# From Charlie Ergen, i.e Distant Locals



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

This is from Charlie Ergen about Distant Locals and will be released to retailers on Monday.

As you may have already heard, a group of network broadcasters are trying to force DISH Network to stop delivering distant network channels to our customers.

Distant network channels are the ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX broadcast channels customers get from us by satellite that originate outside their community. For example, if customers live in rural Texas and purchase New York, Los Angeles, Denver or other network channels from us, they are at serious risk of being shut off. This would NOT affect or upset in any way our ability to offer local network channels to local markets, and the good news is that we offer local channels by satellite to over 96% of the United States. Nor would it affect any other programming we offer.

The problem is a court case that has been going on for eight years. We strongly believe consumers have the right to choose their TV viewing experience, and should be allowed to watch televised news and other information originating outside their hometown. They are free to choose to read The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, or any other newspaper regardless of where in the United States they live. These same choices should be available for TV news. Unfortunately, the broadcasters were able to get a special interest law passed that prohibits this, except in very limited circumstances. And now the broadcasters are trying to take even that limited choice away from our customers.

We fought hard for years to allow our customers the choice to receive televised news and other information originating outside their hometown.
This is particularly important in times of national or local emergency.
During Hurricane Katrina, when local channels went off the air, DISH Network provided distant network channels to relief stations, police and fire stations, military installations and thousands of displaced families. Similarly, after 9/11, DISH Network supplied distant network channels crucial to relief efforts.

While we have reached reasonable settlements with hundreds of stations over the years, a small group of broadcasters continues to stonewall - to the detriment of our customers. A recent court decision clearly favors the self-interests of these broadcasters over protecting the rights of hundreds of thousands of consumers who choose to receive their network channels by satellite. Unfortunately, broadcaster special interests used their big money to preserve a law that takes away customers' freedom of choice.

You can help stop this by immediately going to www.savemychannels.com, which will assist you in contacting and emailing your Congressmen and asking them to fight for our subscribers' rights to keep their distant network channels.

Our goal is to avoid disruption to our customers who currently receive distant networks, and we continue to try to reach fair settlements with the broadcasters and to lobby members of Congress. If necessary, we will take our case all the way up to the Supreme Court.

We will continue to keep you informed of significant developments. In the meantime, please go to www.savemychannels.com today to help our customers save their distant channels.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

Can this be made a sticky and put on the front page? This is something that really needs to be seen.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

Well if Charlie were providing locals to that dusty Texas town, there'd be no problem. Charlie's problems started when he began signing up distant customers illegally. This is much ado about nothing.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

micklewhite said:


> Well if Charlie were providing locals to that dusty Texas town, there'd be no problem.


There are several reasons for not providing locals. Bandwidth is one, but it's becoming less of a concern with additional spotbeams. Additional locals are continually coming online - this takes time. Also, there are a handful of broadcasters that either will not agree to retransmission under any circumstances or wish to charge prices that could only be classified as extortion.



micklewhite said:


> Charlie's problems started when he began signing up distant customers illegally.


This much is true. The Courts say that this was a violation of SHVERA (and its predecessors), and SHVERA defines the penalty. The problem is that this not only penalizes E*, it also penalizes those subscribers who are legally entitled to receive distants. If E* is guilty (and the Courts say they are), then they should pay some penalty. At the current time, there is only one possible penalty (an unfair one), and the only entity that can change the penalty is the Congress (as they created the law). Hence the reason for writing to your legislators. E* is doing the only thing they can at this time.



micklewhite said:


> This is much ado about nothing.


Tell that to any legitimate distant network subscriber and see what response you get. This is much ado about something very important to many people.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

micklewhite said:


> Well if Charlie were providing locals to that dusty Texas town, there'd be no problem. Charlie's problems started when he began signing up distant customers illegally. This is much ado about nothing.


Welcome to the forum, to bad you don't know of what you speak. It is a big deal to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and they don't deserve to lose their access to local channels.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Slamminc11 said:


> Welcome to the forum, to bad you don't know of what you speak. It is a big deal to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and they don't deserve to lose their access to local channels.


Um, not their locals at risk, it's distant affialiates from Los Angeles and New York that (whether justified or not) they have no legal right to receive.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

GeorgeLV said:


> Um, not their locals at risk, it's distant affialiates from Los Angeles and New York that (whether justified or not) they have no legal right to receive.


Based on the Opinion of the Court and the language of the Act, those who DO have a legal right to receive the distant affiliates will lose them as well. Tell me how that's fair?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

GeorgeLV said:


> Um, not their locals at risk, it's distant affialiates from Los Angeles and New York that (whether justified or not) they have no legal right to receive.


You need to read up on the remedies allowed by the policy. The possible penalties include cutting off LIL.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

BoisePaul said:


> Based on the Opinion of the Court and the language of the Act, those who DO have a legal right to receive the distant affiliates will lose them as well. Tell me how that's fair?


Well, one could argue that the people who are legally qualified can continue receive DNS by switching to DirecTV...


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

harsh said:


> You need to read up on the remedies allowed by the policy. The possible penalties include cutting off LIL.


This is true, though it doesn't look like that's going to be pursued by the Courts or the NAB and company. That would be shooting themselves in the foot. E* doesn't appear to be preparing to fight that particular battle either.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

LiL's are safe. The court ruling ONLY applies to DNS.

Direct tv is joke for distants. They only offer la and ny, and besides any one who was grandfathered can not just jump ship to D*. There are a lot of legit subscribers who live in true white areas that will be affected by the courts pandering to the NAB and ignoreing the consumer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder how the "movers" factor into this... That is another way that Dish has essentially permitted customers around the law to get other networks than their local ones.

Not saying I 100% agree with the law as written... but with the law being what it is, it sounds like Dish is caught in a corner in a few places here.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

cj9788 said:


> Direct tv is joke for distants.


So you're saying that following the law is a "joke"?


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> This is true, though it doesn't look like that's going to be pursued by the Courts or the NAB and company. That would be shooting themselves in the foot. E* doesn't appear to be preparing to fight that particular battle either.


NAB actually did pursue LiL being shut down on Dish as the remedy, but the Court disagreed and settled on only DNS.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

The problem is our congressmen. They enacted the law. Congress has a lower approval rate than even President Bush. How did your congressman vote on this issue?


----------



## marty43 (Sep 30, 2005)

I have written to my representatives in Washington, as I am one of those effected. I rely on Distant nets for NBC and FOX from NYC as my DMA (Watertown, NY ) has only CBS and ABC.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I wonder how the "movers" factor into this... That is another way that Dish has essentially permitted customers around the law to get other networks than their local ones.
> 
> Not saying I 100% agree with the law as written... but with the law being what it is, it sounds like Dish is caught in a corner in a few places here.


the way i'm reading this is that "movers" won't be effected by this because as far as charlie knows, they are living in the areas where they are receiving local channels.

can somebody explain what's going on here for those not familiar with the details? what is illegal about charlie giving people distant locals? what is SHVERA? what is a white area? i've never really understood how distant locals work or how one qualifies to get them. please elaborate...


----------



## thopki2 (Mar 29, 2006)

Slamminc11 said:


> This is from Charlie Ergen about Distant Locals and will be released to retailers on Monday.
> 
> As you may have already heard, a group of network broadcasters are trying to force DISH Network to stop delivering distant network channels to our customers.
> 
> ...


It figures, tried to access the web site, "not authorized.


----------



## Steve H (May 15, 2006)

thopki2 said:


> It figures, tried to access the web site, "not authorized.


same here............it might not be up till Monday.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

It is unfortunate that those in white areas will lose network signals but perhaps a positive will be increased pressure to expand LIL to all DMA's. There doesn't seem to be be a time or action limitation on the injunction, so it may require a new law to restore E* to the DNS business. But since that would decrease the incentive for global LIL, I don't see it happening. I rather doubt the Supreme Court would take this case but there is always the possibility that it will be revisited en banc (my prediction - same result).


----------



## washerebefore (Nov 7, 2005)

We should be able to watch what we want if we are paying for it.

Because of the stations and groups that want your money to go to them we had to wait longer to see HD on the Sat. systems. Both of them have had to spend millions to get everyone there locals. Both sat. companys would of had more HD to more people by now.

If someone wants Kansas City ABC,CBS and live in New York they should allow it if that customer is paying for that channel.

This whole (you can't watch what you want, only what I tell you) is such a pain in the ass.

