# Do you have to talk to a CSR to "move"?



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I was kicking around the idea to "moving" to a corner of my DMA that would allow for more flexibility in getting distant networks. I checked my account online today to see if there was a way to do this on the website. Well it seems that you can change your billing address on there but not the service address, at least not anyway that I could figure out anyway. So does this mean i'd actually have to call to get my service address changed but keep my billing address the same? That in itself might make up my mind against it as I can just imagine how that could screw up things if a clueless CSR started making changes to my account! :lol: Anway just looking for a little info from those "in the know". Thanks!


----------



## matty8199 (Dec 4, 2005)

Dunno about E* - but with D* you have to call, and it wasn't a big deal at all (took me about three minutes)


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

matty8199 said:


> Dunno about E* - but with D* you have to call, and it wasn't a big deal at all (took me about three minutes)


Yes, it's the same for E*...


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Sorry, but yes you do have to call.

See ya
Tony


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

hmmm.....ok I guess the drill is then: "Ok i've moved here's my new address, but I want my billing address to remain the same."? It would seem they would know what you were actually up to, but the average CSR can be pretty clueless. That and I guess Dish probably figures that anyone that does that will probably subscribe to distant nets and make them more $$$ so they don't scrutinize it too closely. The funny thing is i've on occasion "moved" a new customer across a DMA border before myself if they live close to the border and they were wanting the locals from the other side of the line. But of course when setting up a customer you have the option to fill in a different billing address from their service address. I guess one you're already a customer you're not allowed to change the service address without CSR imput though, oh well. It'll give me something to think about, I probably won't care too much until football season and the fall tv schedule starts anyway.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> hmmm.....ok I guess the drill is then: "Ok i've moved here's my new address, but I want my billing address to remain the same."? It would seem they would know what you were actually up to, but the average CSR can be pretty clueless.


You are assuming that these people actually care 

You have the right set of events. "I moved. Here is my new address. Pleasae DO NOT CHANGE my billing address. Thanks. I now want to get the locals channels for the new address. BTW, do I qualify for distant network channels? Great. Sign me up."

That is all there is to it. (Assuming you get a CSR that knows what he's doing).

Also keep in mind that the new address affects the RSN and all sports will be blacked out of the new or old RSN for 24-48 hours.

See ya
Tony


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> You are assuming that these people actually care
> 
> You have the right set of events. "I moved. Here is my new address. Pleasae DO NOT CHANGE my billing address. Thanks. I now want to get the locals channels for the new address. BTW, do I qualify for distant network channels? Great. Sign me up."
> 
> ...


Well I really don't have to "move" very far i'm already near the edge of the broadcast signals for my locals anyway. One of the four nets have given me a waiver but the other three refuse, i've tried 5 or 6 times now. I know a couple of people who live just maybe about another 5 miles north of me and they've gotten waivers for two of the networks so I don't have very far to "go". I've checked some addresses for towns about half an hour away on the dish site and they say they qualify for distants, good news is that i'll still be in my own DMA so i'll keep the locals I want, keep my RSN's but just get the added bonus of having some distants that I'd like as well. Anyway like I said I have some time to think about it, since this television season is about over anyway it's not going to be a big concern until the fall.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Also keep in mind that the new address affects the RSN and all sports will be blacked out of the new or old RSN for 24-48 hours.


I "moved" from baltimore DMA to greensboro, NC DMA last december right as the NC State / Alabama game was about to start on fox sports net south. i did the move and only missed about 3 minutes of the game. so it certainly wasn't 24-48 hours for me.

also -- i gave the CSR a "story" -- i figured it was eaiser that way. i told them that my home owner's association was complaining about the dish so i moved it to my vacation home while i waited for the HOA board to make a decision. the csr tried to be helpful by telling me that it is illegal for HOA's to outlaw dishes as long as they are in the back yards. i told the CSR that i would make a note of that but that i had already moved the dish to my vacation home so for now please change over my locals. she did it and 3 minutes later i had greensboro locals. of course, i had to move back to baltimore with the decision to move greensboro to spotbeam. but that's another story.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Have them read back both addresses after they make the change.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

The nerve of E* to make it awkward for its subscribers to lie about their service address.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> The nerve of E* to make it awkward for its subscribers to lie about their service address.....


I know what you mean. I just have to shake my head at this stuff.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

If you're planning on lying, you need to rehearse your scenario. I'd suggest that we start a contest for the silliest, the most believeable, and the most awkward explanation for keeping a service address separate from a billing address.

Silly:
I like to watch TV while I eat, and there's a great truck stop there, and they said I could watch what I wanted if I paid for the subscription.

Believeable:
I'm going to school there this semester. (Yes, the nearest college is 40 miles away, is that a problem?)

Awkward:
My wife kicked me out of the house for watching too much Playboy. The new address is my mom's attic.

Please contribute. This could become part of the Knowledge Base. :lol:


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I don't believe in this whole "moving" thing. But what is so hard about saying that you want to move service to 666 Satanic Ritual Lane which is my new vacation home but I want the bills to go to my original address 1234 Elm Street?


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I don't see what the big deal is. A friend of mine said he went on the Dish website and changed his billing address to what he wanted the new service address to be. Then he called Dish to tell them he noticed his service address needed to match his billing address so they changed it to match. Then he went back online added the locals and changed the billing address back to whatever he wanted I guess.

Someone else I know never bothered to change the address when they moved so they get the locals they used to get at their old house and were happy with them and didn't want to change to new stations.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

the sat providers really dont care, but the local stations and the FCC do. And if the providers get caught knowingly allowing "movers" they can be fined....just because sat technology makes it possible to get stations form other markets, deosnt make it right to do it...just like so many other things....

If you get caught, its your a**...If the provider gets caught and fined, its your money they use to pay the fines instead of offering better service for the rate hikes....if getting another market to watch some precious sports team or other local market channels is that important to you, move for real....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> the sat providers really dont care, but the local stations and the FCC do. And if the providers get caught knowingly allowing "movers" they can be fined....just because sat technology makes it possible to get stations form other markets, deosnt make it right to do it...just like so many other things....


Technology is also making it harder for people to 'move'. Spotbeams make it so you have to be in the spot to get the channels. Sure are a lot less E* markets on ConUS than there were a few weeks ago.  So while it is still physically possible to leave your DMA for another, you can't get signals from markets as far away as you once could.

When E* starts uplinking the remaining markets and revisits SV stations it will make minor moves (such as to neighboring DMAs) less attractive and distants may simply not be offered if there is any other option.

BTW: Do you know how much the fine is that E* would be required to pay? Has any satellite carrier ever had to pay such a fine? Not that lack of enforcement or a weak penalty makes it right (see Potpourri/Watercooler threads about Uno de Mayo).


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

tsmacro said:


> ... So does this mean i'd actually have to call to get my service address changed but keep my billing address the same? That in itself might make up my mind against it as I can just imagine how that could screw up things if a clueless CSR started making changes to my account! :lol: ...


Who are you kiding? You want to lie and cheat and you are nervous about being caught. In your next post you say, "It would seem they would know what you were actually up to, but the average CSR can be pretty clueless."

You bash Dish for likely screwing up your illegal activity and you bash Dish for being gullible.

I'ts too bad there isn't a way to add dishonest dish bashers to a "Buddy List - NOT."


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

James Long said:


> Technology is also making it harder for people to 'move'. Spotbeams make it so you have to be in the spot to get the channels. Sure are a lot less E* markets on ConUS than there were a few weeks ago.  So while it is still physically possible to leave your DMA for another, you can't get signals from markets as far away as you once could.
> 
> When E* starts uplinking the remaining markets and revisits SV stations it will make minor moves (such as to neighboring DMAs) less attractive and distants may simply not be offered if there is any other option.
> 
> BTW: Do you know how much the fine is that E* would be required to pay? Has any satellite carrier ever had to pay such a fine? Not that lack of enforcement or a weak penalty makes it right (see Potpourri/Watercooler threads about Uno de Mayo).


Am I correct in that NY and LA are CONUS and the rest are spot beams? Is there a source to find out, for sure? I have seen various discussions, where one claims a certain city is Conus and another says it is spot beam.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Nice to see the "morality police" in full effect here. Sorry if I don't see lying about my adress by a few miles so I can have the ability to access additional programming a threat to my immortal soul! :lol: Anyway since it's not likely to effect any of y'all in any real way I think you can keep your judgements of my character to yourselves and just chill. And to those who've actually addressed the topic that I asked about I appreciate your imput!


----------



## btyko (May 9, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Nice to see the "morality police" in full effect here. Sorry if I don't see lying about my adress by a few miles so I can have the ability to access additional programming a threat to my immortal soul! :lol: Anyway since it's not likely to effect any of y'all in any real way I think you can keep your judgements of my character to yourselves and just chill.


I agree with you 100%.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> Technology is also making it harder for people to 'move'. Spotbeams make it so you have to be in the spot to get the channels. Sure are a lot less E* markets on ConUS than there were a few weeks ago.  So while it is still physically possible to leave your DMA for another, you can't get signals from markets as far away as you once could.
> 
> When E* starts uplinking the remaining markets and revisits SV stations it will make minor moves (such as to neighboring DMAs) less attractive and distants may simply not be offered if there is any other option.
> 
> BTW: Do you know how much the fine is that E* would be required to pay? Has any satellite carrier ever had to pay such a fine? Not that lack of enforcement or a weak penalty makes it right (see Potpourri/Watercooler threads about Uno de Mayo).


As far as i'm concerned i'm not even trying to leave my DMA. I just want to be just a few miles farther away so I can get distants in addition to my locals. The crazy thing is if you look at the FCC broadcast contour maps i'm literally right on the edge of the signal range for the locals I get. A few miles farther away and i'm eligible for distants, which is evident by my friends who live about 5 miles away and have gotten waivers for a station that's denied me 5 or 6 times!


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

> Am I correct in that NY and LA are CONUS and the rest are spot beams? Is there a source to find out, for sure? I have seen various discussions, where one claims a certain city is Conus and another says it is spot beam.


There is a nice feature here called the EKB, ekb.dbstalk.com (or available on the top right hand corner). Go look at the channel list, it shows what stations are CONUS and Spotbeams. The Big 4 (FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC) + 1 superstation (KTLA, WPIX) are available for both LA and NY, however some other locals for LA/NY are on a spotbeam, such as TelM, local PBS and so forth. Off the top of my head, the following are also CONUS

Chicago - Big 4
Dallas - Big 4 (but may be moving back to a spotbeam soon)
Denver - Big 4 + 1 (KWGN is also a superstation)
Atlanta - Big 4 (but may be moving to a spotbeam soon)

Now on top of that, those are just the 110/119 CONUS stations. You can also 'move' to a DMA that is on the 129 or the 148, as they are both CONUS beams as well. That is a larger list, so check it out yourself in the EKB. Eventually, it is believed 61 will begin to carry full DMAs (Providence?) so you can also 'move' there (although R1/E11 (whatever you want to call it) does have spotbeam capabilities designed for the 61 slot, although they are not in use).

Hope that helps...


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

alebowgm said:


> There is a nice feature here called the EKB, ekb.dbstalk.com (or available on the top right hand corner). Go look at the channel list, it shows what stations are CONUS and Spotbeams. The Big 4 (FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC) + 1 superstation (KTLA, WPIX) are available for both LA and NY, however some other locals for LA/NY are on a spotbeam, such as TelM, local PBS and so forth. Off the top of my head, the following are also CONUS
> 
> Chicago - Big 4
> Dallas - Big 4 (but may be moving back to a spotbeam soon)
> ...


Thanks. I'll check out that EKB thing.


----------



## oblio98 (Sep 17, 2002)

The thing is, in this day and age, we should be able to get whatever channels we want from wherever we want them, AS LONG AS WE PAY FOR THEM.

I mean, charge a fee for out of area channels , kick some back to the locals. These days, why should the government protect a local broadcaster. 50 years ago, it made sense, and TV stations started appearing throughout the country. 

Today, who cares? This whole thing reminds me of "blue laws".


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

oblio98 said:


> ... Today, who cares? This whole thing reminds me of "blue laws".


And you're from Connecticut?:hurah:

OTA stations make their money from advertising. Advertising cost is based, in part, on viewership. If viewership is reduced by allowing the importation of stations from outside the DMA the local station loses revenue. The ouside station may see increased revenue for *national* advertisers, but the Local Used Car Dealership will lose money if he has to pay increased fees for no increase in local exposure.

Ah, CT Blue Laws in the 60's.:nono2:


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

Ya, like I'm going to guy a car from some 'screaming-meany' wearing a cowboy hat and pointing his cane at a '77 Vega???

Seriously, there are people who live a particular state but are forced to watch another state's news because of the FCC. As a taxpayer, I want as much TV news from the state that is getting my money.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

oblio98 said:


> The thing is, in this day and age, we should be able to get whatever channels we want from wherever we want them, AS LONG AS WE PAY FOR THEM.
> 
> I mean, charge a fee for out of area channels , kick some back to the locals. These days, why should the government protect a local broadcaster. 50 years ago, it made sense, and TV stations started appearing throughout the country.
> 
> Today, who cares? This whole thing reminds me of "blue laws".


Yeah this whole thing does bother me too in the sense that it seems to go against free enterprise. Your local channels want government protection against competition so you have to watch their ads. I say if they want my viewership let them through performance earn it, instead of hiding behind fcc regulations. And the one distant I do have I use on rare occasions to record things when there's scheduling conflicts (happens more often during college basketball season and the Pacers & Hoosiers are on at the same time) to record shows at a later time. The local channels should be happy that I have the opportunity to keep up on a series that'll I'll more likely watch most the time on their channel instead of deciding against watching it all that night because i've got two games to watch. And you know once you miss one ep of a show it just gets easier and easier not to watch it down the road. Anyway I could just rant on and on here on how silly the whole thing is and how the local channels are really hurting themselves (at least when it comes to me as a viewer anyway) rather than "protecting their market" but oh well.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

sikma said:


> Seriously, there are people who live a particular state but are forced to watch another state's news because of the FCC. As a taxpayer, I want as much TV news from the state that is getting my money.


Sikma....let me guess...you have Mpls locals but are in Wisconsin?


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

tsmacro said:


> ... I think you can keep your judgements of my character to yourselves and just chill. ...


If you post about dishonest actions that you intend to take, what do you expect?

As Denny Crane would say, you opened the door on direct.:hurah:


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Yeah this whole thing does bother me too in the sense that it seems to go against free enterprise. Your local channels want government protection against competition so you have to watch their ads. I say if they want my viewership let them through performance earn it, instead of hiding behind fcc regulations.


Exactly how is the local station supposed to "earn it?" Each ABC affiliate's version of "Lost" looks the same, each FOX affliate has the same version of "24." The only differences between the affliates from different markets is the local news and sports. And that's the rub. This isn't about some people wanting the local station to "compete" against other markets fairly, it's almost always about sports. The movers want games they're not supposed to get, without buying the sports add-on packages. The local station in one market can't swipe another market's sports teams, so again I ask -- what do you mean by having to "earn it?"


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> If you post about dishonest actions that you intend to take, what do you expect?
> 
> As Denny Crane would say, you opened the door on direct.:hurah:


Well Dawg, I happen to agree with you, and I find it sad that even some "moderators" on this site don't see anything wrong with lying to Dish about where a person lives so they can get channels they are not entitled to. Some "moderators" also don't seem to think there is anything wrong with customers taking their receivers to different locations without setting up a separate account as is required by Dish. Personally I don't see any difference between what is being asked here and someone wanting to hack Dish to get their stuff for free. Sad when people think that it is okay to not play by the rules because it doesn't fit for them and they don't think or see how it might be hurting someone else.
But that is just my opinion.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

> The only differences between the affliates from different markets is the local news and sports.


And different shows during syndication, especially on Fox affiliates. During the day, ABC, CBS and NBC tend to air network programming with their Soaps, but they all do have different syndication...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

oblio98 said:


> The thing is, in this day and age, we should be able to get whatever channels we want from wherever we want them, AS LONG AS WE PAY FOR THEM.


Blame copyright laws and exclusive agreements that the stations enter in to - including the ones you may (or may not) want from somewhere else in the country.

BTW (unrelated to the quote): The use of spotbeams isn't there to enforce DMAs ... spotbeams are there to make the best use of a limited spectrum. But I'm sure the NAB doesn't mind that, in effect, out of market reception is harder to pull off.


Slamminc11 said:


> Well Dawg, I happen to agree with you, and I find it sad that even some "moderators" on this site don't see anything wrong with lying to Dish about where a person lives so they can get channels they are not entitled to. Some "moderators" also don't seem to think there is anything wrong with customers taking their receivers to different locations without setting up a separate account as is required by Dish.


Not this moderator ... and I don't want to know who you were trying to insult with those comments if it wasn't me. People should make their service address where they live. Arguments can be made for "moving" in situations where it's more of a glitch that one is not getting the channels they should (not just an issue of getting the ones they *want*). I can sympathize ... even if I would never do such a "move" myself. I live at my service address - and despite how messed up my locals can be at times that's just part of the 'price' of living here.


Slamminc11 said:


> Personally I don't see any difference between what is being asked here and someone wanting to hack Dish to get their stuff for free.


I see the difference. People wanting to hack E* (or D*) to get paid programming for free will have their posts deleted and will likely be banned forever. We take signal theft seriously here at DBSTalk.

People who "move" are paying the bill for their service. If you want to get picky about it they are violating copyright law. Would you like to lead the firing squad?

I encorage people as much as possible (without being a pain in the butt about it) to follow the rules 100%. Thanks.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> If you post about dishonest actions that you intend to take, what do you expect?
> 
> As Denny Crane would say, you opened the door on direct.:hurah:


You're using Denny Crane as your moral example?!!!?:lol: One of the wonderful characters on Boston Legal who bend the law to their own conveinance just about every episode?! Anyway, your feelings regarding my "potential move" have been noted, thanks for the imput.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> ... and I don't want to know who you were trying to insult with those comments if it wasn't me...


For the record, no, you are not the one I was speaking of.



James Long said:


> ... I see the difference. People wanting to hack E* (or D*) to get paid programming for free will have their posts deleted and will likely be banned forever. We take signal theft seriously here at DBSTalk.
> 
> People who "move" are paying the bill for their service. If you want to get picky about it they are violating copyright law. Would you like to lead the firing squad?
> 
> I encorage people as much as possible (without being a pain in the butt about it) to follow the rules 100%. Thanks...


In my view, both are cheating, though I do agree that there is a bit of a difference between stealing without paying and stealing with paying as I see hacking and "moving" to be, but bottom line is it is still wrong. Now, firing squads might be a bit harsh, but...


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> Exactly how is the local station supposed to "earn it?" Each ABC affiliate's version of "Lost" looks the same, each FOX affliate has the same version of "24." The only differences between the affliates from different markets is the local news and sports. And that's the rub. This isn't about some people wanting the local station to "compete" against other markets fairly, it's almost always about sports. The movers want games they're not supposed to get, without buying the sports add-on packages. The local station in one market can't swipe another market's sports teams, so again I ask -- what do you mean by having to "earn it?"


For me it's actually enough to do a good job with the local content. That'll "earn it "for me. Give good local news coverage, good local sports weather and etc. Do that and when I tune into a network program the first place i'll go is my "local network". Heck I even like to see some of the local commercials. Like I said earlier my main use for my distant network that I do have is just for some time shifting of programming when things get too busy during a particular time period. And yes that has to do with sports, but for me that's usually because i'm trying to watch a couple of different sporting events that involve local teams. I also think this benefits the local network as well because as I noted before because I can do some time shifting it allows me to watch shows that occasionally I might otherwise decide to skip so I could watch local sports programming. By being able to record a show later I stay interested in a show and when it comes on next week and there's no conflict I turn to the local network at the regular time. If I couldn't do this i'd probably lose interest in shows because I had to skip some episodes. All this being said I also live far enough away from my so-called "locals" that they're in reality "regional channels" for me, they tell me what's going on in my state, but usually not what's actually going on in my town unless something major of national interest happens where I live. There's other channels that actually broadcast just as close to me as to where I get my locals from but because of the artificial dma boundaries I can only choose the ones that nielsen and the fcc say are ok. All I say is give me the choice and i'll pick the ones that best serve me. I think the "local channels" I have now would be pleasantly surprised that they'd be included in my choices even though they've been rather unreasonable (except for one) in my requests for waivers.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

James Long said:


> We take signal theft seriously here at DBSTalk.
> 
> People who "move" are paying the bill for their service. If you want to get picky about it they are violating copyright law. Would you like to lead the firing squad?


Who gets to pick which laws can be broken and which ones can't?


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Who gets to pick which laws can be broken and which ones can't?


We the people.

Just like jaywalking isn't as bad as robbing a bank, "moving" isn't as bad as stealing services.
As a few posters have already mentioned, those who "move" pay for the channels they receive, and many pay more because they purposely "move" to an area that allows them to pick up distants as well.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wouldn't compare the "movers" with stealers of service either. There are levels of lying and cheating, and some are more harmful than others.

BUT, please don't try to rationalize it as somehow being owed to you or unfair to point out that you are lying/cheating. One rule of thumb is that IF you feel the need to defend yourself so much, it tends to indicate that you know what you are doing is wrong. So also does saying "move" in quotations, again indicating that you know you are being less than honest.

Hey, know what I'd love? I'd love it if a "mover" had a service problem... and called Dish... and Dish wanted to send someone out to the service address where you "moved" to. That would help let the cat out of the bag.

I'm not saying tar & feather "movers"... but please don't try and rationalize or justify lying and cheating. At least be honest about the lying if you are going to do it and ask for help from others to do it in a public forum.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

billpa said:


> Just like jaywalking isn't as bad as robbing a bank, "moving" isn't as bad as stealing services.
> As a few posters have already mentioned, those who "move" pay for the channels they receive, and many pay more because they purposely "move" to an area that allows them to pick up distants as well.


Do you mean to say that it's OK to steal from the local affiliate and their advertisers, (your neighbors) but it's not OK to steal from E* or D* (a big national company)? It's the same law, just broken to a lesser extent and harmful to different businesses. When someone lies to obtain something that he is not entitled to the legal term for such conduct is fraud.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Do you mean to say that it's OK to steal from the local affiliate and their advertisers, (your neighbors).


I don't think choosing not to watch a TV station is stealing from them. Whether you choose to watch a different station or another affiliate of the same network from out-of-town.
I mean, many cable companies have offered out-of-market signals (something by dish and direct have not been able to do until very, very recently); are people who watch those out-of-markets cheating their local stations?
When I lived in New Jersey, as an example, I lived in the New York market, but our cable gave us the Philly stations as well...was I "stealing" from WNBC if I chose to watch WCAU?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

billpa said:


> When I lived in New Jersey, as an example, I lived in the New York market, but our cable gave us the Philly stations as well...was I "stealing" from WNBC if I chose to watch WCAU?


While the mechanism is similar, the legal issues are not. You did not fabricate a situation in order to watch WCAU. You were not "stealing".

You could have installed an antenna and actually watched either NBC station without cable.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> While the mechanism is similar, the legal issues are not. You did not fabricate a situation in order to watch WCAU. You were not "stealing".


Let's get one thing straight. No "movers" are stealing. I'm not saying I don't understand it's breaking the rules and I completely understand that you and many others find it troubling, but let's not use the word stealing because I think that's a very inaccurate description of what it is we're talking about.
And while you're right, watching channel 10 in Philly required zero deception on my part, I was simply arguing against your contention that "movers" are doing something immoral to the network affiliates in their respective markets. Just because cable TV and over-the-air antenna-viewers get to watch out-of-market signals without breaking corporate rules doesn't change the fact that they too are choosing to view programs their local station has the rights to in that viewer's county.
Let's debate the rule breaking between customer and Dish if you want, but I can't get all worked up about a few people tuning out-of-market signals via satellite when it's been done for decades through cable and antennas.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

billpa said:


> Let's get one thing straight. No "movers" are stealing. I'm not saying I don't understand it's breaking the rules and I completely understand that you and many others find it troubling, but let's not use the word stealing because I think that's a very inaccurate description of what it is we're talking about.
> And while you're right, watching channel 10 in Philly required zero deception on my part, I was simply arguing against your contention that "movers" are doing something immoral to the network affiliates in their respective markets. Just because cable TV and over-the-air antenna-viewers get to watch out-of-market signals without breaking corporate rules doesn't change the fact that they too are choosing to view programs their local station has the rights to in that viewer's county.
> Let's debate the rule breaking between customer and Dish if you want, but I can't get all worked up about a few people tuning out-of-market signals via satellite when it's been done for decades through cable and antennas.


Exactly right! I used to live on a hill top, In Montgomery County, PA. I put up a big antenna to receive NY stations. Was I stealing anything from anybody? No, I was just using the technology avaiable.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

billpa said:


> ...
> When I lived in New Jersey, as an example, I lived in the New York market, but our cable gave us the Philly stations as well...was I "stealing" from WNBC if I chose to watch WCAU?


There is no similarity between that case and lying about your location so as to receive some other DMA's programming *instead* of the programming to which you are entitled.

For the person who lives midway between NYC and Philly neither the FCC nor the Laws Of Physics prevent someone from receiving *both sets* of locals OTA - and the market place acknowledges this and also deals with it.

There is a lot of rationalizing going on - if people are going to post that they are going to cheat and then complain about the "police" taking them to task it makes me wonder why they posted at all.

These people are probably the same people that complain about the behavior of the younger generation kids.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

wow! look at what i missed while i was busy working on a project. my feelings on this issue have basically been summarized on several of the other posts. Somebody said that "moving" is almost always about getting sports without having to pay extra. And while this is exactly the reason that I did my "move", let me say that this isn't always true. there were several situations this past year when basketball games on fox sports net south were blacked-out for people who live outside the "footprint" of the atlantic coast conference. so for these folks it's not about not wanting to pay. most of them would gladly pay extra to avoid the hassle of the "move". but the broadcast agreements make that impossible.

let me just conclude by saying that i understand that the rules are in place to protect the broadcast rights of local affiliates. but why does the fcc feel it has to do this? nobody protects the selling rights of local stores when wal*mart moves in next door. i guess broadcast television is different because it's a signal so the fcc feels like it has a right to regulate what technology could easily provide. whatever. i'm in my home DMA (baltimore) right now because of the new spotbeam in greensboro (north carolina), but as soon as I can find a set of locals that carry fox sports net south on a spotbeam i can see I'll move there and not feel at all guilty about it.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

If you want to see "morality police" out in force, move to Utah :nono2: .

Back to the previous subject.........
"I moved to a bad neighborhood, so I keep my checkbook (as well as my billing address) at my parent's house, so it won't get stolen."
:lol:


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

The FCC feels it has to local rights of broadcasters because the congress has charged them to protect copyright laws in this area. I wish I could buy whatever locals that i might want to. But, I don't havea "right" to buy TV ofany kind. 

We can rationalize all day long about how we ought to, or that is not as serious as robbery or murder. But that is just rationalization.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> There is no similarity between that case and lying about your location so as to receive some other DMA's programming *instead* of the programming to which you are entitled.


I firmly stated that one example is based on a lie to your satellite provider and the other was one of zero deception, I have no quarrel with that at all.
However, my argument was to the point made about "stealing" from the stations in the viewer's market. I'm suggesting you can't argue that in one case you're "stealing" from the local guy because your provider won't knowingly let you have an out-of-market station and in the other you arn't "stealing" because your provider gives you the out-of-market station. Either avoiding your in-market station is stealing or it's not and on THIS point, how you get that second station shouldn't matter.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

clapple said:


> Exactly right! I used to live on a hill top, In Montgomery County, PA. I put up a big antenna to receive NY stations. Was I stealing anything from anybody? No, I was just using the technology avaiable.


