# 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

sigma1914 said:


> 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



tsmacro said:


> 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

sigma1914 said:


> 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, ***** 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

0pusX said:


> 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

erosroadie said:


> 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

BillJ said:


> 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.



0pusX said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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 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

JWKessler said:


> .... 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

JWKessler said:


> 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

l8er said:


> 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

kariato said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

RAD said:


> 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.



RAD said:


> 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

BillJ said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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.





Stewart Vernon said:


> 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.



Stewart Vernon said:


> "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

James Long said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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 places DISH's HD penetration at 3% in 2006 and 20% in 2009 with a prediction of 55% by 2016.

From another source: "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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

0pusX said:


> 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

KalebD said:


> 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

harsh said:


> 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

nmetro said:


> 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

JoeTheDragon said:


> 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  ) 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

nmetro said:


> 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:

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

purtman said:


> 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

coldsteel said:


> 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

GrumpyBear said:


> 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

gor88 said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

JWKessler said:


> 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:


phrelin said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

Ohioankev said:


> 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

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


----------



## habsfan66

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

habsfan66 said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

Flashing_12 said:


> 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

Flashing_12 said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

coldsteel said:


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


Nope!


----------



## Greg Bimson

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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).


Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

JWKessler said:


> 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

coldsteel said:


> 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

greatwhitenorth said:


> 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

Flashing_12 said:


> 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

Flashing_12 said:


> 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.


----------



## brant

habsfan66 said:


> 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

brant said:


> 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

GrumpyBear said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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.


----------



## 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

Deke Rivers said:


> 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

laqbn said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

Paul Secic said:


> What is the name?


EchoStar ViP TV
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

alxlevin said:


> 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

GrumpyBear said:


> 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

scooper said:


> 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

Dave said:


> 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."



Tsi2quick said:


> 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:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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.


phrelin said:


> 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 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

phrelin said:


> 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: 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

Greg Bimson said:


> I'll throw this thread 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

Greg Bimson said:


> 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 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

James Long said:


> 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

phrelin said:


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


Okay, but...


phrelin said:


> 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

tsmacro said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

RasputinAXP said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

Greg Bimson said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## TulsaOK

deepen10 said:


> 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

jclewter79 said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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.


phrelin said:


> 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

CoolGui said:


> 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

tsmacro said:


> ... 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

James Long said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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.


phrelin said:


> 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

Greg Bimson said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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. 

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

Greg Bimson said:


> 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


DISH 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 $486,158​This 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

phrelin said:


> .... 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

Michael P said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

Tony S said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

Stuart Sweet said:


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





lparsons21 said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

jayna_95 said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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 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: "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:


----------



## TulsaOK

phrelin;2517840Hmmm. Well guys said:


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


----------



## phrelin

Kent Taylor said:


> 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 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


----------



## Stewart Vernon

phrelin said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

Paul Secic said:


> 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

phrelin said:


> 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

inazsully said:


> 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

inazsully said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

tsmacro said:


> 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

Greg Bimson said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

"James Long" said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

scooper said:


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


See below.


deepen10 said:


> 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

scooper said:


> "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

deepen10 said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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?


----------



## scooper

deepen10 said:


> 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 ...


----------



## TulsaOK

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


----------



## deepen10

sigma1914 said:


> Is it 20 something or every channel?


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.



James Long said:


> 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-drop...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

deepen10 said:


> 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-drop...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

deepen10 said:


> 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-drop...over-carriage-fee-dispute/webnews/102801.html


One 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.


----------



## TulsaOK

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

James Long said:


> 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

scooper said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

Kent Taylor said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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. 

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

cwade0 said:


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


See above.


----------



## deepen10

cwade0 said:


> *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.*
> 
> 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

scooper said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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

sigma1914 said:


> 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

deepen10 said:


> 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.


----------



## cwade0

sigma1914 said:


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


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

cwade0 said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

cwade0 said:


> 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

cwade0 said:


> 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

cwade0 said:


> 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

sigma1914 said:


> 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

sigma1914 said:


> 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

cwade0 said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

scooper said:


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


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


----------



## wreck

James Long said:


> 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

lparsons21 said:


> 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

wreck said:


> 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

runner861 said:


> 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

wreck said:


> 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

James Long said:


> 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

cwade0 said:


> 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:


----------



## deepen10

cwade0 said:


> 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.


exactly!!


----------



## deepen10

sigma1914 said:


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


yea and we are paying for what we are supposed to get.. we should be receiving the SD versions of those 4 channels while DISH resolves their dispute. The customer should never have to suffer due to irresponsibility by the service provider. that is just bad business practice


----------



## deepen10

cwade0 said:


> 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.


exactly my point..


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Ok... so on your 8-hour workday you always work exactly 8 hours AND 100% of that time are completely focused on your job (i.e. no games, goofing off, excessive breaks, etc.)

Not trying to be too bad here... but I see a lot of people demanding perfection 100% of the time who likely do not offer the same when they are on the other side of things.

There is a line somewhere... IF you pay for a 50-channel HD package and 25 of those channels were dropped, then you have a case in my opinion. I don't know where that line is though.

I again remind folks, though... everyone wants an immediate price-drop when a channel is dropped BUT no one wants to immediately have a price increase when a new channel is added (like the Cooking HD channel added today for example)...

And as I've already noted, I personally think Disney is the bad guy in this particular dispute. Yeah, they have a point... but they also "let" Dish carry the channels for nearly 2 years before cutting the feed.


----------



## deepen10

Stewart Vernon said:


> Ok... so on your 8-hour workday you always work exactly 8 hours AND 100% of that time are completely focused on your job (i.e. no games, goofing off, excessive breaks, etc.)
> 
> Not trying to be too bad here... but I see a lot of people demanding perfection 100% of the time who likely do not offer the same when they are on the other side of things.
> 
> There is a line somewhere... IF you pay for a 50-channel HD package and 25 of those channels were dropped, then you have a case in my opinion. I don't know where that line is though.
> 
> I again remind folks, though... everyone wants an immediate price-drop when a channel is dropped BUT no one wants to immediately have a price increase when a new channel is added *(like the Cooking HD channel added today for example)...
> *
> And as I've already noted, I personally think Disney is the bad guy in this particular dispute. Yeah, they have a point... but they also "let" Dish carry the channels for nearly 2 years before cutting the feed.


and I really care about the Cooking Channel? give me a break. there is no excuse for DISH doing this to their customers. this is just horrible business practice.. period.


----------



## TulsaOK

Apart from whining, what do you care about?


----------



## James Long

deepen10 said:


> and I really care about the Cooking Channel? give me a break. there is no excuse for DISH doing this to their customers. this is just horrible business practice.. period.


For ~$70 or less you can break your commitment and find a more expensive provider to maybe provide the channels you want, plus the channels you never had that you also want.

DISH will do what they can (within reason) to get the channels back on the system. As long as most subscribers (those paying for full packages, not discount packages) accept the temporary loss of the channels the pressure isn't there. And most subscribers have accepted the absence of these channels.

This chip has been on your shoulder for a lot longer than the ABC/Disney HD channels have been gone. Consider the channels gone. Your continued subscription is acceptance of the change in programming.


----------



## phrelin

I don't understand why some people don't realize that the channels, mostly owned by very profitable big media conglomerates, are the "raw ingredients" that go into the product that signal carriers sell. When the price of cinnamon goes up 3%, the bakery may absorb the cost by not increasing the price of a cinnamon bun. But when a supplier doubles the price of sugar, there's going to be a major price increase.

Comcast is also a big media conglomerate. When Disney doubles the price of sugar, Comcast cable may just pass it on figuring it will be a precedent for them to double the price of flour which they supply (i.e. sports channels). What do they care if you have to choose between Disney or shoes for your kid. Where they are the cable company, they are the cable company.

Dish and DirecTV, plus now uVerse and FIOS, are the competition. Dish traditionally offered two things to compete - low priced packages and cool DVR technology. Dish is nowhere near as profitable as the big media conglomerates.

The low priced packages have been possible because Charlie is a tough SOB when it comes to negotiations with the very profitable media conglomerates and greedy station owners.

Yes, it irks me sometimes when it involves a channel I want - PBS for instance. But I understand and accept it because I too am unwilling to pay more than I think the product is worth. Personally, I believe that if Charlie (and some cable companies other than Comcast) didn't do this year-after-year I'd be paying $250 a month for what I get now, but it would include Disney HD and PBS HD and everything else.

That would mean that to get two channels I want - PBS HD and AMC HD - and for others to get the Disney-owned channels they want or the sports channels they want, I'd be paying $140 more a month. Up to a point, I'll back Charlie on his efforts to keep costs down.

In this case, I firmly believe we have a conglomerate squeezing the viewers because of problems elsewhere in the organization. As I noted above:


phrelin said:


> 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.


----------



## GrumpyBear

deepen10 said:


> and I really care about the Cooking Channel? give me a break. there is no excuse for DISH doing this to their customers. this is just horrible business practice.. period.


Riddle me this.
Just how is Dish supposed to continue to show you HD channels, they aren't recieving?
How is Dish supposed to turn on a Mirror SD channel in your HD only package of a HD channel Dish is no longer getting?


----------



## Greg Bimson

phrelin said:


> The low priced packages have been possible because Charlie is a tough SOB when it comes to negotiations with the very profitable media conglomerates and greedy station owners.
> 
> Yes, it irks me sometimes when it involves a channel I want - PBS for instance.


The low-priced packages are possible because Dish Network is competing for the "value" customer. Keep in mind that this suit does provide insight into the business...

Dish Network believed they weren't receiving "most favored nation" pricing as dictated by the contract. Dish Network pointed out that DirecTV and Comcast were paying the same amount as Dish Network for the ESPN channels, but Dish Network wasn't receiving ESPNews HD and ESPNU HD. Seems to me that Dish Network was complaining about the terms they signed. In other words, Dish Network wasn't keeping their costs down in relation to DirecTV and Comcast. Dish Network wasn't getting a "better deal". In fact, Dish Network themselves within their court documents said they deal they signed wasn't as good as DirecTV or Comcast, because they weren't receiving the HD channels the others were receiving.

I also point out PBS because there is no "cost", other than bandwidth. Dish Network could have worked an agreement out two-plus years ago with APTS to provide PBS in HD, and of course there is no money that can change hands, as the stations in APTS are all non-commercial. Instead, because STELA mandates PBS in HD for all HD markets, 50 percent of the markets by year-end 2011 and all by year-end 2012, Dish Network has elected to file suit to have that provision within STELA ruled unconstitutional. Dish Network would rather spend the money to fight PBS in HD on Dish Network in court (most likely a losing battle) while there is still time to come to an agreement with APTS. Dish Network does not like being pushed around by anyone.

After all, Dish Network filed suit regarding these four stations in January, 2008, before they were even launched. Disney has fought it all the way, maintaining that they were entitled compensation for these channels. Of course, after carriage of these four stations for 25 months, it is assumed Disney has yet to see a dime from that carriage.

And there is some kind of wonder why these stations were removed? They've been carried without a contract for all this time. That's an easy way to keep your costs down. Until you get sued...

So Disney countersued to receive interest payments from Dish Network, and it cost Dish Network another $65 million. And there is still no agreement.

I'd believe these fights end up costing more than finding a way to strike an agreement; Dish Network attempted to have the four HD channels defined as no-fee feeds in court to skirt-around payment for the channels, instead of simply striking an agreement for the four channels.


