# Lifetime channels removed from E*



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Off the air today. Claims they want a 70% increase and Dish doesn't want to pass this cost to us. Thanks for watching our back Charlie!


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

By the time some of Lifetime's OCD viewers get hold of Charlie, he'll wish he'd caved in to this extortion.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

maybe he can take the money he's saving and use it to bump espnu up to AT120.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok... so why is it evil to cary ESPN... but not evil to carry Lifetime? I can honestly say that I've never watched more than 5 minutes at a time of Lifetime.

So why am I forced to take Lifetime?

Just being the devil's advocate.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Why is Lifetime still on then on 108 if the agreement has expired? Why just 109 - Lifetime Movie Network?

It probably has to do with Lifetime wanting them to carry Lifetime Real Women like Directv has. I can't think Directv would have all 3 Lifetime channels if the rates were as high as Echostar lets on. Charlie claims 76% increase which seems extreme for any provider.

I never understand why it seems Dish has trouble negotiating with programmers and has more disputes with channels being taken off than any other provider. I used to think it was because they really fought to keep our rates down but they raise packages by $3 a month and never add hardly a thing.

Directv never seems to have any problems and usually has the same or less increases than Dish Network does.


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

I agree with Link. How many tiimes can you go to your subs and remove channels (whether temporary or not) claiming that you're trying to keep the rates in line, while your competitors leave the channels up, apply similar pricing structures, and negotiate behind closed doors.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

MikeW said:


> How many tiimes can you go to your subs and remove channels (whether temporary or not) claiming that you're trying to keep the rates in line, while your competitors leave the channels up, apply similar pricing structures, and negotiate behind closed doors.


Because Mr. Ergen has a rampant fan base that believes anything he says to be true.

I get the feeling most of those people would be happy paying $34 a month for an AT60 package that contains no channels.

Every time there is a dispute, the leadership at Dish Network takes some kind of public pot shot at the channel provider. Kind of like _Chicken Little_, the management states, "the sky is falling", yet every year for the past four or five, the rates for Dish Network's packages have increased to the consumer.

Now Dish Network's _Chicken Little_ act is starting to sound a lot more like _The Boy who Cried Wolf_.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

If Dish raises rates yet again this spring especially by $3.00, they had better be giving customers something in return possibly even adding a fourth base package to keep prices lower. 

Directv had a $3 increase last year but have added things over the past few years and continue to do so while Dish Network can't seem to get a deal for Oxygen, TV One, and apparently now Lifetime!

The main reason I have stuck with Dish over Directv is because I like their DVRs better and the RF remote options to use one receiver in multiple rooms is much easier. I also like the ease of use with the DVR remotes. 

But lately the package price increases and lack of channel additions has gotten ridiculous. I still would like to have Hallmark and GAC, but paying $10 more a month for the Top 180 package isn't worth it to get them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Dish has added programming as well. They did lose a couple this year due to contract problems, but on balance there are more channels now than last February.

JL


----------



## Codeman00 (Dec 13, 2003)

psnarula said:


> maybe he can take the money he's saving and use it to bump espnu up to AT120.


AMEN!!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

MikeW said:


> Off the air today. Claims they want a 70% increase and Dish doesn't want to pass this cost to us. Thanks for watching our back Charlie!


I never watch it anyway.


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

Link said:


> Why is Lifetime still on then on 108 if the agreement has expired? Why just 109 - Lifetime Movie Network?
> 
> It probably has to do with Lifetime wanting them to carry Lifetime Real Women like Directv has. I can't think Directv would have all 3 Lifetime channels if the rates were as high as Echostar lets on. Charlie claims 76% increase which seems extreme for any provider.
> 
> ...


I think LRW is unnecessary. Lot of commercials, repeated programming, not enough original programming, and not so stellar sitcoms from the past.

Take WE, Oxygen and LRW. All on DirecTV:

WE:
paid programming during morning,
old movies repeated very often with commercials,
dharma&greg and felicity reruns

LRW:
paid programming
mad about you, caroline in the city, laverne&shirley(this should be on TV Land or WGN with Happy Days reruns) and suddenly susan reruns

Oxygen:
Ellen (ABC sitcom from the 90s), living single, a different world, grace under fire, roseanne, Xena and Tyra Banks and Ellen DeGeneres show; the latter two repeats from what is seen over the air broadcast. Roseanne is also shown on Nick-At-Nite. A Different World and Living Single could go on TV One.

Most of the shows aren't very feminine in nature, just happens to be with a female star. Regular Lifetime repeats some of the same shows, though more popular, over and over also. Will&Grace is seen on Lifetime as well as WGN and over the air(broadcast). To me, there is not enough original programming for all these channels. Fortunately for them, they can profit and stay in a non competitive environment, as costs are bundled with other channels, then passed to subscribers.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 2, 2004)

This is totally anecdotal evidence but my sister loves Lifetime and when I went to tell her they had pulled LMN and will probably pull Lifetime tonight she said oh well they're replaced it with WE and I like it better anyhow. So perhaps their substitution strategy has worked? Also why can't they make an agreement with Oxygen now since they're saving money by dropping Lifetime? I mean then will anyone care?


----------



## Hoxxx (Jun 19, 2004)

MikeW said:


> Off the air today. Claims they want a 70% increase and Dish doesn't want to pass this cost to us. Thanks for watching our back Charlie!


good that was a channel I have never watched anyway.

Seems like more and more of these channels are asking far to much.


----------



## Satpro92 (Jan 30, 2005)

Hoxxx said:


> good that was a channel I have never watched anyway.
> 
> Seems like more and more of these channels are asking far to much.


I have never watched a second of LMN,however our customers will ring my phone off the hook over this.I am growing tired of channels suddenly going off air.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

I have never watched this channel.Wouldn't even know it was gone except for this board.But it is just stupid that E* has these problems and D*doesn't.All this B.S its for the customers is just a lie.E* will raise the rates 3-4 dollars a year just small enough to keep from having a mass exodus.But what it affects is E* botton line not our bill.As for the argument E* added channels,do you think LMN watchers care if E*added ESPNU,CSTV and the NFL Network?


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Statement From Lifetime website:

Dear DISH Network Subscriber,

Unfortunately, the DISH network has unilaterally decided to take Lifetime Movie Network off the air. For more than seven months, we've worked hard to reach a reasonable agreement for DISH to carry both Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network for a fraction of what they're willing to pay other less popular channels. However, they have refused to pay pennies more (nowhere near the 70% increase they are claiming) that reflects the value of the two most popular women's networks and the #1 network among women in homes with satellite television. They have even dismissed Lifetime's generous offer to extend contract negotiations through the holidays.

We deeply regret the difficulty this disruption of service has caused our viewers. We hope to resolve this quickly and encourage you to contact the DISH network at 1-888-284-7116 or at [email protected] to tell them of your dissatisfaction. We greatly appreciate your viewership and loyalty.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

(I don't have enough posts to post links)
Statement from Dish Network CEO Charlie Egren fairsatellite-dot-com:

Louise Henry Bryson

President, Distribution and Affiliate Business
Development Lifetime Networks
2049 Century Park East, Suite 840
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Dear Ms. Bryson:

The statements on your website with respect to our dispute are inaccurate. Specifically, you claim that DISH Network violated our contract by taking Lifetime Movie Network off the air. As you are aware the agreement terminated December 31, 2005 and Lifetime refused to offer any extension prior to DISH Network’s loss of the network today (the date of the contract expiration). We are confident we have not breached the agreement and welcome the disclosure to the public, any portion of the contract that demonstrates DISH Network is in violation of our agreement.

In addition, Lifetime’s final demand prior to our loss of the network called for a 76% rate increase under the contract term. DISH Network hereby waives any right to confidentiality which may exist with respect to rates under our existing agreement and the proposed rates under Lifetime’s proposal so that the public can judge for themselves. We challenge Lifetime to likewise agree to the release of that information.

While DISH Network desires to make Lifetime programming available to its customers, we also must protect our customers from exorbitant rate increases. We have valued our relationship with Lifetime Networks over the past 10 years and we are hopeful that we can work together to restore Lifetime programming to DISH Network customers.

Sincerely,


Charlie Ergen
Chief Executive Officer
DISH Network


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

Let the war of words begin!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:welcome_s GeorgeLV
The link (thanks) is http://www.fairsatellite.com/
The domain is registered to Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. so it can be considered a legit message from E*.

JL


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

As of midnight pt/3am et the main Lifetime channel has been removed from Dish Network and We is being shown in its place.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

Just playing devil's advocate a bit here, but for those of you saying the new rates are "too high" how do you know?

Perhaps Dish has been underpaying up to now compared to other providers? Simply saying "up by 70%!" doesn't always mean too much. Yes, it is a big change. But it doesn't mean the old rate was a fair one, nor that the new rate is an expensive one.

Relatively speaking, I very much doubt Lifetime is an expensive channel.

EDIT: Reading between the lines on the letters above, I would gamble and say that Lifetime is doing its math on a per channel basis, while E* is doing its based on total cost.

So, if you add "pennies" to a couple of existing channels, but then add in another channel at the same rate, you could end up with different figures.

But if I had to lay odds, I would bet that Lifetime is being more honest here. No matter what they say about waiving confidentiality, E* doesn't seem to want to have tried to continue carrying the channels if they didn't take an offered extension to get them past the holidays.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

Goodbye nanny and the golden girls, Oh this makes me so mad. some people are so cruel


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

dwcobb said:


> Yes, it is a big change. But it doesn't mean the old rate was a fair one, nor that the new rate is an expensive one.


So any time some one raises the price on something by 76% you just say, who am I to say if it's fair or not and just pay it without a grumble?

If you have to buy milk and one dairy which has the real good milk raises their price from $2 to $3.40 from one day to the next, do you just buy it or do you substitute a different brand for a while? Even if it doesn't taste as good, I know most would think twice about just shelling out the extra cash just because.

Remember when the banks started instituting ATM fees? Did you stop using the machines for a little while just to make a statement? If not you were not with the majority of the polulation.

So, okay. Let's say that Hearst is forcing Dish to buy "Real Women" and that is the source of 90% of the 70% price increase. Going back to the milk analogy, the dairy decided that instead of selling you a gallon of milk for $2 you now have to pay $3.40 for the milk AND a pint of thick buttermilk. You don't want buttermilk, but to get that dairy's milk you have to buy the buttermilk. Do you just pay the extra cash?

Or suppose that most stores sell a gallon of milk for $3.40 and this one store sells it for $2. Would you care? And if the price of the milk went up to $3.40 at this store, would you just say, "It's okay. The price was too low here anyway"? I don't think so.

What really gets to me is that I know in two months or so when we first see the annual price increases spurred on by rate increases to Dish (and all MSOs) from ESPN/Disney and Viacomm people will be screaming bloody murder. These are the same people berating "charlie" for trying to stem the tide at every turn. Yes ultimately it's for "charlie" to make more money. In the process it helps to save us a $1.40 every now and again.

Call me a "dishie" or an apologist, but I love it when "charlie" does this. I only wish "rupert" would do it too along with every other CEO out there and keep prices in line!

See ya
Tony


----------



## jerryez (Nov 15, 2002)

I can truthfully say that I have never watchd more than five minutes of ESPN or any of the other ESPN History or whatever they are called, but I watch a lot of movies on LMN.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

This is why ala carte should be made available even if the government has to mandate it. This yearly increase is caused by these content providers linking their channels together to force carriage of other less desirable channels. 

How many of you get a yearly 4 % increase in your paycheck? I have went 4 years to get a 4 % increase in my salary and every one of those 4 years my satellite bill has gone up. 

This is why ala carte should be made a reality. IF each channel stood on it's own merit and was not tied to others, then the free market would set the price. IF the channels set the price to high then customers could stop paying for that channels and the channel itself would either lower the price or go off the air. I for one am tired of paying for ESPN to be able to watch my local ABC station. I read elsewhere that Disney owns Lifetime as well as ESPN and ABC. So it is more price hikes due to their Greed. 

I don't blame Charlie at all , for this. I blame the content providers who are trying to extort the money out of each and every one of us. The free market should set the price and not the content provides. These price increases are becoming a yearly thing. 

We have had 6 price hikes in the last 6 years with Both Dish and Directv. ( I am sure Directv will follow Dish's lead on this in March- like they did the 5 years before) They are trying to squeeze us for every penny each year. We need real free market pricing and some Government oversight to force free market influences. IF that is by mandating Ala carte then it should be done. 

The whole idea behind the competition of satellite vs cable vs the phone companies and their video distribution methods, is to help bring competitive pricing to the market and the consumer is supposed to benefit. We are all being extorted by these corporate content providers. We need some leveling of the playing field and if ala carte will do that then I say BRING IT ON!


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

dwcobb said:


> Just playing devil's advocate a bit here, but for those of you saying the new rates are "too high" how do you know?
> 
> Perhaps Dish has been underpaying up to now compared to other providers? Simply saying "up by 70%!" doesn't always mean too much. Yes, it is a big change. But it doesn't mean the old rate was a fair one, nor that the new rate is an expensive one.
> 
> ...


Lifetime probably wants the channels made availble on more tiers thus more revenue


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

Before you call for government intervention, let’s see of Charlie and Lifetime can workout a deal for E to create Lifetime Movie Network as an add on package.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

the_bear said:


> Before you call for government intervention, let's see of Charlie and Lifetime can workout a deal for E to create Lifetime Movie Network as an add on package.


Don't let the outdated thread title guide your thinking. It's not just Lifetime Movie Network that has been removed. The main Lifetime channel (the 8th highest rated cable network) is now gone.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

I thought it was just LMN but since it's Lifetime i see E* loosing some customers.Looking at Nielsen cable ratings Lifetime is pretty popular.How does this save us money?I used to recommend E* to everyone.Sure wouldn't do it now.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

_The thread title has been updated to reflect the current situation. Also, because of spam reasons (those who post and run), we have put in a minimum number of posts prior to being able to post a link. - *Holtz*_

Hmmmm.... I think the timing of this sucks because Dish is going to be raising rates and yet removing channels due to "contractural disputes". When was the last time a shopping channel was removed due to "contractural disputes"?


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I didn’t realize the main Lifetime channel was gone as well, but that is all the more reason to create a separate Lifetime combo package. You cannot expect Charlie to put every top rated channel in the basic package. That would give him no negotiating power and little incentive for customers to buy more than basic.


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Well as far as I can see Lifetime is #8 in rating and this is nothing to sneeze at. My wife, and thousands others are EXTREMELY pissed right now, this almost amounts to ESPN being taken away from most men! He (Charlie) better resolve this one quick and I don't think WE is a legitimate replacement.

The entire Viacom issue was bad enough, but you know what they say about a woman scorned.

Also yes they have added channels, channels that D* already carried anyway, should I be thrilled they added NFL Net, ESPNU when we lost OLN and now possibly the Lifetimes? And PLEASE do not come with the argument about thats why E* turns a better profit, because until I work for them, I could care less. The provider that gives the best programming VALUE (not best price) is tops in my opinion. If this isn't resolved quickly, trust me I DO NOT want to hear it from my wife. I will drop everything except Internationals and Voom and pack my bags and go elsewhere.

And must we all deal with this clowning around?? I mean the first few times it was funny to be a part of, but now its getting old. Do your damn jobs and resolve contract before sticking it to your paying base. 7 months and you can't get this resolved??? 

Ohhh and all you retailers out there...get some cold packs for your ears because they are going to be burning come tommorow!


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Ghostwriter said:


> Well as far as I can see Lifetime is #8 in rating and this is nothing to sneeze at. My wife, and thousands others are EXTREMELY pissed right now, this almost amounts to ESPN being taken away from most men! He (Charlie) better resolve this one quick and I don't think WE is a legitimate replacement.
> 
> The entire Viacom issue was bad enough, but you know what they say about a woman scorned.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry!! I didn't realize charlie's website was dishnetwork.org!!!Why would he be in business if he couldn't make a profit!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep. Two less channels of emotional women being scorned and seeking revenge.

JL


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

juan ellitinez said:


> I'm sorry!! I didn't realize charlie's website was dishnetwork.org!!!Why would he be in business if he couldn't make a profit!!


Did I ever say for him NOT to make a profit?! Just don't bring the argument that E* is more profitable that D*. Do you care??? Give me that same channels or at least the same Top 20 rated channels as you competitor.


----------



## Jerseyguy (Dec 13, 2005)

Check out this portion of the Lifetime statement (from a previous post)

"However, they have refused to pay pennies more (nowhere near the 70% increase they are claiming) that reflects the value of the two most popular women's networks and the #1 network among women in homes with satellite television."

the value of the two most popular womens networks..My guess is 
1. Lifetime Movie Network 
2. Lifetime Real Women

and the #1 network among women....
Thats Lifetime

Its all about Lifetime saying, if you want Lifetime and LMN, you have to carry Lifetime Real Women. Most likely they are demanding that it be added to AT120. Frankly I don't think that Lifetime Movie Network should be in AT120 let alone Lifetime Real Women. If they came out with a Spike TV Movie Channel, I would say that should be in the AT180 (Hey Spike Movie Channel, thats a good idea  ).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BTW: Charlie is making occasional apperances on 108/109 during the commercial breaks. And there is a scroll on those channels over the WE content. For a clean viewing on WE viewers can tune to 128.