Next thing you know if you use your antenna to get your local ABC but also get another ABC out of your area they are going to force you to use a smaller antenna.

That's how stupid this is. :nono2:

This is all about greed from the *RICH* stations!


----------



## rwjga (Dec 23, 2005)

There is no valid reason Dish should not be able to provide any signal to anyone as long as the owner of the signal agrees and is paid for it if they so choose. The broadcasters who do not offer what the customer wants is trying to limit the customers right to choose.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

the last two posters should have been around when we talked about "moving" on this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=57381


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

There are significant public policies involved which are apparent if you take the time to think about them. I don't think you literally mean what you say - surely you could come up with a couple of exceptions. Anyway, you are not being told what you can and can't watch, E* and D* are being told what they can and cannot deliver to customers. Remember that the satellite companies don't own the content. They can't act like common fences - stealing someone else's property to sell to you just because you want it and are willing to pay for it.



washerebefore said:


> We should be able to watch what we want if we are paying for it.
> 
> This is all about greed from the *RICH* stations!


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> You need to read up on the remedies allowed by the policy. The possible penalties include cutting off LIL.


No, this is only in relation to DNS. LIL is another section of the law. That is why E* should get busy and get all DMA's online. If they can add SV, they have bandwidth to complete LIL. The case is moot at that point. Do you really think there were 630,000 subscribers in non-LIL white areas?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Agreed if Dish would have spent time last year finishing up the last 40 dmas left , this whole ruling wouldn' have mattered. Last year they didn't add any sd locals till last month. Now we have started on digital /hd locals, so bandwith is not a problem. Dish has more than enough bandwith to do all the locals in sd and probably about half in hd. THey could use the mpeg 4 technology to squeeze in more on the same satellites. They even have two satellites that are doing nothing now for locals on 105 and 121. Those few locals are mirrored on 129 or 61.5. Can't they use them to finish the 40 dmas?

THe whole thing about this is Charlie is fighting to sell you more locals, at a price . So this about money more than anything else. He claims that if you can buy a newspaper from anywhere in the country you should be able to watch a tv station from anywhere in the country. I agree with the concept but He is fighting the 1950's affilaite system. 

This is all going to change in the near future anyway. Networks are already selling their shows on the internet or giving them away for free the day after they air. Internet tv is the future and getting your network shows will be a matter of going online when you want to and watching them when you want to. Making the entire system of affiliates and locals a thing of the past. 

IF satellite had been smart they would have included analog tuners in the sat receivers from the start and then all you would need is an antenna , which they would install from the start. THey have done this with the new hd receivers and digital tuners. If they had done this from the start we could have kept pristine picture quality instead of highly compressed pictures to allow for all those local stations. 

CHarlie you need to finish the rest of the 40 dmas. This would be cheaper than trying to fight an outdated concept like the 1950's affilate system.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Didn't I just read today, that "mean old Charlie", with help from his "government buddies", busted some poor old "freedom fighter" in California for helping "freedom loving Americans" get more TV service for less money?

I guess money can buy anything. I mean, heck, the "freedom fighter" didn't even sign any contracts saying he wouldn't make those little cards. But, Charlie signed contracts saying he would try to keep his customers honest.

Funny how "details" can make such a big difference to the story.

"Slant-mode" off.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> Welcome to the forum, to bad you don't know of what you speak. It is a big deal to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and they don't deserve to lose their access to local channels.


Sad that we have the ability through exisiting technology to watch stations from what ever market we'd like, regardless of where we actually live.

The only thing stopping us is our government. Who are totally, and absolutely, under the thumb of local broadcasters.

Again, our government won't let us do what technology can provide.

Government by the people? HAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> Well if Charlie were providing locals to that dusty Texas town, there'd be no problem.


I know many of you like getting the distant nets, but I don't understand why people in rural Texas can't get Texas locals from the closet town that they live by that currently offers locals on satellite? This could be done in every rural part of the country. I know every state has at least one set of locals up on satellite. Then Charlie woudn't have to worry about the law.


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

I remember when the law went into effect. I used to get some really good programming on some Sacramento channels through my local cable provider. When the law went into effect they went dark. 
I would very much like to see what is going on in New York and LA as I visit them frequently and want to keep up on what's new. 
This law is the result of local stations wanting to force viewers to view their local advertising.
I really believe that this law will fall apart some time in the future when network bandwidth will permit video to be delivered from anywhere. 
It is interesting to note that when E* picked up the international channel DW-TV from Berlin E* forced them to block the streaming video from their website to ip addys in the US. (Yes this is somewhat off topic)

So if we can convince congress that viewer choice is more important than political campain contributions from folks like NAB then we should win and get that law changed to allow the viewer freedom of choice on distant locals. Probably won't happen though so don't hold your breath too long. OK enough rant.

Wayne


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Newshawk said:


> So you're saying that following the law is a "joke"?


No that is YOUR dumbass interpretation of what I posted. D* is a joke laughable funny haha because they only chose to offer 2 cities as DNS.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Steve H said:


> same here............it might not be up till Monday.


It was up at the time that this thread was created. Apparently it has been taken down temporarily. It appeared to be a political action site run by the same company that has run other Echostar political action sites.

Stay on topic guys ... We're not here to bash on each other. We're here to discuss the issue.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

cj9788 said:


> LiL's are safe. The court ruling ONLY applies to DNS.
> Direct tv is joke for distants. They only offer la and ny,


How many NETWORK feeds do you need? DNS was not authorized so you can watch the local news or sports in a different city. It was to provide network programming to those who could not receive it any other way.



cj9788 said:


> and besides any one who was grandfathered can not just jump ship to D*. There are a lot of legit subscribers who live in true white areas that will be affected by the courts pandering to the NAB and ignoreing the consumer.


Why not? The opinion is clear that the "grandfathering" status is not tied to E*. It was E* failure to meet its burden of proof that put the grandfathered customers in jeopardy. Furthermore the court said that grandfathering is only valid as long as the customer still meets the criteria. If for whatever reason, you move into Grade A, you are no longer grandfathered. I feel for the average white subscriber but you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. D* is available for those very few people that cannot get locals either LIL or OTA. If Charlie would start focusing on LIL delivery and not scamming everyone, this will no longer be an issue. Remember DNS has a purpose and it is not to provide additional network signals to anyone who wants them.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

UTFAN said:


> Sad that we have the ability through exisiting technology to watch stations from what ever market we'd like, regardless of where we actually live.
> 
> The only thing stopping us is our government. Who are totally, and absolutely, under the thumb of local broadcasters.
> 
> ...


Gee, perhaps you have the ability through existing technology to spy on the cute divorcee next door. Or to embezzle funds from your employer. The networks have a valuable commodity. They have rights in that commodity. The government has reduced some of those rights to serve the public. Now you complain that the government won't you brazenly abscond with property not your own with impunity. Doesn't ANYBODY get the concept of intellectual property?


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

micklewhite said:


> Furthermore the court said that grandfathering is only valid as long as the customer still meets the criteria. If for whatever reason, you move into Grade A, you are no longer grandfathered. ... D* is available for those very few people that cannot get locals either LIL or OTA.


Changing providers is another way to lose your grandfathered status.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

http://www.savemychannels.com/atstake/ should be a working link


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

BobaBird said:


> Changing providers is another way to lose your grandfathered status.


No. No. No. Grandfather status is dependent upon *currently *meeting the requirements of the law. It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with the satellite provider you choose. Nor does it matter that you qualified in the past. In any event, E* utterly failed to prove (really didn't try) that any of their subs were exempt under this provision. Put the blame where it belongs.

To be eligible, a subscriber must

(a) receive a signal of less than Grade A intensity for a particular network *and*
(b) received satellite service of that network's signals on October 31, 1999 or had such service terminated for SHVA ineligibility between July 11, 1998 and October 31, 1999


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

<<<THe whole thing about this is Charlie is fighting to sell you more locals, at a price . So this about money more than anything else. He claims that if you can buy a newspaper from anywhere in the country you should be able to watch a tv station from anywhere in the country. I agree with the concept but He is fighting the 1950's affilaite system.>>
I remember back in the 50s I used to listen to WLS Chicago on an Atwater Kent tube radio from my home in West Virginia! No government guys showed up to tell me I had to shorten my 300ft long wire antenna so i couldnt get them either! How times have changed. 
Personally I think that if the signals go through the air space over my house, I should be able to pick them up and listen to them!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

UTFAN said:


> Sad that we have the ability through exisiting technology to watch stations from what ever market we'd like, regardless of where we actually live.
> 
> The only thing stopping us is our government. Who are totally, and absolutely, under the thumb of local broadcasters.


