# TRO issued against DIRECTV in HDNET v. DIRECTV case



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

On Monday, November 12th the Judge Presiding, Judge Teresa Guerra Snelson, issued a Temporary Restraining Order in the case against DIRECTV. The Plaintiff, HDNet, argued in a TRO application that DIRECTV was moving HDNet's channels into obscurity and would cause an immediate and irreparable impact to HDNet.

As part of the TRO, the court finds that HDNet has established the elements necessary for temporary injunctive relief. DIRECTV has been temporarily enjoined from engaging in the following acts:_Charging subscribers that receive television-programming services in any high definition format from DIRECTV any additional fees beyond the "HD Access" fee for the inclusion of HDNet and HDNet Movies as part of their subscription._​
It has been ordered that a hearing will be held on December 7, 2007 at 10:00am in Dallas. It has been further ordered that that HDNet submit a $100,000 bond which should adequately protect the interests of DIRECTV. The remainder of the TRO request has been denied.


HDNet Request for TRO
DIRECTV opposition to HDNet request


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Considering that the HD Extra Pack, doesn't go into affect until 12/15...

The hearing on the 7th will be the intresting one.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Indeed Earl .. I agree


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

Not surprising. The endless rehash on here did seem to indicate pretty strongly that there was a valid legal question here and it affects HDNet greatly.

This will give the courts a bit more time to investigate a little further and try to untangle the legalese in the contract (which is surely there, even though we didn't see the original contract).


----------



## JonVig (Sep 23, 2007)

Isn't HDNet obscure already?


----------



## dwilliam_houston (Feb 6, 2007)

Since FoodNetworkHD and HGTVHD have completely different programming than their SD counterparts I would think that based on Directv's arguement that they would have to be moved to the HDExtraPack as would any other channel that is different than its SD counterpart. Eitherway I have signed up for the new pack so I plan on getting all of it anyway but I think their argument needs to be consistent if it is going to have chance to stand-up.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Considering that the HD Extra Pack, doesn't go into affect until 12/15...
> 
> The hearing on the 7th will be the intresting one.


If the hearing happens on the 7th. Court dates are often changed for various reasons.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Ouch!


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

man_rob said:


> If the hearing happens on the 7th. Court dates are often changed for various reasons.


Not preliminary injunction hearings. A TRO must be very limited in time.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

I invite everyone to read DirecTV's response on this matter. What a pack of lies!

Were you aware that we've been receiving HD programming for FREE? The "HD Access fee" we pay is for "technology or equipment". What a bunch of BS.

I'm happy that the judge saw thru the scumbag lies DirecTV filed with the court.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

csgo said:


> I invite everyone to read DirecTV's response on this matter. What a pack of lies!
> 
> Were you aware that we've been receiving HD programming for FREE? The "HD Access fee" we pay is for "technology or equipment". What a bunch of BS.
> 
> I'm happy that the judge saw thru the scumbag lies DirecTV filed with the court.


And you are receiving the HD programming for no extra charge - every HD channel added *that is covered by your underlying subscription* does not result in any additional fees, hence they are added for free.

Regardless of what it was called in the past or is called in the future, that 9.99 fee has always been more about paying for DirecTV's new Sats and equipment than programming, or did you think it really cost 9.99 for the 9 or 10 channels we used to have?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

dwilliam_houston said:


> Since FoodNetworkHD and HGTVHD have completely different programming than their SD counterparts I would think that based on Directv's arguement that they would have to be moved to the HDExtraPack as would any other channel that is different than its SD counterpart. Eitherway I have signed up for the new pack so I plan on getting all of it anyway but I think their argument needs to be consistent if it is going to have chance to stand-up.


They dont state that. They say that they have SD counterparts (predominantly simultcast) to be in the HD Access.

I have just 3 problems with Directv's answer (all in a sworn affadavit).

1. They state that in Feb 2007 they discontinued the HD Package and introduced the HD Access fee which gave you access to the HD versions of your channels in your package, plus they carried on with HDNET for "free". So we all paid $9.99 for ESPN and ESPN2 HD?????? Everything else was free (lets for sake of argument leave out the premiums). And what of those on the Family plan? They paid $9.99 for no channels. Apparantly we got all the others free (though not specifically mentioned in the case).

2. They have still not answered the main fact that HD Theatre is in the base package - I appreciate it could be linked to an SD counterpart, but then all they have to do is say which one. Edit: this was part of HD NETs claim and should be answered - every other part has been answered in detail but this is not mentioned.

3. They state that the HD Access fee is a technology fee and included services such as On Demand. So I can assume that H10/20 owners etc will have this when it comes out of beta? That is deceiving as you have to have a DVR for it and so should be in a DVR fee not an HD fee. I know it is a free service but dont throw smokescreens up in court that are not correct.

I also have a general nagging problem that this is a smokescreen too. If you have an HD Package at $10.99 and then decide to reduce the price on it - dont change its name to something else too and say it is the same thing as before but we just discontinued it for a while. Smacks of grasping at straws a bit. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, at best it looks to me that there was some very poor planning and decision making in the Programming and Acquistions department.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

csgo said:


> I invite everyone to read DirecTV's response on this matter. What a pack of lies!
> 
> Were you aware that we've been receiving HD programming for FREE? The "HD Access fee" we pay is for "technology or equipment". What a bunch of BS.
> 
> I'm happy that the judge saw thru the scumbag lies DirecTV filed with the court.


From the consumer side (us) it does seem like BS. But in this context is looks to be a good and fair arguement. I think the most problematic part for D* will be the various channels (HD Theatre, Food, HG) that are included with HD Access but either have no corresponding SD channel or do not exactly match the SD channel.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> From the consumer side (us) it does seem like BS. But in this context is looks to be a good and fair arguement. I think the most problematic part for D* will be the various channels (HD Theatre, Food, HG) that are included with HD Access but either have no corresponding SD channel or do not exactly match the SD channel.


Food and HGTV do have an SD counterpart. They stated that it didnt have to be a simultcast. most other providers also put these two in the "access" type packages.

The argument is still there over HD Theatre. Directv can argue easily it is Dtimes or one of those, but it hasnt and I think it needs to be addressed as it was a main point in the case. As HDNET got its TRO then we will have to wait until Dec 7th to see what they say about it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dwilliam_houston said:


> Since FoodNetworkHD and HGTVHD have completely different programming than their SD counterparts I would think that based on Directv's arguement that they would have to be moved to the HDExtraPack as would any other channel that is different than its SD counterpart. Eitherway I have signed up for the new pack so I plan on getting all of it anyway but I think their argument needs to be consistent if it is going to have chance to stand-up.


I wouldn't call the programming on FOOD-HD and HGTV-HD "completely" different. Different Schedule: Yes; but the content is basically the same as their SD networks.

At the end of the day... IMHO it is going to boil down on to how FOOD, HGTV, Discovery ect... calculate their rates for the programming.

Do they get "extra" if someone has the HD version or not... or is based on the base SD channel subscription rate.


----------



## csgo (Oct 15, 2006)

I didn't take a side on this issue until I read the garbage claimed by DirecTV. 

The agreement is in plain language... not legalese. The way I read it (which makes no difference) HDNet just wanted to stay in the HD package, but DirecTV wants to put into the extra package. 

If the judge enforces the agreement as written DirecTV will lose even worse than what HDNet had wanted. HDNet will have to be part of whatever the most popular base package DirecTV offers that has HD channels. 

Now that would be funny! Hope it happens.


----------



## jimb726 (Jan 9, 2007)

csgo said:


> I didn't take a side on this issue until I read the garbage claimed by DirecTV.
> 
> The agreement is in plain language... not legalese. The way I read it (which makes no difference) HDNet just wanted to stay in the HD package, but DirecTV wants to put into the extra package.
> 
> ...


As funny as it may seem, I imagine there will be a lot of complaining when the fee goes from 9.99 to 14.99 or 19.99. It wont be so funny then.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Based on the fact that they were not placed in the Extra Pack, I'd think that Food, HGTV, etc allowed carriage of the HD channel without additional cost to Directv.

The problem (for me) with the agrument is the HD Package, HD Access, and Extra Pack all accomplish the same thing....cover the cost to carry HDNet, HD Theater, MGM, etc.

You can call them different things, but they are the same.

Fewer channels required $9.99 -10.99, more channels now requires $14.98 for Directv to make a profit on carriage of these channels.

So...because they are technically defined differently does the court side with Directv or
because they are not different, and Extra Pack is a different tier (Tier 1 ($9.99) + Tier 2 (4.99)) side with HDNet?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Well, that explains the notes in their database on the 12th including the bond. 
If I were DirecTV I'd spend the next couple of weeks working out a settlement with HDNet. Generally, a Judge issuing a TRO is sending a strong message about his beliefs on the case.

DirecTV's best shot is with a judge...they don't want to try and make this argument to a jury...it won't fly.

But then again...never underestimate how hard-headed some executives can be.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

csgo said:


> I didn't take a side on this issue until I read the garbage claimed by DirecTV.
> 
> The agreement is in plain language... not legalese. The way I read it (which makes no difference) HDNet just wanted to stay in the HD package, but DirecTV wants to put into the extra package.
> 
> ...


You do realize that IF it happens it wont be funny to us? We will be FORCED a price increase to cover the cost. You think D* is going to pay HDNET and not pass it on to us? They require $1.37 per sub from D*. So you can look at HD Access going up $1.50.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> You do realize that IF it happens it wont be funny to us? We will be FORCED a price increase to cover the cost. You think D* is going to pay HDNET and not pass it on to us? They require $1.37 per sub from D*. So you can look at HD Access going up $1.50.


Either that or the whole "Extra Pack" idea is reconsidered. It may simply mean $14.98 for the HD Access fee and then all HD channels would be included.


----------



## wweguy (Aug 28, 2007)

I hopw HDNET wins this one.


----------



## wweguy (Aug 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Either that or the whole "Extra Pack" idea is reconsidered. It may simply mean $14.98 for the HD Access fee and then all HD channels would be included.


That would actually be the best thing for them to do. I don't mind paying $14.95, it's still $5 less then Dish Network.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

wweguy said:


> That would actually be the best thing for them to do. I don't mind paying $14.95, it's still $5 less then Dish Network.


You might not (and I probably will pay it) but some do mind.

Isnt it better to have the choice between $9.99 and $9.99 + $4.99?

I hope this isnt going off topic but I applaud what D* is trying to do there. Just think they didnt give a watertight argument back when they probably could have.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Either that or the whole "Extra Pack" idea is reconsidered. It may simply mean $14.98 for the HD Access fee and then all HD channels would be included.





wweguy said:


> I hopw HDNET wins this one.


If HDNet wins, I'll end up paying the same but people who don't want HDNet will pay more. Don't kid yourself, you're not going to get those channels for free.


----------



## SteveEJ (May 30, 2007)

say-what said:


> And you are receiving the HD programming for no extra charge - every HD channel added *that is covered by your underlying subscription* does not result in any additional fees, hence they are added for free.
> 
> Regardless of what it was called in the past or is called in the future, that 9.99 fee has always been more about paying for DirecTV's new Sats and equipment than programming, or did you think it really cost 9.99 for the 9 or 10 channels we used to have?


So what about Equipment Lease fees on top of purchase price of leased equipment and having to pay for a service plan for the same Leased equipment? Kind of redundant income planning IMHO. Also, what about when SD goes away. Will we have to pay for a 'Previous SD subscriber Fee'? Paying to have leased equipment has always frosted my cookies Buying 'Leased' equipment just does not make sense to me. If it did then D* should be refunding money back to the consumer based on the condition of the equipment!