JL


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Some of you seem to blindly accept that Lifetime wants 70T% more---or evenb 76% more. Lifetime says otherwise. I wonder what he truth is.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Link said:


> Why is Lifetime still on then on 108 if the agreement has expired? Why just 109 - Lifetime Movie Network?
> 
> It probably has to do with Lifetime wanting them to carry Lifetime Real Women like Directv has. I can't think Directv would have all 3 Lifetime channels if the rates were as high as Echostar lets on. Charlie claims 76% increase which seems extreme for any provider.
> 
> ...


Lifetime went off a few hours later.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Some of you seem to blindly accept that Lifetime wants 70T% more---or evenb 76% more. Lifetime says otherwise. I wonder what he truth is.


Unless Lifetime agrees to release the numbers (as Charlie has) we'll never really know.

JL


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

You know in a professional business setting you don't use these JV tactics. I think Charlie is being a buffon throwing numbers out there and Lifetime at least is keeping things professional.

BTW that 70%-76% increase is a meaningless figure anyway (hence the buffon remark). It could be that a 70% increase would bring them into line of what the other providers are paying could it not?


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

The money that Echo refuses to pay Lifetime, should get shifted to pay Comcast for OLN with hockey.

But that is just one Man's opinion, I am sure many would want that to be vice versa...


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> Unless Lifetime agrees to release the numbers (as Charlie has) we'll never really know.
> 
> JL


Exactly. Which means that we should not assume that one side or the other is telling us the truth.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Any time I have tuned to Lifetime, there is a movie where a woman is being beaten or cheated on or worse... and I keep thinking, do women *really* want to see other women treated badly like that?

But anyway... I find it amusing how in one message people will say "Why does Charlie pay so much for channel xxx and raise my bill" but the same people will say "Why doesn't Charlie pay up to Lifetime or Viacomm when they ask?"

So, you want him to pay any price for channels you want... but nothing for channels you don't... Welcome to the club! Everyone feels this way about one channel or another!

Fact is, Dish tries to get the best deal they can... either because they care about the customer OR to make a profit... either way, the fight has to be good for us in the long run. How can people not like this? If Dish just paid up, like DirecTV supposedly does... then every channel would ask for increases at every chance they could... and all the complainers about "why did my bill go up" would be much worse.

Maybe if DirecTV fought too, and actually tried to be profitable, then all our bills would be lower?

I do care if Dish turns a profit... because that means they are more likely to survive as a business and be there in the future!


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Lifetime page updated with 110% more feminine outrage:

"CALL NOW AND TELL DISH NETWORK TO STOP DENYING THE TRUTH AND DENYING WOMEN LIFETIME: 1-888-284-7116

The Truth is that DISH Pulled the Plug on Women on New Year's Eve, Over Just Pennies, and Despite Lifetime's Offer of a Contract Extension"

http://www.lifetimetv.com/about/echo3.html


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> Some of you seem to blindly accept that Lifetime wants 70T% more---or evenb 76% more. Lifetime says otherwise. I wonder what he truth is.


I dont think either side is lieing...charlie is looking at the increase from his last monthly statement where as lifetime is only asking a couple pennies more per channel .. What we dont know is if lifetime is trying to get their networks placed in a better tier= mores subs=more money


----------



## Regen (Oct 8, 2005)

from Dish:


> Louise Henry Bryson
> 
> President, Distribution and Affiliate Business
> Development Lifetime Networks
> ...


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

It is the same people who defend Charlie everytime on this board.Do you really think even if E* accepts the 70% increase it will make a difference in what you pay monthly?E* will raise rates as much as they can every year no matter what programming changes they make.Why would anyone pay the same amount of money for programming and get less channels?What is this weird allegiance you people have with Mr.Ergen?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Regen

That's the same statement posted earlier in this thread. Let's not do repeats.


Geronimo said:


> Exactly. Which means that we should not assume that one side or the other is telling us the truth.


Charlie is willing to show us his hand. The ball is in Lifetime's court. If the numbers back up their accusations they are free to make the numbers public.

Pennies a day is 60c per month (or more if they are talking more than 2c per day). That's the problem with Lifetime's presentation of the issue - they are not offering hard numbers. They won't even say what 'pennies' they are talking about. At least a 70-76% increase is a hard number.

So what is it Lifetime? Pennies per month, pennies per day, pennies per hour. Be specific.

JL


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I don't see charlie being specific either. I am not taking sides. I am saying that ehre isa not enough info to take sides. Adnmittedly many people do not think it is necessaary to have any information before they take sides.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's why I'm not taking sides... too little info. IF Lifetime were 10 cents, then an increase to 17 cents per month would be 70% but 7 cents is a minimal increase to my wallet... so BOTH sides could be right.

It's like when your $100K a year boss gets a 2% raise, and you are making $25K and you get a 5% raise... and your boss tries to tell you how you got a bigger raise than he did since you got 5%! But you do the math and see his $2K raise was almost twice what your $1250 raise was!

There's lots of ways to skew the numbers... and we don't have all the info from both sides.

That said... I *can* and *do* question why some people get outraged over one channel and not another... That's why I always have been against the a la carte discussions, because I know we all benefit by having the shared cost distributed... whereas if we each only paid for what we watched, everything would cost more per channel and lots of channels would be gone.

Why can't everyone see that each channel wants as much as the market will bear... and Dish tries to get the best deal it can. Whether it be for their profit or "caring about the customer" you know Dish is trying to get the best price and not just take whatever offer is on the table.

I would also argue that IF this Lifetime thing has been "raging" for 7 months... then you have to blame both sides for that. It takes 2 to argue, so even the folks in the "Charlie is evil" camp would have to question why Lifetime would have kept quiet all that time.

Dish had to speak up when it did, since the channel would be dropping... so they had to say something once it came to that.

My gut says there is equal blame to spread on both sides until (and IF) we get all the information required to form a proper opinion.


----------



## DS0816 (Mar 29, 2002)

It was a year ago this month that my aunt -- living in Northern Colorado (and part of the Denver DMA) -- finally said good-bye to inferior cable television (at modern day pricing). When she asked whether to go with Dish Network or DirecTV, I had recommended DirecTV. I told her, "Years ago Dish might've been the better choice -- but DirecTV is a more well-rounded and better-run company." 

She's now with DirecTV. Been so since Jan. 19, 2005. And is very happy she made the switch.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Lifetime Television Pulls Channels From DISH Network; Lifetime's Demand to Renew With a 76 Percent Rate Hike Would Result in Unreasonable Price Increases for DISH Network Customers

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 1, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQISH) and its DISH Network satellite service was forced by Lifetime Television to remove Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network from its satellite TV service.

DISH Network's contract with Lifetime expired Dec. 31, 2005. DISH Network deeply regrets the disruption of service to customers, but prior to the loss of Lifetime Movie Network, Lifetime refused to offer an extension for continued negotiations. Consequently, DISH Network was legally prohibited from broadcasting Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network.

Lifetime demanded an exorbitant price increase of 76 percent under the contract term. If DISH Network capitulated to Lifetime's skyrocket pricing, unreasonable rate increases for DISH Network customers would result. Lifetime is also insisting DISH Network force consumers to pay for a new channel with similar content to a channel already available on DISH Network. In order to continue to bring customers the programming they want at a fair price every month, DISH Network must say NO to Lifetime's strong-arm tactics.

"While we are working hard to negotiate a fair contract with Lifetime Television, we must also protect our customers from outrageous rate increases," said Eric Sahl, senior vice president of Programming at DISH Network. "We appreciate the relationship we have had with Lifetime over the past 10 years and we hope they will reconsider their position and return their channels to our customers."

Below is a copy of a letter posted Dec. 31, 2005, on www.fairsatellite.com from DISH Network Chief Executive Officer Charlie Ergen in response to inaccurate statements appearing on Lifetime Television's website:

Louise Henry Bryson
President, Distribution and Affiliate Business
Development Lifetime Television

Dear Ms. Bryson:

The statements on your website with respect to our dispute are
inaccurate. Specifically, you claim that DISH Network violated our
contract by taking Lifetime Movie Network off the air. As you are
aware the agreement terminated December 31, 2005 and Lifetime
refused to offer any extension prior to DISH Network's loss of the
network today (the date of the contract expiration). We are
confident we have not breached the agreement and welcome the
disclosure to the public, any portion of the contract that
demonstrates DISH Network is in violation of our agreement.

In addition, Lifetime's final demand prior to our loss of the
network called for a 76% rate increase under the contract term.
DISH Network hereby waives any right to confidentiality which may
exist with respect to rates under our existing agreement and the
proposed rates under Lifetime's proposal so that the public can
judge for themselves. We challenge Lifetime to likewise agree to
the release of that information.

While DISH Network desires to make Lifetime programming available
to its customers, we also must protect our customers from
exorbitant rate increases. We have valued our relationship with
Lifetime Television over the past 10 years and we are hopeful that
we can work together to restore Lifetime programming to DISH
Network customers.

Sincerely,
Charlie Ergen
Chief Executive Officer
DISH Network
In the meantime, DISH Network is offering its customers a free preview of Women's Entertainment Network (WE), a channel which provides similar content to that on Lifetime.

For more information, visit www.fairsatellite.com.

About EchoStar
EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQISH) serves more than 11.7 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service. Visit EchoStar's DISH Network at www.dishnetwork.com or call 1-800-333-DISH (3474).

CONTACT: EchoStar
Mark Cicero, 720-514-5065
[email protected]

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Yes, it looks like Lifetime Real Women was part of the required additions.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> That's why I'm not taking sides... too little info. IF Lifetime were 10 cents, then an increase to 17 cents per month would be 70% but 7 cents is a minimal increase to my wallet... so BOTH sides could be right.


Sorry ... but that boat sailed when Lifetime Networks called Dish Network liars:You may have heard from DISH and its CEO Charlie Ergen that this is a result of our asking for a 70 percent increase to carry Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network. But the Truth is that DISH is totally misleading their subscribers and at the same time, denying women their favorite networks.​*But the truth ...* Lifetime is saying that E*'s statement isn't true. When one side is calling other liars both sides cannot be right. If Lifetime wants raised from "10c" to "17c" and is too stupid to understand that is a 70% increase they need to hire better bookeepers. They are saying that it's not a 70% increase - and Charlie has given them permission to prove it by releasing them from keeping the terms confidential.

The worst thing is that the channels are too popular. They will be back. No matter how much truth is in whomever's side of this argument the outcome for viewers will be the same. Rupert's company has just learned to bend over and take their spanking quicker than Charlie's company. The truth doesn't matter.

JL


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

James Long said:


> Sorry ... but that boat sailed when Lifetime Networks called Dish Network liars:You may have heard from DISH and its CEO Charlie Ergen that this is a result of our asking for a 70 percent increase to carry Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network. But the Truth is that DISH is totally misleading their subscribers and at the same time, denying women their favorite networks.​*But the truth ...* Lifetime is saying that E*'s statement isn't true. When one side is calling other liars both sides cannot be right. If Lifetime wants raised from "10c" to "17c" and is too stupid to understand that is a 70% increase they need to hire better bookeepers. They are saying that it's not a 70% increase - and Charlie has given them permission to prove it by releasing them from keeping the terms confidential.
> 
> The worst thing is that the channels are too popular. They will be back. No matter how much truth is in whomever's side of this argument the outcome for viewers will be the same. Rupert's company has just learned to bend over and take their spanking quicker than Charlie's company. The truth doesn't matter.
> 
> JL


JL If they charge the same price for their 3rd network thats a 50% increase in E*'s world..plus another 10% apiece for the other 2 so yes both sides could be right and both sides could be called liars!! Its just a matter of prospective


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

You know what, I am sick of defending Dish, you yank a channel off the air yet your raising rates by $3.00 next month.

Stop Feeding the BULLS**T


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

You go to buy gas and the price goes from $2.50 to $4.00 but you get a can of oil too. You refuse to pay because you do not want a can of oil, are you just being cheap?

See ya
Tony


----------



## cosmo61 (Sep 1, 2002)

Well, I am still a bit miffed I can't get OLN for NHL hockey and now my wife is upset Lifetime and LMN is gone. I am considering swithching to Direct TV for the first time ever. I have been with Dish for 7 years and this is the first time I have seriously considered swithing to D*. I have been happy with E* for the past 7 years and was looking forward to upgrading to HD receivers. That won't be happening anytime soon now. Sometimes you need to check out the other guy when the service does not meet your expectations.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

They yanked the OLN channel last month due to failed contract negotiations and yet our price did not go down and yet our bill is still going up next month by $2.00 - $3.00 . So all they added last year to Dish was sports related channels, pulled one sports realted channel and pulled two women related channels and my bill is still going up ? What is wrong with this picture? 

Sports channels need to be pulled from the basic pack and sold ala carte. This would stop the yearly price increases for the customer who doesn't want sports. 

I have a feeling that Espn next year will be selling their football games you used to be able to watch on ABC, as some kind of Espn Sunday Ticket like the Nfl suday ticket with Directv. Then they can still extort lots of money from all basic pack subs and still charge a highly priced Sunday Ticket seasonal pack for anyone who wants to watch football. Either way you will have to pay to watch football the way it is going. 

Greedy, greedy, greedy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> They yanked the OLN channel last month due to failed contract negotiations and yet our price did not go down and yet our bill is still going up next month by $2.00 - $3.00 . So all they added last year to Dish was sports related channels, pulled one sports realted channel and pulled two women related channels and my bill is still going up ? What is wrong with this picture?


There isn't necessarily anything wrong with the picture!

There are LOTs of costs of doing business... The Feb price increases couold be due to all other calculated increases of doing business, with the assumption that contracts ending on Dec 2005 would be renewed at the going rate... but if Lifetime wanted more money and to force a new channel carriage... this may not have been figured into the Dish rate increases.

Thus, the rate increase reflects all other increases in the cost of doing business but NOT Lifetime's increase.

It's like when you go in for an oil change and then the shop tell you you also need new spark plugs... but you didn't want spark plugs, you just wanted an oil change... and then they tell you that you can't get the oil change without the spark plugs!



Mike D-CO5 said:


> Sports channels need to be pulled from the basic pack and sold ala carte. This would stop the yearly price increases for the customer who doesn't want sports.


But it wouldn't stop the yearly increases for the people who don't want Lifetime... or the yearly increases for the people who don't want the kids channels or cartoon channels or news channels... You see where I'm going, right?



Mike D-CO5 said:


> Greedy, greedy, greedy.


There are those who would also argue that people who expect their bills to never go up but demand all the latest channels and technology are also being greedy. I'm just saying 

As for why DirecTV doesn't do the same as Dish... For one, they probably have contracts that expire at a different time so their rate increases would also come at different times than Dish... and as many have reported DirecTV has more financial backing and is more willing to risk losing money, whereas Dish tries to be a profitable company.

Think... if you were running your own company... would you be trying to save money and maximize your profit and invest in the future of your company? Or taking losses and just signing up for whatever your suppliers said you had to pay?


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

This whole 70-76% increase is BS anyway. 70-76% of what? .5 cents? 1 cent? 2cents? 

Also this was poorly executed by E*. They knew they were haveing difficulties in negotitions with Lifetime yet they announced the rate increase anyway. I am aware that prices go up, but don't raise it and give me less. IMO E* better wisen up because most people will start switching over to D* or cable, esp cable since you aren't locked into a contract. As much as they need to cut it close due to not haveing the financial backing the D* has they also have to stay competitive.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I’d love to see the Lifetime networks gone as much as the next guy but not like this. I don’t know why some people glorify Chuckie as some kind of hero standing up for TV viewers everywhere. The guy is the biggest miser and dirtiest player in the multichannel TV industry and then goes on air every month during his Gospel Hour and makes everyone else out to be the bad guy. The guy probably has made so many enemies in the past few years. Pretty soon Dish Network will be 15 shopping channels, 20 PI channels and a sea of expensive foreign channels. Funny Dish has no problem getting some Moroccan channel but can’t hang on to a channel that every cable company carries. And then go ahead and raise rates. Insult to injury, AT60 has went up $10 in the past 6 years hardly gets any new channels, but get’s one taken away. 

But hey whatever, I have no business commenting on this, since Limetime is trash and so is Dish Notwork, I would use this to badger existing Dish subs I know to leave, but most I know have already left on their own. Due to once having a very crappy cable provider and not far away there is no cable service this area has what I would say high is DBS penetration. I don’t know anyone who has left Dish because of them dropping channels, but I do know of many who will not subscribe for this very reason.


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

My wife just found "How Dirty is Your House" on Lifetime and instantly fell in love with it. If this dispute carries out long, I can see switching back to DirecTV or over to Crapcast (for at least as long as the DishBuyback program goes on).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

All E* is looking for is a few more pennies a day. Lifetime isn't the only network that raises its rates from year to year. Don't tie a customer rate increase to ANY particular channel or group of channels.

JL


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

James Long said:


> Regen
> 
> That's the same statement posted earlier in this thread. Let's not do repeats.Charlie is willing to show us his hand. The ball is in Lifetime's court. If the numbers back up their accusations they are free to make the numbers public.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily. Charlie could just be playing some gamesmanship, betting that Lifetime won't show theirs, so he will end up looking like he is the truthful one.

I think the reality of this rate change would be too complex for the average reader to understand in any case. I still think both of them are probably telling the truth - depending on how you define the question.

