Yet More Channels Go Dark For Dish Customers

With most of the programming (Sports being the big exception) becoming available through online sources, subscription TV is starting to become a Premium Fee to have the television programs you like NOW, instead of 6 months from now. You pay for so many channels you don't watch, and pay for so many programs you don't like on channels you do watch.

To me, the only reason to keep bending over and taking it from cable/satellite companies and the media companies on top of them.... is sports. If you can live without sports, you can save so much money each month.

And yeah.... people that can't live without sports, good luck with the latest series of price hikes. DirecTV, TWC, Fios, U-Verse all raising their prices, with "Sports surcharge" fees in many markets. Prepare to open your wallet a little wider once more, after you already had to stretch it early THIS year.

Agree, and personally if there is a game I don't want to miss I would rather throw the cash at my local sports bar and get a few beers in return.

Yeah that's my thinking. Quite frankly, I can still get all local games for free on the radio if I really want to kept up-to-the-second with a game. And it's actually quite fun to LISTEN to a hockey game as well.

I'm glad I cut the cord, and don't have to be subjected to all these disputes anymore.

Depends on the sport. You can get MLB online a whole lot cheaper than ESPN.

Except your home market teams.

Am never going to or going back to a TV subscription. Too many infomercials trying super hard for you to buy their product, commercials last longer on some channels than the show or movie you are watching. Billy maze had some of his commercials on the TV before and it had the volume on you're TV increase so when you have you're TV on 30 and billy maze's commercial comes on, it's like "HI BILLY MAZE HERE!!!!"

I don't watch sports, don't care for them honest to god at all so sports channels are totally worthless to have in my situation.

Dish toke cartoon channels off the air a while back, those I enjoyed. (mainly the adult swim however adult swim has turned into a sack of rotten eggs).

Why do pay-per-view?? You can just stream it online from youtube or netflix (stream it from PS4 even) for nearly the same damn price.

The price for the music channels rose plus why not pull you're music from the local radio towers? It's free.This is the icing on the cake. Why pay for channels you never even watch?

Subscription TV is probably worth it if you don't have access to Cable or Fios, two technologies capable of streaming HD content and that have unlimited (or really high) caps.

I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that most of the people on satellite TV don't have access to cable/Fios, otherwise they'd probably just be on that instead and get bundling savings.

Or your like me and are okay paying dish $65/mo on top of $27 to CenturyLink for 40Mbps DSL. As long as my entertainment costs are under $100/mo I'm happy.

Dish has generally been pretty good to me and for the cost of one night out I can get all my entertainment needs for a month and even while I'm away from home in hotels thanks to the hopper (I work for an airline)

Hence I don't care what channels get dropped. Though CBS has alot of shows that I enjoy:
Black List, Person of Interest, CSI, NCIS, etc, etc.

But those programs can be found through alternative means.

IMO, Dish should just stop fighting Fox and CBS and let them go. The networks need to wake up and realize that the old model is a dead horse. That the new model is "Binge" viewing.
Netflix is spoiling me big time. Being able to watch an entire season, commercial and "break" free.
Why watch traditional TV, with it's commercial, and shows that take 2 to 3 months off?

I just started Black List on Netflix. That's a really good one.

Black List or Black Mirror?

For me, the first episode of Black Mirror was extremely hard to watch.

The only thing I like on CBS is Blue Bloods.

I just hope that the current media-hyped events don't mess with the production of that show any.

Moving forward it gets worse for providers being the younger generations aren't subbing to any of their old models. You combine that fact with the steady hikes rising above the rate of earnings and inflation and they will continually to reach new thresholds of what viewers will spend. Its all about short term greed and the bottom line for share holders. Karma is not instant in this but it will in fact knock them out at some point. And they will be totally unprepared and unable to stop the hemorrhaging. Internet really needs to be regulated under the PUC because when their cable model falls they will resort to hiking the hell out of HSI with predatory pricing.

Class action lawsuit claiming that they advertised the channels in the package but failed to deliver and have failed to act in good faith to deliver the goods advertised.

Under consumer protection law fine print cannot contradict the advertising. That's called unfair and deceptive acts. And an arbitration agreement isn't going to stand if a law has been broken. All it takes is a lawsuit and a judges ruling and that arbitration ruling is void.

I've seen many class action lawsuits against companies despite their arbitration agreements with consumers. Just ask the lawyers at Comcast.

Many arbitration agreements have severability clauses that dictates what happens should it be ruled unenforceable such as a judge deciding the case (bench trial) instead of a jury.

Do you actually bother to read what you post, before you hit the post button?