Actually, much of the newer station releases are on spotbeams (and many older ones have been moved there). Receiving distants (from other than a half dozen or so markets that haven't made the move yet) is no longer possible.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

audiomaster said:


> <<<THe whole thing about this is Charlie is fighting to sell you more locals, at a price . So this about money more than anything else. He claims that if you can buy a newspaper from anywhere in the country you should be able to watch a tv station from anywhere in the country. I agree with the concept but He is fighting the 1950's affilaite system.>>
> I remember back in the 50s I used to listen to WLS Chicago on an Atwater Kent tube radio from my home in West Virginia! No government guys showed up to tell me I had to shorten my 300ft long wire antenna so i couldnt get them either! How times have changed.
> Personally I think that if the signals go through the air space over my house, I should be able to pick them up and listen to them!


Who's stopping you? Stick a pair of rabbit ears or a yagi on your roof and have at it. If you can receive a TV signal from the other side of the country nobody is going to complain. OTA broadcasting is done without direct charge to the recipient. Everybody understands that. What you can't do is steal (or have E* steal for you) programming which you have not purchased (purchase = being entitled to receive it + paying for it).


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

".....To be eligible, a subscriber must:
(a) receive a signal of less than Grade A intensity for a particular network and...."

That's *Grade B intensity, not Grade A.

"Personally I think that if the signals go through the air space over my house, I should be able to pick them up and listen to them!"

You can. But, no other entity can SELL them to you. That's what gets sat people in trouble. Just put up as big an antenna as your wife and neighbors will allow.*


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

In minnesota our local cable company can offer the locals from minneapolis and the locals from sioux falls south dakota.
If they can do that and the satelite companies can;t isnt this just another example of the rich protecting the rich.
To me it is a simple case of discrimination against the satelite companies, but then I am a simple man.


----------



## GravelChan (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't understand how Dish having all DMA's on satellite will solve the problem. I would bet that a good share of the remaining DMA's that are not on satellite do not have all of the big 3 available let alone CW etc. So, to get all the networks they will still need to get some distant channels.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

kenglish said:


> ".....To be eligible, a subscriber must:
> (a) receive a signal of less than Grade A intensity for a particular network and...."
> 
> That's *Grade B intensity, not Grade A.
> ...


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

washerebefore said:


> We should be able to watch what we want if we are paying for it.


Hmm. Ok, here's $5, I want to watch your wife take a shower.....



washerebefore said:


> Because of the stations and groups that want your money to go to them we had to wait longer to see HD on the Sat. systems.


Do you think you should be able to walk into McDonalds and demand a Pepsi? You're willing to pay for it aren't you?



washerebefore said:


> Both of them have had to spend millions to get everyone there locals. Both sat. companys would of had more HD to more people by now.:


Both E* and D* market locals because it is in their interests to do so. Generally locals are done by must carry, not payment to the affiliates.

Please note "there" = in that location; "their" = belonging to them and the plural of company is "companies"



washerebefore said:


> If someone wants Kansas City ABC,CBS and live in New York they should allow it if that customer is paying for that channel.:


Who is "they"? The folks that own the content say no. Where do you get the right to take someone else's property simply because you want it?

This whole (you can't watch what you want, only what I tell you) is such a pain in the ass.:[/QUOTE]

What is it that you want to watch but can't? I'd really like to know. Please be specific.



washerebefore said:


> Next thing you know if you use your antenna to get your local ABC but also get another ABC out of your area they are going to force you to use a smaller antenna.:


Now you are being silly. You might want to learn the difference between OTA and DBS before you publicly display your ignorance. Do you not understand that OTA is underwritten by advertising revenue? What sponsor is going to support a network affiliate if the network is undercutting the value of the investment by providing non-local signals?



washerebefore said:


> That's how stupid this is. :nono2: :


I'm too kind to answer this...



washerebefore said:


> This is all about greed from the *RICH* stations!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Why would someone get special treatment if they received an "excellent" grade of signal?

That would be like giving welfare to people who already have the most money.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

GravelChan said:


> I don't understand how Dish having all DMA's on satellite will solve the problem. I would bet that a good share of the remaining DMA's that are not on satellite do not have all of the big 3 available let alone CW etc. So, to get all the networks they will still need to get some distant channels.


Do you know of any DMA's that do not have CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX either as locals or SV? CW is not relevant. Superstation packages are generally available. The reality is that if all DMA's were up the number of truly unserved (satellite white area or no affiliate) people would be miniscule and could be taken care of without a lot of fuss. If you read many of the posts, this is not about getting *a* network feed, but getting whatever the posters want.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Why would someone get special treatment if they received an "excellent" grade of signal?
> 
> That would be like giving welfare to people who already have the most money.


Who is getting special treatment and how? If you are still talking about grandfathering, only those who cannot get Grade A (=excellent?) are eligible if they meet the other requirements. It doesn't have to make sense - it's the law.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Why would someone get special treatment if they received an "excellent" grade of signal?


You may be reading that backwards.

Grandfathered customers CAN get distants if they are OUTSIDE the "Grade A" signal area. Non-Grandfathered customers must be outside the "Grade B" area of all stations of that network or get waivers.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> *No. No. No. Grandfather status is dependent upon currently meeting the requirements of the law. It has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with the satellite provider you choose.* Blah Blah B;ah Blah.


Any subscriber in a *white area* receiving DNS before December 8 2004 is a grand fathered sub. They can keep their DNS and LiL signals per SHEVRA which went into affect at he begining of the year. The new law twisted the meaning of an unserved house hold to mean if you can get LiL then you are served. Previously you were an unserved household if you could not get a grade B signal via an OTA antenna. So yes alot of subs who live in say Mena AR and Waycross GA who can not recv thier home dma's ota and who recvd DNS prior to dec 8 2004 (from either E* or D*) are a Grandfathered subscriber. If they move even within thier own town they would lose the DNS. If they switch to another provider they lose thier DNS.

It is obvous that you are an E* basher. But if you are going talk siht at least look up the crap that you do write about.


----------



## Dish Dude (Mar 13, 2005)

micklewhite said:


> Do you know of any DMA's that do not have CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX either as locals or SV? CW is not relevant. Superstation packages are generally available. The reality is that if all DMA's were up the number of truly unserved (satellite white area or no affiliate) people would be miniscule and could be taken care of without a lot of fuss. If you read many of the posts, this is not about getting *a* network feed, but getting whatever the posters want.


yes Bismarck only has CBS and PBS, and cannot get waivers for distants, even though 90% of the customer base is rural and cannot receive OTA


----------



## jimborst (Jun 13, 2006)

I have a question, I currently get my locals off Dish (Sioux City, IA), since the market is so small I do not see Dish putting the HD feeds of these channels up anytime soon. I also get the distant locals (NY & LA) ABC, NBC and Fox, I called Dish to ask about HD feeds of these channels but was told thay couldn't give them to me. Since I already get the channels, why can't I get the HD feeds? 

PS, I live too far from Sioux City to get the off air HD signals.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

GravelChan said:


> I don't understand how Dish having all DMA's on satellite will solve the problem. I would bet that a good share of the remaining DMA's that are not on satellite do not have all of the big 3 available let alone CW etc. So, to get all the networks they will still need to get some distant channels.


 I am sure they could supply the nearest neighbor dmas channels to supply the full 4 or 5 networks under the new "significantly viewed channels rules". That would make the most sense to me rather than distants anyway. The only people I would say would get hurt from this about removing distants- if all the dmas were finished , would be the rv and truck drivers who rely on distants for networks on the road.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

Dish Dude said:


> yes Bismarck only has CBS and PBS, and cannot get waivers for distants, even though 90% of the customer base is rural and cannot receive OTA


Please explain why (prior to the recent ruling) DNS was not available to these subscribers. Even if the local affiliates refused to grant a waiver (seems doubtful), they could have had a field test to prove they were in fact outside Grade B.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

dude2 said:


> In minnesota our local cable company can offer the locals from minneapolis and the locals from sioux falls south dakota.
> If they can do that and the satelite companies can;t isnt this just another example of the rich protecting the rich.
> To me it is a simple case of discrimination against the satelite companies, but then I am a simple man.