Standing ready for the flames now!


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> I hope this isnt going off topic but I applaud what D* is trying to do there. Just think they didnt give a watertight argument back when they probably could have.


I'm starting to fully see what Directv tried to...maintain profits while still giving the consumer a choice (in order to gain more customers).

That choice could very well be gone.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

MikeR said:


> So...because they are technically defined differently does the court side with Directv or
> because they are not different, and Extra Pack is a different tier (Tier 1 ($9.99) + Tier 2 (4.99)) side with HDNet?


You also then have:

Family Package + HD Access = 6 HD Channels
Choice Package + HD Access = 27 HD Channels
Choice Plus Package + HD Access = 36 HD Channels
And so on...

What actually dictates what HD channels you receive.... the base package.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SteveEJ said:


> So what about Equipment Lease fees on top of purchase price of leased equipment and having to pay for a service plan for the same Leased equipment? Kind of redundant income planning IMHO. Also, what about when SD goes away. Will we have to pay for a 'Previous SD subscriber Fee'? Paying to have leased equipment has always frosted my cookies Buying 'Leased' equipment just does not make sense to me. If it did then D* should be refunding money back to the consumer based on the condition of the equipment!
> 
> Standing ready for the flames now!


Wouldn't that be greated for Leased Cars, that when you return the car when you are done with it... you get your "deposit" back...

The Leased term they applied to the equipment "purchase" was one of the worse terms they could have used for it...

And ultimately has ZERO to do with this topic, and should be discussed elsewhere


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

wweguy said:


> That would actually be the best thing for them to do. I don't mind paying $14.95, it's still $5 less then Dish Network.


charge that much. They obviously weren't expecting all of us to pay the additional $5. I think it was just a way to start a new package that could be expanded in the future with appropriate cost changes. Also, they get some kudos from those that don't care about the program and therefore would not have incurred any additional charge.

To me $12.95 sounds about right.

If they want to make package changes, why don't they implement some ala cart tier packages. I could probably get by with 30 channels, but what would the cost be?


----------



## wweguy (Aug 28, 2007)

No Earl he has a point, since we are all leasing our HD equipment, why are we paying an extra HD access fee for since we are already paying a leasing fee.

Isn't that double dipping from DirecTV then?


----------



## SteveEJ (May 30, 2007)

It has to do with 'Fees' and some of the logic/lack of logic and terms used in applying the fees. SD will be going away in the future.. What then?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wweguy said:


> No Earl he has a point, since we are all leasing our HD equipment, why are we paying an extra HD access fee for since we are already paying a leasing fee.
> 
> Isn't that double dipping from DirecTV then?


But it has no point to the issue of HDNet and their placement, or the HD Access Tier.

The cost to obtain the equipment is completely seperate from this... if it wasn't... then HDNet would have included it in their arguments.

If you want to discuss the "customer cost" to have DirecTV service, that it self... is a seperate conversation.


----------



## SteveEJ (May 30, 2007)

wweguy said:


> No Earl he has a point, since we are all leasing our HD equipment, why are we paying an extra HD access fee for since we are already paying a leasing fee.
> 
> Isn't that double dipping from DirecTV then?


Exactly.. Thank You!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

This case really isn't about how much DirecTV's customers are going to pay. We're all going to pay more one way or another. Read the DirecTV investor packages... 3% - 4% increases a year are their predictions. There's no consumer protection side to this case.

This is a case where DirecTV has tried, by switching package names, to get out of a contractual agreement with one of its partners.

The argument didn't fly on the initial read by the judge. I really doubt it will get better treatment from a jury.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

MikeR said:


> I'm starting to fully see what Directv tried to...maintain profits while still giving the consumer a choice (in order to gain more customers).
> 
> That choice could very well be gone.


This is only about one provider and the contract that DirecTV agreed to with them.


----------



## realracer2 (Jun 11, 2006)

wweguy said:


> No Earl he has a point, since we are all leasing our HD equipment, why are we paying an extra HD access fee for since we are already paying a leasing fee.
> 
> Isn't that double dipping from DirecTV then?


Indeed.


----------



## wweguy (Aug 28, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But it has no point to the issue of HDNet and their placement, or the HD Access Tier.


 So are you saying that Directv is double dipping?


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

swans said:


> charge that much. They obviously weren't expecting all of us to pay the additional $5. I think it was just a way to start a new package that could be expanded in the future with appropriate cost changes. Also, they get some kudos from those that don't care about the program and therefore would not have incurred any additional charge.
> 
> To me $12.95 sounds about right.
> 
> If they want to make package changes, why don't they implement some ala cart tier packages. I could probably get by with 30 channels, but what would the cost be?


Back to topic:

In D*s answer (sorry but you have to wade through it all like I did - its about page 65) it says that D*was looking for a disconnect agreement in the contract. They didnt have one and had by then already created the HD Access and Extra Pack - before this issue had been raised between the two parties.

I suspect they didnt take all this into account when creating the new packages or whatever and so are now having to push a square peg in a round hole to keep within the definitions - always hard to do after the fact.

Going by the ruling and by D*s answer - I think they may be stuck in this one and as Ken S said, they will be better looking for an out of court settlement.

One thing that I did note in the ruling was that D* are only prohibited from charging extra for any HD other than HD Access $9.99 fee. Whereas HDNET originally asked for all materials mentioning HD Extra and HDNET be withdrawn. So as the channel is free and the TRO (although doubled its timeline) is only 28 days then the judge thought this keeps a happy medium until it is argued in court on Dec 7th?


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

Mr. Cuban is worried that people like myself will not be ponying up the additional money for those few channels. HDnet will definitely be losing a few sets of eyes. His concern is legit, but for every set of eyes he loses I am sure there are some new sets added daily. churn baby churn


----------



## SteveEJ (May 30, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But it has no point to the issue of HDNet and their placement, or the HD Access Tier.
> 
> The cost to obtain the equipment is completely seperate from this... if it wasn't... then HDNet would have included it in their arguments.
> 
> If you want to discuss the "customer cost" to have DirecTV service, that it self... is a seperate conversation.


I disagree.. Fee's are fee's. If you were talking about a DVR the I would agree! I am talking about having to lease the equipment to get HD and then having to pay to 'Get' the same HD. We are not talking about SD. We are talking about HD We pay for a SD plan of which we don't watch the SD version anymore (because of HD channel) AND for the HD version of the same channel! Where does it end?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

The carriage contract between HDNET and DirecTV expires at the end of 2008. DirecTV will be free then to dump HDNET or to negotiate a new deal. Until then, it appears that we will continue to have the two HDNET channels as part of the "non-tier" HD Access fee. In the Spring, when roses bloom, DirecTV will once again raise its intentionally confusing rates on its sundry packages, tiers, and whatever else it can find to raise rates on.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I am a tried and true D* loyalist but I think the accountants didn't do the math on this one, but I could be wrong.

Wouldn't have been better to charge ALL HD customers a very easy to justify extra $3 for the HD package than to charge separately for a tier package that many will opt out of?

Seems to me that $3 from everybody was a sure thing rather than $5 that was iffy.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

wweguy said:


> That would actually be the best thing for them to do. I don't mind paying $14.95, it's still $5 less then Dish Network.


I agree, although a better approach probably would have been to wait until the 2008 price increases (normally in February). I doubt that anyone would have been surprised to see an increase then (and we'll probably get one anyway). If a significant number of HD subscribers do not opt for the HD Extra Pack, Directv (in addition to HD Net, MGM, etc.) may suffer a loss in potential revenue by doing it the way they announced. The PR hit doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

wweguy said:


> So are you saying that Directv is double dipping?


Nothing of the sort...

All I am saying if you want to discuss what it costs to have DirecTV service, that is a topic for another thread... not for the thread that is discussing a lawsuit by a content provider and it's carrier


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

SteveEJ said:


> I disagree.. Fee's are fee's. If you were talking about a DVR the I would agree! I am talking about having to lease the equipment to get HD and then having to pay to 'Get' the same HD. We are not talking about SD. We are talking about HD We pay for a SD plan of which we don't watch the SD version anymore (because of HD channel) AND for the HD version of the same channel! Where does it end?


Sorry mods I know this is off topic but i think it needs addressing:

Steve you are correct in that there appears to be fees for the same thing. But there are subtle differences.

Some fees (lease fees) are per leased hardware. Other fees are per account (HD access). They are both to offset costs. But for different reasons. A standard receiver still has a lease fee - cant get HD from it though. Still same fee as an HR21 for the unit.

D* has to cover costs and will make money but not all fees are created equal, just because you have them for your equipment, i have them for others. probably same fees but different hardware (I have a standard receiver as well as HR20/21s).

The HD Extra fee is different again. And the HDNET argument was not about fees so much, they feel they are not in the biggest package and have been split off.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

SteveEJ said:


> I disagree.. Fee's are fee's. If you were talking about a DVR the I would agree! I am talking about having to lease the equipment to get HD and then having to pay to 'Get' the same HD. We are not talking about SD. We are talking about HD We pay for a SD plan of which we don't watch the SD version anymore (because of HD channel) AND for the HD version of the same channel! Where does it end?


What does the "lease" fee have anything to do with, where HDNet sits in the programming structure?

Anyway... :backtotop about HDNets suit and the issued TRO


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Either that or the whole "Extra Pack" idea is reconsidered. It may simply mean $14.98 for the HD Access fee and then all HD channels would be included.


Brott, I was thinking the EXACT same thing........and I 100% believe that D* will give in to HDNET, because they do not want to go to court.......but then they will pass that "Loss" onto all of us.........HD Access is now $14.99, PERIOD! Watch! HDNET will "Win" as far as they see it, but, for those subs that didn't want to pay an additional $4.99 for a handful of channels will have no choice!!:nono2:


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

SDizzle said:


> Brott, I was thinking the EXACT same thing........and I 100% believe that D* will give in to HDNET, because they do not want to go to court.......but then they will pass that "Loss" onto all of us.........HD Access is now $14.99, PERIOD! Watch! HDNET will "Win" as far as they see it, but, for those subs that didn't want to pay an additional $4.99 for a handful of channels will have no choice!!:nono2:


If that does happen it may only be until Dec 2008 when the contract is up for renewal. Then D* could split it out again.

I would suggest that there is going to be an out of court settlement (sometimes when talks break down you have to go to court to show you were serious just so you can go back to the table again to reach an agreement - sad but true). D* will no doubt point out to HDNET that they can stay in the Extra Pack for now and have an option on a renewal for X yrs in Dec 2008 under the same fee structure (plus whatever increase) or they will put them in the wide package now and not renew in 2008.


----------



## BkwSoft (Oct 18, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> I am a tried and true D* loyalist but I think the accountants didn't do the math on this one, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Wouldn't have been better to charge ALL HD customers a very easy to justify extra $3 for the HD package than to charge separately for a tier package that many will opt out of?
> 
> Seems to me that $3 from everybody was a sure thing rather than $5 that was iffy.


Not really. $3 from everybody vs. $5 from some would make sense if the costs to DIRECTV where fixed. Since the programming providers are getting reimburesed based on how many subscribers there are, the fewer subscribers means the channels cost DIRECTV less.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

say-what said:


> Regardless of what it was called in the past or is called in the future, that 9.99 fee has always been more about paying for DirecTV's new Sats and equipment than programming, or did you think it really cost 9.99 for the 9 or 10 channels we used to have?


