a few years.
That is what happened to me 4 years ago. Dumped DirectV due to dissatisfaction and went to DISH and I am staying.
I agree that there's nothing Charlie can do to keep the customers who can't live 1 day without Spongebob, but he shouldn't be losing customers because they think he's ripping them off on this $1 thing either. He should be refunding 100% of what he would normally pay for these channels, and he's clearly not.
Let's see... we lost 10 or 11 channels, so I don't think I'm getting my AT120. Do they have an AT109 package that I missed?
Didn't someone say they were running info screens or segments of Charlie chatting on all the blacked-out channels?
Those are channels, too.