----------



## Paul Secic

deepen10 said:


> and I really care about the Cooking Channel? give me a break. there is no excuse for DISH doing this to their customers. this is just horrible business practice.. period.


Sir

Maybe you should phone Directv and subscribe, since you don't like Dish? PLEASE!!!


----------



## scooper

TO - 
All those taking the Dish America *HD only* programming packages
Subject - the recent situation of Disney requiring Dish to pull 4 HD channels off leaving you without an SD alternative

1. You subscribed to these packages (at a reduced price from the ATxxx + HD packages) to save money with only HD channels. Since Disney has required Dish to stop broadcasting 4 of their channels, you all feel that you are *entitled* to the SD versions of the now missing channels. Do not let the fact that Dish *GAVE* you access to the SD versions of the channels in your package as proof that you are *entitled* to continued access to them.

2. At this point in time, you have a couple of choices
A. Upgrade your programming to an ATXXX + HD package that has the programming you want (although some will only be in SD now)
B. Do nothing and continue to *****, moan, groan, and complain.
C. Cancel Dish (paying any early termination fee) and switch providers.

If you do 2A, if/when Dish and Disney come to an agreement over the disputed channels and Dish can again offer them - you can pay the $5 downgrade fee and go back to your Dish America HD only package.

If you are choosing to do 2B - please go back to your hole in the ground and stop *****ing.

If you are doing 2C - the sooner you move, the better.

Sincerely -
One who is tired of hearing you ***** about something none of us can do anything about.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network could have worked an agreement out two-plus years ago with APTS to provide PBS in HD, and of course there is no money that can change hands, as the stations in APTS are all non-commercial.


If APTS carriage would be free why wouldn't DISH carry it?
There has to be more to this issue. Either a charge or other demand that isn't free.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> If APTS carriage would be free why wouldn't DISH carry it?
> There has to be more to this issue. Either a charge or other demand that isn't free.


I'd assume it is some "other demand that isn't free", like just plain bandwidth.

It was the same argument as almost 10 years ago; Dish Network wants control of their allocation of bandwidth. Dish Network feels they can use the bandwidth for other purposes, such as serving more markets with big four networks in HD than to round out the HD offerings of a given market.

I recall a major disagreement with Tribune about five years ago that brings home that point. Tribune owns a couple of big four stations in some major markets, such as the Fox channel in Seattle. Tribune also owns many of the CW stations in very major markets. Dish Network wouldn't come to an agreement with Tribune because Dish Network only wanted the big four. Finally, Dish Network did come to an agreement with Tribune and some of those high-market CW stations showed up in HD on Dish Network at the same time as Tribune's Fox stations.


----------



## phrelin

Greg Bimson said:


> I'd assume it is some "other demand that isn't free", like just plain bandwidth.
> 
> It was the same argument as almost 10 years ago; Dish Network wants control of their allocation of bandwidth. Dish Network feels they can use the bandwidth for other purposes, such as serving more markets with big four networks in HD than to round out the HD offerings of a given market.
> 
> I recall a major disagreement with Tribune about five years ago that brings home that point. Tribune owns a couple of big four stations in some major markets, such as the Fox channel in Seattle. Tribune also owns many of the CW stations in very major markets. Dish Network wouldn't come to an agreement with Tribune because Dish Network only wanted the big four. Finally, Dish Network did come to an agreement with Tribune and some of those high-market CW stations showed up in HD on Dish Network at the same time as Tribune's Fox stations.


Bad choices will ultimately work against Dish's ability to retain customers.

In order to get some of the big four in other DMA's, we Dish customers in the San Francisco Bay Area DMA get KRON, the MyNetwork affiliate, in HD because the now bankrupt Young Broadcasting insisted on it. We don't have either PBS or the CW in HD, but we do have a bankrupt local operation (good luck getting anything worthwhile in locally produced HD) plus essentially worthless prime time programming.

The transponder space for a worthwhile channel was sacrificed so Dish could say they had HD locals in some relatively unpopulated DMAs.

My guess is that these choices will bite Charlie & Co. in the rear big time at some point.


----------



## Dave

Lest we forget about the March dispute of Disney/ABC and CableVision right about the time of the Oscars. So it would appear that Disney/ABC is trying to get higher carriage prices from everyone this year. There is also a renewal contract coming up with Time Warner Cable for Disney/ABC in September this year. So will this dictate a very large cable bill increase for some carriers this year?
Will this be the year that Disney/ABC holds the country hostage to higher carriage cost? Are you the customer willing for your bill to go up that extra 15% or whatever for Disney. I know alot of you on hear have small children at home and they demand there Disney. 
Next question? Does everyone on here expect a 15% pay raise from work to offset this cost and the cost of living. Can you go to your employer and say Disney/ABC wants this 15% increase so give me a 15% pay raise to offset this cost? It is after all only TV. Nothing else and nothing more.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Were I feel for those in the HD only packages. I am not missing ABC Family in HD at all.
Kids recorded the Harry Potter films again on ABC Family this weekend. I compared the new recordings, to a HD version of Harry Potter the Goblet of Fire, last year from ABC Family HD. SD looked just as good, I know alot of the shows like that 70's show, on ABC family are in syndication and have never looked good. I just never realized just how bad ABC Family was in HD almost all the way around. I don't Disney channels in question, but I am beginning to think these are just HD numbers fillers for ABC/Disney and just a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## James Long

Some Movement ...

*Mapdown Channel Changes*
9433 DISE (172 HD Sports) Disney (East) 129° TP 18 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 172 HD)
9433 DISE (172 HD Sports) Disney (East) 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 172 HD)
9434 ABCFM (180 HD Sports) ABC Family 129° TP 28 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 180 HD)
9434 ABCFM (180 HD Sports) ABC Family 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 180 HD)
9449 DISXD (174 HD Sports) Disney XD 129° TP 27 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 174 HD)
9449 DISXD (174 HD Sports) Disney XD 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 174 HD)
9494 ESNWS (142 HD Sports) ESPNews 129° TP 28 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 142 HD)
9494 ESNWS (142 HD Sports) ESPNews 61.5° TP 25 HD *TEST* Hidden - Mapdown Change (was 142 HD)

The channels remain unavailable - but the addition of that "sports" flag changes the way a channel is selected when keying in the number. For example, selecting Speed by keying "150" on the remote takes you to the HD version. But on RSNs (such as those in the 420-430s) keying in the number takes you to the HD version when HD is available and the SD version when no HD is available. Up until now this flag was only used on sports channels, hence the name I gave it. I'm not sure why they would put it on a 24/7 HD channel ... but I just report what I see - and movement is good.


----------



## Dave

As I return to make some more comments on this situation, I still don't miss the Disney channels in HD. Now back to the discussion. It would appear that Time Warner Cable has already started there negative ad campaign against Disney/ESPN/ABC. I would say they are doing this to let there customers know that the yearly cost increase will be Disney's fault do to the high carriage cost Disney is going to require them to pay next year. So for all of you neighsayers, I say good for Charlie and his team not letting Disney get away with this high cost increase that they Disney are demanding.


----------



## tommiet

sigma1914 said:


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


Not by me.... could care less about ESPN. Due to the cost, ESPN should be a premium service.... Don't get me started.....


----------



## lparsons21

tommiet said:


> Not by me.... could care less about ESPN. Due to the cost, ESPN should be a premium service.... Don't get me started.....


I don't agree totally with you. But ESPN could be in the multi-sports package and that would then let me decide if it was worth what they think it is. I suspect that I would pay the freight if it wasn't too onerous.

As to the Disney and ABCFM channels, well the SD is nearly as good as the HD on these ever was for most things.


----------



## Robert.jordan4

Hopefully this will get resolved soon but for now the SD feeds are still available. Plus, it's not like we're losing any money, HD is free!


----------



## ibooksrule

"lparsons21" said:


> I don't agree totally with you. But ESPN could be in the multi-sports package and that would then let me decide if it was worth what they think it is. I suspect that I would pay the freight if it wasn't too onerous.
> 
> As to the Disney and ABCFM channels, well the SD is nearly as good as the HD on these ever was for most things.


There is a major difference in the abcfamily sd vs HD. I have watched episodes of some of their original shows and one i hate seeing a letterboxed version of a show when it should be wide screen and the show is definitely a change in HD. Colors are crisper and so much more you can see.

Maybe your watching on oa 30 in or something old but I see a difference.


----------



## lparsons21

ibooksrule said:


> There is a major difference in the abcfamily sd vs HD. I have watched episodes of some of their original shows and one i hate seeing a letterboxed version of a show when it should be wide screen and the show is definitely a change in HD. Colors are crisper and so much more you can see.
> 
> Maybe your watching on oa 30 in or something old but I see a difference.


I never noticed a difference, well not much of one, but then I don't watch those channels very much at all. And that is on my less than year old 54" Panasonic plasma set.


----------



## Jeff_DML

I take it no updates, anybody have any hope of this being resolved in the near future?

About to dump dish since no more kid programming plus going to lose my cinemax 1 cent deal


----------



## RasputinAXP

It's still in SD. Despite my joking my son really doesn't notice the difference.


----------



## GrumpyBear

ibooksrule said:


> There is a major difference in the abcfamily sd vs HD. I have watched episodes of some of their original shows and one i hate seeing a letterboxed version of a show when it should be wide screen and the show is definitely a change in HD. Colors are crisper and so much more you can see.
> 
> Maybe your watching on oa 30 in or something old but I see a difference.


I have complained about ABC FM, and its poor overall HD for sometime. Maybe some of the Newer shows, are better, but thier movies and syndicated shows in HD are horrible. We just compared the Harry Potter movies saved off last year from ABC FM in HD and to the Harry Potter Movies in SD on ABC FM, just a few weeks ago. The SD was postage stamp, but the clarity was head and shoulders better than the exact same movie, from the ABC FM HD channel. Nice that HD fills the screen, but I prefer clarity over a full screen.


----------



## ibooksrule

"GrumpyBear" said:


> I have complained about ABC FM, and its poor overall HD for sometime. Maybe some of the Newer shows, are better, but thier movies and syndicated shows in HD are horrible. We just compared the Harry Potter movies saved off last year from ABC FM in HD and to the Harry Potter Movies in SD on ABC FM, just a few weeks ago. The SD was postage stamp, but the clarity was head and shoulders better than the exact same movie, from the ABC FM HD channel. Nice that HD fills the screen, but I prefer clarity over a full screen.


There is markable difference in their original shows. I don't watch anything else on there. If I am going to watch a movie I don't want commercials. But when watching pretty little liars and others you can see a major difference in quality and clarity. 
Plus the fact that everything is letterboxes and just doesn't look right.

Dish needs to fix this. There is no reason for this losing of the HD channels.


----------



## scooper

ibooksrule said:


> Dish needs to fix this. There is no reason for this losing of the HD channels.


DISNEY needs to fix this.. There, fixed it for you....


----------



## jsray2

It seems Disney needs to stop being greedy. We should not blame Dish if they are trying to get a better price. Like any good customer, we expect value for the money.


----------



## GrumpyBear

ibooksrule said:


> There is markable difference in their original shows. I don't watch anything else on there. If I am going to watch a movie I don't want commercials. But when watching pretty little liars and others you can see a major difference in quality and clarity.
> Plus the fact that everything is letterboxes and just doesn't look right.
> 
> Dish needs to fix this. There is no reason for this losing of the HD channels.