I can certainly agree with that. And on that premise, HDNet seems to have an arguement that it was in the "lowest tier" (aka some basic variant of the TotalChoice package). Now that it's "being moved out of that tier" they have a beef.

Agree completely on the fact that this would all be a lot better if the two companies could work out a mutually agreeable solution.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Latest data from the court's Odyssey system:
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 
11/02/2007 ISSUE CITATION 
11/02/2007 ISSUE TRO AND NOTICE 
11/02/2007 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 
11/02/2007 ORIGINAL PETITION (OCA) 
11/05/2007 MISCELLANOUS EVENT
OPPOSE APPL TRO 
11/05/2007 RESPONSE
M/EXPEDITE DSCY 
11/06/2007 AFFIDAVIT
AUPP APPL TRO 
11/06/2007 APPLICATION - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AMEND 
11/12/2007 BOND FILED 
11/12/2007 CITATIONDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved 

11/12/2007 NOTICEDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved 

11/12/2007 ORDER - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Vol./Book 404E, Page 189, 3 pages 
11/12/2007 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERDIRECTV GROUP INC unserved 
HARPER, GEOFFREY S unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC unserved 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC unserved 
DIRECTV, INC. unserved 

12/07/2007 Temporary Injunction (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer LOWY, MARTIN) 12/05/2007 Reset by Court to 12/07/2007


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Generally, a Judge issuing a TRO is sending a strong message about his beliefs on the case.


That is an astute, and accurate observation. TROs are *not* issued willy nilly in a vacuum.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> I can certainly agree with that. And on that premise, HDNet seems to have an arguement that it was in the "lowest tier" (aka some basic variant of the TotalChoice package). Now that it's "being moved out of that tier" they have a beef.
> 
> Agree completely on the fact that this would all be a lot better if the two companies could work out a mutually agreeable solution.


I think they both want it to work out. And some here have stated that D* may just kick HDNET to the curb at the end of the contract. Being the "HD Leader" I don't think D* wants to throw any HD channel to the curb, especially one that has been a "True" HD channel all around!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hasan said:


> That is an astute, and accurate observation. TROs are *not* issued willy nilly in a vacuum.


Well, except one thing...the his should be a her


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BkwSoft said:


> Not really. $3 from everybody vs. $5 from some would make sense if the costs to DIRECTV where fixed. Since the programming providers are getting reimburesed based on how many subscribers there are, the fewer subscribers means the channels cost DIRECTV less.


True, but it's not clear that the costs are fixed. It could very well be a per-user cost .. In fact, with HDNet that is true .. It is likely true with the other providers as well which is what makes the $5 a necessary component in the first place.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

How in the world couldn't HDNet see their own extinction on the horizon the day they founded their channel....

Imagine "the color TV channel" back in the black/white transition days...playing 85% rehashed shows from other networks...but in COLOR! 

Wouldn't they realize as more and more gray-scale channels went to color, they'd have to evolve radically or die?

I love dan rather reports, I love the minimal commercial format...HDNet movies is a nice HBO clone alternative.

But..."nothing but trailers"? bleh. Rehashed sci-fi channel? now obsolete, no?

My humbles: HDNet: lack of compelling content. HDN movies: still good. worth $3 a month.

So far as the suit: D*...pushing on the technicalities of the contract, HDN: has a valid point, but pushing on the other edge.

Looking HDN's info over...their contract implies that they get a reduction in payment for every channel addede to the "tier"....woah, nilly....how does that work when the tier has 100 channels?
It's also a very emotional document. Ouch. are they writing a legal complaint, or a whiny letter to mom? wow!

Directv's response is clearly relying on technicalities, and reads like a lawyer getting a defendant off because the search warrant was for his brother....but they seem to have a clear and correct point for the lawsuit itself. More than that, they're 100% correct in disputing the restraining order, because HDNet won't be affected by their actions until december.
I will agree, though that D* should change their wording on the premier.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Why does everything have to go to court these days  Did the two parties even try to work anything out without going to court?


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Ken S said:


> This case really isn't about how much DirecTV's customers are going to pay. We're all going to pay more one way or another. Read the DirecTV investor packages... 3% - 4% increases a year are their predictions. There's no consumer protection side to this case.
> 
> This is a case where DirecTV has tried, by switching package names, to get out of a contractual agreement with one of its partners.
> 
> The argument didn't fly on the initial read by the judge. I really doubt it will get better treatment from a jury.


It should certainly make us all realize what a slimy company D has turned into. Rather than live up to their contractual obligations they tried to weasel their way out of it using some linguistic slight of hand changing the name to an "HD Access Fee" from an "HD Package Fee".

I'd be willing to bet that the court won't let them get away with it.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> It should certainly make us all realize what a slimy company D has turned into. Rather than live up to their contractual obligations they tried to weasel their way out of it using some linguistic slight of hand changing the name to an "HD Access Fee" from an "HD Package Fee".
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that the court won't let them get away with it.


I suspect it won't go to court........ And yes, you would sure expect that D* knew exactly how the contract read, thus finding a "way" to get around it! They have many attorneys on staff, I'm sure.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

My guess, HD Extra will go *poof*, HD Access will be $14.99. Case dismissed.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RobertE said:


> My guess, HD Extra will go *poof*, HD Access will be $14.99. Case dismissed.


maybe it will be $14.98 .


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RobertE said:


> My guess, HD Extra will go *poof*, HD Access will be $14.99. Case dismissed.


That would happen anyway. The only reason we didn't say a "real" price hike in November/December is it's bad press to do that during the holiday buying season. Raise the rates in February/March after all them sets/receivers are hooked up and locked in.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Seems that this case is going to need to be decided in short order .. At least to the point of halting the plans for 12/15. So far it's been an interesting read.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

SDizzle said:


> Brott, I was thinking the EXACT same thing........and I 100% believe that D* will give in to HDNET, because they do not want to go to court.......but then they will pass that "Loss" onto all of us.........HD Access is now $14.99, PERIOD! Watch! HDNET will "Win" as far as they see it, but, for those subs that didn't want to pay an additional $4.99 for a handful of channels will have no choice!!:nono2:


Unfortunately I think this is the most likely outcome if HDnet wins.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Seems that this case is going to need to be decided in short order .. At least to the point of halting the plans for 12/15. So far it's been an interesting read.


In all likelihood, the fat lady has already sung. It is more difficult to get a TRO issue than to prevail at the preliminary injunction stage. In many cases, a judge will refuse to issue a TRO, but eventually issue a preliminary injunction. The reverse rarely occurs.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> I am a tried and true D* loyalist but I think the accountants didn't do the math on this one, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Wouldn't have been better to charge ALL HD customers a very easy to justify extra $3 for the HD package than to charge separately for a tier package that many will opt out of?
> 
> Seems to me that $3 from everybody was a sure thing rather than $5 that was iffy.


We'd have none of the pesky "damned DTV charging $5 for hd extras"

And plenty of "damned DTV raising prices on HD"

Here's a compromise....

HDnet comes out with SDnet and SDnet movies....downconverted versions of HDN/HDNM

put 'em on "choice" and everyone profits.
::grin:


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

Didnt see this suggested any were, I can see this turning out bad for customers. 

D* could very easily say " FINE we wont MOVE you to a special tier, we will just force EVERYONE to pay 15 for HD access."


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> It should certainly make us all realize what a slimy company D has turned into. Rather than live up to their contractual obligations they tried to weasel their way out of it using some linguistic slight of hand changing the name to an "HD Access Fee" from an "HD Package Fee".
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that the court won't let them get away with it.


Nah. I'm sure that was a tiny factor in the decision...because they couldn't have a $9.99 (or even $29.99)"HD" package that included 100 channels....who would buy "plus"???

however it works out... you know it'll be alright.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Just my 2c worth:
I always thought it was one of the dumbest ideas D* ever had.. HD access should be HD access (even if it needed a price hike)... Just seems like another way to tick people off.. I can see the complaints later: I have the plusHD pack why can't I get this channel?
the hbo.... hd channels make sense, they are part of a movie channel package... These channels are actualy orphons as far as the rest of the D* lineup.. just leave them where they are and charge accordingly..
and one other thing D* will make more money off making 50c off everyone than $2 off 1 in 5 of their coustomers...


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

...and a good 2 cents. Nice summary. Too bad D* didn't think this through as well as you did. 

I've said this once before, whoever in management/marketing hallucinated the recent D* approach to the new tier/channels/hd access, should either resign in embarrassment or be terminated for gross incompetence. 

They could have done more damage to their "public image", with their customer base, but not much.

It would be reasonable and definsible to simply have said, "HD Access is is being increased a small amount as a result of the large increase in HD channels being made available." 

If they got heat, they could justifiably say, "We feel an increase of 5 bucks a month is reasonable for the large increase in HD that we have just provided, and have targeted to provide in the near future."

HD Extra with all it's cherry picking and convoluted logic has been a disaster so far...and it hasn't officially started. You would think that would tell someone at D* something, but I'm beginning to wonder...


----------



## c152driver (Jan 21, 2007)

I suspect that if DirecTV loses this case, the HD Access fee will remain $9.99, even with HDNet and HDNet Movies included. 

For competitive reasons, I don't think D* is eager to raise the HD Access fee, at least in the next few months.

Plus, they are signing up a lot of new HD customers (I assume, anyway), so that's a lot of new $9.99 access fees. So it's not like they're going to lose money with each new HD customer they sign up if they have to provide Cuban's networks. 

Personally, I think they just got a little bit greedy trying to retain the entire $9.99 for themselves instead of having to dole out a portion to HDNet as the contract (IMHO) seems to require.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Just got done reading DirecTV's response to HDNet's request for a TRO.

First.... gotta love those DirecTV lawyers! Who would have ever imagined that they would try to present the $4.99 charge for the HD Extra package as a price reduction???? That's what you call chutzpah.

Second.... as expected, DirecTV's response was as full of logical holes as the arguments that people in these forums speculated would be offered, so it's no surprise that the TRO was issued.

Third.... I could find no place in DirecTV's response where they refuted (or even addressed) HDNet's claim that DirecTV's reduced payments to HDNet during the time that the HD package/fee/entity was called "HD Access" was essentially an admission by DirecTV that HD Access was indeed an HD tier, since those reduced payments were only permissible if it was a tier. DirecTV's failure to address or refute a major point such as that leads me to believe that they have no response to it that was even remotely credible, especially in light of some of the fairly incredible arguments that they did include in their response.

Fourth.... DirecTV's response failed to address why the change from the "HD Package" to "HD Access" was little more than a name change, making the creation of HD Access look like nothing more than maneuvering on DirecTV's part to set up the dubious claim that HD Extras is their only HD tier.

And last but not least.... Early on in their response, DirecTV sets up majority of it their arguments with the following language&#8230;.

"DirecTV must distribute HDNet and HDNet Movies in it's most widely distributed high definition tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee",

&#8230;.which is substantially different from the actual language on "Term Sheet" that they included as Exhibit 5 which says&#8230;..

"If DirecTV distributes a tier or package *containing television programming in any high definition format*, DirecTV will immediately include both [HDNet] services as part of the most widely distributed tier or package for which the customer pays a separate fee containing such services" [boldface emphasis mine]

It seems pretty clear that either Family or Choice is the "most widely distributed tier or package containing programming in any high definition format", so again it's easy to see why the TRO was issued.


----------



## ub1934 (Dec 30, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> maybe it will be $14.98 .


No $12.95 seems just about right .


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Ext 721 said:


> But..."nothing but trailers"? bleh.


