# Senators seek congressional probe of DirecTV



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.

Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."

The dispute involves a long-running legal battle over the re-transmission of "distant network" channels.

More *HERE*.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
> By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
> 
> Tuesday, September 5, 2006
> ...


Lets see now 2 Colorado Senators and E* which is based in Colorado. Do I smell campaign contributions? LOL The senators certainly are humming the E* mantra! What the senators seem to be saying is "let E* keep violating federal law" or it will wreck satellite tv. How absurd! D* was in the same boat a few years ago and complied with court orders and followed the law and E* didn't. Does anyone think that if it was switched and D* was the one in trouble now we would have heard from the Colorado guys? Even if Fox would have settled that wouldn't change the Federal Appeals court ruling.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

It's a good thing Congress has solved all of our major problems already and can now look at these minor issues! :sure:


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Next parking ticket I get, I'm getting Con-Gress involved!


----------



## kariato (Dec 16, 2002)

Badger said:


> Lets see now 2 Colorado Senators and E* which is based in Colorado. Do I smell campaign contributions? LOL The senators certainly are humming the E* mantra! What the senators seem to be saying is "let E* keep violating federal law" or it will wreck satellite tv. How absurd! D* was in the same boat a few years ago and complied with court orders and followed the law and E* didn't. Does anyone think that if it was switched and D* was the one in trouble now we would have heard from the Colorado guys? Even if Fox would have settled that wouldn't change the Federal Appeals court ruling.


There is a clear conflict of interest between News Corps ownership of DirectTV and their position on this case. Yes E* broke the law (even though in *my humble opnion * that law is not in the consumers interest). Does that mean that News Corp should try to create a monopoly position in the rural TV. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, I'm sure that Colorado Senators do have a relationship with E* but News Corp has so many relationships with others in the political area that they have used extensively in the past.

This situation does not pass the smell test in any shape or form.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Sorry to be so flippant, but it's just another example of business playing politics.

DNS was invented to "bandaid" a problem.....people in some areas didn't have Network TV available, so they got a national feed or two as a stopgap measure. When DBS came about, they wanted in on it, too. So, they got to sell the DNS "bandaid". Then, certain companies decided to bend the rules, and bootleg the service to any and every one who asked. And, as I understand it, to many who never asked!

Now that L-I-L is available almost everywhere, there is no "need" (as it was originally interpreted) for DNS.....most everyone could be supplied with signals from their own DMA, and usually their nearest big city. If they are truly in a "white area", they should legally qualify for whatever nearby city they can reliably receive off a spot beam.

The whole thing is now a non-issue.


----------



## naijai (Aug 19, 2006)

And i know a lot of cutomers that have the DNS that were upset when Directv took them away


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Sorry to be so flippant, but it's just another example of business playing politics.
> 
> DNS was invented to "bandaid" a problem.....people in some areas didn't have Network TV available, so they got a national feed or two as a stopgap measure. When DBS came about, they wanted in on it, too. So, they got to sell the DNS "bandaid". Then, certain companies decided to bend the rules, and bootleg the service to any and every one who asked. And, as I understand it, to many who never asked!
> 
> ...


Good post! DNS should be a thing of the past with one exception. I agree that true white areas should get their closest locals via satellite and that's it!


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

naijai said:


> And i know a lot of cutomers that have the DNS that were upset when Directv took them away


Upset yes but how many actually left D*? I'll bet not many as I've watched D* steadily grow their subs. By the way D* didn't take away DNS the government did! D* complied, E* didn't.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

This is just E*'s way of trying to take the spotlight off of them.It's pretty pathetic 
the way Charlie Ergen does business,and that's another reason why I'm now a D*
subscriber.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

I think this quote says it all!!!



> Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.
> 
> "We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.


Nuff said!!!


----------



## markman07 (Dec 22, 2005)

I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> This is just E*'s way of trying to take the spotlight off of them.


Are you suggesting that it is appropriate to investigate one of the competitors without investigating the other? Because E* is made to stop violating federal policy, will D* necessarily follow?

D* seems to have a pretty big following on the North side of the Great Lakes as well as a very high concentration of sports "movers" (which isn't D*'s fault; it is some of their unscrupulous and self-righteous subscribers that are intentionally misleading). Spotbeams and significantly wider market coverage will eventually root out most of these types.