You don't really believe that this is an analogous case, do you?


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> We can rationalize all day long about how we ought to, or that is not as serious as robbery or murder. But that is just rationalization.


You're right. Some can live with that rationalization and others can't. With the exception of the saints on this board, it's hard to believe the people who are being critical of "moving" don't break some of life's other little rules. Perhaps they travel ten miles per hour over the speed limit or drive 20 days past their car's inspection deadline or they jaywalk or they don't report their purchases made out-of-state to their state's income tax agency.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

billpa said:


> ... Either avoiding your in-market station is stealing or it's not and on THIS point, how you get that second station shouldn't matter.


Nonsense.

I live midway between Baltimore and DC. I am able to receive *either* the B-more or DC locals OTA by rotating my rooftop antenna. This is entirely legal and is taken into consideration when ratings and advertising rates are established. In fact, owing to this fact, the FCC will allow some of the Baltimore locals to be provided by Echostar to DC DMA customers. Again, in both those cases it is *legal* and does not rely on my committing fraud.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

SaltiDawg said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I live midway between Baltimore and DC. I am able to receive *either* the B-more or DC locals OTA by rotating my rooftop antenna. This is entirely legal and is taken into consideration when ratings and advertising rates are established. In fact, owing to this fact, the FCC will allow some of the Baltimore locals to be provided by Echostar to DC DMA customers. Again, in both those cases it is *legal* and does not rely on my committing fraud.


OK, I get it. Look, I was only arguing the point about "stealing" from the in-market station.
For what it's worth, I'd be shocked if any local TV stations lose any revenue from "moving"- let's face it...this is something done mostly by the types of TV geeks who frequent boards like this one (people like me!); the average person wouldn't want an out-of-market station. He wants his local news with local weather and local sports. What the current setup doesn't recognize are the people with strong social ties to other areas of the country who live far from the places where they grew up. Again, before you respond, I'm not saying it's totally okay to "move"; I just don't think it's a big deal to talk about it openly and realistically.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

psnarula said:


> wow! look at what i missed while i was busy working on a project. my feelings on this issue have basically been summarized on several of the other posts. Somebody said that "moving" is almost always about getting sports without having to pay extra. And while this is exactly the reason that I did my "move", let me say that this isn't always true. there were several situations this past year when basketball games on fox sports net south were blacked-out for people who live outside the "footprint" of the atlantic coast conference. so for these folks it's not about not wanting to pay. most of them would gladly pay extra to avoid the hassle of the "move". but the broadcast agreements make that impossible.
> 
> let me just conclude by saying that i understand that the rules are in place to protect the broadcast rights of local affiliates. but why does the fcc feel it has to do this? nobody protects the selling rights of local stores when wal*mart moves in next door. i guess broadcast television is different because it's a signal so the fcc feels like it has a right to regulate what technology could easily provide. whatever. i'm in my home DMA (baltimore) right now because of the new spotbeam in greensboro (north carolina), but as soon as I can find a set of locals that carry fox sports net south on a spotbeam i can see I'll move there and not feel at all guilty about it.


And for people like you, there is a solution -- ESPN FUll Court. It'll cost you a few bucks more, but it's the legal way to get the games you want. I know the pain of not being able to see uor teams. Look at my user name -- I'm a Detroit Red Wings fan living in Florida. Sure, I could "move" to Detroit and get that RSN turned on and have no worries (and have to get my locals off air becuase I'd be outside the spotbeam), but I buy Center Ice. It costs more, but that's the way it works.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

billpa said:


> You're right. Some can live with that rationalization and others can't. With the exception of the saints on this board, it's hard to believe the people who are being critical of "moving" don't break some of life's other little rules. Perhaps they travel ten miles per hour over the speed limit or drive 20 days past their car's inspection deadline or they jaywalk or they don't report their purchases made out-of-state to their state's income tax agency.


Are we really going to compare jaywalking with "moving?" No one is claiming sainthood -- yes we all break rules -- but it's which rules you choose to break and how you feel about it that determines your character. Jaywalking hurts no one else. Going 20 miles over the limit hurts no one else, unless you couple that with driving reckelessly. If you realized the cashier at Wal-Mart didn't charge you for an item by mistake, would you point it out? I would, and have. Others wouldn't, and how they rationalize that decision says a lot about them. Do they get to the parking lot and smile becuase they scammed the company, or do they feel some guilt becuase what they did was no better than shoplifting?

The fact is that "moving" give you programming to which you're not entitled, and robs the locals of the area you're "moving" from of your potential eyeballs for its local ads. Whether you are willing to pay for it is immaterial. "Justify" it any way you like, but it is what it is.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> No one is claiming sainthood -- yes we all break rules -- but it's which rules you choose to break


That's right.
There are people on here who admit to "moving" and then there are the rest who choose to break other rules, but don't tell us about it. Oh well.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

billpa said:


> That's right.
> There are people on here who admit to "moving" and then there are the rest who choose to break other rules, but don't tell us about it. Oh well.


And your point is...what exactly?


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> And for people like you, there is a solution -- ESPN FUll Court.


ESPN Full Court is an okay solution *some of the time*. but as i mentioned in my post, not all games are included on ESPN Full Court. In particular, there are a good number of ACC basketball games broadcast exclusively on fox sports net south that are blacked out everywhere outside the ACC footprint and which will never be included on ESPN Full Court. so for some people, moving is the only way to get these games. buying them is not an option -- even if they were willing to pay.

professional sports are different because the pay packages (MLB Extra Innings, Center Ice, etc) generally include every game.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

billpa said:


> For what it's worth, I'd be shocked if any local TV stations lose any revenue from "moving"- let's face it...this is something done mostly by the types of TV geeks who frequent boards like this one (people like me!); the average person wouldn't want an out-of-market station. He wants his local news with local weather and local sports. What the current setup doesn't recognize are the people with strong social ties to other areas of the country who live far from the places where they grew up. Again, before you respond, I'm not saying it's totally okay to "move"; I just don't think it's a big deal to talk about it openly and realistically.


i agree. the baltimore locals aren't losing any money from me because i never watch their local news. i grew up in north carolina and although i don't live there anymore i'm still much more interested in what's going on there than i am about what's going on in baltimore. the only really hard part about getting greensboro locals is when a bojangles commercial comes on and i want some so bad but i know that there isn't one anywhere around!


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> ...The fact is that "moving" give you programming to which you're not entitled, and robs the locals of the area you're "moving" from of your potential eyeballs for its local ads. Whether you are willing to pay for it is immaterial. "Justify" it any way you like, but it is what it is.


It also sets up Dish as being in violation with local station contracts as well as with the FCC. People ***** about their costs going up every year, where do you think SOME of those costs go? Yeah, they go to trying to protect Dish from people frauding the company by "moving", by stacking accounts, by switching their receivers between two houses without second accounts. My guess is that that isn't cheap to research and find violations and that it is becoming more and more of a problem as time goes by. So, you might not think that you are "harming" anyone by moving, but you really are, you are costing all of us money, including yourselves in higher rates. That might be okay in your eyes, but not in mine. By doing things like this, you are costing me money in what I have to spend each month on my bill and as well as effecting my stock that I have in the company. So should I take it personal when people do things like this, yeah, I think I have a right to!


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> And your point is...what exactly?


That likely everyone who's taken part in this discussion so far has and actively breaks some of society's rules and laws. While you might have a problem with satellite "moving" you don't have a problem with breaking some other sort of contract/rule/law. Nothing more than an observation.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

:lol:


SaltiDawg said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I live midway between Baltimore and DC. I am able to receive *either* the B-more or DC locals OTA by rotating my rooftop antenna. This is entirely legal and is taken into consideration when ratings and advertising rates are established. In fact, owing to this fact, the FCC will allow some of the Baltimore locals to be provided by Echostar to DC DMA customers. Again, in both those cases it is *legal* and does not rely on my committing fraud.


Well good for you the fcc actually allows you to do the reasonable thing and get locals from two DMA's because you live half-way in between both cities. It's real easy to take the "moral high ground" when the rules happen be conveinant for you. If only the boundaries made that much sense everywhere. I live half-way between two cities and am only allowed to get locals from one thanks to these same rules. And actually i'm just as close to another cities tower as well in a third DMA, but i'm not allowed to get that one either. It's ok for people in my area to set up big honkin' antenna's to receive any of these stations (and that's what it takes because all the towers are anywhere from 50 to 60 miles away) or subscribe to cable and get these channels. But for some ridiculous reason the same rules don't apply to those of us w/ satellite. Are you starting to get the idea as to why it's so easy for some of us to rationalize things like "moving" when the rules themselves are so absolutely silly? The fact that anyone even gets bent out of shape over the idea that some people do this just amazes me! :lol: Why? What's the point? How does it affect you in anyway? Or is it that some people are so insecure that the only way they have to feel good about themselves is to jump at every little chance to point out the errors of others so they can get that temporary boost of feeling morally superior? Sheesh, give it a rest already, nobody is committing a crime against you, if anything there's just a few people out there that just don't appreciate certain tv stations out there manipulating the rules in such a way that says "I don't really care about the viewers, it's all about my bottom line". Are you saying here in the land of the free a nation founded by rule-breakers, that we should just blindly adhear to all rules whether they make sense or not? Anyway......:nono2: :rant:


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

billpa said:


> That likely everyone who's taken part in this discussion so far has and actively breaks some of society's rules and laws. While you might have a problem with satellite "moving" you don't have a problem with breaking some other sort of contract/rule/law. Nothing more than an observation.


Covered in one of my previous posts...but if you missed it, I agree. Everybody breaks some kind of rule/contract/law -- nobody's perfect. It's which ones you break -- murder isn't the same as jaywalking -- and how you deal with it that matter.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> :lol:
> 
> Well good for you the fcc actually allows you to do the reasonable thing and get locals from two DMA's because you live half-way in between both cities. It's real easy to take the "moral high ground" when the rules happen be conveinant for you. If only the boundaries made that much sense everywhere. I live half-way between two cities and am only allowed to get locals from one thanks to these same rules. And actually i'm just as close to another cities tower as well in a third DMA, but i'm not allowed to get that one either. It's ok for people in my area to set up big honkin' antenna's to receive any of these stations (and that's what it takes because all the towers are anywhere from 50 to 60 miles away) or subscribe to cable and get these channels. But for some ridiculous reason the same rules don't apply to those of us w/ satellite. Are you starting to get the idea as to why it's so easy for some of us to rationalize things like "moving" when the rules themselves are so absolutely silly? The fact that anyone even gets bent out of shape over the idea that some people do this just amazes me! :lol: Why? What's the point? How does it affect you in anyway? Or is it that some people are so insecure that the only way they have to feel good about themselves is to jump at every little chance to point out the errors of others so they can get that temporary boost of feeling morally superior? Sheesh, give it a rest already, nobody is committing a crime against you, if anything there's just a few people out there that just don't appreciate certain tv stations out there manipulating the rules in such a way that says "I don't really care about the viewers, it's all about my bottom line". Are you saying here in the land of the free a nation founded by rule-breakers, that we should just blindly adhear to all rules whether they make sense or not? Anyway......:nono2: :rant:


It is a shame the rules don't make more sense than they do. Fight to change 'em -- I'm with you. This isn't about feeling morally superior. I, along with others, are just pointing out that "moving" is technically against the rules and yes, it does hurt someone -- the local stations you're not watching. You don't care -- that's your right -- but just as a rule of thumb : if you have to come onto a message board to get advice about how to lie convincingly enough so you can get something you're not legally entitled to, then maybe there's something wrong here.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> It also sets up Dish as being in violation with local station contracts as well as with the FCC. People ***** about their costs going up every year, where do you think SOME of those costs go? Yeah, they go to trying to protect Dish from people frauding the company by "moving", by stacking accounts, by switching their receivers between two houses without second accounts. My guess is that that isn't cheap to research and find violations and that it is becoming more and more of a problem as time goes by. So, you might not think that you are "harming" anyone by moving, but you really are, you are costing all of us money, including yourselves in higher rates. That might be okay in your eyes, but not in mine. By doing things like this, you are costing me money in what I have to spend each month on my bill and as well as effecting my stock that I have in the company. So should I take it personal when people do things like this, yeah, I think I have a right to!


I've never ever heard of any case in the history of satellite television where a company got in any kind of legal trouble because of moving. My bet is that it's such a minor issue that most TV stations and/or the NAB have more important things to worry about and therefore don't pursue it. Hence the reason why Dish really doesn't seem to care too much about it, they generally seem to treat it as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue. Why should they care, the people involved in enforcement of the rules don't go after it, and they make a few extra bucks off it.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> I've never ever heard of any case in the history of satellite television where a company got in any kind of legal trouble because of moving. My bet is that it's such a minor issue that most TV stations and/or the NAB have more important things to worry about and therefore don't pursue it. Hence the reason why Dish really doesn't seem to care too much about it, they generally seem to treat it as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue. Why should they care, the people involved in enforcement of the rules don't go after it, and they make a few extra bucks off it.


No where in my post did I say Dish had gotten busted for it, I said it sets them up as violating the contracts they have with the local channels of each city as well as with the FCC. Will some channel go after them, I wouldn't put it past them, has it happened, I can't say since I do not work in the legal department at Dish. 
If this and stacking and second homes is such a "minor issue" as you seem to think, how come audit team threads have blown up on this and other DBS sites in the last year or two? Could it be that Dish IS taking it seriously? 
As some have said, you can try and spin this any way you want and (since people have taken offense to the word cheating in this thread) lie to Dish about where you live, but no matter how you spin it, it is still wrong and violates the terms of the agreement you went into with Dish to receive service.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> it does hurt someone -- the local stations you're not watching. .


Let's make a deal. Those of us who don't care about "moving" will not pretend that rules aren't being broken and will admit that it requires a lie to a satellite provider to get something that we're not supposed to- if those of you on the other side will stop pretending that it's hurting the local stations not being watched.
I would be very much against "moving" for a nielson household. But let's be honest, ratings for local stations are based on the households where rating equipment/diaries are setup. A non-reporting household could watch a station from the other side of the globe and it will never get registered.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> It is a shame the rules don't make more sense than they do. Fight to change 'em -- I'm with you. This isn't about feeling morally superior. I, along with others, are just pointing out that "moving" is technically against the rules and yes, it does hurt someone -- the local stations you're not watching. You don't care -- that's your right -- but just as a rule of thumb : if you have to come onto a message board to get advice about how to lie convincingly enough so you can get something you're not legally entitled to, then maybe there's something wrong here.


I wouldn't be hurting them anymore than anyone else in my area that decides to watch one of the other affiliates available to them by antenna or cable. But it's ok to hold satellite viewers to a different set of rules? I'm sorry but what I watch and how I watch it should be my choice and it shouldn't be limited by "protectionist rules". because some local channels are taking advantage of a rule that allows them to bend things in their favor whether it's what the viewer wants or not. Under those conditions I feel no remorse or guilt whether I might hurt the bottom line of said stations by some minute percentage and bend the rules in my favor. The ridiculous thing is I actually watch the local channels with regualarity anyway, and the one distant I do have allows me to do some time shifting of programs when there's conflicts, allows me to keep up on series I might otherwise lose interest in if I couldn't keep up on them. So ultimately I probably end up watching the local channel even more because of it, so I don't see anyone getting hurt here. As for doing something about getting the rules changed "the right way" instead of just breaking them, i've done that too. I've actually written to the fcc, with no response. I've applied for waivers with the local stations in question through. I've actually written personal e-mails to the station managers pointing out the mutual benefits of them granting me waivers, to which I got the standard boiler-plate responses to. So i've taken this up with the fcc, Dish, the "local" stations and no one really seems to care. So is it any wonder that i'm considering "going over to the darkside"? :lol:


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> No where in my post did I say Dish had gotten busted for it, I said it sets them up as violating the contracts they have with the local channels of each city as well as with the FCC. Will some channel go after them, I wouldn't put it past them, has it happened, I can't say since I do not work in the legal department at Dish.
> If this and stacking and second homes is such a "minor issue" as you seem to think, how come audit team threads have blown up on this and other DBS sites in the last year or two? Could it be that Dish IS taking it seriously?
> As some have said, you can try and spin this any way you want and (since people have taken offense to the word cheating in this thread) lie to Dish about where you live, but no matter how you spin it, it is still wrong and violates the terms of the agreement you went into with Dish to receive service.


The audit team does take stacking and hacking seriously and do actively persue that. They should it directly affects their bottom line. Never have I heard of anyone being audited because they were suspected of lying about their address to receive additional programming that they pay dish extra money for, nor will you I bet.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> i'm considering "going over to the darkside"? :lol:


God's speed and good luck!!! :lol:


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I think people "move" because the laws aren't fairly done. The way the DMAs are divided up by county forces some people to watch stations they don't care about or want. I don't necessarily agree with moving to get locals from somewhere 2 or 3 states away, but I can understand why people do it to get stations near their DMA.

My parents live in a rural area and the counties north and south of them are allowed to have local stations from two different cities on cable, while the area they live in the cannot because the local stations protest it. Why should one area be discriminated against and forced to watch one specific group of locals while someone 10-15 miles away can have both cities? 

I know one town that has two sets of locals on cable, the one they consider their primary source of locals isn't the DMA on satellite. Needless to say, not many people in that community get satellite because they don't want one set of locals--especially not the stations that aren't their primary ones. 

Rules like this is what have made people "move" to get the locals they feel they are entitled to. My parents have had Directv for 12 years or so and have always gotten the distant network feeds and have never cared about the local stations (which are not even on Directv anyway). Now they get the distants in HD as well while their pathetic local channels don't even broadcast full power digital nor show network programs in HD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Do you mean to say that it's OK to steal from the local affiliate and their advertisers, (your neighbors) but it's not OK to steal from E* or D* (a big national company)?


And what per chance is being stolen?

The advertisers pay the station for multiple increments of 30 or 60 seconds of air time. If the station made a promise based on ratings or population as to how many people would actually see the advertisements it is the station's responsibility not to defraud their advertisers by overstating their reach. And it's up to AC Nelson to be accurate in their reports of how many are watching the local station. Go after anyone who lies in their ratings diary - or stations who lie about their reach - not those who should never been counted as viewers.

You seem to approach this as if the local station OWNS the potential viewers and anyone who doesn't watch their local station is a thief. I'm wondering if they left the RF on too high the last time you were near the antennas (assuming from your name).

Perhaps those local stations not being watched should step up to the bar and become stations people WANT to watch. Then they wouldn't lose one or two potential viewers to 'moving' and many more potential viewers to high power receive antennas and other stations.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> You seem to approach this as if the local station OWNS the potential viewers and anyone who doesn't watch their local station is a thief. I'm wondering if they left the RF on too high the last time you were near the antennas (assuming from your name).
> 
> Perhaps those local stations not being watched should step up to the bar and become stations people WANT to watch. Then they wouldn't lose one or two potential viewers to 'moving' and many more potential viewers to high power receive antennas and other stations.


Thank You James! And I know you're not a big fan of moving. Neither am I really, i've never done it, i'm just considering it after experiencing over a year of frustration that mostly leads from my resentment of being treated by "local" television stations that do act like they have the right to own me!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I won't get into the "is it stealing from the local station" debate, because that is a tough one to argue at best.

I will say, however, that I am consistent in one thing.

People aren't perfect. Sometimes people knowingly, or unknowingly, break the law or lie/cheat to get something better for themselves. Depending on what was done (be it "moving" or jaywalking or speeding or whatever) I'm not saying they are evil and should be dragged in the back and shot.

However, two things seem reasonable to me:

1. Don't start a public forum or a public conversation in the hallway somewhere about how you are breaking a law or "moving" and be surprised or insulted if someone else comes to the same public place and replies with an opposing viewpoint. You can't ask people to help you cheat and expect not to get some posts opposite your beliefs!

2. Admit that you know what you are doing is wrong. There are levels of wrong, and it doesn't make you evil.. but endless rambling about how you "deserve" extra channels or you "aren't hurting anyone" or "everyone speeds" or whatever doesn't change the fact that you are lying/cheating and know it... so be honest. And if caught, don't try and justify it. Admit the crime and do the "time" if caught.

3. IF you are doing what you are doing because you think the law is unfair... then this country actually was founded on not just the right but the responsibility to stand up against the law if you believe it is unfair. Sure, you pay the price if you lose your fight... but you should fight the law if you believe it is wrong or unfair. That's this country's history.

All that said... "movers" don't offend me or affect me directly. I don't respond out of offense taken for what they are doing as much as the sometimes arrogance of "help me or leave me alone when I ask you to help me cheat" or the complaints of "the CSR won't let me cheat".


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Do you mean to say that it's OK to steal from the local affiliate and their advertisers, (your neighbors) but it's not OK to steal from E* or D* (a big national company)?


I watch network shows on my DVR, so I'm stealing from local advertisers because I don't see their crappy ads for crappy products I wouldn't buy anyway. Do I care, no.

When my antenna was hooked up (in the pre DVR, pre locals on DBS days). I got signals from all over the place. I live 12 miles away from the City of Buffalo, the DMA I'm in, but watched Rochester locals (60 miles away) and Canadian channels. I aimed and tweak my antenna to get pick up as many stations as possible while sacrificing my own locals. I was able to pick up blacked out Buffalo Bills games from CBS simulcasts deep in Canada, got free Sopranos and my mom watched new episodes of 7th Heaven (barf) 26 hours before they aired in the States. Granted not exactly crystal clear picture quality but it was watchable. That means I didn't watch the infomercials on my local CBS station, 7th Heaven wasn't viewed on the WB and I didn't pay a premium to subscribe to HBO. I'm going to hell for sure.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I will say, however, that I am consistent in one thing.
> 
> People aren't perfect. Sometimes people knowingly, or unknowingly, break the law or lie/cheat to get something better for themselves. Depending on what was done (be it "moving" or jaywalking or speeding or whatever) I'm not saying they are evil and should be dragged in the back and shot.
> 
> ...


In response:

#1 Since i'm the one who started this I can tell you I never expected to start a huge debate all I was looking for was a little info on a subject I knew some people here would know about. I was definitely surprised will all the responses I got that seemed to be implying I was of low moral character because i'd dare consider lying about my address to access additional channels that i'd be paying for if I decided to do it. The good news is that I got the info I needed, the bad news is I got sucked into the whole debate about the morality of it!:lol: Oh well.

#2 I don't think i've been dishonest about being dishonest. :lol: I pretty much just came right out and said, hey this is what i'm thinking about doing. You can try to dismiss my opinions on the subject by calling it me trying to justify something i'm doing wrong if you want, but from my point of view I call it giving my side of the story. The I way I see it people were saying I was doing something wrong, ok fine that's your right, but it's also mine to able to respond to that and explain why I might not agree with you.

#3 And yeah I do feel like the situation i'm in is unfair and I also feel like i've been trying to fight it the right way for over a year now, but no one seems to care. So that's why i've gotten to the point where i'm thinking of lying to get what I want as it seems the same people who are in charge of the way things are also seem to not really care when people break this particular rule either.

Oh and you don't offend me either, actually I usually find myself agreeing with what you have to say. And if anyone, CSR or otherwise, doesn't let me do this if I actually do try it or I get caught and get in trouble I promise not to come back here and complain about it ok?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

:


Steve Mehs said:


> I'm going to hell for sure.


Well you'll have company obviously! :lol: I mean by the way some people reacted to this whole thread you'd think they wanted to lead me straight to the door with their pitchfork prodding me in the back to keep me moving! !Devil_lol


----------



## pangderx (Jan 8, 2004)

I will ahve to say this is one of the best topics I have seen here in a long time. I have seen many many other topics about this before, but this one really gets into what you people really think of "moving". 

That being said, I haven't done it but have thought of it. You see, I live in upstate NY and am a huge Yankees fan. Can't get the YES Network, MLB EI doesn't carry the games, and now even the games on ESPN are blacked out.

I've given serios consideration to "moving" outside of the Yanks DMA area so I can buy the MLB EI pack and see my team. However, I would lose my locals and I'm not sure if it's worth it or not.

Is there anyone who has "moved" purely for sports reasons? Let's hear it!


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> And what per chance is being stolen?
> 
> The advertisers pay the station for multiple increments of 30 or 60 seconds of air time. If the station made a promise based on ratings or population as to how many people would actually see the advertisements it is the station's responsibility not to defraud their advertisers by overstating their reach. And it's up to AC Nelson to be accurate in their reports of how many are watching the local station. Go after anyone who lies in their ratings diary - or stations who lie about their reach - not those who should never been counted as viewers.
> 
> ...


Our household is never surveyed by Nielsen ratings anyway. I have never thought they were that accuarate considering the don't survey all the viewers of programs all the time. You are right stations need to step up to the bar and be something viewers choose to watch not because they are forced to watch them!


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> CSR or otherwise, doesn't let me do this if I actually do try it or I get caught and get in trouble I promise not to come back here and complain about it ok?


But you have to tell us if you finally made it to the darkside :lol:


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

If the Neilsen ratings are mostly or partly responsible for getting all the good shows cancelled and getting all the crap shows renewed, we could easily do without them.....


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Opynion said:


> But you have to tell us if you finally made it to the darkside :lol:


Yeah i'll be sure to do that!:lol: Don't hold your breath though, because if I do it won't be until fall at the earliest. And in all actuality I will be moving for real as opposed to "moving" sometime in 2007 and I might just wait to see where I end up before making the decision. Like I said I literally live just a few miles from where some of my friends have gotten approved for waivers for stations i've been denied for. So if I just move in the right direction I might end up on the right side of that magic line and not have to lie to get the distants. I guess it just depends if I run out of patience before then.:grin:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> In response:


I'm waiting for someone to notice that I said I was giving "two" reasons, then I listed three 



tsmacro said:


> Oh and you don't offend me either, actually I usually find myself agreeing with what you have to say. And if anyone, CSR or otherwise, doesn't let me do this if I actually do try it or I get caught and get in trouble I promise not to come back here and complain about it ok?


That's the main thing to me. I try not to be the pot calling the kettle black, because as an example I do have some MP3 files sitting on my computer for CDs that I don't own. I own a LOT of CDs, but not every one that I have an MP3 file for... However, I also don't try and defend having them... I have them because I have them, and if ever called to answer to it, I would say "yes, I have them" and would proceed from there. I can't think of any "they owe me" argument that justifies it... so I'm honest when confronted about it.

That's my only point, and it wasn't necessarily directed at you so good that you aren't personally offended.


----------



## PeggyD (Apr 6, 2006)

sikma said:


> Seriously, there are people who live a particular state but are forced to watch another state's news because of the FCC. As a taxpayer, I want as much TV news from the state that is getting my money.


I lived in Vancouver, Washington, for eight years. I hated having to watch Portland, Oregon, stations. The newscasters would say something about "here in our state" totally ignoring that 20% or more of their audience didn't live in "their" state.:nono2:


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

HDMe said:


> I'm waiting for someone to notice that I said I was giving "two" reasons, then I listed three
> 
> :lol:
> 
> ...


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

PeggyD said:


> I lived in Vancouver, Washington, for eight years. I hated having to watch Portland, Oregon, stations. The newscasters would say something about "here in our state" totally ignoring that 20% or more of their audience didn't live in "their" state.:nono2:


I think this is also just a problem with "local channels" in general. I actually do live in the same state where my "locals" are from but if you don't live directly in the metro area where they originate they're not really local to you. Regional sure, but they don't really speak to what's happening in your back yard most the time. I think that's one more reason I feel a little put off by the fact these are the channels that are telling me they have the right to control my choices regarding how and where I decide to watch tv. Of course the whole thing will probably be a moot point before too long. With networks starting to offer episodes of their shows online I can just watch these shows at my leisure w/out having to worry about whether my "local" affiliate is going to make my life easier by offering me some options anyway.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

James Long said:


> And what per chance is being stolen?