Secret Teen, Pretty little liars, are the only HD shows on the channel. Sorry its a complete waste of Bandwidth for 2 hrs or New TV a week if your lucky. 
I would be yelling and screaming to, if ABC FM, had real HD content. The next 10 days alone, its nothing but 2 new shows and tons of Disney movies, the channel isn't HD, its just a numbers maker, for both Disney and Dish.
There are way to many of these kind of Channels, and keeping them SD until the provider makes more HD is not an issue. 2hrs of HD content out of 240hrs, is not something I would spend any money on.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> Secret Teen, Pretty little liars, are the only HD shows on the channel. Sorry its a complete waste of Bandwidth for 2 hrs or New TV a week if your lucky.
> I would be yelling and screaming to, if ABC FM, had real HD content. The next 10 days alone, its nothing but 2 new shows and tons of Disney movies, the channel isn't HD, its just a numbers maker, for both Disney and Dish.
> There are way to many of these kind of Channels, and keeping them SD until the provider makes more HD is not an issue. 2hrs of HD content out of 240hrs, is not something I would spend any money on.


You're numbers are off. Huge, Make It or Break It, Secret Life, PLL, Gilmore Girls, 700 Club, plus movies and other shows are all HD. Way more than 2 of 240.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> You're numbers are off. Huge, Make It or Break It, Secret Life, PLL, Gilmore Girls, 700 Club, plus movies and other shows are all HD. Way more than 2 of 240.


Never Caught 700 club on ABC FM, so don't know how it looks. The others shows maybe HD, but over all quailty of those HD shows sucks. Even the Disney owned HD Movies the HD Quality is horrible. I have seen Gilmore Girls, a show the kids watch, and can even compare, 2 complete seasons of Gilmore Girl, from the 180hd vs 180sd channels. The difference between them is sometimes a full screen vs always having black bars, and the SD version actually looks better.
Sorry just putting a show in stretched out full screen, and claiming its HD is not HD. Get Disney to actually put the shows and movies, in the same quality of the other shows, make them a real HD broadcast, I would support those that are upset. Sorry just a few hrs of HD content, vs 100's of hours of hours of poor HD quality, just isn't that big of a deal.
ABC FM is just another filler HD channel to make Carriers and Providers brag. 
Maybe during the Fall season there is more HD content. All I could do was look at the EPG for the next 10days. Sorry, way to many movies, shows, and fillers that aren't even close. So maybe the one marathon of shows will be quality HD, so thats what about 15hrs if counting all your shows, out of 240hrs?


----------



## ibooksrule

"GrumpyBear" said:


> Never Caught 700 club on ABC FM, so don't know how it looks. The others shows maybe HD, but over all quailty of those HD shows sucks. Even the Disney owned HD Movies the HD Quality is horrible. I have seen Gilmore Girls, a show the kids watch, and can even compare, 2 complete seasons of Gilmore Girl, from the 180hd vs 180sd channels. The difference between them is sometimes a full screen vs always having black bars, and the SD version actually looks better.
> Sorry just putting a show in stretched out full screen, and claiming its HD is not HD. Get Disney to actually put the shows and movies, in the same quality of the other shows, make them a real HD broadcast, I would support those that are upset. Sorry just a few hrs of HD content, vs 100's of hours of hours of poor HD quality, just isn't that big of a deal.
> ABC FM is just another filler HD channel to make Carriers and Providers brag.
> Maybe during the Fall season there is more HD content. All I could do was look at the EPG for the next 10days. Sorry, way to many movies, shows, and fillers that aren't even close. So maybe the one marathon of shows will be quality HD, so thats what about 15hrs if counting all your shows, out of 240hrs?


With this logic we would be at just a few HD channels. 
Even HDNET and HDNET MOVIES not everything they show is in HD. 
MGM has some good hd but many shows are older and don't look any better then Sd now some do look good.

Bur your logic is saying if they don't show HD 24 7 then it should not be an HD channel.


----------



## GrumpyBear

ibooksrule said:


> With this logic we would be at just a few HD channels.
> Even HDNET and HDNET MOVIES not everything they show is in HD.
> MGM has some good hd but many shows are older and don't look any better then Sd now some do look good.
> 
> Bur your logic is saying if they don't show HD 24 7 then it should not be an HD channel.


Not even close to saying that. ABC Family if we are lucky avg's 1-2 hrs a day in HD, and even then, most of those HD shows, and all the so called HD movies, look just as good or even better in SD. Sorry this is a big bandwidth waster.

What ABC Family really does, if give ABC/Disney a marketing number of x amount of HD stations, and Dish, Direct, Cable, Telco's a marketing number of Carrying x amount of HD TV Stations. Now if you have a HD only package, and lost it, I can understand the frustration. Have it in SD, sorry I just don't see that big of deal, considering how overall poor Quality of ABC Family HD. 
ABC Family HD, is a TV Station I have complained about since it was launched on Dish, as the show and movie quality in HD is so POOR.


----------



## James Long

I have not seen anything in HD on ABC Family in months.


----------



## l8er

James Long said:


> I have not seen anything in HD on ABC Family in months.


 I have not watched anything on ABC Family in years.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ibooksrule said:


> Bur your logic is saying if they don't show HD 24 7 then it should not be an HD channel.


I didn't see his logic as saying that... but rather that IF the channel is a simulcast of an SD channel and it barely has HD... then it is hard to argue it is worth very much more money to have it in HD.


----------



## sigma1914

GrumpyBear said:


> Not even close to saying that. *ABC Family if we are lucky avg's 1-2 hrs a day in HD*, and even then, most of those HD shows, and all the so called HD movies, look just as good or even better in SD. Sorry this is a big bandwidth waster.
> 
> ...


Wrong, again. 10.5 hours of HD today...which is about the norm every weekday. Saturday has 18.5 hours of HD programming. You may think the HD isn't good or SD is better (which I've never seen on any provider), but there's a lot of HD content on it.


----------



## kucharsk

ibooksrule said:


> Even HDNET and HDNET MOVIES not everything they show is in HD.


I think the HDNet folks would be interested in knowing precisely which programs they show aren't in HD aside from possibly some commercials on HDNet.

Certainly everything on _HDNet Movies_ is.


----------



## GrumpyBear

sigma1914 said:


> Wrong, again. 10.5 hours of HD today...which is about the norm every weekday. Saturday has 18.5 hours of HD programming. You may think the HD isn't good or SD is better (which I've never seen on any provider), but there's a lot of HD content on it.


I just don't see the HD content. Looking at shows we have saved off from the channel, entire series for the kids. Checking out the Movies from that Channel, that are rebroadcasting, from the Harry Potter movies to Hocus Pocus. I don't see the HD content. Just looking at the next 9 days, I still don't see a lot of HD content, and even some of that "HD" content, looks as good, or even better on the SD side, Gilmore Girls being a great example. Sorry just getting a movie or a sitcom, or drama show to fit the screen, doesn't make it HD, just compared several Gilmore shows in HD, and compared the exact same episode currently reairing in SD, the PQ, was actually better in SD. 
Maybe Directs SD quality just really is that bad, that poor HD looks that much better. Sorry, the entire family is comparing current saved show and movies, to current aired show, exact same episode, and exact same movies. We are deleting the HD versions, as there is no reason to keep them, as they just really aren't that good.


----------



## Paul Secic

GrumpyBear said:


> Never Caught 700 club on ABC FM, so don't know how it looks. The others shows maybe HD, but over all quailty of those HD shows sucks. Even the Disney owned HD Movies the HD Quality is horrible. I have seen Gilmore Girls, a show the kids watch, and can even compare, 2 complete seasons of Gilmore Girl, from the 180hd vs 180sd channels. The difference between them is sometimes a full screen vs always having black bars, and the SD version actually looks better.
> Sorry just putting a show in stretched out full screen, and claiming its HD is not HD. Get Disney to actually put the shows and movies, in the same quality of the other shows, make them a real HD broadcast, I would support those that are upset. Sorry just a few hrs of HD content, vs 100's of hours of hours of poor HD quality, just isn't that big of a deal.
> ABC FM is just another filler HD channel to make Carriers and Providers brag.
> Maybe during the Fall season there is more HD content. All I could do was look at the EPG for the next 10days. Sorry, way to many movies, shows, and fillers that aren't even close. So maybe the one marathon of shows will be quality HD, so thats what about 15hrs if counting all your shows, out of 240hrs?


I don't like the huge Mouse logo. They should make it small. I don't understand that. I'm searching for CARS on STARZ, RETROPLEX HD and INDIEPLEX HD.


----------



## Paul Secic

l8er said:


> I have not watched anything on ABC Family in years.


+1


----------



## kosha

My son likes to watch Phineas and Ferb episodes. But because of this he doesn't get to watch his favorite show. By the way I have the dish absolute package. 
Dish is saying that they are looking after their customers so that they don't have to pay more to watch those channels because of disney's wants. In the end, a customer like myself needs to pay more to change subscription for just to watch a show.
I have found that people are shamelessly supporting dish for this fiasco in this thread. That makes me sick to my stomach.


----------



## Jeff_DML

kosha said:


> My son likes to watch Phineas and Ferb episodes. But because of this he doesn't get to watch his favorite show. By the way I have the dish absolute package.
> Dish is saying that they are looking after their customers so that they don't have to pay more to watch those channels because of disney's wants. In the end, a customer like myself needs to pay more to change subscription for just to watch a show.
> I have found that people are shamelessly supporting dish for this fiasco in this thread. That makes me sick to my stomach.


yeah I am in the same boat, DISH is going to lose customers trying to look after customers


----------



## GrumpyBear

kosha said:


> My son likes to watch Phineas and Ferb episodes. But because of this he doesn't get to watch his favorite show. By the way I have the dish absolute package.
> Dish is saying that they are looking after their customers so that they don't have to pay more to watch those channels because of disney's wants. In the end, a customer like myself needs to pay more to change subscription for just to watch a show.
> I have found that people are shamelessly supporting dish for this fiasco in this thread. That makes me sick to my stomach.


ABC/Disney are just trying to soak everybody. Just ask all the Disneyland and Disneyworld visitors, about the newest price hikes, and ticket policy.

Yes Charlie is cheap, and ABC/Disney is Greedy. Put them both in your crosshairs.

So you are going to leave Dish's Absolute package and get what????


----------



## TulsaOK

GrumpyBear said:


> So you are going to leave Dish's Absolute package and get what????


Apparently, sick to his stomach.


----------



## Hoosier205

ibooksrule said:


> Even HDNET and HDNET MOVIES not everything they show is in HD.


Wrong.


----------



## phrelin

The advantage the Disney group has in way too many households are pint-sized lobbyists and angst-ridden teens combined with adult sports nuts. It's a little hard to imagine a better combination than having the Disney Channel, ESPN and ABC Family to use as your bargaining chips. ESPN's Monday Night Football preseason games begin in August. According to this article headlined Contract dispute may mean less football for Hawaii cable viewers:


> Time Warner Cable Inc. is in negotiations with Walt Disney Co. over programming fees to carry Disney-owned channels, such as ESPN, the Disney Channel and the ABC Family network. If no deal is reached by Sept. 2, these stations could go dark.
> 
> That would mean that the more than 400,000 Oceanic cable subscribers in Hawaii would have to do without the entire ESPN package of channels that include ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and ESPN News. The ESPN fall programming includes NCAA football games, NFL's Monday Night Football, Major League Baseball, and other events.