If the congressmen are successful in their attempt to go to bat for a constituent in this national issue, D* is in a much poorer position to saturate the LIL markets and will likely suffer heavier damage. At least with this investigation being government sponsored, it will take a very long time to come to a conclusion.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

kariato said:


> There is a clear conflict of interest between News Corps ownership of DirectTV and their position on this case. Yes E* broke the law (even though in *my humble opnion * that law is not in the consumers interest). Does that mean that News Corp should try to create a monopoly position in the rural TV. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that Colorado Senators do have a relationship with E* but News Corp has so many relationships with others in the political area that they have used extensively in the past.
> 
> This situation does not pass the smell test in any shape or form.


\

If Fox settled with E* it wouldn't change what's happening! It's not about agreements it's about E* not following the courts original order. All Fox/Murdock have done is ask the District court to move on and do what was ordered by the Federal Appeals court.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> Are you suggesting that it is appropriate to investigate one of the competitors without investigating the other? Because E* is made to stop violating federal policy, will D* necessarily follow?
> 
> D* seems to have a pretty big following on the North side of the Great Lakes as well as a very high concentration of sports "movers" (which isn't D*'s fault; it is some of their unscrupulous and self-righteous subscribers that are intentionally misleading). Spotbeams and significantly wider market coverage will eventually root out most of these types.
> 
> If the congressmen are successful in their attempt to go to bat for a constituent in this national issue, D* is in a much poorer position to saturate the LIL markets and will likely suffer heavier damage. At least with this investigation being government sponsored, it will take a very long time to come to a conclusion.


D* followed the original court order (stop violating federal policy) several years ago and E* didn't, plain and simple.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I don't think there is any question that E* violated court orders for some time, and that they could / should be held accountable for that. However, with FOX being the only network that has refused to settle they are not only going to prevent themselves and the other networks from recieving over $100 Million dollars in damages as negotiated in a settlement, they are taking all the channels (including their own) away from ~1 Million viewers. I think you would have to be extremely naive not to suspect that the ownership of D* and FOX being the same has nothing to do with this! 

The gvt nixed the E* + D* merger for Monopoly concerns and then let Rupert buy D* instead, IMO that has a lot more to do with Rupert vs. Charlie's "friends in high places" than any real protection of the consumer.

Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a DNS customer on either service, but I do get my LIL from E*.


----------



## kariato (Dec 16, 2002)

Badger said:


> \
> 
> If Fox settled with E* it wouldn't change what's happening! It's not about agreements it's about E* not following the courts original order. All Fox/Murdock have done is ask the District court to move on and do what was ordered by the Federal Appeals court.


No Fox is blocking a deal that would allow DSN's to continue which is not in the interests of consumers in white area but is definately in the interests of Direct TV a direct compeitior to E*. This shows that highly vertically integrated corporations inhibit competition and hurt the consumer. Do I believe that DSN are historic as pointed out here but again over consolidation in key industries is hurting consumers.


----------



## HD_Wayne (May 23, 2006)

markman07 said:


> I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


I agree completely. I fact I would go one step more and would like to be able to get the network feeds directly in HD. Particuarly PBS which so far E* has not seen in their judgement to supply local pbs in HD.

Wayne


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

markman07 said:


> I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


AMEN! I would love to have West coast feeds and BBC stations. I'm willing to pay for them. What do they care I don't watch the commericals that's why I have a DVR.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

kariato said:


> No Fox is blocking a deal that would allow DSN's to continue which is not in the interests of consumers in white area but is definately in the interests of Direct TV a direct compeitior to E*. This shows that highly vertically integrated corporations inhibit competition and hurt the consumer. Do I believe that DSN are historic as pointed out here but again over consolidation in key industries is hurting consumers.


Fox WON in court. As their spokesman said "It took 8 years to correct this and WE won and winners don't make settlements" (paraphrased). The Federal Appeals Court has made their decision and it has nothing to do with any recent actions by Fox. Is that so hard to understand? E* violated Federal law and was odered to comply with the law from that point on. E* did not comply and now as a penalty is losing the right to provide DNS. Is that hard to understand? E* is being penalized because they broke the law period! Pointing fingers at others is meaningless. E* did this to themselves when they continued to violate federal law!


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Badger said:


> Fox WON in court. As their spokesman said "It took 8 years to correct this and WE won and winners don't make settlements" (paraphrased). The Federal Appeals Court has made their decision and it has nothing to do with any recent actions by Fox. Is that so hard to understand? E* violated Federal law and was odered to comply with the law from that point on. E* did not comply and now as a penalty is losing the right to provide DNS. Is that hard to understand? E* is being penalized because they broke the law period! Pointing fingers at others is meaningless. E* did this to themselves when they continued to violate federal law!


