# Distant Networks Lose HD Channels



## Finnigan (Jun 16, 2010)

As of January 12, 2011 Distant Networks will lose there HD channels from Chicago and LA.

Got a phone call from them today to tell me that DN is taking those channels (8 Network Channels) away from them on the 12th.

They will get to keep their Distant Standard Channels (NY & SF).

Does this mean DN will be selling HD "distant channels" very soon? Like in time for the Super Bowl? Please!

Finnigan


----------



## 356B (Oct 11, 2008)

Finnigan said:


> As of January 12, 2011 Distant Networks will lose there HD channels from Chicago and LA.
> 
> Got a phone call from them today to tell me that DN is taking those channels (8 Network Channels) away from them on the 12th.
> 
> ...


Is New York available in HD ?


----------



## Finnigan (Jun 16, 2010)

They only offer (offered) Chicago & LA in HD as per permission from DN.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

WTF??? I just got these channels 5 months ago, paid for a years worth, and now I'm gonna lose em? THere is no mention on mydistantnetworks.com I better get a refund.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Yes, you probably should; at least prorated.


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

shadough said:


> WTF??? I just got these channels 5 months ago, paid for a years worth, and now I'm gonna lose em? THere is no mention on mydistantnetworks.com I better get a refund.


I also paid for CBS yearly. When I spoke to ADD they asked me to send a written letter to Customer Service and they would process and send me a check for the balance due me after Jan 12th. For some odd reason he could not tell me what the balance was. I was paid until mid June.

Here is the address

Sobongo/ADD
7999 Knue Road
Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46250
1-800-909-9677

Hope this helps.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Is there a statute of limitations?? There is talk that this is a temporary problem. Should I send away for a refund or wait it out a lil while??


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

shadough said:


> Is there a statute of limitations?? There is talk that this is a temporary problem. Should I send away for a refund or wait it out a lil while??


I think Dish wants the transponder space. Everyone I've talked to says this is a done deal. You could wait until the 12th, if you lose your channels then apply for your refund. I would allow them to expire, only talking a few days.

Not sure if you care, but they offered me the SD versions of CBS SF and NY for 49.00 for 13 months. I like having multiple feeds, so I took the deal.

Not sure how long they will last though.

Hope this helps.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

I was affraid of this ever since E* was allowed to begin to provide the Distant networks again. First we lose HD then sooner or later the sd will be gone. This upsets me because when E* was providing distants back in 06 (i think) I was a grandfathered sub I had LA/NY distants and my lil. I was always in fear that status would be lost if the injunction was ever lifted. This truly sux.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> This truly sux.


I agree 100%.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I hope that everyone who is upset by this situation contacts Dish and lets them know. Dish can remedy the situation by launching the same stations on CONUS and offering the same service. I have already contacted Dish and voiced my opinion.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

runner861 said:


> I hope that everyone who is upset by this situation contacts Dish and lets them know. Dish can remedy the situation by launching the same stations on CONUS and offering the same service. I have already contacted Dish and voiced my opinion.


While I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie has an ace up his sleeve, he usually does, I doubt if DISH will offer distants considering their history. AAD was able to offer the service on a wider scale since they didn't offer locals in 99% of the DMAs. From what I gather DISH will offer fill-ins from near-by markets and thats it 

No one seems to know why AAD got short sheeted by DISH. My guess is that Charlie wanted the 110 transponder space back to add HD national channels.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

levibluewa said:


> While I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie has an ace up his sleeve, he usually does, I doubt if DISH will offer distants considering their history. AAD was able to offer the service on a wider scale since they didn't offer locals in 99% of the DMAs. From what I gather DISH will offer fill-ins from near-by markets and thats it
> 
> No one seems to know why AAD got short sheeted by DISH. My guess is that Charlie wanted the 110 transponder space back to add HD national channels.


You may be right. However, as far as I know, this situation leaves RV customers without HD network service. Dish could continue to offer the "neighboring" distants service, but have at least a limited number of HD networks stations available on CONUS by just duplicating the same service that AAD will be stopping. This would satisfy the RV customers and allow the AAD customers to retain the channels to which they have become accustomed.

I am wondering if Dish terminated the lease with AAD, or if AAD terminated the lease with Dish. That is something that we don't know for sure.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Its just another saga in the continuing drama of "Distant Network Service". I've been dancing the dance since 2000....on/off on/off, switching cities, waivers deniend, waivers accepted, injunctions, etc etc etc. Its been a soap opera. Why it has to end now is a mystery. AAD hasnt even had 2 full years of HD service but has had SD service for 4 years now. At least i was able to enjoy all 4 cities for 1 football season. Gotta look at the bright side. Ive had SD service since 2007 so thats not really a consolation prize for me, I'm losing 8 channels. I've missed LA and Chicago....had them back before the injunction took affect.....an now I'm gonna lose em again. NY I lost back in '05 when directv took em away from me, but got em back when aad switched from Atlanta (2008?). It is nice to have Sanfran though. Watching the news coverage of that Gas explosion was amazing.

I think we've had it better than Directvers. You can read stories on the D side of this forum of how Directv has taken away, continues to take away, Distants from customers. Even customers that were grandfathered. Its just sad all around. The networks themselves have been forcing directv to take the channels away, to 'protect' the local channel. At least we still have the SD service for now.

I aggree with the fact that IF Dish gets back into the distants biz, most of us will not qualify for them. Heck they may even adopt the Directv philosophy, in that: If you have locals available on Dish, no DNS for you. Doesnt Dish offer locals to everyone now? Even folks in Eastern Oregon are considered in the Portland DMA, some 200 miles away. No chance of OTA reception, yet becuz your in DMA, no distants for you. I guess that would just leave RV'ers. Would the service even be profitable if your just selling to RV'rs? I don't get it.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> This would satisfy the RV customers and allow the AAD customers to retain the channels to which they have become accustomed.


Dish can serve RVs, but I don't think they can grandfather AAD customers. (As I think we've discussed before.)



> I am wondering if Dish terminated the lease with AAD, or if AAD terminated the lease with Dish. That is something that we don't know for sure.


Just like Dish is raising its rates for individual subs, I suspect they wanted more money from AAD, and AAD balked. In that respect, it's similar to a retrans dispute, and the parties may yet come to terms at a later date, as some AAD CSRs have suggested.

Otoh, if Dish fills the vacated transponder with new services later this week, then AAD's HD service is probably gone for good, and I would expect the SD service to follow within a year.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

shadough said:


> Heck they may even adopt the Directv philosophy, in that: If you have locals available on Dish, no DNS for you.


That's not philosophy; it's the law.

That's what gave AAD such an advantage: they don't offer local service anywhere.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

In the pre injunction days it was great (but also why E* got in trouble) I had distants from NY,Chicago,Denver,LA,the superstations and my LIL when they became available. I miss those days. Once AAD is gone for good an RV will be the only way to get disants and not violate the TOS.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

If Dish offers locals in a market, then the subscriber is generally not eligible for distants. However, that doesn't preclude a subscriber in a short market from receiving distants to replace any missing networks. The distant does not have to be the neighboring market, and Dish can even offer that subscriber two distants. It also doesn't preclude a grandfathered subscriber from receiving a distant.

As far as Dish grandfathering AAD subscribers, that is an open question. The courts appear receptive to that argument, although there is no decision directly on point. Some AAD subscribers would not have to be grandfathered. They are currently eligible for distants and will continue to be eligible.

I don't see AAD HD coming back. They are losing their entire HD subscriber base, and it would be hard to rebuild. I only wonder what will happen with regard to HD RV subscribers. Has Dish thought about that? Or does Dish even care?


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I don't see AAD HD coming back. They are losing their entire HD subscriber base, and it would be hard to rebuild.


Not necessarily, not if they can transition a significant number to SD service.

In fact, since switching to SD would preserve grandfathering, I would advise HD DNS subs to check their current eligibility before completely dropping service. If you currently have one or more nets you are no longer eligible for as a new sub - i.e. you're grandfathered - you might want to take the SD versions for a month or so and see what happens.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish can remedy the situation by launching the same stations on CONUS and offering the same service.


DISH cannot offer a distant in a market where a local affiliate of that network exists without permission from that affiliate.
DISH cannot offer HD distants in a market where they do not offer HD locals.
DISH cannot offer the "same service" that NPS/AAD offered.

The restrictions on NPS/AAD are much lower since they do not offer locals in any market. DirecTV and DISH are more restricted. An AAD customer just has to live in a white area for the network he wants ... A DirecTV or DISH customer also must live in a market that has no affiliate.

While it would be "nice" for grandfathering to be for the customer and allow grandfathered AAD customers keep distants when going to DISH, DISH is under no obligation to honor such grandfathering and I don't see them taking the risk. Having unqualified customers and calling them grandfathered was the reason that led to DISH losing distants in 2006. I doubt they would repeat the same mistake.

That leaves short markets ... which DISH has chosen to fill with more local distant networks. Again, DISH is under no obligation to offer the stations the customer wants or even a choice of stations. Distants are an optional service.

I'd like to see DISH offer a RV HD Distants service ... with their all DBS service they have an advantage in delivering mobile satellite HD. But I don't see DISH offering the "same service" as AAD. There are too many limits on a satellite provider that also provides locals and too big of a risk to lose delivery into short markets by serving a relatively few extra non-RV accounts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> In fact, since switching to SD would preserve grandfathering, I would advise HD DNS subs to check their current eligibility before completely dropping service. If you currently have one or more nets you are no longer eligible for as a new sub - i.e. you're grandfathered - you might want to take the SD versions for a month or so and see what happens.


That is probably the best idea for someone hopeful of the return of AAD HD distants.


----------



## zippyfrog (Jul 14, 2010)

How much transponder space does AAD have on 110 that Dish could potentially reclaim? And what does that translate into in terms of number of potential national HD channels?


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> DISH cannot offer a distant in a market where a local affiliate of that network exists without permission from that affiliate.
> DISH cannot offer HD distants in a market where they do not offer HD locals.
> DISH cannot offer the "same service" that NPS/AAD offered.
> 
> ...


Agree 100%. Dish can not even offer a distant station if it carries the local, even if you are in a white zone.... Which makes me wonder if the speculation (remember that's all it is) that dish wanted to reclaim those transponders so that they could offer their own distants is correct. Would they need them for something else, maybe, like more RSN's in HD all the time, or for providing frequently watched networks form another DMA as cable does (which is not considered a distant station, different category)...... 
Maybe it's wishful thinking but I'm not convinced AAD (Sobango) is out of the HD distants business permanently.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

zippyfrog said:


> How much transponder space does AAD have on 110 that Dish could potentially reclaim? And what does that translate into in terms of number of potential national HD channels?


AAD leases two transponders from DISH, one on 119 and one on 110.
The transponder on 119 is used for SD, the transponder on 110 is used for HD.

The transponder AAD is vacating can be used for 8 or 9 DISH HD channels. (The most packed Western Arc transponder has 8 HD channels but there are a couple on Eastern Arc with 9 HD channels so it is possible.) Without this transponder, DISH only has room for 9 more HD channels without going to 9 HD channels per transponder on more transponders. Recovering this transponder will basically double DISH's free capacity.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH cannot offer a distant in a market where a local affiliate of that network exists without permission from that affiliate.
> DISH cannot offer HD distants in a market where they do not offer HD locals.
> DISH cannot offer the "same service" that NPS/AAD offered.
> 
> ...


I am not aware of any restriction on offering HD distants to a market where Dish does not offer HD locals. I believe that a satellite carrier cannot offer HD SV stations to a market where the locals are in SD. I don't see a similar restriction applied to distants.

By same service, I mean the same stations. There are people who are eligible for the AAD service who would not be eligible for the distants from Dish, except through grandfathering. Dish may not want to take the risk. Nevertheless, it is an open legal question. I see nothing in the statutes specifically allowing or disallowing grandfathered status to be transferred between carriers, and the courts, although appearing receptive to the issue, have never ruled on it directly. And one would expect that the AAD list of customers is legitimate--the AAD customers are qualified, unlike the situation Dish got into a few years ago.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> Would they need them for something else, maybe, like more RSN's in HD all the time, or for providing frequently watched networks form another DMA as cable does (which is not considered a distant station, different category)......


More HD channels period. RSNs is where DISH is weakest and it would take all of their existing capacity (including going to 9 HDs per transponder) to begin to "catch up".

"Frequently watched channels from another DMA" is "Significantly Viewed". DISH can do that via spot beams, in most cases. They would also need the permission of any in market station so SVs are unlikely if a station of the same network exists in that market.



> Maybe it's wishful thinking but I'm not convinced AAD (Sobango) is out of the HD distants business permanently.


I don't want to see them go out of business ... so nothing "wishful" here ... but they do need to find a place to put their signals.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> Not necessarily, not if they can transition a significant number to SD service.
> 
> In fact, since switching to SD would preserve grandfathering, I would advise HD DNS subs to check their current eligibility before completely dropping service. If you currently have one or more nets you are no longer eligible for as a new sub - i.e. you're grandfathered - you might want to take the SD versions for a month or so and see what happens.