Charlie is motivated to make Lifetime sound as unreasonable as possible. Having seen this now a few times, it seems to be his negotation process - publicly shame the company he is trying to make a deal with, and then browbeat them into better rates (or walk away). I have no issue with the walking away part. The public flagellation is just a bit tacky. I have some people I work with that use this kind of shaming approach in negotations. It is very bad business long term, and most people who work with them know they can't trust em. I think the same is probably true for E* because this keeps happening.

It is bad business. It is bad manners, too.

I doubt we will ever know the specifics. It doesn't really matter. But this does seem to be an E* pattern, and eventually it will hit a channel I care about and I will be furious.

HDMe above said he didn't understand why people got so upset about a single channel. I don't get HDMe's point. Most people I think tend to watch only a handful of channels, and some of them we really, really care about. It makes sense to me why someone gets so upset when a favorite channel is dropped.


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Really? I think adding NFL, ESPNU, and possibly ESPN2 HD may be a big part of this increase.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> So any time some one raises the price on something by 76% you just say, who am I to say if it's fair or not and just pay it without a grumble?
> 
> If you have to buy milk and one dairy which has the real good milk raises their price from $2 to $3.40 from one day to the next, do you just buy it or do you substitute a different brand for a while? Even if it doesn't taste as good, I know most would think twice about just shelling out the extra cash just because.
> 
> ...


Your metaphor doesn't really work. You are talking about a consumer and a commodity product, which doesn't really fit this supply chain issue. And this very unique product. My first premise is that channels are not interchangeable, even if they are broadly in the same market. I wouldn't take Fox News instead of CNN, for instance.

First, my point is that perhaps E* really HAS been significantly underpaying Lifetime for years - less than they pay for other content, and less than Lifetime gets paid elsewhere. Does that mean Lifetime should keep the same rates? Does that mean that Lifetime is now gouging E*? It could be that E* has been screwing Lifetime for years by underpaying.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Lifetime Real Women is a newer extra channel and should be part of the Top 180 package if they add it. 

The Top 180 should be for extras like it sort of is with the Discovery Suite of channels, VH1 Classic (and the others in the MTV/VH1 Suite if they add them), A&E's Biography, E! Style etc. 

More basic channels like GAC and Hallmark should be in the Top 120. Hallmark Movie Channel should be in the 180 if they ever add it.

Top 180 is sort of like the Digital Tiers on cable systems.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Its only TV!! Some people spend way too much time watching Lifetime ..It will be back in a couple days!! Get a grip!!!


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

One item that has not been mentioned in this discussion is bandwidth. It appears that Lifetime wants Dish to add another channel, Lifetime Real Women that some have stated does not have a great deal of unique programming. Another channel takes up additional satellite bandwidth so if Dish adds it, either they have to jam it onto a full TP, reducing picture quality or remove something else. I will admit that Lifetime and Lifetime Movies are watched in my household but how many of these type of channels should Dish provide? I think Dish is balking at making a deal not only over cost but also being required to provide another channel that will just take up more bandwidth.


----------



## Stalky14 (Feb 18, 2005)

I suspect this is all because they want LRW in AT120. Lifetime doesn't want to
admit this because they don't want to look like they are forcing bundling, especially
now that the whole A-la-carte thing has been stirred up. E* doesn't want to admit
it because they don't want to look like they're refusing a channel that there is
some demand for, and that the competition offers in a similar package. This will
probably end with E* conceding to the price and addition of LRW, but only in AT180,
and then perhaps after some delay.

E* had better resolve this quickly, as it is difficult to justify a price increase immediately
after taking something away, ostensibly to save customers money.

As for the bundling arguments... I'm still for themed bundling. I don't watch the
"lifestyle" channels OR the sports channels; just the general-interests, educationals, PI's, and Encores.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dwcobb said:


> Not necessarily. Charlie could just be playing some gamesmanship, betting that Lifetime won't show theirs, so he will end up looking like he is the truthful one.
> 
> I think the reality of this rate change would be too complex for the average reader to understand in any case. I still think both of them are probably telling the truth - depending on how you define the question.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you just said above! Knowing how businesses operate, and how perspectives can be skewed. I suspect Dish is being truthful, but slanted towards their side... just as I suspect Lifetime is being truthful, but slanted towards their side... with the real truth being somewhere in between... and neither side will admit that, because if they would, then they would have an agreement and thus no problem to be discussing!

I also agree that whatever the deal, it does bother me when one side goes public and forces the other side to say something in response as if they are the bad guy. Personally, I think Dish & Charlie were wrong to make the initial statement they made painting Lifetime as evil... and then I think Lifetime would have been smarter to NOT post their "Dish is lying" retort and take the high road.

It's like children arguing over a toy to me.



dwcobb said:


> HDMe above said he didn't understand why people got so upset about a single channel. I don't get HDMe's point. Most people I think tend to watch only a handful of channels, and some of them we really, really care about. It makes sense to me why someone gets so upset when a favorite channel is dropped.


I think you missed what I was really meaning. I was pointing out how some people switch sides with regularity. "Dish is evil for paying ESPN" but then "Dish is evil for NOT paying Lifetime"... "Sports are evil I don't watch them so I don't want them" but then "Lifetime is great and I want it and everyone should pay more to have it".

That's all I was meaning. I *get* people being upset... but I don't get people being upset now, but then taking the other side of the argument when they don't like the channel that results in a price increase.


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

Uh oh, my wife is mad. We just got home from being out of town for the holidays and some stupid movie that she had set to record on the 942 isn't there because of this. Please Please get this fixed soon, or I'm not sure how much longer I'll live. . . Belive me, I don't watch this channel at all, but I have spent a pretty penny on my HT setup (which my wife has put up with) and when the wife misses her shows it isn't good.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ghostwriter said:


> Really? I think adding NFL, ESPNU, and possibly ESPN2 HD may be a big part of this increase.


Being in business for another 12 months is a big part of any adjustments in the price they charge customers. They charge what they can to pay the bills. Launching satellites and replacing dishes and receivers isn't cheap. All that development must be paid for.

JL


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

At this point, I don't even mind paying. I just need to please the wife.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

James Long said:


> Being in business for another 12 months is a big part of any adjustments in the price they charge customers. They charge what they can to pay the bills. Launching satellites and replacing dishes and receivers isn't cheap. All that development must be paid for.
> 
> JL


Exactly so to claim this is for the consumers is totally bogus.the adding and removing channels means nothing to our bill.E* will raise the bill as much as they can get away with each year.They probably even know what next year's increase is going to be.It's all for charlie not us.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

It could be for us as Charlie sees it.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Great, I can't wait until I hear that "Where's Lifetime!!!" from the other room. Pissing off all the wives is not a good idea.


----------



## sat101 (Oct 6, 2005)

Being a DTV dealer and seeing what Dish is doing is great. We can save on advertising and let them handle it for us !!


----------



## dishnh (Jun 6, 2004)

My wife said to me last night, "Why did they take 'my' channel off the air?". Great job guys! I'm off the next 3 days from work and I will have to hear the complaints.

I wonder if Charlie's wife watches Lifetime? I wonder what she is telling her husband, if anything?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Ghostwriter said:


> Really? I think adding NFL, ESPNU, and possibly ESPN2 HD may be a big part of this increase.


 Lifetime is owned by the same company that does Disney , Espn and Abc. I think they are called Hearst or it is Disney / Hearst. IN other words Lifetime is asking for big increases like their fellow stations like Espn . They feel they can black mail us yearly for sports and now they are pushing the black mail toward the Womens channels too.

This is why the government needs to mandate that each channel should only be allowed to be sold on it's own merit. NO more forced bundeling of one lesser channel to get the ones a sub really wants. IF that means ala carte then it needs to be done. IF not I hope ya'll like yearly increase EVERY year . We have already had 6 since 2000. At this rate the top 60 will be on its way to being priced close to $50.00 by the end of the decade. Imagine the price of AEP by then. It started at $69.99 in 99 or 2000 and now it will be going up to $83.99 next month. That is a $14.00 more in 5 - 6 years. That averages out ot $2.33 a year, so in another 5 years at that price AEP will be priced at $95.64 a month.

I don't know of to many people other than the federal government workers who get a 4 % increase in their salary yearly. I Just got a 4 % increase this year after waiting 4 years without it. I received a price hike from Dish every one of those 4 years. This is geting to be ridiculous. IF this keeps up we will all have to decide whether the sat bill is worth it. They might just price themselves out of business.

I downgraded to the top 180 yesterday and I joined Netflix for $17.99 a month and I get 3 dvds at a time. I have a upconverting dvd player and it makes the picture look great on my hd tv. I am saving about $40.00 a month on my sat bill over last month - the dvr fee of $9.98 for 2 dvrs.

I have had Dish since 1/18/97 and have had AEP since it started but I can no longer finance all of these price hikes. It might seem like nothing more than $2.00 but last year it was $4.00 . IF next year they decide to hike it again I will drop down to Top 120 and then top 60 and then just locals and hd pack. OTA tv might just make a comeback at this rate, especialy since the ota stations will mostly be in hd in most markets.

IF true ala carte becomes a reality this year , then I might look at adding back some premium channels and dropping all Sports channels. IF we want true freedom to pick just what we want to watch -then Ala carte is the way to go.


----------



## Ronmort (Apr 23, 2002)

My wife is not a exactly a big fan of tv, and she's even fuming. She could get by with locals, CNBC, and the lifetime channels.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

My wife (the one who infrequently watches these channels) noticed it last night. We're on DISH's side on this deal.

Lifetime is in fact, conducting a form of extortion in our opinion and we can indeed live without this channel.

HOO "EM HORNS


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Lifetime is owned by the same company that does Disney , Espn and Abc.


The Walt Disney Company owns ABC and ESPN and they have a 50 percent ownship in Lifetime Networks.

And it really doesn't matter who owns what. All the media companies are a bunch of greedy ----- who mostly put out inferior products at very inflated prices, filled with way too much advertising. And, apparently, that is what America wants because they keep paying for it.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

My sister called and is mad because she can't get Ma Petrillo whatever that is on Lifetime.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Yahoo/AP:

*Dish Hopes to Restore Lifetime Channels*


> Dish Network said Monday it hopes to reach a contract agreement soon to restore two Lifetime Television channels to its service.
> 
> Dish customers stopped receiving the Lifetime channels on Sunday after Lifetime's contract with Dish parent EchoStar Communications Corp. expired the day before.


FULL ARTICLE HERE

Translation: Nothing important happened today.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Mark Holtz said:


> From Yahoo/AP:
> 
> *Dish Hopes to Restore Lifetime Channels*FULL ARTICLE HERE
> 
> Translation: Nothing important happened today.


Dish has had plenty of time to reach an agreement so the channels wouldn't have to be shut off. I think Echostar does this as a bargaining tool with channels they don't want to pay an increase for. They let the time run out on purpose so they can take off the channel threatening the broadcaster to lower its price.

It was bad the last time with popular channels like Nick, TV Land, VH1, and MTV with that Viacom contract, now Lifetime. All of these channels are the primary ones people want and watch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lifetime and Echostar have been in negotiations for eight or nine months. At some point you have to stop adding on extensions and get a deal.

JL


----------



## Cokeswigga (Jan 25, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> Great, I can't wait until I hear that "Where's Lifetime!!!" from the other room. Pissing off all the wives is not a good idea.


Yeah it happened on a horrible day.

Picture this:
it's raining cats and dogs
the woman is is home on new years day. 
she is hungover from the night before:
she is sitting on the couch in her "Jammies"
after watching football, she changes that channel to a marathon of Lifetime shows. (this is typical sunday behavior)

and what comes up!!! 

now my hungover pissed off significant other is going off about no lifetime. She's bummed because her football team lost, she now probably wont win her football pool this week, its raining and gloomy, and now her favorite depressed thing to do is watch some depressing lifetime programming about some girl who gets raped, while her father molests her sister, and a stalker tries to kill her mother.

And guess who gets the brunt of it all...

the one who made the decision to switch to dish!

Now I'm faced with the decision to switch to D* or to cable or pay $30 a month (since she pays half the bill) to my girlfriend for not providing Lifetime


----------



## brycekholt (Mar 21, 2005)

Cokeswigga said:


> Yeah it happened on a horrible day.
> 
> Picture this:
> it's raining cats and dogs
> ...


LOL... . Man that sounds like my life.

Laterz, 
Bryce in Twin Falls, ID


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cokeswigga said:


> and what comes up!!!


We!

JL


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

I think you men need to take your viagra and give her some sweet lovin, screw tv and screw something else!


----------



## Nyles Paris (Apr 25, 2005)

We are Really P-off with E*.

We have been a long time E* (Dishnetwork) subscriber, since 1998.
1) I recently paid over $800 for E*'s DVR-942. E* only charges NEW subscribers $249. Thanks E* for our loyalty.
2) E* wont give us our local channels. I live 40 miles from Bakersfield & 160 miles from L.A., (Los Angles), they give me L.A. locals. D* (DirectTV) gives my neighbors OUR (93518) zip code area, Bakersfield local channels. I even emailed E* on the subject and got no response.
3) We were avid followers of the PBR (Pro Bull Riders) all year, then when the finals come E* takes OLN off the air.
4) NOW my wifes favorite LIFETIME channel is gone! D* still carries it.
5) 2006 rates went UP & Channels went down.

*D has a comparable receiver for almost nothing plus OLN & LMN, and from what I see their rates are lower. If I hadn’t spent $8oo for the 942, I would switch in a heart beat. 

I Still might, I am so P-off.

Nyles & Susan Paris


----------



## TBarclay (Mar 24, 2002)

Charlie's not stupid. I'd expect these channels will be back within a week. I have no inside knowledge, but the fact that E* continues to have these confrontations with programmers (only to have them settled fairly soon in ALMOST every case) leads me to believe that it IS effective in getting better rates even at the cost of some customers. (OLN is of course an exception but Comcast really pulled a fast one in that case, in my opinion). I just hate that programmers keep trying to force new channels on the satellite and cable companies, even when they don't want them.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

lakebum431 said:


> Uh oh, my wife is mad. We just got home from being out of town for the holidays and some stupid movie that she had set to record on the 942 isn't there because of this. Please Please get this fixed soon, or I'm not sure how much longer I'll live. . . Belive me, I don't watch this channel at all, but I have spent a pretty penny on my HT setup (which my wife has put up with) and when the wife misses her shows it isn't good.


Spend the bucks & switch to Directv. You've got HD.


----------



## dough_boy747 (Jun 18, 2004)

I think that DIsh is doing a fine job keeping our prices down, and i think if more co. would do the same, most of the cable channes would be very carefull about raising there prices.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

dough_boy747 said:


> I think that DIsh is doing a fine job keeping our prices down, and i think if more co. would do the same, most of the cable channes would be very carefull about raising there prices.


If that's true than why do they cost more (AT120+locals) than the comprable DirecTV package (TotalChoice) and have less channels in their package?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Lifetime is owned by the same company that does Disney , Espn and Abc. I think they are called Hearst or it is Disney / Hearst. IN other words Lifetime is asking for big increases like their fellow stations like Espn . They feel they can black mail us yearly for sports and now they are pushing the black mail toward the Womens channels too.
> 
> This is why the government needs to mandate that each channel should only be allowed to be sold on it's own merit. NO more forced bundeling of one lesser channel to get the ones a sub really wants. IF that means ala carte then it needs to be done. IF not I hope ya'll like yearly increase EVERY year . We have already had 6 since 2000. At this rate the top 60 will be on its way to being priced close to $50.00 by the end of the decade. Imagine the price of AEP by then. It started at $69.99 in 99 or 2000 and now it will be going up to $83.99 next month. That is a $14.00 more in 5 - 6 years. That averages out ot $2.33 a year, so in another 5 years at that price AEP will be priced at $95.64 a month.
> 
> ...


I don't think Hearst is owned by Disney. Hearst Newspapers probably owns Hearst Broadcasting. I know they own TV stations.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

dough_boy747 said:


> I think that DIsh is doing a fine job keeping our prices down, and i think if more co. would do the same, most of the cable channes would be very carefull about raising there prices.


Keeping prices down compared to what ? I can go back to TW cable, consolidate my internet, tv, and phone service and pay at least $50.00 less per month. I can go to Direct TV right now, get brand new equipment for free or next to nothing and get the same package of programs, not have to put up with missing channels because Ergen hasn't learned to play nice in the sandbox for the same or a little less than what E* is charging. I realize that it's only the second day of January, but your comments may just qualify as the most ignorant post of the year.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

I will for sure cancel our E* account if they don't restore these channels. The regular lifetime is more important than LMN. The bottom line is that I like not having to hear my wife B****, more than I prefer E* to another provider. 

Another way I look at E*s side is that if E* has 12 million customers give or take and Lifetime costs only $0.50 per month per sub that is $6 million dollars per month. Now multiply that by 1.75, there is the new amount that Lifetime wants. I am not sure how much E* pays lifetime per sub but I do know that any increase would be substantial considering the VOLUME of customers that E* has.

In short, Charlie, I understand your motives; but with out lifetime, I will switch.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Bill R said:


> The Walt Disney Company owns ABC and ESPN and they have a 50 percent ownship in Lifetime Networks.
> 
> And it really doesn't matter who owns what. All the media companies are a bunch of greedy ----- who mostly put out inferior products at very inflated prices, filled with way too much advertising. And, apparently, that is what America wants because they keep paying for it.


I stand corrected! Geez in ten years or so, everything will be owned by 30 People. How sad!