Hey, that's the only thing I watch on that station.



cnmsales said:


> Didnt see this suggested any were, I can see this turning out bad for customers.
> 
> D* could very easily say " FINE we wont MOVE you to a special tier, we will just force EVERYONE to pay 15 for HD access."


It was suggested/mentioned in posts #17, #21, #25, #48 and commented on in several others.


----------



## Araxen (Dec 18, 2005)

I'm surprised they got the TRO. Congrats to HDnet. I'm pulling for them!


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

SDizzle said:


> I think they both want it to work out. And some here have stated that D* may just kick HDNET to the curb at the end of the contract. Being the "HD Leader" I don't think D* wants to throw any HD channel to the curb, especially one that has been a "True" HD channel all around!


I hope that's true, but as the "HD Leader" Directv's stated preference is for nationally known channels, which often have little HD content, and not for obscure channels that air HD 24/7. For the cable subs Directv hopes to get I'm not sure HDNet qualifies as a nationally known channel.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Araxen said:


> I'm surprised they got the TRO. Congrats to HDnet. I'm pulling for them!


I'm not. As I pointed out in detail above, DirecTV's response was weak, illogical, sometimes laughable, and completely failed to respond to and address at least one of the substantive claims that HDNet put forth in their filing.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

QuickDrop said:


> I hope that's true, but as the "HD Leader" Directv's stated preference is for nationally known channels, which often have little HD content, and not for obscure channels that air HD 24/7. For the cable subs Directv hopes to get I'm not sure HDNet qualifies as a nationally known channel.


But that's probably the whole reason that HDNet is seeking to remain in the most widely distributed tier now.... so that in a year from now when DirecTV is negotiating with HDNet about whether to continue to offer the HDNet channels or drop them, the wider distribution from now up to that time will have helped HDNet established their channels as more well known "must have" channels.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> But that's probably the whole reason that HDNet is seeking to remain in the most widely distributed tier now.... so that in a year from now when DirecTV is negotiating with HDNet about whether to continue to offer the HDNet channels or drop them, the wider distribution from now up to that time will have helped HDNet established their channels as more well known "must have" channels.


I can agree with that .. From HDNet's perspective, it's a good marketing tool for future positioning.


----------



## davidrumm (Dec 2, 2005)

Has anyone noticed that HDNet stated they were never told but in the Affidavit in the D* response it is stated that HDNet was told several times about the change. Does this sound like someone is lying?


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

My thought that the distinction that is being made is one that HDNet defines notification as "official and signed" versus Directv's notification via email/verbal communication.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

hasan said:


> That is an astute, and accurate observation. TROs are *not* issued willy nilly in a vacuum.


Indeed. TROs are generally _*not *_issued unless the judge believes the party requesting said TRO has a likely chance of proving its case.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think D* could make this go away if they pay HDNet a flat rate equal to what they pay today for the channel until the subscriber numbers of the new package hit todays existing level, and then revert back to their original subscriber based formulas. This would keep HDNet from loosing revenue, and give D* the channel to help promote their HD package. I'm sure they are expecting massive growth in HD over the next year and I predict they will have as many subscribers to the HD extra package as they do total HD access subscribers today within 9 months or less.


----------



## jkast (Sep 4, 2007)

I am surprised that anyone would seriously argue that DirecTV should be allowed to violate its very clearly written agreement with HDNet because it will drive rates up. It has not driven the rates up the last five years. That agreement was signed and the DirecTV executive that is trying to not honor it belongs in jail. The behavior is deplorable. Those of you who believe that such dealing are OK because your monthly bill might be a little lower, sell you souls very cheaply.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jkast said:


> Those of you who believe that such dealing are OK because your monthly bill might be a little lower, sell you souls very cheaply.


A bit over the top now?

This is corporate business... both companies have teams of lawyers that analize and go over all this stuff.

The simple fact that we have had nearly 70 pages of posts on the topic, with points being made on all the multiple sides of the discussion... shows that there is enough merit to both of their arguments.

Ultimately it will be decided by someone.... 
Then the implications of that decision will be affet us the customers in some fashion.

The the end of 2008 gets here... And we will see what happens then.
Think DirecTV is going to be very "friendly" with their negotiations with HDNet's renewal?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A bit over the top now?
> 
> This is corporate business... both companies have teams of lawyers that analize and go over all this stuff.
> 
> ...


Earl,

I think HDNet has found DirecTV not to be too friendly already. Why would they have any reason to expect they'll act better down the road? Word also gets around...every other programming provider is going to be even more alert and specific to the ploy DirecTV tried here.
But hey, this may be good for DirecTV in the end they'll raise fees and get to blame it on someone else.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken, you're right, it does go both ways. I suspect that the original agreement between HDNet and DIRECTV is not the same type of contract the DIRECTV enters into these days. Word does get around, but DIRECTV has a lot of eyes these days.


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

I don't quite get it...maybe I need to see the finer points of the contract....didn't it state that HDN's take is reduced by every non-hdn channel on the "package"?

wouldn't the now 80-someodd channels make that pitifully small compared to the days of five channels?

Is their fear of being made obsolete so great as to abandon profits in the near-term?

Is their ad revenue enormous? I hardly see any ads at all.

2/5 is WAY larger than 2/80, and I don't see that HD adoption has increased1600% in the past two years.l

Anyone got a copy of the whole deal?


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A bit over the top now?
> 
> This is corporate business... both companies have teams of lawyers that analize and go over all this stuff.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I still have a romantic fantasy of right and wrong. How this will affect customers has no bearing in deciding if D* violates the contract. I agree with JKast our HD access rate increase should not be a reason for us to root for unethecial behaviors.

I've posted in the past, I prefer a la carte. I like HD xtra pak better than across the board HD access fee increase. But my preference is not relevant.

If I were HD Net exec, I wouldn't worry about D* not being very friendly at renewal time. D* is already unfriendly now. As you said, it is all corporate business.


----------



## bikspk (Apr 17, 2007)

Funny that a situation somewhat opposite of this has gone on in Cable world for a while.

Sinclair Media, which owns WPGH (Fox Pittsburgh) and many other locals, wants to charge cable companies more to distribute it's HD channels - something like 50 cents a subscriber and, as a result, no Fox HD in many areas around Pittsburgh for several years.

Sorry - back to topic


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

markrubi said:


> Mr. Cuban is worried that people like myself will not be ponying up the additional money for those few channels. HDnet will definitely be losing a few sets of eyes. His concern is legit, but for every set of eyes he loses *I am sure there are some new sets added daily*. churn baby churn


Not if the quote from a D* CSR that HDNet put in their request for the TRO is any indication.
Without going back and quoting directly, it was something along the lines of "Nobody watches those channels anyway". What new customer looking at all the other HD available is going to sub to channels that nobody watches?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hasan said:


> It would be reasonable and definsible to simply have said, "HD Access is is being increased a small amount as a result of the large increase in HD channels being made available." .


While I agree 100% with what you said, there are too many instances of D* execs on record in interviews saying the price of the HD pak/access would not increase.

So instead they came up with a sleight of hand move and created the Extra pak.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

One more thought that I haven't seen mentioned:

Back in the days before HD access, you could have an HD receiver and not subscribe to the HD package. You would still get HBO/SHO if you were a sub of those channels. Many people did this and used D* HD receivers as a means to get ATSC locals.

When "HD Access" became a fee back in the spring, what happened to those subs who had HD receivers, but didn't sub to the HD package. Did D* start charging them the fee or were they grandfathered in like D* has a history of doing for those subs that were inside a commitment?

If they were not charged, and since technically D* was providing the channels in the HD package for free, did D* turn on HDNet for those grandfathered subs?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> A bit over the top now?
> 
> This is corporate business... both companies have teams of lawyers that analize and go over all this stuff.
> 
> ...


"The simple fact that we have had nearly 70 pages of posts on the topic, with points being made on all the multiple sides of the discussion... shows that there is enough merit to both of their arguments."

That seems to imply that the 70 pages of posts represent an equal amount of posts for "both sides of the argument", as you say. And clearly the number of posters that sided with HDNet outweighed the number that sided with DirecTV many many times over. In fact there were only a few that thought DirecTV was in the right.

"The the end of 2008 gets here... And we will see what happens then.
Think DirecTV is going to be very "friendly" with their negotiations with HDNet's renewal?"

Exactly what does that mean? Is that to be interpreted as threatening or "payback" for DirecTV because DirecTV got caught with their hand in the cookie jar?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

jjohns said:


> "The simple fact that we have had nearly 70 pages of posts on the topic, with points being made on all the multiple sides of the discussion... shows that there is enough merit to both of their arguments."
> 
> That seems to imply that the 70 pages of posts represent an equal amount of posts for "both sides of the argument", as you say. And clearly the number of posters that sided with HDNet outweighed the number that sided with DirecTV many many times over. In fact there were only a few that thought DirecTV was in the right.
> 
> ...


Doesn't mater if it was "equal" or not, but there are arguments on all sides (and there is more then just 2 on this topic)... But hey... twist my words as much as you want.
Your good at that, as you have been doing it for a long time.... Still doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of opinions on all sides of the argument.. posted or not.

As for the last statement.... Yep. If HDNet doesn't think this incident isn't going to have an effect on their next contract... then they are pretty delusional.

---------

And as for some of the other replies, about other content providers "opinion" on DirecTV.... It's a two way street, do you not think other carriers are going to look at HDNet differently?

Ultimately... we have ZERO information on what happens behind the closed doors in the meetings with these companies...

But as usuall... it is big bad DirecTV... the other company involved never contributes to the situation....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jjohns said:


> "The simple fact that we have had nearly 70 pages of posts on the topic, with points being made on all the multiple sides of the discussion... shows that there is enough merit to both of their arguments."
> 
> That seems to imply that the 70 pages of posts represent an equal amount of posts for "both sides of the argument", as you say. And clearly the number of posters that sided with HDNet outweighed the number that sided with DirecTV many many times over. In fact there were only a few that thought DirecTV was in the right.


Are you just trying to be argumentative? It's not like there's been a rah rah rally for for one side. Certainly now that the TRO has been issued there appears to be more folks agreeing with HDNet than DIRECTV, but I haven't seen an all out love fest.



> "The the end of 2008 gets here... And we will see what happens then.
> Think DirecTV is going to be very "friendly" with their negotiations with HDNet's renewal?"
> 
> Exactly what does that mean? Is that to be interpreted as threatening or "payback" for DirecTV because DirecTV got caught with their hand in the cookie jar?


Earl does not work for DIRECTV .. He can say anything he wants and it cannot be considered a threat from DIRECTV. Why do you even suggest that?

As for what it means .. Once the trial is over, if HDNet wins and forces DIRECTV's hand (right or wrong), DIRECTV is not going to forget about it overnight. It's still business. At that point, DIRECTV may decide to drop the channel altogether if they cannot get terms that are more favorable to them. The landscape is not the same today as when HDNet was first launched. This trial will absolutely play a part in the negotiation process of the next contract. That is all that was being suggested.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

Reality check: while there can be winners or losers in any given lawsuit, the only people that really come away with anything on the plus side are the lawyers. There is something lost by all parties in a law suit, win or lose, and that includes DIREC*TV* subscribers in this case. :nono2:


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

l8er said:


> Reality check: while there can be winners or losers in any given lawsuit, the only people that really come away with anything on the plus side are the lawyers. There is something lost by all parties in a law suit, win or lose, and that includes DIREC*TV* subscribers in this case. :nono2:


The lawyers (at least in this case), are hired to argue the point of their client.
That is their job, and they will be paid for doing their job.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

I realize this is being argued in federal court, but the court is located in Dallas, Texas. Mark Cuban is a god in Dallas. I suspect that gave him a slight edge in gaining the TRO and will give him a massive advantage should it actually go to a jury trial. DirecTV should cut their losses and settle.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> I realize this is being argued in federal court, but the court is located in Dallas, Texas. Mark Cuban is a god in Dallas. I suspect that gave him a slight edge in gaining the TRO and will give him a massive advantage should it actually go to a jury trial. DirecTV should cut their losses and settle.


