# Dish and Fisher will they ever?



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

My 2 year commitment is going to end this month and the sage between Dish and Fisher has cost me the season of Lost, etc. Now I can forgive that but I will not be able to live another year of this. what do you guys think of them settling up before the Fall TV season starts? 

I am a bit leary of leaving Dish because I have the HD absoulute package and its the best bargain in TV land right now but the thougth of being screwed out of ABC again really sucks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Have you no options for OTA reception? I don't miss the DISH feed of KATU other than the naming of all the ABC programs I record.


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

I am not able to get OTA because my house is in the hilly section of Seattle. The cost of professional OTA is in the hundreds.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Eventually - it will get sorted out. No idea of when and on what terms.


----------



## Todd Nicholson (Jan 7, 2007)

I thought it was strange to see in the recent 5/13 uplink a reference to KOMO2 (which I would guess is part of KOMO ABC / Fisher).

ADD 14452 KOMO2{SEATTLE, WA} EEPG Tp 19 EchoStar 11 110w UNAVAIL HIDE

I wonder if the end is nearing in the dispute?


----------



## IDRick (Feb 16, 2007)

Todd Nicholson said:


> I thought it was strange to see in the recent 5/13 uplink a reference to KOMO2 (which I would guess is part of KOMO ABC / Fisher).
> 
> ADD 14452 KOMO2{SEATTLE, WA} EEPG Tp 19 EchoStar 11 110w UNAVAIL HIDE
> 
> I wonder if the end is nearing in the dispute?


I would guess not... Our CBS affiliate, KIDK, is also a part of the Fisher group. I noticed uplink activity in relation to KIDK a few months ago. I was hopeful then but no resolution.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

And KIMA?

Hurricane Fisher sure is one heck of a dispute.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Yep. It's significant. One owner, significant ownership:


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

scooper said:


> Eventually - it will get sorted out. No idea of when and on what terms.


WBRZ Baton Rouge, La has been off of dish for over 1 year.
It might take a while:nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As long as there is a lawsuit pending I would not expect the channels to return.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

calgary2800 said:


> I am not able to get OTA because my house is in the hilly section of Seattle. The cost of professional OTA is in the hundreds.


AH HA I knew the DTV transition commercials were not telling the whole truth!

there is no law saying you have to pay for locals. Cable TV was orignaly started to help people get better tv reception.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

dennispap said:


> WAFB Baton Rouge, La has been off of dish for over 1 year.
> It might take a while:nono2:


It's WBRZ, not WAFB.

Do you want to contact The Baton Rouge Advocate? I've got the contact info all set for you.


----------



## dennispap (Feb 1, 2007)

Raymie said:


> It's WBRZ, not WAFB.
> 
> Do you want to contact The Baton Rouge Advocate? I've got the contact info all set for you.


Yes, sorry about the call letters. Send me the info.
I have been emailing forever with them sending me a typical response. Dish gets this much money, they only want to pay us this much,etc. 
Maybe your contact info might be better/different.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Does you're TV have a QAM tuner? MOST local HD is unencrypted via cable.


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> As long as there is a lawsuit pending I would not expect the channels to return.


When the verdict comes around expects appeals to happen and than it will be 3 to 4 years Fisher will be fighting Dish and therefore no ABC for maybe half a decade.

I expect multiple appeals by either side.

Nice game of chicken we got going on huh?


----------



## solmakou (Mar 6, 2009)

calgary2800 said:


> When the verdict comes around expects appeals to happen and than it will be 3 to 4 years Fisher will be fighting Dish and therefore no ABC for maybe half a decade.
> 
> I expect multiple appeals by either side.
> 
> Nice game of chicken we got going on huh?


Just give E* customers their locals please :<


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

My mistake I got another year on my contract with Dish, it will cost me 120 bucks to leave as of today.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

calgary2800 said:


> My 2 year commitment is going to end this month and the sage between Dish and Fisher has cost me the season of Lost, etc. Now I can forgive that but I will not be able to live another year of this. what do you guys think of them settling up before the Fall TV season starts?
> 
> I am a bit leary of leaving Dish because I have the HD absoulute package and its the best bargain in TV land right now but the thougth of being screwed out of ABC again really sucks.


What is wrong with these Fisher? They're worst than Young Broadcasting.


----------



## gdowns63 (Feb 26, 2007)

I live 20 miles east of Seattle in the foothills, and there is absolutely no chance of any OTA reception. The only reason I haven't jumped ship to DTV is that I expect Fisher will go after them eventually as well.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gdowns63 said:


> I live 20 miles east of Seattle in the foothills, and there is absolutely no chance of any OTA reception. The only reason I haven't jumped ship to DTV is that I expect Fisher will go after them eventually as well.


Historically DirecTV has had less channel drops due to disputes. They also couldn't afford to have a loss of carriage on both dbs systems. That would be a loss of 31 million customers and people who pay them for ad revenue would start demanding less money due to a much smaller audience. Right now they have the option of doing this to Dish because of how Dish has been doing as a business. They don't know how many Dish subs have disconnected due to the dispute but they can account for some and they know it because of the loss of customers they keep reporting. Charlie is the one on the ropes right now and it wouldn't surprise me to see him bite the bullet on this one before football season starts again or the NFL promotion DirecTV runs every year will look that much better.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Charlie is the one on the ropes right now and it wouldn't surprise me to see him bite the bullet on this one before football season starts again or the NFL promotion DirecTV runs every year will look that much better.


I have yet to read about any bullets with Charlie's teeth marks on them. But I hope you're right as my sister in Idaho is still fuming about going with Dish on my recommendation.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> Historically DirecTV has had less channel drops due to disputes. They also couldn't afford to have a loss of carriage on both dbs systems. That would be a loss of 31 million customers and people who pay them for ad revenue would start demanding less money due to a much smaller audience...


So you are saying that there are 31 million DBS customer in the Fisher markets? You might want to rethink your numbers there skippy!


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

That's just the combined numbers of DirecTV and Dish total subs, from experience.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

That "31 Million" DBS subs is about the NATIONWIDE total number of subs to the combined E* and D* services. The actual number that get a Fisher station is much smaller than that.

If you think E* / Dish will back down - I'd suggest you do some more reading. After all - in a ReTransmission Agreement - there has to be agreement on BOTH sides.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

You said it would cost hundreds to get Professional OTA Locals. I guess I would be checking the neighborhood to see if any of your neighbors have antennas where they can pickup KOMO. If not then another option might be to find out what the lowest cost cable or other local service is available. Possibly there is something with a promotion that you could do for 6 months to a year. My brother has a similar problem with Dish and Fisher in Portland but he can at least receive KATU OTA.


----------



## IDRick (Feb 16, 2007)

I was hoping to switch to Dish this summer after finalizing my OTA set up. The no guide data situation on KIDK is the deal breaker though. The Mrs watches several programs on this channel and I would pay a huge price on the WAF scenario. D* is looking much better these days...