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

Bill R said:


> The Walt Disney Company owns ABC and ESPN and they have a 50 percent ownship in Lifetime Networks.
> 
> And it really doesn't matter who owns what. All the media companies are a bunch of greedy ----- who mostly put out inferior products at very inflated prices, filled with way too much advertising. And, apparently, that is what America wants because they keep paying for it.


With ala carte pricing one would only be paying for what is desired as compared to having the satellite providers acting on our behalf without our consent. (eg. how many would be taking ESPN at $3 or $4 dollars per month when other content providers are charging 10 cents a month). Free market will bring these providers back in line.


----------



## Jerseyguy (Dec 13, 2005)

minnow said:


> Keeping prices down compared to what ? I can go back to TW cable, consolidate my internet, tv, and phone service and pay at least $50.00 less per month.


If the TW deal is the same as Cablevision's deal, it requires a year contract (or else it goes up to normal rates), and after that year the rates go back up to normal which is more than E*


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

lakebum431 said:


> At this point, I don't even mind paying. I just need to please the wife.


Oh, so many possible jokes ... :lol: :grin:


----------



## jerryez (Nov 15, 2002)

"I realize that it's only the second day of January, but your comments may just qualify as the most ignorant post of the year."

Miinnow, do we have to make personal attacks. Everyone is intitaled to their opinion.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

Those channels were watched over the course of the last year,(Zero times).


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

So, now we have Encore Love on the LMN channel.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

Well thats an improvement in my book.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

Encore isn't the same, I guess it is a good consolation though. We already have WE, though so that doesn't help.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

KingLoop said:


> Encore isn't the same, I guess it is a good consolation though. We already have WE, though so that doesn't help.


No. It's no consolation at all.

From fairsatellite.com:
----------------------
Until such time as we have a new contract with Lifetime Television, I hope you will enjoy the free previews of:

- Women's Entertainment on channel 108
- Encore Love on channel 109*
* Where available. Requires subscription to America's Top 180 programming package.
----------------------

Encore Love was already a part of AT180 so you aren't getting a free preview of anything you didn't already subscribe to.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

GeorgeLV said:


> No. It's no consolation at all.
> 
> From fairsatellite.com:
> ----------------------
> ...


odd I have at120 and its free for me..maybe its a typo!!


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

juan ellitinez said:


> odd I have at120 and its free for me..maybe its a typo!!


It's good to hear that they realized the definition of free preview and are making it available to AT120.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep. I'm getting Love on 109. E* has also flipped over the EPG so we can see what is actually on 108 and 109 instead of just the "off air" notice ... and the crawl is apparently gone.

LMN was an AT120 channel. It would make sence to make it's replacement AT120.

JL


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

The crawl is still there. It just takes a break after it runs once.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I didn't watch that long.  The scroll was near continuous yesterday.
Are they still toing the Charlie dropins during commercials?

JL


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Maybe on 108. No commercials on 109.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> I wonder if Charlie's wife watches Lifetime? I wonder what she is telling her husband, if anything?


She probably has DirecTV anyway just to not have to put up with her husbands crappy DVRs


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

minnow said:


> Keeping prices down compared to what ? I can go back to TW cable, consolidate my internet, tv, and phone service and pay at least $50.00 less per month. I can go to Direct TV right now, get brand new equipment for free or next to nothing and get the same package of programs, not have to put up with missing channels because Ergen hasn't learned to play nice in the sandbox for the same or a little less than what E* is charging. I realize that it's only the second day of January, but your comments may just qualify as the most ignorant post of the year.


Yes Directv offers a lot of new channels and more in the Total Choice Plus/Locals package for $45.99 a month. To get the same channels with Dish you have to pay $52.99 a month for the Top 180 just to get the same channels like Hallmark, GAC, VH1 Classic, etc and yes I know with Dish you get those Encore theme channels but are they really worth $7 a month??? NO

I'd say Directv's Total Choice for $45.99 is the best deal around considering you get all the channels that most digital cable packages have as well as your local stations for under $50. Directv offered Lifetime Real Women without any big deal made and subscribers certainly didn't have to put up with pulling the channel off.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Steve Mehs said:


> She probably has DirecTV anyway just to not have to put up with her husbands crappy DVRs


 I guess you havent "felt the joy" with the r15


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Why should I when I have the best DVRs on the planet, a Philips DSR704 and DirecTV R10


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Yet another brilliant marketing touch by Charlie and his hapless minions:

www.fairsatellite.com/


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

what a cheap bastard, Encore Love is only available with a subscription to a higher tier package? What's the point of having the channel? And are people too lazy to hit 1-2-8 on the remote to watch WE?


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

ehren said:


> Encore Love is only available with a subscription to a higher tier package?


Encore Love is being substituted for Lifetime Movie Network. As LMN was only available in AT120 or higher, such is the same for Encore Love. If you were able to previously receive LMN, you now see the replacement channel.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

Link said:


> I'd say Directv's Total Choice for $45.99 is the best deal around considering you get all the channels that most digital cable packages have as well as your local stations for under $50. Directv offered Lifetime Real Women without any big deal made and subscribers certainly didn't have to put up with pulling the channel off.


I think that it is all relative as to which package you want and how many receivers you want. An argument could be made to subscribe to either service with any package. I agree that D* has a generally better programming value, but AT180 to new subs would be $55/mth for 2 TVs and TC Plus would be $51/mth. Many people think that the encore channels and 2 TMCs are worth 4 more bucks, also if you have 4 T.V.'s with independent viewing with E* you would pay $60/mth and with D* $61. I think that it is a case by case basis to determine what is best for whom.

In my opinion, D* has lifetime right now and E* doesn't. That is a deal breaker. I would miss TNTHD though, but not more than my wife misses lifetime. I'm gonna be $400 out of pocket to get switched over, but that is a lot less than I have spent on my E* IRDS, and I figure if I sell my E* stuff and get $300 in D* rebates I'll fair pretty well with the transition.

*Bottom line, Charlie has about a week (maybe 2) to get this fixed before I switch. *Right now I am at $77/mth with E*, with D* I would be at $85/mth and I will lose TNTHD (but get universal, I don't think that is a good trade though), HBO Comedy, and my Sirius music. I will pick up Lifetime Real Women for the wife and Oxygen, and will pick up XM. So for me it's a bad move for my TV enjoyment, but my wife will be happier.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

KingLoop said:


> I think that it is all relative as to which package you want and how many receivers you want. An argument could be made to subscribe to either service with any package. I agree that D* has a generally better programming value, but AT180 to new subs would be $55/mth for 2 TVs and TC Plus would be $51/mth. Many people think that the encore channels and 2 TMCs are worth 4 more bucks, also if you have 4 T.V.'s with independent viewing with E* you would pay $60/mth and with D* $61. I think that it is a case by case basis to determine what is best for whom.


I guess the dual tuner receivers with Dish is one thing to consider. Also, getting HBO/Cinemax for $17 is a good deal. On Directv the price is $23 for HBO/Cinemax and you only get 2 Cinemax channels and one west feed while Dish has 4 Cinemax channels and one west feed.

Also that is what keeps basic cable service popular since you can have it on as many TVs without extra outlet fees.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

minnow said:


> With ala carte pricing one would only be paying for what is desired as compared to having the satellite providers acting on our behalf without our consent. (eg. how many would be taking ESPN at $3 or $4 dollars per month when other content providers are charging 10 cents a month). Free market will bring these providers back in line.


I can just see the a la carte choices now. ESPN/Lifetime1 will be geared toward women during the day and men at night. Then there will be ESPN/Lifetime2 that will be geared toward men during the day and women at night. If you want to watch both games, you will need to buy both channels.

I don't see this as about picking sides E vs. Lifetime. These press releases seem useless. It is simply about getting the best service at the lowest price. How to get us that is Charlie's problem to solve.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I wonder how many subscribers have been lost so far?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

When they take the free preview channels off there are going to be a lot of angry customers if they don't have the Lifetime channels back by then.


----------



## johnbelt28 (Nov 6, 2004)

Jacob S said:


> I wonder how many subscribers have been lost so far?


I don't know about that but judging from message boards this is going to have a bigger backlash than the Viacom fiasco.People are just tired of Charlie's antics.He does this to save us money is so laughable.Next years increase 3-4 dollars Lifetime or no Lifetime.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

KingLoop said:


> ... Another way I look at E*s side is that if E* has 12 million customers give or take and Lifetime costs only $0.50 per month per sub that is $6 million dollars per month. Now multiply that by 1.75, there is the new amount that Lifetime wants. I am not sure how much E* pays lifetime per sub but I do know that any increase would be substantial considering the VOLUME of customers that E* has.


If your estimate is correct, Lifetime loses $6M by not signing a new contract with E. I just don't see E losing $21M worth of subs over this deal. I know other people have implied that Charlie is negotiating from a position of weakness, but I don't see it that way. It is always interesting seeing these deals negotiated, because it costs Lifetime very little to be added to E, so it is an almost pure profit transition for them. But then again, if Lifetime gave every service provider a good deal, they would be off the air. I would be willing to bet there are huge discrepancies between what providers pay for channels.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

the_bear said:


> If your estimate is correct, Lifetime loses $6M by not signing a new contract with E. I just don't see E losing $21M worth of subs over this deal. I know other people have implied that Charlie is negotiating from a position of weakness, but I don't see it that way. It is always interesting seeing these deals negotiated, because it costs Lifetime very little to be added to E, so it is an almost pure profit transition for them. But then again, if Lifetime gave every service provider a good deal, they would be off the air. I would be willing to bet there are huge discrepancies between what providers pay for channels.


For 2004 the average monthly revenue per subscriber for Dish Network was $54.87. Annualized that's $658.44. $21,000,000 / $658.44 = 31,894 subscibers. That means that less than three-tenths of one percent of Echostar's 11 million or so subscribers need to leave for Charlie to take the bigger loss.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

$21M doesn’t look so big, when you put it in %. I still don’t see 3/10% canceling, but it could happen.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

0.3% = 360,000 subscribers = 1 out of 333 subscribers. If there was that kind of a loss in subscribers we would find out when we get the quarterly totals. That is about the amount of gain that Dish Network gets. I am thinking that Dish Network does all of these figures to see if they stand to lose more than they gain by taking the channel off.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

the_bear said:


> $21M doesn't look so big, when you put it in %. I still don't see 3/10% canceling, but it could happen.


3/10% is a lowball number. If I check in on my wife it's 50/50 she's watching lifetime. Go over mom's house 75/25 she's watching lifetime. I stop over grandma's house, 90%.

I have no reason to believe the females of my family are too different in their viewing habits than the average female. This could be a HUGE blow to E* if it does not get resolved in a reasonable amount of time.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

If Lifetime is really the 8th ranked station as one of the earlier posts suggested, it could easily be 3/10 of a percent canceling to go to a provider that has the channel.

Again, my bigger concern in all this is that this is the third time E* has done (or been on the verge of doing) something like this recently - Viacom, OLN, Lifetime. The only comment element in there is E*. And you don't see other providers going through the same sturm and drang for contract renewals.

It is a really bad pattern E8* needs to break.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

dwcobb said:


> If Lifetime is really the 8th ranked station as one of the earlier posts suggested, it could easily be 3/10 of a percent canceling to go to a provider that has the channel.
> 
> Again, my bigger concern in all this is that this is the third time E* has done (or been on the verge of doing) something like this recently - Viacom, OLN, Lifetime. The only comment element in there is E*. And you don't see other providers going through the same sturm and drang for contract renewals.
> 
> It is a really bad pattern E8* needs to break.


not true Time warner dropped amc classic last year in a dispute with cablevision... Cable does it ALL the time . E* just has a much larger NATIONAL presence


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Jacob S said:


> 0.3% = 360,000 subscribers = 1 out of 333 subscribers. If there was that kind of a loss in subscribers we would find out when we get the quarterly totals. That is about the amount of gain that Dish Network gets. I am thinking that Dish Network does all of these figures to see if they stand to lose more than they gain by taking the channel off.


You're right, I meant three-hundredths of a percent.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jeff McClellan said:


> Well thats an improvement in my book.


I agree. Lifetime just has made for TV movies don't they? I don't thnk its worth an increase. I wrote to [email protected] & said negotiate with Oxygen & Ovation.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

juan ellitinez said:


> not true Time warner dropped amc classic last year in a dispute with cablevision... Cable does it ALL the time . E* just has a much larger NATIONAL presence


Ah I hadn't heard about it. I can say the other two options in my market (D* and Comcast) have NOT had those problems that I have seen. It never happened while I was a customer of either of the companies.

It doesn't change the fact that E* seems to be using this as a negotation tactic, and that is bad for us subscribers. They won't be able to bludgeon everyone with this approach.

No matter how noble their position may be (I have my doubts) the fact that E* brought in the public makes me very suspicious of their position.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

dwcobb said:


> Ah I hadn't heard about it. I can say the other two options in my market (D* and Comcast) have NOT had those problems that I have seen. It never happened while I was a customer of either of the companies.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that E* seems to be using this as a negotation tactic, and that is bad for us subscribers. They won't be able to bludgeon everyone with this approach.
> 
> No matter how noble their position may be (I have my doubts) the fact that E* brought in the public makes me very suspicious of their position.


Comcast wouldnt carry the Yankees on MSG about 10 -15 years ago... As for D* Rupert seems to be duplicating Charlie's every move (crappy dvrs etc) Wait till some contracts expire !!!


----------



## aussiejohn (Jan 3, 2006)

I clearly remember a few years back when CBS I think it was was yanked off the satellites in a similar conflict.

It took two days for my wife to say, "Enough, get cable."


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> ..
> I have no reason to believe the females of my family are too different in their viewing habits than the average female. This could be a HUGE blow to E* if it does not get resolved in a reasonable amount of time.


My wife will only watch standard definition as a last resort, but she is probably in the minority.

The bean counters at Lifetime must be doing the same math. I wonder if their guess was 3/100% E cancels as well. I don't think anyone believes what Charlie is doing is noble, but rather his job - maximizing shareholder value.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> ...This could be a HUGE blow to E* if it does not get resolved in a reasonable amount of time.


Right. Like the Viacom situation was.

Knee-jerk reactionaries jumped ship when the stations went away. The situation was resolved very quickly.

I say, kudos to Ergen. You don't hear about cable companies and D* doing this bec. they are all too happy to pass the increased costs on the the consumer. Cable does it, like, 8x per year, forgawdssake.

This is what's best for his customers and his shareholders, to whom he answers, ultimately.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

dwcobb said:


> No matter how noble their position may be (I have my doubts) the fact that E* brought in the public makes me very suspicious of their position.


I agree. This is happening too often when it seems there has been a lot of time this past year to renegotiate a new contract with Lifetime and Lifetime offered to extend the current contract but Dish didn't even accept that and pulled the plug on their subscribers.

There have been other channels such as Oxygen and TV One that Directv has and most cable companies have had Oxygen for sometime yet Dish can't seem to reach an agreement with either channel.

I think the problem is Dish wants to get channels dirt cheap and not pay much to their providers because they need to spend their money cleaning up the satelilte locations with local channels and having them all on one outside dish instead of being all over the place like they are now.

Directv seems to have had plenty of satellite space with most large market local stations all on one dish, then was smart enough to put out a triple LNB dish that could pick up 3 satellite locations for HD and now has new ones that can pick up 5 satellite locations all from one dish. With Dish who knows--you have channels at 105, 61.5, 121, 148. You may need two or three separate dishes just to get the channels you want.

Dish is stuck cleaning up messes moving channels to 129 and trying to get locals all on one dish which is costing them money since they did things so disorganized in the beginning--not to mention releasing receivers full of software bugs. They are also trying to beat Directv to the punch on MPEG4 and HD locals which isn't happening with Directv already launching them!

Dish still doesn't offer ABC, NBC, or Fox in HD to qualifying subscribers which would be serveral in the O&O markets alone. Probably because they can't negotiate a contract for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

Fortunately for me, my wife works a lot so she is not home a lot to notice how much she _could_ miss it. She wants Oxygen so I am sure that we will switch if this isn't resolved soon I will wait until next week Friday and if this isn't resolved we will go to D*. The easiest way for me to weather this dispute is to give Charlie a deadline as to when we choose to jump ship. My wife will be patient until then, but not much longer I am sure.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

LtMunst said:


> 3/10% is a lowball number. If I check in on my wife it's 50/50 she's watching lifetime. Go over mom's house 75/25 she's watching lifetime. I stop over grandma's house, 90%.
> 
> I have no reason to believe the females of my family are too different in their viewing habits than the average female. This could be a HUGE blow to E* if it does not get resolved in a reasonable amount of time.


Thank god my fiance is NOT the average female! She wouldn't notice if Lifetime dropped off the face of the earth. And thank goodness for that, this is enough of a hassel at work, let alone have to hear about it at home too!


----------



## bobsupra (Jul 12, 2002)

Woops, the trophy wife just found out Lifetime is gone. I think a dinner conversation about alternatives is brewing tonight. I haven't seen her really care before about what sat provider we use...but it looks now like she's going to be asking some questions.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

So has the mass exodus begun yet?

For the record... If Dish dropped a channel that I watch (SciFi, ESPN, TNT, just to name a few) because of a price increase negotiation that ran past the end of the carriage agreement... I would be in support of them doing so.