Actually the court ruled that they may now be complying but were not complying during the period covered in the trial.


----------



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

So your answer is to punish all the rural customers and rv and truck drivers at Dish because Charlie didn't follow the letter of the law on the old antiquated affiliate system we have had in place since the 1950s. 

If Fox would settle this with Dish then all the networks affiliates would get their share of the settlement, and Dish would get punished by paying the 100 million settlement. The consumers who did nothing wrong in all of this would win too. That is what all this is about , the consumers. 

Rupert/ Fox /Directv are refusing to settle in order to force customers at Dish to churn to Directv . Can't Rupert do a better job in attracting customers by providing better picture quality in both hd and sd? NO that is Dish's way. 

Can't Rupert give the Directv customers more hd channels ? NO once again that is Dish's way. 

Can Rupert give the Directv customers lower prices on programming? NO WAY once again Dish beats them again. 

So the only way that he can get new customers is to force a wedge in the middle of a settlement, that would give the customers their distant networks and punish Charlie for non compliance of the laws with the 100 million settlement per networks. This is a petty, cheap way to force people to churn to Directv. It is also reason why one company should not own the media content- Fox , and the content provider -Directv . 

Rupert is running Directv-- straight into the ground.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

markman07 said:


> I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


Would you give up your Denver papers forever to get the chance to read the Chicago Tribune? That's the difference between DNS and OOTN (Outta Town Newspapers). When you see a show on a distant station, you're highly unlikely to see the ads that ran on your local station (who paid for their share of the costs of that show). Reading an OOTN doesn't preclude you from picking up a local paper and seeing their ads, even if you are just skimming through to see what is in there.

Of course, if EVERYONE would just agree to pay a just price for TV, we could sell you your network programming for a few hundred $$$ a month. But, selling it off piecemeal won't work, since the ratings (eyeballs watching a particular show, on a particular station) won't work with a fractured audience.

Maybe, one day, we can come up with an entirely new system (i.e., direct pay to the people who produce the shows, with no middleman involved). Then, the advertising-supported model of broadcasting can go completely away. Until then...................????


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> So your answer is to punish all the rural customers and rv and truck drivers at Dish because Charlie didn't follow the letter of the law on the old antiquated affiliate system we have had in place since the 1950s.


No - just punish Charlie and his band of illegal operating renegades.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Rupert/ Fox /Directv are refusing to settle in order to force customers at Dish to churn to Directv.


DUHHH 

Like it wouldn't be happening if the roles were reversed...

Let's see...Charlie's lost 2 major court cases in just the past 5 months. Yup, he's a straight shooter all right. :nono2: 


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Rupert is running Directv-- straight into the ground.


More like straight over Charlies feet.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

MikeD-CO5 said:


> If Fox would settle this with Dish then all the networks affiliates would get their share of the settlement, and Dish would get punished by paying the 100 million settlement. The consumers who did nothing wrong in all of this would win too. That is what all this is about , the consumers.


I'm not too sure of that...

When DirecTV lost their case in 1999, Fox and CBS put the screws to DirecTV. Fox is acting no differently than they did seven years ago.

And, one of the major issues here is what the judge can or must do. Like I said before, we'll see on 12 September what the judge believes he can or must do.

And don't think this is about the consumer. Dish Network has settled with the affiliate boards, and one of the by-products is that Dish Network will terminate distant networks from customers that do not qualify. Since we do not know exactly what the terms are for requalfication, we don't know if Dish Network would lose more than 50 percent of its distant network subscribers.

That is why the only opinion here is the judge's. And it all depends on whether or not he follows the order for a mandatory permanent injunction or actually has some wiggle room in legal proceedings to settle this once and for all.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

IF Charlie had settled this years ago when D* did this wouldnt be happening. He brought this on by himself plain and simple just by giving the finger to the courts for almost 10 years!!! Adding onto what hdtvfan0001 said above I hope Rupe keeps running over Charlies feet.. 
E* is the Oakland Raiders of the DBS business it seems, Renegade operations all over the place. Go Rupe GO!!!


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Now that L-I-L is available almost everywhere, there is no "need" (as it was originally interpreted) for DNS.....most everyone could be supplied with signals from their own DMA, and usually their nearest big city. If they are truly in a "white area", they should legally qualify for whatever nearby city they can reliably receive off a spot beam.