----------



## Jim Rochefort (Apr 21, 2002)

calgary2800 said:


> My 2 year commitment is going to end this month and the sage between Dish and Fisher has cost me the season of Lost, etc. Now I can forgive that but I will not be able to live another year of this. what do you guys think of them settling up before the Fall TV season starts?
> 
> I am a bit leary of leaving Dish because I have the HD absoulute package and its the best bargain in TV land right now but the thougth of being screwed out of ABC again really sucks.


You might try going to the ABC network site and watch Lost on your PC. They only have the last 4 episode available now. I followed my favorites right through the season that way. Jim


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Slamminc11 said:


> So you are saying that there are 31 million DBS customer in the Fisher markets? You might want to rethink your numbers there skippy!


I never said in those markets only.



scooper said:


> That "31 Million" DBS subs is about the NATIONWIDE total number of subs to the combined E* and D* services. The actual number that get a Fisher station is much smaller than that.
> 
> If you think E* / Dish will back down - I'd suggest you do some more reading. After all - in a ReTransmission Agreement - there has to be agreement on BOTH sides.


Yes Fisher gets a much smaller percentage but when you're an advertiser do you walk in and say "well you lost a small % of 31 million so we're ok with the same money" or "You just lost access to 31 million customers". It's going to be the latter because it puts you in a much better bargaining position. Everyone knows 31 million subs are not in Fishers area but they would have lost the ability to reach those subs if they moved into that area and so forth.

An agreement would be simple if one side backed down. If Dish said ok we'll pay that price fisher would agree. If Fisher said ok we'll take what you're offering then Dish would agree. Dish is getting hit all over the place right now. They're losing subs and dropping in satisfaction scores. Something has to change before the snowball starts growing again. This would be an easy, probably pricey, win for Dish in those markets and help with it's retention efforts and ability to sign up new subs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> ... when you're an advertiser do you walk in and say "well you lost a small % of 31 million so we're ok with the same money" or "You just lost access to 31 million customers".


If you want to lie you exaggerate the figures. The counter (actual truth of the number of potential satellite viewers lost) is such a smaller number that the "31 million" number would be blown off as much as a mother who has told her child a million times to clean up their room.

Per federal law satellite companies CAN NOT offer any of Fisher's signals to all of their 31 million customers. It would be a very poor bargaining position for the advertiser to claim such a false figure.

And Fisher might as well say that they are available to the rest of the 114.5 million total television households if a "you lost 31 million" line is pursued.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The actual numbers involved with Fisher are Dish subscribers who can't get the Fisher-owned channel OTA in the DMA's affected. To start with, that reduces the number of live TV watchers substantially. Dish's ViP DVR OTA recording capabilities ironically reduces the impact further.

While my sister in rural Idaho is dependent on the CBS satellite feed and is, therefore, not a happy camper. But the actual number of Dish subscribers in Fisher areas who cannot get OTA isn't going to be big enough to pressure Charlie or Fisher significantly.

With that said, the situation is still idiotic for both of them.


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

Its seems to be a one on one battle at this point. We all know the heads of Fisher and Dish are a one person show. Charlie vs the Colleen. I think its got so personal that both sides would be willing to eat millions to at this point to say " I WIN"


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

I have tried watching Lost on my CPU, totally sucks when this great show was once on my 58 plasma.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

James Long said:


> If you want to lie you exaggerate the figures. The counter (actual truth of the number of potential satellite viewers lost) is such a smaller number that the "31 million" number would be blown off as much as a mother who has told her child a million times to clean up their room.
> 
> Per federal law satellite companies CAN NOT offer any of Fisher's signals to all of their 31 million customers. It would be a very poor bargaining position for the advertiser to claim such a false figure.
> 
> And Fisher might as well say that they are available to the rest of the 114.5 million total television households if a "you lost 31 million" line is pursued.


I chose the words I did because it's true it's not a lie. It's splitting hairs because that's what it would be. The key word is access not total subscribers. Only Dish/DirecTV and Fisher would know how many actual subscribers are being impacted. It's no different then when any affiliate posts the amount of households that it services. The household count comes from the USPS residency list which counts total addresses in a given area. Not all of those homes may have people in them or have a TV. So 31 million people would have the ability to be impacted. No one would say that 31 million would be. Small distinction but still there is one.

So with that said it was the point that losing access to two dbs companies would be too large for them to not deal with.

Back to the topic though while Charlie may be taking this personal unless he is willing to lose those markets completely to his competition I still see him forcing a resolution before september.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

calgary2800 said:


> Its seems to be a one on one battle at this point. We all know the heads of Fisher and Dish are a one person show. Charlie vs the Colleen. I think its got so personal that both sides would be willing to eat millions to at this point to say " I WIN"


Regardless, Dish is losing customers. They lost me and quite a few people I know. I have KATU back now as do many of my friends and acquaintances....I've also noticed the few Dish subscribers in the neighborhood are getting less. Charlie can fight his little war all he wants, but the reality is people are leaving. Is that number so small that it really makes little difference? Maybe. Some reports I've read show less than a 10% market share for Dish in Fisher's markets.

In my own mind Dish is so desperate for new signups that they are resorting to begging people to sign up for the $9.99 plan.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Back to the topic though while Charlie may be taking this personal unless he is willing to lose those markets completely to his competition I still see him forcing a resolution before september.


The Charlie "I've come to know and love" considers any lawsuit as personal as a bitter divorce proceeding, regardless of who initiates it. Once it's in court, reconciliation is not easily achieved.:eek2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Shades228 said:


> I chose the words I did because it's true it's not a lie.


It is absolutely NOT TRUE. DISH and DirecTV _CANNOT_ offer "access" to their combined 31 million customers to any of Fishers stations.



> Back to the topic though while Charlie may be taking this personal unless he is willing to lose those markets completely to his competition I still see him forcing a resolution before september.


When DISH reaches zero customers in ANY of the markets Fishers has a station in let us know. DISH has not hit zero in markets with much more important channels missing ("YES" sports network, etc).

If DISH can survive without offering YES and other "gotta have or they will die" channels then they will survive just fine without Fishers.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> If DISH can survive without offering YES and other "gotta have or they will die" channels then they will survive just fine without Fishers.


Will they survive just fine? Doubtful. Bleeding subscribers right and left. Just replaced the top management again. New sign ups are minimal. The lack of tie ins with phone companies is nil. There is no doubt a core group of subscribers who will probably always be subscribers because of the hassles involved in switching....but even they get to the point of switching.

It may take a big event to switch (i.e. if the super bowl is again on the stations that Charlie refuses to carry), or it may just be time.

In time if Charlie doesn't adopt a new policy he will destroy the business, if he hasn't already. The man creates fights out of everything....


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Remember - it takes BOTH sides to come to an agreement...