Whether you think Dish is greedy or not, the better deal they get the better deal we get. Even if they don't "pass the savings to us" any savings on their part eventually translates into savings for us.

Granted, if Dish dropped a channel I liked permanently (see above list for examples)... then *that* would persuade me to look into other providers so as to not miss my favorite programs indefinately... but at this point we are talking about a few days of outage, so I wouldn't jump ship yet.

From reading the DirecTV forums, you will find that some folks there want to jump ship and come to Dish... so you might be jumping around a lot if you panic.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If I thought Lifetime were gone forever it would be different. They are coming back.

Maybe if E* brings them back with Lifetime Real Women E* could move the channels to 125-126-127?

BTW: My wife could care less about either Lifetime channel. No tears in this household. 

JL


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I don't think my wife has ever watched them - at least not while I was home. That's assuming that we got them in AT120. She's more of the "if it isn't there, I'll find something else to watch" mentality, rather than complain about it.


----------



## robert koerner (Aug 20, 2005)

For some reason, I still get Lifetime. It was gone for a couple of days.

Haven't found a new channel labeled WE.

Bob


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

James Long said:


> If I thought Lifetime were gone forever it would be different. They are coming back.
> 
> Maybe if E* brings them back with Lifetime Real Women E* could move the channels to 125-126-127?
> 
> ...


127 is the tax information channel.
Use by Dish for select markets when a state or local government trys to put a Satellite only tax.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

robert koerner said:


> For some reason, I still get Lifetime. It was gone for a couple of days.
> 
> Haven't found a new channel labeled WE.


What is labeled LIFE on 108 is really WE (from channel 128). What is labeled LMN on 109 is really Encore Love (from channel 346). It's not Lifetime if you're watching E*.


rvd420 said:


> 127 is the tax information channel.
> Use by Dish for select markets when a state or local government trys to put a Satellite only tax.


That can be anywhere.

JL


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

James Long said:


> What is labeled LIFE on 108 is really WE (from channel 128). What is labeled LMN on 109 is really Encore Love (from channel 346). It's not Lifetime if you're watching E*.That can be anywhere.
> 
> JL


As far as I am conserned they can put the Lifetime Channels (which unless Lifetime backs down it will be 3 channels) in the 900 range and save the lower channel number for 1st rate channels (any channel that has over 30% informericals a day) is a 2nd rate channel.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

My wife watches a fair bit of Lifetime. But usually it's when she catches a movie while channel browsing. She doesn't have any real affection to Lifetime itself. 
With it gone, she doesn't miss a beat and just surfs to another channel.
Since Lifetime seems to only show old network made for tv movies, not any real big loss.


----------



## bobsupra (Jul 12, 2002)

Well, the trophy brides reaction last night was less than expected. Lifetime is not an important channel to her and she really couldn't remember the last time she watched it, much less what she watched.

But she did warn me that if E* removes the Food Network (Emeril) or CNBC then we will be switching sat providers the next day. No waiting around to see who blinks first. I said, "Yes Dear."


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Today's Rocky Mountain News article offers a few extra talking heads, but little new information: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_4361425,00.html


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Why don't they just remove 108 and 109 from the guide or put a message on those channels to tune to We or Encore Love's channel number for a free preview??? It is odd to have the channel listed as Lifetime with programming from another network.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Women expect something on those channels. If they went to cards viewers would go to the other channels and may not come back to Lifetime at the end of the problem.

JL


----------



## ehren (Aug 3, 2003)

"That prompted some grousing on Internet chat rooms, with a customer on the popular Satellite-Guys Web site wondering, "How can DirecTV keep the rates the same and keep all of these channels but Dish Network cannot afford to keep the channels that they have and still demand a large increase?"

Hmmm interesting!


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

ehren said:


> "That prompted some grousing on Internet chat rooms, with a customer on the popular Satellite-Guys Web site wondering, "How can DirecTV keep the rates the same and keep all of these channels but Dish Network cannot afford to keep the channels that they have and still demand a large increase?"
> 
> Hmmm interesting!


they cant D* will be raiseing rates in march(thats not the new year)


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

KingLoop said:


> Fortunately for me, my wife works a lot so she is not home a lot to notice how much she _could_ miss it. She wants Oxygen so I am sure that we will switch if this isn't resolved soon I will wait until next week Friday and if this isn't resolved we will go to D*. The easiest way for me to weather this dispute is to give Charlie a deadline as to when we choose to jump ship. My wife will be patient until then, but not much longer I am sure.


Charlie doesn't care if all of the people from this board because its an extremly small percentage. You guys make it seem this is World War 3. It's just TV. GEEZ!!!!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Paul Secic said:


> Charlie doesn't care if all of the people from this board because its an extremly small percentage. You guys make it seem this is World War 3. It's just TV. GEEZ!!!!


Maybe Lifetime has exclusive rights to cover WW3? 

Sorry... being sarcastic again.

I agree though, it isn't the end of the world... and I would say the same thing if it were a channel I actually watch.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

ehren said:


> "How can DirecTV keep the rates the same and keep all of these channels but Dish Network cannot afford to keep the channels that they have and still demand a large increase?"
> 
> Hmmm interesting!


I think it may be because D* loses money and a price increase just means a bigger loss. E* turns a profit, or has for going on 3 years now anyway.



Paul Secic said:


> Charlie doesn't care if all of the people from this board because its an extremly small percentage. You guys make it seem this is World War 3. It's just TV. GEEZ!!!!


I am not trying to make it WW3, I just think that if I lost a channel that I watch as much as say ABC, I would get a service that provided that channel. (I have an antenna for my HD locals so that is not a literal analogy) Personally, I'd live without E* or D* or cable.


----------



## dwcobb (Oct 13, 2005)

I have to agree, Kingloop. Many posters seem to not get that even though a specific channel isn't important to THEM, it is to other people.

Me, I don't care about Lifetime. But I definitely care about the pattern here. This will affect something I care about sometime. And I already switched providers once to get a single channel. I would do it again if a change in channel line up made me lose something I really care about.

I dont' give a darn about the company that provides the service. I don't give a darn about the box I have (well as long as it actually works, which really my 921 doesn't). I don't care about things I don't watch. But the sole reason I subscribe to E* is that I wanted channels that I couldn't get elsewhere. Fundamentally, what channels you get are the ONLY reason to stay with one provider versus another. And what channels matter to you is a very individual question.

And while my local cable isn't very good, there are only a handful of channel differences between D* and E*. The networks are not commodities. The service providers largely are.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

Link said:


> Why don't they just remove 108 and 109 from the guide or put a message on those channels to tune to We or Encore Love's channel number for a free preview??? It is odd to have the channel listed as Lifetime with programming from another network.


Because they want people to see that the stations were pulled, and to call Lifetime and tell them to relent.


----------



## TUCKER (Jan 4, 2006)

Does Anyone Know When Bangor Maine Locals Are Coming ????


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:welcome_s TUCKER
Bangor has television?

Just kidding. We havn't had a new local market on Dish in several months. I suspect that we will start seeing new markets in May or June after E* gets their newest satellite launched and online.

JL


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Any news on this being resolved?? Lifetime has been off longer than the Viacom channels. My sister is having cable hooked up tomorrow and has decided to cancel Dish. She was thinking of it anyway so each room could have cable and now with Lifetime gone she said she might as well switch.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Charlie gave his "Lifetime is raising rates 76%" spiel today at the E* press conference. Based on what TNGTony reported about the Hearst stations this could get worse before it gets better. I do not expect Lifetime to be back before the chat next week.

JL


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

This is how much I care about crappy Lifetime comming back.










Hopfully Lifetime does not come back. I would rather see the bandwidth from Lifetime and Lifetime Movies used to try in improve PQ.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

I've never heard of a program on Lifetime.

I've never read about a program, and then at the end it said "shown on Lifetime on ___day nights".

I've at least heard about (but don't necessarily watch) Monk on USA, Nip 'n' Tuck on FX, Sportscenter on ESPN, Larry King on CNN, Hardball on MSNBC, O'Reilly on FoxNews, Long Way Round on Reality, Rome on HBO (among others), Penn & Teller on Showtime (among others), Emeril Live on Food Network, Be The Creature on National Geographic, Lonely Planet on Travel, Real World on MTV, Biography on A&E, etc. etc. ...


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping: 

I hope my snoring doesn't disturb anyone.


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

I just dont know...

I dont care about Lifetime but I do care that Charlie is setting a trend. One that is unhealthy. I am all for lower rates but I with the people that say this has gotten a little childish. Bottom line first Viacom channels now lifetime whats next?


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

TUCKER said:


> Does Anyone Know When Bangor Maine Locals Are Coming ????


Just gossip and speculation, but we seem to be hearing Bangor will be lit up later this year, and based on trends we're seeing, they should be on the 110 satellite. Again, nothing definite, but that's what we're hearing. BTW, I work out of the Hermon office for E*, so I'm trying to follow this very closely:lol:


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I can't believe Lifetime has been off this long. If the Viacom networks had been off this long, I would have switched to Directv or cable without question!


----------



## mrb627 (Jan 8, 2006)

Agreed. I could care less. But, touch Comedy Central and it would mean war!

MRB


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

My wife was a big watcher of lifetime. She seems to be over it now though. It is possible to break women of their lifetime habit.

I think more than losing current customers, the bigger issue will be acquiring new customers. There is no way in hell my wife would have let me switch to Dish if they did not offer lifetime.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I wonder if they have seen many cancellations over this. I know my sister switched to cable but was thinking about doing it anyway to get more local statons from two areas and for having it in more rooms.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

OLN, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies......

The only channel I care about LESS than these is SoapDish.

This skirmish doesn't hurt me in the least. My wife doesn't even know they are missing (now if they cancelled the Food Network, she'd have me switching to D* in a heartbeat)


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> OLN, Lifetime, Lifetime Movies......
> 
> The only channel I care about LESS than these is SoapDish.
> 
> This skirmish doesn't hurt me in the least. My wife doesn't even know they are missing (now if they cancelled the Food Network, she'd have me switching to D* in a heartbeat)


Yes bob like I said before I could care less about Lifetime but charlie is setting a trend in his company of fight fight fight then take it off the air until they get what they want like a bunch of little kids. I dont mind the fighting part but the name calling and all the other chalrie is acting like a kid stuff has to go. As it might be lifetijme now but who knows FoodNetwork could be next.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Charlie will not overpay for rate increases.  He's established that. I hear what he is saying though.... why should he pay a satellite surcharge when he has 13 million subscribers compared to some small regional cable company that pays much less......


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> Charlie will not overpay for rate increases. He's established that. I hear what he is saying though.... why should he pay a satellite surcharge when he has 13 million subscribers compared to some small regional cable company that pays much less......


There is no getting through to you bob.

Mindless charlie supporter.

Again I love the fact that he fights but the same childish stunts get old and while you laughing now, when it hits a network you happen to like that when your not going to be so care free about it.

But again I dont have a issue with charlie fighting just a problem in the way he does it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jawa78 said:


> Mindless charlie supporter.


Omit the namecalling please.


Jawa78 said:


> Again I love the fact that he fights but the same childish stunts get old and while you laughing now, when it hits a network you happen to like that when your not going to be so care free about it.
> 
> But again I dont have a issue with charlie fighting just a problem in the way he does it.


So how would you fight? Refusing to sign yet another contract extension and allowing a contract to lapse instead of giving in to perpetual extensions or price increase is the only leverage that E* has.

JL


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Ha ha!

Mindless Charlie supporter.......

Have you SEEN the dozen+ rants I made against their CES Mpeg4 announcement last week?

Negotiation 101. Once you've lost the ability to say no you've lost. He just says no more often than the other guy.....


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

According to the Lifetime website in a recently letter to Charlie, it says they offered to extend the current agreement until January 31, 2006 so viewers wouldn't miss out on Lifetime and that Dish wants Lifetime to take a pay cut on their service.


----------



## Allen Noland (Apr 23, 2002)

I hear they have made some progress .


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

not enough progress to get lifetime back on the air. i have a feeling that we may never see lifetime again


----------



## saweetnesstrev (Oct 8, 2005)

My mom is really upset she really loved her lifetime channels, she would not go to bed cause of them! 



angiecopus said:


> not enough progress to get lifetime back on the air. i have a feeling that we may never see lifetime again


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> Omit the namecalling please.So how would you fight? Refusing to sign yet another contract extension and allowing a contract to lapse instead of giving in to perpetual extensions or price increase is the only leverage that E* has.
> 
> JL


First off you dont go around acting like a little child going they started it.

The going black only works when it is a channel that the majority of the subs care about. I know people right now who use to watch lifetime all the time and are not phased about it missing. This is not a Viacom deal. Hell the Viacom deal made national news. and was the story of news stations everywhere.

I see nothing wrong with doing extending deadlines assuming they are willing to extend as the previous contracted price. at least until this whole mess is over. Charlie is hoping for the massives to fax bomb viacom and leave dirty mean messages on the lifetimes ceo voicemail. Not going to happen.

Enough said.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jawa78 said:


> First off you dont go around acting like a little child going they started it.
> 
> The going black only works when it is a channel that the majority of the subs care about. I know people right now who use to watch lifetime all the time and are not phased about it missing. This is not a Viacom deal. Hell the Viacom deal made national news. and was the story of news stations everywhere.
> 
> ...


I couldn't care less. Its all made for TV movies and TV shows. Lifrtime Real Women = more of the same.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Lifetime will become a Directv and cable exclusive just like Oxygen!


----------



## pjm877 (Apr 27, 2003)

on the livetimetv site they said it was only a $.04 per customer price increase.. lets see 12 mil at $.04 per month that come to.. wow, not chump change.. 

So what was the rate last year? And, is $.04 more 7x% cost increase

The last letter posted by Dish from Lifetime TV stated in very clear terms. do not transmitt after 12/31/2005... no if's and's or but's ...

There is lots more to this story than we on the outside of the board room will ever know... or may wish to know... 

peace


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

pjm877 said:


> So what was the rate last year? And, is $.04 more 7x% cost increase


In regards to the 76% increase... It is worth noting that per the Charlie Chat and charts Dish showed Monday...

The 76% increase wasn't an all-at-once increase. It was a phased-in increase over the next 3 years. The chart showed an example price of $1 as of 12-31-2005 going up to an example price of $1.76 by 1-1-2009.

This is probably why both sides are "right" and wrong. Dish is saying 76% increase, not making it clear that it is probably 25-25-25 over 3 consecutive years or something like that... Whereas LifeTime is stating what they want this year only and saying it isn't 76%.

If it is a 4 cent increase this year... that *may* translate to 12-15 cents total increase within the next 3 years. Some fuzzy math *might* imply that right now LifeTime was charging 16 cents per subscriber... and wants to eventually go up to 28 cents per subscriber within the next 3 years.

As I've always suspected... both sides are probably presenting the "truth" but slanted towards them. LifeTime says "but it is only 4 cents" because that's all they want now... omitting that Dish had to also agree to do that every year for the next 3 years... and Dish is maximizing customer angst by adding up the entire increase and just telling you that part of things.

Also worth noting that while 4 or even 12 cents seems like a little bit... multiplying that by 12 million subscribers is a big chunk of change.

And keep in mind too that folks have pitched a fit over Dish raising rates $2-$3 for most existing packages... If there are, for example 60 channels in the AT60 at the $29.99 upcoming rate-increased price... thats about 50 cents per channel... so even a 4 cent per channel raise comes to around $2.40 for the package IF every single channel wanted their +4 cents.

Some things to keep in mind.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With the 'average increase' figures given in the chat 76% is still out of line.ESPN up 13% last year
Average Programmer 8%
Cable Industry 6%
Echostar this year 4%​If Lifetime feels they are that far underpaid they should look at a long term solution to get them up to where they want to be.

JL


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

My wild guess:

Current Lifetime per sub: 50 cents

Lifetime's offer:
2006: 54 cents (Lifetime's 4-cent increase)
2007: 68 cents
2008: 88 cents (76% higher than 50 cents)


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

carload said:


> My wild guess:
> 
> Current Lifetime per sub: 50 cents
> 
> ...


Your guess is probably closer than mine... and it does illustrate the same point. If Dish didn't fight these kinds of price increases, other channels would ask for the same... and those $2 increases that everyone complains about would be a fond distant memory when our next bill had to increase $10+ to cover everyone's similar requests for price increases!


----------



## IowaStateFan (Jan 11, 2006)

carload said:


> My wild guess:
> 
> Current Lifetime per sub: 50 cents
> 
> ...


or how about
Current Lifetime per sub: 50 cents

Lifetime's offer:
2006: 54 cents (Lifetime's 4-cent increase)
2007: 59 cents

Current Dish has Lifetime + Lifetime Movie = $1.00
2007 - Lifetime + Lifetime Movie + Lifetime Real Women = $1.77 (.59x3) or 77% increase


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Since Lifetime does have good ratings to back up its popularity why is Dish Network complaining so much?? I'm sure other popular channels like Nick, TV Land, ESPN, and others aren't cheap to get, so why should Lifetime be different? But since its been off this long, I guess Dish hasn't had a huge number of customers cancelling.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Link said:


> Since Lifetime does have good ratings to back up its popularity why is Dish Network complaining so much?? I'm sure other popular channels like Nick, TV Land, ESPN, and others aren't cheap to get, so why should Lifetime be different? But since its been off this long, I guess Dish hasn't had a huge number of customers cancelling.