I somewhat agree. However, LIL aren't available almost everywhere. Maybe, by the numbers, but then not all DMAs have all networks. So it isn't a sure thing that they will get the networks even when LIL become available. Specifically my DMA , now down to 157, doesn't have full power stations for NBC, the UPN (now MyNetwork) is also low power and our WB (CW) is cable only. Currently, DirecTV won't even think about offering me CW or MyNetwork until they offer LIL in my DMA. I think totally unserved areas should be able to buy whatever networks they can. Now MPEG4 HD LIL presents a whole different set of problems. (Thankfully, I have DNS for the 4 major nets, but how long will that last).


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> I think this quote says it all!!!
> 
> Nuff said!!!


Hmm, Dan are you a D* sub?? I can't tell for sure...  

By the way, Rupert is violating agreed upon conditions with the FTC when he purchased D* by this ILLEGAL anti-competitive behavior. He will be slapped down and hopefully punished by Congress. NUFF SAID


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> IF Charlie had settled this years ago when D* did this wouldnt be happening. He brought this on by himself plain and simple just by giving the finger to the courts for almost 10 years!!! Adding onto what hdtvfan0001 said above I hope Rupe keeps running over Charlies feet..
> E* is the Oakland Raiders of the DBS business it seems, Renegade operations all over the place. Go Rupe GO!!!


Yay for companies that don't care about their customers and would rather please elected officials who they are in bed with! YAY!


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> By the way, Rupert is violating agreed upon conditions with the FTC when he purchased D* by this ILLEGAL anti-competitive behavior. He will be slapped down and hopefully punished by Congress. NUFF SAID


Roll your eyes all you want but its the good ole boy Charlie who is breaking the law......again.....Rupert is not violating one single condition in this case. That arguement wouldnt hold up in court. Get Real.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> Yay for companies that don't care about their customers and would rather please elected officials who they are in bed with! YAY!


You mean the way Charlie is in bed with the Colorado elected officials??


----------



## mailiang (Jul 30, 2006)

> Rupert/ Fox /Directv are refusing to settle in order to force customers at Dish to churn to Directv . Can't Rupert do a better job in attracting customers by providing better picture quality in both hd and sd? NO that is Dish's way.
> 
> Can't Rupert give the Directv customers more hd channels ? NO once again that is Dish's way.
> 
> Can Rupert give the Directv customers lower prices on programming? NO WAY once again Dish beats them again.




If Dish is so much better then DTV why aren't _they _rated as the number one service provider? Yes, they have better HD and lot of that came from buying out Zoom, which was a smart move on their part, but it still doesn't compete with most HD offerings from the cable companies. Beleive me I've had both E and D and Dish ain't all that great. Politics will be a game that both sides will continue to play. I still support the right to view any channel I want from any region in the country which was once a given until the network advertisers got greedy and sent their lobby to Washington on a money train. If most politicians really cared about you and I, this wouldn't be an issue and the Justice Dept wouldn't have taken a blind eye to the oil cartel mergers which forced out most of their smaller competitors, closing almost half of the refineries in the USA. And you know what? Nobody complained. Remember the film _Network_ with _Peter Finch_? And at the end, what did all those people say? 

Ian:rant:


----------



## bigpuma (Feb 15, 2004)

kenglish said:


> Would you give up your Denver papers forever to get the chance to read the Chicago Tribune? That's the difference between DNS and OOTN (Outta Town Newspapers). When you see a show on a distant station, you're highly unlikely to see the ads that ran on your local station (who paid for their share of the costs of that show). Reading an OOTN doesn't preclude you from picking up a local paper and seeing their ads, even if you are just skimming through to see what is in there.


Watching a distant network doesn't preclude you from watching on your local network either. Do you really believe if someone reads a Chicago paper in Denver they will also read the local paper? 70% is probably the same news stories just like the local station is showing probably 80% of the same shows as the distant network. Why should the government protect local stations. If they can't compete who cares. The government shouldn't be involved at all and satelite/cable providers should be able to sell you any channels you are willing to pay for.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

bigpuma said:


> Watching a distant network doesn't preclude you from watching on your local network either. Do you really believe if someone reads a Chicago paper in Denver they will also read the local paper? 70% is probably the same news stories just like the local station is showing probably 80% of the same shows as the distant network. Why should the government protect local stations. If they can't compete who cares. The government shouldn't be involved at all and satelite/cable providers should be able to sell you any channels you are willing to pay for.