----------



## MichaelMara (May 7, 2007)

The validates my decision to leave E after 6 years (The KCPQ/Tribune dispute was the primary reason - no OTA in Stanwood) last year with this crap Charlie and Fisher are pulling. Ergen hasn't shown much respect for the actual customer in my opinion and a buddy of mine who worked at a upper level at Comcast said this is typical with how Dish runs thngs: create a war when a skirmish would do. BTW- D now has PBS, CW and KONG in HD.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

WebTraveler said:


> Will they survive just fine? Doubtful. Bleeding subscribers right and left. Just replaced the top management again. New sign ups are minimal. The lack of tie ins with phone companies is nil. There is no doubt a core group of subscribers who will probably always be subscribers because of the hassles involved in switching....but even they get to the point of switching.
> 
> It may take a big event to switch (i.e. if the super bowl is again on the stations that Charlie refuses to carry), or it may just be time.
> 
> In time if Charlie doesn't adopt a new policy he will destroy the business, if he hasn't already. The man creates fights out of everything....


So if the avg drop rate of 100,000 dish subs (about the avg the last two quarters) per quarter were to continue, that would mean that in a mere 33.75 years Dish will be out of business... I guess people better hurry up and look for something else!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> Bleeding subscribers right and left.


Subscriber loss has not changed, and is still in the ballpark with DirecTV.


> New sign ups are minimal.


Last quarter 653,000 customers signed up.


> The lack of tie ins with phone companies is nil.


The lack is nil? There is no lack? (I love double negatives.)



> In time if Charlie doesn't adopt a new policy he will destroy the business, if he hasn't already. The man creates fights out of everything....


As Scooper pointed out, it takes two to fight. Fisher is not innocent in this matter. Do you really think a policy of pay anything a provider wants and agree to every deal that crosses the desk is better? Allow companies like Fisher to extort DISH for anything they want for a few local stations?

I'd like to see DISH get back on the plus side of net subscriber change ... then those who hate the company can find some other data point to attack them on.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The perfect data point to attack Dish Network on is it's failure to get MORE.*

*per Dictionary.com: "an additional quantity, amount, or number".


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

calgary2800 said:


> I have tried watching Lost on my CPU, totally sucks when this great show was once on my 58 plasma.


Build a HTPC. Or buy a popcorn hour. Download show and enjoy. This fisher thing hasn't affected me at all. 

Still, having followed the issue I have to side with Dish on this one. And if it wasn't dish then direct would be telling fisher where to stick it. Their demands are unreasonable and should fisher win it would set a precedent that would affect TV viewing for all sat and cable providers. No matter what service you have now you want Dish to win.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> Subscriber loss has not changed, and is still in the ballpark with DirecTV.Last quarter 653,000 customers signed up.The lack is nil? There is no lack? (I love double negatives.)
> 
> As Scooper pointed out, it takes two to fight. Fisher is not innocent in this matter. Do you really think a policy of pay anything a provider wants and agree to every deal that crosses the desk is better? Allow companies like Fisher to extort DISH for anything they want for a few local stations?
> 
> I'd like to see DISH get back on the plus side of net subscriber change ... then those who hate the company can find some other data point to attack them on.


No doubt it takes two to fight. It's Charlie versus the world. Charlie fights everyone. Charlie has more disputes than the rest of America put together.

Also, I simply do not believe that Fisher situation the way you do. I have talked first hand with folks at Fisher who flatly tell me that they agreed to Dish's compensation package. Have you done any independent research and analysis? Where there seems to be an issue is the alleged back pay for some other stations, unlrelated to my own. It appears both companies have their own version of this that will be reconciled in a courtroom (or perhaps a mediation?) So that will be resolved.....why put every single viewer in the silly situation? If Fisher wins the back payment comes. If Dish wins the back payment doesn't come. But how does throwing every customer under the bus help Dish?

The result is the fact that Dish is signing up a few customers here and there at this silly $9.99 rate and losing existing customers at the higher end. You can read whatever you want into the subscriber numbers, but the sign up offer is $9.99 and the people leaving are out of contract, so they are paying the maximum. Seems like a poor business model to me.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Slamminc11 said:


> So if the avg drop rate of 100,000 dish subs (about the avg the last two quarters) per quarter were to continue, that would mean that in a mere 33.75 years Dish will be out of business... I guess people better hurry up and look for something else!


There is also a concept called "economies of scale." There are certain fixed costs that any operator has no matter how many subscribers. Variable costs can be controlled here. Maybe the concept is over your head, not sure. But it is basic economic theory.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> I have talked first hand with folks at Fisher who flatly tell me that they agreed to Dish's compensation package.


Of course they said that. But it was Fisher that started this with VERY unreasonable demands. I imagine Dish wants to set a precedent for this so this ridiculousness isn't tried by other local channels.

In the beginning fisher's demands were very unreasonable. I don't know where they are at, at this moment. But you can talk to people on both sides and neither side is in the wrong.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> I have talked first hand with folks at Fisher who flatly tell me that they agreed to Dish's compensation package.


And Fisher likely told you part of the story (which was true). They didn't tell you the part about why the channels still aren't available. Some would call this an oversight and others would call it a sin of omission.

Get more background by searching for KUNP and other Univision properties that Fisher commands.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> Of course they said that. But it was Fisher that started this with VERY unreasonable demands. I imagine Dish wants to set a precedent for this so this ridiculousness isn't tried by other local channels.
> 
> In the beginning fisher's demands were very unreasonable. I don't know where they are at, at this moment. But you can talk to people on both sides and neither side is in the wrong.


I do agree with you on one point - Dish wants to set an example.

I am not sure that in the begining Fisher's demands were unreasonable. That's what Charlie wants you to believe.

I am awaiting the resolution of the court case. I should check out the court file and see what is going on. Anyone can get access to court documents and it would be interesting via Pacer for a fee. Some probably are redacted.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> And Fisher likely told you part of the story (which was true). They didn't tell you the part about why the channels still aren't available. Some would call this an oversight and others would call it a sin of omission.
> 
> Get more background by searching for KUNP and other Univision properties that Fisher commands.


And you are the world's expert at this dispute from your living room scanning the internet? Sorry, I just can't buy your expertise


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> I do agree with you on one point - Dish wants to set an example.
> 
> I am not sure that in the begining Fisher's demands were unreasonable. That's what Charlie wants you to believe.


They wanted to be paid as a cable channel. A free over the air channel. Free to carry. That's not only unreasonable, that's ridiculous. And if they get away with that it's going to change everything for everyone.



WebTraveler said:


> And you are the world's expert at this dispute from your living room scanning the internet? Sorry, I just can't buy your expertise


And you are an expert because someone told you something to make themselves look good and you were gullible enough to buy it? Hmmm...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

archer75 said:


> They wanted to be paid as a cable channel. A free over the air channel. Free to carry. That's not only unreasonable, that's ridiculous. And if they get away with that it's going to change everything for everyone.
> 
> And you are an expert because someone told you something to make themselves look good and you were gullible enough to buy it? Hmmm...


Not only paid as a cable channel, but they wanted back compensation for channels they bought that were already being carried by Dish.

At this point, the compensation rate is probably something both sides can live with. It's this back-compensation that is the real sticking point and the reason it's tied up in court. If Fisher would drop this and drop the lawsuit, I'd bet an agreement would happen pretty quick.