If Sioux Falls is SV then E* and D* can offer them just like cable. But they can also choose not to do so.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

cj9788 said:


> Any subscriber in a *white area* receiving DNS before December 28 2005 is a grand fathered sub. They can keep their DNS and LiL signals per SHEVRA which went into affect at he begining of the year. The new law twisted the meaning of an unserved house hold to mean if you can get LiL then you are served. Previously you were an unserved household if you could not get a grade B signal via an OTA antenna. So yes alot of subs who live in say Mena AR and Waycross GA who can not recv thier home dma's ota and who recvd DNS prior to dec 28 2005 (from either E* or D*) are a Grandfathered subscriber. If they move even within thier own town they would lose the DNS. If they switch to another provider they lose thier DNS.
> 
> It is obvous that you are an E* basher. But if you are going talk siht at least look up the crap that you do write about.


Sorry, you are simply incorrect. Subs are able to keep DNS if and only if (1) they had DNS or had it terminated during the relevant time frame and (2) they remain outside of the Grade A contour. A switch of provider does NOT strip you of your grandfather status. Nor does simply moving (unless you move into Grade A). If you have LIL (or can get it) there is no reason for you to get DNS (and it is a violation of the law). Now thanks to Charlie, DNS is going away for E* subs. You may think I am an E* basher (I'm not) but I know what I'm talking about and have read the relevant law and court decisions. If you think otherwise please provide some documentation for your position. I know I can. And let's not get vulgar and nasty. That does not advance the conversation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> You may think I am an E* basher (I'm not) but I know what I'm talking about and have read the relevant law and court decisions.


If you are not, you do a pretty good impersonation of one. It isn't all in what you say, but in how you say it. Tossing in lines such as "say E* does not carry Smalltown's network stations because Charlie had to spend too much money on lawyers" doesn't help, nor does joining and making 20 posts in your first couple of days. It makes you look like a man on a mission - the mission of bashing E* seems to fit. Perhaps if you stick around a while we will learn that there is more to you than the one issue.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> If you are not, you do a pretty good impersonation of one. It isn't all in what you say, but in how you say it. Tossing in lines such as "say E* does not carry Smalltown's network stations because Charlie had to spend too much money on lawyers" doesn't help, nor does joining and making 20 posts in your first couple of days. It makes you look like a man on a mission - the mission of bashing E* seems to fit. Perhaps if you stick around a while we will learn that there is more to you than the one issue.


I would agree, if he really isn't, then maybe an Oscar is in the cards for him!


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I thought Distant Networks were only available in markets that had no local affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, or Fox--otherwise I thought they were not an option to get unless you had a waiver from your local station.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> If you are not, you do a pretty good impersonation of one. It isn't all in what you say, but in how you say it. Tossing in lines such as "say E* does not carry Smalltown's network stations because Charlie had to spend too much money on lawyers" doesn't help, nor does joining and making 20 posts in your first couple of days. It makes you look like a man on a mission - the mission of bashing E* seems to fit. Perhaps if you stick around a while we will learn that there is more to you than the one issue.


I am highly critical of E* on this issue. It is a matter of timing. I lurked around and then joined at this time because of the misinformation that Charlie and many posters were putting out. But the issue isn't about me. Whether I have been here 5 years or 1 hour does not impact the accuracy of what I write. If I were an E* basher, I would be generating threads over every conceivable failure with the company. The comment above was a hypothetical to frame the debate. I though it was humorous. Even if I were an evil "basher," this does not negate the truth of what I say.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

I'm no constitutional lawyer (or any other kind of lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or anywhere else), but it strikes me that this violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

It's legal to receive radio stations from anywhere in the country, via whatever means. I'm listening to WSM/Nashville right now on Sirius. That's seriously "out of market" for me... I wonder if WDEN (or more accurately, Cumulus) would be upset if they learned I was listening to WSM for country music rather than WDEN (local station)?

Earlier, I was reading the NY Times online. And I can pay them, and they'll be happy to send me their paper every day. Would that torque off the Macon Telegraph?

So in order to have equal protection, it must also be illegal to receive out of market newspapers and radio stations. 

On its face, this special law for TV stations would seem to be unconstitutional unless that law applies to all forms of media. But I suppose there are deeper issues that I, as a simple man (you knew that from the country music bit, right?), just can't quite grok.

I'll leave you with this... 

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. - Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

Objection! Asked and answered. Several times actually. Look at older posts.



oldave said:


> I'm no constitutional lawyer (or any other kind of lawyer, nor do I play one on TV or anywhere else), but it strikes me that this violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.
> 
> It's legal to receive radio stations from anywhere in the country, via whatever means. I'm listening to WSM/Nashville right now on Sirius. That's seriously "out of market" for me... I wonder if WDEN (or more accurately, Cumulus) would be upset if they learned I was listening to WSM for country music rather than WDEN (local station)?
> 
> ...


----------



## rid0617 (Dec 27, 2004)

Shows just how screwed up this country is. In Canada Bell ExpressVu advertises that you can get stations from all over the country. They advertise it as time shifting and if you miss your favorite program you can just time shift it to a station in another time zone. Greed is killing this country. To add insult to injury, Bell ExpressVu customers also get stations in the United States. Good luck us getting Canadian stations.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

rid

The only reason ExpressVu and StarChoice can do that is because the locals (CBC, CTV, Global) are owned by the Network (O&O)

but you are right. I have StarChoice and have multiple CBC, CTV & Globals and nets from Buffalo & Spokane. And I don't live anywhere near Buffalo or Spokane. And its legal

And if I got a HD box, I could get Detroit & Seattle too (those are the HD channels)


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> Sorry, you are simply incorrect. Subs are able to keep DNS if and only if (1) they had DNS or had it terminated during the relevant time frame and (2) they remain outside of the Grade A contour. A switch of provider does NOT strip you of your grandfather status. Nor does simply moving (unless you move into Grade A). If you have LIL (or can get it) there is no reason for you to get DNS (and it is a violation of the law). Now thanks to Charlie, DNS is going away for E* subs. You may think I am an E* basher (I'm not) but I know what I'm talking about and have read the relevant law and court decisions. If you think otherwise please provide some documentation for your position. I know I can. And let's not get vulgar and nasty. That does not advance the conversation.


You are flawed in your statement about grand fathered status. If you change providers you lose your grandfather status it does not follow you to your new provider. If you continue to doubt this call D* and tell them you have dns as a grand fathered sub with E* and you want to know if that status will follow you to D*. They will tell you no because any changes you make whether or not you live in a true white area if it served LiL you can no longer receive dns. Period point blank. It is LiL or nothing. The law sucks but that is what it says. You can not move or change providers. Unless you move to one of the fast shrinking white areas where E* and D* do not serve with LiL. And then once Lil is provided the law says you must choose between LiL and DNS you can not have both. That luxury is limited to those subs who had DNS and LiL before Dec 8 2004.

I have DNS because my locals suck. I like the ability to time shift my recordings. And besides I am a consumer the only thing limiting my acsess to DNS is the NAB and the elected officials who are supposed to serve the public but pander to the NAB. So I ask who the hell are you to tell me or any one else for that matter that just because I have LiL I can not have DNS. I want it and I will pay for it if it is offered.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> A switch of provider does NOT strip you of your grandfather status.


wanna bet? You change providers, you have to requalify



> Nor does simply moving (unless you move into Grade A).


again, wanna bet? I had distants LEGALLY along with Minneapolis locals (the DMA is huge and there were areas to get both) but when I moved to another area I lost my distants because I had to requalify (and no I wasnt in a Grade A area either.)



> If you have LIL (or can get it) there is no reason for you to get DNS


yes there is. If you live in an area that has a local that LOVES to pre-empt stuff for items such as
-high school tournaments
-Billy Graham
-severe weather reports (even though the weather is 200 miles from us)

having the distants gives you a backup.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

You are flawed in your statement about grand fathered status. If you change providers you lose your grandfather status it does not follow you to your new provider.

While you may have to prove your status, you do not lose it by virtue of moving to a new provider. Read the frigging court decision.

If you continue to doubt this call D* and tell them you have dns as a grand fathered sub with E* and you want to know if that status will follow you to D*. They will tell you no because any changes you make whether or not you live in a true white area if it served LiL you can no longer receive dns. Period point blank. It is LiL or nothing.

What are you talking about? If you are in an LIL area then none of this matters. DNS only is relevant when you cannot get locals (OTA or LIL). The only advantage of having grandfather status was that you qualified as long as you were not in Grade A (versus Grade B). I cannot help that D* employs CSR that do not know the law.