If it were up to Disney, for my AT package price the only cable channels I would be able to watch on TV would be those preferred by my grandchildren or my sports nut daughter.

It's alright if they want to charge $20 a month for their cable channel group, just offer it as a premium package. I have a hunch my bill would drop by $10.

Disney has way too much clout inside viewers homes allowing them to offset their theme park screwups with high fees for cable channels.:nono2:


----------



## runner861

phrelin said:


> The advantage the Disney group has in way too many households are pint-sized lobbyists and angst-ridden teens combined with adult sports nuts. It's a little hard to imagine a better combination than having the Disney Channel, ESPN and ABC Family to use as your bargaining chips. ESPN's Monday Night Football preseason games begin in August. According to this article headlined Contract dispute may mean less football for Hawaii cable viewers: If it were up to Disney, for my AT package price the only cable channels I would be able to watch on TV would be those preferred by my grandchildren or my sports nut daughter.
> 
> It's alright if they want to charge $20 a month for their cable channel group, just offer it as a premium package. I have a hunch my bill would drop by $10.
> 
> Disney has way too much clout inside viewers homes allowing them to offset their theme park screwups with high fees for cable channels.:nono2:


Agreed. All Disney stations except OTA stations should be offered as a separate, premium package. But this will never happen. Disney owns ABC, and they can tie the retransmission rights to the local ABC station in many markets to the retransmission rights for Disney, ESPN, etc.

This is another reason that retransmission fees for local, OTA stations should be eliminated. Just require the satellite or cable company to retransmit all locals, no programming deleted and deliver the customer a good-quality signal, to all addresses within the local station's market. Require the local station to deliver a good-quality signal to the satellite or cable company's headend or receive facility. There should be no retransmission fees for local stations, all stations must be carried. That is fair to the viewers and fair to the local stations.

TV stations should make their money off of advertisements, not retransmission fees. Plus, the cable/satellite company is doing the local station a favor when it retransmits it to viewers within the local area who would otherwise not be able to receive a good-quality signal. California is full of markets where a rooftop antenna will yield little to no reception, as is the rest of the country, I am sure. Cable and satellite are really helping the local stations out in that situation. Retransmission fees for OTA stations should be ended.


----------



## ibooksrule

"Hoosier205" said:


> Wrong.


I have seen shows that were full screen on hdnet


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ibooksrule said:


> I have seen shows that were full screen on hdnet


That doesn't mean they weren't HD.

I've seen old movies on HDNet that are in HD and presented in their proper original 4:3 aspect ratio as they should be.


----------



## ibooksrule

But some shows they show were not in HD. Such as star trek and jag among others.


----------



## adkinsjm

runner861 said:


> Agreed. All Disney stations except OTA stations should be offered as a separate, premium package. But this will never happen. Disney owns ABC, and they can tie the retransmission rights to the local ABC station in many markets to the retransmission rights for Disney, ESPN, etc.
> 
> This is another reason that retransmission fees for local, OTA stations should be eliminated. Just require the satellite or cable company to retransmit all locals, no programming deleted and deliver the customer a good-quality signal, to all addresses within the local station's market. Require the local station to deliver a good-quality signal to the satellite or cable company's headend or receive facility. There should be no retransmission fees for local stations, all stations must be carried. That is fair to the viewers and fair to the local stations.
> 
> TV stations should make their money off of advertisements, not retransmission fees. Plus, the cable/satellite company is doing the local station a favor when it retransmits it to viewers within the local area who would otherwise not be able to receive a good-quality signal. California is full of markets where a rooftop antenna will yield little to no reception, as is the rest of the country, I am sure. Cable and satellite are really helping the local stations out in that situation. Retransmission fees for OTA stations should be ended.


If channels were offered a-la-carte, a good number of channels would disappear and your bill in the end would be more.


----------



## runner861

adkinsjm said:


> If channels were offered a-la-carte, a good number of channels would disappear and your bill in the end would be more.


I think that if there were a "Disney" premium package, that included the Disney channels other than OTA, the basic bill would go down, although the bill would go up for those who bought the "Disney" package. That is the way it should be. We should pay for what we want, and not pay for what we don't want.


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> I think that if there were a "Disney" premium package, that included the Disney channels other than OTA, the basic bill would go down, although the bill would go up for those who bought the "Disney" package. That is the way it should be. We should pay for what we want, and not pay for what we don't want.


Disney Channel itself used to be a premium channel. Disney decided to restructure it and make it a basic channel.

How does one make Disney's properties a "premium package" when as of right now their properties are in basic packages?


runner861 said:


> Agreed. All Disney stations except OTA stations should be offered as a separate, premium package. But this will never happen. Disney owns ABC, and they can tie the retransmission rights to the local ABC station in many markets to the retransmission rights for Disney, ESPN, etc.


As of right now, Dish Network has at least four different carriage agreements with Disney:

ESPN - six ESPN SD and two ESPN HD channels
ABC Cable Networks - Disney, Disney XD and SoapNet
IFE - ABC Family
ABC - the ten or so owned-and-operated affiliates

So I don't believe there is any tying of some properties to others.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> How does one make Disney's properties a "premium package" when as of right now their properties are in basic packages?


The satellite companies refuses carriage in a package. Instead of agreeing to carry the channels spread out across AT120 through AT200 and the Sports Package, DISH offers an ABC/Disney/ESPN a la carte package.

Of course, the instant answer from the mouse will be "no" ... so instead of having a separate package for those who want the channels the channels would simply not be available.

ABC/Disney/ESPN knows that their content is valuable enough "must have channels" that they can refuse a la carte carriage demands and hold out for a deal where they are in regular packages (or distributed as they agree to be distributed). If they didn't have the content they wouldn't be carried at the prices they demand.



> As of right now, Dish Network has at least four different carriage agreements with Disney:
> 
> ESPN - six ESPN SD and two ESPN HD channels
> ABC Cable Networks - Disney, Disney XD and SoapNet
> IFE - ABC Family
> ABC - the ten or so owned-and-operated affiliates
> 
> So I don't believe there is any tying of some properties to others.


We're not seeing the contracts. I wonder if there are "discounts" or other rewards to a carrier who carries the ESPN suite if they also carry other packages? There are ways of tying without combining it all into one signature.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> The satellite companies refuses carriage in a package. Instead of agreeing to carry the channels spread out across AT120 through AT200 and the Sports Package, DISH offers an ABC/Disney/ESPN a la carte package.
> 
> Of course, the instant answer from the mouse will be "no" ... so instead of having a separate package for those who want the channels the channels would simply not be available.


Right. So I have to assume some are advocating changing the rules of the game so the above scenario doesn't happen.


James Long said:


> We're not seeing the contracts. I wonder if there are "discounts" or other rewards to a carrier who carries the ESPN suite if they also carry other packages? There are ways of tying without combining it all into one signature.


That would be a stretch. According to the suit the contracts had separate start dates (other than the ABC O&O's, because they weren't addressed in the suit). The decision from the suit mentions that each agreement is representative of the entire understanding between the parties, so I'd have a hard time believing that one contract would actually have provisions relating to another, especially since technically each contract is with a separate legal entity except for ABC O&O's and Disney.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Right. So I have to assume some are advocating changing the rules of the game so the above scenario doesn't happen.


As much as I don't like the situation, government mandates that would require a la carte offerings are not the solution.



> That would be a stretch. According to the suit the contracts had separate start dates (other than the ABC O&O's, because they weren't addressed in the suit). The decision from the suit mentions that each agreement is representative of the entire understanding between the parties, so I'd have a hard time believing that one contract would actually have provisions relating to another, especially since technically each contract is with a separate legal entity except for ABC O&O's and Disney.


The entire understanding in one contract could reference another. For example (theoretical), say the agreed price for carrying the ESPN suite was $2.50 per residential account but there was a discount for homes also receiving ABC Family. Carriage of ABC Family is dealt with under a separate contract but I don't see a prohibition that says ESPN can't offer a discount for any reason they choose. I would not be surprised to find other incentives in contracts. If it serves the provider to offer a discount or make a demand I wouldn't assume anything is off limits.


----------



## runner861

Right now, KABC channel 7 is running advertisements in which they state that ABC has not reached an agreement with Time-Warner, and that several stations may be deleted from Time-Warner in September. I don't remember all the stations that they reference, but they include OTA KABC channel 7, plus several ESPN stations. They advertisements tell the viewers that they have choice and advise changing to AT&T, Verizon, or DirectTV. They do not mention changing to Dish. They also mention receiving KABC channel 7 OTA.

This really is an admission by Disney that the negotiations for the stations are bundled. Also, as James mentioned earlier, an ongoing contract can be modified or referenced by a later contract.

I believe that eliminating retransmission consent for OTA, and shifting all OTA stations to "must carry" status, would be a step in the right direction, as I stated above.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ibooksrule said:


> But some shows they show were not in HD. Such as star trek and jag among others.


We're way off topic here... but...

Star Trek Enterprise was shot in HD in the later seasons... in the earlier seasons they definitely were shot in widescreen and have been upconverted. HDNet also did a conversion from original film of Hogan's Heroes to show that in HD.

Jag was in widescreen from season 5 onward, I believe, so likely very possible that HDNet has an HD master from the original negatives. They also could be showing the early seasons in HD (though 4:3) if scanned from the original film as well.

Law & Order (on TNT, not HDNet) has had HD conversions from the original film all the way back to the beginning... as has Seinfeld (on TBS).

But we should get back to the topic of the thread... which is the Dish vs Disney dispute.


----------



## Greg Bimson

runner861 said:


> Right now, KABC channel 7 is running advertisements in which they state that ABC has not reached an agreement with Time-Warner, and that several stations may be deleted from Time-Warner in September. I don't remember all the stations that they reference, but they include OTA KABC channel 7, plus several ESPN stations.


I'll concede that ABC O&O's were tied to the launch of some other channels. I think 15 years ago it was tied to ESPN2, and 10 years ago ESPNews, then 5 years ago it may have been SoapNet. So I know these aren't negotiated in a vacuum.

However, I can't concede that agreements were signed that referenced part of another, as the court case stated the agreement was the full understanding. If there were amendments to those contracts, fine, but that still is an amendment to the contract containing full understanding. You'd have seen in the decision handed down about most favored nation provisions that the judge would have mentioned one carriage agreement was tied to another.

It is in the best interest of the channel providers to keep carriage agreements separate even while negotiating for a full slate of channels.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> If there were amendments to those contracts, fine, but that still is an amendment to the contract containing full understanding.


I disagree with the way runner put it ... I hope you understood what I was saying. A simple clause that states "if X condition is followed, Y will happen under this contract". It is self contained - it does not modify the terms of other contracts. It only serves to modify the terms of the contract that the clause is included in.

"Most favored" is one of those clauses. ABC/Disney agreed in one contract that the terms of THAT contract would be modified so no other provider would get better terms. That clause modifies just the contract it is in, not the other contracts ABC/Disney has with DISH (as the court ruled).

I'm suggesting that there may be an "X" condition in, say the ABC Family contract, that gives a lower price when that channel is "included in the same package as ESPN and ESPN2". Under that condition, if ESPN or ESPN2 are ever dropped the ABC Family price would raise.