I'm not sure that is the way to go. Grandfathering is station-specific, so you would only be preserving grandfathered status to another station. I'm not sure that you could use that grandfathered status to move to even the same station in HD. So, yes, one could preserve grandfathered status to NY or SF SD, which is fine, if that is what the customer wants. But I am speaking from the perspective of many who want a station in HD. I'm not sure that going to SD will preserve the HD grandfathered status.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

We need a new version of Facebook. Someone to come along with the smarts and the lawyers to find a way around an antiquated system and allow consumers to have access to "affiliates" in any SD-HD local market that they desire.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> By same service, I mean the same stations.


I don't see DISH spending national bandwidth on a marginal service. They will (as they have) provide distants where they are needed to fill short markets, but DISH has to make a decision on how their transponders best serve the majority of their customers.


> There are people who are eligible for the AAD service who would not be eligible for the distants from Dish, except through grandfathering. Dish may not want to take the risk. Nevertheless, it is an open legal question. I see nothing in the statutes specifically allowing or disallowing grandfathered status to be transferred between carriers, and the courts, although appearing receptive to the issue, have never ruled on it directly.


I doubt it will make it to court. No satellite provider is obligated to offer distants or a specific station as a distant. Unless DISH wants to fight for transferable grandfathering and risk losing all distants if they deliver signals to any customer who isn't qualified. The customers would have to maintain their grandfathering during the court process with DISH only delivering a signal AFTER the court rules in their favor. DISH assuming they would win and delivering the stations while fighting in court would be a major risk.

And every customer who has dropped their AAD service is just one less customer worth taking the risk for. If you were DISH, would you take the risk of losing the ability to serve all the short markets?


> And one would expect that the AAD list of customers is legitimate--the AAD customers are qualified, unlike the situation Dish got into a few years ago.


DISH thought their list was legitimate ... it wasn't. AAD's list works fine for customers who qualified as AAD customers, but many of those customers would not have qualified if their DISH subscription was taken into account. It seems like a major loophole. Get distants service from a provider with no locals then transfer your grandfathering? What would stop someone from getting SD distants from AAD for a month then moving to DISH, sidestepping the law?


runner861 said:


> Grandfathering is station-specific,


I don't read it that way ... but if it is, it makes the situation even more difficult and creates a situation where there are very few people to fight for.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

tampa8 said:


> Which makes me wonder Would they need them for something else, maybe, like more RSN's in HD all the time, or


This may be at the top of the list...there's a lot of "anger" from subs over HD games joined in progress, so even if there is not enough transponders to allow for full-time HD RSNs it could relieve the pressure and allow flexibility to join HD offerings sooner rather than in the middle of a game.

I'm guessing that's why Directv hasn't added any new national HD channels. All there transponder space is taken up with PPV, reserve space for all their HD sports.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

For me the bottom line is that preinjunction I legaly received distants from dish (except the fact that dish allowed me more than two cities as distants) because I lived in a analog and digital white area. My DMA's locals could *not* be picked up OTA and dish at the time did not have my DMA as an LiL. When Dish did put my DMA's local up the law at the time said I could keep both distants and lil. Then the injunction happened so I switched to AAD when that deal was announced. Now AAD seems to be going away and I highly doubt E* will give me distants. I said it before and I'll say it again this sux!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

levibluewa said:


> Someone to come along with the smarts and the lawyers to find a way around an antiquated system and allow consumers to have access to "affiliates" in any SD-HD local market that they desire.


It could be done if all the content that the station does not have rights to deliver outside of their own area was deleted. Somehow I doubt distants without network programming would be very popular (although the California live car chase coverage might be as popular as TruTV).



levibluewa said:


> This may be at the top of the list...there's a lot of "anger" from subs over HD games joined in progress, so even if there is not enough transponders to allow for full-time HD RSNs it could relieve the pressure and allow flexibility to join HD offerings sooner rather than in the middle of a game.
> 
> I'm guessing that's why Directv hasn't added any new national HD channels. All there transponder space is taken up with PPV, reserve space for all their HD sports.


DirecTV has capacity to add more but has chosen not to use it. Perhaps they are holding back waiting for something better than the channels they are missing ... perhaps the missing channels have changed their prices and DirecTV doesn't want to pay. Whatever the reason, DirecTV isn't constrained by capacity.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

James Long said:


> What would stop someone from getting SD distants from AAD for a month then moving to DISH, sidestepping the law?


That's the key. The eligibility for DNS on AAD and Dish are not the same. Attempting to transfer a waiver from AAD to Dish would be openly flouting the law.

Dish's ability to deliver network affiliates to short markets is being watched carefully by the courts. It's like a person on parole, break the law and you're essentially back in jail without a trial.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

cj9788 said:


> I lived in a analog and digital white area.
> 
> My DMA's locals could be picked up OTA


Ahhh, if you can pick up the signals with an antenna, you're not really in a white area.


----------



## bacchus101 (Nov 17, 2006)

runner861 said:


> I hope that everyone who is upset by this situation contacts Dish and lets them know. Dish can remedy the situation by launching the same stations on CONUS and offering the same service. *I have already contacted Dish and voiced my opinion.*


I contacted them too and then dropped my service after 12 years being there was no remedy to the situation. They said it was not their fault as to what Sobongo does with its programming and I corrected them concerning that premise...

Directv is coming tomorrow to install.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Ahhh, if you can pick up the signals with an antenna, you're not really in a white area.


My bad the word *not* should have been in there. I have edited my post.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

bacchus101 said:


> I contacted them too and then dropped my service after 12 years being there was no remedy to the situation. They said it was not their fault as to what Sobongo does with its programming and I corrected them concerning that premise...
> 
> Directv is coming tomorrow to install.


This upsets me as well. The AAD/Sobongo service is a service to Dish subscribers, and it benefited Dish's subscribers and Dish during the time when Dish had lost the license to offer distants. Dish is losing site of the needs of its subscribers, just like it did several years ago during the distants lawsuit. There are AAD/Sobongo subscribers who are midway through one-year contracts, and their situation is just being overlooked by both Dish and AAD/Sobongo. Treatment like this does upset subscribers, and it should. Unfortunately, there are not enough distant network subscribers for Dish to care.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Tower Guy said:


> That's the key. The eligibility for DNS on AAD and Dish are not the same. Attempting to transfer a waiver from AAD to Dish would be openly flouting the law.
> 
> Dish's ability to deliver network affiliates to short markets is being watched carefully by the courts. It's like a person on parole, break the law and you're essentially back in jail without a trial.


I do not see this as the issue. A grandfathered subscriber is someone who is not qualified under the current law and situation to receive the distant, but is receiving it due to grandfathered status. So transferring a waiver from AAD to Dish would not be openly flouting the law, at least not for current AAD subscribers. If Dish and AAD set up an agreement for people to subscribe to AAD for a month and then transfer to Dish with grandfathered status, that would be likely in defiance of the law (similar to laundering money).

Dish is still in court with regard to distants, and is under the supervision of a special master. So yes, Dish wants to be careful. Dish is also in a great position to consult with opposing counsel, the special master, and even the court regarding this issue. Dish then can do something for the AAD subscribers without offending anyone.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish is losing site of the needs of its subscribers, just like it did several years ago during the distants lawsuit. There are AAD/Sobongo subscribers who are midway through one-year contracts, and their situation is just being overlooked by both Dish and AAD/Sobongo.


DISH is meeting the _needs_ of their subscribers, perhaps not the _desires_ of subscribers who want it all. The "need" (if TV counts as a need at all) is delivery of network television. The "desire" may be some other station, or all other stations, but DISH is doing what it can to deliver an affiliate of every network to every customer in every market. (Uncooperative local stations leave a few holes.)

In 2006 DISH could not fulfill the "need" and NPS/AAD's service was useful. That service continues on 119. The service ending tomorrow was only started in 2009.

Why did AAD sell annual contracts when they themselves did not have a year left on their own carriage contract? Shouldn't they have been more careful not to sell something they could not deliver? Why should DISH be expected to put their own service at a loss to protect AAD's service?


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am not aware of any restriction on offering HD distants to a market where Dish does not offer HD locals.


In terms of DNS eligibility, I see no distinction in the law between SD and HD service. If/when a satellite carrier provides a local network channel, either SD or HD, it cannot subsequently offer new subscriptions to a distant signal of the same net, either SD or HD.



> By same service, I mean the same stations.


The only reason I can see why Dish would move Chicago and LA nets to ConUS would be if they were short of spot beam space to expand their local offerings in those markets. That would make the signals useful for the Chicago and LA markets as well as the RV market. I'm really not up to date on HD spot beam space, so I don't know if that's the case, but I tend to doubt it.



runner861 said:


> Grandfathering is station-specific,


Nope, don't think so. I think the language is pretty clear on that, that the household remains unserved with respect to the network in question as long as the subscriber continues receiving a distant signal of that network from that carrier.

Station-specific waivers are still possible, I think, but I doubt AAD requests its waivers that way.



James Long said:


> I don't see DISH spending national bandwidth on a marginal service. They will (as they have) provide distants where they are needed to fill short markets, but DISH has to make a decision on how their transponders best serve the majority of their customers.


I agree.

When you consider that NPS/AAD/Sobongo can offer DNS to a much broader customer base than Dish, the best way for Dish to capitalize on the DNS market would be to raise its transponder fees to NPS/AAD/Sobongo, thereby claiming a bigger slice of NPS/AAD/Sobongo's profits. Which is why I think that is one possibility here.

Otoh, if that's NOT Dish's objective, then I would expect them to use the transponder for services other than DNS. Like, for instance, RSNs.

This is why I say we should wait and see what happens with that transponder over the next few days and weeks, and the situation should get clearer.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> In terms of DNS eligibility, I see no distinction in the law between SD and HD service. If/when a satellite carrier provides a local network channel, either SD or HD, it cannot subsequently offer new subscriptions to a distant signal of the same net, either SD or HD.


The issue raised was whether HD distants can be provided in a market where Dish is providing only SD service. The law allows HD distants to be provided, even if the satellite carrier is providing only SD locals, as long as the subscriber is eligible to receive the distant.

However, I have reread the relevant sections regarding grandfathering. Status (unserved household) is what is preserved with grandfathering, not access to a specific station, so I think that a person with grandfathered status can change from one distant to another.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The issue raised was whether HD distants can be provided in a market where Dish is providing only SD service. The law allows HD distants to be provided, even if the satellite carrier is providing only SD locals, as long as the subscriber is eligible to receive the distant.


DISH does not carry a single HD Distant/SV station in a market that does not have it's other locals in HD. Legal or not, DISH has chosen to only carry SD distants in non-HD markets.


> However, I have reread the relevant sections regarding grandfathering. Status (unserved household) is what is preserved with grandfathering, not access to a specific station, so I think that a person with grandfathered status can change from one distant to another.


Agreed.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH does not carry a single HD Distant/SV station in a market that does not have it's other locals in HD. Legal or not, DISH has chosen to only carry SD distants in non-HD markets.


Dish is legally barred from carrying SV stations in HD in a market that has locals only carried in SD. However, the same restriction does not apply to distants being carried in HD in a market carried only in SD.

Of course, as stated earlier, the entire carriage of distants is voluntary, and Dish can make decisions about how and when to carry distants, and as to what stations to carry as distants.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish is legally barred from carrying SV stations in HD in a market that has locals only carried in SD. However, the same restriction does not apply to distants being carried in HD in a market carried only in SD.


Ok, yes, if you mean Dish can supply a missing net in HD to a short market where they offer the available locals only in SD, I think that's legal.

But for business reasons, I don't think they will.

Again, I think AAD is the ideal vehicle by which Dish can make distant nets available to its customers. I just can't see them upsetting that apple cart just so they can provide that service directly.

Of course, I could be wrong, and time will tell. But ask yourself this: if Dish is planning such a service, why are they keeping it a secret? Why haven't they announced that this new service, for RV owners or whomever, will be available following the termination of the AAD service?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish is legally barred from carrying SV stations in HD in a market that has locals only carried in SD.


The actual language refers to a station of the same network ... "A satellite carrier may retransmit to a subscriber in high definition format the signal of a station determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed under subsection (a) only if such carrier also retransmits in high definition format the signal of a station located in the local market of such subscriber and affiliated with the same network whenever such format is available from such station." *47 USC § 340. (b)(2)* But I would not expect a HD SV without the LIL network channels being carried in HD.

I wouldn't mind seeing DISH introduce a distants service for RV users ... but I'm not expecting anything beyond an RV service (other than what DISH is already doing).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BTW: AAD is still advertising HD Distants on their website ...
https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/pricing.php

Also noted on their FAQ page ...
https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/faq.php


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The actual language refers to a station of the same network ... "A satellite carrier may retransmit to a subscriber in high definition format the signal of a station determined by the Commission to be significantly viewed under subsection (a) only if such carrier also retransmits in high definition format the signal of a station located in the local market of such subscriber and affiliated with the same network whenever such format is available from such station." *47 USC § 340. (b)(2)* But I would not expect a HD SV without the LIL network channels being carried in HD.
> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing DISH introduce a distants service for RV users ... but I'm not expecting anything beyond an RV service (other than what DISH is already doing).


You're right. So there actually is very little limitation on transmitting SV stations in HD in a market carried in SD, and there is no limitation on carrying distant stations in HD in a market carried in SD. It is more of a business decision.