The law sucks but that is what it says. You can not move or change providers. Unless you move to one of the fast shrinking white areas where E* and D* do not serve with LiL.

You are incorrect. The law does not say the first thing. It is understood that you must be in a non-LIL white area for DNS (normally).

And then once Lil is provided the law says you must choose between LiL and DNS you can not have both.

True you cannot have both. But you don't get a choice either. If you are in a LIL area, you can get LIL, no DNS. You may be able to get SV but that is a different animal. Please point me to the section of the law that supports what you say and I will step back.

That luxury is limited to those subs who had DNS and LiL before Dec 28 2005[/SIZE].[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

I have DNS because my locals suck. I like the ability to time shift my recordings. And besides I am a consumer the only thing limiting my acsess to DNS is the NAB and the elected officials who are supposed to serve the public but pander to the NAB. So I ask who the hell are you to tell me or any one else for that matter that just because I have LiL I can not have DNS. I want it and I will pay for it if it is offered.

You are not eligible for DNS. This is what has caused the problem for E*. I understand that you want, desire, and demand things and are willing to pay for them. Unfortunately the law doesn't care about your wants, desires and demands. Thanks to folks like you, truly unserved E* customers are about to lose their network access. It was not my decision. It was that of the Congress of the United States of America. Take it up with them.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

rid0617 said:


> Shows just how screwed up this country is. In Canada Bell ExpressVu advertises that you can get stations from all over the country. They advertise it as time shifting and if you miss your favorite program you can just time shift it to a station in another time zone. Greed is killing this country. To add insult to injury, Bell ExpressVu customers also get stations in the United States. Good luck us getting Canadian stations.


There's a great new invention called the VCR. Check it out....


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

wanna bet? You change providers, you have to requalify

You may have to demonstrate that you meet the requirements but you do not lose your status simply by changing providers. Now if what you mean is that you used to be eligible and for example, moved back into Grade A and now the new provider will know you are ineligible - well that's just the law. Once you move into Grade A land, it doesn't matter if you were "grandfathered" - you instantly become ineligible.

again, wanna bet? I had distants LEGALLY along with Minneapolis locals (the DMA is huge and there were areas to get both) but when I moved to another area I lost my distants because I had to requalify (and no I wasnt in a Grade A area either.)

Impossible. You cannot have both simultaneously (legally speaking). Did you have DNS under the grandfather rules or (more likely) the Grade B rules? It sounds more like the second. Apparently you lost DNS because it was discovered that you were not eligible (perhaps never were). Moving in and of itself does not render you ineligible. Something else changed.

yes there is. If you live in an area that has a local that LOVES to pre-empt stuff for items such as
-high school tournaments
-Billy Graham
-severe weather reports (even though the weather is 200 miles from us)

Let me rephrase. There is no legal justification in having both LIL and DNS. Too many posters think just because they want something they have a right to it. Sorry it doesn't work like that.

having the distants gives you a backup. [/QUOTE]

Your reasons may be sound. It is still just as illegal.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> I have DNS because my locals suck. I like the ability to time shift my recordings. And besides I am a consumer the only thing limiting my acsess to DNS is the NAB and the elected officials who are supposed to serve the public but pander to the NAB. So I ask who the hell are you to tell me or any one else for that matter that just because I have LiL I can not have DNS. I want it and I will pay for it if it is offered.
> 
> You are not eligible for DNS. This is what has caused the problem for E*. I understand that you want, desire, and demand things and are willing to pay for them. Unfortunately the law doesn't care about your wants, desires and demands. Thanks to folks like you, truly unserved E* customers are about to lose their network access. It was not my decision. It was that of the Congress of the United States of America. Take it up with them.


Corection I am elgible for DNS because of Shvera. I live in a true white area. My locals are not availble ota. I am able to keep DNS and LIL because I recvd DNS before the dead line. That is legal under the law, so I do not see how you can say this is what caused the problem for E*. The law allows a subsriber in a white area who was receiving DNS to keep them. After all the only thing that makes it a served house hold in the LiL. It is not my fault that the NAB and my elected officals changed the rules. Twisted to mean a a house hold is served because of LiL. For years unserved meant an ota signal not a LiL signal form a satellite provider.

As to the current areas not served ota or LiL you can have DNS no problem but if and when LiL bocmes available you have to make a choice between DNS and Lil but you can not have both, unless you subscribed to DNS before the deadline. Read the following from sec 204.

*SEC. 204. REPLACEMENT OF DISTANT SIGNALS WITH LOCAL SIGNALS.*

_`(i) FOR THOSE RECEIVING DISTANT ANALOG SIGNALS- In the case of a subscriber of a satellite carrier who is eligible to receive the analog signal of a network station solely by reason of section 119(e) of title 17, United States Code (in this subparagraph referred to as a `distant analog signal'), and who, as of October 1, 2004, is receiving the distant analog signal of that network station, the following shall apply:_
*`(I) In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to the subscriber the analog signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the secondary transmissions of the distant analog signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber--*
*`(aa) if, within 60 days after receiving the notice of the satellite carrier under section 338(h)(1) of this Act, the subscriber elects to retain the distant analog signal; but *
*`(bb) only until such time as the subscriber elects to receive such local analog signal. *
_`(II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), the carrier may not retransmit the distant analog signal to any subscriber who is eligible to receive the analog signal of a network station solely by reason of section 119(e) of title 17, United States Code, unless such carrier, within 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, submits to that television network the list and statement required by subparagraph (F)(i)._


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

It is not illegal to receive LiL and DNS no matter what you say. The FCC says:

The 2004 SHVERA statute changed distant signal eligibility in some circumstances.

• *If you received distant signals as of December 8, 2004, because you lived
in an unserved household, you may also receive local stations if the satellite
company is currently offering them in your DMA or introduces new local-into-local service in the future. *However, if you did not receive or try to receive distant signals as of December 8, 2004, you are not eligible for distant service if local channels are offered. (You may be able to get a waiver of the "no-distant-where-local" requirements from the local television stations; check with your satellite company to see if this is possible.)

• Alternatively, you may be receiving distant analog signals because you are
a "grandfathered subscriber." Check with your satellite company to determine whether you are grandfathered and what distant and local signals you may receive.

• You may be receiving distant analog signals because you received a waiver
from one or more television stations that are predicted to serve your household. If you have such a waiver, you may continue to receive distant analog signals and you also may subscribe to local-into-local service.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> While you may have to prove your status, you do not lose it by virtue of moving to a new provider. Read the frigging court decision.


BTW the friggan court decison is not relavent to grandfatherd subs SHVIA is what you should read here is a snipette from the shiva fact sheet:

*17. Does this mean that a grandfathered satellite subscriber will retain the distant network signals until the subscriber decides to terminate satellite service?*



A: No. The moratorium expires on December 31, 2004. After this date, satellite subscribers who were grandfathered will have to meet the criteria for "unserved" households in order to receive distant network signals. Alternatively, these subscribers may install a rooftop antenna to receive local signals over-the-air or may receive local-into-local service, if it is being offered. Also, grandfathered status only applies to subscribers who are receiving the same distant TV networks, from the same satellite company, using the same transmission technology, at the same location as they were on October 31, 1999 or when they were terminated after July 11, 1998. *If grandfathered subscribers change satellite companies, switch to a new type of satellite dish, or move to a new address, they lose their grandfathered status and their eligibility to receive distant signals. *


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

No matter what this hater says E* wants to protect your rights to receive DNS. If you have them and do not want to lose them take action now. contact your elected officails and and let them know you are mad as hell and you are not going to take it any more.

http://www.savemychannels.com/

http://firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

i get an error trying to view:

http://www.savemychannels.com

anyone else get it too?


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

It has been on and off. It should be available after tomarrow. I used www.savemychannels.com on friday night with no problems. I also used www.firstgov.gov to contact my senator and congressman directly.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

micklewhite said:


> Objection! Asked and answered. Several times actually. Look at older posts.


I apologize... it takes a lot of time to go back through all the older posts, and I didn't. I can only ask forgiveness.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cj9788 said:


> It has been on and off. It should be available after tomarrow.