The "X" condition can be anything the parties agree on. "Included in the same or lower price package as CNN" could be included even though CNN isn't part of ABC/Disney. Anything can be in a contract if it can be agreed.


----------



## runner861

Greg Bimson said:


> However, I can't concede that agreements were signed that referenced part of another, as the court case stated the agreement was the full understanding. If there were amendments to those contracts, fine, but that still is an amendment to the contract containing full understanding. You'd have seen in the decision handed down about most favored nation provisions that the judge would have mentioned one carriage agreement was tied to another.


What is the citation to this court case?


----------



## runner861

James Long said:


> I disagree with the way runner put it ... I hope you understood what I was saying. A simple clause that states "if X condition is followed, Y will happen under this contract". It is self contained - it does not modify the terms of other contracts. It only serves to modify the terms of the contract that the clause is included in.
> 
> "Most favored" is one of those clauses. ABC/Disney agreed in one contract that the terms of THAT contract would be modified so no other provider would get better terms. That clause modifies just the contract it is in, not the other contracts ABC/Disney has with DISH (as the court ruled).
> 
> I'm suggesting that there may be an "X" condition in, say the ABC Family contract, that gives a lower price when that channel is "included in the same package as ESPN and ESPN2". Under that condition, if ESPN or ESPN2 are ever dropped the ABC Family price would raise.
> 
> The "X" condition can be anything the parties agree on. "Included in the same or lower price package as CNN" could be included even though CNN isn't part of ABC/Disney. Anything can be in a contract if it can be agreed.


I agree that contracts can be structured as you state. However, contracts, even the full and final agreement, can be modified at any time if the parties to the contract agree to do so.

There is one limitation to the what can be enforced in a contract. Any illegal clause cannot be enforced, even if agreed to by all the parties. I am not sure what the legal restrictions on these carriage contracts are, if any.


----------



## James Long

runner861 said:


> What is the citation to this court case?


It is a case in the New York court system.
See the previous post in this thread ---
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2515560#post2515560


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> I disagree with the way runner put it ... I hope you understood what I was saying. A simple clause that states "if X condition is followed, Y will happen under this contract". It is self contained - it does not modify the terms of other contracts. It only serves to modify the terms of the contract that the clause is included in.


I understand that.

The problem is that the payment terms are the "entire understanding" in the one contract (with whatever amount of amendments are attached to it). If the payments are in both contracts, then the carriage contract is no longer the entire understanding.

In other words, because the "ESPN" contract contains the full understanding between the parties, there better not be another contract which reference it. There can be amendments (so for example while negotiating the pricing for the Disney channels, there is a separate amendment signed to the other contract).

Long story short, Disney is trying fairly hard to maintain separate contracts even if negotiations tie one property to another.


----------



## kucharsk

ibooksrule said:


> But some shows they show were not in HD. Such as star trek and jag among others.


Many of those shows were shot on film, which has higher resolution than the current HD formats do.

So even if you were to see say, _Casablanca_ on HDNet Movies, it would be 4:3 but there would still be more detail on the film negative than HDNet Movies can present or that your HDTV could display.


----------



## harsh

kucharsk said:


> So even if you were to see say, _Casablanca_ on HDNet Movies, it would be 4:3 but there would still be more detail on the film negative than HDNet Movies can present or that your HDTV could display.


This presumes that the channel can get their hands on a quality print and that they have the equipment to capture from it.


----------



## kariato

Do TV companies still capture their own digital transfers. With HD I thought the capture process that went back to studios who sent a digital copies their own HD content to networks. It's expensive given that old film need to be restored before HD capture happens. The original stock on a lot of older movies have degraded means that they will never look HD since the source material is gone.


----------



## kariato

Also film aspect ratio on pre 1950 film was not fully wide screen. Wide screen was introduced to combat TV.


----------



## nmetro

Look like this Disney vs Cable/Satellite is going more viral. Today, Time-Warner ran a full page ad in today's New York Times (National Edition). Effectively mentioing DISH and Cablevision have dropped several Disney Channels and it looks like Time-Warner will be next. So, as other have pointed out; this issue was brought about by Disney, not by Dish.

I am waiting for the next salvo as college football season starts next week.


----------



## runner861

nmetro said:


> Look like this Disney vs Cable/Satellite is going more viral. Today, Time-Warner ran a full page ad in today's New York Times (National Edition). Effectively mentioing DISH and Cablevision have dropped several Disney Channels and it looks like Time-Warner will be next. So, as other have pointed out; this issue was brought about by Disney, not by Dish.
> 
> I am waiting for the next salvo as college football season starts next week.


The same (or very similar) article ran full-page in the Los Angeles Times today as well. It looks like the channels will be dropped. Both Time-Warner and Disney say they are drawing a line in the sand. We will see who blinks. Perhaps Congress ultimately will step in.


----------



## Davenlr

Would it be legal for all the providers to pull together, and if, say, Disney, tried to rip off DISH, all the other providers would simultaneously drop the same channel, effectively rendering that channel unviewable nationwide?


----------



## runner861

Davenlr said:


> Would it be legal for all the providers to pull together, and if, say, Disney, tried to rip off DISH, all the other providers would simultaneously drop the same channel, effectively rendering that channel unviewable nationwide?


I think that it is a very interesting question. However, I do not have the expertise to answer. I think that dropping the channel before the end of a contract would be a breach of contract. Therefore, it is in Disney's interest to have staggered contract termination dates with the various carriers. Of course, we never know the actual contract terms since it is never published. And, in fact, there is no law against breaching a contract at any time. It is just a civil dispute.


----------



## Davenlr

runner861 said:


> Perhaps Congress ultimately will step in.


I would really hate to see Congress have to step in on something like a TV dispute. If it comes to that, then the government should just save us some money and eliminate the FCC, which is the whole cause for this mess in the first place. They, I believe, and the ones that deregulated the industry allowing program providers to also own programming, screwing up must carry, eliminating out of state subscriptions of network channels, and just about everything else that is causing problems now.


----------



## Paul Secic

runner861 said:


> The same (or very similar) article ran full-page in the Los Angeles Times today as well. It looks like the channels will be dropped. Both Time-Warner and Disney say they are drawing a line in the sand. We will see who blinks. Perhaps Congress ultimately will step in.


I don't think Congress can step in.. This is a private matter. They have more important issues to deal with. TV isn't one of them.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> Would it be legal for all the providers to pull together, and if, say, Disney, tried to rip off DISH, all the other providers would simultaneously drop the same channel, effectively rendering that channel unviewable nationwide?


It would likely be a violation of any participating rebroadcaster's carriage contracts. They promised to carry ABC/Disney's channels ... failure to carry the channels would be a problem.

Generally speaking, channels are "pulled" when the contract expires and the rebroadcaster no longer has permission to carry the channel. Often there is a chance to continue carriage while the new contract is negotiated so there is no outage ... but that comes at a risk. Losing carriage is a major motivator for both sides to get a deal done and not keep pushing off the final decision to a later date.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Davenlr said:


> Would it be legal for all the providers to pull together, and if, say, Disney, tried to rip off DISH, all the other providers would simultaneously drop the same channel, effectively rendering that channel unviewable nationwide?


If they were under contract it would be illegal. Sounds like Dish held the line on renewal 1st, and the others are following suit, as thier renewals come up.

I don't see this effecting ABC, ESPN and Disney main channels. Now ABCFM, and those 2 Disney Cartoon stations. Those could drop off the map, at least HD wise. Dish, Cable, Direct are all getting out of the Numbers game now, as they all have lots of HD channels. I think they are all going to balk, over channels with very, very, very, very little HD content, and paying big dollars for it.

ABC/Disney has created a cash flow problem with lackluster movies, and dumb changes in theme parks, and are trying to recoup money from the SAT and Cable companies. SAT and Cable companies aren't going to make up the difference for that crap, and investors would be up in arms if they did.
I don't watch the two cartoon channels in question, but watched ABC Family, and when you can count the total of HD hrs, for the week on less than 10 fingers, its not a HD station that should cost much or anything at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I think Grumpy brings up an interesting thought...

At one time everyone was scrambling to have the "most HD channels" and some channels were essentially encouraged to go HD just to say they were HD even with very little actual HD content broadcast.

Now we're at a point where most channels, and pretty much all of the major ones, are available in HD... so that scramble to add for the sake of adding might be coming to an end.

Now we can get back to quality over quantity... and when contract time comes, the providers can weigh content over cost... and some "HD" channels might lose out over actual HD ones.

ESPN/ESPN2 have a big draw... as does local ABC programming.... but clearly the Disney channel is not in demand like it once was... and those additional channels (Disney XD, ESPNews, ESPNU) have less draw, though ESPNU is big during football/basketball season for college sports.

I think Disney is testing the waters... and finding that more people than just Dish are balking. Ultimately this should be good for everyone (even Disney really) because it will help curb unreasonable price increases by other channels AND will help put some things in proper perspective.

I doubt anyone would risk losing ESPN/ESPN2 for any length of time... but those other channels? I honestly haven't missed the ones that Dish dropped in HD (SD feeds are still there but I don't watch).


----------



## Greg Bimson

nmetro said:


> Look like this Disney vs Cable/Satellite is going more viral. Today, Time-Warner ran a full page ad in today's New York Times (National Edition). Effectively mentioing DISH and Cablevision have dropped several Disney Channels and it looks like Time-Warner will be next. So, as other have pointed out; this issue was brought about by Disney, not by Dish.
> 
> I am waiting for the next salvo as college football season starts next week.


There's quite a bit of spin in there...

Cablevision dropped ABC, and reinstated by comng to terms with Disney a few days later.

Dish Network dropped the four HD channels because they were never under contract. Dish Network sued instead of negotiating for HD channels back at the beginning of 2008. Therefore the issue was brought about by Dish Network; Disney is simply enforcing their contractual terms. And in the case of carriage of the four HD channels, Disney simply enforced that channels cannot be carried without contracts.


 Davenlr said:


> Would it be legal for all the providers to pull together, and if, say, Disney, tried to rip off DISH, all the other providers would simultaneously drop the same channel, effectively rendering that channel unviewable nationwide?


Say you wanted to buy a can of Pringles and every single retail outlet have met and decided you aren't allowed to buy it.

If it doesn't sound right, it is called collusion, and highly illegal.


Davenlr said:


> I would really hate to see Congress have to step in on something like a TV dispute. If it comes to that, then the government should just save us some money and eliminate the FCC, which is the whole cause for this mess in the first place.


The FCC didn't cause this...

"They, I believe, and the ones that:

deregulated the industry allowing program providers to also own programming,"
This may have been an FCC rule, but that was encouraged by law to have cablers develop their own programming. How long has Comcast owned CSN Philly? MSG (owned by Cablevision) owned MSG Network? The FTC (Department of Justice) allowed DirecTV to be purchased by NewsCorp with some conditions, while the FCC did not allow Dish Network to buy DirecTV.

"screwing up must carry,"
Must-carry is law, passed by Congress, not an FCC-created regulation.

"eliminating out of state subscriptions of network channels,"
I don't exactly know what this means.


GrumpyBear said:


> Sounds like Dish held the line on renewal 1st, and the others are following suit, as thier renewals come up.


That's the problem. No one can renew a contract that never existed. Dish Network is simply tried to have the courts force Disney to provide the HD feeds, and failed miserably.