If that is the case... and it does go to a JURY trial, then by that basis... they have grounds to request that it be moved to a different court.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But as usuall... it is big bad DirecTV... the other company involved never contributes to the situation....


In this case it is DirecTV that got slapped with a Temporary Restraing Order. The other company is involved in that...they had the gall to seek enforcement of their contract againt DirecTV. They are significantly bigger than HDNet and in this case they've done something so harmful that a judge had to order them to immediately stop.

DirecTV knew what they were doing they could have negotiated an amendment with HDNet or lived up to the terms of their agreement just as they expect others to do. They chose not to and got called on it. So far, their arguments haven't held much weight.

I guess DirecTV should be universally be granted the same types of terms they require of their customers...You know..we can change anything at anytime including rates, equipment, and content and if you don't like you can pay a penalty for terminating.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Well yes.. DirecTV did get slapped with a TRO... 
As that is what HDNet filed for... 

That is not the point of my statement that you quoted.... 
(My quote was in reference to all the discussion that end up on the topics like this)

As for the TRO:
The legal system allows it, HDNet is using the mechanisms that have at their disposal.

No different if I send my Son to his room while I sort out a problem or situation. (how be it on a very very smaller scale).

Who says DirecTV didn't attempt to negotiate an amendment... we don't know. Unless there are some formal documents that someone posted that I haven't seen, we know nothing about what transpired between HDNet and DirecTV that led to this point.

And IMHO: I believe that HDNet was given either:
a) a proposed amendment to their contract
b) a new contract (to extend past 2008)
c) a combination of both

And they don't like what the new terms are going to be or what it means for their bottom line. So they are using the tools/mechanisms of the business world, to enforce what they feel is the interpretation of the contract that best suits them...

Has anyone been able to find the EXACT contract between the two companies? Or all the conjecture still based of the statements by both companies (Which as would be expected, would be slanted to interpret the contract wording in their favor).

Just like when my father grounded me from not watching TV for the rest of the DAY... and at 6pm I was back in front of the TV... as it was now evening... His intent was to ground me for the rest of the CALENDAR DAY, not just "daytime"..... And my mother (the judge), held up my interpretation of the grounding.... and you can bet my dad improved his wording of the grounding the next time.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

l8er said:


> Reality check: while there can be winners or losers in any given lawsuit, the only people that really come away with anything on the plus side are the lawyers. There is something lost by all parties in a law suit, win or lose, and that includes DIREC*TV* subscribers in this case. :nono2:


Sorry, you're wrong. I can show you plenty of schools operating in the State of Florida because they won in court or on appeal with the aid of their attorneys. Some of the operators of those schools and the thousands of students that have received a quality education because of them may be considered winners.

Now, we could also talk about the civil rights movement...certainly nothing good came from the efforts of the lawyers that worked on those suits.

But, I guess lawyers shouldn't get paid.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> But, I guess lawyers shouldn't get paid.


 .. There are folks in every walk of life that give the rest of the folks in that walk of life a bad name .. now .. :backtotop


----------



## tuff bob (Mar 5, 2007)

DirecTV seems to have another option in their back pocket, the "locals" option ...

Basically raise all packages by $10 and include all HD equilivants for free. Much like people without ability to get DirecTV locals, people without HD equipment on their account are offered a $10/month "refund".

Then the "HD Extra Pack" becomes the most widely distributed package of HD only channels.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> If that is the case... and it does go to a JURY trial, then by that basis... they have grounds to request that it be moved to a different court.


A change of venue ain't going to happen, Earl. Lawsuits are filed all the time in plaintiff-friendly areas. Just look at the recent Tivo v. Echostar one. Venue changes aren't granted in cases like this. There is a difference between hometown juries and biased juries.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> I realize this is being argued in federal court, but the court is located in Dallas, Texas. Mark Cuban is a god in Dallas. I suspect that gave him a slight edge in gaining the TRO and will give him a massive advantage should it actually go to a jury trial. DirecTV should cut their losses and settle.


No. It's a Texas District Court, not a Federal court. HDNET already has the TRO. Nothing much to settle, except in the context of a contract extension. I agree with the general sentiment that Cuban's future bargaining power has been diminished by the huge increase in HD channels. I doubt personal feelings have much to do with this, although Cuban and Malone are both well-endowed in the ego department.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> A change of venue ain't going to happen, Earl. Lawsuits are filed all the time in plaintiff-friendly areas. Just look at the recent Tivo v. Echostar one. Venue changes aren't granted in cases like this. There is a difference between hometown juries and biased juries.


Fair enough...


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Sorry, you're wrong. I can show you plenty of schools operating in the State of Florida because they won in court or on appeal with the aid of their attorneys. Some of the operators of those schools and the thousands of students that have received a quality education because of them may be considered winners.
> 
> Now, we could also talk about the civil rights movement...certainly nothing good came from the efforts of the lawyers that worked on those suits.
> 
> But, I guess lawyers shouldn't get paid.


Hey, I resemble that. We legal services attorneys barely got paid. When I started working for California Rural Legal Assistance, I made almost 10k a year. But I only worked about 80 hours a week, so I guess it all evens out.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Bob Coxner said:


> I realize this is being argued in federal court, but the court is located in Dallas, Texas. Mark Cuban is a god in Dallas. I suspect that gave him a slight edge in gaining the TRO and will give him a massive advantage should it actually go to a jury trial. DirecTV should cut their losses and settle.


The case is being heard in Texas State court at the district level. This is the highest trial level court in that state and the proper venue for this type of case provided there's nothing in the agreement to the contrary.

The general rule in the United States is the party bringing the action gets to choose the venue. DirecTV could request the case be removed to Federal Court if they can meet the requirements (28 U.S.C. § 1441) which every law student memorizes in first year civil procedure and, unless they become a trial attorney quickly try to forget. Basically, it requires either diversity (parties being in two different states - I'm sure DirecTV has a legal presence in Texas) and/or a federal question (the case involves a question of federal law/treaties or the constitution). There are other exceptions, but that would get painful in this forum.

I also highly doubt a district judge was swayed into giving a TRO because Mark Cuban was involved.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> .. There are folks in every walk of life that give the rest of the folks in that walk of life a bad name .. now .. :backtotop


There are plenty of bad lawyers, there are unethical lawyers, there are lawyers whose business model makes my skin crawl. As a profession though we try to police them and the penalties are pretty stiff. There are few other professions where you can lose your license to practice for ethical transgressions as quickly as law.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Mark Cuban is the kind of person that could either hurt you or help you depending on the situation .. However, I trust that most Judges at least try to look a the facts to make a decision on the merits vs. using the position to show favoritism to people they like.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Determining the most advantageous venue -- when there is a choice -- is one of the things that lawyers get paid to do. There is a small home-court advantage for Cuban here, but I don't think he needed it. While we don't have the entire text of the contract, you can be damned sure that DirecTV would have pointed to any favorable language in its response. Instead, they concentrated on the same "most widely distributed tier" language that HDNET cited and made an incredibly strained argument that almost any competent judge --home or away -- would have seen through. The advantage that Cuban may have had in a Texas court is in getting the TRO issued, rather than being told that he had an adequate legal remedy.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Hey, I resemble that. We legal services attorneys barely got paid. When I started working for California Rural Legal Assistance, I made almost 10k a year. But I only worked about 80 hours a week, so I guess it all evens out.


Don't spend that all at one gas pump


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Don't spend that all at one gas pump


That was 1970. Gas was 29 cents a gallon.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> That was 1970. Gas was 29 cents a gallon.


And $10k per year was worth a lot more 27 years ago than it is today ..


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> And $10k per year was worth a lot more 27 years ago than it is today ..


And even more 37 years ago! But thanks for trying to make me 10 years younger. I appreciate it. Sadly, it's still true that public interest and civil service lawyers are still paid like AAA players, while the corporados "earn" big league money working for private interests.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well yes.. DirecTV did get slapped with a TRO...
> As that is what HDNet filed for...
> 
> That is not the point of my statement that you quoted....
> ...


Earl,

Did you read DirecTV's response? There were some emails that went back and forth...there was no mention of an amendment or an extension. But, if DirecTV did as you say and didn't get agreement from HDNet then it would serve as evidence that they knew they were in violation of the original agreement when they carried out their plan.

A TRO is a bit more than sending your son to your room it's a definitive act to stop harm from happening to one party caused by another. It's a pretty extreme legal measure and not one granted all that freely. DirecTV argued that the granting of the TRO would cost them millions of dollars...that's fairly serious even for them. What were your damages from being sent to your room?

At this point a district judge believes that it is more likely than not that DirecTV is in violation of the agreement and that their actions will cause serious and irreparable harm to HDNet. The judge also set the bond at $100,000 to cover the damages she believes DirecTV will suffer should the grounds for the TRO to not have been warranted.

You can call the legal system a tool...but it's also supposed to be the finder of fact and the determiner of justice in our society. To me that carries a bit more weight than being compared to a screwdriver or a little boy being denied watching cartoons (although my son strongly disagrees with me on the latter).


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Johnny runs a lemonade stand.

Johnny advertises and sells to me a glass of lemonade for 25 cents. I pay for and begin drinking my 25 cent lemonade, and I like it. Johnny now decides he wants a way to get another dime from me so he says he's going to change the name to "lemonade plus" and sell it next week for 10 more cents. If I really like the lemonade I'm going to have to pay him the extra 10 cents but believe me, I don't like it.

Tommy supplies some ingredients in the lemonade and has a contract with Johnny on a per cup basis, that his ingredient is used only in the top selling 25 cent lemonade, and can't be used in the 35 cent lemonade unless the 35 cent lemonade is the highest selling lemonade. It isn't. The 25 cent cup is the highest selling. Johnny goes ahead anyway and advertises he will be selling the 35 cent lemonade next week and Tommy's ingredient will only be used in the 35 cent lemonade.

Tommy tells their parents that Johnny had a written deal with him that he use Tommy's ingredient only in the highest selling product which is the 25 cent cup. But Johnny is moving Tommy's ingredients to only the 35 cent cup next week. Tommy complains that the 35 cent cup doesn't sell as much, costing him money, and that Johnny should honor the contract. And please stop Johnny from doing that until we settle it. The parents stop Johnny from selling his lemonade with Tommy's ingredient for 35 cents next week.

Neither one of them make any money if I don't buy a lemonade. But, while they hash it out and probably only temporarily, I get my same size lemonade with the same ingredients I Iike for the same 25 cent price. I like Tommy.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> And even more 37 years ago! But thanks for trying to make me 10 years younger. I appreciate it. Sadly, it's still true that public interest and civil service lawyers are still paid like AAA players, while the corporados "earn" big league money working for private interests.


oakwcj,

As I used to tell my father...it was much cheaper and easier to be a lawyer back then...you only had 10 laws to worry about....I think they were called the Commandments.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oakwcj,
> 
> As I used to tell my father...it was much cheaper and easier to be a lawyer back then...you only had 10 laws to worry about....I think they were called the Commandments.