You might try http://www.savemychannels.com/home/ ... they did turn off the main site link after it was mentioned online. Not quite ready for it to become public?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> I have StarChoice and have multiple CBC, CTV & Globals and nets from Buffalo & Spokane. And I don't live anywhere near Buffalo or Spokane. And its legal


It is grey market subscription if you're not in Canada. Not legal, but at least you are paying for the services you are receiving.

(Before you get mad, please note that your dish is not licensed to receive the Canadian satellites that broadcast StarChoice. A license is not needed to receive US DBS satellites or a long list of international satellites, but a license IS required to receive any satellite not on that list. StarChoice's satellites are not on the list.)


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

micklewhite said:


> It is unfortunate that those in white areas will lose network signals but perhaps a positive will be increased pressure to expand LIL to all DMA's.


That won't do anything to help those who's DMA's don't have all 4 networks.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> again, wanna bet? I had distants LEGALLY along with Minneapolis locals (the DMA is huge and there were areas to get both) but when I moved to another area I lost my distants because I had to requalify (and no I wasnt in a Grade A area either.)
> 
> Impossible. You cannot have both simultaneously (legally speaking). Did you have DNS under the grandfather rules or (more likely) the Grade B rules? It sounds more like the second. Apparently you lost DNS because it was discovered that you were not eligible (perhaps never were). Moving in and of itself does not render you ineligible. Something else changed.


um, yes I did have both legally. No waivers. No moving. I was outside of grade B due to the DMA being huge. So I was able to legally obtain both.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> It is grey market subscription if you're not in Canada. Not legal, but at least you are paying for the services you are receiving.


very true 
but I was more referring to the lax rules in Canada when it comes to locals and the US Nets.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

I will investigate what you have said. However, I must point out that an FCC fact sheet is not law. Whatever the FCC thinks, it cannot override the statute and court decisions thereon. The Court of Appeals directly addressed the grandfathering issue. Therefore it is quite relevant to the discussion. I am willing to look at your references. Why are you afraid to look at mine?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I am not trying to start a war, but...

micklewhite appears to have actually read the appeals court decision. micklewhite is correct, in that the courts ruled that those with grandfathered access to DNS could switch between providers. The problem is that the law is vaguely written. For example:

Remember the part about onsite signal testing, where a customer can simply ask to have a signal test done at his/her location to determine qualification for DNS? It was so vaguely done that the network affiliates and the satellinte companies would not perform the test. The simple fact of the matter was that the way the law was written, a customer could ask for the test, whether they lived 65 yards or 65 miles away from the transmitter. And once the test was administered, the loser (the network or satellite company) had to pay. If one thousand people that lived 15 miles away requested this test, do you think DirecTV or Dish Network would actually want to pay for the test when most of these people would actually receive a signal?

Well, back to the court case...

Although a customer could be considered "grandfathered", the proof of burden lies with the satellite company. After all, the law never allowed for creation of a list of people that are "grandfathered".

When it came time to provide the proof to the court that they had "grandfathered" customers, Dish Network didn't provide any. So, according to the court, Dish Network has no grandfathered DNS customers. NONE. Because Dish Network didn't provide any information to the courts.

The decision from the court now would make it hard for DirecTV to give any former "grandfathered DNS" Dish Network customer the DNS package. What "proof" is there that DirecTV could add a "grandfathered DNS" Dish Network customer, when the courts now say Dish Network doesn't have any? Tied to that fact is that Dish Network and DirecTV are famous for fighting each other, and you can see why they don't work together.

Don't confuse "law" with "policy". From what I've seen, DirecTV has never really accepted any "grandfathered" DNS customers from Dish Network. After all, that would entail Dish Network providing to DirecTV the "burden of proof" that the customer was indeed grandfathered. Of course, the bookkeeping of the "burden of proof" isn't spelled out in the law, but if DirecTV is sued, they'll need the proof, or they'll be fined and/or injuncted.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

cj9788 said:


> BTW the friggan court decison is not relavent to grandfatherd subs SHVIA is what you should read here is a snipette from the shiva fact sheet:


A couple of quick points.

1. The 12/31/2004 date was changed to 12/31/2009.

2. Here is the language from the decision clearly indicating that you can retain grandfather status even if you switch carriers. I'm not picking on you or the FCC. The fact sheet is outdated and obviously was printed before the new law and the Court of Appeals decision.

_"EchoStar makes a related argument that, by denying subscribers their duly earned grandfathered status, the court deprived them of their property without due process of law. EchoStar relies primarily on language in EchoStar I, that "[e]ligibility [for grandfathered status] belongs to the subscriber, and nothing is said in the statute about carriers." 265 F.3d at 1212. Even assuming that this language vests in subscribers a property interest for which they are entitled to due process, it is certainly not a right to receive service from EchoStar. *EchoStar's current subscribers are free to seek grandfathered eligibility from another satellite carrier so long as it can be proven that they qualify.* We therefore reject EchoStar's constitutional argument._


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

So what's the ETA on the DNS going away? Has the decision been made and we're just waiting for the inevitable or are they still fighting?


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

Good points but remember that to qualify a sub must currently be outside of Grade A. So if a person had the service (or was terminated) during the stated periods (something that should be easy to document) AND is outside Grade A (something that can be proven using IILR or a field test) there should be no problem in D* picking up customers who qualify via IILR or stand a good chance of winning the field test (as you indicated - since loser pays, it is not in anybody but the customer's interest to go that route). In other words, it doesn't matter if Dish dropped the ball because there is a way to DNS.



Greg Bimson said:


> I am not trying to start a war, but...
> 
> micklewhite appears to have actually read the appeals court decision. micklewhite is correct, in that the courts ruled that those with grandfathered access to DNS could switch between providers. The problem is that the law is vaguely written. For example:
> 
> ...


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Yes, but now let's remember something here:


micklewhite said:


> So if a person had the service (or was terminated) during the stated periods (something that should be easy to document)


No, it isn't easy to document. Where would a person get this? Because without any documentation that a subscriber is grandfathered, they are treated like a new customer, which...


micklewhite said:


> there should be no problem in D* picking up customers who qualify via IILR or stand a good chance of winning the field test


With the enactment of the SHVERA in December, 2004, if a customer lives in a market where local channels are available, the only way said customer can receive distant is via: 1) a waiver, or 2) being "grandfathered".

The SHVERA stopped the ILLR qualificiation (the white-area maps) and the field tests if the subscriber's market is available. And DirecTV has over 95 percent of the nations households receiving local channels.

Dish Network never presented any qualifications to the court for grandfathering. Customers are going to have a very hard time documenting any grandfathering evidence to DirecTV. And we don't even know what DirecTV's policy is.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

oldave said:


> I'll leave you with this...
> 
> There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back. - Robert A. Heinlein


Great quote!

The biggest thing going on here is the fact that the NAB has a nice little comfy arrangement for distributing national programming through local affiliates, which was set up thing way because at the time it was what was technoligically possible. Since then times and technology have advanced but they'd rather not have to change because it would mean they'd have to go through the necesarry growning pains to do so. For the time being it's easier for them to try to slap down anything that challenges their cozy arrangement in court than actually have to change. In fact they'd rather keep this whole thing under wraps as long as possible, that's one reason why they came after E* is because they had the audacity to let people know that getting distant nets was actually possible. The more people that figure out that such things are possible the more that will want it and that goes right back to the NAB having to change. Thing is at this point it's really too late they just haven't figured it out yet. More and more people are figuring out how to get local programming from out of their area and satellite is just one small way some people are doing it, stopping E* customers is kind like plugging a leak in dike where the tide is already starting to pour over the top. Because people are turning more and more to the internet to get local broadcasts from other areas, getting their favorite programs online so they're not beholden to the local television schedule plus people are starting to use things like slingbox, so the old affiliate system is on it's way out no matter how much the NAB might want to fight the reality of it. Now I do personally like the conveinance of getting distants through dish on my big tv and not my small computer screen so yeah i'll be contacting congress on this one to let them know where I stand at least for the novelty of it, since I know my small voice even if amplified with all of yours isn't likely to make nearly the impression of the NAB lobbyists with their bags of money. Sooner or later the NAB will be forced to change to survive or they'll end up like the Dodo. Just think of how hard the recording industry fought music downloading before they realized it was a losing battle and embraced it. Fairly similiar deal going on here.