----------



## TBoneit

And to add a twist to things, WABC channel 7 in NYC had a little piece in their 11PM news broadcast Sunday evening the 29th where they said that things were looking better with the TWC negotiations and that they were hoping to avoid the channels being pulled.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Dish didn't want to pay extra for those feeds it felt was included. Dish wanted them to continue yes, but didn't want to pay what Disney/ABC wanted. ABC/Disney wanted money for them won in court, blah blah, blah, long story short, plug pulled on them.
Dish isn't paying for them, ABC/Disney isn't getting money from them, they will/may get back money for them. ABC/Disney is having contract fee problems for those extra worthless HD stations with several carriers now. Several carriers taking out Large add's and even local updates in the LA New radio stations. 
Sounds like ABC/Disney is finding out that these filler channels with little to no HD content are NOT worth it to the carriers. ABC/Disney is finding out that all the reports about how they have mishandled the Parks and losing money, and some of the bad movies, that are costing them a bundle of Cash on thier bottom line, wont be made up by the carriers, paying for worthless HD channels that they should be lucky that even get carried so they can charge for advertising rates. Lots of money is being lost right now be Disney in the ad rates, as the subrates for those channels will be dropping, and dropping, and dropping.


----------



## HarveyLA

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/time_warner_cable_disney_set_tv_gOJz9nDkeJfwnj5hEjytAJ

NY POST: Time Warner Cable and Walt Disney Co. have "come to terms" on a carriage agreement, 10 days before the opening of the NFL regular season and on the verge of the fall TV season, according to a person close to the talks.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busine...y_set_tv_gOJz9nDkeJfwnj5hEjytAJ#ixzz0y6kmbs9p


----------



## Greg Bimson

GrumpyBear said:


> Dish didn't want to pay extra for those feeds it felt was included. Dish wanted them to continue yes, but didn't want to pay what Disney/ABC wanted. ABC/Disney wanted money for them won in court, blah blah, blah, long story short, plug pulled on them.
> Dish isn't paying for them, ABC/Disney isn't getting money from them, they will/may get back money for them. ABC/Disney is having contract fee problems for those extra worthless HD stations with several carriers now. Several carriers taking out Large add's and even local updates in the LA New radio stations.





HarveyLA said:


> NY POST: Time Warner Cable and Walt Disney Co. have "come to terms" on a carriage agreement, 10 days before the opening of the NFL regular season and on the verge of the fall TV season, according to a person close to the talks.


Dish Network sued Disney in January, 2008, to force Disney to provide Dish Network four HD feeds for free. Dish Network lost in court, "blah blah, blah, long story short, plug pulled on them."


GrumpyBear said:


> Several carriers taking out Large add's and even local updates in the LA New radio stations.


Really? If the rumor is true and Time Warner is moments away from signing a carriage agreement, can you point to another company other than Dish Network that is having a dispute? We know that Cablevision _had_ a dispute, and that Time Warner has taken their discussions to the public to generate sympathy (sympathy for a cable company?) and is on the verge of signing an agreement, but is there another that has been missed?

The three companies that generate the most noise about carriage disputes are (in no particular order) are Dish Network, Cablevision and Time Warner. I'm just trying to verify if there is another.


----------



## Paul Secic

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think Grumpy brings up an interesting thought...
> 
> At one time everyone was scrambling to have the "most HD channels" and some channels were essentially encouraged to go HD just to say they were HD even with very little actual HD content broadcast.
> 
> Now we're at a point where most channels, and pretty much all of the major ones, are available in HD... so that scramble to add for the sake of adding might be coming to an end.
> 
> Now we can get back to quality over quantity... and when contract time comes, the providers can weigh content over cost... and some "HD" channels might lose out over actual HD ones.
> 
> ESPN/ESPN2 have a big draw... as does local ABC programming.... but clearly the Disney channel is not in demand like it once was... and those additional channels (Disney XD, ESPNews, ESPNU) have less draw, though ESPNU is big during football/basketball season for college sports.
> 
> I think Disney is testing the waters... and finding that more people than just Dish are balking. Ultimately this should be good for everyone (even Disney really) because it will help curb unreasonable price increases by other channels AND will help put some things in proper perspective.
> 
> I doubt anyone would risk losing ESPN/ESPN2 for any length of time... but those other channels? I honestly haven't missed the ones that Dish dropped in HD (SD feeds are still there but I don't watch).


Honestly I don't watch most of the Disney channels at all. What I do watch is ESPN for Baseball and Football. Maybe Disney should go back being a premium package again.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> [C]an you point to another company other than Dish Network that is having a dispute?


At the moment and despite the thread that this is being posted in it is hard for me to classify the relationship between DISH and ABC/Disney as a dispute. DISH won't pay for the HD channels, ABC/Disney won't deliver them without payment. The parties are in agreement that the HD channels will not be paid for and will not be provided.

The named slots for the pulled ABC/Disney feeds were taken down a couple of weeks ago ... I'd be surprised if there is any negotiation going on. (Everything is "in negotiation" even if it isn't.) We probably won't hear anything more on DISH carriage of the ABC/Disney HD feeds until the SD contract ends. Then the question will be if ABC/Disney tries to force carriage by bundling.


----------



## runner861

I will note that KABC channel 7 in LA is running lots of ads stating that channel 7 and ESPN channels and Disney channels may be pulled from Time-Warner Cable. The ads then go on to suggest changing providers to FIOS, DirectTV, AT&T, or OTA. The ads do not suggest changing to Dish. So, while possibly not a full-blown dispute, there does appear to be friction between Disney and Dish.


----------



## Willh

well, despite the fact that Dish and Disney are in dispute over the HD feeds of Disney Channel, DisneyXD, ABC Family, and ESPNews, and Dish is also in a dispute with MSG over Fuse, it won't stop me for "Pulling the Trigger" to switch to Dish's HD services.


----------



## Dave

But now the disputes have spread to other providers about other channels. AT&T Uverse just pulled Hallmark and Hallmark movies channels over price increases.


----------



## projectorguru

this really sucks, my 2 daughters are already complainin about the old shows and movies we had on the dvr recorded off abcfm, and disney. I know some of you don't miss them, but those of us with little ones in the house, they were the most watched channels and recordings on my dvr in the house.


----------



## PRIME1

projectorguru said:


> this really sucks, my 2 daughters are already complainin about the old shows and movies we had on the dvr recorded off abcfm, and disney. I know some of you don't miss them, but those of us with little ones in the house, they were the most watched channels and recordings on my dvr in the house.


+1 And absolutely no information from Dish..... :nono2:


----------



## phrelin

From the Morning Bridge:


> A New York appeals court says EchoStar must pay interest to Disney networks for late payments. The suit includes high-def versions of the Disney Channel, Toon Disney, SOAPNet, ABC Family and the ESPN group of sports channels.


I'm posting this here since the title of this thread is about the dispute while the other thread is about members longing for the return of the channels.

I still say we need a whole Forum area for Dish/Echostar lawsuits. It's tough to keep track of them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

That's a weird quote... since Dish never had SoapNet in HD did they? How can Dish owe money for that channel if they never carried it?


----------



## Jeff_DML

phrelin said:


> From the Morning Bridge: I'm posting this here since the title of this thread is about the dispute while the other thread is about members longing for the return of the channels.
> 
> I still say we need a whole Forum area for Dish/Echostar lawsuits. It's tough to keep track of them.


you know how charlie works, just because the court says so doesnt mean he will do it

Also Charlie solved it for me by invalidating my HD absolute


----------



## Paul Secic

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's a weird quote... since Dish never had SoapNet in HD did they? How can Dish owe money for that channel if they never carried it?


Isn't SoapNet going off at some point? I read about it somewhere about 6 months ago.


----------



## James Long

Paul Secic said:


> Stewart Vernon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a weird quote... since Dish never had SoapNet in HD did they? How can Dish owe money for that channel if they never carried it?
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't SoapNet going off at some point? I read about it somewhere about 6 months ago.
Click to expand...

Saying that it was in HD was wrong, which makes the quote weird.
IIRC the carriage of SD ABC Family was part of a contract to carry SoapNet. The reporter probably got confused/lazy and mistyped to get the statement he wrote.

And yes, SoapNet will end as a network next January. Disney Jr is replacing it in distribution. Carriage on DISH may or may not continue ... it all depends on when the contract ends. It is another situation where a channel morphed.


----------



## jaredbo

During my chat with a Dish CSR tonight I asked about these HD channels and that the rumor was that nothing would change until the remaining channel contracts expire between Dish Network and Disney. The Dish CSR agreed and indicated that they haven't been given any information as to when to expect these channels to return Dish programming but did indicate that there is approx 3 mos remaining channel contracts and they expected something to happen at that time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jaredbo said:


> During my chat with a Dish CSR tonight I asked about these HD channels and that the rumor was that nothing would change until the remaining channel contracts expire between Dish Network and Disney. The Dish CSR agreed and indicated that they haven't been given any information as to when to expect these channels to return Dish programming but did indicate that there is approx 3 mos remaining channel contracts and they expected something to happen at that time.


That sounds like a plausible situation.

Dish doesn't want to give in until they have to... and Disney doesn't want to make a new deal on these few channels if their other contracts are going to expire.

Makes sense for all involved IF they do a new contract that covers everything... and maybe that would mean we would finally get ESPNUHD as well.


----------



## Calvin386

Come on ESPNU HD!


----------



## jaredbo

Just spoke to a Dish Customer rep that said the Disney/ESPN SD channel contracts expire at the end of the month. He also said that they expect Disney HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD, and ESPNews HD to be returned within the month. Any one else heard this?


----------



## scorpion43

jaredbo said:


> Just spoke to a Dish Customer rep that said the Disney/ESPN SD channel contracts expire at the end of the month. He also said that they expect Disney HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD, and ESPNews HD to be returned within the month. Any one else heard this?


i wouldn't hold my breath


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jaredbo said:


> Just spoke to a Dish Customer rep that said the Disney/ESPN SD channel contracts expire at the end of the month. He also said that they expect Disney HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD, and ESPNews HD to be returned within the month. Any one else heard this?


There hasn't been any news... but I think most of us figured there was no way those HD channels were coming back until the other contracts expired. That forces everyone's hand to negotiate everything at one time.


----------



## altidude

Kick Buttkowski back in full HD glory? AWESOME!


----------



## ehren

They better get ESPNU-HD before college football starts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rasheed

Well, I would not expect Disney to offer a contract to Dish without the HD carriage required at this point. Dish has put some rate limits on what they will charge consumers for the meanwhile as we know.

The Starz issue has also made Disney rather upset too, but usually the actual negotiators tend to overlook those items because it is in both interests to have the programming available.

I think a few weeks of no Disney channels is possible if they do not mutually agree to extensions during negotiations. I do not remember if the upcoming renewal also has the O and O local channels in there as well.

While getting the HD added is I am sure a part of the problem for the contract, I expect even getting a SD agreement may be hard unless the MFN agreements are at new rates that Dish already budgeted in their expenses.

Rasheed


----------



## BodyshotsByDan

I Really Really want the Disney's in HD!!

Oh wait, I mean my SON wants it..... Yup


----------



## phrelin

rasheed said:


> I think a few weeks of no Disney channels is possible if they do not mutually agree to extensions during negotiations. I do not remember if the upcoming renewal also has the O and O local channels in there as well.
> 
> While getting the HD added is I am sure a part of the problem for the contract, I expect even getting a SD agreement may be hard unless the MFN agreements are at new rates that Dish already budgeted in their expenses


I'm inclined to agree with you - Disney has gotten greedy in other negotiations. So I could see this going to more than a few weeks of no Disney channels. And Charlie is bound to be displeased over the whole [strike]Showtime[/strike] Starz thing, so he's not going to be real amicable.

