Maybe it's time we change tactics w/ Pac12, AMC, etc.

[ttomni6]

OK - get your flamethrowers ready...

This article about the PAC12 network controversy Got me thinking: http://www.buildingthedam.com/2012/8/30/3279608/pac-12-drops-ball-insults-fans-intelligence

We're seeing more and more of the content providers throwing up those crawls telling us that DISH, DirecTV or whomever is going to lose this station and we should demand that they carry it or switch to cable or the other guy.

Perhaps we should switch tactics and in addition to demanding that DISH, DirectTV, etc. carry the channel, take things one step further. Why not get as many folks as we can to bombard the content provider with our demands as well?

We can reiterate, as the article I referenced points out, that many of us who have the option of cable chose our satellite provider of choice because of better quality, service, equipment and so on. To switch just because the content provider wants more money will cost us, the viewers, hassle and extra cost. We can go on to suggestthat the content provider be more open to negotiation, otherwise, they will lose all of us viewers. That dings the income stream the provider is getting from our viewing.

Let's face it, we're already without PAC12 and AMC. Comments?

 

[samedaysatellite]

These disputes have become so commonplace. Any day almost, you can type re-trans dispute into google and find some news somewhere. The main point here is, with so many content providers and broadcasting companies bundling channels or buying groups of locals etc, it is basically making the satellite and cable companies raise there rates as well by making them buy all of there channels or none. This business model is a dinosaur. It's like going to Barnes and noble to get a book and having to purchase access to every book instead. With always increasing options to entertainment content, these issues really need to be resolved by either more regulation making the groups breakup or less regulation and let the market decide. Either way, it is definetly getting old hearing about them so often. I among many of my friends have turned off our eyes and ears to it because it is so common.

 

[dare2be]

I laughed at this comment on the article:

Satellite tv is dead anyway, it's time to switch to Cable if you have options

I've been advocate of Cable TV, primarily due to reception issues. But this gives another reason to switch to cable: Crappy customer support.
No, Pac 12 does not think the fans are dumb. In fact, it's the Satellite tv companies who think are dumb. The reason why they can dictate whatever is because they have unlimited nationwide coverage, where as cable, because it's regulated by government on who can provide the service in certain regions,, customers have some guarantee that they will receive the channel they wanted.
This situation goes the same with AMC and Dish Network, which unfortunately are now in Lawsuit mode, and it's extremely unlikely that Dish will ever return AMC now, unless Dish loses the lawsuit, which is very unlikely.
If you had options, ditch the obsolete technology of Satellite tv, and get Cable, U-Verse, or Fios, which in my opinion, has lot better future than Dish or DirecTV, which in my opinion, has reception issues similar to antenna tv whenever there's a storm, or wifi if there's some obstruction.

 

[Tampa8]

Maybe it just hasn't been made clear enough. There are plenty of us that DO NOT want those channels added unless they are in their own package and we can choose to pay for them or not. Go pay what cable charges. I am more behind Dish on this than ever before, not raising my cost for all these sports channels that are expensive and should be in their own package. I actually watch sports, NESN and CSNNE, ESPN, etc.. but something has to give.

 

[Willh699]

the landscape of Paid TV has changed, now there's more networks then ever in both SD & HD and the companies who own the networks like to bundle together and demand more due the networks worth increasing in their opinions and not what it really worth. in fact these media companies are getting really greedy and they make us the TV viewers suffer when they get into a dispute with a paid TV provider because they couldn't agree with the terms of a deal. and not to mention lawsuits over carriages without permissions or pulling channels that had nothing to due with a current dispute (Dish Network, i'm looking at you for for the "Without permission or pulling channels that had nothing to due with current dispute as Dish's disputes over Disney and AMC Networks are lawsuit related). the government needs to step in and change the laws where paid TV companies are allow to keep the channels on for 30 days after contract expires as in the channels will stay on but not under contract. so that way the channels don't go dark during a dispute with the paid TV Provider and the company that owns the channel or channels involved in dispute. and if dispute is not resolved in the 30 days period of channel being out of contract, they the paid TV provider must pull the channels as soon as the 30 days are up if both sides have agreed to disagreed on terms of a new deal and decided to remove the network for good.

i think it would be best if the government decided to change up the Cable Act to make it to where content providers i.e companies that own the channels must keep the channels on the line of the paid TV company they are in dispute with for 30 after contract expires while they make a agreement on a permanent contract to keep the channels on for an x amount of years. so that way people won't go weeks without their channels if it gonna be a short term disagreement i.e. 2 to 4 week disagreement. if they can't reach an agreement after the 30 days, then the channels are gone until the next agreement is reached.