IMO.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jim Rochefort said:


> You might try going to the ABC network site and watch Lost on your PC. They only have the last 4 episode available now. I followed my favorites right through the season that way. Jim


Watch ABC shows http://www.hulu.com. Great shows and interface. The heck with Fisher!


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> They wanted to be paid as a cable channel. A free over the air channel. Free to carry. That's not only unreasonable, that's ridiculous. And if they get away with that it's going to change everything for everyone.
> 
> And you are an expert because someone told you something to make themselves look good and you were gullible enough to buy it? Hmmm...


First, I am not claiming to be an expert like yourself. Second, I am not disputing the overall issue about whether retransmission is proper or not. My issue is that it is not proper to put the end customer in this mess. That's what I have said from the begining. You are just rambling on and on


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

scooper said:


> At this point, the compensation rate is probably something both sides can live with. It's this back-compensation that is the real sticking point and the reason it's tied up in court. If Fisher would drop this and drop the lawsuit, I'd bet an agreement would happen pretty quick.
> 
> IMO.


That's the underlying issue. Since both sides believe their interpretation of the contract is the correct one they'll seek redress in court. But their customers in the interim period are the ones caught in the middle.


----------



## ajc68 (Jan 23, 2008)

calgary2800 said:


> My 2 year commitment is going to end this month and the sage between Dish and Fisher has cost me the season of Lost, etc. Now I can forgive that but I will not be able to live another year of this. what do you guys think of them settling up before the Fall TV season starts?
> 
> I am a bit leery of leaving Dish because I have the HD absolute package and its the best bargain in TV land right now but the thought of being screwed out of ABC again really sucks.


I would either switch to Directv and get a new subscriber deal with them, or add the most basic cable package you can get...and send the bill to Charley (just kidding). Some people will add a $9.99 type basic package which will get you your locals in both SD and HD. And food for thought, if Charley is willing to fight Fisher, which contracts are up next?

Btw, LOST Season 5 will be on Blu-ray Dec. 8. The show even looks better on Blu-ray than it does in its original broadcast! The first two seasons are coming out June 18, and seasons 3 & 4 are currently available.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> I do agree with you on one point - Dish wants to set an example.


As you've been so very careful to point out, Charlie makes an example of anyone who is willing to tilt and the Ergen windmill. It isn't like he's picking on anyone.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

WebTraveler said:


> That's the underlying issue. Since both sides believe their interpretation of the contract is the correct one they'll seek redress in court. But their customers in the interim period are the ones caught in the middle.


Basically - if Fisher didn't notify Dish that they now owned the stations in question immediately upon completing the purchase and requested they be changed to the existing Fisher contract - Fisher messed up and should not get the back compensation. By doing the course they did - they were accepting the stations existing arraingements (and if they were Must Carry - Fisher would have had to cover the cost of getting them to Dish's POP).

And yes - it is viewers who can't receive the Fisher stations OTA that are caught in the middle - so sorry for them. They could always try the All American Direct route for Distant networks.


----------



## calgary2800 (Aug 27, 2006)

When is this soap opera going to court?


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

scooper said:


> Basically - if Fisher didn't notify Dish that they now owned the stations in question immediately upon completing the purchase and requested they be changed to the existing Fisher contract - Fisher messed up and should not get the back compensation. By doing the course they did - they were accepting the stations existing arraingements (and if they were Must Carry - Fisher would have had to cover the cost of getting them to Dish's POP).


And you know this how? You've read the contracts, the law, and made the decision for the judge already? Your opinion is simply your opinion.

If it is that cut and dry then the issue would be resolved already. You are another one of those armchair quarterbacks who sit in the house and critique anything and everything, but know everything.

I've simply said from the start that both sides feel they are right and the court will make it's conclusion. It's also fact that Charlie has disputes with everyone. Remember that kid growing up that couldn't get along with anyone? That's Charlie Ergen. He's been involved in more lawsuits than anyone else in the history of the USA (I don't know that for a fact, but it sure seems that way).

All American Direct does not work for folks in the metro area.

In the meantime Charlie looses customers....


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

calgary2800 said:


> When is this soap opera going to court?


God only knows....


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

WebTraveler said:


> ...In the meantime Charlie looses customers....


and how exactly does one loose costomers?


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

WebTraveler said:


> ...You are another one of those armchair quarterbacks who sit in the house and critique anything and everything, but know everything...


Kettle met black...


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> First, I am not claiming to be an expert like yourself. Second, I am not disputing the overall issue about whether retransmission is proper or not. My issue is that it is not proper to put the end customer in this mess. That's what I have said from the begining. You are just rambling on and on


You have 10 posts in this thread and i'm the one rambling? That's rich!

You don't need to be an expert, you just need to read and then you would understand the situation. And if you understood the situation as you claim to then you wouldn't be attacking dish and supporting fisher as strongly as you are.

Any time there is a contract dispute the consumer is in the middle. However if dish just rolled over and gave everyone everything they wanted we would all be paying more for it. So I applaud dish in standing up for the consumer.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> You have 10 posts in this thread and i'm the one rambling? That's rich!
> 
> You don't need to be an expert, you just need to read and then you would understand the situation. And if you understood the situation as you claim to then you wouldn't be attacking dish and supporting fisher as strongly as you are.
> 
> Any time there is a contract dispute the consumer is in the middle. However if dish just rolled over and gave everyone everything they wanted we would all be paying more for it. So I applaud dish in standing up for the consumer.


You have not read the posts, like many of the folks here. I am not supporting Fisher in any way. I have had restore the channel and let the issue work through the system. Fisher has agreed to Dish's rate structure prospectively. It's the back payments that are the problem. The court case will take care of that.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Slamminc11 said:


> and how exactly does one loose costomers?


Go ahead, focus on the irrelevant typo and miss the point. Feel good now? I bet you do since it is clear I provide your daily excitement.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

Slamminc11 said:


> Kettle met black...


No, perhaps it is your head meeting the pavement. So glad to provide the excitement for you.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> No, perhaps it is your head meeting the pavement. So glad to provide the excitement for you.


13 posts now. Keep on rambling.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> He's been involved in more lawsuits than anyone else in the history of the USA (I don't know that for a fact, but it sure seems that way).


You certainly stated it as if it were a fact. Stating as a fact something that you don't really know is not OK. Some would call it hearsay and others would call it speculative. I can't imagine anyone considering this statement worth typing without solid information to back it up. See more at libel.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Enough of the personal digs ... keep the focus on DISH vs Fisher.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> You certainly stated it as if it were a fact. Stating as a fact something that you don't really know is not OK. Some would call it hearsay and others would call it speculative. I can't imagine anyone considering this statement worth typing without solid information to back it up. See more at libel.


Read the post and see if you can understand it. It's pretty clear and you don't need to imagine it or whatever you do. A far cry from libel. Maybe you need to understand the legal terms you just cited before you comment on them; maybe?