Yes, but you'll never convince the NAB.


----------



## kariato (Dec 16, 2002)

May I suggest a compromise. Uphold the injunction for just the Fox DSN channels. Let NBC,ABC,CBS & CW have their signals requalified and let them share in the $100 million agreement. Fox can then move forward on just their own portion of a settlement. The DSN subscribers do lose Fox but they can probably live with that can Fox afford to loose 2% of their audience probably.

Such a solution would keep most happy.

Now if I can get that ATSC tuner working on my Myst tv box I really won't be upset if TIVO shutsdown my DVR.

I recommend purchasing an ATSC card for you PC before they become illegal too.


----------



## mruk69 (Jul 26, 2003)

I would just like to say that people should not feel sorry for Charlie. Lets face it Rupert is a jerk, most Brits will tell you that as he practically owns most of the media their. Charlie has been filing lawsuits and lawsuits over the past few years and has now become the victim. We should of seen this coming a long time ago. When the same person who owns TV networks and Movie productions, buys a company like DTV, he is eventually going to try and screw his competitors. 

Heres an example, Fox Soccer Channel, sold half of its English Soccer rights to Setanta (available on DTV and Globesat only), he probably already knows that Dish will never come to an agreement to broadcast this channel, so people who really want to see this channel will have no choice but to go to Direct TV. Most, folks will not want to invest in new equipment for just one channel, and if they switch to DTV you will probably get free hardware and a discounted sub for a trial period. 
Also, have you noticed how Charlie always has a hard time re-negotiating transmission agreements and Rupert doesn't. Charlie is always *****ing when he can't get the same deal.

Well, thats my 2 cents, take it as you like.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

DCSholtis said:


> You mean the way Charlie is in bed with the Colorado elected officials??


Let's not kid ourselves that there aren't plenty of congressmen that will be looking out for D* and Rupert due to some fine campaign contributions and the well-being of a business that employees a large number of their constituents!

I would say that, even if the system weren't corrupt as it is today, a congressmen from Colorado SHOULD be interested in what happens to such a large number of his / her voters. Think how many tax dollars E* contributes to the Colorado economy, they would be derilict in their duty not to be looking out for them. This doesn't mean they should / will try to gain unfair influence for E*, but if they can I wouldn't be suprised if they did - although in fairness I will say I have no idea what the track record for the two members in question is.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Badger said:


> Fox WON in court. As their spokesman said "It took 8 years to correct this and WE won and winners don't make settlements" (paraphrased).


I know you were paraphrasing but this couldn't be farther from the truth, winners VERY OFTEN settle, particularly in civil cases as it speeds up the actual settlement, gets them paid faster, and their lawyers get their fees faster.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

bobukcat said:


> I know you were paraphrasing but this couldn't be farther from the truth, winners VERY OFTEN settle, particularly in civil cases as it speeds up the actual settlement, gets them paid faster, and their lawyers get their fees faster.


The issue here is that the case is over. All that remains is handing out the punishment. The appeals process is complete.

And the difference between those civil suits and this particular one is that the injunction must be issued. Unlike patent suits, where an injunction can be issued, and is one of those tools the judge could contemplate, in this case the injunction is mandatory.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

it sia mandatory injunction. That means the contemplated injunction mandates that the affected party perform an affirmative action---or in some cases that they refrain from performing a stated action. It aslos does not mean that no circumstance can prevent it from being issued. That does not mean that no settlement is possible. Having said that time is growing short.

Perhaps this link will eliminate some of the confusion associated with the use of the term

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/civil_law/cbb/mf_06.htm

6.8 Positive/mandatory injunctions

A mandatory injunction is an order that can only be complied with by the respondent doing what the court tells him he must do, for example to pull down a wall or restore some item of property. Sometimes it can quite closely resemble an order for specific performance and rather similar principles apply in deciding whether or not to grant such an order. A mandatory injunction is not commonly granted by way of interim injunction. Even after trial its grant is always discretionary, though on well settled principles.

I would howver expect it to be issued unless a settlement is reached or Echostar provides the court with some other accecptable reason why it should not be issued---and the latter seems unikely.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Geronimo, the link you provided goes to the United Kingdom.

I keep trying to add this sentence...

The Appeals Court has directed the District Court to follow the mandatory penalty for a pattern and practice of willful infringement: a permanent injunction.