I know we're getting pretty OT here, but before the West Publishing Company came along and ruined everything by publishing every single damned appellate opinion, Abraham Lincoln had the entire body of Illinois law -- statutory and case law -- in a few volumes on his desk.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> And even more 37 years ago! But thanks for trying to make me 10 years younger. I appreciate it. Sadly, it's still true that public interest and civil service lawyers are still paid like AAA players, while the corporados "earn" big league money working for private interests.


 .. oh man, my skill set is going down hill fast :nono2: .. :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Has anyone paid the $4.99 fee yet for HD Extra or is everyone still getting it for free (even new subs)? If new subs are having to pay, I guess the TRO will have the effect of causing HDNet and HDNet Movies to be turned on for HD Access Subcribers.

If no one has been charged for HD Extra yet, then the TRO really has no bearing on anything at this point other than to tell DIRECTV to get their ducks in a row. It will, of course, make a difference come 12/15, but the TRO will have expired by that time.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Has anyone paid the $4.99 fee yet for HD Extra or is everyone still getting it for free (even new subs)? If new subs are having to pay, I guess the TRO will have the effect of causing HDNet and HDNet Movies to be turned on for HD Access Subcribers.
> 
> If no one has been charged for HD Extra yet, then the TRO really has no bearing on anything at this point other than to tell DIRECTV to get their ducks in a row. It will, of course, make a difference come 12/15, but the TRO will have expired by that time.


That's why I was surprised that the TRO was issued. I think it's a "free preview" for everyone. In all likelihood, a preliminary injunction will be in place on December 15, whose terms will be identical, or very similar, to the TRO.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well yes.. DirecTV did get slapped with a TRO...
> As that is what HDNet filed for...
> 
> That is not the point of my statement that you quoted....
> ...


Bad analogy. It's way different than that. To get a TRO like HDNet did, you have to convince an independent judge of facts that what you allege happened will cause irreparable harm if it isn't stopped and that you are likely to succeed in proving your side of the argument in a court of law, whereas you can send your son to his room on a whim if you choose to just because you don't want to deal with him at the moment.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> Bad analogy. It's way different than that. To get a TRO like HDNet did, you have to convince an independent judge of facts that what you allege happened will cause irreparable harm if it isn't stopped and that you are likely to succeed in proving your side of the argument in a court of law, whereas you can send your son to his room on a whim if you choose to just because you don't want to deal with him at the moment.


Why is it a bad analogy...

If I get "convinced" that something happened, and that he may be involved.
I will send him to his room... while I try to get more details on what went on.

But regardless... you will attempt to poke a hole in anything I say any how. so what is the point?


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Has anyone paid the $4.99 fee yet for HD Extra or is everyone still getting it for free (even new subs)? If new subs are having to pay, I guess the TRO will have the effect of causing HDNet and HDNet Movies to be turned on for HD Access Subcribers.
> 
> If no one has been charged for HD Extra yet, then the TRO really has no bearing on anything at this point other than to tell DIRECTV to get their ducks in a row. It will, of course, make a difference come 12/15, but the TRO will have expired by that time.


Actually, I believe some posters have rushed in to sign up for 3 month free?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

For the lawyers: I know just enough about law to get in the way of myself, but could someone explain to me how the TRO at this point is going to have any effect on anything.

It basically states that D* can't add HDNet to the Extra pak on 12/15. But there is a hearing on 12/7. Why did the judge even need to issue the TRO when there is a hearing scheduled before the trigger date of any action by D*?

From the date of the TRO until the hearing, there is no harm to either party regardless whether the TRO is in place or not.

What am I missing? It like telling you child on Tuesday that they can't watch a movie on Saturday, but that you are going to make a final decision on Friday. Why not just tell them you are going to make a decision on Friday. Or is this basically a way the judge has of letting D* know that they should get their ducks in a row better than they have.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why is it a bad analogy...
> 
> If I get "convinced" that something happened, and that he may be involved.
> I will send him to his room... while I try to get more details on what went on.
> ...


The requirements for a TRO are quite strict. HDNET had to establish that it is likely to prevail on the merits at trial, that it will suffer irreparable injury if the relief is not granted, and that it has no adequate remedy at law. The judge had to decide that all of these elements of the case had been met BEFORE it sent DirecTV to its room. Basically, the issuance of a TRO is the equivalent of Game Over. The legal analogy for sending your son to his room is called an order to show cause. We're far beyond that in this case.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> For the lawyers: I know just enough about law to get in the way of myself, but could someone explain to me how the TRO at this point is going to have any effect on anything.
> 
> It basically states that D* can't add HDNet to the Extra pak on 12/15. But there is a hearing on 12/7. Why did the judge even need to issue the TRO when there is a hearing scheduled before the trigger date of any action by D*?
> 
> ...


I agree with you. I wouldn't have issued the TRO, because I don't think HDNET is currently suffering ANY injury, let alone an irreparable one. I would have quickly set a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction. What I really think the TRO means is that the judge was convinced that HDNET's case is extremely strong.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

oakwcj said:


> Basically, the issuance of a TRO is the equivalent of Game Over.


Then why call it "Temporary"...

So there is no precidence for any TRO to be issued, and then when the hearing is held that TRO is pulled and a permantent one is not issued?


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

This whole experience is going to leave a sour taste in lots of peoples mouths, and come spring when a new price increase is issued on the present 9.99 fee people are going to get a little annoyed to say the least...nickled and dimed at every point is going to grow old quickly...I still think a small increase on everyone would have gone over smoother than the current 2 fold increase in just a short period of time after going live......If I were any of the other channel operators I would watch my back closely and double check my contract with D", they have proven to be someone you should never trust....I guess trust and honor and loyalty are now dirty words in D's world.....


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then why call it "Temporary"...
> 
> So there is no precidence for any TRO to be issued, and then when the hearing is held that TRO is pulled and a permantent one is not issued?


TRO's are generally for emergency situations and can be granted an an ex parte basis, which means that the defendant may not even be present when the judge reviews the application. That didn't happen here. DirecTV filed a written response and, I assume, was present at whatever informal hearing the judge held. The second stage is a preliminary [or temporary] injunction. This is generally in the same form as the TRO, but continues in effect until the end of the proceeding. Finally, a permanent injunction can be issued.

In a case like this, the dispute is relatively straightforward. Both parties are relying on the same provision of the contract. The judge would not have issued the TRO had she not been convinced that DirecTV's actions constituted a breach of the agreement. I don't see how that's going to change. The terms of the contract are clear enough that I doubt a judge would be interested in, or need, to hear testimony to help in her interpretation. So, even though the TRO is temporary, the legal analysis is complete. The only thing that surprised me was that the judge found irreparable injury and lack of an adequate remedy at law. [Injunctive relief is equitable in nature. There used to be separate law and equity courts. Law courts were for damages and equity courts for non-monetary relief.]

Once a preliminary injunction is entered, HDNET may well move for summary judgment, which is appropriate where there a no disputed issues of material fact. Here, the parties agree about what the contract says. They just disagree about what it means. Which is why we have courts and lawyers with BMWs.

But a TRO is far different from separating two kids who are fighting and then figuring out who started it. The judge has already made that determination.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> TRO's are generally for emergency situations and can be granted an an ex parte basis, which means that the defendant may not even be present when the judge reviews the application. That didn't happen here. DirecTV filed a written response and, I assume, was present at whatever informal hearing the judge held. The second stage is a preliminary [or temporary] injunction. This is generally in the same form as the TRO, but continues in effect until the end of the proceeding. Finally, a permanent injunction can be issued.
> 
> In a case like this, the dispute is relatively straightforward. Both parties are relying on the same provision of the contract. The judge would not have issued the TRO had she not been convinced that DirecTV's actions constituted a breach of the agreement. I don't see how that's going to change. The terms of the contract are clear enough that I doubt a judge would be interested in, or need, to hear testimony to help in her interpretation. So, even though the TRO is temporary, the legal analysis is complete. The only thing that surprised me was that the judge found irreparable injury and lack of an adequate remedy at law. [Injunctive relief is equitable in nature. There used to be separate law and equity courts. Law courts were for damages and equity courts for non-monetary relief.]
> 
> ...


Not much unlike a past Supreme Court Justice attempting to define obscenity, "I know it when I see it."


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj,

Two possibilities I can think of that the the TRO was granted. One with a basis in law and the other in having seen a few judges in action.

Legal First - HDNet argued that DirecTV has already made the change and put their channels in this new package (which they have). Even though they are not charging an additional fee for this tier they were able to show that prospective advertisers are already being dissuaded from making the same buys as they would make should they have been in the larger tier. There's also the question of whether new customers are getting the free trial.

Other guess - Either someone testifying for DirecTV or one of their lawyers poked the judge in the eye and really ticked her off. As, I'm sure you well know pressing a point that a judge has clearly signaled is a dead end can lead to a less than desirable result.

Oops and there's a third possibility. The judge wants this thing settled and felt this was the best way to force the parties to do so.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then why call it "Temporary"...
> 
> So there is no precidence for any TRO to be issued, and then when the hearing is held that TRO is pulled and a permantent one is not issued?


Because it only applies until there is a full trial of the evidence, at which time there is still a chance that DirecTV will prevail and the TRO will be vacated, but the TRO is based on an initial judgement of which side is correct given the arguments presented by both sides so far.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Either that or the whole "Extra Pack" idea is reconsidered. It may simply mean $14.98 for the HD Access fee and then all HD channels would be included.


I can really see that happening, and honestly wouldnt mind it since i would probably add the extra pack anyway. But man, there would be alot of complaining then. Just think, people are upset over it now and its optional.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

warriorking said:


> This whole experience is going to leave a sour taste in lots of peoples mouths, and come spring when a new price increase is issued on the present 9.99 fee people are going to get a little annoyed to say the least...nickled and dimed at every point is going to grow old quickly...I still think a small increase on everyone would have gone over smoother than the current 2 fold increase in just a short period of time after going live......If I were any of the other channel operators I would watch my back closely and double check my contract with D", they have proven to be someone you should never trust....I guess trust and honor and loyalty are now dirty words in D's world.....


How has there been a two fold increase?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oakwcj,
> 
> Two possibilities I can think of that the the TRO was granted. One with a basis in law and the other in having seen a few judges in action.
> 
> ...


I'll go with Door #1. I doubt that DirecTV's lawyer would have been stupid enough to antagonize the judge at a TRO hearing. While judges ALWAYS want cases settled [and I was one for 25+ years], granting all of the relief requested by a party is not the best way to go about it. Once you've signed the order, you've lost most of your head-knocking leverage.


----------



## smileyw (Jan 19, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> I agree with you. I wouldn't have issued the TRO, because I don't think HDNET is currently suffering ANY injury, let alone an irreparable one. I would have quickly set a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction. What I really think the TRO means is that the judge was convinced that HDNET's case is extremely strong.


The one thing that doesn't seem to be clearly stated here is that the hearing on the 7th probably will not solve anything on the 7th. It may take weeks or months for a decision to be made, so I would guess it will be status quo for some time.

W


----------



## warriorking (Jan 31, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> How has there been a two fold increase?


Because in order to keep your current lineup you will have to pay 4.99 extra with the so called new HD Extra , also do you really think D is going to keep its present 9.99 fee the same, sorry not going to happen, come spring look for at least a 4% increase if not more on the so called HD access fee....


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

The DirecTV website is currently unavailable due to "upgrading" of the site. I think that mods to the programming packages are probably being made to comply with the TRO.