I will admit this - I now receive the Macon locals via E* since they were moved to 110. Previously, I had Atlanta locals. There were a couple of reasons... the main one being that the local FOX affiliate is bad about running "Paid Programming" late and missing the start of NASCAR races.

In those cases, we'd switch to WAGA/Atlanta via the satellite. Personally, I prefer the HD stations, and have HD receivers connected to a rather large antenna and amplifier. I can, and do, receive Atlanta locals via this antenna, in addition to the Macon locals and occasionally, Columbus (GA) locals.

If I watch the Atlanta stations via the OTA antenna, I'm just as guilty of robbing the local stations of viewers as I am if I watch them via the satellite receiver.

Granted, telling E* that my service address was other than the local market was less than honest... I didn't want another dish to point at 105, and that was my choice.

However, I'm able to recieve other markets OTA... so to be truly a fair and just law, either I should be able to choose any/all markets that I can receive over the air, or I should be required to limit viewing to the local stations (should be easy enough to do... require that the buyer's zip code be encrypted into the system when you buy an HD system).


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

encryted electronics should be abolished, but with a Democratic congress :lol: 
even the majority of the republican voters would luv this


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

James Long said:


> You seem to approach this as if the local station OWNS the potential viewers and anyone who doesn't watch their local station is a thief. I'm wondering if they left the RF on too high the last time you were near the antennas (assuming from your name).


You are correct. If you conspire with your DBS company to obtain out of market programming you are a thief. This is no different than the claims made in the Primestar 24 lawsuit that was decided in favor of the broadcasters in 1997. At that time there was almost no enforcement of the grade B signal levels as they described "white areas". Now there is no enforcement of the actual location of the subscriber.

If you build a tall tower to watch programs from a nearby market you have the legal right to do so. You can climb such a tower without any danger from high power RF.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You still have not answered the question of what is being stolen ... and why you claim that 'movers' are stealing from advertisers when the only way advertisers lose is if the station is lying to them about ratings.

(BTW: Glad you're not on the real tall towers that send RF.)


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

pangderx said:


> I will ahve to say this is one of the best topics I have seen here in a long time. I have seen many many other topics about this before, but this one really gets into what you people really think of "moving".
> 
> That being said, I haven't done it but have thought of it. You see, I live in upstate NY and am a huge Yankees fan. Can't get the YES Network, MLB EI doesn't carry the games, and now even the games on ESPN are blacked out.
> 
> ...


i think this is why most people move. i know folks in waco who want to see the mavericks. the yankees and the mets are always an issue. sports is what motivates people. i can deal with crappy local news. but i want my acc basketball on fox sports net south.

this has turned into a fantastic thread. there are obviously people on both sides of this issue and still others are firmly entrenched in the middle. i would love to see the day that people get to choose whatever locals they want. i'm sure the NAB will continue to lobby heavily to ensure that such a day never comes.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

oldave said:


> so to be truly a fair and just law, either I should be able to choose any/all markets that I can receive over the air


Abso-frickin'-lutely!!:hurah: And I would add that if you're out of range of a good signal (i'm talking grade A here, not the edge of a grade B contour) you should be allowed to choose to get any signal your willing to pay to get whether through antenna's or through a DBS or cable provider that's willing to deliver signals from your region and also some national choices. At the moment you are allowed to spend your money on antenna's and cable to do this but for some reason via satellite isn't allowed. And local channels have gotten greedy. It used to be they were able to reach viewers within range of their towers but then thanks to cable and then satellite their audience expanded because more people could receive their signal. So they get increased audience through this technolgy and then start acting like they have the right to "own" the extended audience they've gained. Yeah nice way to say "thank you" to satellite, basically they're saying "thanks for giving us more viewers" but then from the other side of their face they say "but we're not going to give you the opportunity to earn any extra money by allowing you to offer other stations to these viewers". The local stations want to keep all the benefits for themselves without having to share with viewers or the providers that allow them to have those additional viewers it seems.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

psnarula said:


> i think this is why most people move. i know folks in waco who want to see the mavericks. the yankees and the mets are always an issue. sports is what motivates people. i can deal with crappy local news. but i want my acc basketball on fox sports net south.
> 
> this has turned into a fantastic thread. there are obviously people on both sides of this issue and still others are firmly entrenched in the middle. i would love to see the day that people get to choose whatever locals they want. i'm sure the NAB will continue to lobby heavily to ensure that such a day never comes.


The funny thing is, is that sports is one of the reasons i'd like to "move". But for me it's because of the local teams mostly. We have two big sports fans in this house, always watching Pacers, Colts, IU Basketball, racing (ok that's national), add to that we're prone to watching occasional college basketball no matter who's playing and the odd baseball game, especially during the playoff's. As you can see there's definitely times where's there's going to be conflicts with some of our favorite shows. And we only have one tv, and a 522 so we can only do two programs at once. So on the occasions when there's a couple of different games on and a show or two that we like to watch at the same time it comes in real handy to have that west coast feed of ABC so I can record shows later on and not interfere with the two or three other things i'm trying to watch earlier on. I'll tell you being able to do that has definitely kept my interest in shows like Lost and Invasion, whereas if I couldn't record them later i'd've probably lost interest in them because I would've missed too many episodes because I would've chosen to watch games instead. That right there has definitely helped my "local" ABC affiliate because I have kept up on those shows when they are on and there's no conflict I do watch it on the "local" channel, which is got to be better for them than losing a viewer completely. Funny thing is, is as I think about it, I watch more shows regularly on ABC now than any other network now and that's the one I have the waiver for to get the distant from the west coast, coincidence, I don't think so!

As far as the NAB I think they're going end up cutting their own throats if they keep insisting on their protectionist ways. With more and more people turning to the internet for their info the local channels are going to find themselves bypassed more and more often especially now that networks are starting to offer shows online. Now if they'd just be more flexible and allow people more choices through their chosen television provider I think they'd find more people would stay in front of their tv for their info (and thus increasing their chances of someone turning over to the local network) rather than getting up and ignoring the tv altogether while they get the info or entertainment online. Sure most of our computers aren't to the level of our tv's and entertainment centers for picture and sound yet, but it's improving all the time, the choices are increasing all the time, anyway draw your own conclusions on where all this will be in 5 or 10 years.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

People on the central and eastern standard times zones 
should be allowed to choose ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC,
from west coast feeds in a pacific or mountain time zone city of their choice, and the same goes for the people on the pacific and mountain time zones, they should be allowed to choose locals from a city of the eastern or central time zones, 
instead of allowing them to watch only their local stations from where they live,
that way people can watch games and a few hours later they can catch up with the other shows on the other feeds 
or if I could choose one channel of each, I would choose 
ABC from Tucson
CBS from Dallas 
NBC from El Paso and 
FOX from Sandy-Ego(San Diego, CA.)
after all, I would be more than happy to pay for them.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

James Long said:


> You still have not answered the question of what is being stolen ... and why you claim that 'movers' are stealing from advertisers when the only way advertisers lose is if the station is lying to them about ratings.


It's not that complicated.

The production company and producer create programs. They own the copyright. The copyright allows them to do as they wish with the programming. In the case of a network show, the rights are sold to the network. The network in turn makes deals with affiliates to air the shows in local markets. That deal includes the right for network non-dup protection so that out of market stations cannot overlap into other markets. CATV and satellite must abide by these network deals. The copyright law simply does not allow for a local station to be delivered by a third party into a distant market. The statuatory copyright rebroadcast clauses in the law address that exact situation.

When a person lies to obtain illegal out of market programming he has aided and abetted the Satellite Company into breaking the copyright law. By now everyone knows that it's illegal to download music. This is because music is protected by copyright as is TV programming. When a person does not have the legal right to obtain the programming it is theft by deceit; commonly referred to as fraud.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

oldave said:


> If I watch the Atlanta stations via the OTA antenna, I'm just as guilty of robbing the local stations of viewers as I am if I watch them via the satellite receiver.


You may be guilty of avoiding local commercials, but that's not a copyright violation.

The Atlanta station has the legal right to broadcast to anyone who can receive it over the air. Dish network has the legal right to REBROADCAST only to specific homes that are located in the Atlanta TV market. The outcome may be the same but the first method is legal, the second scheme is not. It places Dish network in the position of selling you a program stream for which they have no legal authority to sell to you.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Tower Guy said:


> You may be guilty of avoiding local commercials, but that's not a copyright violation.
> 
> The Atlanta station has the legal right to broadcast to anyone who can receive it over the air. Dish network has the legal right to REBROADCAST only to specific homes that are located in the Atlanta TV market. The outcome may be the same but the first method is legal, the second scheme is not. It places Dish network in the position of selling you a program stream for which they have no legal authority to sell to you.


Haven't you been paying attention, because some of these people don't believe the law if fair to them they feel like they have the right to ignore the law and lie about where they live to Dish in order to get what they want. Remember, they *deserve* to have multiple locals so that they don't miss anything!!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> Do you mean to say that it's OK to steal from the local affiliate and their advertisers, (your neighbors) but it's not OK to steal from E* or D* (a big national company)?


As I've said several times (and you must agree as you refuse to refute) "moving" is not theft from advertisers. The only potential of theft from advertisers is if the station misrepresents their audience by including the very few people who have moved. This is not a lie told by the "movers" but one told by the station.


Tower Guy said:


> That deal includes the right for network non-dup protection so that out of market stations cannot overlap into other markets.


Not entirely true, but I know what you mean. The affiliates get the rights to first run airing from their facilities - regardless of the reach of their antenna. They do not have the right to prevent another network station from using their facilities to broadcast the same programming.


Tower Guy said:


> When a person lies to obtain illegal out of market programming he has aided and abetted the Satellite Company into breaking the copyright law.


You are going to have to prove that it is the INTENT of the satellite company to violate such law. Note that the satellite providers are generally unaware that a customer has "moved" - the only red flag is that their billing address does not match their service address (which is a valid situation when one's postal address isn't their home location).

Perhaps in just over three years when congress revisits the home satellite laws again you can get them to add a section that requires satellite providers to prove that their customers are where their customers claim to be. At current there is no such requirement in the federal rules. Feel free to badger your congress critter to get one written in.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> Haven't you been paying attention, because some of these people don't believe the law if fair to them they feel like they have the right to ignore the law and lie about where they live to Dish in order to get what they want. Remember, they *deserve* to have multiple locals so that they don't miss anything!!!!


 Actually, your last sentence misstates the situation.They qualify for locals at the fake address and no longer at the actual address.Not a case of multiple locals.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Not quite, what about distants.

If I would have moved to 

1234 Main St
Bradford, PA 16720

I would have been eligable for Buffalo locals along with NY and PA distants along with full access to FSN Pitts. I thought about doing it but never did for some reason. But what I actually would have done was go down to Bradford and get the address of a vacant plot of land.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

oldave said:


> I will admit this - I now receive the Macon locals via E* since they were moved to 110. Previously, I had Atlanta locals. There were a couple of reasons... the main one being that the local FOX affiliate is bad about running "Paid Programming" late and missing the start of NASCAR races.


I remember moving my father's huge OTA to rotate between Atlanta and Macon from his house in Flovilla (outside of Jackson).
We were in the Atlanta market (cable carried both for the longest time, until an outfit in McDonough bought them out and dumped the Macon channels when the headend was moved to McDonough). For Dish Network my father only got Atlanta.
The bad part was, Atlanta stations only focused on what they called the Atlanta Metro Area, which Butts County didn't seem to be considered part of. So our weather and local info was never reported.
But the Macon channels would show reports from Jackson all the time, since they considered us as part of middle Georgia, but can't get the on Satellite. (Plus the Falcons were never blacked out on Macon television).

Yet another blot against established DMA's and a reason Significantly Viewed needs to be implemented.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> Haven't you been paying attention, because some of these people don't believe the law if fair to them they feel like they have the right to ignore the law and lie about where they live to Dish in order to get what they want. Remember, they *deserve* to have multiple locals so that they don't miss anything!!!!


Sound like Prohibition!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> Haven't you been paying attention, because some of these people don't believe the law if fair to them they feel like they have the right to ignore the law and lie about where they live to Dish in order to get what they want. Remember, they *deserve* to have multiple locals so that they don't miss anything!!!!


Well first of all anyone lying about their address to get other programming isn't actually breaking the law, violating their agreement with Dish, yes, breaking the law no. But if you're so sure they are law breakers call 911 and tell the police that you know someone who's lying about their address so they can get out of market programming and see if they actually do anything about it.

Now as far "deserving" multiple locals, i'm not so sure i'd go so far as to say I deserve anything along those lines, but it sure would be nice if the rules were fair. I live where people can get signals from three different DMA's via antenna and cable, why should those with Satellite be punished with regulations that say you're only allowed to get tv from one DMA? Oh and as for me I actually haven't broken any rules......yet......but I am considering it. At this point I don't think I have to explain why again, i've done that several times over in this thread already. And yeah I understand there are quite a few people who think i'm wrong for thinking about it and talking about it. I get it, I haven't missed your point.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Yes, lying about your service address might not be illegal (punished by jail time) by it's probably unlawful (punished by civil penalties). Then again, the DMCA criminalized some activities that were once merely unlawful, so it may depend on interpretation. Is this a way to circumvent the encryption on OOM signals?

Any way you look at it, I pass. I'm not morally outraged, but I'm not "moving".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We shall not be 'moved'.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

TonyM said:


> Sikma....let me guess...you have Mpls locals but are in Wisconsin?


BINGO!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

I figured that Sikma...


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

ALot of this goes back to what you could receive via OTA. Just because you are in one state, doesnt mean you are close enough to a town in your state that has its own tv stations to actually get them via OTA. Then theres also the issue of: "The cable co here offers the locals from XXXX, why cant I get it from the sat company?" And part of it is legislation that is outdated, and the other part is the cable co's lobby to keep from letting the sat companies offer it so they can be exclusive...

SO the bottom line is, everyone needs to work a little to get the DMA's corrected where they are skewed, and also level the playing field...Lying about where you live gets nothing fixed or corrected, it just perpetuates the problem....not a good solution.....


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

The list they are using for SV is outdated as well, it only includes the big 4 stations in most cases. Cable usually offers much more, like UPN/WB affiliates, some independents, and PBS stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The SV list is outdated. But it is up to the local stations to PROVE that they should be on the list, and their proof requires showing that they have a certain level of OTA coverage (not cable systems) in the area where they wish to claim to be SV.

It's a mess. If I wrote the law I'd include all "Grade B" coverage areas as SV. But that isn't the law congress wrote.


----------



## DishCSR (Jan 14, 2004)

nevermind


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

CCarncross said:


> SO the bottom line is, everyone needs to work a little to get the DMA's corrected where they are skewed, and also level the playing field...Lying about where you live gets nothing fixed or corrected, it just perpetuates the problem....not a good solution.....


How do you propose to do this? I've sent e-mails, to the fcc, the local channels involved, Dish Network, multiple times. For the most part everyone has just ignored me, I get the distinct impression that no one cares. Well except when you actually request waivers from the "local channels" then they will repond with standard boilerplate response explaining why it's for everyone's own good that they don't allow them.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> The SV list is outdated. But it is up to the local stations to PROVE that they should be on the list, and their proof requires showing that they have a certain level of OTA coverage (not cable systems) in the area where they wish to claim to be SV.
> 
> It's a mess. If I wrote the law I'd include all "Grade B" coverage areas as SV. But that isn't the law congress wrote.


Great so "local" channels can deny your waiver request even if you're at the edge their grade B contour. But the "local" channels that are just as close to me in another city aren't allowed to be SV unless I can get a grade A signal OTA? Wow gotta love them double standards. :nono:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The SV rules have nothing to do with grade of signal. Stations qualify for SV through ratings - a count of people watching their station OTA in the area the station wishes to claim as SV.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> The SV rules have nothing to do with grade of signal. Stations qualify for SV through ratings - a count of people watching their station OTA in the area the station wishes to claim as SV.


Actually I guess I knew that!:lol: I just misinterpreted your other remark about allowing Grade B contours to be the standard for SV. I see that you were just saying that's the way it should be to make it simpler. Yeah they should make it simpler to be sure. Why not something like doing away with DMA's altogether and just make the rule that if you're within 50 miles(which is about the grade B contour in most cases) of a stations broadcast tower you get that station. Then on the other side of that if you're outside the 50 mile range for any particular station you then have the right to choose where you get that network programming from, that way you can do away with the waiver system as well. Just have one simple standard that applies across the board.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

A friend of mine that lives in the eastern part of Illinois gets Indiana stations as locals but gets a Chicago station for ABC since there is no local ABC affiliate. The Chicago station has Illinois state news that applies to him a heck of alot more than Indiana's state news. He would rather just have all Illinois stations.

Also another comment on these crazy DMA laws...I find it interesting that to get a waiver for a particular network some people are told they have to have one from their "local" network affiliate but then also have to get one from another station affiliated with that network that is considered to have a signal close to them. That makes no sense unless the subscriber has access to receive both of those network stations. Why should a station you cannot receive off air or via satellite in your local package be able to prevent you from getting a waiver??


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> How do you propose to do this? I've sent e-mails, to the fcc, the local channels involved, Dish Network, multiple times. For the most part everyone has just ignored me, I get the distinct impression that no one cares. Well except when you actually request waivers from the "local channels" then they will repond with standard boilerplate response explaining why it's for everyone's own good that they don't allow them.


The Fcc does not set up the DMAs. Neither do the providers.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

There should be no such thing as a waver, 
it sounds like getting a permit from the local stations, like if they were your parents :nono:


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Geronimo said:


> The Fcc does not set up the DMAs. Neither do the providers.


yes but they do use them to determine who gets what local programming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> yes but they do use them to determine who gets what local programming.


And congress told them to use DMAs. Would you like to blame Presidents Clinton and Bush for signing the laws?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> And congress told them to use DMAs. Would you like to blame Presidents Clinton and Bush for signing the laws? [/QUOTE
> 
> Sure why not, afterall presidents just don't get blamed for nearly enough!!:lol:
> 
> And here's the problem, yes congress is ultimately responsible for the rules the fcc has to follow. Now if the fcc, television stations and program providers don't seem to care too much about things like DMA boundaries, waivers & "movers" and this is something that's actually within their field of concern how much do you think you can get your congressperson to care? I mean compared to terrorism, social security, Iraq, etc, etc, etc, etc, how big a concern do you think it'll be to them?


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I don't understand how DMAs are decided when it comes to secondary affiliates like with WMUR in Manchester being part of the Boston market and NBC 25 in Hagerstown is part of the DC market, yet other areas have a DMA with only one station like Lafayette, Indiana's WLFI 18 is not part of the Indianapolis market and WHIZ-TV 18 in Zanesville, OH is a one county DMA while the rest of the counties are considered Columbus. Why isn't Lafayette part of the Indianapolis market and Zanesville part of Columbus?? I have trouble believing that viewers in the Zanesville watch WHIZ more than they do all the affiliates that come from Columbus making it a separate DMA...

At least in the case of Boston, viewers in Manchester can subscribe to the Boston locals package and get all their local stations, but viewers in these one or two county DMAs like Lafayette cannot receive any of the Indianapolis stations (which are their primary stations) via satellite but they are welcome to choose distant networks. It would simplify things if Lafayette just became a part of the Indianapolis DMA. In this case, I could see why people would "move" to a neighboring county to receive the Indy stations on Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lafayette IN is a good example of a bad DMA. I wonder if Neilson did that to keep WLFI-TV from being able to be CBS to the Indianapolis market? The SV rules don't help the situation since a market's locals MUST be carried before SVs are allowed. E* needs to uplink WLFI-TV.

Then they can add (through SV in Tippe County):
# WTTV, 4, Bloomington, IN
# WRTV, 6, Indianapolis, IN
# WISH-TV, 8, Indianapolis, IN
# WTHR, 13, Indianapolis, IN
# WNDY-TV, 23, Marion, IN
# WHMB-TV, 40, Indianapolis, IN
# WXIN, 59, Indianapolis, IN 

In Benton County the list is a little different:
# WTTV, 4, Bloomington, IN
# WRTV, 6, Indianapolis, IN
# WTHR, 13, Indianapolis, IN
# WTTK, 29, Kokomo, IN (simulcast of WTTV)
# WXIN, 59, Indianapolis, IN
# WCIA, 3, Champaign, IL
# WICD, 15, Champaign, IL
# WGN-TV, 9, Chicago, IL
(That's the real WGN, not the "SuperStation")

Of course SV is an optional offering ... but I hope E* adds WLFI and the SV A.S.A.P. now that E10 is up.


----------



## cleblanc (Dec 18, 2003)

I just finished reading this whole thread and find it fascinating that people are so opinionated on this issue. I see nothing wrong with the way the original poster approached the whole thing, he was not being dishonest. And I don't think he should be criticized for what he was asking. If people find it morally wrong, then don't do it. But there are many reasons why someone would feel they need to 'move'. For me, I am in CT but used to live in NY. I don't care about the sports teams at all. But I object to the fact that NY gets all their locals in HD and I don't. They pay the same amount as me yet they receive superior service. I don't think that is fair. It especially bothers me that many parts of CT receive NY local stations but I don't. I agree with the posters that say if the local stations want my viewership, they should compete 'technically' and not hide behind FCC rules. I am totally outraged though about having to pay Dish for local channels (to get the guide) and receiving crappy analog signals when someone else a few miles away can get an HD signal without having to use unreliable antennas. Cable is not an option for me since my stupid cable company does not even offer all the local channels in digital format. 
Let's face it we do not all receive the same service for the money we spend. Not everything is about sports.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cleblanc said:


> For me, I am in CT but used to live in NY. I don't care about the sports teams at all. But I object to the fact that NY gets all their locals in HD and I don't. They pay the same amount as me yet they receive superior service. I don't think that is fair.


The next town over from me has a Dairy Queen. I don't have a Dairy Queen near me. This is unfair. Why do I have to eat at McDonalds when I want Dairy Queen too? Dairy Queen should bring food to me because I want Dairy Queen and I can't get it here.



Things are different everywhere... if something is really that important, you could always move for real and live at the place that is so great for having stuff you want.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I wonder if he objects to the not paying the same taxes, property values and dealing with all the other crap NY'ers deal with as well....that was an absolutely ludicrous statement....


----------



## cleblanc (Dec 18, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The next town over from me has a Dairy Queen. I don't have a Dairy Queen near me. This is unfair. Why do I have to eat at McDonalds when I want Dairy Queen too? Dairy Queen should bring food to me because I want Dairy Queen and I can't get it here.


That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you want Dairy Queen so bad, just drive over and get it. Nobody is stopping you. You would not be breaking any laws. You have a choice. That is the difference.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cleblanc said:


> That's got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you want Dairy Queen so bad, just drive over and get it. Nobody is stopping you. You would not be breaking any laws. You have a choice. That is the difference.


So, as I suggested, go move to a new location so you can get the channels you want instead of breaking laws/rules or lying to get them.

People that need to justify their lying/cheating (I've said this before) clearly know they are wrong, and are looking for other people to tell them "it's ok if you cheat"... but I can't do that.

Appreciate what you have... and if others somewhere else have something you want badly enough... then go there and have some too... but don't complaing if you get caught lying/cheating/stealing trying to get it brought to you unfairly.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

There are some cities that don't have high taxes as NY and they have locals in HD, people who don't have locals in HD should be paying less for their locals, les$ than those who DO have their locals in HD¸¿hello... 
or it would be better if people who don't have locals in HD, they should be able to subscribe to distant locals with HD, at least until their locals get HD programming,...hello again 
it's time for the FCC to give customers a break and choice in all types of programming (including a la carte)... people in congress and the senate should stop the procrastination immediately!
I want the taxpayers money to work now and fast :lol:


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

Why was prohibition repealed? Because it was stupid and the public didn't pay attention to it. 

I am tired of this subject and the "holier than thou" types!


----------



## cleblanc (Dec 18, 2003)

Opynion said:


> There are some cities that don't have high taxes as NY and they have locals in HD, people who don't have locals in HD should be paying less for their locals, les$ than those who DO have their locals in HD¸¿hello...
> or it would be better if people who don't have locals in HD, they should be able to subscribe to distant locals with HD, at least until their locals get HD programming,...hello again
> it's time for the FCC to give customers a break and choice in all types of programming (including a la carte)... people in congress and the senate should stop the procrastination immediately!
> I want the taxpayers money to work now and fast :lol:


Exactly - that's all I was saying. It is unfair that some people are denied local channels in HD because of where they live. The laws are unfair and should be changed. If Dish does not offer you your locals in HD, you should be allowed to get the distants until the time your local station is providing them to you. People on this board really need to lighten up. Some people here are acting as if wanting to watch locals in HD if you have the receiver, TV etc. is a crime.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

clapple said:


> Why was prohibition repealed? Because it was stupid and the public didn't pay attention to it.
> 
> I am tired of this subject and the "holier than thou" types!


What does any of this have to do with prohibition?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cleblanc said:


> Exactly - that's all I was saying. It is unfair that some people are denied local channels in HD because of where they live. The laws are unfair and should be changed. If Dish does not offer you your locals in HD, you should be allowed to get the distants until the time your local station is providing them to you. People on this board really need to lighten up. Some people here are acting as if wanting to watch locals in HD if you have the receiver, TV etc. is a crime.


You're talking about apples and oranges here.

IF you believe there is unfairness at work in the laws/rules, then petition the FCC or congress or Dish or whomever it would take to get the laws/rules change.

In the meantime, if you break the rules or laws be prepared to suffer the consequences if caught.

It might be OK to steal bread to feed your starving family... but if you get caught, expect to be arrested. And satellite/cable TV is not even close to being bread to a starving family... no right or need to have TV, it is a luxury... so stealing it because you think the rule/law is wrong isn't going to win a lot of sympathy from the court if it goes that far.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

To some people that go bananas is like if someone wants apples and only has oranges available, and to those people that is a crime, and if you go for bread than it's OK -- but it's still a crime, of course oranges and apples & bread have nothing to do in this thread,
but some people just get carried away & likes to carry on with the fruits all the way to the forum, while accusing others of doing the same.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Opynion said:


> To some people that go bananas is like if someone wants apples and only has oranges available, and to those people that is a crime, and if you go for bread than it's OK -- but it's still a crime, of course oranges and apples & bread have nothing to do in this thread,
> but some people just get carried away & likes to carry on with the fruits all the way to the forum, while accusing others of doing the same.


:lol:

BEST POST EVER!! (or at least in this thread probably anyway)

:lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

People can do whatever they want to do, especially in regards to this thread. My ears perk up, however, when people try and defend their lying/stealing/cheating as not really being wrong.

Do it if you want, and if the risk is worth the reward... but don't try and convince yourself and others that it isn't still wrong.

That's my only beef. I haven't turned anyone in nor do I lose sleep over any of it.


----------



## jerseyfla (May 12, 2006)

Well here are some good arguments.

I live in the Orlando DMA but the only pro sports team here is the Orlando Magic which I don't follow because I don't follow the NBA, but I follow the Tampa teams and the Jacksonville Jaguars. The local news stations here don't cover those teams as well as they do with the Magic and UCF, so instead of going to my stations websites (wftv.com, local6.com, etc.) I go to Tampa or Jax station websites. How is "moving" to the other DMAs in my state so wrong but checking their websites which have most of the ads that you see on TV but as banners and links right? Plus, here in Orlando we see many ads that you would see in Tampa. It's just like other close bordering big city markets like NYC/Philly, DC/Baltimore, LA/SD, etc. 