As Fox pointed out in its brief to the court, a settlement does not trump the fact that Echostar has been found guilty of willfully infringing, which can only be penalized in one method.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Let me boil this down.....

YEARS ago, E* approved too many distant network subscribers....

Broadcasters, who have given their service away for free to cable companies and OTA antennas, figure out that they can force satellite companies to pay for what they gave away for free. 

In exchange for a $300 million dollar extortion attempt, the old suit would go away...

The broadcasters, sensing that the doomsday scenario would turn off their viewers AND cut off the ability of them to grab the golden briefcase filled with cash, reduce their demand to $100 million and E* agrees EXCEPT.....

for FOX which owns D*, which has been losing the HD race to E* in the last year and seen defections due to their inability to club their Sunday Ticket subscribers into ponying up even more than they had been paying... Seeing that potential subscriber grabs would be worth more than their cut of the $100 million, they decide to try and scotch the deal.

...which is a blatant attempt to induce monopolistic control into the rural areas of the country by effectively killing the competition's ability to offer critical broadcast network channels. 

A MAJOR prerequisite to the approval of the News Corp./FOX buyout of D* was that they would not use their monopoly power to remove the competition's ability to compete by withholding programming or engaging in other anti-competitive practices. 

Basically, they want to enforce the laws favorable to them, and conveniently ignore the laws unfavorable to THEM. THIS is what triggered this action (which WAS brought to a head by the two reps where E* is based).


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Geronimo, the link you provided goes to the United Kingdom.
> 
> I keep trying to add this sentence...
> 
> ...


There are LOTS of links like that one has the clearest language. What you fail to accept is what the term MANDATORY refers to in this.

Here are three more citations---though admittredly they are harder to read.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mandatory+injunction

http://www.answers.com/topic/mandatory-injunction

http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/61CEC355-3ED9-4098-806B6DBE68B2D556

You can also do a google search and you will get several more citations---all of which make it clear what a mandatory injunction is. here is the result of one such search

http://www.google.com/search?q=mand...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I know that Fox alleged in their latest resest that only one action is possible but that does not make it so. and you will notice that the lower court gave Echostar 45 days---and they ahve not yet acted upon the Fox request.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

bigpuma said:


> Watching a distant network doesn't preclude you from watching on your local network either. Do you really believe if someone reads a Chicago paper in Denver they will also read the local paper? 70% is probably the same news stories just like the local station is showing probably 80% of the same shows as the distant network. Why should the government protect local stations. If they can't compete who cares. The government shouldn't be involved at all and satelite/cable providers should be able to sell you any channels you are willing to pay for.


This is why the Internet is a wondeful thing. I can read the Detroit papers on-line while subscribing to the Orlando Sentinel for home delivery. That way I get the local news I want, and the coupons to save money with.

The same thing is possible for TV. If you want news from outside your market, get it on the TV station's web sites. Watch your true locals for the local news for where you live NOW.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

.... a postscript....

And since the judges are trying to de facto eliminate a competitive playing field with their verdict, the affected parties are using potential congressional legislation to remove the cause of the problem and make it moot.....

HOW is a fair playing field created by creating a monopoly in certain sections of the country REGARDLESS of the fault in the original situation. 

Since Joe Sixpack has never even heard of this verdict, why should he be required to choke down the costs of switching to a less competitive offering, accepting an inferior product, AND potentially paying cancellation fees if he signed up recently. 

Congress knows that they can levy dozens of taxes on the consumer with barely a whimper, ...but kill their TV and there will be hell to pay. And with an election a few months away, they would prefer to be seen on the side of the consumer.....


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Great op-ed, Bob.

Try this one...

The broadcasters have been walked over for nine years, due to the length of the appeals process. When the doomsday scenario came to pass from the Appeals Court, now all of a sudden it was finally in Dish Network's interest to settle the suit, for $100 million. For some reason, Dish Network still wants access to the distant network license. Probably because that license is the only way Dish Network will be able to serve rural customers with network HDTV.

Fox is very leery of this. Fox doesn't want to have to go back to court when Dish Network violates the copyrights again like they have for the past nine years.

IF ANYONE THINKS THE REPS FROM COLORADO IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ON 12 SEPTEMBER, realize this...

The judge could simply ask Dish Network why an injunction should not be issued. Dish Network could say you'll harm our rural customers, Fox is a bad guy, we've come to a settlement with the affiliate boards.