I know that Direct offers HD distants in markets where the locals are carried only in SD.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> Again, I think AAD is the ideal vehicle by which Dish can make distant nets available to its customers. I just can't see them upsetting that apple cart just so they can provide that service directly.
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong, and time will tell. But ask yourself this: if Dish is planning such a service, why are they keeping it a secret? Why haven't they announced that this new service, for RV owners or whomever, will be available following the termination of the AAD service?


AAD was an ideal service to have on Dish. With the loss of HD, it is not so ideal.

I have no idea what Dish is planning. It will be interesting to watch the uplink reports and find out.

One possibility is that Dish, if it plans to do anything, will make no statement until after the termination of the AAD HD service. There is a non-compete clause between Dish and AAD, and Dish does not want to be accused of tortious interference in business relations.

If Dish does offer an RV service, it will have to have at least 16 stations on CONUS. So how does Dish benefit by recovering transponders from AAD, if it will ultimately have to use the same space to transmit the same stations (or comparable stations)?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> If Dish does offer an RV service, it will have to have at least 16 stations on CONUS. So how does Dish benefit by recovering transponders from AAD, if it will ultimately have to use the same space to transmit the same stations (or comparable stations)?


In markets like LA where there are a lot of channels and limited spotbeam space, moving the big 4 to ConUS (as joblo suggested) would free up some space for other channels to be carried in HD. Otherwise I agree with those who believe DISH could use the space for other services.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

runner861 said:


> AAD was an ideal service to have on Dish. With the loss of HD, it is not so ideal.
> 
> If Dish does offer an RV service, it will have to have at least 16 stations on CONUS.


Remember, AAD only offered SD from 2006 ? - June 12, 2009 (Atlanta, New York & SF).

16 stations? Directv has NY & LA "big4" (8 total) on conus...I'm not aware of any others in SD or HD. I guess they use these for unserved localities, a very small number, but they also have them in reserve when they lose signal or a local affiliate has technical trouble they turn on the appropriate net to fill in temporarily.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

levibluewa said:


> Remember, AAD only offered SD from 2006 ? - June 12, 2009 (Atlanta, New York & SF).
> 
> 16 stations? Directv has NY & LA "big4" (8 total) on conus...I'm not aware of any others in SD or HD. I guess they use these for unserved localities, a very small number, but they also have them in reserve when they lose signal or a local affiliate has technical trouble they turn on the appropriate net to fill in temporarily.


By 16 I meant 4 west in HD, 4 west in SD, 4 east in HD, 4 east in SD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> By 16 I meant 4 west in HD, 4 west in SD, 4 east in HD, 4 east in SD.


It appears that DirecTV only offers east coast feeds? (Source: DirecTV website)
That would allow DISH to use the rest of the transponder for something else.

(DirecTV's channel guide shows 16 distants between channels 390 and 399 ... plus CW in SD and HD.)


----------



## bacchus101 (Nov 17, 2006)

James Long said:


> It appears that DirecTV only offers east coast feeds? (Source: DirecTV website)


Actually, I just spoke with them a few days ago and they said they had both NY and LA.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> It appears that DirecTV only offers east coast feeds? (Source: DirecTV website)
> That would allow DISH to use the rest of the transponder for something else.
> 
> (DirecTV's channel guide shows 16 distants between channels 390 and 399 ... plus CW in SD and HD.)


I looked at the DirectTV website, although I have never subscribed to DirectTV. I got the impression that when they were talking about east coast feeds only they were talking about national cable channels with two feeds, like Lifetime and TVLand.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> It appears that DirecTV only offers east coast feeds? (Source: DirecTV website)
> That would allow DISH to use the rest of the transponder for something else.
> 
> (DirecTV's channel guide shows 16 distants between channels 390 and 399 ... plus CW in SD and HD.)


If you're talking about the LA HD feeds for ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, yes DIRECTV does have those available for DNS customers in the mountain and pacific time zones.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I was searching their support site last night for "distant networks" and they gave me the result linked earlier. Apparently the answer really refers to the "cable" channels they carry, not "distant networks". Sorry for the confusion.

I searched DBSTalk to find the 390-399 channel range ... go figure I'd get a better answer on DBSTalk.


----------



## iamru (Nov 13, 2010)

I still have my HD channels. Did something change?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

iamru said:


> I still have my HD channels. Did something change?


None of the expected changes have happened ... I was expecting Uplink Reports of the channels being taken down (or at least moved to a goodbye slate). The MyDistantNetwork website still has the HD channels listed with pricing.

Thanks for confirming the content is still there. Odd. All the "ending January 12th" push and then ... nothing?


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Maybe Jan. 12th was the day given by DISH to AAD, the last day you could guarantee service...and it rests with DISH when to take over the transponders...when they get to it


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Anything notable in the EPG? I remember them separating the EPGs for the HD channels back on October 26th ... that would give DISH/NPS the ability to have "off the air" or some other different EPG for the NPS channels than the DISH carried counterparts.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I emailed AAD/Sobongo this morning to ask if there has been a change in plans. When/if I get a response, I will let everyone know. I emailed the same person who had confirmed to me via email on January 6 that the HD service would be terminated on January 12.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I got a return email. He said that the feeds are being disconnected by two to three different branches and it will take 48 hours to disconnect them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I got a return email. He said that the feeds are being disconnected by two to three different branches and it will take 48 hours to disconnect them.


Basically deauthorizing recievers? I suppose the channels will be there until AAD/NPS says no one is seeing them.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Basically deauthorizing recievers? I suppose the channels will be there until AAD/NPS says no one is seeing them.


So that means that the channels are just staying up there for now? What is the point of that?

I guess they are deauthorizing receivers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In my opinion there should be at most two places to call.
1) DISH ... asking them to remove the channels from their channel lists (which is what we monitor with the Uplink Reports). This would free up the channel numbers and some space in the EPG tables.
2) The uplink center ... whomever is actually uplinking the feed to the transponder on 110. It is probably EchoStar ... one of the statements made back in 2006 was that NPS was planning on providing their own uplink separate from DISH (part of their argument to the court that NPS and DISH were separate companies). Tell the uplink center to stop transmitting. (Preferably step 1 would be done first so people trying to tune the channels would not get a no signal error message.)

My preference would be to see DISH create a "slate" channel on 110 and simply "move" the HD channels to the slate. The slate would state that the HD service had ended and give AAD/NPS' phone number for contact. The "slate" could be hosted on NPS' transponder on 119 (there is still a 9th feed there next to their SD distants) but people with only a 110 dish would not see it. (I doubt there are many that have 110 only ... but there could be some with DISH Eastern Arc service plus 110 for NPS HD distants.)

In any case ... if the service is done it is done. Edit the website so it no longer offers HD distants, tell DISH to do whatever needs to be done and move on. It shouldn't take 48 hours ... especially since it has apparently been planned since October.

BTW: I would not expect instant reuse by DISH of the transponder ... perhaps in a couple of weeks but nothing new overnight.


----------



## Terry K (Sep 13, 2006)

I, for one, REFUSE to watch center cut SD garbage. That's why I dumped AAD to begin with. I have HD, I want HD, and if DISH won't give it to me, Directv will. 

I can think of a couple of one-station markets that would make it necessary for 3 of the Big 4 to be brought in, and honestly, if I didn't have a decent set of locals in my area, I'd be looking at my options.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> In my opinion there should be at most two places to call.
> 1) DISH ... asking them to remove the channels from their channel lists (which is what we monitor with the Uplink Reports). This would free up the channel numbers and some space in the EPG tables.
> 2) The uplink center ... whomever is actually uplinking the feed to the transponder on 110. It is probably EchoStar ... one of the statements made back in 2006 was that NPS was planning on providing their own uplink separate from DISH (part of their argument to the court that NPS and DISH were separate companies). Tell the uplink center to stop transmitting. (Preferably step 1 would be done first so people trying to tune the channels would not get a no signal error message.)


I recall when Dish lost the distant station license that one of the things they told the court was that they would only provide the uplink of the AAD distants until AAD could assemble its own uplink facility, and they further said that the authorization/deauthorization of the receivers would be handled by an AAD facility as soon as AAD could get it set up. Until the AAD authorization/deauthorization facility was set up, AAD personnel would use Dish's equipment in Dish's facility to authorize/deauthorize the channels.

Did any of this ever happen?


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

I know that your smart card has to be authorized by E*. A about amonth ago i punished one of my kids for doing bad in school. I disconnected his receiver from the dish When his punishment was over I reconnceted it to the dish and kept getting error 005. I called AAD to have them turn back on the distants The channels showed up in the EPG but I could not watch them kept getting error 005 I finally called E* they reactivated the smart card and the 005 message disapeared. I could not watch my AAD distants on the receiver till dish reactivated my card.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I got a return email. He said that the feeds are being disconnected by two to three different branches and it will take 48 hours to disconnect them.


Well, I guess technology has improved considerably since 2006. IIRC, Dish argued in court that turning off distants would take months. Somehow they managed to get it done in a mere 30 days, but apparently this was risky because DNS is a very strange product, and simply cutting the power has the potential to rip holes in the spacetime continuum.

Reports in the other forum this morning suggest that the service persists.



James Long said:


> It shouldn't take 48 hours ... especially since it has apparently been planned since October.


Why do you say that?

I don't recall reading anything about this before the first of the year.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> Well, I guess technology has improved considerably since 2006. IIRC, Dish argued in court that turning off distants would take months. Somehow they managed to get it done in a mere 30 days, but apparently this was risky because DNS is a very strange product, and simply cutting the power has the potential to rip holes in the spacetime continuum.


Give me access and I could gracefully cut off service a lot quicker. (1) uplink a goodbye channel (2) point existing distants at goodbye channel

Back in 2006 they may have had to do more ... depending on how the channels were authorized. If distants viewers could view the channel on the 240 range channels only the two step would work easily. If distants viewers could also view the root channels (where they appeared as locals) it would take some time to separate the in market authorizations from the out of market authorizations. Not 30 days, but not 30 minutes.



> I don't recall reading anything about this before the first of the year.


The first hint was October 26th, 2010, in the uplink report.


> *8 changes seen 10/26/10 at 4:56pm ET (v09)*
> 
> *Other Changes*
> 73 WLS (AAD Distant) 110° TP 17 HD Hidden - EPG Change (Independent EPG instead of Reference EPG linked to 129° 9s22 (Lake Michigan) Ch 6312)
> ...


Separating the EPG allows the AAD Distants to have a different EPG (perhaps a goodbye message?) than the DISH channels that the EPG was linked to. It was the first sign that something was changing with the channels.

(DISH doesn't use the "Reference EPG" on MPEG2 channels, only channels that are MPEG4 or ViP only so the 241-248 channels have always had their own EPG.)


runner861 said:


> I recall when Dish lost the distant station license that one of the things they told the court was that they would only provide the uplink of the AAD distants until AAD could assemble its own uplink facility, and they further said that the authorization/deauthorization of the receivers would be handled by an AAD facility as soon as AAD could get it set up. Until the AAD authorization/deauthorization facility was set up, AAD personnel would use Dish's equipment in Dish's facility to authorize/deauthorize the channels.
> 
> Did any of this ever happen?


At best I'd say that NPS got a back door in to the auth system ... but the authorization tie to DISH accounts apparently remained and I would not be surprised to find out that NPS was using EchoStar as an uplink company.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Back in 2006 they may have had to do more ... depending on how the channels were authorized. If distants viewers could view the channel on the 240 range channels only the two step would work easily. If distants viewers could also view the root channels (where they appeared as locals) it would take some time to separate the in market authorizations from the out of market authorizations. Not 30 days, but not 30 minutes.


We could view the channels in the 8000s and the 240s, but with advance prep they could still have done an instant turn off, if they had wanted to. They separated out the DNS subs and set up special channels for Chicago/Denver/Dallas/Atlanta during the CBS retrans dispute, so that when midnight came, local subs were switched to a slate and distant service continued. They could have done something similar in reverse for the DNS shutdown, but I think they chose the drawn out approach partly to spread the complaint calls out, and partly to create pressure in Congress.



> The first hint was October 26th, 2010, in the uplink report.Separating the EPG allows the AAD Distants to have a different EPG (perhaps a goodbye message?) than the DISH channels that the EPG was linked to. It was the first sign that something was changing with the channels.
> 
> (DISH doesn't use the "Reference EPG" on MPEG2 channels, only channels that are MPEG4 or ViP only so the 241-248 channels have always had their own EPG.)


I do recall reading that. And the 241-248 channels disappeared from the TiVo guide for a few weeks also, in November, I think, so I thought for a while that those were going away, but then the listings came back, and the channels are still there.

Then there was a period of time in December, I think, when several of the NY 119 channels were showing "Off air" in the EPG in the wee hours. This went on for a number of nights, and both 8100/mapdown range and 241-243-245-247 channel numbers carried identical "off air" listings, despite the fact that neither version - and they are definitely different; the AAD feeds are higher quality - ever seemed to actually be unavailable. (I have SD only, in NYC DMA white area.)

I dunno. One can read tea leaves all day long, and speculate about what it might mean, but until the fat lady sings and the service actually drops, nothing is definite.