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

I understand the reception problems faces by people living in rural areas. I also think the current rules that allow cable systems to deliver stations from adjoining markets but do not allow satellite systems to do the same are ridiculous. (The "significantly viewed" policy does not adequately address this.) I also think the Slingbox is pretty cool, and I like the idea of giving people more options for choosing program content they want to see.
Having said that, I think most of the posters here fail to appreciate the reasoning behind the original creation of local tv stations and the rules intended to protect those stations. When licenses for tv broadcasting were first assigned, the government could have allowed for far fewer stations operating at very high power that would have served large regions of the country. They choose not to do that because they wanted to have a large number of broadcast stations that would provide local news and programing, answer to local viewers and face local competition. Since stations in small markets operate on much smaller budgets than stations in large markets, it was feared that if small stations had to compete with the big guys, smaller market stations would fail and local programming would disappear for viewers in small towns and rural areas. So the rules were structured to prohibit the import of distant TV signals. 
I would argue that for the first 2 or 3 decades of broadcast TV, this theory worked fairly well - local stations provided a fairly wide variety of local programing - from news to public service programs to kids shows like "Romper Room." Today, local TV programming is limited mostly to TV news, and you could certainly debate whether local TV news today really provides a "public service." 
Even though I think we need to rethink old rules in the wake of new technology, I think we still need to make sure that local broadcasting remains strong and widely accessible. I would not want to see broadcasting reduced to a bunch of national channels all owned by a handful of corporate conglomerates. (Unfortunately the conglomerates have already been allowed to gobble up too many local stations.)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> Just think of how hard the recording industry fought music downloading before they realized it was a losing battle and embraced it. Fairly similiar deal going on here.


But now remember why they didn't embrace it: they weren't in charge of the distribution. Now that all parties make money off of it, everyone is happy.

Except for all those downloaders that can't get the music for free, unless they go to a private file sharing network.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But now remember why they didn't embrace it: they weren't in charge of the distribution. Now that all parties make money off of it, everyone is happy.
> 
> Except for all those downloaders that can't get the music for free, unless they go to a private file sharing network.


But remember they orignally just tried to kill it outright hoping it wouldn't catch on because it didn't fit their current distribution system. When they figured that wasn't going work they finally embraced the technology themselves and made it work for them. Right now the NAB is still in the "kill anything that threatens our system" mode rather than the "lets figure out how to make it work for us mode".


----------



## sunfire29841 (Jul 24, 2006)

A minor rant from the new guy....be kind!


All this for the Almighty advertising dollar and i love how NAB spins it by saying they are protecting the local stations which mind you 70-75 percent of which are owned by television conglomerates such as Media General, Sincrap and others. 

I live within the Augusta, GA market. Kinda don't have a choice in that because I'm in the military. I have NYC locals (yes I'm one of THOSE mover types) Why? Because the news down is here is substandard at best and the programming is equally poor. Who is to blame for all this? Certainly not me! I cannot drum up support to pull Augusta out of its #115 Nielsen ranking nor would I if given the chance. I am also a Philadelphia sports fan and have family and friends up there and would rather watch Phila. channels if I could. I would gladly pay 3/4 times the local fee if it meant getting something that I would rather watch! Does this mean I'm taking the money out of the hands of the local businesses that I couldn't see on their ads? No! This paradox absolutely befuddles me. By one token if I think that my children are at a substandard educational institution, I can easily send them to a superior one if I choose and if applicable, pay for it. If I don't want to read the Augusta Chronicle and would rather have the NY Times I could. 


Maybe I don't see "the big picture" which could be one of my character flaws....


Teach satellite communications, have satellite TV and Radio..... I need a life!! LOL


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> Does this mean I'm taking the money out of the hands of the local businesses that I couldn't see on their ads? No! This paradox absolutely befuddles me.


very well put!

Look at some of the DMA's out there and how huge they are. Minneapolis covers most of the state. The most northern part is 200 miles away. I don't think someone in Bemidji is goign to drive 200 miles to Denny Hecker's in Minneapolis to buy a car because he offers a nice deal 

So they don't lose my business if I have distants.


----------



## dough_boy747 (Jun 18, 2004)

I live in a white area, and its a shame that we half to put with all of this just get any channels at all, if others had to get only distent networks just to even have them they would sing a different song all to gether. Even the local channel in this state wont even talk about leting there single to even put in a satlellite Dish. Befor it gets said and done i thank the goverment and others out there would be very carefull about leting local channels do say, or do what theyy wont with single one day we might wake up and see we still linve in the United States of American.
thanks again steve muncy.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

sunfire29841 said:


> All this for the Almighty advertising dollar and i love how NAB spins it by saying they are protecting the local stations which mind you 70-75 percent of which are owned by television conglomerates such as Media General, Sincrap and others.


You say this like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with the "Almighty advertising dollar"? It's as honest a dollar as any other. Ad dollars bring you the programming you so desparetely want (including the almight NFL). Without ad dollars, you can either pay a TV tax, like they do in some countries, or watch a lot of badly produced public access-type shows.

And what's wrong with protecting the local stations? The stations that give you your local weather (think NYC stations give a crap about severe thunderstorms in Des Moines?), local public service information (emergency service press conferences and the like), and local news (however crappy you may think it is).

I just don't understand some of the venom directed at the NAB and local stations. If you live in a location, why aren't you becoming part of that community by watching that community's tv stations (provided, of course, they are available)? I'm not directing this at folks who can't get local TV (and it's great they can get the nets via DNS), but if you have LiL, you don't NEED DNS. There's no reason to have it, IMO. "American Idol" looks the same on the FOX station in Boise as it does on the FOX station in NYC. What difference does it make which city's local you watch "60 Minutes" on? If everybody watches NY or LA, what happens to the Huntsville station? Who cares, right? If they can't compete (and they can't, because the "Almighty ad dollars" are much more plentiful in New York), screw 'em, right? Then we'll have an handful of national stations and no one to tell you when the next hurricane comes, or where to go when the train full of chemicals derails near your neighborhood.

Until DBS, this was never an issue. You moved to Miami, you watched Miami TV. You want New York stations, move (not "move") back to New York. Except for the folks who do NEED DNS because they can't pick up networks any other way, this is much ado about nothing.


----------



## jaydude (Mar 18, 2006)

for me it might mean having to record all programs with a 9 to 11 pm west coast time which I can now see without recording from 7 to 9 pm pacific time due to "distant network".


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Here is the problem with LIL - some areas are in DMAs that make no political or economic sense. For example, I live in MA, but all the stations I receive are from the capital district in NY. These stations are great for weather, but other than that, they have no relevance for us. We watch commercials for auto, life, and health insurance from companies not licensed to sell insurance in MA. I see commercials for supermarkets that have no stores in the county. I see news stories on NY politics and campaign ads on a daily basis. But, I do not see any MA political ads and hardly any political news from the state. Leave aside that upstate NY is very conservative, and I live in an enclave that the Boston Globe refers to as the left bank because we are so much more liberal even compared to the rest of the state. You can imagine what this does for my blood pressure.

When I had cable, I received MA stations from Boston and Springfield. These were economically and politically relevant to me. We can not even get the Boston Red Sex here. The local cable authority tries to make special arrangements for New England sports.

Although I would like to support "local" stations, they are only geographically locally- they are not my locals. I agree that Charmin ads are Charmin ads, but most ads on LIL have no relevance for me. I'd like to support local stations, but I also want stations that sell products and services that I can legally use and have politically news/ads that are meaningful to me. The law needs to be changed so that like viewers in VT, who can all legally get Burlington stations, viewer in Western MA can have access to Boston stations. Likewise, any viewer whose LIL stations are in another state should have the right to view stations within their own state (as long as spotbeams reach them) as Distant Networks.


----------



## DoyleS (Oct 21, 2002)

Pretty fun set of posts to read. Hard to believe Micklewhite only made 30 posts this far, sure seemed closer to a hundred, especially when they were back to back. Probably not the kind of person you would want to go camping with. 

..Doyle


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

1 channel LILs? 

I have to ask, with all of the talk of LIL nationwide, what happens in areas where we only have a local CBS? That means NO NBC FOX or ABC???


Write to the sports leuges too, I wonder how the NFL NBA, NHL, NCAA, MLS and the like feel about the idea of fans not being able to watch the games no matter how much they pay? After all, nationally televised games are blacked out on PPV.

EDIT
WRITE TO NASCAR -- they could pull some power: lots of folks who live in white areas like nascar...Nascar races not being availible in any way would be unacceptable to Nascar, would it not?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lafayette should get the rest of the networks via SV laws once the in market channel is added.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

same with Mankato, MN (they only have CBS)


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

wkomorow said:


> When I had cable, I received MA stations from Boston and Springfield. These were economically and politically relevant to me. *We can not even get the Boston Red Sex here*. The local cable authority tries to make special arrangements for New England sports.