Since no final decision in the HDNet dispute has been made, I suspect that all packages will remain intact at the same price, with the exception of the two HDNet channels which will now be included "free" with a subscription to HD Access.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

smileyw said:


> The one thing that doesn't seem to be clearly stated here is that the hearing on the 7th probably will not solve anything on the 7th. It may take weeks or months for a decision to be made, so I would guess it will be status quo for some time.
> 
> W


Unless DirecTV comes up with some convincing new argument, the preliminary injunction will probably be issued at the hearing or shortly after. These things don't generally take weeks or months.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

smileyw said:


> The one thing that doesn't seem to be clearly stated here is that the hearing on the 7th probably will not solve anything on the 7th. It may take weeks or months for a decision to be made, so I would guess it will be status quo for some time.
> 
> W


TRO's have a limited life-span (I thought I read something like 20 days in Texas.)

They'll get this settled before then unless DirecTV's legal team believes they can come up with a much stronger argument they they presented on the 12th.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> TRO's have a limited life-span (I thought I read something like 20 days in Texas.)
> 
> They'll get this settled before then unless DirecTV's legal team believes they can come up with a much stronger argument they they presented on the 12th.


The TRO remains in effect until December 10, or until the judge rules on the preliminary injunction request, whichever comes first. So, either the case is resolved by the parties or the judge will rule by December 10.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

oakwcj said:


> The TRO remains in effect until December 10, or until the judge rules on the preliminary injunction request, whichever comes first. So, either the case is resolved by the parties or the judge will rule by December 10.


Or it expires, but .. yeah, like that's gonna happen. :grin: One of your choices will happen.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> The TRO remains in effect until December 10, or until the judge rules on the preliminary injunction request, whichever comes first. So, either the case is resolved by the parties or the judge will rule by December 10.


Not surprisingly 20 days (business from the 12th is ...December 10


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

warriorking said:


> Because in order to keep your current lineup you will have to pay 4.99 extra with the so called new HD Extra , also do you really think D is going to keep its present 9.99 fee the same, sorry not going to happen, come spring look for at least a 4% increase if not more on the so called HD access fee....


Possible, but hasnt happend yet. So it isnt twofold at this point


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Not surprisingly 20 days (business from the 12th is ...December 10


Your calculation may be accurate, but your premise isn't. According to the TRO, Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a 14-day lifespan for TROs. The judge found good cause to extend the term for an additional 14 days. You could look it up.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Your calculation may be accurate, but your premise isn't. According to the TRO, Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a 14-day lifespan for TROs. The judge found good cause to extend the term for an additional 14 days. You could look it up.


You're absolutely right. The court stated that the deadline would occur right after a court holiday and found that reason for the extension. That'll teach me not to go to the actual book/statute/order.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> The DirecTV website is currently unavailable due to "upgrading" of the site. I think that mods to the programming packages are probably being made to comply with the TRO.
> 
> Since no final decision in the HDNet dispute has been made, I suspect that all packages will remain intact at the same price, with the exception of the two HDNet channels which will now be included "free" with a subscription to HD Access.


Did there used to be a place on directv.com to sign up for the extra $4.99 package? I can't find it anywhere there now, just the $9.99 access fee.


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Change programming....near the end,"Services" tab

Edit: Well....it was there...



> Change Programming Error Page
> 
> Attention!
> 
> Sorry, but there was a system error. Please try again or call Customer Service at 1-800-531-5000.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MikeR said:


> Change programming....near the end,"Services" tab
> 
> Edit: Well....it was there...


OK. It's still there, but now it says $0.00/3 Months Free


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> OK. It's still there, but now it says $0.00/3 Months Free


Said that last weekend when I signed up for the HD Extras Pack too.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sNEIRBO said:


> Said that last weekend when I signed up for the HD Extras Pack too.


Yeah, I think that they haven't actually started charging for the package yet.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

OK, never looked at it before. But I would have thought that originally it should have said $5/3 months free.

How else would people know how much they were going to be charged once the 3 months was over?


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> OK. It's still there, but now it says $0.00/3 Months Free


The HD Extra package is still listed in the "Packages" section of the web site with a price of $4.99 and it still includes the HDNet channels so the web site still hasn't been changed.


----------



## DBEX (Jan 29, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Did there used to be a place on directv.com to sign up for the extra $4.99 package? I can't find it anywhere there now, just the $9.99 access fee.


This was one on the things Cuban was pissed about...how D* buried in their website how to add the X-tra pack.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> The HD Extra package is still listed in the "Packages" section of the web site with a price of $4.99 and it still includes the HDNet channels so the web site still hasn't been changed.


Finally found it.



DBEX said:


> This was one on the things Cuban was pissed about...how D* buried in their website how to add the X-tra pack.


Yep. I couldn't even find it without assistance.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Once the trial is over, if HDNet wins and forces DIRECTV's hand (right or wrong), DIRECTV is not going to forget about it overnight. It's still business. At that point, DIRECTV may decide to drop the channel altogether if they cannot get terms that are more favorable to them.


I'm not too sure about this. If HDNet wins and even if, what now seems unlikely, D* wins, how does this give D* (other than perhaps around the margins) carte blanche freedom for vindictiveness in any future contract negotiations? Subscriber fees, contract and programming costs, what other providers at whatever levels are paying and/or charging, comparability aspects, etc.. etc., all are *NOT* totally esoteric subjects that courts are unable to sort through.

Therefore, if I'm Mark and with the ending of this contract, I clearly see such vindictiveness at work in future negotiations, when my ducks are all in a row, I would file an anti-trust suit against D* in Dallas Federal Court so fast your head would spin. The grounds would be D*'s actions preventing me HDNet as an entrepreneur from having an opportunity to compete in the market economy. I might even include a restraint of trade aspect in my suit, although I'm not a lawyer and don't know how wide-ranging my anger would allow me to go and what all legally speaking I could do.

Finally, News Corp. purchase of D* was conditioned on, among other things, not doing in effect what D* would be doing in muscling out or disadvantaging HDNet in future contracts.

So I'm clear that Mark is not quaking in his boots about any future fallout. And I doubt that D* would be foolhardy enough to do anything that could be remotely construed as grounds for being nailed a second time!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Finally, News Corp. purchase of D* was conditioned on, among other things, not doing in effect what D* would be doing in muscling out or disadvantaging HDNet in future contracts.
> 
> So I'm clear that Mark is not quaking in his boots about any future fallout. And I doubt that D* would be foolhardy enough to do anything that could be remotely construed as grounds for being nailed a second time!


That is, of course, possible .. However, I think that DIRECTV will at a minimum be able lean on their existing contracts as part of the negotiation. I suspect that HDNet had a lot more pull when they started than some of the newer HD channels have had. Thus, even in the event of some sort of "must carry" ruling (legal, not legislated), HDNet's newer contract would be lessened.

However, it is possible that anti-trust rules might make it tough for DIRECTV to simply say no to HDNet.


----------



## Mixer (Sep 28, 2006)

If D* has moved HDNet into a tier that costs more money and people do not subscribe to it as D* is hoping they will, doesn;t this hurt HDNet? Don't they have a valid argument if people are no longer watching their show. Or do they make the same amount regardless of number of subs to the Extra package?


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Therefore, if I'm Mark and with the ending of this contract, I clearly see such vindictiveness at work in future negotiations, when my ducks are all in a row, I would file an anti-trust suit against D* in Dallas Federal Court so fast your head would spin. The grounds would be D*'s actions preventing me HDNet as an entrepreneur from having an opportunity to compete in the market economy.


While it is certainly possible that HDNet could accuse DTV of violating antitrust laws, there would need to be something more than just being unable to agree on a price/tier for carriage in future negotiations.

DTV can reasonably claim that HDNet was worth premium carriage fees several years ago when there were very few HD networks available. But now (and in the future), with a much higher supply of HD networks, the value of HDNet is significantly reduced. It is reasonable that future contracts between DTV and HDNet would have carriage fees comparable to SD networks which provide similar content, regardless of resolution.

Even though NBC still uses the peacock logo, they don't get a premium for being the color network.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Mixer said:


> If D* has moved HDNet into a tier that costs more money and people do not subscribe to it as D* is hoping they will, doesn;t this hurt HDNet? Don't they have a valid argument if people are no longer watching their show. Or do they make the same amount regardless of number of subs to the Extra package?


It's also about advertising. Even if HDNet made MORE money from DirecTV by being put into a different tier with a smaller audience they would have less viewers and less ad revenue. According to HDNet they have already lost advertising revenue because of the new setup.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Ken S said:


> It's also about advertising. Even if HDNet made MORE money from DirecTV by being put into a different tier with a smaller audience they would have less viewers and less ad revenue. According to HDNet they have already lost advertising revenue because of the new setup.


Admittedly, I haven't read through this entire thread (or all the other ones!), but how can HDNet have already lost ad revenue because of the new set-up? Advertisers are pre-emptively cutting their ads with HDNet in anticipation of the "switch"? Anyone who was getting HDNet before (including new subs) is still getting it, at least until a month from now.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> Admittedly, I haven't read through this entire thread (or all the other ones!), but how can HDNet have already lost ad revenue because of the new set-up? Advertisers are pre-emptively cutting their ads with HDNet in anticipation of the "switch"? Anyone who was getting HDNet before (including new subs) is still getting it, at least until a month from now.


Ad buys are done well in advance of when they show.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Upstream said:


> ...there would need to be something more than just being unable to agree on a price/tier for carriage in future negotiations.


Absolutely, of course an anti-trust filing would involve infinitely more than that we just can't agree on pricing. And that's why I said Mark should file suit after he has all his ducks in a row. Meaning chapter and verse of all cost comparisons, contract discussions, analyses of how D* is singling out HDNet, not providing competitive offers, etc.

But hey, I have to believe D* is chagrined by this whole mess being in the courts and I think we're far ahead of where it now actually is. Somewhere in D* somebody with authority has to be saying enough is enough and let's get out of this gracefully! Our monthly revenue from subs is way over a billion dollars a month and our accounting guy is haggling about a couple million???


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

^ There's a simplier and more profitable solution for D* point of view. Just raise HD Access or whatever you want to call it to $14.99. Let that get you all HD channels.

If they get gripes for their customer base that the price is going up, they can blame it on Mark Cuban and the courts. _Good ol' DirecTV wanted to save you money, Mr. Customer, but bad old Mark made us raise your rates._

I think this is the most likely quick-fix for D*.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Absolutely, of course an anti-trust filing would involve infinitely more than that we just can't agree on pricing. And that's why I said Mark should file suit after he has all his ducks in a row. Meaning chapter and verse of all cost comparisons, contract discussions, analyses of how D* is singling out HDNet, not providing competitive offers, etc.
> 
> But hey, I have to believe D* is chagrined by this whole mess being in the courts and I think we're far ahead of where it now actually is. Somewhere in D* somebody with authority has to be saying enough is enough and let's get out of this gracefully! Our monthly revenue from subs is way over a billion dollars a month and our accounting guy is haggling about a couple million???


DirecTV is a pretty litigious company. They sue and get sued all the time. If they're chagrined at all, which I doubt, it's because they're losing. When they started offering HD content, they needed HDNET. Now they don't. I really do think this is more about gaining advertising revenue for Malone's Liberty content at the expense of HDNET than in getting extra revenue from the HD Extra Pack.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Ad buys are done well in advance of when they show.


So that makes it LESS likely that HDNet has already been financially hurt by this 'event' that hasn't actually happened yet?