Quite frankly syndicated programming wise and newscast wise the stations here in O-Town suck and depending who gets HD locals first I'm thinking about "moving" to Jacksonville or Tampa. I'm in the military so I can put either Tampa's MacDill Air Force Base or any of the Jax Naval Bases as my service address. I live in Brevard County what would be my best "moving" bet? I say Jax because they're slated to get HD before Tampa which is odd because Tampa is Market #12 and everytime I have visited Jax I have always enjoyed watching newscasts on WJXT, but I think I might not be in the Jax spot beam where Tampa is really straight across two counties from me.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

It has nothing to do with the size of the DMA. How Dish decides what markets are going to have HD launched before other markets is an internal decision made my dish. My guess is the markets that were the easiest to get launched (Equipment wise and money wise) are being launched first, but that is just a guess...


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

alebowgm,

My guess would be where they have the most HD subscribers. Can't see where money wise it would be any different. That theory must mean Dish must not have too many subscribers here; because we don't even have SD locals.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

What I meant by money wise is that Dish may have to invest some money into the infrastructure to get the proper -DT feed to the uplink center and then going. Some area's may already have this in place, so it doesn't cost much and the equipment is there. Others DMAs may not.


----------



## mangocat (May 10, 2006)

I am a potential sub living in NY. My RSN is Fox Sports New York. I am interested in watching professional sporting events shown on Fox Sports Bay Area. I know signing up for the E* multi sport pack will not work as pro sports on FOXBA will be blacked out. Couple of questions...

1) Is there a waiver of sorts I can apply for to receive pro sports on FOXBA?

2) Moral issues aside, is convincing E* that I moved to CA from NY in the realm of possibility? Providing an address isn't a problem as my parents live within FOXBA's viewing area.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

You could certainly "move" to your parents' address and get all the Giants games. The San Francisco/San Jose local stations, however, would not be available to you because their spotbeam would only cover parts of California.
You could find an address that would allow you network distants which would give you ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox at the least.


----------



## mangocat (May 10, 2006)

I didn't even consider the locals being on spot beam only in CA. Is there a wavier process for the RSNs?


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

mangocat said:


> I didn't even consider the locals being on spot beam only in CA. Is there a wavier process for the RSNs?


No there isn't. Only on the local over-the-air signals have a waiver system in place.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"The next town over from me has a Dairy Queen. I don't have a Dairy Queen near me. This is unfair. Why do I have to eat at McDonalds when I want Dairy Queen too? Dairy Queen should bring food to me because I want Dairy Queen and I can't get it here."

You hit the nail on the head with this posting.

McDonald's has a franchise in your town, but Dairy Queen does not. You have every right to go and purchase DQ from the store in the next city. However, McDonald's does not have the right to sell you DQ products, since they don't have the legal right.

That is the SHVERA law in a nutshell.


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

does this mean you will lose your already approved waiver if you move? would i have to resubmit all over and wait another 30 days to be declined?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jself1982 said:


> does this mean you will lose your already approved waiver if you move? would i have to resubmit all over and wait another 30 days to be declined?


I would think so. Don't know what happens in practice... but if you moved I would expect you would have to apply for a new waiver for the new service location.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

jself1982 said:


> does this mean you will lose your already approved waiver if you move? would i have to resubmit all over and wait another 30 days to be declined?


waivers are based on where you live, so if you move away from the area your waiver(s) were approved for, those waivers are no longer valid...


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

is there a map link i could go to, to see where the coverage areas are for south carolina and georgia?--so i could move to the edge??


----------



## lacruz (Feb 24, 2005)

jerseyfla said:


> I'm in the military so I can put either Tampa's MacDill Air Force Base or any of the Jax Naval Bases as my service address. I live in Brevard County what would be my best "moving" bet?


Don't move to Jax. The stations sucks worse than O-Town. Take Tampa anyday over Jax & get the Jags news on the internet. The Jax network stations preempt network programming too much for "breaking news," which was once a ONE HOUR press conference where a local high school student was picked up by the Gators and would be attending UF in the fall. I moved from Jax long ago for this reason.

Oh, and to all the people on their ethical high horse out there who think moving is wrong:

Fact #1: Yes, it's wrong.
Fact #2: Don't throw stones at your neighbor if you yourself live in a glass house. Even if he is in a different DMA.  
Fact #3: EVERYONE has broken the law before and EVERYONE will continue to break it.
Fact #4: Breaking existing law is worse than breaking contractual agreements as you can go to jail and lose your freedom while you are there.
Fact #5: I can get behind ANY driver and I WILL find some traffic violation that they commit within a few miles. Traffic infractions are far worse than "moving," as they can result in accidents, injuries, and deaths. If your driving record is "ticket free," then you just haven't been caught yet. In Nevada, ALL traffic infractions are criminal, which means that the police can arrest you for not using your turn signal, running a red light, speeding, not carrying your registration in your car with you, etc.
Fact #6: If the Bill of Rights were suspended, exhaustive scrutiny of ANYONE'S past will find that they have committed a felony at some point in their life. For example, have you ever claimed a deduction or business expense (no matter how small) on your taxes that really wasn't? That's a felony. Will you ever be caught? Probably not.

Just a few observations and things to think about before your next trip behind the pulpit...


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

lacruz said:


> Don't move to Jax. The stations sucks worse than O-Town. Take Tampa anyday over Jax & get the Jags news on the internet. The Jax network stations preempt network programming too much for "breaking news," which was once a ONE HOUR press conference where a local high school student was picked up by the Gators and would be attending UF in the fall. I moved from Jax long ago for this reason.
> 
> Oh, and to all the people on their ethical high horse out there who think moving is wrong:
> 
> ...


fact #7: if you gotta use that many "facts" to justify cheating the system, then you must feel that it REALLY is wrong! 
Go ahead and keep trying to justify it all you want. Every one knows the truth (lying about where you "live" is wrong) , whether they abide by that truth is another story.


----------



## mymustange (May 15, 2006)

tsmacro said:


> I was kicking around the idea to "moving" to a corner of my DMA that would allow for more flexibility in getting distant networks. I checked my account online today to see if there was a way to do this on the website. Well it seems that you can change your billing address on there but not the service address, at least not anyway that I could figure out anyway. So does this mean i'd actually have to call to get my service address changed but keep my billing address the same? That in itself might make up my mind against it as I can just imagine how that could screw up things if a clueless CSR started making changes to my account! :lol: Anway just looking for a little info from those "in the know". Thanks!


Hello, 
If you your willing to hook up your service where you want it, run the wire's and point the dish. There's no reason to call. But if you dont have a meter to aligne that dish for you, then you will finding your self pulling your hair out. I would not recomend moving your system unless you are a proffesional installer with the right meters and tool's. And also keep in mind, if you take your dish down, you are now responsible for any leaking if it was on the roof. And if you get it to the other place, and can't align the dish their, you most likely will not to be able to allign it where it was. So I guess you answer in a nut shell is, if your not a professional installer, dont try to move your service, and call dish network to do whats called a "Dish Mover"
Joel


----------



## BigApe (May 12, 2006)

matty8199 said:


> Dunno about E* - but with D* you have to call, and it wasn't a big deal at all (took me about three minutes)


In addition, it can be done by e-mail. Worked for me.

Joe


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

oblio98 said:


> I mean, charge a fee for out of area channels , kick some back to the locals.


I certainly don't want to subsidize your out-of-market viewing habits. Do you have a suggested dollar amount that you would be willing to pay your local affiliates for watching someone else's broadcasts?


> These days, why should the government protect a local broadcaster.


For the same reason that they do the same thing for your utilities through franchise agreements. The FCC still views TV kind of like a lifeline service that you would get emergency information from. They're probably correct in assuming that you spend more time watching television than you listen to the radio.


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

Just call E*, tell them to change your service address to BFE, send your waivers off and get all the distants, just leave your billing address your actual home address, is it wrong, yes, but who freaking cares? If you don't want people acting as they are here....don't post how you cheat a system, shouldn't be anyone's business anyway. I've moved 3x and not lost any of my distant waivers. But thats JMO. The E* CSR's are so naive at stuff like this, they read from a book and don't know anything anyways.


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

mymustange said:


> Hello,
> If you your willing to hook up your service where you want it, run the wire's and point the dish. There's no reason to call. But if you dont have a meter to aligne that dish for you, then you will finding your self pulling your hair out. I would not recomend moving your system unless you are a proffesional installer with the right meters and tool's. And also keep in mind, if you take your dish down, you are now responsible for any leaking if it was on the roof. And if you get it to the other place, and can't align the dish their, you most likely will not to be able to allign it where it was. So I guess you answer in a nut shell is, if your not a professional installer, dont try to move your service, and call dish network to do whats called a "Dish Mover"
> Joel


Totally missed what the guy was asking! :nono2:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jself1982 said:


> Totally missed what the guy was asking! :nono2:


Yep. I'm guessing an installer too, since he doesn't believe a dish can be installed without professional tools. I've got three dishes currently running including a SD105 and have previously installed my dishes in other locations on my property with no problems and no 'professional tools'. Finding 105° wasn't as easy as finding the other satellites but they all worked out OK.

But of course all that is irrelevant since the "move" being proposed in this thread is 'on paper' (or at least in computer records).


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

jself1982 said:


> Just call E*, tell them to change your service address to BFE, send your waivers off and get all the distants, just leave your billing address your actual home address, is it wrong, yes,


It's like if car dealers and the FCC would not want people buying cars in other cities, like if a buyer had to get a waiver from the local dealer to buy a car in another town/city, that's how stupid it is to get waivers to get all the distants


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

kenglish said:



> "The next town over from me has a Dairy Queen. I don't have a Dairy Queen near me. This is unfair. Why do I have to eat at McDonalds when I want Dairy Queen too? Dairy Queen should bring food to me because I want Dairy Queen and I can't get it here."
> 
> You hit the nail on the head with this posting.
> 
> ...


No, it isn't.

The law in a nutshell is that no one is allowed to sell you McDonalds products except those from the particular McDonalds in whose Designated Market Area you reside, as determined by the legally designated market research company. They are, however, allowed to sell you DQ products from any DQ, up to a maximum of two DQs within any 24 hour period, because there are no DQs close enough to you such that airborne pollutants released from them could reasonably be expected to land at your location.


----------



## Stalky14 (Feb 18, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> Personally I don't see any difference between what is being asked here and someone wanting to hack Dish to get their stuff for free.


You don't see ANY difference?! Wow. I can't even conceive of a world as black and white as yours must be.


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

Basically what was asked was, if I call Dish and lie about my service address, will I get a better chance of being approved for distant networks?  

I don't think its wrong personally, 
Now let me ask you this, I have a home in Atlanta, Greenville SC, and Myrtle Beach SC, all 3 of my homes have Dish 1000, and all have their own receivers, when I'm in ATL I just call Dish and tell them I'm there so I can get ATL locals, as for the same when I'm in Greenville, and Myrtle Beach. So that's 3 DMA's I am eligible for, there has been time when I am in Greenville and still have my ATL locals and vice versa, now is that wrong?--this guy could have a piece of property on the edge of his DMA w/ no house on it, but its his. And I have got approvals for my distants too. So is it wrong that I change my address frequently for all my homes? Although my billing address never changes.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jself1982, so you haven't been called by the Audit Team yet, have you?


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

no, have you? and what is there job?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

They've been calling multiple-receiver households that don't have all their receivers hooked up to the phone lines, to determine if all receivers are actually in the same house. So, when I saw...


> I have a home in Atlanta, Greenville SC, and Myrtle Beach SC, all 3 of my homes have Dish 1000, and all have their own receivers


I naturally assumed these aren't hooked up to phone lines. And since you'd have to have at least three receivers, I'm surprised you haven't been called by Audit yet.


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

Oh no, I actually only have 2 receiver, 622, 211--I own both, neither hooked to phone lines, one is in ATL, one in Greenville, and I actually take one w/ me to Myrtle Beach, besides the phone # on my acct goes directly to my accountant. So I wouldn't even know if they called, what is there job actually? Are they like telemarketers?

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I see why u thought I had 3 receivers, I meant it as they all receive Dish at all times. All I do is call them and change the address.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

So the Audit team Never calls people with only 1 reciever :scratch:


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Opynion said:


> So the Audit team Never calls people with only 1 reciever :scratch:


anyone could be called at any time. But the more receivers you have the more chance there is of being called. Kind of like an IRS audit. If I make $35,000 a year and you make $350,000 a year, who is going to have the greater chance of being audited?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Opynion said:


> So the Audit team Never calls people with only 1 reciever :scratch:


Its a little hard to be cheating E* with only one receiver and a valid account...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jself1982 said:


> Oh no, I actually only have 2 receiver, 622, 211--I own both, neither hooked to phone lines, one is in ATL, one in Greenville, and I actually take one w/ me to Myrtle Beach, besides the phone # on my acct goes directly to my accountant. So I wouldn't even know if they called, what is there job actually? Are they like telemarketers?


They are AUDITORs. They make sure that the rules that you agreed to when you signed up for service are being followed. If they do find your account and call your accountant you'll end up with only one working receiver. When the audit team calls you MUST answer and provide a specific number off of the system information screen of all of your receivers. If you fail to provide that number in a timely fashion E* will deactivate any receivers you cannot verify. Your accountant does not have access to your receivers, so you would fail the audit.

The audit team is there to catch people like you who are violating the terms of their contract with E* by sharing their accounts between homes.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

jself1982 said:


> Oh no, I actually only have 2 receiver, 622, 211--I own both, neither hooked to phone lines, one is in ATL, one in Greenville, and I actually take one w/ me to Myrtle Beach, besides the phone # on my acct goes directly to my accountant. So I wouldn't even know if they called, what is there job actually? Are they like telemarketers?
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding, I see why u thought I had 3 receivers, I meant it as they all receive Dish at all times. All I do is call them and change the address.


three homes, then you should have three accounts. Good luck, but your accountant can't help you if the audit team comes a calling!


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

So you are saying the correct way is to have 3 seperate accounts, w/ 3 seperate bills, for all 3 locations???

If Dish Network feels they need that much money from me after all the years I have been w/ them and how much $$ I have spent w/ them to have close to perfect TV, then they don't need me anymore. Furthermore, if Dish Network wants to call, I can get info to them right then, as though I am reachable 24/7 (thats what cell's are for)--and if they still feel the need to cancel out my service or deactivate my receivers, then I have other options. To say I am doing the correct thing now, no, but I'm not the only one. I've been changing my service address with Dish Network for going on 5 years now, and changing it about 7-10x a year and (knock on wood) no audit calls yet, no have my office received the calls, nor has anyone concerning me for that point.

That's why I am shocked Dish Network would go thru such links to make sure a current paying customer is trying to follow the rules when they need to be worried about the ones that are getting the services for free or really making up some b/s about their service. I rue the day Dish Network tries to tell me they are disconnecting my service because I own 3 homes...just ridiculous when all these years of doing what I am doing hasn't been a problem.

Is this audit team a new thing?


----------



## mangocat (May 10, 2006)

jself1982 said:


> So you are saying the correct way is to have 3 seperate accounts, w/ 3 seperate bills, for all 3 locations???


I assume you have 3 seperate water/sewer/gas/electric/phone/etc accounts with 3 seperate water/sewer/gas/electric/phone/etc for all 3 locations...


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

3 seperate water/electric/sewer, no landline phones at any of my residence...but when I don't spend that much time at 2 of my residence those bills are close to nothing, but why would I pay for 3 satellite accounts when I can just take the box with me? So what if its not right, what if I had an RV, should I get a seperate account for that???? No I don't think so!:hurah:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

jself1982 said:


> but why would I pay for 3 satellite accounts when I can just take the box with me? So what if its not right, what if I had an RV, should I get a seperate account for that???? No I don't think so!:hurah:


Ummm, now that you mention it... Dish is asking folks with RVs to get a separate account for the RV receivers now.

On a related note...

Why do people even post when they know what the reply will be?

"Hey, I like to steal from my neighbors when they aren't home. They don't notice and I don't take much, so it is ok right?"

And then surprise when people don't support the choice?


----------



## jself1982 (May 14, 2006)

COULD REALLY CARELESS HERE... 

I GOT MY OPINION LIKE THE REST OF YOU! DONE W/ THIS POST! :eek2:


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

jself1982 said:


> COULD REALLY CARELESS HERE...
> 
> I GOT MY OPINION LIKE THE REST OF YOU! DONE W/ THIS POST! :eek2:


I kind of hope they call just because you obviously think you are above the rules that Dish as set out. So if I read your earlier post, you think that because you spent money with dish that you don't have to live by the rules? But then, since you are done with this post, I guess you won't be reading this.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Opynion said:


> It's like if car dealers and the FCC would not want people buying cars in other cities, like if a buyer had to get a waiver from the local dealer to buy a car in another town/city, that's how stupid it is to get waivers to get all the distants


This sounds like a 3:41AM post.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

mangocat said:


> I assume you have 3 seperate water/sewer/gas/electric/phone/etc accounts with 3 seperate water/sewer/gas/electric/phone/etc for all 3 locations...


Not to mention three Cable accounts when he is found out to be cheating. :lol:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

So I've decided to compile a list of "issues" from this thread. I am trying to clear up some misconceptions:


tsmacro said:


> Well I really don't have to "move" very far i'm already near the edge of the broadcast signals for my locals anyway. One of the four nets have given me a waiver but the other three refuse, i've tried 5 or 6 times now.


The way the SHVERA is written, technically you cannot receive any more waivers. Because your locals are available, the one distant network for which you are grandfathered should be available. However, according to the law, you aren't eligible for any others, because you reside in a place where locals are offered. If you "move", you are then subject to requalification, and could then lose your grandfathered status on your one distant network.


oblio98 said:


> The thing is, in this day and age, we should be able to get whatever channels we want from wherever we want them, AS LONG AS WE PAY FOR THEM.
> 
> I mean, charge a fee for out of area channels , kick some back to the locals. These days, why should the government protect a local broadcaster. 50 years ago, it made sense, and TV stations started appearing throughout the country.
> 
> Today, who cares? This whole thing reminds me of "blue laws".


Ouch.

You have confused "the law" with "the market".

Think about it. If WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, DC, wants to sell their signal nationwide, they can. It is not against "the law" for WJLA to sell their signal nationwide. However, it is against "the market". If WJLA doesn't have national rights for the programming they carry, they cannot sell their signal nationwide. And it has nothing to do with "law".


tsmacro said:


> Your local channels want government protection against competition...


How?

There wasn't any law created for "protection against competition".


psnarula said:


> let me just conclude by saying that i understand that the rules are in place to protect the broadcast rights of local affiliates. but why does the fcc feel it has to do this?


The FCC has always believed in "localism". It is important for the licensees to serve the community of license; to serve their local area with important community news and events.

However, the FCC wasn't the party that set this up: it was Congress.


tsmacro said:


> It's ok for people in my area to set up big honkin' antenna's to receive any of these stations (and that's what it takes because all the towers are anywhere from 50 to 60 miles away) or subscribe to cable and get these channels. But for some ridiculous reason the same rules don't apply to those of us w/ satellite.


Cable's rules have been in effect since the mid-1950's. That is *FIFTY YEARS* of regulations. DBS has been broadcasting local channels for less than seven.

Cable has years and years of laws, regulations and case law. Satellite does not. And cable's issues are much different than satellite. They were franchised by most municipalities to serve the local community as well.


Link said:


> My parents live in a rural area and the counties north and south of them are allowed to have local stations from two different cities on cable, while the area they live in the cannot because the local stations protest it. Why should one area be discriminated against and forced to watch one specific group of locals while someone 10-15 miles away can have both cities?





Link said:


> My parents have had Directv for 12 years or so and have always gotten the distant network feeds and have never cared about the local stations (which are not even on Directv anyway).


So the local cable company offers two sets of locals but DirecTV doesn't offer one? DirecTV chose not to offer locals in that market, while the local cable company cannot remove locals. I guess the laws are truly different. The question is if DirecTV could actually offer your parents their local channels, would DirecTV also be able to offer the significantly-viewed stations from the next market?

Look, I can empathize. However, it isn't as if this whole new world of satellite television was going to get you more than you ever wanted. There are these things called carriage contracts and copyright law. And both must be resolved in order to show local channels. Does anyone honestly think Congress would create a complete new market by destroying the rights of the local channels by simply passing a law to allow another distribution company rights to rebroadcast their signal nationwide, for free?


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

joblo said:


> No, it isn't.
> 
> The law in a nutshell is that no one is allowed to sell you McDonalds products except those from the particular McDonalds in whose Designated Market Area you reside, as determined by the legally designated market research company. They are, however, allowed to sell you DQ products from any DQ, up to a maximum of two DQs within any 24 hour period, because there are no DQs close enough to you such that airborne pollutants released from them could reasonably be expected to land at your location.


You seem to think it's the Distant Market Station that is "selling" you your TV programming. It is not. The satellite company (who is, essentially a competitor of the stations...as well as all the other "multichannel video providers") is the one doing the "selling". And, the sat provider, just like any other McD's or DQ, cannot sell something that belongs to a competitor, unless they have some legal right to do so.

You, as the receiver, have a right to stick a huge tower and antenna in your yard and pick up whatever is up there (unscrambled, of course), except for phone calls . But, no other provider has the right to sell you something that they don't own rights to.


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

Every time I see a new post about 'moving' I'm amazed at the number of responses. It just goes to show that a vast majority of people would be willing to pay for out of market networks. I think it's time the government stops bending over for the advertising lobby and 'give the people what they want.'


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

sikma said:


> It just goes to show that a vast majority of people would be willing to pay for out of market networks. I think it's time the government stops bending over for the advertising lobby and 'give the people what they want.'


So explain how the government can do this...


----------



## sikma (Dec 11, 2003)

Well, since the government enacted SHVIA and even tweaked it in 2004 along with the FCC, setup the guidlines in which sat. companies can deliver local networks including distants, the government can also change the language to allow out of market locals to be sold..............thats how


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

>> I think it's time the government stops bending over for the advertising lobby and 'give the people what they want.' <<

This corporate owned goverment?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

sikma said:


> Well, since the government enacted SHVIA and even tweaked it in 2004 along with the FCC, setup the guidlines in which sat. companies can deliver local networks including distants, the government can also change the language to allow out of market locals to be sold..............thats how


And give satellite a larger advantage than cable, which could probably not deliver what we know as "distant locals"?

Seriously, what would you "tweak"?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> So I've decided to compile a list of "issues" from this thread. I am trying to clear up some misconceptions:The way the SHVERA is written, technically you cannot receive any more waivers. Because your locals are available, the one distant network for which you are grandfathered should be available. However, according to the law, you aren't eligible for any others, because you reside in a place where locals are offered. If you "move", you are then subject to requalification, and could then lose your grandfathered status on your one distant network.
> Ouch.
> 
> Apparantly Dish interperets the law differently than you do. The reason why I say this is that I see all the time when i'm setting up customers for installations if they live far away from their "local" networks towers they qualify for distant nets. I've checked in the local network finder on their website for addresses not too far from mine but still within my DMA and according to the site some of these addresses qualify for distant nets. I have a couple of friends who live just about 5 miles north of me who both get a distant net that I'm not allowed because apparantly i'm just inside the grade B contour (according to the fcc map I looked at) and one them did specifically tell me he never applied for waivers to get the station just asked Dish for it and he got it. So with all the above evidence i've compiled over the past year it definitely seems to me that Dish feels it's ok to offer distant nets to customers as long as they're outside a certain distance from their "local" towers.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And give satellite a larger advantage than cable, which could probably not deliver what we know as "distant locals"?
> 
> Seriously, what would you "tweak"?


Why couldn't cable offer distant locals? When I was growing up that's what cable mostly was, not only clear channels from where you lived but channels from other cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. Now granted these channels were big independents not affiliated w/ nets, but still, obviously it's possible. I bet cable could offer just as many distant nets as satellite, afterall most of satellite's local's are on spotbeams and couldn't be offered nationally anyway. Even if it did offer satellite some advantage in this area, so what? There are some ways where cable has advantages over satellite, like better VOD, easier for them to bundle internet and phone currently. If having more distant nets available (which i'm not sure they would anyway) was one way satellite were superior how is that a problem? The more choices consumers have the better, there should be some differences so each person can choose what's best for them.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> During 2004, Congress passed the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act, or "SHVERA." SHVERA extends our legal authority to retransmit distant stations under SHVIA to December 31, 2009, but imposes new and complex restrictions on that authority. In general, we can no longer offer distant network stations to new subscribers in markets in which we offer local broadcast stations.


Source?
Echostar's 10K yearly report filing to the SEC.

I realize that the 10K is supposed to point out the doomsday scenarios to investors. However, in practice, Dish Network is trying to get waivers for those viewers able to receive locals from Dish Network, but are too far away from the local broadcast towers.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> Why couldn't cable offer distant locals? When I was growing up that's what cable mostly was, not only clear channels from where you lived but channels from other cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, etc. Now granted these channels were big independents not affiliated w/ nets, but still, obviously it's possible.


Yes, but this discussion is about distant NETWORKS.


tsmacro said:


> If having more distant nets available (which i'm not sure they would anyway) was one way satellite were superior how is that a problem? The more choices consumers have the better, there should be some differences so each person can choose what's best for them.


Fine. But what party would make the choice to sell a "distant local"?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Source?
> Echostar's 10K yearly report filing to the SEC.
> 
> I realize that the 10K is supposed to point out the doomsday scenarios to investors. However, in practice, Dish Network is trying to get waivers for those viewers able to receive locals from Dish Network, but are too far away from the local broadcast towers.


And all that pretty much says what I said. In general they're not doing it except in certain instances. Those certain instances seem to coincide directly to how far away you live from your "local" towers whether you live in a DMA that has locals through Dish or not.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson:Yes, but this discussion is about distant NETWORKS.


Well you said cable couldn't, I was merely pointing out techically they obviously could. Now as far as rules and regs go regarding that, well that's a whole new can of worms! And as far as that goes currently cable obviously has the advantage now since they're allowed to give customers locals from multiple cities already to some areas where satellite can't. So even if we're "not allowed to give satellite an unfair advantage", how about making the rules so they aren't at a disadvantage?



Greg Bimson: Fine. But what party would make the choice to sell a "distant local"?


Not sure I understand the question but the answer i'd give is the party that would want the business of people who want to subscribe to distant locals.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> Those certain instances seem to coincide directly to how far away you live from your "local" towers whether you live in a DMA that has locals through Dish or not.


And in reality, that means you must request a waiver if you are able to receive the local channel via Dish Network. And if you can receive the local channel via Dish Network, there isn't any incentive for the local channel to grant a waiver.

That is, if one is allowed to request waivers. We'll have to see how this plays out. DirecTV already has stopped waiver processing where a subscriber has access to a local market.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> But what party would make the choice to sell a "distant local"?





tsmacro said:


> Not sure I understand the question but the answer i'd give is the party that would want the business of people who want to subscribe to distant locals.


So, if you want WRC, the DC NBC station, wouldn't WRC have to have some input, like say a nationwide carriage contract with a distributor?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And in reality, that means you must request a waiver if you are able to receive the local channel via Dish Network. And if you can receive the local channel via Dish Network, there isn't any incentive for the local channel to grant a waiver.
> 
> That is, if one is allowed to request waivers. We'll have to see how this plays out. DirecTV already has stopped waiver processing where a subscriber has access to a local market.


Well I think there's incentives for a local to grant waivers, but i've already spelled that out in other posts, not gonna go there again.