If you believe the numbers... LifeTime has asked for more percentage increase in their rates than is due them even based on their presumed popularity. Even the "evil empire" of ESPN only claimed to have a 13% increase during the same time that LifeTime is appearing to want 76%.

So until I hear/see something from LifeTime that concretely says they aren't asking for that kind of increase... I continue to applaud Dish for taking the stand that they have... and IF ESPN or Sci-Fi or USA or Viacom or any other channel that I watch asked for the same kind of increase and Dish had to pull those... I'd be in support of them then also.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

At least they're talking.

EchoStar revealed that it's conducting discussions with 
representatives at Lifetime concerning a new carriage 
agreement for the programmer's networks. Spokesperson Mark 
Cicero said there have been "some meaningful negotiations 
during the last couple of days," and that the companies hope
to "reach a compromise" on a new carriage deal that will put
the networks back on DISH Network.

EchoStar dropped Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network from its
DISH Network lineup on New Year's after the two sides failed 
to reach an agreement concerning carriage of the channels. In
addition to resuming talks, Lifetime took to the consumer 
press this week with advertising containing its side of the 
programming carriage skirmish (see today's second story 
below).

Cicero said EchoStar hopes to "reach a deal as soon as 
possible," and one that's fair to the involved parties. "We
have valued our relationship with Lifetime over the years, and
hope to have an agreement soon," he said.

www.SkyReports.com - used with permission


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Lifetime took its carriage dispute with EchoStar to the 
consumer press Wednesday, buying a full page ad in the New 
York Times asking the company's CEO Charles Ergen to put the 
network back in the DISH Network lineup.

The ad was accompanied by another full-page ad from Time 
Warner Cable that told consumers Lifetime nets are available
through its service. Both ads were adjacent to each other in 
the newspaper.

The Lifetime "open letter" contained in the Times, and 
addressed to Ergen, was signed by organizations that Lifetime 
said represented more than 10 million women.

"We write to you with deep concern and regret that your DISH 
Network decided to take the No. 1 and No. 2 highest-rated 
women's networks off the air," the letter stated, referring to
Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network. "As a result, you are 
denying our members and your subscribers critical information
and inspiration they want and Lifetime Networks provide 
through their award-winning programming, public education and
advocacy campaigns."

Groups tied to the letter include YWCA of the USA, National 
Organization for Women, Equality Now, Covenant House, and the
Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

In response, EchoStar spokesperson Mark Cicero said the two 
sides have been discussing a carriage deal, and that the 
company hopes to soon reach a compromise with Lifetime. In the
meantime, "We will continue to fight for our customers," 
Cicero said, referring to the purported 76 percent rate 
increase Lifetime reportedly wanted for carriage of its 
channels.

Also, DISH Network is providing a free preview of Women's 
Entertainment (WE) and Encore Love as the skirmish continues
between the companies.

www.SkyReports.com - used with permission


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

Adds are now running here in Houston using this to encourage people to switch to Directv or Time Warner over this.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Jawa78 said:


> I just dont know...
> 
> I dont care about Lifetime but I do care that Charlie is setting a trend. One that is unhealthy. I am all for lower rates but I with the people that say this has gotten a little childish. Bottom line first Viacom channels now lifetime whats next?


Yes and I love this trend!

Someone is actually standing up to this sillyness!

Thank you Dish!!!

I swear "some" people will cave in to any demand just so long as it does not disrupt their ever important TV shows.

There is a reason Lifetime is trying this BS and that is they feel they can get away with it.

If lifetime is launching a new channel then let that channel stand on it's own merits instead of being "forced" on us by yet another "you want the good channels then you take the rest of our crap also" approach.

Don't you all understand that this will never end until we stop tolerating this sort of behavior? When will it stop? One channel here, one channel there, bills keep rising and we have zero choice because big business has brainwashed enough people into thinking that ala-cart (choice) is bad for us and that "forced packages" and ever spiraling costs are good for us.

Once again THANK YOU DISH!

-JB

p.s. Count me as one who is "more" likely to stay with Dish Network because I feel someone represents "me" and not big business!!!


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Nick said:


> "We write to you with deep concern and regret that your DISH Network decided to take the No. 1 and No. 2 highest-rated women's networks off the air,"


Number one and number two out of possibly four networks that are targeted to women? All I can think of is "Lifetime Real Women" and "We" besides the "Lifetime" and "Lifetime Movies" channels. Gee, it's not too had to be number one when you compete against channels that you own. (With the exception of We).


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Yep I saw the same commercial here in NM this AM. If they were still in negotiations (and had any hope of a settlement) I wouldn't think Lifetime would start running an ad that said dump Dishnetwork now and switch to DirecTV, USDTV or Comcast.

I don't see this channel coming back any time soon thats for sure. As we have seen with OLN, Charlie seems to be able to go for a LONG time without blinking......



invaliduser88 said:


> Adds are now running here in Houston using this to encourage people to switch to Directv or Time Warner over this.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

juan ellitinez said:


> I dont think either side is lieing...charlie is looking at the increase from his last monthly statement where as lifetime is only asking a couple pennies more per channel .. What we dont know is if lifetime is trying to get their networks placed in a better tier= mores subs=more money


I don't know that lying is the right word. But I think that both sides are applying spin. Sure we have seen reports ofa 70% increase and a 76% increase but these were over time---and we don't know if either of those offers is the CURRENT offer.

Similarly Lifetime presents only some of the facts in discussing the treatment of extension offers.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

We will never get the whole story from either side. I am a bit dismayed to see that it may not be coming back. I am going to have to go somewhere else. Either D* or Cable, here I come.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

ibglowin said:


> Yep I saw the same commercial here in NM this AM. If they were still in negotiations (and had any hope of a settlement) I wouldn't think Lifetime would start running an ad that said dump Dishnetwork now and switch to DirecTV, USDTV or Comcast.
> 
> I don't see this channel coming back any time soon thats for sure. As we have seen with OLN, Charlie seems to be able to go for a LONG time without blinking......


In fairness I have seen such ads before when a cable or satellite provider is in the midst of difficult negotiations.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

i don't see lifetime ever coming back on. if i want lifetime i will have to move to an area where they have cable. i hate living in the country.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

There is always D* I suppose. They never seem to have this problem, they seem to just say OK and then open Rupert's fat checkbook!


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

angiecopus said:


> i don't see lifetime ever coming back on. if i want lifetime i will have to move to an area where they have cable. i hate living in the country.


What about DirecTv?


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

Some people are morally opposed to Direct TV. While others are forbidden from ever having the service again. Either from not paying there bill to being put on the double secret DTV blacklist. ( I will not mention how you get on the blacklist)


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

KingLoop said:


> We will never get the whole story from either side. I am a bit dismayed to see that it may not be coming back. I am going to have to go somewhere else. Either D* or Cable, here I come.


So Lifetime wins?

Dish is standing up for us and what do we do? Jump ship?

Hmmmm seems it would have been just as easy to accept whatever prices they demand and pass these costs to the custumer ala D* or Cable so Dish stand up to the bullies and people are going to jump ship.

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Jawa78 said:


> Yes bob like I said before I could care less about Lifetime but charlie is setting a trend in his company of fight fight fight then take it off the air until they get what they want like a bunch of little kids. I dont mind the fighting part but the name calling and all the other chalrie is acting like a kid stuff has to go. As it might be lifetijme now but who knows FoodNetwork could be next.


Seems like most all of this was behind closed doors. In fact, we heard nothing about it until the very end. What would be the "right" thing for Dish to do?

1. Accept whatever price demands these stupid channels demand? Some would say yes.... I wish I had their money LOL

2. Lifetime wants to "force" another channel on to us. Is Lifetime wrong in any way or is it always Dish?

-JB


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Jawa78 said:


> There is no getting through to you bob.
> 
> Mindless charlie supporter.
> 
> ...


How would you do it? What is the right way?

-JB


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

KingLoop said:


> We will never get the whole story from either side. I am a bit dismayed to see that it may not be coming back. I am going to have to go somewhere else. Either D* or Cable, here I come.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree but tell that to my wife. She wants Lifetime, and I don't want to sleep on the couch.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

KingLoop said:


> I agree but tell that to my wife. She wants Lifetime, and I don't want to sleep on the couch.


Hang in there. Lifetime is like a drug to these women. Getting cut off cold turkey is very painful, but eventually the withdrawal will end.

My wife was very upset about the Lifetime thing at first, but now she no longer mentions it.  Long term, I think the husbands could be the real winners here.

Worst case, buy her a Pocketdish. Once she gets used to carrying her Soaps wherever she goes, Lifetime will be but a memory.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> Hang in there. Lifetime is like a drug to these women. Getting cut off cold turkey is very painful, but eventually the withdrawal will end.
> 
> My wife was very upset about the Lifetime thing at first, but now she no longer mentions it.  Long term, I think the husbands could be the real winners here.
> 
> Worst case, buy her a Pocketdish. Once she gets used to carrying her Soaps wherever she goes, Lifetime will be but a memory.


Give her a prescription for Valium, a sexy Sidney Sheldon "romance" novel and an industrial-strength vibrator and she'll forget all about the Lifetime channel.


----------



## sat101 (Oct 6, 2005)

stonecold said:


> Some people are morally opposed to Direct TV. While others are forbidden from ever having the service again. Either from not paying there bill to being put on the double secret DTV blacklist. ( I will not mention how you get on the blacklist)


Let me get this straight, DTV shouldn't forbid subscribers from resigning up because they did a little thing like not paying their bill ? Secret DTV blacklist ? Get real ! We are a DTV dealer and sales have jumped 30% since DN's loss of Lifetime. No wonder DTV #1. I'm surprised to see DN's constant screwing of their subscribers, how do they keep their customers.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

sat101 said:


> Let me get this straight, DTV shouldn't forbid subscribers from resigning up because they did a little thing like not paying their bill ? Secret DTV blacklist ? Get real ! We are a DTV dealer and sales have jumped 30% since DN's loss of Lifetime. No wonder DTV #1. I'm surprised to see DN's constant screwing of their subscribers, how do they keep their customers.


I don;t think he ever said that DTV can't ors houdl not do that. He just said that soem folks won't go to DTV.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

sat101 said:


> Let me get this straight, DTV shouldn't forbid subscribers from resigning up because they did a little thing like not paying their bill ? Secret DTV blacklist ? Get real ! We are a DTV dealer and sales have jumped 30% since DN's loss of Lifetime. No wonder DTV #1. I'm surprised to see DN's constant screwing of their subscribers, how do they keep their customers.


What are you doing trolling Dish forums if you sell D*?

*smiles*

-JB

P.S. I love the unbiased drival we often see from some people ROTFL


----------



## stonecold (Feb 20, 2004)

sat101 said:


> Let me get this straight, DTV shouldn't forbid subscribers from resigning up because they did a little thing like not paying their bill ? Secret DTV blacklist ? Get real ! We are a DTV dealer and sales have jumped 30% since DN's loss of Lifetime. No wonder DTV #1. I'm surprised to see DN's constant screwing of their subscribers, how do they keep their customers.


Direct TV has a black list of people who they have tried to sue for possible illegal actions. Numerous caught wanabe hackers have been added to this list. It does not stop there spouse from getting service in there name. But for people on there blacklist that if they try to sign up will get a credit denied letter and for a number of people it not because of there score 700 and above. Which is good credit.

Also some people hate direct tv and would refuse to use them.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Nick said:


> Lifetime took its carriage dispute with EchoStar to the
> consumer press Wednesday, buying a full page ad in the New
> York Times asking the company's CEO Charles Ergen to put the
> network back in the DISH Network lineup.
> ...


Both my wife and I were totally turned off by this ad. Lifetime has been less than forthcoming on this whole deal, and you'd have to be stupid not to figure out they picked up the tab for this.

It's blatantly representative and just a cheap shot.

And more than ever, we're backing DISH on this.

There is life, after Lifetime.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

what is sad is all the fighting going on between dish network and lifetime, i wish both would come to a peaceful agreement. i hate missing the nanny and the golden girls but thats life, maybe they will put out more nanny dvds, and i should start buying the golden girls on dvd. those are the only shows i enjoyed on lifetime.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Nick said:


> Lifetime took its carriage dispute with EchoStar to the
> consumer press Wednesday, buying a full page ad in the New
> York Times asking the company's CEO Charles Ergen to put the
> network back in the DISH Network lineup.
> ...


Critical information? What a bunch of BS!


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

i talked to customer service i asked if we get a refund off our bill and she said no and was very sorry about our losing lifetime. i told her that the gas prices were higher than what lifetime was charging dish to carry them. they gave me some excuse that they were working on it to get our lifetime back, but i don't belive it at all.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

angiecopus said:


> i talked to customer service i asked if we get a refund off our bill and she said no and was very sorry about our losing lifetime. i told her that the gas prices were higher than what lifetime was charging dish to carry them. they gave me some excuse that they were working on it to get our lifetime back, but i don't belive it at all.


*angiecopus*, why don't you get DirecTv?


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

well, because dish is what my dad went with, and everyone that i know is with dish.
i may have some friends who are on time warner start taping the nanny for me. my aunt and uncle were with direct but something happend so they went to dish.
and anyhow i like the sirus music instead of xm.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

I don't ever recall seeing a commercial for Lifetime before this. I have now see the same Dish Network bashing commercial on TV 10 times today as well as 3 times on the radio.

Methinks thou doest protest too much!

Perhaps if they spent less on mudslinging commercials they could live with something less than their proposed 76% increase over 3 years. :nono2:


----------



## sat101 (Oct 6, 2005)

jrb531 said:


> What are you doing trolling Dish forums if you sell D*?
> 
> *smiles*
> 
> ...


Not trolling. Just trying to find out some of the input from DN subscribers. We do install DN but do not sell. Stonecold, Thanks for the clarification on the blacklist, it makes sense but seems hard for them to enforce with all the independents out there. As for the loss of channels, they must do whatever it take to put them back on, their subscribers are paying month in and month out for their service and deserve this. I must also mention that there must be quite a few DN dealers taking a real hard hit on there chargebacks with there customers canceling service and switching either to Cable or D**


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

ibglowin said:


> I don't ever recall seeing a commercial for Lifetime before this. I have now see the same Dish Network bashing commercial on TV 10 times today as well as 3 times on the radio.
> 
> Methinks thou doest protest too much!
> 
> Perhaps if they spent less on mudslinging commercials they could live with something less than their proposed 76% increase over 3 years. :nono2:


I saw the Lifetime "Switch from Dish" commercial for the first time tonight while watching Smallville. Curiously enough, I was watching Smallville for free via my local OTA in HD 

I thought it was in poor taste. In effect, LifeTime is sabotaging any negotiation leverage they might have with Dish by encouraging customers to leave Dish for another company... If LifeTime had any hopes for a rate increase, it would behoove them to encourage Dish customers to stay with Dish so Dish has incentive to want the channel back.

IF all the LifeTime customers leave Dish, then there is even less incentive for Dish to negotiate.

And again, this smacks to me of LifeTime being more in the wrong than Dish... LifeTime is saying "Dish is lying, switch to someone else"... while Dish is saying "LifeTime wanted more money than we thought was fair to our customers, but we value LifeTime's programming and would like to have them back".

Which does it sound to you is more on the right side after reading/hearing things like that?


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

All this just doesn't make any sense. Is there some bigger feud here between Dish and Lifetime?? Dish raises our rates but yet can't negotiate with Lifetime--come on! Dish just wants the rate increase money for themselves to pay for all this HD expansion to try to keep up with Directv and local cable systems.


----------



## shaysweet (Jan 13, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Because Mr. Ergen has a rampant fan base that believes anything he says to be true.
> 
> I get the feeling most of those people would be happy paying $34 a month for an AT60 package that contains no channels.
> 
> ...


lots of people say that top60 has no channels. but at least dishnetwork gives you the option of having the top 60 at that price. this is where u can get basic programming (if your not a tv junkie, yet watch it occasionaly) for a lower price. where as with direct tv their programming starts in the $40 dollar range.. if you want a comprable amount of channels then go to americas top 120 

dishnetwork rocks


----------



## shaysweet (Jan 13, 2006)

angiecopus said:


> i talked to customer service i asked if we get a refund off our bill and she said no and was very sorry about our losing lifetime. i told her that the gas prices were higher than what lifetime was charging dish to carry them. they gave me some excuse that they were working on it to get our lifetime back, but i don't belive it at all.


well i work at dishnetwork.. and to be honest with you, when you call in to get a refund for lifetime how much do you expect to get? if you pay 31.99 a month for the top 60 (example) thats about a dollar a day for 60 channels plus locals. 
so your refund would amount to change anyway.

besides channels are subject to change even if you have a contract. its big news when dishnetwork removes channels but at the same time dish also added channels many times and did not raise prices. one example would be espnu.
and nfl network. also we moved soapnet from the top 180 to the top 120.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Link said:


> All this just doesn't make any sense. Is there some bigger feud here between Dish and Lifetime?? Dish raises our rates but yet can't negotiate with Lifetime--come on! Dish just wants the rate increase money for themselves to pay for all this HD expansion to try to keep up with Directv and local cable systems.


This has nothing to do really with the price increase.

Lifetime started yet another channel. Lifetime wants Dish to carry "all" their channels so they set up a price scheme in which Dish can carry all three channels for XXX dollars. Dish said.... we don't want your crap extra channel so Lifetime said ok...