> At best I'd say that NPS got a back door in to the auth system ... but the authorization tie to DISH accounts apparently remained and I would not be surprised to find out that NPS was using EchoStar as an uplink company.


The cards apparently still have to authorized by Dish, as someone else posted, but as long as the receiver remains plugged in and the card auth is up to date, you don't need a Dish sub on the receiver to maintain AAD service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> The cards apparently still have to authorized by Dish, as someone else posted, but as long as the receiver remains plugged in and the card auth is up to date, you don't need a Dish sub on the receiver to maintain AAD service.


Curiosity ... when you subscribe do you give them a the receiver and smart card number for each receiver on the account? Does subscription cover more than one receiver (without additional fees)? Can a non-DISH subscriber have multiple receivers?

IIRC back in the SkyAngel days it took a couple of days for SkyAngel to forward the subscription info and all receivers on the DISH account got the SkyAngel service. If there wasn't a DISH account the mirror fee still applied. In SkyAngel's case DISH provided the uplink and authorization service for SkyAngel ... despite them being a separate company.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Curiosity ... when you subscribe do you give them a the receiver and smart card number for each receiver on the account? Does subscription cover more than one receiver (without additional fees)? Can a non-DISH subscriber have multiple receivers?
> 
> IIRC back in the SkyAngel days it took a couple of days for SkyAngel to forward the subscription info and all receivers on the DISH account got the SkyAngel service. If there wasn't a DISH account the mirror fee still applied. In SkyAngel's case DISH provided the uplink and authorization service for SkyAngel ... despite them being a separate company.


When you subscribe you give them a receiver number and a smart card number for each receiver on the account. A subscription covers more than one receiver without additional fees. I have never found an AAD subscriber who was not a Dish subscriber, but it was supposed to be possible according to what Dish told the court back in 2006.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Curiosity ... when you subscribe do you give them a the receiver and smart card number for each receiver on the account? Does subscription cover more than one receiver (without additional fees)? Can a non-DISH subscriber have multiple receivers?


Yes to all three questions.

But I've never tried to get a card authorization or replacement from Dish for an unsubbed receiver. I've always maintained a minimal Dish sub on at least one receiver, and during the last card swap, it just seemed easier to add AAD-only receivers to the Dish account long enough to get a card rather than argue with some CSR that I should get one free because the receiver had AAD service.

I really don't use Dish much anymore. I moved most of my service to cable in response to the DNS fiasco in 2006, and thus discovered the convenience of real VOD. Then FiOS came along with a ton of spectacular HD, and so now I keep Dish around primarily for out of market broadcast and a couple of PI channels not available elsewhere.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I am seeing a few posts on the other site indicating that Dish will soon be offering distants. I am not a member of that site and have never posted there, but I decided to take a look. If Dish is planning on offering the AAD stations as distants, that might explain why receivers are being deauthorized but the channels are not being taken down.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am seeing a few posts on the other site indicating that Dish will soon be offering distants. I am not a member of that site and have never posted there, but I decided to take a look. If Dish is planning on offering the AAD stations as distants, that might explain why receivers are being deauthorized but the channels are not being taken down.


DISH has pulled and restored channels so many times that it could make one's head spin. It would be trivial to point the AAD channels away to a slate, leave the 110 channels in place (perhaps renumbered as test channels) then either point the channels back or create new channel numbers when their service began. They don't need to keep the channels active in order to reuse them in the future.

If DISH is starting their own service wouldn't it be better if they would pre-announce it? If instead of answering complaint calls to DISH about the AAD/NPS HD removals with "it isn't our doing" they would keep RV customers by saying "soon"?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH has pulled and restored channels so many times that it could make one's head spin. It would be trivial to point the AAD channels away to a slate, leave the 110 channels in place (perhaps renumbered as test channels) then either point the channels back or create new channel numbers when their service began. They don't need to keep the channels active in order to reuse them in the future.
> 
> If DISH is starting their own service wouldn't it be better if they would pre-announce it? If instead of answering complaint calls to DISH about the AAD/NPS HD removals with "it isn't our doing" they would keep RV customers by saying "soon"?


One might think so, although Dish doesn't have the best history about making things clear to the customers. I am just watching the situation develop.

It is possible that, if Dish plans to offer the same HD channels as distants, Dish may want to avoid running afoul of AAD by offering no official information until the AAD HD service is fully discontinued. Because of the non-compete clause, Dish may not want to risk any lawsuit for tortious interference with business relations. Simply conclude the AAD HD distants service, then offer the same channels as distants may be what Dish is thinking.

As an aside, if this is what happens, then I would expect the same thing to happen with the AAD SD stations, at least by November 2011, if not sooner.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I just don't think the very very few who would actually be able to qualify for distants from Dish (as opposed to the many who qualify from AAD) would be a reason for the end of the HD from AAD from a financial standpoint. Dish just needing the space makes more sense to me.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

tampa8 said:


> I just don't think the very very few who would actually be able to qualify for distants from Dish (as opposed to the many who qualify from AAD) would be a reason for the end of the HD from AAD from a financial standpoint. Dish just needing the space makes more sense to me.


You may be right. I don't know what is going on. However, from my perspective, even though relatively few customers will be served with distants, I don't see Dish going without the service. Direct offers NY and LA in HD and SD to all eligible subscribers. Simply to compete, I would expect Dish to offer no less. This service is essential to RV and trucker customers, and other customers desire it as well.

If the transponder AAD was using for HD was on a month-to-month lease, then Dish was able to terminate the lease at this time. The evidence indicates that the transponder was on a month-to-month lease beginning on June 12.

The transponder used for SD is probably on an annual lease, so Dish cannot terminate that lease until November.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Because of the non-compete clause, Dish may not want to risk any lawsuit for tortious interference with business relations. Simply conclude the AAD HD distants service, then offer the same channels as distants may be what Dish is thinking.


Then conclude the AAD HD service. AAD said it would be over on the 12th ... it should be over. The sooner AAD is gone the sooner DISH would be able to not compete with the service. Besides, if DISH canceled or refused to extend NPS' transponder lease in order to offer their own service wouldn't they already be at risk of being pulled in to court over this?



runner861 said:


> However, from my perspective, even though relatively few customers will be served with distants, I don't see Dish going without the service. Direct offers NY and LA in HD and SD to all eligible subscribers. Simply to compete, I would expect Dish to offer no less.


The same could be said about 24/7 HD Regional Sports Networks. Simply to be in competition with DirecTV DISH needs to offer more than "Game Only" of select games. A couple of years ago when few games were available in HD "Game Only" kinda worked ... now DISH's HD sports is a joke. An unfunny joke for DISH subscribers.

While serving RV customers would be nice DISH could be much more competitive by offering full time 24/7 RSNs ... at least the 24/7 RSNs in the major markets.



> The evidence indicates that the transponder was on a month-to-month lease beginning on June 12.
> 
> The transponder used for SD is probably on an annual lease, so Dish cannot terminate that lease until November.


The only contract we've seen for the SD was written in 2006 ... it ran from November 29th, 2006, until end of life of the satellite or November 30th, 2008. It auto-renewed for one year periods unless canceled by either party 90 days in advance. The satellite was replaced in July of 2008 with the old satellite now providing service at another location (77w). Assuming the contract has not been renegotiated DISH would have until September to cancel their renewal ... if they have not already sent the notification.

BTW: While AAD HD distants service began June 12th, 2009, the channels were apparently uplinked on May 21st, 2009 (as channels 5720-5727 HD1-HD8). Prior to May 21st, 2009, active DISH channels were on that transponder. January 21st would be the end of the 20th month - which would fit the rumor, but I'd like more than a hint of a rumor.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Then conclude the AAD HD service. AAD said it would be over on the 12th ... it should be over. The sooner AAD is gone the sooner DISH would be able to not compete with the service. Besides, if DISH canceled or refused to extend NPS' transponder lease in order to offer their own service wouldn't they already be at risk of being pulled in to court over this?
> 
> The same could be said about 24/7 HD Regional Sports Networks. Simply to be in competition with DirecTV DISH needs to offer more than "Game Only" of select games. A couple of years ago when few games were available in HD "Game Only" kinda worked ... now DISH's HD sports is a joke. An unfunny joke for DISH subscribers.
> 
> ...


I don't think that Dish is at risk of being sued over the non-compete clause as long as they keep their distants completely separate from AAD. And just to be safe, they probably don't want to even mention it until after the AAD HD service is concluded.

Actually, as you and another poster have pointed out, having a national distants service may actually save Dish on spotbeam space in LA and Chicago, making it easier to take those markets all HD.

As far as the 24/7 RSNs, I would like to see that happen. Dish may, however, view distants as more of a core service than 24/7 RSNs. The distants are crucial to RV and trucker customers, and others also desire them. DirectTV has several more sports channels available than Dish, and most people for whom sports channels are a priority are probably already with Direct.

I bet Dish has already sent in the cancellation notice for the transponder used for the SD stations, but, unless AAD agrees to an earlier date, that contract will continue until the end of November.

That date of January 21 is very interesting. I didn't know that the stations were uplinked originally on May 21 of 2009. It now seems to me that AAD must conclude its service by January 21, but it gave everyone the date of January 12. That explains this protracted "shutdown" that we are seeing, where apparently not very many receivers, if any, have been deauthorized yet.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

I still have all 8 HD channels this am.

I believe the receiver limit is 5, and yes you have to give the RA & SC #'s for each receiver you want activated. I believe you can have more than 5 recvrs but theres an additional fee. 

Right now mydistantnetworks.com is: "Host unreachable"

I have 3 recevers activated w/ service, and yes you can have receivers with JUST the AAD channels. I had a 301 receiver that I deactivated from my dish net account and just used it for the AAD channels. I also found out that AAD was NOT able to activate a new receiver. New receivers cant even view channel 101 and must be authorized by dish first, but once they've been initially activated, they can deactivated and used just for AAD.

I still have not received any email from Sobongo of the discontinued service. Allthough yesterday they sent me an email about winning a 82 inch TV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

shadough said:


> Right now mydistantnetworks.com is: "Host unreachable"


It looks like they made a change to domain hosting yesterday (Jan 14th). The domain does not expire until November (as expected, since domains renew annually unless purchased for multiple years or the date is adjusted through consolidation).

The tracert fails at ind1-ar3-ge-0-0-0-0.us.twtelecom.net for me.
The host appears to be in Indianapolis ... which would fit NPS hosting it.
The callnps.com and sobongo.com websites are unreachable as well.
Probably just a network problem.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The network eventually came back ... along with the callnps.com website.
The mydistantnetworks.com is "back" but is now pointed to a NetworkSolutions parking page.
(Kind of strange since SD channels are still being offered by NPS ... even with the HDs going away.)

BTW: The domain is registered to -
Performance One Media
Greenwood Village, CO


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

James Long said:


> BTW: The domain is registered to -
> Performance One Media
> Greenwood Village, CO


Hmmmmm, CO? Wonder if its a close cousin of DISH?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

levibluewa said:


> Hmmmmm, CO? Wonder if its a close cousin of DISH?


The office is a 7.99 mile drive from DISH's Englewood headquarters.Performance One Media (P-One) is a unique and innovative leader within the performance-based media industry. With it's executive team wielding over 80 combined years of executive level marketing and operations expertise, its no surprise that Performance One is consistently developing new methods and programs to ensure the best possible results for both our commercial clients and our station clients.

Performance One is a relationship-based aggregate with access to about 96 million households through our very strong relationships with DISH, DirecTV, all the National Cable companies and their Local Affiliates. Our 'core' strategic network includes TV markets with a higher propensity to buy from home and is made up of about 60 million of those households.

Performance One Media​Seems to be a marketing company. Based on this site NPS owned the domain previously (see cached page in attachment).


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Probably down to take away references to HD?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I just spoke to someone up in Monterey-Salinas. Although they got the call from AAD telling them that the KABC HD feed would be discontinued on January 12, it is still on as of right now.

What is going on here?


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

...still on


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> Probably down to take away references to HD?


One does not need to change the ownership and "park" a website to remove the references to HD.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Many of us have assumed that Dish wanted to discontinue AAD and recover the transponder. However, look at what has happened to the AAD mydistantnetworks website. It has apparently been taken over by someone else. And NPS (the owner of AAD) discontinued C-Band service on December 26, according to another website that James mentioned in his post.

It is possible that the opposite has occurred--AAD terminated the lease with Dish and just dropped the HD subscribers and HD service back in their lap. Either Dish requested that the subscribers not be terminated, and Dish will look at what to do with the subscribers sometime soon, or AAD just decided not to bother. This situation is not normal, and the subscribers are really in the dark.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Mine are still on also.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Many of us have assumed that Dish wanted to discontinue AAD and recover the transponder. However, look at what has happened to the AAD mydistantnetworks website. It has apparently been taken over by someone else. And NPS (the owner of AAD) discontinued C-Band service on December 26, according to another website that James mentioned in his post.


The only relationship the C-Band business has is that it appears that NPS is scaling back their operations. There was a major change in the way C-Band service was resold at the end of the year. While other resellers changed to different C-Band sources, NPS bowed out.