I Didn't know Direct had stopped processing waivers for it's customers, guess that's one more reason for me to subscribe to Dish.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> So, if you want WRC, the DC NBC station, wouldn't WRC have to have some input, like say a nationwide carriage contract with a distributor?


One would assume that WRC would have input in such a deal. I never indicated they wouldn't.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

But since they already do have input in such a deal, why aren't they available now?


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

sikma said:


> I'm amazed at the number of responses. It just goes to show that a vast majority of people would be willing to pay for out of market networks.


You got that right, people are willing to Pay, but some people in this thread call it cheating and stealing and saying that is not right; like if the people wanting out of market networks were going to pay with counterfeit money, :nono2:
when the FCC/Congress tells people what they can and cannot get, it's when the U.S. Govt is acting like a communist regime, when people all they want is something that's legal, like watching tv networks from other cities, and willing to pay for such programming. 



sikma said:


> I think it's time the government stops bending over for the advertising lobby and 'give the people what they want.'


Republican politicians end up doing things that bothers even the republican voters, I can say the same about the Democrats. 
Politics are far from perfection even in the U.S.A.

PS.

IF I want the locals from Dallas I should be able to get them, and if someone from Dallas wants the locals from my area, then that person should also be able to get them, we don't want them free, will pay for them, really!


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But since they already do have input in such a deal, why aren't they available now?


Obviously you're dying to tell me, so go for it!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Opynion said:


> You got that right, people are willing to Pay, but some people in this thread call it cheating and stealing and saying that is not right;


Umm... no. People in this thread have been saying that if you do something against the rules or against the law OR you lie in order to obtain something... then *that* is wrong.

IF the rules said you could get them by asking and paying for them... then that would be perfectly acceptable.

Also acceptable would be a bunch of people getting together, making a petition, and lobbying their local stations, the FCC, and congressmen in order to force a change and allow a rules change.

BUT... openly violating the rules, lying to circumvent the rules, and trying to defend that somehow... well, that is what some posters have been calling people out for.

Hey, my bank has some money in other people's accounts that I would like to have in my account... so I think I'll "change my name" so I can withdraw money from other people's accounts. That would be ok right?


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Hey, my bank has some money in other people's accounts that I would like to have in my account... so I think I'll "change my name" so I can withdraw money from other people's accounts. That would be ok right?


You cannot compare that with the other, because you cannot petition with others & lobby to get other people's money from their accounts.
besides, no one will lead the firing squad for "moves" to get programming from out of market, and still pays money to get it, that has to be understood, they are not getting it for free :nono:
and others are also willing to pay ¢ for it, it's a hassle to do something about it in Washington, I really don't know how the FCC and congress can manage to pass laws & rules to screw people :nono2: and what really gets me is how some people agree with such ridiculous laws, rules and regulations.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Opynion said:


> You cannot compare that with the other, because you cannot petition with others & lobby to get other people's money from their accounts.


Sure you can. It's called "taxation." 

Seriously, the Superstations are a great example of what could be. Congress authorized a copyright exemption with mandated payments designed to reimburse the originating stations and, indirectly, the content copyright owners. It's not so hard to think of a similar setup for other distant signals.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

For the people who are critical of others for trying to "justify" "moving", I would say the issue may be your description of "moving" as something akin to stealing signals, or equating "moving" with embezzling funds from another's bank account.
Perhaps the reason people are arguing a justification isn't so much to say it's okay to "move" but, instead, to point out that it's not even in the same ballpark as stealing money. 
Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's a horrible moral affront to society. Just like a white lie isn't the same as lying to a grand jury. There are a thousand shades of grey, but some here can only see in black and white.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Opynion said:


> You cannot compare that with the other, because you cannot petition with others & lobby to get other people's money from their accounts.


So... what it sounds like you are saying is... IF it is illegal and you can't get anyone to change it legally, then it would be wrong to steal... BUT if you could get someone to change it legally, then it is ok to lie and steal?





Opynion said:


> besides, no one will lead the firing squad for "moves" to get programming from out of market, and still pays money to get it, that has to be understood, they are not getting it for free :nono:
> and others are also willing to pay ¢ for it, it's a hassle to do something about it in Washington, I really don't know how the FCC and congress can manage to pass laws & rules to screw people :nono2: and what really gets me is how some people agree with such ridiculous laws, rules and regulations.


For the record... I've never said I agree with the rules. Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to subscribe and buy out-of-market locals or distant networks for a price. IF such a thing were permissable, I might seek out a few to subscribe to myself.

But, as it stands... if I have to lie about where my service address is to get them, then that isn't something I'm willing to do. Doesn't make me a saint by any means. But if I did choose to do it, I at least wouldn't fool myself into thinking I was owed it somehow or that I was some kind of hero for figuring out I could "move".

My motto has always been... do it if you want, but don't expect others to agree with you, especially not in a public forum... and if you air your dirty laundry, don't get mad at the folk that do have a problem with it, since you didn't have to advertise the deed! And last, but not least, don't try to defend it. Do it or don't, but no defense necessary.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

billpa said:


> Just like a white lie isn't the same as lying to a grand jury. There are a thousand shades of grey, but some here can only see in black and white.


Off-topic a bit here... but why is this?

Lying is lying. Not saying anyone should be shot for every single white lie... but why is a white lie perfectly ok except if it is in front of a grand jury? It's still a lie, right?

If lying to a grand jury would be illegal and wrong... then the same lie should be just as wrong (even if not technically illegal) outside the grand jury.

It's like the people who went after Clinton for lying about his affairs under oath. I didn't like the man... and didn't like that he lied... but it didn't make him worse when he lied under oath than all the other times he lied outside of the courtroom.

It is what you are lying about that makes it worse.

Lying about satellite TV is way down on the list of lies... so not looking to execute anyone here! But to deny that it is a lie and wrong is only fooling yourself and arguably making it easier to justify the next lie that is only a "little" worse... and so forth until you are explaining away whopper lies!


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

HDMe said:


> But to deny that it is a lie and wrong is only fooling yourself and arguably making it easier to justify the next lie that is only a "little" worse... and so forth until you are explaining away whopper lies!


This is my point. I'm not fooling myself. I did NOT say a lie isn't wrong, I said there are degrees of lies.
You wonder why white lies aren't the same as lying to a grand jury. Let's say your wife asks you if she looks fat today. You say, "of course not, honey...you look great!"
Now you're in front of a grand jury who asks if you witnessed a person shoot another person, killing him. The shooter is a friend of yours and you say "I didn't see anything, he doesn't even have a gun", even though you did witness the murder.
There's a HUGE difference in these two lies.
Again, Lying to Dish to get channels from 250 miles away is not right, but can we have just a bit of perspective in all of this?
I'm not going to tell you I "deserve" out-of-market channels, but for crying out loud, some of the arguments here are a little over the top.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

billpa said:


> This is my point. I'm not fooling myself. I did NOT say a lie isn't wrong, I said there are degrees of lies.
> You wonder why white lies aren't the same as lying to a grand jury. Let's say your wife asks you if she looks fat today. You say, "of course not, honey...you look great!"


There are those who would say if you were asked this same question under oath, however, that you should serve jail time for lying to a jury! I say it's the same lie in and outside of the courtroom. If it was a white lie that didn't harm anyone, I wouldn't think much of it even under oath.



billpa said:


> Now you're in front of a grand jury who asks if you witnessed a person shoot another person, killing him. The shooter is a friend of yours and you say "I didn't see anything, he doesn't even have a gun", even though you did witness the murder.
> There's a HUGE difference in these two lies.


You compared two different kinds of lies. So it isn't a fair comparison.

The "I didn't see anything" lie would be just as wrong outside the courtroom! Even if not under oath, this is a bad lie. Being in the courtroom under oath doesn't make it any worse of a lie.

Again, it's the content of the lie.



billpa said:


> Again, Lying to Dish to get channels from 250 miles away is not right, but can we have just a bit of perspective in all of this?
> I'm not going to tell you I "deserve" out-of-market channels, but for crying out loud, some of the arguments here are a little over the top.


I'm not really getting excited either way. Some folks are way too defensive... and other folks are carrying too large a pitchfork against it.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> For the record... I've never said I agree with the rules. Personally, I think it would be nice to be able to subscribe and buy out-of-market locals or distant networks for a price. IF such a thing were permissable, I might seek out a few to subscribe to myself.


Now that's better, it didn't hurt to be positive about it; the bad part is that you appear to be a double-minded person. 



HDMe said:


> My motto has always been... do it if you want,
> 
> don't try to defend it. Do it or don't, but no defense necessary.





HDMe said:


> So it isn't a fair comparison.


Just like when you compared it with stealing money from other people's accounts,
that isn't a fair comparison either. :nono:
It costs nothing to have sympathy with others, instead of just telling them that it's wrong, 
specially if you even agree that you would also like to
"buy out-of-market local's for a price"
just as you stated before
For the record... :scratchin


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Opynion said:


> Now that's better, it didn't hurt to be positive about it; the bad part is that you appear to be a double-minded person.


I don't see it as being double minded at all.

If it were allowed, I might subscribe. Since it isn't allowed, I'm not going to lie to get it.

That seems to be consistent to me, rather than double-minded.

I understand why people want channels... just don't agree to the lying to get them part... but I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm just up way too late tonight because the west coast NBA game ran 2 overtimes tonight!


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Opynion said:


> ...and what really gets me is how some people agree with such ridiculous laws, rules and regulations.


I hate it when that happens!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Opynion said:


> ...and what really gets me is how some people agree with such ridiculous laws, rules and regulations.


Yes, but my problem here is that people are complaining about the rules and regulations without understanding them.


Opynion said:


> IF I want the locals from Dallas I should be able to get them, and if someone from Dallas wants the locals from my area, then that person should also be able to get them, we don't want them free, will pay for them, really!


I am in Maryland, and I want Turner South! And I think there should be a law so that I can buy Turner South!

The above paragraph is tongue-in-cheek. But it is quite like the current state of resale of local channels.

I've said it before. Any station that wants to be sold nationwide still can be. All that needs to be done is:

1) Clear all network-copyright programming with the affiliate board for nationwide sales
2) Clear all syndicated-copyright programming with the syndicators for nationwide sales
3) Clear all locally-generated programming and copyrights
4) Sign a carriage contract with a cabler or a DBS company for nationwide delivery.

Every network station in point one will never get nationwide delivery status from their network. And that is the only reason why people cannot get out-of-market locals.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Any station that wants to be sold nationwide still can be. All that needs to be done is:
> 
> 1) Clear all network-copyright programming with the affiliate board for nationwide sales
> 2) Clear all syndicated-copyright programming with the syndicators for nationwide sales
> ...


OR Congress steps in and sets up another way to collect copyright payments from the cable/DBS companies to distribute them to the appropriate parties. That's effectively what happened with the Superstations, and it's how the Canadian DBS folks can rebroadcast distant signals.

But Greg's central point is absolutely correct. If you're America One, for example, you've got national clearances on all your programming, and you can sell your package to local stations or cable/DBS or anybody else. If you're a typical OTA broadcaster, your hands are tied.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Opynion said:


> Now that's better, it didn't hurt to be positive about it; the bad part is that you appear to be a double-minded person.
> 
> J


I am not sure that anyone around here qualifies as having one mind much less two.

:grin:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

carload said:


> OR Congress steps in and sets up another way to collect copyright payments from the cable/DBS companies to distribute them to the appropriate parties. That's effectively what happened with the Superstations, and it's how the Canadian DBS folks can rebroadcast distant signals.


Yes, but...

The SHVERA law changed the way copyright payments are collected. Now the providers must negotiate with copyright holders about those payments. It could force the superstation licenses as well as the distant network licenses to rise substantially, as this will now be subject to the free market as opposed to some set fee by the Library of Congress.

And it is copyright law that causes these issues.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

NH has ONE major tv station, WMUR. 

In the recent flooding throughout NH and Eastern Vt, they were the only channel broadcasting up to date coverage and alerts for bridges out, roads closed, dams in jepordy, evactuation procedures, etc.

WMUR is considered part of the Boston DMA (which already has a zillion local affiliates) and therefore never used to be available to most of NH and VT via any satellite. Wording in the '04 SHVERA was supposed to change that but it's still not available with Dish Network. FCC lists it as SV too but that hasn't changed anything.

I live right near the Connecticut River in eastern Vt, right on the Vt NH border. None here gets much OTA from either state. Local cable has carried WMUR since the colonial days yet to get it from Dish network, I'd have to "move" to one of the southern counties of Vt / NH.

The "laws" protecting affiliates were never appropiate in a free enterprise market of supply and demand such as ours any more than it would be for my town to have an ordenance restricting the sale of the NY Times in my local general store (although personally I think it should be restricted off the face of the earth). 

In any event, my local paper survives by printing stuff I need or want. There's room in that news stand for it AND the Times AND the Manchester Union Leader  My local affiliate should have to survive the same way.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

So, how much would be a reasonable price to pay the local stations (per household) for being allowed to get out of market stations? What do you think would be a fair price?


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

waltinvt said:


> ...
> The "laws" protecting affiliates were never appropiate in a free enterprise market of supply and demand such as ours any more than it would be for my town to have an ordenance restricting the sale of the NY Times in my local general store (although personally I think it should be restricted off the face of the earth). ...


Having survived repressive "Blue Laws" while living in New England, I'm surprised to hear this argument. :lol: I suspect that you would not be surprised to find a law on your local books requiring Penthouse Magazine be wrapped and kept behind the counter.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but my problem here is that people are complaining about the rules and regulations without understanding them.I am in Maryland, and I want Turner South! And I think there should be a law so that I can buy Turner South!
> 
> The above paragraph is tongue-in-cheek. But it is quite like the current state of resale of local channels.
> 
> ...


And there's this pesky bandwidth thing..


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

kenglish said:


> So, how much would be a reasonable price to pay the local stations (per household) for being allowed to get out of market stations? What do you think would be a fair price?


$0.00. Nothing. Zip.

Broadcasters do NOT have a right to viewers.

When stations start paying viewers to watch ads (and assuming the viewers agree to the payment) then you can claim a right to viewers, but until then, viewers don't owe stations anything, for anything.

This is the whole problem with the broadcast industry today, in a nutshell.

You seem to think that viewers are here to serve you. We're not.

You're supposed to serve us. If you can't do that without restrictions on consumer/viewer choice, then you should go out of business.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

waltinvt said:


> The "laws" protecting affiliates were never appropiate in a free enterprise market of supply and demand such as ours any more than it would be for my town to have an ordenance restricting the sale of the NY Times in my local general store (although personally I think it should be restricted off the face of the earth).
> 
> In any event, my local paper survives by printing stuff I need or want.  There's room in that news stand for it AND the Times AND the Manchester Union Leader My local affiliate should have to survive the same way.


BUT...

There is no ordinance restricting the sale of out-of-market networks.

The out-of-town newspapers are available because the newspaper doesn't mind selling their newspaper out of town. The newspaper has cleared all the copyrighted information and decided to sell the paper anywhere. The TV station has not, because they will never get clearance from the network and/or the syndicators to resell their programming nationwide.

Cable TV can redistribute local channels due to many reasons. The FCC tackled oversight about non-network duplication in the early 1960's. The FCC realized that since they license these channels, that cable companies may step all over the localism that they are required to follow.

Add that to the United Artists v. Fortnightly case, where the Supreme Court incorrectly ruled that cablers retransmitting works from a station without that station's (and the copyright holders) consent is NOT a copyright violation, and you get the state of how local channels are rebroadcast over cable systems today. The only real change since Fortnightly was the Cable Act of 1991, where retransmission consent and must-carry were added.

This is all about copyrights. The supposed "protectionist" laws for retransmission of locals on satellite are simply narrow copyright exceptions. Remove the laws, and it isn't a free-for-all; it STOPS the ability to retransmit local channels. Because if those laws are removed, copyright law rules the retransmission, and then the satellite company must discuss with the local station the areas of rebroadcast for a carriage contract. At that point, the local station must gain copyright clearances for all programming they carry and define, with each copyright holder, the size and scope of the viewing area where the signal can be resold. And the reason this is so important is...


kenglish said:


> So, how much would be a reasonable price to pay the local stations (per household) for being allowed to get out of market stations? What do you think would be a fair price?


Right now, mose people can go to iTunes to grab recent episodes for $1.99. Do you realize for the primetime schedule, that would be about $40 a month for one network, if one were to receive an out-of-market network?

The only reason that distant networks on satellite are so inexpensive is because there is a government granted license, not based upon the "free market". Remove the compulsory license, and the prices for the networks just rise.

Rise just like the yearly price increases.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> $0.00. Nothing. Zip.
> 
> Broadcasters do NOT have a right to viewers.


Really? Your local Domino's and Pizza Hut have a right to you. It happens all the time, without your knowledge.


joblo said:


> When stations start paying viewers to watch ads (and assuming the viewers agree to the payment) then you can claim a right to viewers, but until then, viewers don't owe stations anything, for anything.
> 
> This is the whole problem with the broadcast industry today, in a nutshell.
> 
> ...


Yet most people on this thread want to pay for an out-of-market channel. Which means the product these stations have is in demand. Sounds a bit hypocritcal.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Really? Your local Domino's and Pizza Hut have a right to you. It happens all the time, without your knowledge.Yet most people on this thread want to pay for an out-of-market channel. Which means the product these stations have is in demand. Sounds a bit hypocritcal.


"Want" and being "entitled to" are two different things.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Sure they are different things. However, as I stated, a local distributor having a lock on your business is very commonplace. I want to be served by two Domino's and two Pizza Hut's, but since Domino's and Pizza Hut have given their local franchisees exclusive delivery areas, I can only have one affiliate of each deliver their product to me.

Maybe we should pass the "Pizza Home Improvement Delivery Act" to force these local franchisees to deliver wherever and whenever a customer wants. After all, if I'm willing to pay for my pizza, a store an hour away should be forced to deliver it.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> "Want" and being "entitled to" are two different things.


Sounds like communist politics in America, in Russia you could not get what you wanted, and now you can't either in the land of the free?
Politicians only work for the special interest groups and NOT for WE the People!
Some things like these, about tv programming should be in the voting process during elections, so that people could vote if they want to be able to get channels from out of market or not, instead of having a few jerks deciding over this.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Opynion said:


> Sounds like communist politics in America,...


Oh for crissake.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Sure they are different things. However, as I stated, a local distributor having a lock on your business is very commonplace. I want to be served by two Domino's and two Pizza Hut's, but since Domino's and Pizza Hut have given their local franchisees exclusive delivery areas, I can only have one affiliate of each deliver their product to me.
> 
> Maybe we should pass the "Pizza Home Improvement Delivery Act" to force these local franchisees to deliver wherever and whenever a customer wants. After all, if I'm willing to pay for my pizza, a store an hour away should be forced to deliver it.


This is probably the best example I've seen. Kudos!

I'm actually another good example. I live smack dab in the middle of two Pizza Hut places, and each refuses to deliver to me because they say the other one should! Neither is any closer to me, and I cannot get either to deliver.

It's like not being able to get any OTA and being on the border of two DMAs neither of which will grant a waiver.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

What's next in waivers?... maybe the local justice of the peace will refuse some persons the waivers to marry someone of a distant city, people won't be allowed to marry a person from out of market, they'll be forced by some stupid laws to marry someone in their neck of the woods, thanks to some rules and regulations that could pass in a not so far future, 
or maybe,
I'll want to buy a Lexus from Lubbock, TX., but a Federal Govt Law/rule/regulation won't allow me to do so, they make me buy one from a local dealer and this dealer could refuse to give a waiver to buy from an out of town dealer;
or how about an HD TV from El Paso, I won't buy it thanks to the local Wal-Mart that refuses to give me a waiver to buy an HDTV from Best Buy in El Paso :scratchin 

PS. and some people here would be defending those rules, laws and regulations, :contract: 
hurray for them


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Two more springboards for rambling:

* The milk industry has similar protections for "localism", not for local content  but in recognition that milk has a short shelf life, is expensive to transport long distances, and is a vital ingredient in children's diets.

* Both with milk products and the oft-cited newspaper, you can sometimes find a specialty store to sell it to you, but it'll be more expensive than the local product. 

Put those analogies in your pipe and smoke'm! :smoking:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

You know... sometimes I am accused of comparing apples to oranges with my analogies... but at least I'm staying within the fruit food family!

Some folks are comparing apples to rocks or oranges to paper airplanes here.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Opynion said:


> I'll want to buy a Lexus from Lubbock, TX., but a Federal Govt Law/rule/regulation won't allow me to do so, they make me buy one from a local dealer and this dealer could refuse to give a waiver to buy from an out of town dealer; or how about an HD TV from El Paso, I won't buy it thanks to the local Wal-Mart that refuses to give me a waiver to buy an HDTV from Best Buy in El Paso :scratchin


A car or a television are something that you buy outright (or a financial institution buys it on your behalf). As broadcast television is substantially free, there really isn't a connection.

The other option would be to have a television tax so that everyone paid to support the local stations. As long as they stations support themselves with advertising, they need to be able to assure their advertisers that they are the sole provider of their respective content.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Opynion said:


> What's next in waivers?... maybe the local justice of the peace will refuse some persons the waivers to marry someone of a distant city, people won't be allowed to marry a person from out of market, they'll be forced by some stupid laws to marry someone in their neck of the woods, thanks to some rules and regulations that could pass in a not so far future,


Well, funny you should mention that. I think Kansas just passed some kind of bill that raised the age for consent to be married, because the state had a problem with a pregnant 14-year old from out-of-state filing for a marriage license with a 22-year old.

And I just heard a story similar here in Maryland.


Opynion said:


> I'll want to buy a Lexus from Lubbock, TX., but a Federal Govt Law/rule/regulation won't allow me to do so, they make me buy one from a local dealer and this dealer could refuse to give a waiver to buy from an out of town dealer


Now hold on a minute. Here's where I draw the line:

There is no law that forces anyone the ability to buy a product from another area. There may be some intra-state regulations ,such as a ban on out-of-state wine and alcohol. However, I can make this real easy:

Why don't you contact all of the Hawai'i television stations, and see if they'll sell a feed to you? The difference here is that if you contact Hawai'i car dealerships, you may have a few of them bite, as a car dealership doesn't mind selling you product. But no matter how you slice it, unless you are in Hawai'i, none of the Hawai'ian television stations will sell you a feed of their station directly.

And if they don't wish to sell you a feed directly, what makes anyone believe there should be a law that forces them to sell their content through another distributor nationally, such as a DirecTV or Dish Network?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> And if they don't wish to sell you a feed directly, what makes anyone believe there should be a law that forces them to sell their content through another distributor nationally, such as a DirecTV or Dish Network?


I believe most of those wanting out of market stations (especially WAY out of market stations, not SV/Grade B stations) don't want the distant station to sell them anything. They want all the stations without a dime being paid by the customer or the rebroadcaster.

And yes, I know the copyright laws for distants give some payment to copyright owners for those programs, but those laws do not pay stations unless they file claims for their copyrighted programs.)


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

harsh said:


> As long as they stations support themselves with advertising, they need to be able to assure their advertisers that they are the sole provider of their respective content.


Then let them *produce* some actual *local* programming.

When a local station broadcasts a local sporting event, or a local theatre production, or local news, or local anything, they *deserve* exclusivity.

But the problem with the network/syndicated affiliate system, as it currently operates, is that, contrary to the claims of the NAB, it actually squelches local programming, because most if not all of the local ad base is essentially absorbed in nationally distributed programming.

There's no question that slick programming with New York/Hollywood production values is going to be more popular than most local programming. And in the days before satellite, the internet, VCRs, DVDs, and so on, local network affiliates performed a valuable public service my making that high quality programming available to a national audience.

But those days are long past, and in today's world, to have thousands of local television channels serving as not much more than glorified repeaters of national services is an utterly obscene waste of a valuable public resource.

I can understand why broadcasters cling to their old business model; that's human nature. Why viewers would defend this system, as some in this thread seem to be doing, is a little more difficult to fathom.



Greg Bimson said:


> Seriously, what would you "tweak"?


1. Abolish retransmission consent for broadcast programming.

2. Establish full must-carry for all eligible broadcast stations to their full grade B or digital service contours, by any multi-channel service provider offering more than N subscription channels to more than X million subscribers via air or by conduit through public right-of-way, with no subscription fees to anyone who buys the necessary equipment and pays the standard installation fee for subscription service.

3. To be eligible for must-carry, a station should broadcast some minimum number of hours per day/week/month of local/unique programming, and its predicted service contour should encompass some specified number of households, possibly defined as a percentage of households in its DMA.

4. Preclude, as a condition of broadcast license, exclusive contacts for any programming that is not produced or originated within the station's DMA or within N miles of its city of license.

5. Extend the current statutory copyright licenses for distant stations to cover national distribution of all must-carry eligible stations, but reduce the per channel subscriber cost as the number of signals purchased increases, to reflect the largely duplicative nature of broadcast signals from other markets. (These fees would go to the program copyright owners, not the stations, because they are the ones that would lose money by not being able to sell programming to local stations on an exclusive basis.)

6. Require any multi-channel service provider selling out-of-market broadcast stations pursuant to the statutory copyright to conform to an FCC established national channel numbering system for broadcast networks, so that any network program promotions seen on out-of-market stations could effectively direct the viewer to a specific channel number that would belong to the local affiliate. For instance, channels number in the 70-99 range might be assigned as follows:
70 ABC
71 CBS
72 CW
73 Fox
74 MyNetworkTV
75 NBC
76 PBS
77 Telefutura
78 Telemundo
79 Univision

7. To qualify for a network channel, a network would have to offer some minimum number of hours per week of interconnected service to some number of affiliated (not O&O) stations in some number of states, etc. Territories for the affiliates' use of the national channels would be established by the affiliation agreements with the networks.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

joblo said:


> 1. Abolish retransmission consent for broadcast programming.


Why? The cablers have been making money off of customers because local channels are available on their system. In the early 1990's, when the Cable Act was being discussed, research indicated that most subscribers would either drop the service or expect their bill to be halved if the local channels were no longer on the system. Therefore, on any given cable system, the most watched channels are still the local channels. And they should be able to reap the rewards and "fees", just like ESPN, MTV and Discovery by being able to charge distributors for carriage.


joblo said:


> 3. To be eligible for must-carry, a station should broadcast some minimum number of hours per day/week/month of local/unique programming, and its predicted service contour should encompass some specified number of households, possibly defined as a percentage of households in its DMA.


I really like this one. This would stop the shop-at-home channels, which bring no local programming to the table, from receiving must-carry rights.


joblo said:


> 4. Preclude, as a condition of broadcast license, exclusive contacts for any programming that is not produced or originated within the station's DMA or within N miles of its city of license.
> 
> 5. Extend the current statutory copyright licenses for distant stations to cover national distribution of all must-carry eligible stations, but reduce the per channel subscriber cost as the number of signals purchased increases, to reflect the largely duplicative nature of broadcast signals from other markets. (These fees would go to the program copyright owners, not the stations, because they are the ones that would lose money by not being able to sell programming to local stations on an exclusive basis.)


Ouch. The two of these together are simply a way of regulating the industry. This isn't free market at all.

I don't understand the need to discern between copyrighted programming a station produces and copyrighted programming a station licenses from another copyright holder. I mean, the FCC and Congress could make some kind of regulation or law that forces a local channel to produce X hours of programming for a given time period, but to deny exclusivity? Sports programming would be completely removed from local stations, as the leagues and the broadcasters would no longer control the distribution of their product.

Good luck with a Republican President and a Republican Congress, which would generally approve some kind of business tax cut before they'd ever meddle in the industry.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> I believe most of those wanting out of market stations (especially WAY out of market stations, not SV/Grade B stations) don't want the distant station to sell them anything. They want all the stations without a dime being paid by the customer or the rebroadcaster.