I will say it again to clarify all of this, Dish has unreasonably protracted this issue. It can resolve the issue prospectively and put the channel back for customers. Fisher has agreed to Dish's terms going forward. The sole issue in dispute is back payments. If the contract is as clear as Dish says it is then they will prevail. Regardless, Dish is losing customers because of this saga.

I believe Charlie Ergen is trying to make an example out of Fisher so others don't try to mess with him. Charlie Ergen has testified before Congress regarding how unfair he perceives the retransmission rules to be and argued they are not entitled to a dime. Charlie Ergen and his related entities have been in more court rooms than many attorneys and my perception is he likes to litigate things to the hilt at whatever cost to prove he is right. In the end he is seriously undermining his own business. I believe that Charlie Ergen is that kid growing up that couldn't get along with anyone and picked fights just to fight and win. My perception is he is very competitive and wants to win at all costs.

Now if Dish is tettering so badly that the dispute with Fisher will put it over the edge then maybe he is making the right call. I doubt that is the issue. But fact is that he has lost customers because of his dispute here.

Some of you may not like it or feel differently. That's fine and you are entitled to your opinions. Dish is bound to have some more local issues, perhaps some of you will be so lucky to be in the middle of that issue.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> It can resolve the issue prospectively and put the channel back for customers.


No, they can't. DISH network does not have permission to carry Fisher's channels. They cannot restore the channels until all parties agree to all terms. Fishers wants retroactive payments for a period of time before they owned certain stations. DISH wants all lawsuits dropped. Until one or both of these terms are met don't expect the channels to return.

Thanks for your opinions ... but the opinions of others still stand. The absence of a few locals isn't going to be the end of DISH network.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Now if Dish is tettering so badly that the dispute with Fisher will put it over the edge then maybe he is making the right call. I doubt that is the issue. But fact is that he has lost customers because of his dispute here.


Not his dispute. Fisher's dispute. Dish was moving along just fine with the way things were until Fisher decided to hit dish with some unreasonable terms. Sure customers were lost. But that doesn't mean you just roll over and give everyone everything they want. Dish is in the right there. If they caved then all the other local channels would jump up and do the same thing. You have to nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand.

Is charlie trying to make an example out of fisher? I sure as hell hope so. And you should too. Because if fisher wins you are going to see all local channels over the entire nation do this to all TV providers, direct, verizon, comcast, etc. and rates for everyone would go up.
I don't see Charlie as picking fights, rather I see others picking fights with him and he won't back down. Whereas I see you just handing over your lunch money and going home.

They can't put the channel back up as fisher will not allow it. Not until the issue of back payments(clearly something dish does not owe) is resolved. Fisher may tell you that they agreed to dishes demands but they leave out that little tid bit. Besides, they aren't dishes demands. Fisher came out and asked to be paid like a cable channel, dish told them where to stick it and according to you fisher than backed down and agreed to that. So until the remaining issue is resolved, back payments for fisher channels clearly not part of any contract, the channel will remain off the air.

I'm in Oregon too buddy. I've lost KATU as well. But still I support dish in this.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> No, they can't. DISH network does not have permission to carry Fisher's channels. They cannot restore the channels until all parties agree to all terms. Fishers wants retroactive payments for a period of time before they owned certain stations. DISH wants all lawsuits dropped. Until one or both of these terms are met don't expect the channels to return.
> 
> Thanks for your opinions ... but the opinions of others still stand. The absence of a few locals isn't going to be the end of DISH network.


Yes, they can. Fisher has agreed to Dish's terms on everything except the back payment. Fisher has agreed to let the back payment issue proceed to court. This is fact. Dish has not agreed to this and apparently wants the whole thing settled, hence customers in the middle. But there is no reason whatsoever why the channel cannot be restored, except a power play by Charlie Ergen. (and what will happen if Charlie loses the lawsuit? I have not seen it and I don't really care anymore because I canned Dish in March, but I still have some relatives on Dish - that I set up on there - and they think I set them up for a load of crap now and want out of their contracts, so I have to deal with this crap still)


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Yes, they can. Fisher has agreed to Dish's terms on everything except the back payment. Fisher has agreed to let the back payment issue proceed to court. This is fact. Dish has not agreed to this and apparently wants the whole thing settled, hence customers in the middle. But there is no reason whatsoever why the channel cannot be restored, .


They are both agreeing to the issue going to court. There is a lawsuit you know. They want it to go to court. As if fisher could not let it go to court? They filed the lawsuit! Dish asked for a carriage extension. Fisher rejected that.

The channel can not be restored because fisher will not allow it. You talk to someone at fisher who paints a rosy picture for you and you buy hook, line and sinker.

Let's look at Charlie's letter to Fisher in regard to an extension:

"We also agree that public safety information is very important and if emergency communication to viewers is truly your concern, I am willing to offer an extension until March 31, April 30, or May 31, 2009, as severe weather will continue to be a potential issue through the winter. This offer to extend will remain until the expiration of the current agreement at 11:59 pm tonight."

And the response from fisher:

"I reject your offer to extend the current agreement until Spring 2009 when you are and continue to be in breach of that agreement for failure to pays fees owed to Fisher for its retransmission consent rights."

Also from Fisher:
"We continue to speculate that the real stumbling block to a successful contract for renewed carriage of our television stations is the lawsuit for breach of contract that *Fisher* has filed against DISH"

So Fisher acknowledges the road block in the negotiations is their own lawsuit against dish. Ummmmm, duh? It's fisher holding this thing up. And I took all that from Fisher's own site! We'd expect that to be biased in their favor and if that is then the real situation is actually worse.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> ... has agreed to ... everything except ...


Which is exactly what was written. BOTH sides need to agree. Thanks for the reminder that Fisher has not agreed to everything.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

James Long said:


> Which is exactly what was written. BOTH sides need to agree. Thanks for the reminder that Fisher has not agreed to everything.


There is nothing wrong with separating the issues. The back payments on one station have nothing to do with the other issues. Fisher has agreed to restore the stations and let the back payment issue (on a different station) go its way. This is a true fact.

Dish on the other hand won't agree to unbundling the issue and puts the customer squarely in the middle.

Many of you are naive if you believe one issue cannot be settled without the other being settled. Dish chooses to tie the unrelated issues together while Fisher has agreed to unbundle them.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> They are both agreeing to the issue going to court. There is a lawsuit you know. They want it to go to court. As if fisher could not let it go to court? They filed the lawsuit! Dish asked for a carriage extension. Fisher rejected that.
> 
> The channel can not be restored because fisher will not allow it. You talk to someone at fisher who paints a rosy picture for you and you buy hook, line and sinker.
> 
> ...


Well I've discussed the issue with Rob Dunlap of Fisher who tells me that they have agreed to restore the channels and let the unrelated lawsuit back pay issues go its way through the court. In fact, Rob tells me that Dish negotiators, on more than one occasion, agreed to just that, but then Charlie vetoes it. Hey, this is fact, not something I read here on the internet and speculated. Fisher also feels pretty strongly that Dish owes it for prior service. I do not know if that is right or not, but someone is paying attorney fees on both sides right now and both believe their interpretation is right.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Well I've discussed the issue with Rob Dunlap of Fisher who tells me that they have agreed to restore the channels and let the unrelated lawsuit back pay issues go its way through the court. In fact, Rob tells me that Dish negotiators, on more than one occasion, agreed to just that, but then Charlie vetoes it. Hey, this is fact, not something I read here on the internet and speculated.