If you read the actual DISH contract, it contains this clause:

»www.dish.com/downloads/l ··· ment.pdf

I. Changes in Services Offered.

We may add, delete, rearrange and/or change any and all programming, programming packages and other Services that we offer, as well as the prices and fees related to such programming, programming packages and Services, at any time, including without limitation, during any term commitment period to which you have agreed. If a change affects you, we will notify you of such change and its effective date. In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, we have no obligation to replace or supplement such programming, programming packages or other Services. You are not entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change of any programming, programming packages or other Services.

Do you really think the lawyers didn't consider the possibility that they would have to change their programming? And that they would include that disclaimer in their advertising?

»www.dish.com/redirects/p ··· offer50/

All prices, fees, packages, programming, features, functionality and offers subject to change without notice.

And, do you think that your vaunted Comcast doesn't do the same thing? If you thought they didn't, you'd be wrong:

»www.comcast.com/Corporat ··· ent.html

4. CHANGES TO SERVICES

Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Service(s), XFINITY Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to, or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Service(s), including, but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed, and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, e-mail, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change.

I'm just thinking with that language Dish won't have any programming or any customers. And customers wI'll get the runaround when they cancel when they're told cancellation fee when they can break the contract over the change.

Did you miss the part where I cited the URLs? That is the current contract language. And the simplified statement is straight from the bottom of a current promotional ad.

Rather than running to a judge every time a contract contains something you don't like, why don't you read the contract before you sign it? You'd save yourself a lot of grief, and save the judicial system a lot of time.

Now, that's just plain old un-American, isn't it??? :P
So much easier to play the victim card.

I also heard you could break the contract because changes in programming (dropping channels) is what is called a materially adverse event which means a change in terms so that means you can walk away from the contract without penalty by just paying off the balance for the services already rendered. That means they can't charge you the ETF if they change the terms and you don't accept the new terms within a reasonable amount of time. I saw that on the consumerist.

But that was not ptbarnett's point was it? His point was your claim for class action was inaccurate. Did you really thing Dish would be that foolish?

They have had carriage disputes for over 10 years that I can recall. I support Dish's attempt to break the carriage extortion model but realize that only cord cutters will eventually bring change. The model is supported by BIG lobby money. It won't change any other way.

Sorry, but dropping a single channel from a package of 100+ channels isn't a materially adverse event.

While true, Dish still advertises the channels as available even though they are not. His point may be more valid to a new users signing up rather than existing customers.

Not according to the TOS. The wording gives them the right to mix, change, delete at will. At best, as IowasCowboy said you can probably break the ETF if you pushed it. These guy's have huge legal departments. It's delusional to think such a civil case would see the light of day. They absolutely know that many people despise cable/sat providers and that there are those that will start any civil case for the chance for a money grab.

At any rate, the channels eventually return with some increase in rates following. The entire model has been working like this for decades. There have been numerous carriage disputes in the past with programming changes. As a consumer you either suck it up or cut the cord. There are no other options other then bickering with member saves to reduce costs.

I had Dish and while I love the Hopper they have way too many disputes causing their customers to lose access to channels that they are paying for. If I ever go back to pay TV I will spend a few dollars more and go with Directv.

But they are doing it for a good cause. I wish DTV and Comcrap would do the same but they also have their own content. Which means they also benefit from carriage increases whereas dish DOES NOT. Dish is the only force out there trying to put some kind of governance on this corrupt system. And if they didn't you would be paying even more no doubt.

No distributor will be able to go completely ala carte, as the programmers bundle channels, so that popular ones are bundled with less popular ones that must be carried.

But, what if DISH (or anyone else) were to start breaking down their packages into exactly how the programmer bundle them?

You want any of the Viacom channels? You have to subscribe to all of them.
You want any of the ESPN channels? You have to subscribe to all of them.
You want Fox News? You have to subscribe to the other channels that Fox is tying to it.

You don't want to subscribe to all those channels in a bundle? Take it up with the programmer. They are the ones imposing the bundling, not us.

If they were to create a web portal to allow subscription and deletion, it could all be handled online without involving a CSR.

When a programmer wants to raise the rates, the distributor can simply pass them on to the consumer, and let them decide whether to keep the channel.

DISH would have to charge a base fee for service, but it would be an identifiable line item, rather than baked into the programming fees. And, they wouldn't find themselves trying to limit the programmer's price increases.

In an ideal world that would work, however we don't live in an ideal world.

"You don't want to subscribe to all those channels in a bundle? Take it up with the programmer.:

Ever tried calling the programmer? People want to call the person that is billing them.