??? Is this a new cable-only adult channel?


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The solution, as I see it, is to put all the money that all the stations make in to one big pot. Then, let the stations take out what they each feel should be their share. 

That way, it won't matter what station you watch, or where it is.

But, until then.....or, until we have a nationwide TV Tax (like the BBC), stations still have to sell ads to make their money. And, they have to have some means of guaranteeing their advertisers a certain number of viewers. That "guarantee" is based on a predicted number watching a certain show, in a certain viewing area, assuming they will likely see any ad being broadcast on the local station at that time.

And, BTW, a "Grade A" signal IS considered an excellent signal strength. 
"City Grade" is/was considered extremely strong.
"Grade A" is considered "excellent".
"Grade B" is considered "useable for all practical purposes".
Below "Grade B" may require extraordinary means to receive a quality signal....that's what broadcasters consider a "white area" and are happy to allow DNS service for.

No matter what Charlie says, broadcasters are not a bunch of greedy SOBs. We want you to get a good signal, but we want to stay in business as well. And, the current Government-controlled, and network/programmer-controlled system is all we have to work with.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Below "Grade B" may require extraordinary means to receive a quality signal....that's what broadcasters consider a "white area" and are happy to allow DNS service for.


That would be the first time that a broadcaster was "happy" that a viewer was watching another station. Broadcasters have little control over what happens outside of their Grade B coverage.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

We're just happy when the viewer is happy.....and isn't taking away from our ratings, anyway.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

kenglish said:


> We're just happy when the viewer is happy.....and isn't taking away from our ratings, anyway.


Doesn't the spotbeam from both satellite companies cover the entire state of Utah though? Even if they can't get grade B they can easily get LiL in your case. I can't belive that as a broadcaster in that situation you'd be happy about granting any waivers.


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

micklewhite said:


> Gee, perhaps you have the ability through existing technology to spy on the cute divorcee next door. Or to embezzle funds from your employer. The networks have a valuable commodity. They have rights in that commodity. The government has reduced some of those rights to serve the public. Now you complain that the government won't you brazenly abscond with property not your own with impunity. Doesn't ANYBODY get the concept of intellectual property?


And some sour grapes.


----------



## Shellback X 23 (Sep 19, 2004)

How does this affect those of us with RV Waivers? I get NYC and DEN and I am currently in an area where the LIL is on 148 and I only have one antenna.


----------



## micklewhite (Jul 22, 2006)

Shellback X 23 said:


> How does this affect those of us with RV Waivers? I get NYC and DEN and I am currently in an area where the LIL is on 148 and I only have one antenna.


You are going to lose distant signals. Perhaps you should select an area that covers the most area possible you travel in and request LIL.


----------



## AppliedAggression (Aug 16, 2003)

Did no one notice It's "Ergen" and not Ergan......?


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

Keep fingers crossed we hopefully have DNS until Sept 11. Also notice how Members of congress are speaking out on this. We are getting their attention, let's not let up now

From Multichannel news:

Second, in preparation of the stay denial, EchoStar and network-affiliated TV stations that sued EchoStar jointly asked the lower court Tuesday to postpone any injunction until Sept. 11. Both sides informed the court that they were attempting to reach a settlement.

The parties were urged to file for a 45-day postponement by key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas).

Lastly, if the District Court ignores the postponement request, EchoStar still has the option of asking the Supreme Court to lift the injunction while considering the merits of the appeal of the 11th Circuit's May ruling.

In that decision, the 11th Circuit found that EchoStar had flagrantly broken the law by selling out-of-market network signals to thousands of ineligible customers.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

Still trying to get on to savemychannels.com "site under construction" any word on this??? I don't want to loose my Fox distants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The site is on hold indefinately. One could get in through a deep link but that too has been shut down to keep people off the site.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

AppliedAggression said:


> Did no one notice It's "Ergen" and not Ergan......?


You know... I noticed, and almost posted a couple of times... but I really really didn't want to be the one getting flamed for a spelling correction this time around 

Glad you had the guts, because it was starting to bug me for some strange reason.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What spelling correction.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

A little off topic but I bet at the office he goes by Chuck and not Charlie. Just because Charlie goes well with the word Chat as in "Charlie Chat."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Mr Ergen, sir." if you want to meet him a second time.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

colavsfaninnwia said:


> A little off topic but I bet at the office he goes by Chuck and not Charlie. Just because Charlie goes well with the word Chat as in "Charlie Chat."


Did we have a fun time out drinking tonite?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I would imagine his given name is Charles... so people who don't know him well might try to call him "Chuck" and get the evil stare that I give when people who don't know me try to be cute with the nicknames.

He is most likely, as JL stated, Mr Ergen to most.... and perhaps Charlie to his friends and family.


----------



## tvhawaii (May 14, 2006)

Fwiw, I spoke to him on the phone once (20 years ago), and he called himself 'Charlie'.

--Michael


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I hope it wasn't in a creepy third person way.
ie: Charlie saying "Charlie thinks that C-Band is good for now but the real future is in smaller dishes ... pizza size dishes that don't need a motor or crank and don't need to be reaimed when you want to change channels. At least that is what Charlie thinks."


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That would be funny... like the infamous Seinfeld episode where the guy in the gym always referred to himself in the third person.


----------



## tvhawaii (May 14, 2006)

James Long said:


> I hope it wasn't in a creepy third person way.


LOL...Naa, nothing that funny. 
I was trying to order a ~$7,000 headend for an apartment and asked them to ship it COD. The sales guy told me I was crazy and the only way they could ship it was if 'Charlie' gave the O.K., so I called him.
The secretary said he was gone for the day and that she would give him the message. The next morning I answered the phone and he said, "This is Charlie Ergan from Echosphere...what can I do for ya'?" I told him the deal and he said to wait 15 minutes then call the salesman back. When I called the salesman he said, "What was that shipping address again"?<grin>
Them were the days...

--Michael


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

tvhawaii said:


> LOL...Naa, nothing that funny.
> I was trying to order a ~$7,000 headend for an apartment and asked them to ship it COD. The sales guy told me I was crazy and the only way they could ship it was if 'Charlie' gave the O.K., so I called him.
> The secretary said he was gone for the day and that she would give him the message. The next morning I answered the phone and he said, "This is Charlie Ergan from Echosphere...what can I do for ya'?" I told him the deal and he said to wait 15 minutes then call the salesman back. When I called the salesman he said, "What was that shipping address again"?<grin>
> Them were the days...
> ...


A lot different from getting the New Delhi dude that can't even spell satellite!!!!


----------



## ubankit (Jan 7, 2005)

I received a response from Gene Green, dated 07/28/06, congressman of the 29th district of Texas:

"Dear Mr. XXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding distant network channels over EchoStar Communication's Dish Network satellite television system. I appreciate hearing your views on this issue.

Congress allowed satellite operators to import distant broadcaster affiliates to customers who could not receive a local broadcast affiliate in the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA). SHVA allows satellite operators to deliver distant signals only to homes that receive no other stations over the air. EchoStar's method of determining which customers were eligible for the distant signals over their Dish Network has been the subject of litigation for years.

Recently, EchoStar has lost a series of federal court decisions over their methods of using these distant broadcasts, and federal judges may punish EchoStar for violating SHVA by limiting their ability to transmit distant signals in the future. I supported the SHVA so that customers could receive broadcast television stations, and if they are not available locally, then customers should have access to distant signals. This dispute over the method of determining eligibility for distant signals is active in the judicial system and at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), but is has not been the subject of any Congressional action.

Thank you again for contacting me and please do not hesitate to do so again in the future.

Sincerely, Gene Green, Member of Congress"


I don't receive distant locals but I think everyone should have the option to do so if they want them and are willing to pay for them.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

dbconsultant said:


> A lot different from getting the New Delhi dude that can't even spell satellite!!!!


P.S. By the way and just in case it did, that was not meant to offend anyone. We've just been spending alot of time lately with outsourced CSR's (and not just with Dish Network) where the CSR has no idea of what we are talking about. It's probably not the CSR's fault, I sometimes think that they don't get the correct info from the companies they work for or that it lost something in the translation. There is beginning to be almost instant frustration as soon as you realize you're dealing with someone overseas.:nono2:


----------