It is not fact. What I posted is. It is in writing from both sides.

There are two sides to every story. You have one rose colored story and are running with it. You were told exactly what fisher wanted you to hear. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle. Post some facts. Some links. Something.

You got one side of the story and believe it because you want to believe it. You have no interest in the truth. Just what you want to believe. At least that's is how you are coming across. Even if that is not your intention.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> It is not fact. What I posted is. It is in writing from both sides.
> 
> There are two sides to every story. You have one rose colored story and are running with it. You were told exactly what fisher wanted you to hear. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle. Post some facts. Some links. Something.


The thing that you are missing here is that I am not taking sides on the Dish/Fisher dispute. I am simply stating that the customer is in the middle of all of this and it does not have to be that way.

It's going to come down to the interpretation of the contract as applied to the law. I doubt any of us here have seen the contract, and I doubt that many of the folks here are qualified in even interpreting the law and the contract. That issue will resolve itself in time.

I don't see why that is such a hard concept to understand that the customer is caught in all of this and it does not have to be this way.

And by the way, it is a FACT that I have discussed with Rib Dunlap of Fisher. How can you not call that a fact?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WebTraveler said:


> I am simply stating that the customer is in the middle of all of this and it does not have to be that way.


The customer MUST be caught in the middle because that is all that Fisher has to negotiate with. If Fisher allowed DISH to resume serving Fisher locals to DISH customers why would DISH negotiate any further? Once the channels are on why negotiate at all?

Withholding the channels is the only real leverage Fishers has.

Is your claim that your insider told you that Fisher had agreed to the rate DISH wanted to pay? (The former contract rate extended ... not the new rate Fisher demanded.)



> And by the way, it is a FACT that I have discussed with Rib Dunlap of Fisher. How can you not call that a fact?


At best it is a claim. I could post that I talked to Charlie Ergen about this, but I won't ... because I'm not going to offer proof of any such conversation.

But that is beside the point ... this thread isn't about who has better contacts ... it is about whether DISH and Fisher will ever come to terms. Ever is a long time ... but I don't see an agreement soon.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> The thing that you are missing here is that I am not taking sides on the Dish/Fisher dispute. I am simply stating that the customer is in the middle of all of this and it does not have to be that way.
> 
> It's going to come down to the interpretation of the contract as applied to the law. I doubt any of us here have seen the contract, and I doubt that many of the folks here are qualified in even interpreting the law and the contract. That issue will resolve itself in time.
> 
> ...


The facts we have are that Dish asked for an extension and Fisher denied that. You say Fisher said that Dish could continue to carry the channel. However that contradicts the facts that we have in writing direct from Colleen and Charlie.
So you are either being lied to or Rob doesn't understand the facts.

Consumers will always be in the middle of a contract dispute. What I am saying is that they are in the middle because of Fisher's ridiculous claims and refusal to grant dish an extension. That is fact.
I hold Fisher accountable for this. Not Dish. Though I am unaffected. I have an antenna so I can DVR any shows off of KATU. Or I just download whatever i'm missing.

You talking to Fisher is a claim. You have to have proof to back something up. People make claims on internet messages boards all day long. Without proof to back it up they are never anything more than that. I could tell you all sorts of things but have nothing to back it up. Though I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you did talk to someone at fisher named Rob. But again, he is either lying to you or doesn't understand that his boss denied the requested extension.

But you are certainly taking sides. The way you have referred to dish and Charlie. Dumping dish. Your language on the situation. I'd save you have gone beyond taking sides and in my nerd circles i'd say you have moved into fanboy territory. Whether that is your intention or not.


----------



## WebTraveler (Apr 9, 2006)

archer75 said:


> The facts we have are that Dish asked for an extension and Fisher denied that. You say Fisher said that Dish could continue to carry the channel. However that contradicts the facts that we have in writing direct from Colleen and Charlie.
> So you are either being lied to or Rob doesn't understand the facts.


Let's clear up something here. Initially the channel was pulled. It was later that Fisher tells me that they agreed to Dish's compensation terms prospectively (and did in fact get a deal with Dish negotiators to return the channel), but that the Dish negotiators were over-ruled by Charlie Ergen, who wanted the lawsuit dropped as a condition.



archer75 said:


> You talking to Fisher is a claim. You have to have proof to back something up. People make claims on internet messages boards all day long.


You can call it what you want. A "claim?"



archer75 said:


> But you are certainly taking sides. The way you have referred to dish and Charlie. Dumping dish. Your language on the situation. I'd save you have gone beyond taking sides and in my nerd circles i'd say you have moved into fanboy territory. Whether that is your intention or not.


You are missing the point. I am taking the position that the customer has been disenfranchised in this process. Let me ask this - how can every other provider in this market (Directv, Comcast, Verizon, Canby cable, etc.) come to terms and Dish can't? Do we honestly believe all of Dish's statements? Do we believe all of Fisher's? No, its all in the middle somewhere.


----------



## deaincaelo (Feb 5, 2009)

Regardless of anyones opinions of dish, fisher, charlie, or whatersface that tuns fisher there is a fact that remains. Fisher can focre dish to carry their programming, without agreement or consent, simply by opting must carry. Dish has no similer clause.

If they do this, they will still get paid by the same advertisers that are paying them now, plus a little more for the extra eyeballs. Finacially, that makes it a better situation then staying off dish.

No one here has the full facts of the dispute. If you did, you couldnt talk about it because of your NDA. Any "facts" about what's been agreed on is still heresay.

I'm one of many people who would not pay the price hike the locals are asking for. It could concevably bump the local package up to 10$ or 15$. Not everyone have an opt-out option either.

I'm sick of people who want to get paid twice. You don't get to sell your content and keep it too. Your not entitled to my money. I can walk away. When someone is bargining collectively, it never pleases everyone. In this case Dish is doing the right thing for most of the people its barganing for.

The descision here is the difference between paying for locals what you pay for any other package. Most of us don't want that, and fischer CERTAIN as <explitive> doesnt deserve it. After all, only they have the power to end this without any agreement.


----------



## Zero327 (Oct 10, 2006)

WebTraveler said:


> Let's clear up something here. Initially the channel was pulled. It was later that Fisher tells me that they agreed to Dish's compensation terms prospectively (and did in fact get a deal with Dish negotiators to return the channel), but that the Dish negotiators were over-ruled by Charlie Ergen, who wanted the lawsuit dropped as a condition.
> 
> You can call it what you want. A "claim?"
> 
> You are missing the point. I am taking the position that the customer has been disenfranchised in this process. Let me ask this - how can every other provider in this market (Directv, Comcast, Verizon, Canby cable, etc.) come to terms and Dish can't? Do we honestly believe all of Dish's statements? Do we believe all of Fisher's? No, its all in the middle somewhere.