Pulling the mydistantnetworks.com website when there is still a SD distants service is odd. There is now no place on the internet that I can find where people can go to buy NPS' distants service ... or to check on their service. (Searching at Sobongo redirects to https://mydistantnetworks.com - with the http*s*: leading to an unloadable page.)



> It is possible that the opposite has occurred--AAD terminated the lease with Dish and just dropped the HD subscribers and HD service back in their lap. Either Dish requested that the subscribers not be terminated, and Dish will look at what to do with the subscribers sometime soon, or AAD just decided not to bother. This situation is not normal, and the subscribers are really in the dark.


My best answer is that NPS is screwy.

At this point who is delivering the HD distants service on 110? It can't be DISH ... they have not qualified a single customer who is receiving the service. So it must be NPS. These are not DISH customers ... there is no "back" to DISH.

Perhaps DISH is trying to work something out and has convinced NPS not to disconnect their customers ... or perhaps George in the uplink center is on vacation again and isn't there to flip the switch. Curiouser and curiouser ... down the rabbit hole we go!

(For those that don't know or don't remember, "George" is a fictional uplink center employee we blamed for not having DISH's fill-in distants activated immediately after the court permitted them.)


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

James Long said:


> The office is a 7.99 mile drive from DISH's Englewood headquarters.


Perhaps Charlie has found a new provider of HD distants, similar to AAD in that since they don't provide locals they will be able to offer service to a wider market than DISH alone.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Is anyone aware of any AAD HD subscriber being disconnected?


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Still turned on for me.

I suspect once someone is diconnected, there will be a post here on the forum.


----------



## ljr01 (Mar 6, 2008)

shadough said:


> Still turned on for me.
> 
> I suspect once someone is diconnected, there will be a post here on the forum.


I currently have Dish in an RV with HD distants via a waiver. Home is now on cable but that's another thread.

HD disappeared without warning shortly after midnight on 1/3. When I called, Sobongo said my account had "expired" but couldn't explain what that meant since I had been paying monthly. I gave them a credit card number and they "reactivated" my account. After several more calls and a repoint from 110 to 119 I realized I only had SD. (At my current location I have a 1000.4 + a side dish.) The next person I talked to said Dish had "blocked" (their word) HD.

I have contacted Dish via twitter and email with responses ranging from "We don't know." to "We're looking into it.". I still have SD.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

When I first signed up back in '07, I had to file waivers also. Was granted 3, didnt get CBS. Over the summer when I wanted to add the HD service to my SD service, the CSR said I was 'eligible' now for CBS and didnt need a waiver, so now I have all 4 networks from all 4 cities. Not sure what that will mean in terms of grandfathering. I suspect grandfathering is a mute issue and it looks like NPS is going out of business and once all these channels are gone, DNS will not exist. I'll hafta buy an RV to get it.

ps. Directv offers a sat dish service for mini-vans (probably dish does too), w/ a dish that sits on the roof rack, is DNS available on that system?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

shadough said:


> ps. Directv offers a sat dish service for mini-vans (probably dish does too), w/ a dish that sits on the roof rack, is DNS available on that system?


I believe DirecTV offers distants with their RV accounts ... DISH does not offer national distants (only fill ins). NPS offered distants to anyone who qualified. Per the NPS RV waiver:HUD regulations (Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3282.8) define "recreational vehicle" as a vehicle that is: (1) built on a single chassis; (2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (3) self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (4) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.​I wouldn't call a mini-van "temporary living quarters" but I suppose some would.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

It sounds like a camper hooked via a hitch should qualify. Too bad my parents sold theirs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

shadough said:


> It sounds like a camper hooked via a hitch should qualify. Too bad my parents sold theirs.


As long as you're using the receiver where stated, in the camper. I'm glad I can get my locals in HD without going outside.


----------



## rrp13 (May 23, 2004)

Yes, my HD distants were shut off on 1/3 with no warning or phone call. When I called Sobongo, the explanation I got was that my sub "expired" and that I could not re-subscribe the HD channels because they were losing the contract on the 12th. However, I have two buddies nearby who still have not had theirs turned off. So, I'm thinking that if your "billing cycle" ended right before 1/12, you got shut off. Anyone who's billing cycle closed after 1/12 is still on. Sound plausible?


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

did u get the SD distants? cuz i would sign up for those immediatly, just to keep the DNS service active, even if u dont want to watch them. at this point, nobody knows exactly whats going to happen. i paid for a years worth so my billing cycle ends in either july or august. an yes mine were still on as of last night.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

This FCC ruling regarding the predictive model, effective January 21, may have something to do with the distants rumor. The actual rules can be obtained from the FCC website.

http://financial.tmcnet.com/news/2010/12/22/5209112.htm


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> This FCC ruling regarding the predictive model, effective January 21, may have something to do with the distants rumor. The actual rules can be obtained from the FCC website.
> 
> http://financial.tmcnet.com/news/2010/12/22/5209112.htm


The new model doesn't affect DISH as their ability to deliver distants is restricted by LIL carriage, not OTA reception. Short markets are still short. Markets with a network station are still blocked from getting that network as a distant.

It IS good for NPS and DirecTV ... companies with markets with no locals carried. This will allow them to more easily qualify a potential subscriber as unserved. Of course, once LIL is made available in a market the customers are served.

DISH and NPS used the end of analog TV on June 12th, 2009, as a reason for more people to get distant services. DISH discussed it on the Charlie Chat earlier that week and HD distants service began on June 12th. NPS had a waiver form on their website for potential customers to fill out claiming that they lost network coverage with the end of analog TV. This FCC ruling, required by STELA, helps to defined unserved in a better way. But it doesn't help a company that "delivers" LIL in every market (even if that "delivery" in some market is only offering carriage to a station that refuses consent).


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The new model doesn't affect DISH as their ability to deliver distants is restricted by LIL carriage, not OTA reception. Short markets are still short. Markets with a network station are still blocked from getting that network as a distant.
> 
> It IS good for NPS and DirecTV ... companies with markets with no locals carried. This will allow them to more easily qualify a potential subscriber as unserved. Of course, once LIL is made available in a market the customers are served.
> 
> DISH and NPS used the end of analog TV on June 12th, 2009, as a reason for more people to get distant services. DISH discussed it on the Charlie Chat earlier that week and HD distants service began on June 12th. NPS had a waiver form on their website for potential customers to fill out claiming that they lost network coverage with the end of analog TV. This FCC ruling, required by STELA, helps to defined unserved in a better way. But it doesn't help a company that "delivers" LIL in every market (even if that "delivery" in some market is only offering carriage to a station that refuses consent).


I understand that. I just note that the rules go into effect on January 21, and the rumor on the other site is that Dish may start a DNS service on that date. And it appears that one way or another NPS is exiting the DNS service, at least for HD stations, by that date.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

James Long said:


> The new model doesn't affect DISH as their ability to deliver distants is restricted by LIL carriage, not OTA reception. Short markets are still short. Markets with a network station are still blocked from getting that network as a distant.


Maybe, this was posted over at "the other place" by a Directv sub...true or false?

.......

I live in one of the DMA's being affected by Northwest Broadcasting's channels being removed due to the contract dispute. Tonight, I received an automated call from DirecTV informing us that because of the dispute they have given us the Fox national feed until the dispute is resolved. One more reason I support DirecTV in this issue.


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

Just lost my AAD CBS feeds. They went out a short while ago.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I understand that. I just note that the rules go into effect on January 21, and the rumor on the other site is that Dish may start a DNS service on that date. And it appears that one way or another NPS is exiting the DNS service, at least for HD stations, by that date.


I have no clue where the January 21st date comes from ... other than the rumor. It probably is just a coincidence. (Although my later math a few posts back notes that the NPS HD distants were uplinked on May 21st, 2009 ... 20 months ago ... so that date as a physical turn off date for NPS seems logical. The date the transponder becomes available would be a good day for DISH to start service ... but it is still all rumor and wishful thinking.)



levibluewa said:


> Maybe, this was posted over at "the other place" by a Directv sub...true or false?


There is no site but DBSTalk. 
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2685292#post2685292

Apparently DirecTV has activated the distant in areas outside of the coverage area of the station. I won't vouch for the legality of that but I assume DirecTV has lawyers who said it is OK.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Apparently DirecTV has activated the distant in areas outside of the coverage area of the station. I won't vouch for the legality of that but I assume DirecTV has lawyers who said it is OK.


I'm not aware of what would make this legal, but I note that Time-Warner signaled its intention to do the same thing during one of its recent retransmission disputes. It never came to that. Of course, cable and satellite are covered by different laws.

It appears that cable and satellite want to push the law when it comes to retransmission disputes. This significantly weakens the bargaining power of the local station. Ultimately, when it comes to raw use of the cable or satellite system, any cable or satellite system can retransmit any station to any subscriber until ordered by a court to stop. Of course, there may be sanctions for doing that. Evidently Direct is indicating that it is ready to take the risk, probably anticipating that it will never have to turn the distant station on, but will instead just use the possibility to increase its bargaining leverage. Or, if it does turn the distant on, it will only last for a few days, not enough time for a court to deal with the issue.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

At best it seems to be a loophole ... customers within the defined OTA coverage area of the station _are_ served and unless they can prove they are not served OTA via testing they would not be able to get the distant replacement. DirecTV is following the law and NOT delivering the distant to OTA served customers.

Customers outside the OTA coverage area can receive distants. The law preventing that would be 47 USC § 339 (a)(2) ... and that section only applies if the carrier "makes available to the subscriber the signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network" ... in a contract dispute DirecTV is not making that same network station available so the whole market blackout does not apply.

An interesting loophole ... not serving the covered areas of the market but giving some backup coverage where possible. (It appears a SV station could also be carried, but only a SD SV.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> At best it seems to be a loophole ... customers within the defined OTA coverage area of the station _are_ served and unless they can prove they are not served OTA via testing they would not be able to get the distant replacement. DirecTV is following the law and NOT delivering the distant to OTA served customers.
> 
> Customers outside the OTA coverage area can receive distants. The law preventing that would be 47 USC § 339 (a)(2) ... and that section only applies if the carrier "makes available to the subscriber the signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network" ... in a contract dispute DirecTV is not making that same network station available so the whole market blackout does not apply.
> 
> An interesting loophole ... not serving the covered areas of the market but giving some backup coverage where possible. (It appears a SV station could also be carried, but only a SD SV.)


If that is the case, the bulk of the market will probably still not be eligible for the distant. It will not be possible to conduct testing on a large scale, so it will probably be only those viewers in the white area as identified by Decisionmark. I had thought from the previous post that Direct was going to make the distant available to the entire market, which would be really aggressive.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joecap1946 said:


> Just lost my AAD CBS feeds. They went out a short while ago.


Had you discussed the matter with AAD and requested that your payment be shifted to the SD service, or were you just standing by and waiting to see what happened? Also, are you in a short market or a white area or did you have a waiver?


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

runner861 said:


> Had you discussed the matter with AAD and requested that your payment be shifted to the SD service, or were you just standing by and waiting to see what happened? Also, are you in a short market or a white area or did you have a waiver?


I spoke to them prior to the shut off. They offered me both CBS feeds in SD. I paid 49.00 for 13 months. I really enjoy the option of the west coast feed, true they are not in HD. I'm in a DMA that doesn't carry a HD feed of CBS, so the HD was nice while it lasted. I get all the Big Networks except for CBS in HD, Panama City Florida gets it's CBS from Dothan AL.

I was a yearly subscriber, so I have an additional credit on the books. I'll just wait and see what happens. I didn't want to cancel totally, wanted to remain an active customer. I think it would be harder to cancel and try to subscribe again. I never really had to get a waiver, when we lost CBS back in 2006 I was grandfathered in.

That's just me.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

joecap1946 said:


> I spoke to them prior to the shut off. They offered me both CBS feeds in SD. I paid 49.00 for 13 months. I really enjoy the option of the west coast feed, true they are not in HD. I'm in a DMA that doesn't carry a HD feed of CBS, so the HD was nice while it lasted. I get all the Big Networks except for CBS in HD, Panama City Florida gets it's CBS from Dothan AL.
> 
> I was a yearly subscriber, so I have an additional credit on the books. I'll just wait and see what happens. I didn't want to cancel totally, wanted to remain an active customer. I think it would be harder to cancel and try to subscribe again. I never really had to get a waiver, when we lost CBS back in 2006 I was grandfathered in.
> 
> That's just me.


Joe,

I guess the best we can hope for is sometime soon.......... maybe in 2011, that DISH will get HD for Dothan and then in turn, maybe we can get our CBS in HD......

I know both DIRECT and COMCAST in Dothan have HD.....no rela idea why DISH can't/won't do the same.

Stu


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

psdstu said:


> Joe,
> 
> I guess the best we can hope for is sometime soon.......... maybe in 2011, that DISH will get HD for Dothan and then in turn, maybe we can get our CBS in HD......
> 
> ...


Stu, I was in Sam's the other day and Direct had a table set up. They have Panama City locals coming in 2011 (Who Knows). He told me they would be in HD.

Their(Direct's) website states "Panama City locals coming in 2011"

Just a matter of time.

Too bad I like Dish and it's equipment.

Take care


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

The HD feeds are still on...tick, tick, tick!