"When a programmer wants to raise the rates, the distributor can simply pass them on to the consumer, and let them decide whether to keep the channel."

See the above answer.

The amount of call volume your suggestions would generate would overwhelm any support structure.

Hob

If the programmer contact information is made easily available to the consumer, the distributor can offload almost all of that traffic to the programmer. You can already see that occurring when a carriage dispute arises: both parties publish information about how to contact the other party and complain.

On a web portal, it's easy to provide the name, mailing address, web URL, and/or email address of the programmer for each set of channels. And the first thing the IVR system should say: if you want to complain about channel selection, go to this URL, or press 1 and we will (e)mail you a list of our programming providers.

This isn't rocket science. But, someone will have to take the lead and do it (or something like it) to break up the programming cartels. As you wrote:The problem is that the largest part of the increases in cable bills are not attributable to the people who send the bill. They are simply passing on their costs of programming. The programmers are largely insulated from competitive pricing pressure because the consumer doesn't have an effective way to feed back their displeasure, other than canceling their entire subscription.

But it really doesn't have to be this way. Right now, it is the media companies that dictate everything. Companies like viacom, turner, disney, etc, etc all sell their channels in an "all or nothing" type deal. There are some exceptions, such as ESPN channels separated from the other Disney channels, but essentially cable companies are more or less forced to put channels in certain packages because the programmers want them to.

This CAN change, if only the cable companies would stand up to the programmers. One thing the Comcast/TWC merger might bring in our favor, is that they will have an enormous amount of leverage. Comcast/TWC will be three times as large as the next pay TV company, and when they say NO, the programmers are going to have to listen.

At the VERY least, they should be able to (and they really should be able to now) separate expensive sports from all the other cable channels, and that really doesn't have to increase the call volume by much. And i am actually not buying the increased call volume anymore. That used to be more true, but technology has advanced to a point things like adding/removing channels can be done with an iPhone or Android app, a website, or even a separate settings menu on your DVR with the remote.

The technology is all there, and it doesn't have to cost much. If you can order PPV movies on your DVR with 1 button, or can add HBO with the simple click of a mouse, you can also build a platform with which you can add individual channels, and more importantly: remove them.

The only reason it would increase call volume, is when a company wants you to call you to cancel HBO so that they can convince you to keep it on anyways, perhaps at a better deal for the next 3 months, etc, etc..... they want to make it DIFFICULT for people to save money on channels.

If you really want to make it a bit more financially sound, one could make it so a customer can only make channel changes once every three months. They can then go on, pick and choose the channels they want to add or lose, and perhaps a one-time-fee will be charged for making channel changes. But at least customers will have the choice to create their channel package, and will have the choice to lose sports.

I mean, is it really fair that a customer that likes 1 sports team, has to pay for the expensive broadcast rights for 6 other sports teams? If I want to watch the Anaheim Ducks, the only sports team I really care about around here, I am going to have to pay for the Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, and LA Galaxy. It's pay up for all, or no Ducks for you. So I chose to let the Ducks go, and listen to the radio for free, go to a game every so often to watch them live, or go to a sports bar every so often and convert the expensive cable money into something a bit more tangible: beer!

If I could create my own TV package that would allow me to watch around 8 to 10 channels, including the channel the Anaheim Ducks is on, and it would cost me less then $15, I would probably subscribe. Preferably online streaming, so I don't have to pay extra for a box.

That won't work either. Not only do certain content providers demand that multiple channels be picked up, certain ones also demand that their programming is included in the same "packages" as other "similar" content providers channels if you plan on carrying them as well on your system.

Want those ESPN channels? Oh you also offer Fox Sports? Well no ESPN for you if you don't bundle it all.

Don't want to play by those rules? Don't take our channel. Afraid you will lose subs over not taking the channel? You will, to your competitor. So the provider takes the channel, and bundles are what they are.

As someone has written, I doubt this would stand up under a challenge. But, let's say that DISH is contractually bound to bundle channels from different programmers. That could be implemented the same way: if you choose this channel, you must also take this one.

DISH may also be contractually bound to include certain channels in a "basic" or "enhanced" package. So, they create a new package that is neither, and specifically exclude those channels from selection. Don't just leave them off the list -- put them on the list, with a note that you can't choose them because the programmer won't offer them separately.

There are some channels that DISH is PAID to carry (I think the home shopping channels are one example). Those should be on the list as well, with a note that says: you can deselect this channel, but it will add XX cents to your monthly bill.