Does it really matter what you believe given that it takes Charlie less energy than that to rebut Fisher? True or not, you don't get Fisher until Charlie gets what he wants. Whether it's truly in your best interest or not, or for the motivational PR-spin reasons Chuck has stated, doesn't change the nature of business or the fact that he legally can and will do what's in HIS best interests, not yours.

Fisher drops the lawsuit, they get carried. They don't, they lose a serious service provider and lots of cash. Charlie has deeper pockets. HE runs the company owning 51%+. It's his right and ability to veto any deals, and obviously he's doing it with this one and will continue to do so until he gets what he wants.

Feel better now that someone has pointed out you're unequivocally screwed? Or should we post a few more pages about the unfairness of it all, stomp our feet, stick up our noses and shake our fingers in an admonishing manner at Chuck?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

deaincaelo said:


> Regardless of anyones opinions of dish, fisher, charlie, or whatersface that tuns fisher there is a fact that remains. Fisher can focre dish to carry their programming, without agreement or consent, simply by opting must carry. Dish has no similer clause.


At this point - Fisher has opted for Retransmission consent - there is no going back to Must Carry for them either. If they want carried on Dish - they HAVE to come to an agreement acceptable to both sides. Either that, or stay off DIsh for 3 years and on the NEXT cycle they can demand Must Carry.

As a point of interest - the cycles for DBS and cable were deliberatly put into sync like this. Thus - the potential for this kind of dispute can come back every 3 years, on both DBS and cable.


----------



## ckgrick (Oct 25, 2004)

In the for what it's worth department, I've seen posts on other forums saying after the big digital switch June 12, it will legal for E* to provide remote Locals to everyone. I'm hoping it's true.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

ckgrick said:


> In the for what it's worth department, I've seen posts on other forums saying after the big digital switch June 12, it will legal for E* to provide remote Locals to everyone. I'm hoping it's true.


You mean circumvent the judge? I don't see how, but it would be nice.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

ckgrick said:


> In the for what it's worth department, I've seen posts on other forums saying after the big digital switch June 12, it will legal for E* to provide remote Locals to everyone. I'm hoping it's true.


I doubt it....strongly....

Echostar got the big death penalty for playing fast and loose on qualifying people for distant networks. I see no reason for that to "go away" with the digital transition.

And even if they could - keep in mind that most if not all locals are on spotbeams anyway.

If you want Distant Networks and have Dish as your DBS provider - your only option is through All American Direct.


----------



## willc (Apr 26, 2008)

phrelin said:


> You mean circumvent the judge? I don't see how, but it would be nice.


Why not, as that ruling was only for serving analog distants. I dont think there is a ruling preventing them from offering digital distants.


----------



## ckgrick (Oct 25, 2004)

scooper said:


> If you want Distant Networks and have Dish as your DBS provider - your only option is through All American Direct.


Although I'm eligible to pay extra for AAD, SD only isn't worth it to me.


----------



## ckgrick (Oct 25, 2004)

willc said:


> Why not, as that ruling was only for serving analog distants. I dont think there is a ruling preventing them from offering digital distants.


Yeah, that's how I understand it. Digital signals do not have the same restrictions, although I admit it does seem to be too good to be true.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

willc said:


> Why not, as that ruling was only for serving analog distants. I dont think there is a ruling preventing them from offering digital distants.


The distants legislation ALLOWS carriage of locals outside of their own DMA under very strict circumstances. DISH violated that law and as part of the punishment cannot offer locals outside of their own DMA via that law (ever).

Unless some law is passed that ALLOWS carriage of digital locals without simply including them under the current analog law DISH will still be prohibited from carrying stations outside of the station's own markets.

Think about it ... DISH has been carrying the digital signals of station for months. If it were legal to offer them as distants they would have already done so. Stations turning off their analog signals doesn't change the law.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

VIA THAT LAW. They have to make individual agreements with programmers and owners and stations to do it, like they did when KREX KFQX went off the air or to get WSWG on in the right market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Raymie said:


> VIA THAT LAW. They have to make individual agreements with programmers and owners and stations to do it, like they did when KREX KFQX went off the air or to get WSWG on in the right market.


Correct. DISH is free to offer stations outside of the station's DMA if they can negotiate a private agreement to do so. Unfortunately stations cannot grant the right to carry their signal outside of the area defined in their affiliation agreements - and networks have protected their affiliates by not offering their signals in competition with locals - even in areas where a local does not exist.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

I'm proud to announce that the following letter has been sent to Charlie and Colleen.


29 May 2009
Dear Mrs. Brown and Mr. Ergen:

When a supplier and distributor squabble over rising rates, the customers lose access to product and then market share takes a hit, bad for both sides of the equation. If Coke and a shipping company who sent their products to some distribution centers jumped into a contract dispute, Coke would disappear from shelves in the affected areas - the distributor loses money, Coke takes a market share and profit dip, and everyone else, including the consumer, loses. Have you run into a similar situation lately? If you: a) subscribe to Dish Network; b) live in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, or Bakersfield, California; and c) watch a Fisher Communications-owned station, you've been out of luck for five months, because Fisher (the supplier) and Dish Network (the distributor) are in the middle of one of the worst retransmission consent disputes I have seen in years. Dish Network loses subscribers, only adding to their woes; Fisher loses viewers on its stations, becoming a harder sell to advertisers and networks alike. Yet the demilitarized zone between the two is filled with legal land mines, including a lawsuit in Oregon court, that prevent the restoration of 12 stations in 9 markets. I'm Raymie Humbert from Phoenix, Arizona, the editor of the EchoStar Knowledge Base News Monitor. At my post, for the past 19 months (and two additional years supporting the site), I've noticed a seemingly endless array of local and national channel disputes between Dish and programmers, causing the outages of Lifetime, Court TV, Young Broadcasting stations, WBRZ in Louisiana (still going today!), OLN (now Versus), MTV Networks (which involved splitting channels and recently ended), and quite a few more.
From posts on two satellite forums, people are desperate for a solution - or a resolution. Recent rumblings of changes to the law that would allow Dish Network to bring in adjacent market signals (this may be the split market law) have people excited for a return of Fisher stations. People that have talked to people at Fisher and Dish Network say that the dispute is getting settled, but yet no true word has been brought out by either party. While Dish Network is known for a very hard-line stance on retransmission consent - and indeed, it looks like Dish will have a battle on its hands with Sinclair Broadcast Group and possibly Freedom Communications come the first of next month - it must be resolved.
Mrs. Brown, I suggest that you and Dish Network reach a middle ground and separate the lawsuit from negotiations. And Mr. Ergen, I suggest that you head back to the table - not just with Fisher, but with WBRZ, Sinclair, Freedom Communications, and others, for in doing this, both of you will benefit. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Raymie Humbert
EchoStar Knowledge Base


It was sent to cbrown at fsci dot com and ceo at echostar dot com.


----------



## Zero327 (Oct 10, 2006)

[email protected] does not go to Chuck. Sorry.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Raymie said:


> ...it looks like Dish will have a battle on its hands with Sinclair Broadcast Group...