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Suprisingly mine are too. (11AM EST)


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

levibluewa said:


> The HD feeds are still on...tick, tick, tick!


Show off.....................


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

BOOM!!!!!! They're gone.


----------



## bigrich (Jan 3, 2006)

Mine are still active. All 8.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

48 hours seems to take a lot longer than it used to.


----------



## iamru (Nov 13, 2010)

Still on


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Death watch continues. Mine are still on, 9AM EST.


----------



## joegr (Jul 8, 2010)

Mine are gone as of sometime yesterday.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

runner861 said:


> This FCC ruling regarding the predictive model, effective January 21, may have something to do with the distants rumor. The actual rules can be obtained from the FCC website.
> 
> http://financial.tmcnet.com/news/2010/12/22/5209112.htm


The interesting thing about these rules is that the FCC will continue to use a rooftop antenna as the standard for determining whether a household is "served" by a local station. Because STELA referenced "antenna," rather than "rooftop antenna," some people thought that perhaps another type of antenna, such as rabbit ears, would become the standard. Had that happened, the number of households eligible for distants would have greatly increased.

The eligibility rules do not generally affect Dish and Direct subscribers, since they are in most cases already served by local-into-local service. However, the rules will affect AAD/NPS, since that company does not provide local service. The rules go into effect on January 21.

It may be that AAD/NPS felt that the rules would not allow enough unserved households to exist to make the distants business worthwhile. That may be why AAD/NPS is exiting the distants business, at least for HD stations, on January 21. Had the FCC adopted a small indoor antenna as the standard, AAD/NPS could have radically increased its number of subscribers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The FCC cannot adopt the worst case antenna as their standard ... if they did people with an antenna that amounts to a poorly tuned coathanger in a basement could claim to be unserved. Customers need to make some effort.

The standard has long been based (even before digital) on an outdoor antenna mounted at 30ft above ground level (9.1 meters). That is the point of measurement.

The old standards defined coverage along radials. A precise range over each radial was calculated based on averages along each radius and the dots were connected to create a smooth circular contour. STELA changed that to individual locations.

What that means is a toss up. In poor reception areas that were inside the contour, customers could ask for an on site test to prove they had insufficient reception (outdoors at 30ft) but otherwise inside the contour meant they were served. Now a computer driven estimate based on the customers exact location, including terrain, will be used to estimate served vs unserved. This will eliminate testing for some inside the circle.

But it goes both ways - some outside the circle will become served. A customer in a good location who would have qualified under the contour rules may not qualified under an individual test.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*Uplink Changes seen 1/19/11 at 2:32pm ET (v26)*

And POOF they were gone ... but DISH has test channels up in their place!
(Remaining HD NPS customers should see a goodbye slate channel.)

*Channels Moved*
73 WLS (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
74 WBBM (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
75 WMAQ (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
76 WFLD (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
77 KABC (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
78 KCBS (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
79 KNBC (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)
80 KTTV (AAD Distant) moved from TP 17 to TP 21 at 110° (HD Hidden)

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels NOT Available*
4891 TMP1A added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4892 TMP1C added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4893 TMP1N added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4894 TMP1F added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4895 TMP2A added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4896 TMP2C added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4897 TMP2N added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)
4898 TMP2F added to 110° TP 17 (HD *TEST* Hidden)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> *Uplink Changes seen 1/19/11 at 2:32pm ET (v26)*
> 
> And POOF they were gone ... but DISH has test channels up in their place!
> (Remaining HD NPS customers should see a goodbye slate channel.)
> ...


So what does it mean to have test channels in place of the AAD stations? And why are the stations used as AAD distants now moved to another transponder on the same satellite? So had Dish had extra space available on this satellite and done nothing with it (at least until now)?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> So what does it mean to have test channels in place of the AAD stations? And why are the stations used as AAD distants now moved to another transponder on the same satellite? So had Dish had extra space available on this satellite and done nothing with it (at least until now)?


Basically DISH has created a "slate" channel on one of their other transponders. It is likely just a screen with words on it noting the removal of the channels. Anyone who has not had their channels deauthorized yet will see it (screen shots welcome). All eight channels will point at the same slate ... likely the same one seen as channel "9582 LTD2" ... The "local take down" channels are commonly used for carriage disputes and other outages. That "extra space" is one channel ... taking up the space of a single SD feed ... not eight channels of HD.

As far as what is left on TP17: DISH had the channels up in testing from May 21st 2009 to June 10th 2009 under test channel names. Having them up in testing now could simply be a bookend. Or it could be a sign of a future service. For now they are just test channels which may change at any time.


----------



## vixens (Jul 17, 2008)

My Distant Network website is down.

I called and was told HD will remain disconnected; however, SD service will continue.

Can anybody tell me on what channels their SD channels are ?

I believe they are via sat 119; what transponder(s) ?
Is it still SF and NYC?

Thanks !


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

241-248


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

vixens said:


> My Distant Network website is down.


Down since last Friday. See previous posts in this thread.


> Can anybody tell me on what channels their SD channels are ?
> I believe they are via sat 119; what transponder(s) ?
> Is it still SF and NYC?


241-248 ... 119 TP 15 ... Yes.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I just received an email from Dish, although it didn't seem to be fully responsive to the situation. It said that Dish "will not be able to provide distant networks to customers in either HD or SD formats." The letter further stated that Sobongo has been purchased by a new company and that any inquiries should be directed to Sobongo's toll free number.

The letter implies that the termination of the service was the work of Sobongo, and that Dish is unable to provide distants. I know that the latter is not true.

It seems that Dish is starting to feel some customer reaction to the termination of the HD distants. What Dish will do, if anything, is unknown.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The letter further stated that Sobongo has been purchased by a new company


The change in web site ownership certainly suggests that.



> The letter implies that the termination of the service was the work of Sobongo, and that Dish is unable to provide distants. I know that the latter is not true.


Assuming the new company inherited the Dish-Sobongo contract, the no-compete provision could be interpreted to preclude Dish from providing its own DNS, either in HD or SD, other than channels it adds to LIL packages in short markets. All depends on how the contract language is written.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> Assuming the new company inherited the Dish-Sobongo contract, the no-compete provision could be interpreted to preclude Dish from providing its own DNS, either in HD or SD, other than channels it adds to LIL packages in short markets. All depends on how the contract language is written.


It is a narrow non-compete clause. It does not prevent Dish from offering distant networks stations. It specifically prohibits Dish from offering the same stations as distants as are offered by NPS.

As I read it, New York and San Francisco are off limits as distants for Dish. Any others, such as Los Angeles and Chicago, are available.

I can go back and reread the clause, but this is my recollection. It was included in the court documents filed back in 2006. Of course, the parties may have agreed to new language sometime after that date.

What gave me the idea to look for a non-compete clause was that Dish offers Santa Barbara ABC as a distant in Monterey-Salinas, which is a short market. A much more logical choice, and the one offered by cable and Direct in that market, is San Francisco. But San Francisco ABC is off limits as a distant to Dish because of the non-compete clause.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> The change in web site ownership certainly suggests that.


Although the new website owner is a marketing firm.



> Assuming the new company inherited the Dish-Sobongo contract, the no-compete provision could be interpreted to preclude Dish from providing its own DNS, either in HD or SD, other than channels it adds to LIL packages in short markets. All depends on how the contract language is written.


From the 2006 lease contract:As an integral part of the consideration for entering into this and contemporaneous agreements, in the event that Customer uses the Service for the distribution of a Distant Network Service, EchoStar shall not directly provide to DISH Network Subscribers as distant network channels the programming that constitutes the Customer's Distant Network Service. Neither the provisions of this paragraph nor any other provision of this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit or prevent EchoStar or its Affiliates from providing "significantly viewed" channels () or "special market" channels () to its subscribers to the extent that EchoStar or its Affiliates are permitted by applicable law to do so.​Only the specific channels NPS/AAD carry cannot be carried as distants by DISH. That list just got shorter.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

There are rumors on the other site that Dish will be starting a distants service, but will not accept data/waivers from AAD. They will be starting over.

I wish Dish would be more open about what is going on. I want full-time HD RSNs, and I also want a nationwide distants service with east and west available to any qualified customer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The rumored date isn't far away ... so perhaps a little patience?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

A poster on the other site said that the test channels that replaced the AAD channels also have guide data. Is this true?


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

The channel reads: "This channel is no longer available. Please contact All American Direct at 800-909-9677 with any questions." The guide data just says, "Important news" and info repeats the above.

and yup, you guessed it, my HD distants are gone. They were on this morning.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Although the new website owner is a marketing firm.


And their whole business might be to market Dish-provided channels as DNS, rather than to provide their own uplinks as NPS/AAD did. It never seemed necessary to me for AAD to have its own feeds to qualify as a distinct provider. After all, there are some cable companies that use DBS feeds to get local channels, and I'm sure those companies are governed by cable provisions in the law, not the satellite provisions.

Pure speculation, of course.



> From the 2006 lease contract:As an integral part of the consideration for entering into this and contemporaneous agreements, in the event that Customer uses the Service for the distribution of a Distant Network Service, EchoStar shall not directly provide to DISH Network Subscribers as distant network channels _*the programming*_ that constitutes the Customer's Distant Network Service. Neither the provisions of this paragraph nor any other provision of this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit or prevent EchoStar or its Affiliates from providing "significantly viewed" channels () or "special market" channels () to its subscribers to the extent that EchoStar or its Affiliates are permitted by applicable law to do so.​Only the specific channels NPS/AAD carry cannot be carried as distants by DISH. That list just got shorter.


It depends on how one defines "the programming". Is there a specific definition of that anywhere?

Absent that, I would interpret it as ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC programming or whatever networks the Customer provides. I.e., Dish can continue to provide the CW, PBS, ION, or any other qualifying net, but not the nets that "the Customer" provides.



runner861 said:


> Of course, the parties may have agreed to new language sometime after that date.


Right. In light of STELA provisions allowing DNS to fill short markets irrespective of any OOM station contours, the latest version may have additional language to make clear that Dish can use DNS to fill short markets.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> And their whole business might be to market Dish-provided channels as DNS, rather than to provide their own uplinks as NPS/AAD did. It never seemed necessary to me for AAD to have its own feeds to qualify as a distinct provider. After all, there are some cable companies that use DBS feeds to get local channels, and I'm sure those companies are governed by cable provisions in the law, not the satellite provisions.
> 
> Pure speculation, of course.
> 
> ...


The practice since Dish recovered the license to provide distants is to provide distants other than those provided by AAD/NPS. But Dish is providing distants, so it appears that the non-compete clause only prohibits the use of the stations provided by AAD/NPS.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

It appears that paragraph 12H of the contract prohibits it from being assigned or transferred without Echostar's prior written consent.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> In light of STELA provisions allowing DNS to fill short markets irrespective of any OOM station contours, the latest version may have additional language to make clear that Dish can use DNS to fill short markets.


Seems like a stretch. The language of the known contract allows distant network channels ... only affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox qualify under the law as distants so assuming the contract only allows DISH to carry channels that are not distants (CW, PBS, etc) as distants isn't logical.



runner861 said:


> It appears that paragraph 12H of the contract prohibits it from being assigned or transferred without Echostar's prior written consent.


So assuming DISH agreed to the transfer of ownership the SD distants should continue. The transfer of power would be a good time for DISH to renegotiate the contract completely.

We're following cookie crumbs ... so lets look at NPS' other channel, Channel 240:
On December 30th that channel was redirected from the "Sobongo" channel hosted on NPS' SD transponder to mirror channel 230 (a DISH infomercial channel).
On January 12th that channel was hidden (removed from the customer's EPG).
This afternoon channel 240 returned ... back on NPS' transponder on 119 ... as "HUNT" showing Pursuit TV. Available to all DISH viewers with 119.

sobongo.com remains registered to NPS ... as does the defunct callnps.com site. So apparently there is still an "NPS" company.

Perhaps NPS pulled their Sobongo channel at the end of last month when they sold the distants business and the new owner has decided to return with his own channel? Odd.

And as of this moment there is still no place on the internet to buy AAD distants. Whomever this "new owner" is, apparently they don't like to market.


----------



## vixens (Jul 17, 2008)

Are the SD channels of Distant still working ?
Any news on these ?

Also: tp 15 does not show on Lyngsat
http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/dish119.html
Any idea why?


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

I am still receiving all 8 of the SD channels. Still technically receiver all 8 of the HD channels too albiet an SD slate of "important info"


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

vixens said:


> Also: tp 15 does not show on Lyngsat
> http://www.lyngsat.com/packages/dish119.html
> Any idea why?


See http://www.lyngsat.com/echo14.html - The information is dated and is missing channel 240, but it is there.

The page you linked is for DISH Network package channels. The channels on TP 15 are not part of the DISH Network packages.


----------



## BillR (Dec 27, 2006)

Came home tonight from work and my HD networks were gone  I wonder how many will bolt from Dish over this?


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

I wonder if the place up the street (7.99 mi. from DISH) is in line to take over the HD signals. Considering DISH's past problems offering distants, an arrangement via an AAD-type conduit delivery system seems to be a better option for DISH as well as the consumer since more would qualify because they don't offer "locals".