If you only want the other two channels then it's gonna cost you.

This is why Lifetime is able to say that it's only a small increase (only small if Dish takes the new channel and averages the price of all three) and Dish is saying that the price is a huge jump because Dish does not want Lifetimes startup channel and only wants to keep the two they currently have.

Lifetime issued a punative pricing plan for Dish if they choose not to take the 3rd channel.

Dish is in the right here 100%. This is the same crap that ABC pulled and if these huge multichannel media companies keep getting away with forcing more channels than we want....

Well where does it end?

When can we say.... enough!!! We do not want nor need any more channels?

You see each of these channels may cost but pennies but when are where will the line be drawn?

I see nothing wrong with Dish saying to Lifetime...

"We only want the two channels you currently provide... what will you charge?"

To date it is Lifetime that is hicking the price up to try and "force" Dish to take an extra channel.

It's really very simple. Lifetime is wrong wrong wrong.

In a way I hope this keeps happening. Every time they do this (force stuff on us we do not want) they put the nail in their own coffin and move us more toward the day in which ala-cart and free choice will rule.

Already the average pay tv bill is close to $100 a month. That's over $1000 a year for the boob toob! I do not know about you but IMHO that is crossing the line.

If you make $50000 a year 2% of your gross goes to TV! (1% if you make $100,000)

Have we all lost our minds? Let's help to stop this madness instead of encouraging big business to continue to walk over us.

JUST SAY NO TO LIFETIME!!!

In the end we will all be better off because if Lifetime loses this battle the next battle may not have to be fought. Each time Dish loses it's only a matter of time before the next set of channels is forced on us.

-JB


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*Lifetime trying to enlist women's groups*

Talks still continue between EchoStar and Lifetime concerning 
a carriage agreement between the two sides, but that didn't 
stop the rhetoric coming from the companies about their 
ongoing spat.

Lifetime said Thursday it's running radio, television and 
print advertising in Houston, Albuquerque, Orlando, 
Raleigh-Durham and Greenville, S.C., explaining the absence
of its networks on EchoStar's DISH Network. In each of these
markets and in several others, Lifetime is partnering with 
DirecTV or local cable providers to encourage DISH Network 
subscribers to switch services.

In addition to DirecTV, cable companies participating in the
campaign are Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter, Bright 
House, USDTV and Verizon/FIOS TV.

Meanwhile, EchoStar targeted Lifetime's campaign that 
enlisted leading women's organizations and advocates in
an effort to pressure EchoStar and its CEO Charles Ergen
to put Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network back in the
DISH Network lineup.

In a letter sent to one of the women's organizations, Eric 
Sahl, senior vice president of programming at EchoStar, 
stressed that the dispute between Lifetime and EchoStar "is 
about economics, not women's issues." In his letter, Sahl 
referred to what he said was Lifetime's final offer, prior to
the Dec. 31 loss of Lifetime Movie Network on DISH Network, 
that called for a price increase of more than 76 percent for
the programming.

"In summary, the only thing keeping Lifetime programming off
DISH Network is Lifetime's excessive price demand, which 
would raise prices unreasonably to our customers," Sahl said
in his letter.

Lifetime and Lifetime Movie Network were taken off the DISH 
Network lineup New Year's after the companies couldn't reach
a carriage agreement.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

shaysweet said:


> well i work at dishnetwork.. and to be honest with you, when you call in to get a refund for lifetime how much do you expect to get? if you pay 31.99 a month for the top 60 (example) thats about a dollar a day for 60 channels plus locals.
> so your refund would amount to change anyway.
> 
> besides channels are subject to change even if you have a contract. its big news when dishnetwork removes channels but at the same time dish also added channels many times and did not raise prices. one example would be espnu.
> and nfl network. also we moved soapnet from the top 180 to the top 120.


but i have the top 180, who needs another we channel and encore love. My father pays for the dish network not me. i would love to find someone who could tape my favorite nanny programs for me, i really don't want to watch the nlf network, no i asked for a 10.00 credit for missing the nanny and the golden girls, i am sorry i heard that several people have gotten their 10.00 credit. i guess i am the only nanny and golden girls fan in the world.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

From Forbes.com:

*Ergen's EchoStar Faces Lifetime Backers' Wrath*


> In an open letter Thursday to EchoStar Chairman and Chief Executive Charles W. Ergen, emissaries from dozens of influential organizations exhorted him to put Lifetime back in the roster.
> 
> The letter was signed by respected journalist and activist--and one-time Playboy Bunny, albeit undercover--Gloria Steinem. It ran nationwide in publications including The New York Times and The Denver Post.


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Is the problem also that Lifetime doesn't want the Real Women channel in the Top 180?? If it costs more for the extra channel then put it in 180 (that package is expensive already). Dish should add something new to the package anyway since they are raising it $2.00 next month.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

So I know this is a statistical sample of "1" but I spoke to my wife last night about this Lifetime mudfest as she has watched Lifetime on occasion when she has a hard time falling asleep (NOTE: that alone should tell you something about the worth of Lifetime). She said she wouldn't really miss the channel at all and was completely satisfied with the fact that Dish has even substituted We and Encore Love for those two channels. She said with 200 other channels on, she can always find something on late at night to watch.

So any other women on this board want to chime in here? Do we have a poll for this yet?

I was shaking my head at first as I am still upset over losing OLN. But I'm really starting to feel like Charlie is doing the right thing here. DirecTv sure doesn't seem to care about holding down cost. Look at the price NFLST has soared to in the past few years as an example. Your cable company could care less either. It seems every one else just has the attitude of who cares what it cost, just pass the increase on to the customer.

It's time to stop the madness!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> Regen
> 
> That's the same statement posted earlier in this thread. Let's not do repeats.Charlie is willing to show us his hand. The ball is in Lifetime's court. If the numbers back up their accusations they are free to make the numbers public.
> 
> ...


Actually Charlie has only shown you part of his hand. If you want to accept that as is that is your right but I would suggest that it is naive to do s0.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

shaysweet said:


> well i work at dishnetwork.. and to be honest with you, when you call in to get a refund for lifetime how much do you expect to get? if you pay 31.99 a month for the top 60 (example) thats about a dollar a day for 60 channels plus locals.
> so your refund would amount to change anyway.
> 
> besides channels are subject to change even if you have a contract. its big news when dishnetwork removes channels but at the same time dish also added channels many times and did not raise prices. one example would be espnu.
> and nfl network. also we moved soapnet from the top 180 to the top 120.


Thanks for sharing Dish Network employee.

Here's what people who miss lifetime think. If there is a channel that you watch a lot of the time because it has the most desirable programming on it out of your *entire* line up, and you schedule your tv viewing around what is on that channel, and then all of the sudden that channel is gone, maybe you feel that this service *isn't worth* paying for any more. Because _NOW_ it doesn't have the programming that you want anymore, while some *other* _COMPERABLE_ service at a _COMPERABLE_ rate *does*. My wife is mad that we don't have lifetime and the lifetime movie network anymore. Sure channels go away all of the time, but *this* channel is still available with* EVERY OTHER SERVICE PROVIDER*, in my area. You are right about channels being subject to change, Dish Network employee, and _my_ service provider is subject to change as well. Personally I love the Dish Network service, the software on my 721s and 811, I have a nice rate and good programming; but Lifetime is a deal breaker. While everyone may not feel the same, my wife does.

Today was Charlie's last day to put Lifetime back in our line up. Today I am going to give Comcast a call and set up an appointment, on the day my cable gets installed I will put my dish service on pause. If the picture quality is comperable then maybe I will cancel my service altogether. We will see.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

ibglowin said:


> ...So any other women on this board want to chime in here? Do we have a poll for this yet?
> 
> I was shaking my head at first as I am still upset over losing OLN. But I'm really starting to feel like Charlie is doing the right thing here. DirecTv sure doesn't seem to care about holding down cost. Look at the price NFLST has soared to in the past few years as an example. Your cable company could care less either. It seems every one else just has the attitude of who cares what it cost, just pass the increase on to the customer.
> 
> It's time to stop the madness!


When I feel like watching something I check the HD listings (9421+). Then I check the Showtime package. Then I go to 122 and check 10-15 channels up from there on the guide (122-138), and down to A&E. Then I go to OTA and look around. Then I go to 178 and browse the guide up to 200. THEN I LOOK AT LIFETIME/LMN.

I'd like to have the channels, sometimes I get a craving for a Melissa Gilbert movie. But I fully support Charlie's efforts to not be jacked by Lifetime. I hope he fights like this even if my most favorite network is trying to jack rates.


----------



## jerbroni (Feb 25, 2004)

I understand that some of you are upset about this, but come on, is your wife REALLY going to make you sleep on the couch if you don't switch to another provider just so she can get her Lifetime fix? If so, maybe you need to be shopping around for another wife instead of another cable/sat provider.


----------



## saweetnesstrev (Oct 8, 2005)

I already have WE and ENCORE LOVE, i dont wanna see doubles...


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

They've already added Fine Living which is a better channel to me (but then again, I have a Y chromosome so Lifetime is useless to me)


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

angiecopus said:


> well, because dish is what my dad went with, and everyone that i know is with dish.
> i may have some friends who are on time warner start taping the nanny for me. my aunt and uncle were with direct but something happend so they went to dish.
> and anyhow i like the sirus music instead of xm.


Its not a club.


----------



## saweetnesstrev (Oct 8, 2005)

Paul Secic but you get 50 dollars if you invite someone... And your likely to go with DISH if you parents or people you know have it already.. :|


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

jerbroni said:


> I understand that some of you are upset about this, but come on, is your wife REALLY going to make you sleep on the couch if you don't switch to another provider just so she can get her Lifetime fix? If so, maybe you need to be shopping around for another wife instead of another cable/sat provider.


Doesn't it cost money to switch? My attendant, (a woman) watches Liftime but she just watches something else. Theres more important things in the world to worry about.


----------



## saweetnesstrev (Oct 8, 2005)

Hell, if it was my local sports games i would be piss as hell so i feel sorry for the women..


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

saweetnesstrev said:


> Hell, if it was my local sports games i would be piss as hell so i feel sorry for the women..


I've said it before... I applaud Dish for trying to stem the tide. Even if LifeTime's claim of 4 cents is accurate... If every channel in AT60 got 4 cents, that would be $2.40... Every channel in AT120 would be $4.80! And people are screaming bloody murder at the $2-$3 increase Dish made this year... just imagine if every single channel got a 4-cent or more increase what Dish would have to raise rates!

If ESPN or any other channel I watched pulled strongarm negotiation tactics to try and get the huge rate increase that Dish alleges LifeTime wants... I would be behind them all the way, even if I missed some programming. My pockets aren't endlessly full.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

saweetnesstrev said:


> Hell, if it was my local sports games i would be piss as hell so i feel sorry for the women..


well the only thing i enjoyed on lifetime was the golden girls and the nanny so i really don't care as much anymore. i think i am beginning to see dish networks point of view, Charlie wants to keep prices low.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

To keep prices low, they need to maybe add more package options so if you don't watch much TV you can just get a smaller package and then pay more and more depending on what channels you want. C-Band satellite used to offer a lot of different options and we could pick our channels with some providers.


----------



## jrb531 (May 29, 2004)

Lifetime still has not come out and posted what they were asking. If it was but a mere 4 cents a channel then post that.

Me thinks that has more to do with them trying to ram yet another channel down our throughts.

Ala-Cart or theme packages are the only way to solve this long term.

You can't life without Lifetime then pay the costs. I can't live without sports then I pay the costs:

1. Childrens Pack
2. Sports Pack
3. Movies Pak
4. Men Haters Pack

etc...

Simple, fair, easy so why not?

Because big business will lose money as more competition = bad for them.

-JB


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lifetime said they wanted a 4¢ per month increase ... 
Echostar says that reflects 76% over three years ...

Let's say that Lifetime currently charges $1.90 per month for their package.
And they want 4¢ more per month every month for 36 months.
$1.90 + 4¢ * 36 = $3.34, a 75.79% increase over three years. 

JL


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Charlie dumps 2 channels over $.04 and is rasing my bill $3. WHO the "Pig" now?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

saweetnesstrev said:


> Paul Secic but you get 50 dollars if you invite someone... And your likely to go with DISH if you parents or people you know have it already.. :|


Sir: my parents are dead, & probably don't give a hoot about Lifetime.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> Lifetime said they wanted a 4¢ per month increase ...
> Echostar says that reflects 76% over three years ...
> 
> Let's say that Lifetime currently charges $1.90 per month for their package.
> ...


Why would they get any monthly increase?? I'd think it'd be like $1.90 per month in 2006, $2.00 per month in 2007, and $2.10 a month in 2008. Those are just examples but I'd think they'd get the same monthly rate for the whole year then each would get a raise.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just trying to make both sides accurate in the statements they gave. The math works out if it is 4¢ per month (compounded) and starts at $1.90. 

JL


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The big point here is we don't, and probably never will, have all the information. Each side is presenting information slanted towards themselves.

HOWEVER... Charlie has offered to waive non-confidentiality so that LifeTime can do the same and discuss the actual numbers in public, and thus far LifeTime has refused. Strike 1.

Charlie invited LifeTime reps to appear on his Charlie Chat last Monday and they didn't respond. Strike 2.

LifeTime has launched a "leave Dish" campaign and is encouraging customers to leave, which tends to imply they are no longer interested in making any deal with Dish. Strike 3.

At this point, even without all information... I can't help but side 100% with Dish.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

EXACTLY HD ME. And rather than make up figures that MIGHT explain it why don't we just realize that we don't know trhe whole truth and that it is unlikely thaqt we will ever guess it. 

Let the negotiation teams negotiate.


----------



## mrb627 (Jan 8, 2006)

Are you sure it isn't .04 per channel?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

mrb627 said:


> Are you sure it isn't .04 per channel?


We don't know anything really. We are just guessing based on the information that is out there. Dish can't reveal actual numbers because of confidentiality agreements... and though Charlie has asked LifeTime to waive their rights and discuss the numbers publically so everyone can see the truth, LifeTime doesn't (so far) want to do that... which tends to imply that the increase is more than LifeTime is claiming even if it isn't as much as Dish claims.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

HDMe said:


> We don't know anything really. We are just guessing based on the information that is out there. Dish can't reveal actual numbers because of confidentiality agreements... and though Charlie has asked LifeTime to waive their rights and discuss the numbers publically so everyone can see the truth, LifeTime doesn't (so far) want to do that... which tends to imply that the increase is more than LifeTime is claiming even if it isn't as much as Dish claims.


Does the Real Women channel have anything to do with this, or is that speculation?? I haven't seen too many cable companies carrying Real Women yet. I don't necessarily think cable/satellite providers should be bullied into adding new stations especially if they aren't that popular. I would think Lifetime Real Women would just be an added bonus at this point with the regular Lifetime/Movie Network deal. You can't charge much for a new channel that may not even be popular.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Link said:


> Does the Real Women channel have anything to do with this, or is that speculation?? I haven't seen too many cable companies carrying Real Women yet. I don't necessarily think cable/satellite providers should be bullied into adding new stations especially if they aren't that popular. I would think Lifetime Real Women would just be an added bonus at this point with the regular Lifetime/Movie Network deal. You can't charge much for a new channel that may not even be popular.


We have been speculating that Real Women *may* also factor into the negotiations and quoted price increases as well. However, neither side has even hinted that an additional channel might be part of the problem in negotiations.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Looks like oxygen is up on channel 127 BYE BYE LIFETIME!!!!


----------



## saltrek (Oct 22, 2005)

HDMe said:


> We have been speculating that Real Women *may* also factor into the negotiations and quoted price increases as well. However, neither side has even hinted that an additional channel might be part of the problem in negotiations.


The Business Wire article that was referenced earlier in this post did mention that "...Lifetime is also insisting DISH Network force consumers to pay for a new channel with similar content to a channel already available on DISH Network..."

We can only assume that they were referring to Real Women.


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

Now that they've added Oxygen (& it's in my pkg), if they'll roll Hallmark into AT 120, they can leave the Lifetimes off the air for this household.


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

Woa!

That was a fast touche' for Charlie!

That should go far to satisfy the masses of women on Dish Network.



juan ellitinez said:


> Looks like oxygen is up on channel 127 BYE BYE LIFETIME!!!!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Lifetime will soon cave. They are losing ground by the day, and no one seems to be that outraged if 20 protesters is all they could muster up.

Plus, now they could help get Oprah to fight their battles for them...... Whatever customers they lose will be bolstered by those who come for the Fine Living and Oxygen additions (which were about the last two must haves that D* had (other than Sunday Ticket)).


----------



## rvd420 (Mar 10, 2003)

My prediction is Lifetime will cave in and be back on Dishnetwork by Feb 1.

The Lifetime execs better get out the knee pads j/k


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*Oxygen will be replacing Lifetime Movie Network (LMN) in our America's Top 120 package.*
http://www.fairsatellite.com/

I missed that word earlier. Looks like LMN will be going AT180 *if* it returns.
(That probably won't help in the negotiations.)

JL


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Given the propensity of both sides to make dramatic statements in the press I would not assume anything.


----------



## angiecopus (May 18, 2004)

rvd420 said:


> My prediction is Lifetime will cave in and be back on Dishnetwork by Feb 1.
> 
> The Lifetime execs better get out the knee pads j/k


No it wont, as long as charlie ergin has his say, lifetime will never return.