Sinclair just signed an agreement


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Under the terms of the agreement, DISH will continue to carry the signals of stations which Sinclair owns and operates, programs or provides sales services. The agreement also provides DISH with certain rights to carry local content produced by Sinclair on a video-on-demand basis.


Video on demand? Does Sinclair produce anything worth putting on VOD?


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

A thread for the Sinclair agreement has been started at http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=158928


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Actually, this thread Local Fox gone after June? started 5-26-09 is about the Sinclair/Dish situation.


----------



## Raymie (Mar 31, 2007)

Oh well...it seems to have delivered successfully to cbrown at fsci thankfully (I added that once I noticed that syntax on another Fisher site).


----------



## wsuladesigner (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is the latest info from www.onlycharlieknows.com/latest.html

May 27, 2009
Dear DISH subscribers -

Regrettably, there is still nothing substantive to report in our dispute. We continue to reach out to DISH and have conversations. As is obvious, nothing has changed as a result.

Unfortunately, DISH has rejected-and continues to reject-all of our carriage proposals.

As we have previously stated, we understand the impediment to the negotiations is not so much the terms of the carriage arrangement going forward, but rather a disagreement concerning DISH's compliance with the terms of its former carriage agreement.

After months of discussions and negotiations with DISH, we filed a breach of contract suit against DISH in federal court in Portland late last year concerning DISH's compliance with its just expired carriage agreement. Regrettably, DISH informed us it will not enter into a new carriage agreement unless we drop that lawsuit. In other words, DISH is holding its subscribers in the Northwest hostage to secure a more favorable resolution of the pending breach of contract lawsuit. We think that is unfair to DISH's subscribers. We have repeatedly said to representatives of DISH that the claim for damages under the former carriage agreement is separate from the current carriage negotiations.

In short, we are ready, willing, and prepared to enter into a new carriage agreement on reasonable terms with DISH so that DISH's subscribers throughout the Northwest will once again be able to receive our stations' important news, public affairs, political, emergency information, and public service programming.

Fisher remains committed to serving our local audiences and regrets that DISH does not seem interested in resolving the dispute. Please call DISH and encourage them to strike a deal with Fisher Communications so that you may have your stations back.

I did enjoy your email Raymie.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

wsuladesigner said:


> Here is the latest info from www.onlycharlieknows.com/latest.html
> 
> May 27, 2009
> Dear DISH subscribers -
> ...


Who was that (webtraveler ?) who said we didn't know what the story was ? Read and weep...

I as much told him that that was the issue... (I.e. Fisher drop the suit and the agreement would happen).


----------



## warrench (Jun 2, 2009)

I live in a metro area (Portland, OR) affected by the Dish-Fisher conflict. I am not currently receiving the local ABC channel KATU. I tried to qualify for AllAmericanDirect but the request was denied.

Question: If I connected a digital converter box and antenna to my Dish DVR 625 is it likely I would receive KATU over-the-air and would the Dish DVR 625 be able to display the EPG info for KATU and also be able to record programs on KATU without me manually starting each one - i.e would "Season Pass" or whatever that feature is called work again for KATU ? 

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

warrench said:


> I live in a metro area (Portland, OR) affected by the Dish-Fisher conflict. I am not currently receiving the local ABC channel KATU. I tried to qualify for AllAmericanDirect but the request was denied.
> 
> Question: If I connected a digital converter box and antenna to my Dish DVR 625 is it likely I would receive KATU over-the-air and would the Dish DVR 625 be able to display the EPG info for KATU and also be able to record programs on KATU without me manually starting each one - i.e would "Season Pass" or whatever that feature is called work again for KATU ?
> 
> ...


Not the 625.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

warrench said:


> I live in a metro area (Portland, OR) affected by the Dish-Fisher conflict. I am not currently receiving the local ABC channel KATU. I tried to qualify for AllAmericanDirect but the request was denied.
> 
> Question: If I connected a digital converter box and antenna to my Dish DVR 625 is it likely I would receive KATU over-the-air and would the Dish DVR 625 be able to display the EPG info for KATU and also be able to record programs on KATU without me manually starting each one - i.e would "Season Pass" or whatever that feature is called work again for KATU ?
> 
> ...


You can get it OTA on the receiver. However you won't get any program guide data. You'll have to manually set timers.

I don't know if you'll need a digital convertor box or how this setup would work exactly. I have the 722 receiver so I have a HD OTA tuner built in. However no program guide data for KATU. So I just go online and download the shows I miss and play them on my HTPC.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

warrench said:


> Question: If I connected a digital converter box and antenna to my Dish DVR 625 is it likely I would receive KATU over-the-air and would the Dish DVR 625 be able to display the EPG info for KATU and also be able to record programs on KATU without me manually starting each one - i.e would "Season Pass" or whatever that feature is called work again for KATU ?


The 625 is not capable of OTA in any capacity.

None of the current satellite or cable DVRs is compatible with a digital converter.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> The 625 is not capable of OTA in any capacity.


The product info on the Dish site says it is capable of viewing OTA digital channels. And there is a port on the back for an antenna.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

archer75 said:


> The product info on the Dish site says it is capable of viewing OTA digital channels.


Note that the term "viewed" was used as opposed to "recorded". This particular detail of the capabilities is misleading at best.


> And there is a port on the back for an antenna.


This is for pass-through when the receiver is turned off. The 625 itself lacks the ability to tune OTA signals.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

wsuladesigner said:


> Here is the latest info from www.onlycharlieknows.com/latest.html
> 
> May 27, 2009
> Dear DISH subscribers -
> ...


GEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

wsuladesigner said:


> After months of discussions and negotiations with DISH, we filed a breach of contract suit against DISH in federal court in Portland late last year concerning DISH's compliance with its just expired carriage agreement. *Regrettably, DISH informed us it will not enter into a new carriage agreement unless we drop that lawsuit. *In other words, DISH is holding its subscribers in the Northwest hostage to secure a more favorable resolution of the pending breach of contract lawsuit. We think that is unfair to DISH's subscribers. We have repeatedly said to representatives of DISH that the claim for damages under the former carriage agreement is separate from the current carriage negotiations.
> 
> *What will it take to get a deal done? Only Charlie knows.*


No, Fisher knows full well, too. Drop the stupid lawsuit.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

It's quite possible that Fisher knows it has the goods on DISH...breach of contract. Those of you that have followed DISH's lawsuit history can chime in on their success rate. Fisher has evidently offered to negotiate a new carriage agreement...DISH won't unless they drop the lawsuit??? The handwriting on the wall may be faint, but I don't expect this to go away soon. DISH says it is doing this to save the consumer exorbitant rate increases demanded by Fisher...who's paying for the lawyers?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In the Charlie Chat last night, it was announced that effective Saturday there will be a rules change for distant networks from AllAmericanDirect and they talked at length about how Fisher customers might be eligible to get their missing network that way. Take a look at this thread - Distant Networks more available Saturday? .


----------