One thing we can say, no wiki-leaks here!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If I were DISH I'd see if Pace International would [strike]take over[/strike] like to offer the HD service. The run http://www.dishformyrv.com/ selling DISH services and equipment to RVers, which is linked from DISH's website ( http://dish.com/rv ). RV service could easily be done by DISH directly but if someone else wants to offer a similar service to the one AAD has ceased it seems that Pace would be a contender.


----------



## iamru (Nov 13, 2010)

Channels now gone!


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Seems like a stretch. The language of the known contract allows distant network channels ... only affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox qualify under the law as distants so assuming the contract only allows DISH to carry channels that are not distants (CW, PBS, etc) as distants isn't logical.





> *47USC339(d)(5) Television network*
> The term "television network" means a television network in the United States which offers an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated broadcast stations in 10 or more States.​


At one point, the WB, and later the CW, was offering 13 hours in prime time and 10 hours weekdays, so it definitely qualified as a network. Whether it still does or not, I'm not sure. PBS qualifies, I think, and one or more Spanish services might as well.

Of course, only ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC sued Dish, so the injunction only covered those, and those four are the ones most people care most about getting, whether local or out of market.

I think it's a stretch to regard "the programming" as referring to specific stations or affiliates, inasmuch as the contract could certainly have referred to the services that way if that's what was meant.

Consider also that AAD switched its east coast SD feeds from Atlanta to NYC at one point. So under your interpretation, that would have required Dish to switch its own DNS service, if it had legally provided such, away from NYC to some place else?

Finally, the posts in this thread and others on this topic show very clearly that many DNS subs now limited to SD would drop that service in favor of an HD service if Dish offered one. If that's not competition, I don't know what is. Seems to me a non-compete clause that doesn't preclude that isn't worth the paper to print it.



> So assuming DISH agreed to the transfer of ownership the SD distants should continue. The transfer of power would be a good time for DISH to renegotiate the contract completely.


Agreed. Dish and some new company could certainly divide up the DNS market along SD/HD lines. That seems a strange arrangement to me, but then nothing about Dish's handling of DNS has been exactly conventional, so we'll see.



> We're following cookie crumbs ... so lets look at NPS' other channel, Channel 240:
> On December 30th that channel was redirected from the "Sobongo" channel hosted on NPS' SD transponder to mirror channel 230 (a DISH infomercial channel).
> On January 12th that channel was hidden (removed from the customer's EPG).
> This afternoon channel 240 returned ... back on NPS' transponder on 119 ... as "HUNT" showing Pursuit TV. Available to all DISH viewers with 119.
> ...


Right. But the 4DTV and DNS "cookie crumbs", along with adopting the name "Sobongo", suggest a company that wants to get out of the satellite programming business.



> Perhaps NPS pulled their Sobongo channel at the end of last month when they sold the distants business and the new owner has decided to return with his own channel? Odd.


VERY odd, I'd say.

Pursuit TV doesn't belong in a package with DNS, nor does it seem like the sort of service an independent company would lease a transponder to provide.



> And as of this moment there is still no place on the internet to buy AAD distants. Whomever this "new owner" is, apparently they don't like to market.


Actually, that's the only part of this whole thing that makes any sense. I mean, if you wanted to terminate a service - no ifs, ands, or buts - you could simply throw the switch for everyone all at once and be done with it.

But if you're new to a business and trying to come up with a new price structure, and possibly negotiate a new transponder lease at a new rate, then you might pull your web site down for a while, turn off some but not all subs one by one, making various offers to substitute SD service for HD at various rates, and gauge the response.

In any case, we'll find out on Friday whether those guys at another satellite site are right about Dish's plans for DNS.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> At one point, the WB, and later the CW, was offering 13 hours in prime time and 10 hours weekdays, so it definitely qualified as a network. Whether it still does or not, I'm not sure. PBS qualifies, I think, and one or more Spanish services might as well.
> 
> Of course, only ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC sued Dish, so the injunction only covered those, and those four are the ones most people care most about getting, whether local or out of market.
> 
> ...


But it appears that the non-compete clause only prohibits use of the specific stations used by AAD/NPS as distants. I say that because Dish has been providing subscribers in short markets with distants beginning with some markets in early 2010, and others later in the year. The injunction was lifted by the district court in two phases.

During that time, and still now, Dish has never provided as a distant a station used as a distant by AAD/NPS. In Monterey-Salinas Dish avoided San Francisco ABC as a distant, even though that was the only logical choice, in favor of Santa Barbara ABC as a distant. However, again, Dish has been providing distants to qualified subscribers throughout 2010.

Dish has had a DNS service throughout 2010. All we are talking about here is a nationwide east/west DNS service. The non-compete clause makes no distinction between a nationwide DNS service and a more regional DNS service, like the one that Dish is now operating.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish has had a DNS service throughout 2010. All we are talking about here is a nationwide east/west DNS service. The non-compete clause makes no distinction between a nationwide DNS service and a more regional DNS service, like the one that Dish is now operating.


STELA makes no distinction either, and it appears that NPS/AAD/Sobongo has been planning its exit from the programming business for a long time. If, at any point, Dish considered taking over the AAD service and offering those same stations as add-on options in short markets after regaining its license, that would have been a sufficient reason to avoid providing those stations as short market fill-ins, irrespective of any non-compete clause.

Note that AAD exploited a pre-STELA loophole - or misinterpreted the language, depending on how you look at it - to provide customers with distants from four cities, 2 SD and 2 HD.

The current law seems very clear, however. A satellite carrier may provide an eligible sub with 2 distant stations per network, period. So if Dish does decide to offer ConUS HD as an add-on service to short market subs, they should be able to provide only ONE such channel per qualified net, because the regional fill-in DNS, SD or HD, will count as the first DNS signal for that net.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish offers Santa Barbara ABC as a distant in Monterey-Salinas, which is a short market. *A much more logical choice, and the one offered by* cable and *Direct in that market, is San Francisco.*


See my previous post, and note that Direct does not offer ConUS DNS from SF, and likely never will. Thus it has no reason to avoid SF for the fill-in station.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH could have easily done it the other way around ... for example, use the San Fransisco local in Monterey (as a short market distant) and then add the Santa Barbara channel later. IF they were permitted to by the NPS contract. Under STELA DISH could be delivering two of every short market distant ... so from day one DISH could have delivered any two markets to Lafayette IN (Chicago and Indy, not just Indy). IF they were permitted to by the NPS contract.

But DISH has chosen not to ... and STELA allows that too (DISH is not required to offer a distant). DISH chose to offer a single "close" distant that was available on a spotbeam covering each short market that needed a distant. And from all indications, the only reason to choose a Santa Barbara station over a more popular San Fransisco station for the short Monterey market was ... the contract with NPS.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

DNS isn't free. The provider has to pay royalties. So it isn't likely they would provide two of the same network without any additional charge. That makes no sense.

Dish doesn't always provide the most "logical" channel. They give Salisbury, MD, which is on the Eastern Shore, an NBC affiliate from Hagerstown, which is on the opposite side of the state, in the Appalachian Mountains. Baltimore, DC, Philly, or even Norfolk would all make more sense, as Salisbury residents are more likely to travel to any of those places to shop than Hagerstown. And any of those stations are more likely to provide weather reports relevant to Delmarva than the Hagerstown station.

It’s certainly possible that the AAD service was a relevant consideration in the choice of ABC for Monterey, but you really can’t be sure whether that was because of a non-compete clause, or some future consideration, or maybe just because Dish wanted to provide a different channel as a courtesy to their subs who also received AAD service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> Dish doesn't always provide the most "logical" channel.


The logic isn't always obvious at first glance. Some stations may be SV in part of a market and distants in the rest. DISH's "odd" choices seem to be picking stations that are distants for the entire market - so there isn't a question of what law the station is being delivered under.

If it were up to me the channel selections would be different ... more SVs (even if it meant different SVs in different parts of a market) and less stations locals have never heard of. But DISH has their reasons.



> It's certainly possible that the AAD service was a relevant consideration in the choice of ABC for Monterey, but you really can't be sure whether that was because of a non-compete clause, or some future consideration, or maybe just because Dish wanted to provide a different channel as a courtesy to their subs who also received AAD service.


Is it really a courtesy to expect customers to pay up to $3.49 per month for the channel they really want instead of giving it to them for free?


----------



## ljr01 (Mar 6, 2008)

"We will inform all customers when they are released and avail in HD."

Just got this from Dish in response to a Twitter direct message. Notice the word "when" not "if".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ljr01 said:


> "We will inform all customers when they are released and avail in HD."
> 
> Just got this from Dish in response to a Twitter direct message. Notice the word "when" not "if".


It is a shame that wasn't in a tweet where it could be seen by all.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> DISH could have easily done it the other way around ... for example, use the San Fransisco local in Monterey (as a short market distant) and then add the Santa Barbara channel later.


Ok, let's think about this. You're considering buying out AAD, and offering SF stations as extra cost add-ons to eligible subs. But before you get to that, you offer Monterey subs the SF station as part of their local package.

Then, when you start offering SF as a national distant, you replace the "popular" SF station in the local package with a station from Santa Barbara, and tell those subs they can have the SF station back for an additional fee. Yeah, right. That wouldn't generate any customer complaints. Your CSRs would love you for that move.

Come on now. If Congress, networks, and satellite carriers have learned anything over the past couple of decades, it's that you never give anybody a popular channel and later take it away, if you can avoid that.



James Long said:


> The logic isn't always obvious at first glance. Some stations may be SV in part of a market and distants in the rest. DISH's "odd" choices seem to be picking stations that are distants for the entire market - so there isn't a question of what law the station is being delivered under.


There wouldn't be any question anyway. SV service requires retrans consent but not royalties; DNS requires royalties but not consent. A satellite carrier can provide to eligible subs any station it wants as DNS, including local and SV stations, so long as it pays the royalties and complies with the reporting requirements.

But paying royalties to provide free distribution for an SV station might not be the best tactic in a retrans negotiation. Again, it might be better to start with a less popular, more distant station, and then try to reduce your royalty payments later by obtaining retrans consent for the more popular SV station.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> Ok, let's think about this. You're considering buying out AAD, and offering SF stations as extra cost add-ons to eligible subs. But before you get to that, you offer Monterey subs the SF station as part of their local package.


The trouble is DISH has not charged a huge extra fee for their short market distants ... I'd say that they have not charged at all but the price is included with locals so one can assume a nominal charge per network channel. The benefit to DISH isn't the nickle and dime $3.49 per month charge ... it is the ability to offer all four networks.

Charging extra for networks is so 2010.



> Then, when you start offering SF as a national distant, you replace the "popular" SF station in the local package with a station from Santa Barbara, and tell those subs they can have the SF station back for an additional fee.


That wasn't the suggestion. The suggestion was to give customers the best distant signal for the entire market, which is apparently KGO for the Monterey market. And IF national distants started up again AND SF was the west coast station DISH could offer Monterey customers a different distant. As DISH has proven, a company does not have to offer the same distants to every market.

But DISH can not offer KGO as it is part of AAD's programming. So for now they turn to another affiliate with spot beam coverage of the area. (I say "for now" because KSBW is launching ABC on their subchannel, which will make delivering distants to Monterey impossible without a waiver. Some customers could be considered grandfathered but keeping track of grandfathered vs not is complicated and it will be easier for DISH just to cease distants in Monterey when the ABC subchannel goes on air.)



> That wouldn't generate any customer complaints.


Would you like to handle the complaints when, under your scheme, DISH starts selling KGO at a premium to customers who could get it free via cable?



> There wouldn't be any question anyway. SV service requires retrans consent but not royalties; DNS requires royalties but not consent. A satellite carrier can provide to eligible subs any station it wants as DNS, including local and SV stations, so long as it pays the royalties and complies with the reporting requirements.


A local can NEVER be a distant in its own market. And consent without royalties? Watch consent for the home market evaporate before SV consent is granted for most stations.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Would you like to handle the complaints when, under your scheme, DISH starts selling KGO at a premium to customers who could get it free via cable?


Well, not exactly "free" via cable, but ok, that's a point. I'd still prefer to deal with the cable comparison, though, than comparison to yesterday's service from my own company.



> A local can NEVER be a distant in its own market.


AAD provides NYC nets to NYC DMA white areas. Since they only provide nets, they're not complying with COCA, and therefore I presume they are providing them under the section 119 DNS license and paying applicable royalties.



> And consent without royalties? Watch consent for the home market evaporate before SV consent is granted for most stations.


By "royalties" in this context, I mean specifically and only the statutory fees that go through the Library of Congress, not any retrans fees that may be paid to the station.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> AAD provides NYC nets to NYC DMA white areas. Since they only provide nets, they're not complying with COCA, and therefore I presume they are providing them under the section 119 DNS license and paying applicable royalties.


Or perhaps operating illegally, such as delivering four affiliates of the same network in the same day to a customer when the legal limit remains two.
Subject to section 119 of title 17, any satellite carrier shall be permitted to provide the signals of *no more than two* network stations in a single day for each television network to *any household not located within the local markets* of those network stations.​


> By "royalties" in this context, I mean specifically and only the statutory fees that go through the Library of Congress, not any retrans fees that may be paid to the station.