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

My girlfriend stated the she perfers Oxygen over lifetime because it is owned and operated by woman. I have source who tell me Lifetime is lossing ground to oxygen. Stay tune we may hear that a deal between lifetime and Dish will be done today, if not bye bye lifetime


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

I checked out Oxygen last night. 

It was great to see the current episode of Ellen Degeneres. How dey do dat? I thought NBC carried it ....


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

AcuraCL said:


> I checked out Oxygen last night.
> 
> It was great to see the current episode of Ellen Degeneres. How dey do dat? I thought NBC carried it ....


They have an agreement with Warner Brothers to carry Ellen DeGeneres and Tyra Banks late at night.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Yes it isa syndicated show. It is on many NBC stations---including most if not all of the O&Os but it is not a network show. There isa difference.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

Great news. Thanks guys.

There goes the New Year's resolution to get more sleep


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

I tried to find out from Lifetime what rates they are going to charge Dish in order to renew. They refered me to this site http://www.lifetimetv.com/about/dish.html

After reading this non statement I am begining to think that Dish is telling the truth about lifetime. I hope Lifetime goes off Dish. (Lifetime if dish still grows this move can only harm you)


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

With information on their website to switch to Directv or cable, who knows if Lifetime will ever return to the Dish Network lineup. Television shows get cancelled and now Dish has cancelled Lifetime!!


----------



## mrb627 (Jan 8, 2006)

Last night during "Lost", Lifetime had a commercial running against Dish. Recommending Dish customers switch to Comcast or Dtv. Best of Luck to you Lifetime. I'm not switchin'!

MRB


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Maybe Directv struck a deal with Lifetime saying they'd put on Real Women if they agreed not to renew with Dish Network making Directv the only DBS company with the three Lifetime channels.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

mrb627 said:


> Last night during "Lost", Lifetime had a commercial running against Dish. Recommending Dish customers switch to Comcast or Dtv. Best of Luck to you Lifetime. I'm not switchin'!
> 
> MRB


No problem. My PVR with the 30 second skip blew right by your propaganda commercial.

After ODing on Fine Living the last week, I'm happy they are gone...... I swapped a channel I never watched for a new top 10 channel for me.......


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Link said:


> With information on their website to switch to Directv or cable, who knows if Lifetime will ever return to the Dish Network lineup. Television shows get cancelled and now Dish has cancelled Lifetime!!


that is not all that uncommon in these disputes. Here in DC Fox and our cable system got into a nasty contest with lots of print ads etc. The same happened when the NBC O&O and Cox were inn negotiations just before the Super Bowl on NBC.

There was also a shortlived DISH/Albritton dispute that had all kinds of nasty ads in both directions. All of these were reolved amicably. We have no idea if that will be the case here however.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Link said:


> Maybe Directv struck a deal with Lifetime saying they'd put on Real Women if they agreed not to renew with Dish Network making Directv the only DBS company with the three Lifetime channels.


I think the FCC would have a big problem with any such agreement.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

tomcrown1 said:


> I tried to find out from Lifetime what rates they are going to charge Dish in order to renew. They refered me to this site http://www.lifetimetv.com/about/dish.html
> 
> After reading this non statement I am begining to think that Dish is telling the truth about lifetime. I hope Lifetime goes off Dish. (Lifetime if dish still grows this move can only harm you)


Lifetime is under no obligation to disclose that. In fact such information is seldom made public. Ther are two ways to lok at this. One is that DISH seems to have given us more info so why doesn't Lifetime match it. The other is that if DISH is going to discuss this publicly they should do so completely.

Persoanlly I hope that they resolve it. But I question that we will ever know the full story about what went on. It certainly would be ineresting.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> I think the FCC would have a big problem with any such agreement.


Perhaps. But there are things that are exclusive (eg. Sunday ticket) so it obviously can be done. Whether that is the case here or whether it would stand up to scrutiny I can't say but it does occur.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> Lifetime is under no obligation to disclose that. In fact such information is seldom made public. Ther are two ways to lok at this. One is that DISH seems to have given us more info so why doesn't Lifetime match it. The other is that if DISH is going to discuss this publicly they should do so completely.


E* is bound by contract not to release the terms of their contracts with Lifetime. E* has asked Lifetime to release them from the confidentiality agreement, but Lifetime has refused. Dish has given us the most information they can without being sued. Lifetime, not so much.

JL


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> Perhaps. But there are things that are exclusive (eg. Sunday ticket) so it obviously can be done. Whether that is the case here or whether it would stand up to scrutiny I can't say but it does occur.


This would not be exclusive, though. The FCC would have no problem with Lifetime only being carried by D*. An agreement to single out one particular competitor for non-carriage while the rest of the market (cable) was left alone would be very problematic.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

The earlier Sunday ticket deal was exclusive to D* for a set number of years but could then be offered to cable---but not other satellite providers. D* subsequently extended it's exclusivity but I never heard anything about the FCC questioning the earlier deal. 

An exclusive deal is possible. Again the specifics might not passs scrutiny but I don't think that we can say absolutely that the FCC would not allow it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> E* is bound by contract not to release the terms of their contracts with Lifetime. E* has asked Lifetime to release them from the confidentiality agreement, but Lifetime has refused. Dish has given us the most information they can without being sued. Lifetime, not so much.
> 
> JL


I agree with the minor clarification that DISH has released only that which is favorable to them and there statements have not always been consistent. I see no white knight in this one. BUt I realize that many of you do.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> The earlier Sunday ticket deal was exclusive to D* for a set number of years but could then be offered to cable---but not other satellite providers. D* subsequently extended it's exclusivity but I never heard anything about the FCC questioning the earlier deal.
> 
> An exclusive deal is possible. Again the specifics might not passs scrutiny but I don't think that we can say absolutely that the FCC would not allow it.


Lifetime is spending big bucks on ads claiming Dish hates women because they refuse to carry the channel. If it turned out that all along this was some scheme between D* and Lifetime, you can bet that the FCC would have a problem.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> Lifetime is spending big bucks on ads claiming Dish hates women because they refuse to carry the channel. If it turned out that all along this was some scheme between D* and Lifetime, you can bet that the FCC would have a problem.


I am not saying that is not the case but I am saying that you can't make a blanket statement that exclusive deals are not allowable. T hey are.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

LtMunst said:


> Lifetime is spending big bucks on ads claiming Dish hates women because they refuse to carry the channel. If it turned out that all along this was some scheme between D* and Lifetime, you can bet that the FCC would have a problem.


If Dish hated women, would they have added Oxygen???? Give us a break!


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> I am not saying that is not the case but I am saying that you can't make a blanket statement that exclusive deals are not allowable. T hey are.


I made no such blanket statement. I said the FCC would have a problem with this particular theoretical agreement between D* and Lifetime. If this turned out to be true, the FCC would be the least of D* and Lifetime's problems. 
After all of Lifetime's Ads, a defamation lawsuit would surely follow.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

LtMunst said:


> This would not be exclusive, though. The FCC would have no problem with Lifetime only being carried by D*. An agreement to single out one particular competitor for non-carriage while the rest of the market (cable) was left alone would be very problematic.


I am sorry I thought that you were saying that the FCC would object to an exclusive (for satellite) agreement. I must have misread it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> I agree with the minor clarification that DISH has released only that which is favorable to them and there statements have not always been consistent.


I believe they have adjusted the percentage (I've seen 70% and 76% on occasion) but they have been consistant. If you think that Lifetime has not limited their releases to information they believed to be favorable you are mistaken.

Looking at the negative campaining standpoint, the worst that E* has done is call Lifetime greedy (if not in that word) for asking for "76%" over the term of the contract when other networks (including ESPN) do not get that level of increase. Lifetime has called E* sexist and consistantly has used smear tactics.

JL


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

on·sis·tent Audio pronunciation of "consistent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sstnt)
adj.

1. In agreement; compatible: The testimony was consistent with the known facts.
2. Being in agreement with itself; coherent and uniform: a consistent pattern of behavior.
3. Reliable; steady: demonstrated a consistent ability to impress the critics.
4. Mathematics. Having at least one common solution, as of two or more equations or inequalities.
5. Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements.





Consistency would involve quoting the same figure. "Adjusting " the figure back and forth is not consistent. I won't defend all of Lifetime's press releases or tactics but your argument seems to be based on "Echostar must be right because I like them better."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The same can be said about your argument, Geronimo. E* is always wrong so you have sprung up to defend Lifetime often enough to wonder if you are a stockholder. 

I've explained why I believe E* is the fairer player here. No amount of dismissing the argument will change the fact that E* is willing to be open to scrutiny while Lifetime relies on their smear campaign.

JL


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> on·sis·tent Audio pronunciation of "consistent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sstnt)
> adj.
> 
> 1. In agreement; compatible: The testimony was consistent with the known facts.
> ...


To be fair... Nothing in your quoted definition of "consistent" says it has to be the same. Compatible, in agreement with known facts, coherent and uniform, and even mathematics having "at least one" common solution... So to be fair, your definition actually supports JL's use of the word 

However, I don't know I would say Dish is being consistent since the math has changed... but I give them a slight out there because 70-76% could easily be a typographical error or miscalculation. Dish is under the binding confidentiality agreement, and while Dish has asked LifeTime to waive that so they can both publically discuss the real numbers to defend LifeTime's assertion that "Dish hates women and is lying"... LifeTime doesn't want to discuss the actual numbers, so I can allow Dish a little leeway of inaccuracy since they are forbidden legally from saying actual numbers and I'm sure it is harder for them to keep making examples when they have to obscure actual data to do it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Actually I have made it pretty clear that I don't side with Lifetime. What I have said pretty consistently is that both sides are playing a bit fast and loose and that people are taking sides based on whether they like the channel or Charlie Ergen. 


As for the definition of the word consistent well if you think that 70% and 76% are coherent and unifirm and consistent with known facts. Or that sometimes saying that Lifetime withdrew the right to the channels, and on other occasions saying that DISH made the decision somehow meet that definition you win today's spin award.

I don't know of any content provider that would waive the confidentiality agreement. I think that is likely that DISH asked for this because they knew they would not get it. But I can't prove that any more than you can prove that DISH occasionally "miscalculates" the percentage increase. On that particualr point I side with Lifetime although I am offended by some of their PR tactics in all this as well. 

What I find interesting is that you can equate pointing out that nether side is blameless with support for Lifetime. I don't think it is me that could be accused of pushing one side too aggressively.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I've read your posts, have you? - Anyways back to the topic - Lifetime isn't on E*.

JL


----------



## DS0816 (Mar 29, 2002)

I wonder if Dish Network is in trouble. 

It seems only Dish Network has these contractual channel issues that result in temporary carriage losses. I'm a DirecTV sub in the metro Detroit area (Comcast and WOW! Internet and Cable are cable providers).

I don't see in the world of cable and satellite television any provider who has these carriage issues like Dish Network.

I wonder what the hell is up with Charlie Ergen's company.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

DS0816 said:


> I wonder if Dish Network is in trouble.
> 
> It seems only Dish Network has these contractual channel issues that result in temporary carriage losses. I'm a DirecTV sub in the metro Detroit area (Comcast and WOW! Internet and Cable are cable providers).
> 
> ...


What is up is E*s profits....way up. They are doing something right. Also, these carriage loss issues happen on cable also. Anyone here in the Northeast knows all about the Yes network fiasco among others.

There is also a reason Dish has annual increases of 3-4%, whereas cable is consistently double that.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

DS0816 said:


> I don't see in the world of cable and satellite television any provider who has these carriage issues like Dish Network.


Sinclair Broadcasting is a company that has problems with several cable companies (including Time Warner) and not so long ago was threatening to pull their owned local channels from Dish for a time.

I don't frequent the DirecTV forums as much since I'm not a subscriber, but if they haven't had these same kinds of problems it is either because they aren't fighting the increases or they are keeping quieter about it.

I applaud Dish for fighting. Do they fight all the time? Or enough of the time? Perhaps not... but at least we know they are fighting some of the time... which to me is a positive.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Sinclair Broadcasting is a company that has problems with several cable companies (including Time Warner) and not so long ago was threatening to pull their owned local channels from Dish for a time.
> 
> I don't frequent the DirecTV forums as much since I'm not a subscriber, but if they haven't had these same kinds of problems it is either because they aren't fighting the increases or they are keeping quieter about it.
> 
> I applaud Dish for fighting. Do they fight all the time? Or enough of the time? Perhaps not... but at least we know they are fighting some of the time... which to me is a positive.


Check out the latest D* increase (rumour) !! We should all stand up and appluad Charlie for not screwing us as much as D* is screwing over there customers!!!!


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

juan ellitinez said:


> Check out the latest D* increase (rumour) !! We should all stand up and appluad Charlie for not screwing us as much as D* is screwing over there customers!!!!


Where are the posts regarding this at?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

juan ellitinez said:


> Check out the latest D* increase (rumour) !! We should all stand up and appluad Charlie for not screwing us as much as D* is screwing over there customers!!!!


I'll have to look around for that... One thing about Dish... for as much as I dislike their "cable pig" campaign... I don't believe Dish ever says "No rate increases for you" and then raises them a couple of months later. Didn't someone post, or was that rumor too, that DirecTV had been campaigning that they weren't increasing rates after Dish's latest announcement?

Hey, maybe DirecTV will have a bigger increase because they caved and paid the 76% that LifeTime wanted


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The word was (reported here):After raising prices an average of 4 percent across the board in March, DirecTV does not expect any increases in the new year, said spokesman Robert Mercer. The company's average revenue per customer is $68.65, he said.http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_3355594​Expect being the word in question. D* is going to a lease only model March 1st, I don't see why they wouldn't make pricing changes on their traditional date as well.

JL


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Link said:


> I can't think Directv would have all 3 Lifetime channels if the rates were as high as Echostar lets on. Charlie claims 76% increase which seems extreme for any provider.


When comparing contracts, the dates must be considered. It is conceivable that D*'s contract doesn't expire until this year or next and when it comes time to negotiate, they would be presented with a similar proposal.


> I never understand why it seems Dish has trouble negotiating with programmers and has more disputes with channels being taken off than any other provider.


If I recall correctly from the Charlie Chat, Dish has lost three channels in ten years. This may not be entirely true as they could say that they didn't want a channel anyway after negotiations failed.


> I used to think it was because they really fought to keep our rates down but they raise packages by $3 a month and never add hardly a thing.


If you look at the package designations, you'll find that the number of channels has indeed increased. AT60 used to be AT50, AT120 used to be AT100 and AT180 used to be AT150. D*'s naming scheme doesn't hint at how many channels are available but suffice it to say, both services are steadily adding programming. Taken in the modern context of substantially more powerful receivers being leased at prices just over half of cable, I think it is reasonable to discount some of the programming price increases in the name of advances in hardware made available for next to nothing.


> Directv never seems to have any problems and usually has the same or less increases than Dish Network does.


The rates are almost in lockstep. The fact that D* may have been more discrete in the past doesn't make their negotiation any less difficult or contentious. Charlie seems to relish going to the whip of public humiliation to get his way.


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

James Long said:


> ...After raising prices an average of 4 percent across the board in March, DirecTV does not expect any increases in the new year, said spokesman Robert Mercer.... Expect being the word in question. D* is going to a lease only model March 1st, I don't see why they wouldn't make pricing changes on their traditional date as well.


Right on the money JL. I'm surprised a certain blabber mouth at the _other_ site doesn't have more to say on this issue.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

KingLoop said:


> Right on the money JL. I'm surprised a certain blabber mouth at the _other_ site doesn't have more to say on this issue.


since you asked!! http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=53343


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

I've look at http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=53343 and it seems that direct tv is not very truthful with their subscribers. Is this true or are the post on the thread bogus???


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

(Careful)Consider the source. But here's a thread with a better picture http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=53387


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What did you "expect"?


----------



## KingLoop (Mar 3, 2005)

Personally, I don't post specifics about privileged stuff, and I try not to talk about it so much. People need to get over this why are they raising prices kick. _EVERYONE_ sees the price of _EVERYTHING_ go up. Why is E* raising the prices? Because of _INFLATION_.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Sky Angel went up during the last year. Comcast is going up Feb. 1. DISH Network is going up FEB. 1. DirecTV is going up March 1.

DISH Network has a price hold for AT 60 from Feb 1 to 2008. Only provider I have seen do this. They did it once before.

BTW: The Comcast increase is comparable(4-5%) except the HD seems to be taking a big jump(perhaps a bit more than the DISH Network HD Jump).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

KingLoop said:


> Why is E* raising the prices? Because of _INFLATION_.


I thought it was "because they can".


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> I thought it was "because they can".


Ultimately that is the true answer in a capitalistic economy. Probably they are raising rates due to increased cost of doing business (be it raises to employees, other bills going up, programming cost increases, etc.)... but IF the market wouldn't bear the price increase, then they wouldn't be able to do it.

Same reason why you and I can't go launch our own satellite service tomorrow  Since we'd be forced to charge something the market wouldn't bear (Voom for example as a standalone service) to make our money back...


----------



## Ray_Clum (Apr 22, 2002)

DTV's price increase makes the use of Dish's Dual Output receivers a nice touch. AT180 w/locals is $3 higher than TC+ w/locals, but if you use a Dual Output receiver, the price is cheaper because of the 2nd receiver fee from DTV. Will definately put the focus on Dish Network's dealers to emphasize this fact...


----------