My point is to make channel programming selection transparent to the consumer. Right now, it's not -- and consumers blame the cable/satellite companies for the the price increases. Yes, some of it is attributable to the distributors, but most of the price increases are due to increases in programming costs. Consumers can't apply competitive pricing pressure to the programmers without dropping their entire subscription.

I have made this exact recommendation before. Rather than try to awkwardly contort your own packages to the programmers' demands, instead create packages that only include a single programmer's content.

To the poster below, who mentions content providers requiring distributors to bundle channels from other, UNRELATED AND UNAFFILIATED programmers - I am sure that happens too, but it should be ILLEGAL.

Imagine you went to the Ford dealer and wanted to buy a new F-150, and they told you that if you want an F-150, you also have to go to their competition and buy a Tundra. And if you want a new Focus, then you have to go to another competitor and buy a Chevy Cruze. You would be left only to attempt to even BEGIN to comprehend the seriously f*cked up logic that would dictate such absurd requirements.

Well here is one you can't break. The mighty evil Disney corp. bundles these channels. Its not that easy.

Channels they own:
The ABC Television Network:
ABC Entertainment
ABC Daytime
ABC News
ESPN on ABC
ABC Television
ABC Kids
and Touchstone Television.

Production & Distribution Companies:
Walt Disney Television
Walt Disney Television Animation
BVS entertainment
ABC Studios
Walt Disney Television
Disney-ABC Domestic Television.

Cable Networks:
ESPN
ESPN2
ESPN Classic
ESPNEWS
ESPN PPV
ESPN Deportes
ESPNU
ESPNHD
ESPN2 HD
ESPNEWSHD and ESPNUHD
Disney Channel HD
Toon Disney
SOAPnet
ABC Family Channel
A&E Television Networks (42% equity; includes A&E
the History Channel
the Biography Channel
History en español
Military History Channel
Crime & Investigation Network
A&E HD
The History Channel HD)
Lifetime Entertainment Services (50% equity; includes Lifetime Television
Lifetime Movie Network
Lifetime Real Women).

International Channels:
ESPN International
ESPN America
ESPN Latin America
ESPN Asia
ESPN Classic Sport Europe
Jetix Europe
Jetix Latin America
Jetix Canada
Jetix Israel
International Disney Channels
History International.

The ABC Television Network has 226 affiliated stations reaching 99 percent of all U.S. television households. The company owns and operates ten ABC television stations in the nation's top markets.

Programming:
Good Morning America
World News with Charles Gibson
World News Now
20/20
Primetime
This Week With George Stephanopoulos
Sportscenter/Monday Night Football
ESPNplus
Playhouse Disney
Jetix
ABC Kids.

So you see, Sports is tightly bundled with NON sports channels. Disney is without a doubt, the biggest factor in carriage extortion and is why your bill skyrockets. ESPN alone is commanding 5.75 per month per sub carriage. Now that is outstanding Disney.

But if you could delete all the sports channels it would in fact drop your bill around 12 dollars a month. So those that don't watch any sports subsidize those that do for the cost of around 144 dollars a year or about two months of cable/sat. If you added up all the carriages from Disney it would probably be close to 50 percent of your carriages. Not sure but it would be really high. They own a ton of content and basically have a stranglehold on subs with their bundles and carriages. You might say Disney is a monopolistic content provider.

I know that Disney is one of the worst of the programming cartels. But, your average consumer doesn't know that.

And that's what I'm advocating: transparency about how these bundles are constructed, and giving the consumer the choice to accept or reject entire bundles. If a parent looks at how much their children's Disney Channel is really costing them, they may decide that despite all the other channels that come with it, it just isn't worth it.

Right now, the average consumer blames the distributor for rising prices, rather than the programming cartel(s). So, there's no pricing pressure on the programmers, other than cord-cutting.

If Disney priced each channel individually, the sum of all of them would likely be more than what Disney charges for the bundle. And that's fine: Disney could offer different bundles, so that you get discounts as you subscribe to more channels.

That sounds about right. Especially when the Super Bowl is just around the corner.

It's not "about" right, it's dead on!!

Satellite companies definitely aren't the only one's involved in it either though.

After all its about 10min from Philly. And in the Philadelphia market.

charlie my boy pay your freaking bills so i can receive what im supposed to have top 120 not top 115 also
i got an offer to switch to dtv and get 200 to come over my etf fees i only got 25 bucks debit card when i signed up.dish is cherry picking dishes customers lol you can afourd it how do i get out of my contract

So when Dish has to increase their prices because they're being blackmailed by Fox and others to pay more for those channels, you're not going to blame Dish, right? Or are you expecting Dish to just eat the extra cost, giving you a "free ride", making you one of the "takers"?