Money is money.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> It's certainly possible that the AAD service was a relevant consideration in the choice of ABC for Monterey, but you really can't be sure whether that was because of a non-compete clause, or some future consideration, or maybe just because Dish wanted to provide a different channel as a courtesy to their subs who also received AAD service.


Providing the Santa Barbara ABC station in Monterey was not a courtesy. AAD provides KGO in SD only, so if Dish could provide it in HD, the subscribers would be pleased. Dish can't provide KGO in HD or in SD to Monterey because of the non-compete clause.

As far as I understand, the non-compete clause would be the only consideration. There were no technical considerations. The San Francisco spotbeam for HD and for SD would easily cover all of the Monterey market, as far as I know.

Even though virtually everyone in Monterey receives KGO, it is a distant in all of that market, not SV. That is why the non-compete clause covers that station throughout the entire Monterey market. So in this case Dish was forced to import not the neighboring or closest distant, but a distant from farther away. As far as I know, the Monterey market is the only illustration we have of a neighboring distant being unavailable. There is no similar situation elsewhere. (Is there any short market neighboring New York?)


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Or perhaps operating illegally, such as delivering four affiliates of the same network in the same day to a customer when the legal limit remains two.
> Subject to section 119 of title 17, any satellite carrier shall be permitted to provide the signals of *no more than two* network stations in a single day for each television network to *any household not located within the local markets* of those network stations.​


Yeah, that's the 47USC339 language, and when I first read it some years back, my interpretation was the same as yours, i.e. that the language is permissive, as the paragraph headings indicate, and anything not permitted is prohibited.

But if you ignore the paragraph headings, the provision itself can also be read as a prohibition that applies only to out of market transmissions and says nothing at all about in-market transmissions.

In any case, the second bolded clause is just one of many apparent inconsistencies between the Title 47 Communications Act language and the Title 17 Copyright language. 17USC119 refers only to unserved households, not where they are located, and it conditions the license on compliance with FCC implementing regs rather than the Communications Act itself.

So you really need to look at Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations for a definitive interpretation of 47USC339. I did a cursory search, but I didn't find anything directly on point for the provision you cited. However, 47CFR76.64(b)(3)(ii) does seem to suggest clearly that network stations delivered to unserved households do not require retrans consent, without regard to whether they are in-market or out-of-market.

Given that the interpretation is of no practical significance unless and until parties with standing disagree over it and choose to resolve that disagreement in court, I'm not really inclined to spend any more time on this, but if you can find 47CFR language directly related to the provision you cited, and/or if you can find 47USC or 47CFR language explicitly stating that all transmissions are prohibited unless explicitly permitted, I would like to read that, so please post it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> But if you ignore the paragraph headings, the provision itself can also be read as a prohibition that applies only to out of market transmissions and says nothing at all about in-market transmissions.


One can come to a lot of conclusions if one ignores selected facts.

47 USC 339 is the permissive "Carriage of distant television stations by satellite carriers". The only mention of in-market transmissions is a prohibition ... specifically _preventing_ carriers from using the distant's statutory license to deliver a local channel into its own market.

47 USC 338 is the permissive "Carriage of local television signals by satellite carriers" for in-market carriage. It includes the carry one/carry all language that would require AAD/NPS to offer carriage to ALL stations in the NYC market if they carry any station within that market.

If the station is a distant then it is prohibited in its own market by § 339 ... if it is a local then AAD/NPS must carry all under § 338. One cannot claim a local is a distant and get around the clear wording of the law.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> Note that AAD exploited a pre-STELA loophole - or misinterpreted the language, depending on how you look at it - to provide customers with distants from four cities, 2 SD and 2 HD.
> 
> The current law seems very clear, however. A satellite carrier may provide an eligible sub with 2 distant stations per network, period. So if Dish does decide to offer ConUS HD as an add-on service to short market subs, they should be able to provide only ONE such channel per qualified net, because the regional fill-in DNS, SD or HD, will count as the first DNS signal for that net.


Unless a party with standing seeks to curtail the carrier from providing more than two distants per network per day per subscriber, this violation will never be litigated. I wondered about it when AAD was providing some subscribers up to four distants per network per day, but I always thought that no one would care. Who would the aggrieved party be?

However, I do agree that if Dish starts a nationwide distants service and offers it a la carte to qualified subscribers, the total number of distant stations provided per network to a subscriber cannot legally exceed two.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> However, I do agree that if Dish starts a nationwide distants service and offers it a la carte to qualified subscribers, the total number of distant stations provided per network to a subscriber cannot legally exceed two.


Agreed. AAD started under some scrutiny but once the court declared them a separate business they have been left pretty much alone with DecisionMark qualifying people and no complaints/lawsuits to speak of. DirecTV settled the initial lawsuits and has not faced complaints (IIRC they use the same city for HD and SD so providing four feeds wouldn't be a problem - it is still two stations).

But DISH, ah DISH, they are offering distants under court supervision with a Special Master watching over them. It is like driving with a police officer in the passenger seat ... and not a one who winks when you're bending a law but one who writes you a ticket for every minor thing.

DISH _*will*_ follow the distants law ... and if they error they will error on the side of caution. They have been making such cautious errors since STELA was passed ... losing distants again will be really permanent. Why take the risk?


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> 47 USC 339 is the permissive "Carriage of distant television stations by satellite carriers". The only mention of in-market transmissions is a prohibition ... specifically _preventing_ carriers from using the distant's statutory license to deliver a local channel into its own market.
> 
> 47 USC 338 is the permissive "Carriage of local television signals by satellite carriers" for in-market carriage. It includes the carry one/carry all language that would require AAD/NPS to offer carriage to ALL stations in the NYC market if they carry any station within that market.


The paragraph heading for 339(a)(1) is "Carriage permitted". For 338(a) it is "Carriage obligations".

339(a)(1)(B) specifically allows in-market transmissions in addition to the two signals allowed in 339(a)(1)(A), which is the paragraph you quoted previously.

338(a)(1) applies COCA obligations specifically to service provided under 17USC122, i.e. the LIL license; not to service provided under 17USC119, the DNS license; and not to service provided with contractual, rather than statutory, rights clearances.



> If the station is a distant then it is prohibited in its own market by § 339 ... if it is a local then AAD/NPS must carry all under § 338. One cannot claim a local is a distant and get around the clear wording of the law.


Well, you might be right, but I believe it falls to the FCC to enforce the Communications Act. Perhaps if/when AAD's web site is restored, you should enter a few NY/SF white addresses and forward the results to the FCC. (I would suggest you find and read the relevant FCC regs before going to that trouble, though.)



runner861 said:


> Unless a party with standing seeks to curtail the carrier from providing more than two distants per network per day per subscriber, this violation will never be litigated. I wondered about it when AAD was providing some subscribers up to four distants per network per day, but I always thought that no one would care. Who would the aggrieved party be?


Any rights holder could file suit for violation of its Title 17 rights, I would think, or perhaps the FCC could issue a notice of non-compliance for violations of its regs implementing Title 47. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so that's speculation, not legal advice.)



James Long said:


> But DISH, ah DISH, they are offering distants under court supervision with a Special Master watching over them. It is like driving with a police officer in the passenger seat ... and not a one who winks when you're bending a law but one who writes you a ticket for every minor thing.
> 
> DISH _*will*_ follow the distants law ... and if they error they will error on the side of caution.


Agreed. In fact, I would expect they are clearing all their DNS arrangements, including any new AAD type contracts, with the Special Master just to be safe.

And one of the big advantages, if not THE biggest advantage, of leaving RV service or any other national DNS offering to a third party is that it would remove the qualification process for that service from the Special Master's supervision.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RV service is easy ... get the registration for the recreational vehicle that qualifies and turn on the channels. White area service would be up to someone else.

(BTW: I'm not agreeing with your conclusion on the distants law, but I've made my statement and it doesn't need repeating.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> RV service is easy ... get the registration for the recreational vehicle that qualifies and turn on the channels. White area service would be up to someone else.
> 
> (BTW: I'm not agreeing with your conclusion on the distants law, but I've made my statement and it doesn't need repeating.)


Short market is also easy. Just turn on the channels if requested by the subscriber.

Maintaining a grandfathering list is easier with a national distant purchased a la carte than it would be with a neighboring distant sold as part of a local package.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> Any rights holder could file suit for violation of its Title 17 rights, I would think, or perhaps the FCC could issue a notice of non-compliance for violations of its regs implementing Title 47. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so that's speculation, not legal advice.)


As far as the rights holder suing, I don't think that would work. Even though a technical violation of the copyright holder's rights have occurred when a carrier transmits more than two stations from the same network to the same subscriber on the same day, there are really no damages. The subscriber, if properly qualified, is allowed to receive the programming on up to two distant stations. If the subscriber receives the programming instead on, say, four distant stations, the subscriber is still entitled to see the programming. I don't see where the damages would be. This particular law may be what some call a right without a remedy.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

This is irritating. We wanted and paid extra for the Chicago station WLS to watch their newscasts. I didn't care about it being SD or HD. Now being stuck with the New York and San Francisco station, we don't have any interest in that news since it's not close to us.


----------



## crockett_18 (May 2, 2010)

Seems sad in todays day of I don't know how many channels there are, but yet watching a west coast NBC, ABC etc. channel is impossible. I would always watch my locals channels first, but for some of us who work afternoons, it was to get home and watch primetime TV in the later hours.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

crockett_18 said:


> Seems sad in todays day of I don't know how many channels there are, but yet watching a west coast NBC, ABC etc. channel is impossible. I would always watch my locals channels first, but for some of us who work afternoons, it was to get home and watch primetime TV in the later hours.


Planning ahead one can form a solution by recording the missed shows. I have more timers set on my DVR on local channels than the satellite networks - even shows that I'm home for that I don't want to miss.

What I lose is the channel flipping catch a show I've never heard of and enjoy. In order to watch a new show I'd need to see it promoted during a show I'd watch ... and with a DVR skipping commercials the networks would need to catch my eye quickly or catch me when I'm too lazy/too busy to hit the skip button.

If you're not home you just have to plan ahead ... 2nd shifters recording shows and watching them in the wee hours instead of the ShamWow commercials. Daytime shows can be recorded and time shifted as well. Even though I am usually home, the "planning ahead" for my evening recordings helps when I get home later than planned or decide to go out again. All the recordings are preset so I don't have to worry about what I'm missing if I go to the store.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

If you are willing to accept the original premise as it has been, that if you are in a white area, you can get up to two of the same network, then what is sad, is the Satellite requirement that they not be serving your area on top of that.

I say willing to accept because many felt there should be a way to get distants for anyone who wanted them. But it has now progressed to this;

Your locals are not providing a signal you can get. But instead of making them provide the FREE signal, if you want to watch you must pay for it. But you can only pay your provider for the channels that you should be getting for free. It should be, if the signal is not being provided, you have the right to two of each networks regardless of someone willing to charge you for the locals, and I would take it further, if the locals can not provide a free signal, you should be able to get as many of each network as you want.


----------



## bigrich (Jan 3, 2006)

Where is the big surprise from Dish Network? Is Salisbury, MD qualifying?


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

I just hope it doesn't take as long for DISH to solve this issue as it did for them to provide us "Local on the 8s"...oh, wait, we're still waiting on that one


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The problem that AAD distants solved was DISH losing their ability to carry distant channels back in 2006. That problem has now been solved by DISH regaining the right to carry distants and carrying either locals or distants in every market (except where the local station refused carriage). This leaves a minimal number of subscribers with the problem that DISH had in 2006 ... and the 2006 solution remains, AAD distants on 119.

While it would be nice if DISH offered HD distants, or found a company willing to carry distants in place of AAD, I don't see it as being their problem (other than that it is DISH customers complaining about something AAD did).


----------



## poncedish (Nov 11, 2007)

meanwhile, subs like us in Puerto Rico are stuck with SD, since none of the local affiliates transmit in HD. So now no superbowl in HD. I am really mad with this situation. At least in the mainland many have the option of even with a roof antenna could get the channels in HD, we don't have that luck.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> The problem that AAD distants solved was DISH losing their ability to carry distant channels back in 2006. That problem has now been solved by DISH regaining the right to carry distants and carrying either locals or distants in every market (except where the local station refused carriage). This leaves a minimal number of subscribers with the problem that DISH had in 2006 ... and the 2006 solution remains, AAD distants on 119.
> 
> While it would be nice if DISH offered HD distants, or found a company willing to carry distants in place of AAD, I don't see it as being their problem (other than that it is DISH customers complaining about something AAD did).


I agree, thus my post above. The idiotic rules are more of the problem. I don't mind protecting the local markets, but once they are not providing a free signal to someone, they should be able to get distants. If that were the case, having distants would be more profitable. AAD was able to to that, Dish/Direct can not. If Dish does carry HD distants, it will be more to satisfy a few of it's subscribers, rather than making much of a profit.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

So no big announcement on the 21st?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> So no big announcement on the 21st?


Apparently not.

This thread was initially closed for another reason, but there doesn't seem to be any truth to discuss on the distants issue other than what has already been covered here. If the situation changes and DISH makes any moves toward replacing the former NPS/AAD HD distants or starting their own service a new thread can be started.


----------