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> So that makes it LESS likely that HDNet has already been financially hurt by this 'event' that hasn't actually happened yet?


No. It's like a futures contract. If you're making a buy TODAY for a period after December 15, you're going to pay less for HDNET advertising because of your expectation that you'll be reaching fewer eyeballs.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

oakwcj said:


> DirecTV is a pretty litigious company. They sue and get sued all the time.


Is such a reputation really what they want? Or that any company wants for that matter whose business is the public pure and simple.


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Is such a reputation really what they want? Or that any company wants for that matter whose business is the public pure and simple.


All big corporations are involved in a lot of litigation. I don't think it's much of a factor in their reputations, because it's hard to get a handle on relative litigiousness. And it doesn't stop them from complaining about what a litigious society we have when their oxes are being gored.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> All big corporations are involved in a lot of litigation. I don't think it's much of a factor in their reputations, because it's hard to get a handle on relative litigiousness.


You may be right, but I for one see this court filing and the issues it raises as a big factor in my looking at whether to upgrade. We all like to feel we're dealing with honorable people we can trust whether it's our doctor, our newspaper deliverer, or even our trash disposal company. So at the very least this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about my TV provider!


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> You may be right, but I for one see this court filing and the issues it raises as a big factor in my looking at whether to upgrade. We all like to feel we're dealing with honorable people we can trust whether it's our doctor, our newspaper deliverer, or even our trash disposal company. So at the very least this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about my TV provider!


Comcast, Dish, AT&T -- they're all just as bad or worse. At least DirecTV hasn't yet illegally provided my phone calls and records to the government. If you want warm and fuzzy, get a cat.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

> At least DirecTV hasn't yet illegally provided my phone calls and records to the government.


I'm not sure we know for a fact that D* has not provided the Govt. with records on viewing habits of individuals subs. My absolute certainty is they would if asked!

As a clarification, one of my hesitancies about upgrading is the 2-yr. commitment with a company potentially guilty of court adjudicated illegalities, never mind how benign some of us may consider them!


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> I'm not sure we know for a fact that D* has not provided the Govt. with records on viewing habits of individuals subs. My absolute certainty is they would if asked!
> 
> As a clarification, one of my hesitancies about upgrading is the 2-yr. commitment with a company potentially guilty of court adjudicated illegalities, never mind how benign some of us may consider them!


I understand and sympathize with you. But our choices for television, telephone, internet access providers, etc. are very limited and none of them can be trusted to protect your consitutional rights or to be free from illegal conduct. That's the problem with corporations. Although most of the people who work for them have consciences, the corporate entity itself is totally lacking in that department.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> All big corporations are involved in a lot of litigation. I don't think it's much of a factor in their reputations, because it's hard to get a handle on relative litigiousness. And it doesn't stop them from complaining about what a litigious society we have when their oxes are being gored.


oakwcj,

Within industries companies get reputations and it affects how others deal with them. Within the software industry I knew which companies/executives I could trust to live up to a contract and who I had to build in extra protections and costs because they would end up being a problem.

For instance, Microsoft was always very tough to negotiate with, but they weren't unreasonable and once you had a deal they lived up to their end. On the other hand a large long distance provider with a three-letter name didn't believe the contracts they signed applied unless it was convenient to them...we always had to build extra protections and additional costs into their agreements. I'm not sure if people like that know they end up paying more because of their history.

Knowing the reputation of your providers and customers is mandatory when going into negotiations. Now, whether someone is litigious or not is one thing...it's what the suits are about that matters. Generally, suing a customer is an action of last resort and shows a real problem in the relationship.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Comcast, Dish, AT&T -- they're all just as bad or worse. At least DirecTV hasn't yet illegally provided my phone calls and records to the government. If you want warm and fuzzy, get a cat.


Probably just your TV watching habits.

It is very hard to find an honorable company in the TV distribution business. There's a reason they all have such low customer satisfaction ratings.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Bill Johnson said:


> I'm not sure we know for a fact that D* has not provided the Govt. with records on viewing habits of individuals subs. My absolute certainty is they would if asked!
> 
> As a clarification, one of my hesitancies about upgrading is the 2-yr. commitment with a company potentially guilty of court adjudicated illegalities, never mind how benign some of us may consider them!


Bill,

There's something to be said for supporting the companies you believe to be good corporate citizens. It's tougher and tougher to do so nowadays as many people in business find being greedy and underhanded the easier route.

It seems like a lot of business schools are teaching:

1. Do what you want.
2. If caught. Deny, deny, deny
3. If the evidence is overwhelming...apologize sincerely.
4. Do what you want again.

The things you hear as a General Counsel...
If I could only write a book


----------



## oakwcj (Sep 28, 2006)

Ken S said:


> oakwcj,
> 
> Within industries companies get reputations and it affects how others deal with them. Within the software industry I knew which companies/executives I could trust to live up to a contract and who I had to build in extra protections and costs because they would end up being a problem.
> 
> ...


Sure, but that's inside baseball stuff. I could tell you a lot about the relative reputations of California employers and workers' compensation carriers. So what? I have roughly equal amounts of contempt for AT&T and Comcast. But, if I want a broadband ISP, I have to choose one or the other. [Yes, I know that there are small DSL ISPs who use AT&T lines, but they're simply not affordable for residential use.]

And, in this thread, we're talking about a relatively run-of-the-mill breach of contract suit with a request for injunctive relief. It's a contract between parties of roughly equally bargaining power, and certainly not a contract of adhesion. As you know, but most fortunately do not, these kinds of suits go on all the time. Just like the "false advertising" suits that all of these providers throw at each other for publicity and marketing purposes. Litigation is just another tool in their competitive warfare. The closer you are to a situation, the more easily you can see the warts. But, you've got to get really close to be able to rank these companies on trustworthiness.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oakwcj said:


> Sure, but that's inside baseball stuff. I could tell you a lot about the relative reputations of California employers and workers' compensation carriers. So what? I have roughly equal amounts of contempt for AT&T and Comcast. But, if I want a broadband ISP, I have to choose one or the other. [Yes, I know that there are small DSL ISPs who use AT&T lines, but they're simply not affordable for residential use.]
> 
> And, in this thread, we're talking about a relatively run-of-the-mill breach of contract suit with a request for injunctive relief. It's a contract between parties of roughly equally bargaining power, and certainly not a contract of adhesion. As you know, but most fortunately do not, these kinds of suits go on all the time. Just like the "false advertising" suits that all of these providers throw at each other for publicity and marketing purposes. Litigation is just another tool in their competitive warfare. The closer you are to a situation, the more easily you can see the warts. But, you've got to get really close to be able to rank these companies on trustworthiness.


Oakwcj,
I agree...I was only suggesting that this type of activity (the type of breach), if it is indicative of the way DirecTV deals with its vendors may cost them. Although I would find it hard to believe that the others like Comcast, Time Warner, etc are beacons of honor.

Some industries are like playing in a sandbox...others can be like playing in cat litter. .

From a consumer perspective, as you stated, these actions probably have little meaning.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Docket Update...
Looks like there's some court-ordered mediation on the menu. In some states that's mandatory.

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 
11/02/2007 ISSUE CITATION 
11/02/2007 ISSUE TRO AND NOTICE 
11/02/2007 MISCELLANOUS EVENT 
11/02/2007 ORIGINAL PETITION (OCA) 
11/05/2007 MISCELLANOUS EVENT
OPPOSE APPL TRO 
11/05/2007 RESPONSE
M/EXPEDITE DSCY 
11/06/2007 AFFIDAVIT
AUPP APPL TRO 
11/06/2007 APPLICATION - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AMEND 
11/12/2007 BOND FILED 
11/12/2007 CITATIONDIRECTV GROUP INC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV, INC. served 11/12/2007 

11/12/2007 NOTICEDIRECTV GROUP INC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV, INC. served 11/12/2007 

11/12/2007 ORDER - TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Vol./Book 404E, Page 189, 3 pages 
11/12/2007 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERDIRECTV GROUP INC served 11/12/2007 
HARPER, GEOFFREY S unserved 
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, LLC served 11/12/2007 
DIRECTV, INC. served 11/12/2007 

11/13/2007 ORDER - MISC.
EXPEDITE DSCY
Vol./Book 404E, Page 222, 3 pages 
11/15/2007 ORDER - MEDIATION
Vol./Book 404E, Page 225, 1 pages 
12/07/2007 Temporary Injunction (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer LOWY, MARTIN) 12/05/2007 Reset by Court to 12/07/2007


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

In doing some searching, I guess there's no way to know. But I wonder if the mediation hearings record will be released to the public. (Would transcripts even be made?)

I could see not to in a divorce for example, but here it would be interesting for us having a national stake in it. I wonder which side would say no?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

It's good to hear that the Judge feels that they should work this out on their own .. now that all of the cards are on the table hopefully both sides will negotiate in good faith and we'll have a finished result in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## tiger2005 (Sep 23, 2006)

JonVig said:


> Isn't HDNet obscure already?


Not really. I watch concerts and hockey on there pretty often. Foo Fighters were just on for 2 hours and 20 min. on Sunday night.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

tiger2005 said:


> Not really. I watch concerts and hockey on there pretty often. Foo Fighters were just on for 2 hours and 20 min. on Sunday night.


Personally, I cannot honestly say that I have ever watched a full program on HDNet, ever .. I know I have not on HDNet Movies .. However, programming choices vary from person to person.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

We watch HDNet Movies all the time. Last week we watched Rocky, My Blue Heaven and the premier of Redacted. It's one of the better movie channels that DirecTV carries...and that includes the premiums.

Bill...
I don't know Texas law, but I'd be surprised if the mediation was public. Generally, they're private and the fact that one side or the other refused to deal isn't made part of the record. Many states will require that both parties send someone who has the authority to make a decision, but that's been ignored by many participants lately because they know the mediator is bound by confidentiality and may not tell the court of the breach....this of course guts the whole mediation process.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Personally, I cannot honestly say that I have ever watched a full program on HDNet, ever .. I know I have not on HDNet Movies .. However, programming choices vary from person to person.


I hadn't watched HDNet either--until this past Saturday, when I watched The Game. Go Crimson!

I guess I have to be prepared to pay the extra $$ to see it next year.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jahgreen said:


> I guess I have to be prepared to pay the extra $$ to see it next year.


There is a possibility that we will all have to pay the extra $$ depending on the outcome of the trial/mediation.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> There is a possibility that we will all have to pay the extra $$ depending on the outcome of the trial/mediation.


I think we're going to pay it whether HDNet wins or loses...there will either be different networks in there or just less.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I think we're going to pay it whether HDNet wins or loses...there will either be different networks in there or just less.


I think the easiest thing for D* to do would be to raise the HD Package to $14.99 for everyone, and NOT breakout HDNet, HDNet Movies, HD Theatre, Universal HD & MGM HD into a separate package.


----------



## gemmerich (Oct 2, 2007)

sNEIRBO said:


> I think the easiest thing for D* to do would be to raise the HD Package to $14.99 for everyone, and NOT breakout HDNet, HDNet Movies, HD Theatre, Universal HD & MGM HD into a separate package.


This is no longer an option, IMHO. The day they decided to dive into the extra pack option, this was no longer a possibility. If they had done this initially, people would have accepted it a lot easier. To do it now would come with a much worse reaction from subscribers. If they decided to scrap the extra pack, they could only increase the HD package a buck or two to 10.99 or 11.99. Even then, there would be a lot of complaints from the subs who don't want these channels and now have to pay an extra couple of bucks a month.


----------