The O & O issue is important. My own station from San Francisco, KGO-TV, is an O & O. I'd lose "Combat Hospital" and "Rookie Blue" this summer. If it comes to that, I'll watch them on line. Should it come to that I'll be writing regular letters to Senators Boxer and Feinstein, as well as my Congressman raising the whole "let's keep the broadcast stations out of the contracts with cable channels or let's just sell the broadcast bandwidth" issue.

It's a pain, but I happen to think the Disney folks are a greedy bunch of SOB's.


----------



## lparsons21

Personally I wouldn't care if they took the Disney channel off anyway, so I sure won't miss it if that happens for awhile.

But if ESPN is affected in this, I will care a bit. I NEED my Friday Night Fights!!


----------



## RasputinAXP

"lparsons21" said:


> Personally I wouldn't care if they took the Disney channel off anyway, so I sure won't miss it if that happens for awhile.
> 
> But if ESPN is affected in this, I will care a bit. I NEED my Friday Night Fights!!


I'll send my disneyless preschoolers to your house, then...and you'll understand why my house might miss it.


----------



## SayWhat?

Turn the preschoolers on to Boom


----------



## lparsons21

RasputinAXP said:


> I'll send my disneyless preschoolers to your house, then...and you'll understand why my house might miss it.


Kind of a long roadtrip, but whatever... 

Other channels are available, or you could do what I do when I'm taking care of grandchildren or grand-nephew/neices - play some games, send them outside to play or some such.

Of course, you could always tell them here's what is on, get used to it!! :lol:


----------



## RasputinAXP

I'll do the same thing I already do: It's on the DVR, what's on the DVR is what you've got...

the older one will just want to 'watch' Transformers while he plays anyway...


----------



## Paul Secic

phrelin said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you - Disney has gotten greedy in other negotiations. So I could see this going to more than a few weeks of no Disney channels. And Charlie is bound to be displeased over the whole Showtime thing, so he's not going to be real amicable.
> 
> The O & O issue is important. My own station from San Francisco, KGO-TV, is an O & O. I'd lose "Combat Hospital" and "Rookie Blue" this summer. If it comes to that, I'll watch them on line. Should it come to that I'll be writing regular letters to Senators Boxer and Feinstein, as well as my Congressman raising the whole "let's keep the broadcast stations out of the contracts with cable channels or let's just sell the broadcast bandwidth" issue.
> 
> It's a pain, but I happen to think the Disney folks are a greedy bunch of SOB's.


Just put the ESPNS, Disney channels in their own tier. I know they would kick and scream. Just saying.


----------



## TBoneit

phrelin said:


> I'm inclined to agree with you - Disney has gotten greedy in other negotiations. So I could see this going to more than a few weeks of no Disney channels. And Charlie is bound to be displeased over the whole Showtime thing, so he's not going to be real amicable.
> 
> The O & O issue is important. My own station from San Francisco, KGO-TV, is an O & O. I'd lose "Combat Hospital" and "Rookie Blue" this summer. If it comes to that, I'll watch them on line. Should it come to that I'll be writing regular letters to Senators Boxer and Feinstein, as well as my Congressman raising the whole "let's keep the broadcast stations out of the contracts with cable channels or let's just sell the broadcast bandwidth" issue.
> 
> It's a pain, but I happen to think the Disney folks are a greedy bunch of SOB's.


Did I miss something? The Whole Showtime thing referenced above.


----------



## eichenberg

Anybody have a time frame on when the HD channels will return. I just got Dish installed and prior to ordering I was chatting with an online rep who told me he assured me "there is no contract dispute and that Dish currently carries both SD and HD of all ABC family of channels". LIAR...pissed me off when after the installers left and I did not have Disney in HD. After calling and talking to a supervisor I was told that was incorrect and that Dish was in a contract dispute andthe HD channels would hopefully return very soon.


----------



## juan ellitinez

eichenberg said:


> Anybody have a time frame on when the HD channels will return. I just got Dish installed and prior to ordering I was chatting with an online rep who told me he assured me "there is no contract dispute and that Dish currently carries both SD and HD of all ABC family of channels". LIAR...pissed me off when after the installers left and I did not have Disney in HD. After calling and talking to a supervisor I was told that was incorrect and that Dish was in a contract dispute andthe HD channels would hopefully return very soon.


everything is "soon" with Dish network:lol:


----------



## augie

juan ellitinez said:


> everything is "soon" with Dish network:lol:


Don't forget "hopefully"...


----------



## harsh

juan ellitinez said:


> everything is "soon" with Dish network:lol:


Soon is more hopeful than the message in the quarterly DIRECTV anticipation threads.


----------



## RAD

harsh said:


> Soon is more hopeful than the message in the quarterly DIRECTV anticipation threads.


Hows that new Sling catcher that works with the 922 which has been coming soon for over a year working out?


----------



## rasheed

TBoneit said:


> Did I miss something? The Whole Showtime thing referenced above.


He means Starz I believe.

By the way, I should mention that the ABC show app for iPad is excellent. I think Dish definitely can show (like the current Fox online deal) that unless you do something special for Dish customers (or lower the price), it will be a tough contract renewal.

Rasheed


----------



## phrelin

rasheed said:


> He means Starz I believe.


Yes. Sorry, I haven't been back to this thread until now. It appears my brain is slowly, or not so slowly, losing its connection to my keyboard.


----------



## harsh

RAD said:


> Hows that new Sling catcher that works with the 922 which has been coming soon for over a year working out?


Supposedly mid-August 2011 last I heard. Fortunately absence of the catcher doesn't completely inhibit getting any use out of the Sling feature.

At the 2005 CES, DIRECTV announced that an HMC was to arrive in the summer of 2005 and the next year that DIRECTV2Go would be released some time in 2006. There's still a chance that a descendant of one or the other will be released this year, right?


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> Hows that new Sling catcher that works with the 922 which has been coming soon for over a year working out?


About as good as the new DirecTV Tivo. Every company has their problems.


----------



## tampa8

eichenberg said:


> Anybody have a time frame on when the HD channels will return. I just got Dish installed and prior to ordering I was chatting with an online rep who told me he assured me "there is no contract dispute and that Dish currently carries both SD and HD of all ABC family of channels". LIAR...pissed me off when after the installers left and I did not have Disney in HD. After calling and talking to a supervisor I was told that was incorrect and that Dish was in a contract dispute andthe HD channels would hopefully return very soon.


That's totally on you. You knew they didn't carry them in HD when you signed up, or you wouldn't have asked.


----------



## eichenberg

tampa8 said:


> That's totally on you. You knew they didn't carry them in HD when you signed up, or you wouldn't have asked.


umm how so? The first post on this page says that per a CSR the hd channels should be back by end of the month.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2815043&postcount=351

Then a few posts later on the same day someone statets that Kick Butowski (Disney program) was back in Full HD

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2815134&postcount=354

then others go on to say it is not back. So I asked a CLARIFYING question to the CSR I was talking to and he insured me they were back and that Dish was carrying both SD and HD., so how is that on me?


----------



## altidude

eichenberg said:


> ...Then a few posts later on the same day someone statets that Kick Butowski (Disney program) was back in Full HD
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=2815134&postcount=354


I didn't write that Kick was back in HD. I wrote, or meant, that I was GLAD Kick would be back in HD.


----------



## dakeeney

How does it look as far as getting the Disney HD channels back?


----------



## Jim5506

I don't expect any change until the entire ABC/ESPN/Disney package is up for re-negotiation.


----------



## sheltrk

Anybody heard when Disney/ESPN/ABC package is up for re-negotiation with Dish?


----------



## dennispap

Ruling came out today. Dish lost:
However, from the wording of the ruling, and the fact that it was made by the Manhattan Supreme Court, it looks like it will be a long ride while Dish takes this through the rest of the process in the Courts.

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticl...tled_to__Million_From_Dish_Network_Jury_Finds


----------



## phrelin

Heck, this is just the jury decision in a trial. We could be discussing this years from now if it weren't for the fact that at some point that some contracts will soon expire.


----------



## sheltrk

The way I'm reading this: The Manhattan Supreme Court jury basically is saying that yes, Disney was correct in collecting the additional fees for the HD versions of various Disney-owned channels. Dish already paid those fees (under protest), and was disputing the contractual requirement to pay them. 

This verdict would seem to make it extremely unlikely for Dish to change their current policy (as of June 2010) of *not* carrying those same channels in HD. Interestingly, the 2005 Disney carriage contracts are also being litigated in federal court.

What a mess...


----------



## bnewt

yes, it is a mess & the customer suffers


----------



## Paul Secic

jaredbo said:


> Just spoke to a Dish Customer rep that said the Disney/ESPN SD channel contracts expire at the end of the month. He also said that they expect Disney HD, Disney XD HD, ABC Family HD, and ESPNews HD to be returned within the month. Any one else heard this?


This could go on for years. That CSR is wrong.


----------



## ehren

CSR's have credible evidence now?

aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## sheltrk

I watched the OSU - ISU game on ESPNU last night. Great game (except for the ending). Picture quality, however, was absolutely terrible. It's a shame.

It's been several months... Any updates on when we might possibly see all the Disney/ESPN/ABC channels in HD?


----------



## tampa8

You can bet if there was news it would not be hidden, it's not like people have forgot about it! .....


----------



## MCHuf

Dish is holding the line on package pricing until 2013. Just watch; when they raise prices, that's when the dispute with Disney will be resolved.


----------



## phrelin

It has gotten infinitely more complicated, or perhaps completely uncomplicated, with the Comcast - Disney deal. You can read a summary here and even click the "show press release" button. Comcast not only agreed to pay more for ESPN, it also agreed to pay for Disney O&O local ABC broadcast stations. In my crystal ball I see $$$ disappearing from my wallet or everything owned by Disney disappearing from Dish including my local ABC affiliate.


----------



## Jhon69

MCHuf said:


> Dish is holding the line on package pricing until 2013. Just watch; when they raise prices, that's when the dispute with Disney will be resolved.


Well this is a croc of crap!.DISH does not want to pay Disney extra for the HD channels? then why does DISH's customers have to pay extra for the HD channels from DISH?.Must be some more of DISH's"Don't do as I do,do as I say"?.:nono2:


----------



## James Long

Jhon69 said:


> Well this is a croc of crap!.DISH does not want to pay Disney extra for the HD channels? then why does DISH's customers have to pay extra for the HD channels from DISH?.Must be some more of DISH's"Don't do as I do,do as I say"?.:nono2:


DISH offers free HD. Considering the additional satellite space needed to carry HD it is an expensive offering that is not covered by the "token" payment some make for the HD versions of the channels.

DISH's issue with ABC is they feel that DISH should get the best deal of any provider. Another (unnamed) provider got the HD versions at no extra charge, DISH assumed the same deal should apply to them. Why should ABC give some providers free channels and not DISH?


----------



## Jhon69

James Long said:


> DISH offers free HD. Considering the additional satellite space needed to carry HD it is an expensive offering that is not covered by the "token" payment some make for the HD versions of the channels.
> 
> DISH's issue with ABC is they feel that DISH should get the best deal of any provider. Another (unnamed) provider got the HD versions at no extra charge, DISH assumed the same deal should apply to them. Why should ABC give some providers free channels and not DISH?