Then the judge could simply state that the only punishment for a pattern or practice of willful infringement is a permanent injunction. SO, either you can pay the affiliate boards $100 million and then be injuncted against the license, or you can scuttle the settlement and pay nothing, then be injuncted against the license.

The only thing right now that matters is 12 September. Obfuscation of the issue will not help any.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

BobMurdoch said:


> Let me boil this down.....
> 
> Y
> A MAJOR prerequisite to the approval of the News Corp./FOX buyout of D* was that they would not use their monopoly power to remove the competition's ability to compete by withholding programming or engaging in other anti-competitive practices.
> ...


When i did a web search I got several hits for sites that mentioned the programming restriction. Some of the sites also said that terhe were other restrictions but did not name them. Does anyone know what those other restrictions were?

BTW Mr. Murdoch you may well be right. I just don't know.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Great op-ed, Bob.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> ...


i agree with most of that. But I think that what Mr. Murdoch and others are alluding to is that Fox may feel political pressure to settle. That is not really obfuscation so much as it is a recognition of the factorrs that influence parties to settle matters.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> Since Joe Sixpack has never even heard of this verdict, why should he be required to choke down the costs of switching to a less competitive offering, accepting an inferior product, AND potentially paying cancellation fees if he signed up recently.


A less competitive offering? Why not, he's been with Dish Network. 


Geronimo said:


> I know that Fox alleged in their latest resest taht only one action is possible but that does not make it so. and you will notice that the lower court gave Echostar 45 days---and they ahve not yet acted upon the Fox request.


Fine, it doesn't make it so. But, the lower court did not give Echostar and the plaintiffs 45 days for anything. The request for a 45-day stay in proceedings was denied by the judge.

The DNS-Doomsday is 12 September. We'll see what the judge says then.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

We have been throiugh this before Greg. The judge gave Echostar 45 days to show cause why an injunction should not be issued. Taht is separate and distinct from the other matter you cite. The 45 days expires on Sept 12 (actually some places say Sept 11) if no settlement has been reached and if Echostar has not come up with some other reason why an injunction should not be issued it will be. So your statement about seeing what the judge says then is correct---wew ill see then. 


Personally i thought that the matter might be settled in time. the Fox actions make my judgment look incorrect. As for Echostar coming up with any other acceptable reason i think that chance of that is negligible.


But there is no injunction yet and the term mandatory injunction does not mean what you seem to want it to mean.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> The judge gave Echostar 45 days to show cause why an injunction should not be issued. Taht is separate and distinct from the other matter you cite.


No, that wasn't separate from the other matter.

Both the plaintiffs and Echostar asked the court for the 45 day delay in proceedings, and the judge denied it.

This is how the court proceedings moved since the case was handed back to District Court.

The District Court dismissed the 45 day delay in proceedings, but gave Dish Network until 12 September...

8/28/06 997 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not immediately enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's mandate. Response to Order to Show Cause due 9/12/06 (Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 8/28/06) [EOD Date: 8/31/06] (ss) [Entry date 08/31/06]

That was the show cause order, ruled on 28 August. So Dish Network was given 16 days or so.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> No, that wasn't separate from the other matter.
> 
> Both the plaintiffs and Echostar asked the court for the 45 day delay in proceedings, and the judge denied it.
> 
> ...


Greg what are you trying to prove? The injunction is not in place. you are just arguing in circles. There is no injunction at this time and we will see if there is one on Sept 12--or 11 if you accept that count. Personally I think that there will be but all of your posts about how no other outcome is possible are just mistaken.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I never said the injunction was in place. I only said that the judge must issue one, which is the point where you and I differ.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Actuually that si pretty darned close to being right. I have consistently said that Echostar has till a date certain to show cause why there should be no injunction. What we differ on really is what the word MANDATORY in the term mandatory injunction refers to. What I have told you consistently is that it refers to the fact that when the injunction is issued one of the parties is mandated to perform a certain act but that certain things can happen to prevent that from happening. You argue that it means that the lower court MUST issue the injunction even if the matter is settled out of court.

Even Fox enteresd into settlement negotiations so all parties have indicated that they werwe at least willing to discuss one. Fox's actions make the possibility of one unlikely but you never support the idea that the judge must issue the injunction even if the matter is settled---or Echostar comes up with another argument.

At this point it appears that this is moot. I see no way out for Echostar except a settlement and that is more unlikely with each passing day.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> At this point it appears that this is moot. I see no way out for Echostar except a settlement and that is more unlikely with each passing day.