I think that's too harsh, unless you're using "want" as a meaningless wish as opposed to "expect". (I want to win the lottery. I want lots of cool gadgets.) Paying for Superstations is a perfect example of what I want (and do).

I think that there could be a system for properly compensating distant signals, but the devil's in the details. My little dream:

1) If you want to buy a distant signal, you must first buy all of your local channels.

2) Payments to distant stations would be set by statute, preferably through a formula or other flexible, arbitrary method. (You can throw in local retransmission payment via formula, but I digress.)

Troubles include:
1) OTA sports. The NFL would never be happy about viewers using a distant channel to bypass PPV. But then, how are the NFL's rights more important than say King World's rights to Wheel of Fortune?

2) Time-shifting. A local affiliate would have to be pretty bad to make viewers want to pay extra to see a distant affiliate EXCEPT if they can watch the Survivor finale an hour earlier. The distant HD rules note this problem.

Dennis Moore put it best: "Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought."  http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/dennis.html


----------



## saltrek (Oct 22, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Why? The cablers have been making money off of customers because local channels are available on their system. In the early 1990's, when the Cable Act was being discussed, research indicated that most subscribers would either drop the service or expect their bill to be halved if the local channels were no longer on the system. Therefore, on any given cable system, the most watched channels are still the local channels. And they should be able to reap the rewards and "fees", just like ESPN, MTV and Discovery by being able to charge distributors for carriage.


Local channels have reaped the benefits of cable - by allowing their entire DMA (and sometimes a neighboring DMA) receive a crystal clear picture.

- I remember gorwing up on Long Island, back in the days before cable, when it was next to impossible to receive WCBS Ch. 2 from NY in the summer time because of all the interference from everyone using their A/C's.

- It is next to impossible for anyone in Miami/Ftl to receive Ch. 6 via OTA.

- WESH Ch. 2 in Orlando is very hard to receive OTA in Brevard County, which includes about 750,000 people. (It is probably equally difficult in some other counties as well.)

- People in Myrtle Beach get stations form 3 markets via cable. It would be very difficult to get anything OTA, as the sations come from cities about 60 miles away in three different directions (Florence/Charleston/Wilmington,NC).

I'm sure people in other markets can tell similar stories, especially those that are in sparsely populated areas like Montana. Point being, all of the above situations go away when the locals are delivered by cable or satellite. It is too bad that some 20 years after cable became common place that the locals forgot the huge favor that cable and satellite re-transmission did for them.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

carload said:


> Troubles include:
> 1) OTA sports. The NFL would never be happy about viewers using a distant channel to bypass PPV. But then, how are the NFL's rights more important than say King World's rights to Wheel of Fortune?
> 
> 2) Time-shifting. A local affiliate would have to be pretty bad to make viewers want to pay extra to see a distant affiliate EXCEPT if they can watch the Survivor finale an hour earlier. The distant HD rules note this problem.
> ...


As long as we're talking about possible solutions for making getting distants totally legit I see an easy way to deal with both your "troubles". All you have to do is have blackout rules for both of these and I believe they're already in place for sporting events so no need to do anything different there so the NFL would have nothing to worry about. As for network programming just have the blackout rule be that you can't watch any program before it's scheduled to debut in your time-zone. Sure that takes away a lot of the reasons that some people want distant channels but if what you're interested in is being able to watch local content (ie news) from another market or if you want to be able to time shift to a time zone where the shows come on later than where you live you still can.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It's almost a moot point since most locals are now on spotbeams where they can't be seen too far away from "home".

The complexity of calculating blackout information for a couple thousand stations instead of just a few sports feeds should be considered.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

saltrek said:


> I'm sure people in other markets can tell similar stories, especially those that are in sparsely populated areas like Montana. Point being, all of the above situations go away when the locals are delivered by cable or satellite. It is too bad that some 20 years after cable became common place that the locals forgot the huge favor that cable and satellite re-transmission did for them.


What you said would be true IF the cable company did this for free to the customers.

But they don't. Cable companies charge for providing the locals to customers... and since they are retransmitting a signal, they should (and now do) have to get permission from the local station as well as pay a fee for them as well.

Say you are publishing a magazine yourself and selling copies at the local newsstands... but then you find out that someone has been taking a copy of your magazine each month, photocopying it on a nice quality color setup and then selling it across the country but you haven't seen a dime for this.

Wouldn't you be mad at them doing it without your permission? Wouldn't you want a percentage of the sales outside of your market for the magazine that you produced?


----------



## saltrek (Oct 22, 2005)

Well, TV signals are free and businesses are in business to make money. I started to type another analogy, but I'll refrain. 

I can see the logic behind locals having the _right_ to charge for re-transmission. I just can't help but wonder, if they had to rely on the old OTA methods of getting their audience, would they lose more (ad money) than they gain (re-transmission).


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

saltrek said:


> Local channels have reaped the benefits of cable - by allowing their entire DMA (and sometimes a neighboring DMA) receive a crystal clear picture.


But here is the difference:

Until the Cable Act of 1991, there were no agreements between cablers and the local broadcasters. The cablers only had to hold to a few rules by the FCC that regulated how local channels were to be received and retransmitted, which included distance of stations from the headend as well as the network- and syndex-nonduplication rules.

So, one can thank cable for retransmitting the local channels to a wider area, but the local broadcasters really didn't have a say in it.


carload said:


> Troubles include:
> 1) OTA sports. The NFL would never be happy about viewers using a distant channel to bypass PPV. But then, how are the NFL's rights more important than say King World's rights to Wheel of Fortune?


The issue here is that both copyright holders' rights are important. And neither copyright holder should be subject to some kind of legislation that discriminates between normal copyrighted material, and a copyrighted, broadcasted television program. Because...


carload said:


> 2) Payments to distant stations would be set by statute, preferably through a formula or other flexible, arbitrary method. (You can throw in local retransmission payment via formula, but I digress.)


Why couldn't the "free market" set the rates? Why would this have to be some kind of statute? We live in a world of supply and demand, and every piece of the programming world is currently set by the free market via carriage agreements, except for the superstations and handful of people subscribing to a distant network. Why would an expanded version of distant locals need to be done via a statuory payment?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

HDMe said:


> What you said would be true IF the cable company did this for free to the customers.
> 
> But they don't. Cable companies charge for providing the locals to customers... and since they are retransmitting a signal, they should (and now do) have to get permission from the local station as well as pay a fee for them as well.
> 
> ...


I just don't get it in our Highly mobile society, that we have these Stupid rules. If I live in on market, and want another market and willing to pay for it. Why should somebody who, can't supply a signal to everybody in there DMA OTA, force me not to have my old home Market space. I can understand,(don't Agree with it) making me carry the LOCAL, and pay for the other DMA as well, just like I was a local there as well. A lot of us have had to relocate or live in one area part of the time and another part the rest of the year. With DVR's, VCR's and everything else, the advertising excuse can't be used. No way a Station can say "we have 6million viewers in our DMA" and X amount watch a show, they all watch the your commercials during the airing of a show. Just look at the millions of DVR's, VCR out there for recording and FAST FORWARDING through the commericals. Also if Stations can add to there base via a distant system they would have even MORE local viewers to use with that feable reasoning. The times have changed and Networks need to change with them. But the money to be made Charging 5 dollars for the manditory local, and then 5 dollars more for each other DMA you want. Most of us want distant DMA's for 2 reason, keep in touch with where we are from and to not have to stay up to 11-12pm to watch something sometimes. Everybody keeps saying Local, but all the so Called Local are part of Nationwide Broadcasting companies. Also they can't say you will be Kill a smaller market by allowing people to have distant DMA's, as thier old and feable reasoning for ad dollars, is based off of how many people have ACCESS to STATION, not how many will really be watching.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> I just don't get it in our Highly mobile society, that we have these Stupid rules. If I live in on market, and want another market and willing to pay for it. Why should somebody who, can't supply a signal to everybody in there DMA OTA, force me not to have my old home Market space.


Why do rules exist at all? Why, when I go to jail in Monopoly, can I not pass Go and collect $200?

Because there are rules.

If we don't like the rules, we can work to try and change them... but breaking the rules because we feel we are "owed" something or "deserve" it should not be encouraged.

Work to change the rules you don't like, petition against them, but if you break the rules knowingly... then you are as bad or worse as the people making the rules you don't like.

Rules, in theory, help to prevent anarchy.

Again, try to imagine yourself on the other side of the fence... you are the TV channel who doesn't want to grant blanket permission... or you are the network that doesn't want to create unfair competition against yourself by offering dual markets.

We are self-centered nation... and want what "we" want often, and ignoring that other people have rights too... so forcing someone else to do what you want is not the way to solve problems or resolve conflicts.


----------



## alebowgm (Jun 12, 2004)

> Why do rules exist at all? Why, when I go to jail in Monopoly, can I not pass Go and collect $200?


Some people decided to make a rule up where if you land on Go you collect $400 instead of the customary $200...

haha..

Going back to the main point, you do need to talk to a CSR to move and unless you are picking locals from 129, 148 and eventaully 61, you are limited to CONUS locals and those that are available within your spotbeam. Since most spotbeams are small, most channels are probably available from out of town with a good antenna and may also be SV...


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> Why couldn't the "free market" set the rates? Why would this have to be some kind of statute?


In short, because it's not a free market. Suppose an ABC affiliate were to tell its local cable company that it must add its new 24-hour local news channel or the ABC affiliate won't renew. The local cable company has no other sources of ABC network programming. In a true free market, a reseller would be able to turn to other potential suppliers.

There are lots of cases of bundling retransmission consent to other channels, and in every case the station has all the negotiating leverage -- no alternate sources for popular programming and must-carry rules for unpopular programming. If you believe that it's impossible to work out a fair, flexible formula that would be a better alternative for the public in general, then there's nothing more I could say that would change your mind.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Why do rules exist at all? Why, when I go to jail in Monopoly, can I not pass Go and collect $200?
> 
> Because there are rules.
> 
> ...


No dual market issues at all, the Networks and Stations, rather owned by the Network itself or some other Media Company, base's its viewership by the population in that area. So the so called unfair competion is a crock, even if you had two or 3 market's as a client, you would still be counted in the Local market, and this is what they base advertising dollars off of. What the networks are doing is creating an ILLEAGLE Monopoly, and forcing its old way of doing business on us, by spending Millions of dollars to Politican's. If we followed your advise and did things, like throw pebbels in the water with Petitions, that will be ignored in the face of Millions of Dollars, we would have PM named Tony Blair, and not a President. Chaos causes more real changes in life, force them to really react, instead of burying the problem


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> If we followed your advise and did things, like throw pebbels in the water with Petitions, that will be ignored in the face of Millions of Dollars, we would have PM named Tony Blair, and not a President. Chaos causes more real changes in life, force them to really react, instead of burying the problem


Actually no... our founding fathers did follow my advice. They didn't like the rules, so they got together and rebelled to change the rules. We didn't remain a British colony did we? And just steal from the "evil" British soldiers while they slept?

Nope... we rebelled, and changed the rules.


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

saltrek said:


> - I remember gorwing up on Long Island, back in the days before cable, when it was next to impossible to receive WCBS Ch. 2 from NY in the summer time because of all the interference from everyone using their A/C's.


Sounds like something you should have complained to the FCC about.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Fifty Caliber said:


> Sounds like something you should have complained to the FCC about.


The FCC doesn't regulate air conditioners. 

If the station was interfering with the appliance the FCC could shut down the station, but appliances interfering with stations? It is outside their realm.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> The FCC doesn't regulate air conditioners.
> 
> If the station was interfering with the appliance the FCC could shut down the station, but appliances interfering with stations? It is outside their realm.


If the air conditioner (or, any electrical device) is causing RF interference to reception of a licensed station, the FCC can do something about it. They sent a notice to a local restaurant in my neigborhood when their neon sign was interfering with TV and radio reception.

This was in response to my inquiry via the FCC website, "can the FCC do anything if the interfering party is not an FCC licensee?"


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Actually no... our founding fathers did follow my advice. They didn't like the rules, so they got together and rebelled to change the rules. We didn't remain a British colony did we? And just steal from the "evil" British soldiers while they slept?
> 
> Nope... we rebelled, and changed the rules.


HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE,
Symantic's, writing petitions and working within the system vs ARMED revolt and down right defiance, by ignoring of Laws put in place, are big difference's. 
I am really not worried about, as I was honest with E* when I bought my new house, told them where I lived, and that I was keeping my other residence as well, and that was still going to be my Billing address. Waiver stayed in place, was able to get LA in HD, keep my Chicago feed, and use a OTA for San Diego and Spokane. Still think its a crock, that I can't have what is out there if I am willing to pay for it. As for it being Free thats what OTA, I do understand Business is about money and if you want extra's you need to pay. If anybody thinks letter writing is going to change the system vs the Millions on Millions of Dollars being spent to keep it in place, are in a state of denial.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE,
> Symantic's, writing petitions and working within the system vs ARMED revolt and down right defiance, by ignoring of Laws put in place, are big difference's.


True... but the point really was that if enough people really think this is a problem rule... then they could all band together and refuse to pay for any service until the rule is changed. Problem is, in this country today, you cannot get enough people to agree on anything to band together like that.... which either means most folks are lazy OR it just isn't that important after all.



GrumpyBear said:


> Still think its a crock, that I can't have what is out there if I am willing to pay for it


'Course... you could say the same thing about prostitution or drugs... why can't you have what you want if you are willing to pay for it?


----------



## Fifty Caliber (Jan 4, 2006)

James Long said:


> The FCC doesn't regulate air conditioners.
> 
> If the station was interfering with the appliance the FCC could shut down the station, but appliances interfering with stations? It is outside their realm.


Just about anything electronic needs to be part 15 compliant. The FCC routinely tells power companys to make upgrades or adjust their maintainance schedual when there become the source of RFI complaints. Neon signs, A/C units, electric fences, and pool pumps are other devices that have been known to interfere with HAM bands and other legitimate users of the radio spectrum.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

waltinvt said:


> NH has ONE major tv station, WMUR.
> 
> In the recent flooding throughout NH and Eastern Vt, they were the only channel broadcasting up to date coverage and alerts for bridges out, roads closed, dams in jepordy, evactuation procedures, etc.
> 
> WMUR is considered part of the Boston DMA (which already has a zillion local affiliates) and therefore never used to be available to most of NH and VT via any satellite. Wording in the '04 SHVERA was supposed to change that but it's still not available with Dish Network. FCC lists it as SV too but that hasn't changed anything.


WMUR is available on Dish Network now in the Boston local package now on 110 and not on the 61.5 satellite. Are you meaning you can't get it yet outside the Boston DMA boundaries??


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

HDMe said:


> why can't you have what you want if you are willing to pay for it?


Maybe because wanting to have the locals from distant cities is way to good for Americans to have and they don't deserve that kind of service even if we are willing to pay for it, according to people who like to compare this with illegal drugs and whores; and why band together to change this rule/regulation, if we didn't band to have this against us


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Why couldn't the "free market" set the rates? Why would this have to be some kind of statute?





FTA Michael said:


> In short, because it's not a free market.[...]
> 
> If you believe that it's impossible to work out a fair, flexible formula that would be a better alternative for the public in general, then there's nothing more I could say that would change your mind.


Then this may be of interest...

"In a free market, buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to decide on what products to produce and sell and buy, and how resources such as labour and capital should be used."

"A free market can be contrasted with a *controlled market, where prices are determined by a regulatory or administrative authority* and do not respond flexibly in the face of varying demand and supply conditions."

Source: a webpage from the Canadian Government.

So, let's have the government regulate the prices of all products. Then we can become the Soviet States of America. And I certainly am the one that doesn't need his mind changed.

However, I do understand what you are saying. The only true way to get distant local channels is to make the stations and networks themselves believe there is a market and money to be had. After all, in a free-market economy, business decisions are usually made because there is money to be had.


----------



## Opynion (Mar 21, 2006)

IF I have to pay $5.99 for locals, I'll pay that only for the locals of distants that I want to watch, example, Encore Package costs about $5 bucks for 6 channels, so $6 dollars for the following channels would be fine: 
1. ABC - Dallas, TX
2. CBS - San Diego, CA
3. NBC - El Paso, TX
4. FOX - Tucson, Arizona
5. WB -- Miami, Fla
[edit]
the fact is, that E doesn't have the will to work things like these out with those channels, the FCC, etc., even if every customer was willing to pay a billion dollars we would still not get them :nono2:


----------



## Dipper (Aug 13, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> The fact is that "moving" give you programming to which you're not entitled, and robs the locals of the area you're "moving" from of your potential eyeballs for its local ads. Whether you are willing to pay for it is immaterial. "Justify" it any way you like, but it is what it is.


They're MY eyeballs. I can't rob someone else of something that belongs to me.

I live in Anchorage and have said that I live in Talkeetna, which is not in any DMA. That makes me eligible for at least two distant local packages. Do I feel guilty? No. I like the time-shifting options and I don't feel that KTUU, KTVA, and KIMO have any right to force me to view their programming. Some people may say it's wrong but I have no shame whatsoever. Here on the Last Frontier we don't like being told what to do.

Oh yeah, and I'm not defending my "move" to Talkeetna. There's nothing to defend because I'm doing nothing wrong.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Dipper said:


> ... Some people may say it's wrong but I have no shame whatsoever. ...


Not "Some people," but rather the law.

" ... I have no shame whatsoever." says it all.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

here we go again!


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

Dipper said:


> They're MY eyeballs. I can't rob someone else of something that belongs to me.
> 
> I live in Anchorage and have said that I live in Talkeetna, which is not in any DMA. That makes me eligible for at least two distant local packages. Do I feel guilty? No. I like the time-shifting options and I don't feel that KTUU, KTVA, and KIMO have any right to force me to view their programming. Some people may say it's wrong but I have no shame whatsoever. Here on the Last Frontier we don't like being told what to do.
> 
> Oh yeah, and I'm not defending my "move" to Talkeetna. There's nothing to defend because I'm doing nothing wrong.


you might want to put your address or phone number here so all those people who legitimately have distants can give you a call and thank you for helping get their distants shut off. Yeah, you are one of those who is getting distants illegally. I'm glad that you don't see anything wrong with it, but the courts did!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> you might want to put your address or phone number here so all those people who legitimately have distants can give you a call and thank you for helping get their distants shut off. Yeah, you are one of those who is getting distants illegally. I'm glad that you don't see anything wrong with it, but the courts did!


no he isn't. He lives in a DMA that has no locals so he is entitled to distants. That has been the rule. If you are outside of Grade B and locals arent availabel on satellite, you can get distants.

It was the people who had local & distants that Dish is going to have to shut off.

So if I "move" to an area that still technically LEGALLY qualifies for some of the distants (Mankato, MN where they only have CBS in the DMA and are grade B for ABC but qualify for Fox & NBC & PBS) I'm helping to get the distants turned off?

Don't think so..... Until DirecTV had locals in Mankato, they also qualified for NBC, Fox & PBS


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

I haven't looked it up, but I thought that either with the SHVREA there was something that would make every part of Alaska part of one of the three DMAs for satellite TV purposes. IIRC it also directed the FCC to come up with rules for incorporating "Must Carry" for stations outside the current DMA boundaries. I also thought that after this all went into effect, Alaskans could not get distant networks from the lower 48. Was I dreaming this? Or is it just that the rules haven't taken effect yet?

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> no he isn't. He lives in a DMA that has no locals so he is entitled to distants.


Actually in his case


> I live in Anchorage and have said that I live in Talkeetna, which is not in any DMA.


I agree with TNGTony and wonder where the special rules for Alaska apply. There shouldn't be any area that is "not in any DMA" in Alaska. You're not dreaming, TNGTony.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

TonyM said:


> no he isn't. He lives in a DMA that has no locals so he is entitled to distants. That has been the rule. If you are outside of Grade B and locals arent availabel on satellite, you can get distants.
> 
> It was the people who had local & distants that Dish is going to have to shut off.
> 
> ...


Incorrect pal! He stated that he lives in Anchorage and has "moved" to Talkeetna which means that he does have locals (KTUU, KTBY, KYES, KAKM, KTVA, KIMO, KDMD) but he chose to LIE and say he lives somewhere else to get distants. It's helpful if you actually read his thread first before you start replying.
He even states that what he is doing is wrong but "...don't like people telling him what to do!"


----------



## cj9788 (May 14, 2003)

No where in any of the court rulings is it alleged that E* allowed people to "move" in order to receive DNS. Slam you need to get off your high horse and read the court rulings. E* was accused of allowing people in grade b and grade a areas to receive DNS. And all of this was prior to 2001. After the ruling in 2001 E* made tremendous strides to make sure that no one inside the Grade A & B areas sign up for DNS. Search this site and others to find out more.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

Ok, I have the perfect solution to how to qualify people for distants that solves just about every problem, including "moving".

1. Satellite services would be required to provide a feed of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and CW to every customer that requests it.

2. They can do this 2 ways: Either locals via satellite, or by putting up an antenna for the customer to get the locals. Dish/Direct would be responsible for getting a clear signal to the customer, not the customer themselves.

3. If Dish/Direct is unable to get a clear signal, then the INSTALLER can call and request a distant feed. But only 1 of the same time zone. This would reduce incentive to cheat the system. The distant would be turned on immediatly, no "waivers".

4. The local station effected by this would be notified of what viewers in thier DMA got distants, and would have the option of sending an enginer to the customers home to help them get thier signal. If the station engineer is successful they can request the distant feed turned off. If not, the customer gets to keep thier distants. If there is a dispute, both the installer and station engineer can come look at the signal. If both agree the customer is getting a clear signal, distants go off. But if the installer feels the signal is bad, the customer gets to keep the distant. 

This way it becomes both Dish/Direct's and the local station's themselves responsibility to get thier programming to the customer. After all, a customer should not be forced to install an ugly and dangerous antenna on thier roof themselves because a local station is too cheap to broadcast a grade A signal to thier entire market, or get thier station on the satellite. This would also prevent all instances of "moving" since the installer would have to come to the customers home to get distants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nova828 said:


> 1. Satellite services would be required to provide a feed of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX and CW to every customer that requests it.


Why? What is so special about those five networks that they should be required?

If the networks believe that their programming is so important that everyone must have it they can do it through normal competitive means. Get affiliated with TV stations that people can receive. Failing that, start a cable network as an alternate means to get your programs to people (note how many NBC programs are reaired on NBC Universal's cable channels).

To be blunt - why should there be a special rule that requires certain named broadcast networks be available?

I don't mind rules such as those already applied to local in local satellite television (such as must carry - although I could live without consent to carry). I'd love to see rules that would ALLOW (not require) locals packages to include all stations that a customer can receive with an antenna be availalable via satellite (instead of the SV joke). I wouldn't mind a rule that encouraged carriage of non-network stations as SV (instead of making SV entirely optional). (Perhaps a rule where if a satellite carrier delivered ALL Grade B channels to a customer they would not have to ask consent of any of the stations.)

But I don't see granting special rights to networks or network stations. Seems unfair.

If networks are afraid that satellite customers are not seeing their programs or want to make sure satellite customers can see their programs in HD why not start a separate network to be carried on satellite? The option is there.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

Well, good point...maybe the networks don't need be required to be carried. What I mean is, sat companies would be required to offer all networks to all customers equally. Dish could decide not to offer NBC if they wanted to, but then NO ONE would get NBC unless they had an antenna. It would be the same thing that would happen if USA went off the air. No one would have it, except people who had it through some other service. The networks and local stations need us to watch them alot more than we need them, so they should come to us!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> Incorrect pal! He stated that he lives in Anchorage and has "moved" to Talkeetna which means that he does have locals (KTUU, KTBY, KYES, KAKM, KTVA, KIMO, KDMD) but he chose to LIE and say he lives somewhere else to get distants.


your point? lots of people do it (including me) 
He's a paying sub so its not like he's stealing them.



> It's helpful if you actually read his thread first before you start replying.


I did read the thread and chose to reply. No need to get pissy. Oh wait, you CONSTANTLY do that so what's the difference?



> He even states that what he is doing is wrong but "...don't like people telling him what to do!"


again...your point? People move to get other locals. I did. My physical is my cabin (which gets Duluth DMA locals) and the box most of the time is at my house in Minneapolis (which gets Mpls locals).

Oh, to even make it better. I have StarChoice too 

let me guess. I'm going to hell, ain't I? :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> let me guess. I'm going to hell, ain't I? :lol:


Perhaps. But that isn't the point.

Can we continue this converasation in a civil manner please?


----------



## Dipper (Aug 13, 2006)

TonyM said:


> Oh, to even make it better. I have StarChoice too
> 
> let me guess. I'm going to hell, ain't I? :lol:


lol...yeah, me too.

So I lie to Dish Net to get locals outside my area. Big deal. I still pay for service and I pay the same amount my neighbors do. In addition, I use a Canadian address to get Star Choice (Dish and Direct HD doesn't exist in my state without a radio astronomy dish).

The point is that if the rules themselves are wrong, we have the right to break them. Some could say it's called civil disobedience. I prefer to think of it as Congress has chosen to protect the Big Guy over the Little Guy-- first amendment be damned. "Moving" and grey-market subscriptions are the Little Guy's way of saying we don't have to follow the red tape. Our eyes and ears don't belong to anyone but us.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Perhaps. But that isn't the point.
> 
> Can we continue this converasation in a civil manner please?


we are 
I don;t understand what you consider "civil" but I think we're having a pretty good conversation

and I already have my one way ticket to hell long ago


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Dipper said:


> lol...yeah, me too.
> 
> So I lie to Dish Net to get locals outside my area. Big deal. I still pay for service and I pay the same amount my neighbors do. In addition, I use a Canadian address to get Star Choice (Dish and Direct HD doesn't exist in my state without a radio astronomy dish).


welcome to the club  I had ExpressVu for a year before I got SC 2 years ago. Have "moved" for over 2 years now



> The point is that if the rules themselves are wrong, we have the right to break them. Some could say it's called civil disobedience. I prefer to think of it as Congress has chosen to protect the Big Guy over the Little Guy-- first amendment be damned. "Moving" and grey-market subscriptions are the Little Guy's way of saying we don't have to follow the red tape. Our eyes and ears don't belong to anyone but us.


very well put:biggthump :biggthump :allthumbs


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

TonyM said:


> your point? lots of people do it (including me)
> He's a paying sub so its not like he's stealing them


lot's of people speed, but that doesn't make it okay or acceptable. Lots of people "borrow" wireless DSL from their neighbors, doesn't make it right or acceptable. Lots of people hop the turnstiles on the NY subways, doesn't make it right or acceptable. Lot's of people do lots of things that are against the rules, doesn't make it right or acceptable. Dish has said that you aren't allowed to do it.



TonyM said:


> I did read the thread and chose to reply. No need to get pissy. Oh wait, you CONSTANTLY do that so what's the difference?


constantly? Wow that is pretty extreme, LOL. Pissy, no, but when someone is publicly going against the rules set out be the company I (and anyone else) have every right to call them on it.



TonyM said:


> again...your point? People move to get other locals. I did. My physical is my cabin (which gets Duluth DMA locals) and the box most of the time is at my house in Minneapolis (which gets Mpls locals).


again, against the rules set out by Dish Network, period. But apparently, those rules don't apply to you. Just cause someone does it, it doesn't make it right.



TonyM said:


> Oh, to even make it better. I have StarChoice too


I guess that makes it better, not sure how or what the point of the statement is though.