This is all I know,I got HD Free For Life for a 24 month commitment with autopay and auto billing.

It also possible to get HD For Life for $99.(no commitment)

It's also possible to get the HD channels for $10. a month.

So anyway I see it DISH is charging extra for the HD channels.

DirecTV charges $10. a month for the HD channels.

That's all I know.

I do appreciate the information Thanks James,guess it really doesn't matter.DISH is going to do,what DISH is going to do and if subscribers don't like it,they go elsewhere,right?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As James notes... Part of the problem is some channels negotiating lower prices with one company then wanting higher prices with another. Dish doesn't pass all the savings to us, but if they just accepted and passed on all the increases, none of us would be able to afford TV for long.


----------



## James Long

Jhon69 said:


> So anyway I see it DISH is charging extra for the HD channels.


New subscribers between August 2009 and June 2010, and existing HD subscribers who dropped their pre-August 2009 HD package (Bronze/Silver/Gold and Platinum) and then added the August 2009 HD+Platinum HD ended up with free HD with no strings attached - no autopay/paperless/$99 fee/extra commitment. I am one of those people (I dropped my old HD plan and added HD+Platinum HD, which became Free HD plus what is now the Blockbuster package).

For those who still find a way to pay for HD (the least they could do is pay the $99 fee and not make a commitment to get away from the $10 fee) it seems they have chosen to pay more than they need to. It is probably easier to pay $10 per month and complain about it than to take a step that leads to free HD.


----------



## HDlover

Hope dish refuses to pay more for ESPN and will only carry it as a premium channel. ABC is screwing the consumer who has no say. Looks like an opportunity for a new carrier who'd do a la carte.


----------



## James Long

HDlover said:


> Hope dish refuses to pay more for ESPN and will only carry it as a premium channel. ABC is screwing the consumer who has no say. Looks like an opportunity for a new carrier who'd do a la carte.


The first step is to find channels that will sell their content a la carte. The ABC/ESPNs in this world negotiate for inclusion by the package level. If the carrier doesn't include their channel at the package level the channel desires then nobody gets the channel via that carrier.

So when you find this theoretical new carrier who will do a la carte you'll find a lot of missing channels because they won't be able to get the carriage deals.


----------



## John79605

When the dispute is resolved will there be bandwidth for the HD channels?


----------



## Jhon69

Stewart Vernon said:


> As James notes... Part of the problem is some channels negotiating lower prices with one company then wanting higher prices with another. Dish doesn't pass all the savings to us, but if they just accepted and passed on all the increases, none of us would be able to afford TV for long.


That part I can agree with you and James,I appreciate that about DISH,that's another reason I came back from DirecTV.But I'm sure you can also see why there are those who think just the opposite.Hopefully this will enlighten those who are on both sides of this issue,Thanks again.


----------



## SayWhat?

Here's just one reason why I'll never support a fee increase to Disney:



> Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:59pm EST
> 
> (Reuters) - Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) Chief Executive Bob Iger saw his compensation rise by 13 percent in the fiscal year 2011, boosted by an increase in his annual cash bonus and incentive plan, according to a company filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
> 
> Iger, 60, who has run Disney since October 2005, saw his total compensation including pension benefits top *$33.6 million* in the 12 months to September 2011, when the company's financial year ended.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...Type=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true

That's more than the annual budget of some medium sized counties.


----------



## Jhon69

SayWhat? said:


> Here's just one reason why I'll never support a fee increase to Disney:
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...Type=RSS&feedName=businessNews&rpc=23&sp=true
> 
> That's more than the annual budget of some medium sized counties.


Which counties?.

All I know is you will normally never hurt the suits.When profit goes down they will layoff the little guys to boost profits,after all profits are the nature of the beast for all companies to stay in business and to attract investors.


----------



## harsh

Jhon69 said:


> All I know is you will normally never hurt the suits.When profit goes down they will layoff the little guys to boost profits,after all profits are the nature of the beast for all companies to stay in business and to attract investors.


What manner of rank and file do you suppose Disney has?


----------



## Jhon69

harsh said:


> What manner of rank and file do you suppose Disney has?


I would guess there is a formula that all companies follow when it comes to the rank and file,and depending how large the company is would dictate how many of each titles within the company they would have.


----------



## runner861

No matter where you work, public sector or private sector, when cuts are made, the people at the top are always saved. Of course, they are the ones making the decisions about the cuts. They are not going to hurt themselves.

The city manager will lay off one of the city's gardeners, but he will find the money to recarpet and refurnish his office.


----------



## phrelin

Now let's be fair here. In the private sector many CEO's have been fired and were only given a few hundred million in severance. Everyone takes a risk.:sure:


----------



## phrelin

According to The Morning Bridge this morning:


> Last month, Liberty Media CEO Greg Maffei said the rising costs of ESPN is a "tax on every American household." A few short weeks later, news has leaked that Cox is set to launch an economy subscription package without the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" giving pay-TV customers a choice on the four-letter sports net 'surcharge.'
> 
> According to company communication, Cox is launching its TV Economy package for $35 per month at the end of January. The package includes all of the channels in its "starter" package, plus a handful of national cable nets not named ESPN.
> 
> ...As part of the tier's "expanded" line-up, Cox is offering AMC, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, History Channel, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, TruTV, TV Land, USA and the Weather Channel. Not only is ESPN notably absent from the line-up, but there is no sports-related equivalent to take its place.


 So it is possible to negotiate something without the cost of the ESPN tax which right now is imposed on even the cheap Dish America package.


----------



## James Long

That sounds like the "Family" package. $35 is a lot to pay for TV without any sports (except local channels).


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> That sounds like the "Family" package. $35 is a lot to pay for TV without any sports (except local channels).


I thought that also, but in our area Comcast offers a new customer for the first year their digital service with a free premium for three months for $39.99 with no contract, with HD, $47.99 per month, a DVR kicks it up to $55.95, and if you agree to a contract, knock off $10 for a year. Regardless, after six months or a year with no HD, premium channel, or DVR it goes to $59.99.

Of course, they have other promo's for bundles.

Comcast has never even been close to Dish in pricing.

But someone got by the ESPN in every package demand from Disney, even if it was Cox Cable.


----------



## James Long

phrelin said:


> But someone got by the ESPN in every package demand from Disney, even if it was Cox Cable.


Somebody already did ... DISH Family does not have ESPN. (I believe DirecTV's Family package was equally un-endowed.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James said what I was thinking... I thought Dish already had a cheaper family pack without ESPN... but then the complaint was that it didn't have very many channels in it. There's always something to complain about no matter how they slice the packages.


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> Somebody already did ... DISH Family does not have ESPN. (I believe DirecTV's Family package was equally un-endowed.)


According to the article:


> Cox is offering AMC, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, History Channel, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, TruTV, TV Land, USA and the Weather Channel.


As far as I'm concerned that's kind of a different thing from Dish Family. In fact, I'm surprised it has Disney in it. That just seems like quite a concession by the Disney people.


----------



## James Long

"Cox is offering AMC, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, History Channel, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, TruTV, TV Land, USA and the Weather Channel." 

And DISH is offering:
Animal Planet - 184
Bloomberg Television - 203
BIO - 119
Boomerang - 175
CBS Sports Network - 152
Cooking Channel - 113
Do It Yourself (DIY) - 111
Food Network - 110
FOX News Channel - 205
Hallmark Channel - 185
Hallmark Movie Channel - 187
Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite - 170/171
Nicktoons Network - 178
Outdoor Channel - 396
RFD-TV - 231
Science - 193
The Hub - 179
TV Land - 106
Weather Channel - 214
(plus additional channels)

Some of those channels are AT250 channels. It is a good sampler, with NO ESPN, and it has been offered for years. Some different choices, but still some pretty good channels.

Perhaps you had it confused with the Welcome Package?


----------



## MCHuf

Stewart Vernon said:


> James said what I was thinking... I thought Dish already had a cheaper family pack without ESPN... but then the complaint was that it didn't have very many channels in it. There's always something to complain about no matter how they slice the packages.


My biggest complaint about Dish Family is that you can't get HD channels. The Cox package does make HD channels available. I read the leaked letter on DSL Reports and HD channels were listed. You can get them with a cable card (which was listed as an option) device, and probably by renting a HD stb. The package also comes with a standard definition box rolled into the base price. Buy a Tivo (w/lifetime sub) or a pc card and you can get and HD dvr and a sd stb for $3.50 per month. Actually a pretty good deal as far as cable pricing goes.

Looking at the Dish Family line-up it really is geared towards families with younger kids. HD probably isn't a big concern for kids, but it's still too bad hd isn't even an option.


----------



## harsh

Jhon69 said:


> I would guess there is a formula that all companies follow when it comes to the rank and file,and depending how large the company is would dictate how many of each titles within the company they would have.


Thinking specifically about Disney and their various products, outside of the destinations, how many blue collar jobs do you think they have? Do you think that number represents a large percentage of the Disney workforce?


----------



## Jhon69

harsh said:


> Thinking specifically about Disney and their various products, outside of the destinations, how many blue collar jobs do you think they have? Do you think that number represents a large percentage of the Disney workforce?


http://www.wdwmagic.com/facts!.htm


----------



## phrelin

James Long said:


> "Cox is offering AMC, BET, Cartoon Network, CNN, Comedy Central, Discovery, Disney, E!, Food Network, Fox News, History Channel, Lifetime, Nickelodeon, TruTV, TV Land, USA and the Weather Channel."
> 
> And DISH is offering:
> Animal Planet - 184
> Bloomberg Television - 203
> BIO - 119
> Boomerang - 175
> CBS Sports Network - 152
> Cooking Channel - 113
> Do It Yourself (DIY) - 111
> Food Network - 110
> FOX News Channel - 205
> Hallmark Channel - 185
> Hallmark Movie Channel - 187
> Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite - 170/171
> Nicktoons Network - 178
> Outdoor Channel - 396
> RFD-TV - 231
> Science - 193
> The Hub - 179
> TV Land - 106
> Weather Channel - 214
> (plus additional channels)
> 
> Some of those channels are AT250 channels. It is a good sampler, with NO ESPN, and it has been offered for years. Some different choices, but still some pretty good channels.
> 
> Perhaps you had it confused with the Welcome Package?


No, I had a link to the Dish Family list in my post. The article list for Cox is incomplete, but that said, while there are some general audience channels in the Dish list, I'd have to go with the Cox package that has USA, AMC, Disney, Comedy Central, etc. The only channel on the Dish list that we've watched any programming on in the past four years is the Hallmark Channel for some basically awful, but sappy fun Christmas movies.

Again my thing with this is that someone apparently has negotiated a package with some really popular general entertainment cable channels in it without the customer having to pay for any sports channels. And my thing is that sports channels are comparable to the premium movie channels like HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc., and should be pulled out of cable channel packages.


----------



## harsh

Jhon69 said:


> http://www.wdwmagic.com/facts!.htm


Looks like about 20,000 over 45,000. Certainly not a typical ratio.


----------



## djlong

Those numbers are over 10 years old.

For example, they don't list the Animal Kingdom Lodge which opened in 2001. That was a huge resort and now they've built the Kidani Village addition to it which opened in 2010 or so.


----------