We agree on something. 


Geronimo said:


> What we differ on really is what the word MANDATORY in the term mandatory injunction refers to.


True. I do move a few of the words around.

The issue to me is that there is only one remedy issued by Congress and the Presdient if the law is violated to the degree Echostar was found guilty. To me, that is the law mandates what the courts must do. And that is to issue a permanent injunction. That is why you'll note I keep saying (because I believe) the courts hands are tied to this action.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> We agree on something. True. I do move a few of the words around.
> 
> The issue to me is that there is only one remedy issued by Congress and the Presdient if the law is violated to the degree Echostar was found guilty. To me, that is the law mandates what the courts must do. And that is to issue a permanent injunction. That is why you'll note I keep saying (because I believe) the courts hands are tied to this action.


Well you just showed that the word mandate has yet another meaning----but it still does not mean that no other outcome is possible. there will bea n injunction if no settlement is reached and if one is then the court will review it and likely accept it. But agin if there is no settlement then the injunction will happen---but not because it si referred to as a mandatory injunction.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Great op-ed, Bob.
> 
> Try this one...
> 
> ...


I guess I would take the "two wrongs don't make a right" view if they can make a compelling case that the situation would create a unfair monopoly in the rural areas and Fox was deliberitely working to that means by refusing a reasonable settlement.

I may be dead wrong on this but I think if all the parties in the suit reached an agreement the courts would see no more reason to issue the injunction or any other punishment to E* since the injured parties would have been compensated to their satisfaction- they would just kill the case and move on to the next item on their busy docket. I suppose they could view it as a criminal act rather than a civil act but I wouldn't expect it to play out that way.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> You mean the way Charlie is in bed with the Colorado elected officials??


No, I was referring to how Directv is in bed with the NAB and Rupert is in bed with the conservative administration.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> Roll your eyes all you want but its the good ole boy Charlie who is breaking the law......again.....Rupert is not violating one single condition in this case. That arguement wouldnt hold up in court. Get Real.


Actually Rupert is breaking the law, he is using his ownership of the FOX network to attempt to harm a competitor of Directv's. Clear violation, and he will be slapped down for it.

The truth of all this is if Directv didn't throw their customers under the bus in '99 and fought alongside E* to keep the distant networks to those who wanted them, we probably wouldn't have to worry with this anymore. Instead, Directv was more interested in pleasing the NAB and giving the big FU to their customer's wants. So Dish has had to fight it alone while Directv has been the NAB's puppet.

"Somebody up there doesn't care... DIRECTV"


----------



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

Amen Chris !!


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

"Somebody up there doesn't care... DIRECTV"

There slogan is now "Good TV. Better TV. DirecTV."


----------



## UTFAN (Nov 12, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
> By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer
> 
> Tuesday, September 5, 2006
> ...


Neither Allard or Salazar are players. But both get to send out news releases that they're protecting us from all the evil in the world.

End of the day, it means nothing, and I agree with other posters that both, along with the rest of their colleagues have far more important things to worry about.

While I wish the Fox O&O's would complete a deal with DISH, I understand what they're doing, and why they're doing it. And the tactics they're using in impacted markets is right out of the DISH playbook.

It's business. Of course, that often leaves us a tad puckered, but there it is.

Charlie and Rupert will eventually work this out.


----------



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

I like that saying UTFAN. I am feeling a" tad puckered. " I often feel that way in the prison I work at when we have riots or fights, escapes etc. Especially when I am in a cell block alone with over 144 convicts and they are pissed off at the other officer who just left for the day and they want to ***** at me. 

My ass sure gets puckered.:sure:


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Maybe it's time for a Congressional Probe in to whether we really need DNS anymore. 

This would be especially important since the Government is in a huff to revamp the EAS System and take on so many Homeland Security issues. With L-I-L, people might be much safer if they had their nearest city's network programming, not something from thousands of miles away. And, it's time that satellite joined the Broadcasters and Cable companies, in being able to alert their viewers, no matter what channel they might be watching.


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

I do not see what is wrong with a probe to see if there is even a chance that News Corp is using it's ownership of FOX to give D* an advantage. E* has many truley egible DNS subscribers who will proabbyly jump ship to D* granted in the whole scheme of things it wont put E* out of bussines but it will have an impact. The other networks found the settlement agreeable and if FOX would settle the whole matter can be resolved. E* pays up and requalifies all DNS subs.


----------