TonyM said:


> let me guess. I'm going to hell, ain't I? :lol:


Well that is up to you now isn't it. I don't have the power to make that call on you or anyone else. Though if "HE" ever asks, I do have some suggestions on a few people.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Dipper said:


> The point is that if the rules themselves are wrong, we have the right to break them. Some could say it's called civil disobedience.


Here's the thing about that... Yes, we do have a right and sometimes a mandate to challenge laws/rules that we believe are wrong. HOWEVER, we also have to pay the price.

If you believe the law/rule is wrong... you can choose to violate it and publically challenge it... but you must also be willing to be arrested/punished/pay fines and whatever if/when you are caught violating the law/rule until such time as the law/rule is changed.

If you successfully result in having the law/rule changed... then you will have won! Yay! But in the meantime, civil disobedience does come at a price... and some folks seem to forget that. Be willing to pay the fine for doing the crime while you are calling attention to it and campaigning for it to be changed.

That is how our system works!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

nova828 said:


> Well, good point...maybe the networks don't need be required to be carried. What I mean is, sat companies would be required to offer all networks to all customers equally. Dish could decide not to offer NBC if they wanted to, but then NO ONE would get NBC unless they had an antenna. It would be the same thing that would happen if USA went off the air. No one would have it, except people who had it through some other service. The networks and local stations need us to watch them alot more than we need them, so they should come to us!


On some levels... this is similar to saying that if I can't get Coke at every restaurant... then no restaurant should be able to sell Coke. And yet, I can only get Coke in some places, and only get Pepsi in others. But I can always get Coke and Pepsi from somewhere if I am willing to do what it takes.

On another part of this discussion... I think part of the problem is how the OTA networks have things setup with their affiliates. IF NBC,CBS, and so forth did provide their programming via another method on cable/satellite that completely bypassed the local OTA stations... then they would be biting the hand that is feeding them to some extent. Local stations would have no incentive or motivation to pay the big bucks for programming that customers are getting without having to watch their channel!

At the same time, the local stations are dependent on the revenue from ads and viewers that the network programming gains them... so without the network programming, many local stations would die a quick death.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> Dish has said that you aren't allowed to do it.


yep. I'm sure Dish said "don't call us and make up an address to get different locals"....hey technically I am legal. I do have a legal address in the DMA and we take the box there because we can't get OTA worth bunk.



> constantly? Wow that is pretty extreme, LOL.


you seem to always have a negative attitude towards everything



> again, against the rules set out by Dish Network, period. But apparently, those rules don't apply to you. Just cause someone does it, it doesn't make it right.


Last I checked, if you have an address in X DMA, you get those locals. I could leave the box at the cabin all the time but decided to bring it home so when my nieces are over, they have Nickelodeon to watch.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

i think one of the main issues here is that the existing laws are based on an outdated business model from the 1960s. and what exactly is that business model? the national association of broadcasters would answer in one word: localism. localism was a great thing in the 1960s. but hey -- so was that phone you leased from at&t. technology has advanced but the laws have not. meanwhile, the value of localism continues to decline. satellite companies lobbied for years just to be able to carry local stations. they finally got their wish but the NAB lobbied heavily behind the scenes to ensure that the restrictions associated therewith would promote localism (there's that word again). in a perfect world the satellite companies would broadcast all locals on a CONUS beam and let their customers choose which ones they wanted. until that comes to pass, count me among the progressives. the rest of you better check your phone bill -- that lease you've got from at&t is really beginning to add up.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

TonyM said:


> yep. I'm sure Dish said "don't call us and make up an address to get different locals"....hey technically I am legal. I do have a legal address in the DMA and we take the box there because we can't get OTA worth bunk.


Then according to the Dish rules you should have two accounts. One for each address. Their rules not mine



TonyM said:


> you seem to always have a negative attitude towards everything.


Constantly, always. When it comes to things that can affect negatively on my stock that I have in Dish, I have every right, because it affects me financially. But to say always and constantly, I would beg to differ with that one. But thanks for montoring every one of the 500 and something posts I've made on here. 500+ post and they are constantly and always negative, that is a whole lot.



TonyM said:


> Last I checked, if you have an address in X DMA, you get those locals. I could leave the box at the cabin all the time but decided to bring it home so when my nieces are over, they have Nickelodeon to watch.


If you have a cabin then, per Dish Network, you are required to have a home account and a vacation home account. Doesn't matter what channel your nieces want to watch when they come over. Again, their rules, no mine. Do I follow the rule, yeah actually I do. Do I necessarily agree with it, no I don't (geez, their I go being negative again) but I follow it because that is what they have set out for their business and if I am going to subscribe to their product then I agree to follow their rules, like them or not.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> Then according to the Dish rules you should have two accounts. One for each address. Their rules not mine


no I don't. I can get a subscription at the cabin and nothing at home. Thats what I did for a while. Have StarChoice and my FTA system at home and Dish at the cabin. There is no law that says I HAVE to have Dish at my house.



> If you have a cabin then, per Dish Network, you are required to have a home account and a vacation home account.


again, no I don't. If I really wanted to I could leave the receiver at the cabin. I don't have to have a "home account". I have enought TV between my StarChoice setup and my FTA C/KU band setup.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

Slamminc11 said:


> When it comes to things that can affect negatively on my stock that I have in Dish, I have every right, because it affects me financially


how does "moving" affect your stock? the ability to pick up out of market local channels is the singular reason i subscribe to dish network. without it, i'd go back to comcast. and i don't think i need to tell you how that would affect your stock.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

TonyM said:


> no I don't. I can get a subscription at the cabin and nothing at home. Thats what I did for a while. Have StarChoice and my FTA system at home and Dish at the cabin. There is no law that says I HAVE to have Dish at my house .


If you watch Dish Network at your cabin and then you take your receiver to your house and watch it there (or vice versa), then yes you are required to carry two accounts. If you only have Dish at your cabin and don't take your receiver to your house and watch it there (again vice versa), then no, you don't need two accounts. But what you said was, you bring the receiver home so your nieces can watch Nickelodeon. If you transport your receiver between two places, then two accounts. Again, their rules not mine.



TonyM said:


> again, no I don't. If I really wanted to I could leave the receiver at the cabin. I don't have to have a "home account". I have enought TV between my StarChoice setup and my FTA C/KU band setup.


Again, I was just going with your statement of bringing the receiver home with you so the girls can watch Nic. You are the one that said you were doing it, no me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> If I really wanted to I could leave the receiver at the cabin. I don't have to have a "home account". I have enought TV between my StarChoice setup and my FTA C/KU band setup.


Then leave the receiver at your cabin and use your grey market and FTA at home. Stop stacking your account.


----------



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

Why can't you just tell Dish that you are moving to your cabin address and that you already have the dish installed. When you go home you call them back and tell them you moved back to your former address. Then you wouldn't be stacking or violating anything. You physically can't be in two places at once and as long as you receivers are with you at the cabin or the home address, where ever you really are when you call, you should be good to go. There is no law that says you can't physically move as much as you want to.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

HDMe said:


> On some levels... this is similar to saying that if I can't get Coke at every restaurant... then no restaurant should be able to sell Coke. And yet, I can only get Coke in some places, and only get Pepsi in others. But I can always get Coke and Pepsi from somewhere if I am willing to do what it takes.
> .


Well, not quite. In my example, Dish Network is one restaurant and Direct TV is another. It wouldn't make much sense if you walked into Burger King and asked for a coke and they asked where you are from, and wouldn't sell you a coke if you lived in New York, but would sell you coke if you lived in New Jersey. If Dish Network advertises that you can purchase a feed of NBC from them, they should be able to offer it to everybody who pays for it. And it should be thier responsibility, and the local affilate, to get it for you. After all, you are paying them to get you the signal.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

TonyM said:


> ...
> 
> let me guess. I'm going to hell, ain't I? :lol:


Not all that lie, cheat, or steal, go to hell.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> Then leave the receiver at your cabin and use your grey market and FTA at home. Stop stacking your account.


Is it really stacking if you take the reciever back and forth?
My recievers travel with us when we go to Canada for a couple months every year. But the key is that the recievers are never in different locations at the same time. 
That is not account stacking, and is the example that Charlie used in the chat.
You can take the reciever to a cabin with you, and it will not be account stacking as long as you bring it back.

Btw, I believe (from previous posts) that Tony only has one Dish reciever. Kinda hard to stack with only one reciever. 

And if you acutally read the post


TonyM said:


> I could leave the box at the cabin all the time but decided to bring it home so when my nieces are over, they have Nickelodeon to watch.


you'll notice that he says he brings the reciever back and forth. Accusing falsely of illegal account stacking is no way to win an argument. Just point out where he skipped over the "move" part of the earlier Alaska post would have been enough.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

btw, loved the Coke/Pepsi in different restarants analogy. I wonder if we'll ever get "Significantly Sipped" rules to allow Pepsi in the Coke restaraunts... :lol:


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

derwin0 said:


> Is it really stacking if you take the reciever back and forth?
> My recievers travel with us when we go to Canada for a couple months every year. But the key is that the recievers are never in different locations at the same time.
> That is not account stacking, and is the example that Charlie used in the chat.
> You can take the reciever to a cabin with you, and it will not be account stacking as long as you bring it back.
> ...


Though as of February of this year (2006) Dish stated that it is no longer legal (okay) to transport your receiver between the two places and that from that point (Feb. '06) it would require two accounts for the two places. Charlie may have said it was okay a couple years ago, but the rules (or lack of a rule) changed to where if you transport your receiver between a home and a vacation home, cabin, shack on a frozen lake, or wherever, then you need an account for your home and an account at the other place.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Somewhat impossible to have 2 accounts on 1 reciever.

Where the audit people have been nailing people is when they have 2 (or more) recievers in more than 1 location.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Then leave the receiver at your cabin and use your grey market and FTA at home. Stop stacking your account.


stacking a 1 receiver account? Boy thats funny :lol:

and yes I will use my grey market and FTA at home, thank you very much


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Why can't you just tell Dish that you are moving to your cabin address and that you already have the dish installed. When you go home you call them back and tell them you moved back to your former address. Then you wouldn't be stacking or violating anything. You physically can't be in two places at once and as long as you receivers are with you at the cabin or the home address, where ever you really are when you call, you should be good to go. There is no law that says you can't physically move as much as you want to.


again...how do you "account stack" a 1 receiver account?


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Is it really stacking if you take the reciever back and forth?


last I checked it wasn't



> Btw, I believe (from previous posts) that Tony only has one Dish reciever. Kinda hard to stack with only one reciever.


yep. Have a 811



> And if you acutally read the post you'll notice that he says he brings the reciever back and forth. Accusing falsely of illegal account stacking is no way to win an argument.


But some people don't read the responses and just want to get their 2 cents in


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Somewhat impossible to have 2 accounts on 1 reciever.


you can't have 2 accounts on 1 receiver.

If you had 2 accounts on 1 reciever, boy that would be awesome

lets see
account 1 has my normal locals
account 2 I live in New York City and get NYC locals

hey that could work. Somebody better send that to Dish


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

nova828 said:


> Well, not quite. In my example, Dish Network is one restaurant and Direct TV is another. It wouldn't make much sense if you walked into Burger King and asked for a coke and they asked where you are from, and wouldn't sell you a coke if you lived in New York, but would sell you coke if you lived in New Jersey. If Dish Network advertises that you can purchase a feed of NBC from them, they should be able to offer it to everybody who pays for it. And it should be thier responsibility, and the local affilate, to get it for you. After all, you are paying them to get you the signal.


Analogies are fine---if they apply. But the restaurant and the television industries are different. In this case local stations hold the right to broadcast to you ina given area. DISH has to honor that. Coca Cola and Pepsi do not hold similar rights.

Don't get me wrong I don't like it either. But it is waht it is and the fact that it is different than other industries does not mean anything.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> stacking a 1 receiver account? Boy thats funny :lol:


It doesn' matter if you have one receiver or one hundred. If you are using your account in two locations (without an RV waiver or other direct permission from E*) you are violating E*'s TOS. I suppose once you start lying to get satellite TV it is just part of the slippery slope.

Rationalize, make excuses and pretend all you want. Getting away with it does not change the TOS.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> It doesn' matter if you have one receiver or one hundred. If you are using your account in two locations (without an RV waiver or other direct permission from E*) you are violating E*'s TOS.


huh? Again, little hard to have 2 accounts on one receiver since Dish doesn't allow that. If you have one reciever how the heck can you account stack? Let me answer that for you.....YOU CAN'T!!



> I suppose once you start lying to get satellite TV it is just part of the slippery slope.


oh please tell me how I am lying to get satellite TV??



> Rationalize, make excuses and pretend all you want. Getting away with it does not change the TOS


what in the heck are you talking about? 
Again...you cannot have 2 accounts on 1 receiver so how am I account stacking when I only have one receiver? Yeah, let me call Dish and say "um, yeah I want to add a second account on my receiver" 

I find it funny that you have such an issue with me doing this yet you haven't gone after the other people who "moved" or account split. I am not doing anything wrong by having one receiver. The fact that sometimes it's at the house and sometimes it's at the cabin is no big deal. Can't have it at 2 places at the same time.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Perhaps most people don't know it, but the soft drink companies have a territorial system set up. Pick a specific location and there is a specific local/regional "bottler" that has purchased the rights to sell the international company's brand products in that area. Perhaps territories overlap - it is all done by contract.

Perhaps a store decides that they don't like their local bottler. Perhaps with cause perhaps not. They can't just decide to import product from another region. The bottlers in other regions have entered into a contract that says they won't distribute outside of their territory.

I suppose that a store could lie to a bottler ... buy a truckload of product and ship it to another territory. If the bottler catches them in the lie they would be required to cut them off. Either that or risk losing their territory.

Apparently soda bottling companies are better at enforcing their territories than satellite companies are at enforcing TV markets.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

RV accounts move from place to place, and Dish doesn't care.
The cabin reciever is the same thing.
Point is, you won the argument Tony. 
I have $20 that says if you personally called Dish Network and told them, they could care less. Especially since it is physically impossible to split a 1 reciever account. And the fact that the physical address you use (the cabin) is in your name, shows no monkey business.

Now if you have more than one reciever on the account, they may crackdown (as they have on RV accounts). But as stated above, that's not the case here.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> huh? Again, little hard to have 2 accounts on one receiver since Dish doesn't allow that. If you have one reciever how the heck can you account stack? Let me answer that for you.....YOU CAN'T!!


You are required to have an account at each service address. It is an explicit rule.


TonyM said:


> oh please tell me how I am lying to get satellite TV??


When your receiver is at your home is your receiver at the service address you gave E* or *C? Or did you give a false address to qualify for some or all of the channels you receive?


TonyM said:


> Yeah, let me call Dish and say "um, yeah I want to add a second account on my receiver"


I'd be happy if you would just call dish and say "I want to use my receiver at ..." and give the true location of the receiver.


TonyM said:


> I find it funny that you have such an issue with me doing this yet you haven't gone after the other people who "moved" or account split.


I have rebuked others. The bolder a person is about violating the TOS the bolder the rebuke.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> buy a truckload of product and ship it to another territory. If the bottler catches them in the lie they would be required to cut them off. Either that or risk losing their territory.


Several of us at my office have our Field Support Reps. in Ft. Hood, TX send us cases of Dr. Pepper from there, as they still use the original formula (cane sugar) instead of corn syrup (bleh). I wonder if we are violating the soda sherva? :lol:


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Geronimo said:


> Analogies are fine---if they apply. But the restaurant and the television industries are different. In this case local stations hold the right to broadcast to you ina given area. DISH has to honor that. Coca Cola and Pepsi do not hold similar rights.


If we are going to use the soda/pop/"coke" industry as an analogy, the bottling plant distribution regions is more apt.

A CocaCola bottling plant has an exclusive distribution reagion. No other coca-cola bottler can sell retail or wholesale in that area EVER under any circumstances under penalty of losing their bottling contract.

When I worked for Sam's, we had a knock-down, drag-out fight with Coke over this. It got so bad that we yanked all coke product from our shelves for a couple of days to push the point. Coke would not budge on the issue. If you are a retail outlet and you want to buy Coke products, you must buy it from the "local" bottler or go without. Period.

I know some is going to say "but no one is stopping the retailer from taking the coke outside the region and selling it."

A single proprietary vendor, maybe not. Not enough to really worry about. A large retailer, yes they are. That is what the Sam's fight was all about. Sam's wanted to buy the coke product all at a central site and distribute it itself. Coke said "no way"!

See ya
Tony


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

How often does this subject need to be beat to death?

Anyone stupid enough to think our government works for us? They work for the people that pay them, and I am not talking about the tax payers.

The stupidity of Prohibition was finally repealed; because the public ignored it. Perhaps someday this to shall pass.

Meanwhile, give it a rest!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> RV accounts move from place to place, and Dish doesn't care.
> The cabin reciever is the same thing.
> Point is, you won the argument Tony.
> I have $20 that says if you personally called Dish Network and told them, they could care less. Especially since it is physically impossible to split a 1 reciever account. And the fact that the physical address you use (the cabin) is in your name, shows no monkey business.


Exactly. How do you split a 1 receiver account?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

TNGTony said:


> If we are going to use the soda/pop/"coke" industry as an analogy, the bottling plant distribution regions is more apt.
> See ya
> Tony


I agree that does fit better.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> You are required to have an account at each service address. It is an explicit rule.


but you can't have 2 accounts on one receiver. That is also an "explicit" rule



> I have rebuked others. The bolder a person is about violating the TOS the bolder the rebuke.


Again, how can I violate the rules when
A. I only have one reciever
B. I am not account splitting or account sharing because again, i have 1 receiver
C. The address Dish has on file is a legit address of a place in my name. Its not like some people who just pull an address out fo the town to get distants. I don't have distants. I have locals designated for that area per the address broker.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Well for fun I called Dish and spoke to tech support (I tried CS but after two times of getting people I had no clue what they were saying I gave up and did tech support)

Spoke to a nice guy named Derek who explained that if you want service at two different locations and HAVE MORE THAN ONE RECEIVER and want to take one box to another location, then yes you do need two accounts. But if you only have one receiver you cannot have 2 accounts on a single box (the system won’t allow it mainly because then you would qualify for two sets of locals and you can’t legally qualify unless you are in a SV area) you can indeed take the same receiver to 2 locations. He mentioned the spotbeams and I may not get the locals at the other location. 

So according to tech support, you can do this with only one receiver


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> but you can't have 2 accounts on one receiver. That is also an "explicit" rule


Both are rules. E* doesn't give you a choice of rules to break. You should try to follow them all.


TonyM said:


> The address Dish has on file is a legit address of a place in my name. Its not like some people who just pull an address out fo the town to get distants.


The service address is supposed to be the address where the equipment is being used. Not just any old address one might have.

BTW: Is the address on your *C account also "a place in your name"?


TonyM said:


> I don't have distants. I have locals designated for that area per the address broker.


So you have lied to get locals that you don't qualify for at your home address?


> Well for fun I called Dish ...


And couldn't get the answer you wanted until trying three times. Hopefully "Derek" isn't one of those tech CSRs that said that the 942 can receive MPEG4, that there will be a "942+" upgrade to make 942s receive MPEG4, or any of the other nuggets of untruth that CSRs have reportedly said. 

Call back. Maybe the next "Derek" you get will offer you a free "you own it" upgrade to a 622. :lol:


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

This is funny.

How do you stack only one receiver? What do you stack it on?


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> BTW: Is the address on your *C account also "a place in your name"?


This argument isn't about Star Choice. Why bring up that "red herring" when you lost the original point of accusing him of account splitting?



James Long said:


> So you have lied to get locals that you don't qualify for at your home address?


What lie? He used one of the addresses where the reciever actually is used at.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Both are rules. E* doesn't give you a choice of rules to break. You should try to follow them all.The service address is supposed to be the address where the equipment is being used. Not just any old address one might have.


the service address is a legit address that has a place in my name. So last I checked the equipment is being used there so I didn't "just make up any old address"



> BTW: Is the address on your *C account also "a place in your name"?


what does that have to do with anything?



> So you have lied to get locals that you don't qualify for at your home address?


the locals I have I qualify for at the physical address so how am I lying? I qualified for them at that address.



> And couldn't get the answer you wanted until trying three times.


no. I couldn't understand what they were saying so I hung up. I didn't "lie" to anybody. Derek saw my account. He was even nice enough to change the spelling on my last name (they had it misspelled)


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

stuart628 said:


> This is funny.
> 
> How do you stack only one receiver?


I've been asking that all along but apparently this site has issues with me using a single reciever at 2 locations which Dish has said I can do.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> This argument isn't about Star Choice. Why bring up that "red herring" when you lost the original point of accusing him of account splitting?


I find it funny he has an issue with me doing this (which is LEGAL) yet there are people who do alot worse and are allowed to continue to post



> What lie? He used one of the addresses where the reciever actually is used at.


correct. I legally qualify for locals at that location. At my house I get locals via OTA


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

Oh come on you know James knows everything (or at least pretends he does)


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

stuart628 said:


> Oh come on you know James knows everything (or at least pretends he does)


so true  :lol:


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

stuart628 said:


> Oh come on you know James knows everything (or at least pretends he does)


And can't admit when he's wrong. But hey, we can't all be perfect.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> This argument isn't about Star Choice. Why bring up that "red herring" when you lost the original point of accusing him of account splitting?


The argument is about lying to get service you don't qualify for. Sure, we put it in quotes and call it "moving" and get all cute about it but that is exactly what it comes down to. Violating the TOS of the satellite company and in some cases federal regulations by giving false information to a satellite provider.


derwin0 said:


> What lie? He used one of the addresses where the reciever actually is used at.


That's not an option under the TOS. "Tell us _one of the addresses_ where you might use your account" isn't what is being requested. Satellite companies what THE address (singular) where the equipment is installed and used. And E*'s TOS clearly says that if you want service in two locations you *need* two accounts. Read the TOS.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

stuart628 said:


> Oh come on you know James knows everything (or at least pretends he does)


I lnow when I see tag team buddy posting. Gang up all you want. It won't change the TOS or the truth of what I am saying.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> The argument is about lying to get service you don't qualify for. Sure, we put it in quotes and call it "moving" and get all cute about it but that is exactly what it comes down to. Violating the TOS of the satellite company and in some cases federal regulations by giving false information to a satellite provider.


but we're not talking about SC so that is irrelevant. We are talking about Dish Network



> That's not an option under the TOS. "Tell us _one of the addresses_ where you might use your account" isn't what is being requested. Satellite companies what THE address (singular) where the equipment is installed and used. And E*'s TOS clearly says that if you want service in two locations you *need* two accounts. Read the TOS.


if you have more than one receiver. You CANNOT have 2 accounts on one reciever. that has been proven here enough times but aparently you just don't get it James.

You lost this one. Tell ya what. You go back to your shiney VIP reciever and I'll go back to my Dish Network and StarChoice receivers, OK?


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> I lnow when I see tag team buddy posting. Gang up all you want. It won't change the TOS or the truth of what I am saying.


Then answer me this since you feel you're the all-knowing

How do you have 2 accounts on one receiver?

oh that's right....YOU CAN'T because that violates the terms.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> I find it funny he has an issue with me doing this (which is LEGAL) yet there are people who do alot worse and are allowed to continue to post


They are not bragging about how they are violating E* and *Cs TOS here on this forum.

BTW: *C in the US isn't legal.


TonyM said:


> Then answer me this since you feel you're the all-knowing
> 
> How do you have 2 accounts on one receiver?
> 
> oh that's right....YOU CAN'T because that violates the terms.


You get two receivers ...


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> You get two receivers ...


um, you gonna send me money to pay for that?


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> I lnow when I see tag team buddy posting. Gang up all you want. It won't change the TOS or the truth of what I am saying.


ganging up? buddy posting? Because a few people have the same opinion? Personally I don't think I've ever talked to Stuart, could be wrong, but don't think so. Have talked to Tony before, but usually on matters of Canada.

Either way, it's a singular reciever, shuttled much like an RV reciever. Address given was one that it is actually used at. Installation means absolutely nothing, as I know I've moved three times and therefore the original istallation is long since mute.

There is no account splitting going on, as it is physically impossible to split a single reciever. If you can prove different, please show how, and I'll eat my share of crow.

The second he adds a second reciever and then shuttles 1 of them back and forth, then I will cry foul. But as it is, he doesn't.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> They are not bragging about how they are violating E* and *Cs TOS here on this forum.


some do...but you seem to delete the posts that say that and make it look like nothing happened


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> ganging up? buddy posting? Because a few people have the same opinion? Personally I don't think I've ever talked to Stuart, could be wrong, but don't think so. Have talked to Tony before, but usually on matters of Canada.


I've never spoken to Stuart either. Derwin, yes I have spoken with him about Canada 



> There is no account splitting going on, as it is physically impossible to split a single reciever. If you can prove different, please show how, and I'll eat my share of crow.


apparently me talking to Dish tech support wasn't good enough for him 



> The second he adds a second reciever and then shuttles 1 of them back and forth, then I will cry foul. But as it is, he doesn't.


only have one box. Invoice comes for 26.61
19.99 for Family Pack
5.00 for locals
add taxes and there ya go

and I agree if I had a second box I would leave them at one spot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> um, you gonna send me money to pay for that?


Pay for your own satellite service. I pay for mine - and qualify for every channel I get without giving any satellite company any false information.


TonyM said:


> some do...but you seem to delete the posts that say that and make it look like nothing happened


Things are not as they seem to you. Including E*'s TOS.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Should I get a seperate account on my reciever when I take it tailgating to football games?


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Pay for your own satellite service. I pay for mine - and qualify for every channel I get without giving any satellite company any false information.


Last I checked Dish has the correct info for my account. 
And I do pay for my own satellite servcie(s) thank you very much



> Things are not as they seem to you. Including E*'s TOS


yes, but unlike you saying I need an account at each address, I have proof that you have deleted posts that people admit to stealing


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> Things are not as they seem to you. Including E*'s TOS.


I beleive he is alluding to the retailer chats that are posted by a confirmed pirate. But that is a thread for another time and place.

As it is, I will be exiting from this discussion as my laughter from it is disturbing my co-workers.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Should I get a seperate account on my reciever when I take it tailgating to football games?


what kind of address do you give Dish for that?

Lets see...physical address

"Parking Lot of Heinz Field, Pittsburg, PA"


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> I beleive he is alluding to the retailer chats that are posted by a confirmed pirate. But that is a thread for another time and place.


I didnt name names. I've seen it in their FTA area too so its not just one area



> As it is, I will be exiting from this discussion as my laughter from it is disturbing my co-workers.


me too. I have other thigns to tend to

Thanks for the good laugh, James. I needed that on this Monday morning 
I'll check later to see if you're still trying to beat this oh so dead horse


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> There is no account splitting going on, as it is physically impossible to split a single reciever. If you can prove different, please show how, and I'll eat my share of crow.


Give me an axe and Tony's receiver and I'll be glad to show you that it is physically possible to split the receiver. 

You keep coming back to that silly statement when you know (or should if you would bother to look) that the TOS does not permit an account to be shared between locations.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

TonyM said:


> what kind of address do you give Dish for that?
> 
> Lets see...physical address
> 
> "Parking Lot of Heinz Field, Pittsburg, PA"


Actually College Park, MD. I prefer college football personally 

bye all, work to be done


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> You keep coming back to that silly statement when you know (or should if you would bother to look) that the TOS does not permit an account to be shared between locations


more than one recever, yes
one receiver, no



> Actually College Park, MD. I prefer college football personally


I didn't know which college team you rooted for so I picked an NFL team


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

well I checked the Dish Residental agreement and the only thing they mention is multiple receivers



> You agree that you will not directly or indirectly use a single account for the purpose of authorizing Services for multiple DISH Network receivers that are not all located in the same residence and connected to your same land-based telephone line


so James is right...IF I HAD MULTIPLE RECEIVERS 
but since I have one, this doesnt apply


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> yes, but unlike you saying I need an account at each address, I have proof that you have deleted posts that people admit to stealing


E*'s TOS says you need an account at each address. I just repeat the facts.