Charlie Ergen, are you going to adjust the costs soon on customers bills coming this new year or are you still going to charge for a channel that you no longer offer?

Again you undermine your own argument. Pull a move soon because you are the one looking like the fool here.

The reality is that they DID sign a new deal with Turner which increased cost, and they DID sign a deal with CBS in general as well. Then there is a lot of deals they made that haven't even made the news because they didn't turn out into a dispute, and the best you can hope for is that the bill won't go up this year. In reality however, your bill might STILL go up, even with a few channels less.

As long as you are a subscription television customer with ANY company, I think you will just have to bend over a bit more each year until you have reached your threshold. I reached mine, and went with streaming subscriptions only and am saving over a thousand dollars per year.

Satellite has more to lose than cable because they cannot offset those costs with internet subscriptions. It doesn't make sense to me as to why Charlie is fighting when he has no weapon to fight with. If prices still increase and there is no propaganda from Dish to explain the reason for less channels for more cost it looks more as a personal beef between him and Fox and nothing to do with increased costs to consumers.

Which is why I say he looks like a fool.

I never purchased subscription TV nor do I want it. I will be damned if they ever see a dime from me for a garbage service that provides 5 minutes of content with the other 55 minutes being advertisements.

It feels like radio stations all over again.

The rates these news channels and other channels are asking for is ludicrous. I applaud Dish for taking a stand.

Still it's amazing how so often they are made out to be the bad guy.

Companies like Disney bundle crap channels with more popular ones to extort more money. Channels do not exist by their own merits or viewership. It is in fact a rigged system supported by big lobbying power.

Dish, and DirecTV, and other pipe providers fight this, not to protect the consumers from the higher charges, but to protect themselves from the higher charges they will have to absorb until your contract runs out. Then they will have no problems raising the rates, but they can't do that to those who are already in a contract until the end of that contract, so they would have to eat the additional costs until they can get all the subscriber's bills going off contract up to compensate the additional charges.

I would guess that if they didn't have contracts, and when CBS and others raised their rates after their own contracts end, they'd immediately pass it on to the subscribers.

Mohu - Leaf 50 Amplified Indoor HDTV Antenna or an outdoor antenna, split it into their LNB and local channels problem solved. I've been using one since I got DTV and wish they would allow me to drop local channels (to save costs) and others like ESPN, sports channels, etc.

When we had Dish during one of the disputes I cancelled. No real need to watch TV. Do the programmers realize they are shooting themselves in the foot doing this? When we have kids they will go grow up in a household with no cable TV, just like what I suspect a huge chunk of my friends will be doing.

Sure if streaming or whatever else comes along goes away, there are plenty of alternative to tv shows. Sports in real life, the gym, board games, conversation, cooking, even Video Games!, etc.

Even with something like Netflix I noticed our household has only turned the TV on once so we could all watch 1 movie together. I doubt I am the only person that feels this way. Go ahead programmers see how many times you can bluff the population before you bankrupt a few carriers taking your whole model down. In the end will anyone really care?

Probably not workable. But I love the idea of taking all content and having each one in it's own provider package. So when people see how much Disney wants they can tell them to shove it by not taking it. And people could avoid subsidizing sports entirely.

I also think that effectively we could hold the entire industry to the torch by calling up and cancelling. That's all it would take to force them to change. The Turners of the world would scramble like mad to avoid losing their shirts and fancy mansions. People like to blame content providers, but companies like Dish and Comcast still sign multi-year deals to be the sole provider, so they share a lot of the burden for paying in the first place and then expecting their customers to support their greed.

"they're still paying for for"

Just an FYI!

I have Dish, I'd go to nothing if I could but I gotta have ESPN and they are still the cheapest option. I always call in and get discounts when a channel goes dark no matter who's fault it is mainly cause they always bend and suck it up to the customer.

Now on the flip side I used to install for Dish a Regional service provider out of Front Royal VA.. They rip their techs off left and right for things out of their control everyday. You install for the wife...husband comes home isn't happy not only will he give you a bad survey which effects your pay but also could call back in for a return visit for something stupid that was signed off on by the wife that will also effect your pay for MONTHS to come! I quit after 6 months when they came in and took over another area when I was making pretty good money to compensate for the aggrevation but soon as they took over it was a %20 pay cut right off the top and stricter metrics.

If you are thinking of doing that line of work - AVOID IT!! Don't go to work for that company either if you are in the Front Royal VA or Roanoke VA region....Horrible company to work for!

The biggest culprits are the local affiliates trying to charge for signals they broadcast for free. Let them all go dark.