When I delete a hacking post I ban the user. I've taken care of a few spammers lately. Last Hack Post deleted (user banned): 08-09-06 03:59 PM EDT

Chris took care of the one before that (July 28th). Richard got the one before that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Should I get a seperate account on my reciever when I take it tailgating to football games?


Since you asked nicely:E.Private Home Viewing Only. DISH Network provides Services to you solely for your private home viewing, use and enjoyment. You agree that no Services provided to you will be viewed in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments.​"no Services provided to you will be viewed in areas open to the public"

Oh, the line before TonyM's quote:If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for each location.​Of course, that line should be ignored, eh TonyM?*9. GENERAL*
A. Physical Address/Change of Address . When setting up your DISH Network account, you agree to provide us with the physical street address where your Equipment will be located and your Services will be provided. A post office box does not constitute a physical address and is not sufficient to meet this requirement. You agree to give us prompt notice of your change of name, mailing address, physical address where your Equipment is located, and telephone number. You may do this by notifying our Customer Service Center by telephone or in writing at the phone number or mailing or e-mail address set forth in the first paragraph of this Agreement.​Can't get any clearer.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> E*'s TOS says you need an account at each address. I just repeat the facts.


if you have more than one receiver (read my post right above yours where I quoted the res agreement).

But I guess the bigger question is why do you care what I (or anyone else here) do as long as we pay our invoices? If someone stole, then I could see having an issue.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

derwin0 said:


> Should I get a seperate account on my reciever when I take it tailgating to football games?


believe it or not they forbid use of the receiver in an open area.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

if you permanently move to a new location, then yes I can see that (changing address). But like I'm going to call Dish and say "yep I moved" and 2 days later "yep I moved back"...red flags go up if you continually do that.

Do you think a RV'er does that? nope 
If I account split, you would have a case. But sicne I don't account split, there is nothing wrong.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Geronimo said:


> believe it or not thjey forbid use of the receiver in an open area.


but people do it all the time. But I guess Mr "I follow the rules to a T yet I allow people who steal to post here" has an issue with that too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> But I guess the bigger question is why do you care what I (or anyone else here) do as long as we pay our invoices?


That is one reason why I usually 'quietly let pass' any talk of "moving" - especially when it is made clear in the thread that it is a violation of the TOS.

Thank you for paying for your services.


TonyM said:


> if you permanently move to a new location, then yes I can see that 9changing address). But like I'm going to call Dish and say "yep I moved" and 2 days later "yep I moved back"...red flags go up if you continually do that.
> 
> Do you think a RV'er does that? nope


RV'ers have a form they can fill out registering their service to their RV. There is still a question of whether or not a separate RV account is needed. It isn't explicit in the TOS.

Red flags should go up. E* does not intend their accounts be used in two separate residential locations.


TonyM said:


> but people do it all the time. But I guess Mr "I follow the rules to a T yet I allow people who steal to post here" has an issue with that too.


I allow you to post here too. 

Not sure why you are in attack mode today, poking at me and unnamed others. Perhaps a tinge of guilt you want to spread around?

Thanks again for paying for your services (that we know of).


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Here is the language on location of equipment. The word stacjing is never used. But their position on movement of equipment is open to interpretation.

*"F. Additional Tuners and Receivers.* We may allow you to place additional receivers on your account in our sole discretion. Each additional receiver will be authorized to receive the same Services as your initial receiver. This option is only available if your initial DISH Network receiver and all additional receiver(s) are located at the same residence and are continuously connected to your same land-based telephone line. Unless otherwise specified in the customer agreement(s), if any, applicable to the promotion(s) pursuant to which you are receiving Services and/or Equipment, DISH Network will charge you a monthly additional outlet programming access fee ("Additional Outlet Programming Access Fee") for each tuner activated on your account beyond the first. *If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for each location. [*You agree that you will not directly or indirectly use a single account for the purpose of authorizing Services for multiple DISH Network receivers that are not all located in the same residence and connected to your same land-based telephone line.[/B] If we later determine that you did, we may disconnect your Services and, in addition to all other applicable fees, you agree to pay us the difference between the amounts actually received by us and the full retail price for the Services authorized for each DISH Network receiver on your account."

There is a refence to being continially connected to a land line but it is the middle of a section discussing multiple receivers. It reaaly is not clear if that applies to accounts witha single receiver or only to those with multiple receivers.

Another section discusses the movement of leased receivers and says that they must install it at the new location.

"You shall have no right to pledge, sell, mortgage, otherwise encumber, give away, remove, relocate, alter or tamper with such Equipment (or any notice of our ownership thereon) at any time. Any reinstallation, return, or change in the location of such Equipment shall be performed by us at our service rates in effect at the time of such service."


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> That is one reason why I usually 'quietly let pass' any talk of "moving" - especially when it is made clear in the thread that it is a violation of the TOS.


no it isn't. Account splitting or stacking is but having one reciever isn't. RV'ers do the same thing



> Thank you for paying for your services.


you're welcome.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

nova828 said:


> 3. If Dish/Direct is unable to get a clear signal, then the INSTALLER can call and request a distant feed. But only 1 of the same time zone. This would reduce incentive to cheat the system. The distant would be turned on immediatly, no "waivers".
> 
> 4. The local station effected by this would be notified of what viewers in thier DMA got distants, and would have the option of sending an enginer to the customers home to help them get thier signal. If the station engineer is successful they can request the distant feed turned off. If not, the customer gets to keep thier distants. If there is a dispute, both the installer and station engineer can come look at the signal. If both agree the customer is getting a clear signal, distants go off. But if the installer feels the signal is bad, the customer gets to keep the distant.


I'm jumping into this kinda late, but IMHO, not all these "Cheaters" do so for the same reasons.

Some just want to time-shift, while others think the local network just plain sucks. There are some people who do fall into the unable to receive B or A signal, these people should get their distants. Other lack choice. There is a handful of people, whose DMA's do not carry programing viewers want. My distants were turned off long ago, but I would love to have some myself. For example, my DMA isn't exactly a small market, but my Fox channel does not broadcast in HD at all. Yes they just got their DTV tower running, but no HD. Now having said that I also have no PBS locally. Yes I have the national PBS feed but for the longest time I had to pay extra for it.

I just think there are too many rules in place that protect the marketing people of such affiliates. Look around at how many small DMA's affiliates are 1 business, i.e. ABC own CBS and UPN DMA offices...etc....

I abide by the rules, but I don't necessarily agree with the rules.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> Red flags should go up. E* does not intend their accounts be used in two separate residential locations


but you just said I would need to contact Dish every time I move the reciever to the other location. So now DIsh is going to shut down a paying customer who isn't account splitting/stacking. Boy that would be lame.



> I allow you to post here too.


I find it pretty sad that you imply I steal. Boy I guess when you're wrong, you decide to go below the belt, huh?



> Not sure why you are in attack mode today, poking at me and unnamed others. Perhaps a tinge of guilt you want to spread around?


I'm in a great mood for a Monday . I find it asisine that we wasted 3 pages when regardless of what you interpret the terms, I and others are still going to do what we do. I didnt "move", I have a physical address at a location in my name so the fact that I bring the receiver back and forth is no big deal. Again, if I had 2 boxes and kept one here and one there and only paid for one account, then there would be an issue. But as I proved above after speaking to tech support, there is no wrong doing here since you cannot have 2 accounts on one receiver.


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

> Not sure why you are in attack mode today, poking at me and unnamed others. Perhaps a tinge of guilt you want to spread around?


 Man you get defensive when your wrong.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> but you just said I would need to contact Dish every time I move the reciever to the other location. So now DIsh is going to shut down a paying customer who isn't account splitting/stacking. Boy that would be lame.


Not all red flags lead to shutting down service. Even the dreaded "audit team" call only leads to disconnection of extra receivers. Something you don't have to worry about.

Red flags just mean that it's time to find out what is going on and if there is a better way to serve that customer.


TonyM said:


> I and others are still going to do what we do.


And from time to time I'll jump in to read you the TOS.

"_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you *must* open a separate account for each location._" It doesn't even say 'at the same time' as some like reading between the lines. "_You agree to give us prompt notice of your change of name, mailing address, physical address *where your Equipment is located*_ ..."

Simple. Agree or not, it's in them thar rules!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for each location." It doesn't even say 'at the same time' as some like reading between the lines. "You agree to give us prompt notice of your change of name, mailing address, physical address where your Equipment is located ..."


but how can I open 2 accounts on one receiver?

If Charlie gave me permission to do this would that be good enough for you?


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

TonyM said:


> but how can I open 2 accounts on one receiver?


Get a hacksaw......

Just kidding. :grin:


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Jason Nipp said:


> Get a hacksaw......
> 
> Just kidding. :grin:


I thought Chainsaw


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

derwin0 said:


> Several of us at my office have our Field Support Reps. in Ft. Hood, TX send us cases of Dr. Pepper from there, as they still use the original formula (cane sugar) instead of corn syrup (bleh). I wonder if we are violating the soda sherva? :lol:


Since I started the soda train... There is a Web site "Pop the Soda Shop" that sells all kinds of beverages, some from other countries, some from other parts of the US that use real cane sugar or are generally hard to find sodas.

Anyway, there is a big banner of text across the main Web page stating that they have removed both Coke and Pepsi from their saleable merchandise due to threat of litigation from those respective companies.


----------



## btyko (May 9, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> Not all that lie, cheat, or steal, go to hell.


Most go to Washington.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> but how can I open 2 accounts on one receiver?
> If Charlie gave me permission to do this would that be good enough for you?


If Charlie gave you permission to have two accounts on the same receiver that would be fine with me. But I really cannot believe that you would be willing to pay another $21.00 per month for the second account (since you would not be able to use both accounts at the same time).

If E* offered a multi-home account that would be a good deal for you and others who have one household in multiple residences. E* doesn't have a multi-home option. Looks like we'll just have to live with the options E* offers.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

From the Dish Network Facts Blast in February:

·Second location/vacation homes policy 

> Customers who have a Vacation Home or Second Fixed Location are required to set up an account to receive DISH Network services

> Customers will NOT be allowed to share receivers between their primary residence and any other fixed location on a single account

> The customer will be required to create a separate account for the Second Fixed location/Vacation Home. This account will be allowed unlimited seasonal downgrades or service on this seperate account.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> If Charlie gave you permission to have two accounts on the same receiver that would be fine with me. But I really cannot believe that you would be willing to pay another $21.00 per month for the second account (since you would not be able to use both accounts at the same time).
> .


EXACTLY. I can't use both "accounts" at the same time. So I stick with one account and transport the box to 2 different addresses. At no time can both locations be active because there is only one box


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Slamminc11 said:


> From the Dish Network Facts Blast in February:
> 
> ·Second location/vacation homes policy
> 
> ...


note the word "receivers"...pluralized. One box I can't really "share" and have boxes at both locations, now can I?

Bottom line is I am not doing anything wrong. As been mentioned numerous times before, if I had more than one box on my account and was sharing it, that would be an issue. But since I have one box there is no harm done. I still pay my invoice every month


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> Bottom line is I am not doing anything wrong.


Keep saying that. It must be reassuring despite posts to the contrary.

"_Customers who have a Vacation Home or Second Fixed Location are required to set up an account to receive DISH Network services_"


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Keep saying that. It must be reassuring despite posts to the contrary.
> 
> "_Customers who have a Vacation Home or Second Fixed Location are required to set up an account to receive DISH Network services_"


that's nice. Keep stating from the TOS like your the cops or something. Pretty sad when tech support says there is nothing wrong with what I am doing since I can't have 2 accounts on one box. And also, that above isnt in the Terms. It was on a facts blast or whatever they're called. So if you're going to keep reading the terms, the above is not in there 

Bottom line is you cannot account stack or account split a 1 receiver account.

And since you're going to continue to read from the TOS (again, like your the cops or something) we're just going to sit here and argue consistantly until one of us leaves (gee I wonder who that will be??) or you lock the thread because you feel you need to have the last word in.

Oh I better call Dish on Friday...I'm going back to the cabin for 2 days 
and then I better call them back on Sunday and bother some poor Indian on his day of working to change my address because James Long told me to call in EVERY TIME I take the box between the cabin and my house.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> that's nice. Keep stating from the TOS like your the cops or something. Pretty sad when tech support says there is nothing wrong with what I am doing since I can't have 2 accounts on one box. And also, that above isnt in the Terms.


Yet these words (quoted above in thread) ARE in the TOS:_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, *you must open a separate account for each location*._

_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, *you must open a separate account for each location*._

_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, *you must open a separate account for each location*._​I understand that sometimes you have to say things three times to get it through to some guys. Which explains why the strip joints have signs that say "girls girls girls" "nude nude nude". For those who won't understand the first two times. ​


TonyM said:


> And since you're going to continue to read from the TOS (again, like your the cops or something) we're just going to sit here and argue consistantly until one of us leaves (gee I wonder who that will be??) or you lock the thread because you feel you need to have the last word in.


I won't lock the thread so there is no need for THAT false accusation - especially from the guy who can't even follow provision 9.A. of the TOS.  Besides, it's not the two days that you are at the cabin when you are in violation.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Yet these words (quoted above in thread) ARE in the TOS:_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for *each* location._


can't do it with one box. What part of that can't you get?



> _If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for *each* location._


can't do it with one box. Dish doesn't allow it



> _If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, you must open a separate account for *each* location._[/indent][/indent]


can't have 2 accounts on one box. Dish doesn't allow it



> I understand that sometimes you have to say things three times to get it through to guys. Which explains why the strip joints have signs that say "girls girls girls" "nude nude nude".


you must visit those places. The ones I visit don't say anything on the front. We just know what they are 



> No need for more false accusations from the guy who can't even follow provision 9.A. of the TOS.


false accusatuions huh? Again, please tell me how to get 2 accounts on one box since Dish won't allow it.


> I won't lock the thread


pretty disappointed in you. Normally you jump at the chance to lock a thread when it gets good.

But, oh well....just keep spewing the same bull from the TOS. 
me. I'm going to enjoy my TV 

you go back to playing with your shiney VIP reciever


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> can't do it with one box. What part of that can't you get?


Who is making you use one box? Shesh - you're just trying to avoid paying E* $21 for the second location.


TonyM said:


> But, oh well....just keep spewing the same bull from the TOS.
> me. I'm going to enjoy my TV


It isn't bull, it is the TOS.


TonyM said:


> you go back to playing with your shiney VIP reciever


You said that before. They are cool boxes. They get lots of channels. Don't be jealous.
(I actually have both ViPs - so if you want to be accurate, make it plural.)


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Who is making you use one box? Shesh - you're just trying to avoid paying E* $21 for the second location.


I only need one box. And sorry, $21 gets me to work 2 days and home 1/2 way on the third. With gas a $3 a gallon, I needs to save my money. 



> You said that before. They are cool boxes. They get lots of channels. Don't be jealous.
> (I actually have both ViPs - so if you want to be accurate, make it plural.)


It looks like you do like playing with those shiney shiney boxes....by the way...your avatar scares me. What exactly are you doing behind those boxes? :lol:

and I know you're just dying to know about my avatar. Well, its pro wrestling legend Abdullah the Butcher 
6 decades of stabbing people with a fork and the proud owner of "Abdullah the Butcher's House of Chicken & Ribs" in Atlanta


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> I only need one box. And sorry, $21 gets me to work 2 days and home 1/2 way on the third. With gas a $3 a gallon, I needs to save my money.


When I can't afford something I don't get it. Just one of the facts of life. There are some DVD sets at WalMart that I can't afford right now. Should I just take them? Is it OK to break the rules if I don't get caught?


TonyM said:


> What exactly are you doing behind those boxes? :lol:


Hey, some people stand behind E*'s products! They are nice units.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> When I can't afford something I don't get it. Just one of the facts of life. There are some DVD sets at WalMart that I can't afford right now. Should I just take them? Is it OK to break the rules if I don't get caught?


Hey its up to you if you want to do that. But last I checked, I wasn't stealing my satellite service (there is an invoice laying on my kitchen island with a Dish Network logo on it saying "Due Date 8/25" that I have to pay)

If I was stealing, I'd be laughing my ass off that you would let me post that long here (oh wait...that's right. You let people who steal service post here") but I don't steal. I pay for my invoice just like you do. Mine is just a little less money than yours because I don't have all the extras.



> Hey, some people stand behind E*'s products! They are nice units.


me. I'd prefer to sit in front of them and watch the TV and not stare at the plugs on the back


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> Hey its up to you if you want to do that. But last I checked, I wasn't stealing my satellite service (there is an invoice laying on my kitchen island with a Dish Network logo on it saying "Due Date 8/25" that I have to pay)


Isn't that bill for your other residence?_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, *you must open a separate account for each location*._​


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Isn't that bill for your other residence?_If you desire to receive Services at two different residential locations, *you must open a separate account for each location*._​


boy do you get an award from Dish for posting the terms all the time??

ya probably do.

But my invoice is for my service that I pay for. I'm not stealing so quit saying that I am stealing


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> But my invoice is for my service that I pay for.


Yet not for the service that you are not paying for.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Yet not for the service that you are not paying for.


um, I have no clue what the hell you just said but I do know thats a double negative there buddy

and yes I pay for Dish service


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> um, I have no clue what the hell you just said but I do know thats a double negative there buddy
> 
> and yes I pay for Dish service


Not for the address where you are. You're paying for service at the cabin, right? Are you at the cabin?

And yes, it's a double negative. I agreed with you and yet you still are defensive. 
You pay for what you pay for and you don't pay for what you are not paying for.


----------



## Slamminc11 (Jan 28, 2005)

It's actually pretty simple folks. 
You have a house, you have a receiver and an account. You have a cabin (or vacation home, or shack on a lake, or tepee on a hill somewhere, or whatever) then you are required per the TOS (as of Feb. 2006) to carry a second account with a second receiver. Now, Dish does allow you to go on seasonal downgrade on the second account without penalty as many times during the year as you need to. I know that one time on a chat somewhere back a couple years ago Charlie said no problem cart your receiver around where ever you want, but as of Feb. 2006 the rules changed because Dish decided to, and now for each location that you are receiving service, you are required to carry a separate account and a separate receiver. 
They wrote the rules, no me.


----------



## Dipper (Aug 13, 2006)

Regulations that are unenforceable don't have to be followed. Dish puts certain things in their TOS to placate the ones who go to Washington and lobby for them, not because they believe every subscriber will be "conscientious" enough to follow them.

There are some who have participated in this thread who it would seem that if Congress or their state legislature passed a law outlawing certain sexual positions they would tell their wives "sorry honey we can't do that position anymore. It's against the law now." And that's fine. But please do not condemn the rest of us for continuing to do it doggy style even though the law says we can't.

The analogy is fitting. Whether you are talking about sexual positions or whether you are talking about "moving" or carting your receiver back and forth between the cabin and the house in town, if they have no way of enforcing their regulations without violating your rights, you don't have to follow the policy.

Nobody here is talking about depriving Dish Network of their rightful revenue. All of us are legitimate subscribers who pay $5.00 a month for locals whether they're our own or whether they're from the other coast.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Any minute now... someone is going to say... "I know you are, but what am I?"

And then someone else will retort... "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

At least that's what I'm getting out of the discussion 

There are rules... some people break them... I don't report folks, but I don't know anyone on the forum personally anyway so it'd be tough if I wanted to... BUT I do find it interesting how far some people will go out of their way to defend something they seem to actually know is improper. For if they truly felt they were in the right, the discussion would be over and no need to argue about it.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

TonyM said:


> and I know you're just dying to know about my avatar. Well, its pro wrestling legend Abdullah the Butcher
> 6 decades of stabbing people with a fork and the proud owner of "Abdullah the Butcher's House of Chicken & Ribs" in Atlanta


Actually ate there couple times, good ribs btw


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Dipper said:


> Regulations that are unenforceable don't have to be followed. Dish puts certain things in their TOS to placate the ones who go to Washington and lobby for them, not because they believe every subscriber will be "conscientious" enough to follow them.
> 
> There are some who have participated in this thread who it would seem that if Congress or their state legislature passed a law outlawing certain sexual positions they would tell their wives "sorry honey we can't do that position anymore. It's against the law now." And that's fine. But please do not condemn the rest of us for continuing to do it doggy style even though the law says we can't.
> 
> ...


This is one of the best posts of the thread and i think I'll end my portion of the conversation with this post. Thank you dipper for acknowledging the truth. Yes there are terms (which, by the way, the facts blast stuff doesn't count because it isn't the terms on the Dish site) but it is no different then when you say to the cop "yes sir I won't speed" and then you do it any way. People are going to do things that may not agree with the terms. I remember when cell phone companies required you to have an address in their market or they wouldn't give you servcie for them (this is before companies were pretty much nationwide) and I had to give them the cabin address for a cell phone (yet I took it home with me).

I just find it funny that James has such an issue with me carting a recever back and forth to the point that he will sit there and spew the terms in post after post when there are people on this board who have "moved" to get distants (I didn't move to get distants. I have the locals for my area as designated by the Dish qulifier) or steal service and don't pay a bill at all and get everything. Last I checked, my Dish box gets about 60 channels (40 on DishFamily + 15 in the PI pack + 6 locals) and nothing more. So I am not stealing. I could go, get a box and activate it for $5 and leave it at the cabin but even I know you technically shouldn't do that. But he has an issue with me doing that yet someone else "moves" and nothing happens. Or better yet, someone steals service and if it isn't reported, nobody knows about it or they try and help them.



> There are some who have participated in this thread who it would seem that if Congress or their state legislature passed a law outlawing certain sexual positions they would tell their wives "sorry honey we can't do that position anymore. It's against the law now." And that's fine. But please do not condemn the rest of us for continuing to do it doggy style even though the law says we can't.


amen brother  Why do I have a feeling some people actually do that? (say they can't do that because its a law) 



> Any minute now... someone is going to say... "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> And then someone else will retort... "I'm rubber and you're glue..."


hee hee. The old Pee Wee Herman trick 

So everyone have a pleasant Tuesday. I'm done with this thread since it really isn't going anywhere. People are going to bend the rules. They have since probably the beginning of time.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"Nobody here is talking about depriving Dish Network of their rightful revenue. All of us are legitimate subscribers who pay $5.00 a month for locals whether they're our own or whether they're from the other coast."

Poor Dish Network..........so glad everyone want's them, and only them, to be happy.


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

Tony, I think you need to drive to your nearest police station and turn yourself in. And while you're there, don't forget to mention your Starchoice box as well. I plan to do that myself. I can't live with myself anymore...all those CBC stations from five time zones! I feel so dirty!!!


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

billpa said:


> Tony, I think you need to drive to your nearest police station and turn yourself in. And while you're there, don't forget to mention your Starchoice box as well. I plan to do that myself. I can't live with myself anymore...all those CBC stations from five time zones! I feel so dirty!!!


And those CTV & Global shows from 5 time zones too. Oh no. 
I guess I'm depriving USA too because i watched WWE RAW on "The Score" last night.
Should I tell the cops I was speeding to get home from work yesterday too? :lol:

Thanks for the laugh bill. I needed that this morning


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

you're welcome


----------



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

TonyM said:


> again...how do you "account stack" a 1 receiver account?


 YOU can't . THat is why it is perfectly legal to call Dish and tell them that you new service address will be the vacation home or the cabin. Keep you billing address the same as it already is. When you come home from your vacation house or cabin , you simply take your receiver back with you and hook it up at your billing address or physical address . You call Dish back and tell them you have moved again back to your billing address. There is no limit to the amount of times you can " move" or how many times you can physically move your receiver or service address. It is stupid to have two accounts with Dish for the purpose of the second home when you won't be there that much. Unless you as a customer can't hook up your own receivers and second sat dish yourself. This is simply another way for Dish to make more money off of their existing customers.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> YOU can't . THat is why it is perfectly legal to call Dish and tell them that you new service address will be the vacation home or the cabin. Keep you billing address the same as it already is. When you come home from your vacation house or cabin , you simply take your receiver back with you and hook it up at your billing address or physical address . You call Dish back and tell them you have moved again back to your billing address. There is no limit to the amount of times you can " move" or how many times you can physically move your receiver or service address. It is stupid to have two accounts with Dish for the purpose of the second home when you won't be there that much. Unless you as a customer can't hook up your own receivers and second sat dish yourself. This is simply another way for Dish to make more money off of their existing customers.


Mike
My address is the cabin. James' whole issue is I started bringing the box back home when I left the cabin.

Yes I could start doing that (calling every time I took the box to the different spot) but my god, look at how screwed up my invoice would be. Every time I move either I would have to drop locals or switch locals since my house address isn't in the Duluth DMA. I'd have 8 different lines on my invoice for locals for one month

But for fun maybe I'll do that and see what the invoice looks like


----------



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

Tony in the service agreement that James keeps quoting , it says that a customer's responsibility to notify Dish where your receiver is physically at and what service address it is at. I would think that calling them every time you physicaly move your receiver would be satifiying that part of the service agreement. 

I believe that James is mistaken in his belief that even ONE receiver has to have a seperate account for services at two locations. It is not physically possible and Dish won't allow it. Now if you wanted two receivers at two locations then James is right : you would need two different accounts for both receivers if they are at two different locations . 


Tony if you have the service address listed as your cabin and you don't spend that much time there , why don't you leave your service address as your physical home? I know it is silly to split hairs here ,but it would make more sense to list the address as the one you are at the most time. THen all you have to do is call to tell Dish when you go to the cabin and tell them where you moved to for the weekend. Unless you are getting locals from the cabin address you want and can't get at your physical home address. 


This is simply a matter of James not wanting to admit that he is wrong in his interpetation of the service agreement. Really silly when he will look the other way when it comes to "moving". WHat you are doing is really a variation of the same theme if you think about it. The only thing different is that you are really physcially moving the receiver between two houses.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

> Tony in the service agreement that James keeps quoting , it says that a customer's responsibility to notify Dish where your receiver is physically at and what service address it is at. I would think that calling them every time you physicaly move your receiver would be satifiying that part of the service agreement.


True. But it just seems goofy to do it constantly. I figured "don't say anything and there won't be any issues"



> I believe that James is mistaken in his belief that even ONE receiver has to have a seperate account for services at two locations. It is not physically possible and Dish won't allow it. Now if you wanted two receivers at two locations then James is right : you would need two different accounts for both receivers if they are at two different locations .


I would have no problems with two accounts if I had a box here and one at the lake. But since I only have one box, as lots of people said "you can't have 2 accounts on one box"



> Tony if you have the service address listed as your cabin and you don't spend that much time there , why don't you leave your service address as your physical home? I know it is silly to split hairs here ,but it would make more sense to list the address as the one you are at the most time. Then all you have to do is call to tell Dish when you go to the cabin and tell them where you moved to for the weekend. Unless you are getting locals from the cabin address you want and can't get at your physical home address.


My house address gets Minneapolis locals, which I can get OTA. The cabin gets Duluth locals which are nice to have too. Main reason is Minneapolis stations don't talk about Duluth weather unless its Thursday night, then they have a "cabin cast" and they pretty much say what the temp is going to be Saturday. But having Duluth locals lets me see Duluth weather so we can plan for the weekend. Duluth has some really weird weather and changes constantly. I'm not getting the locals for timeshifting or for pre-emptions (heck, Duluth does a lot of pre-empting). I keep the locals for the news/weather from Duluth. And until recently, we left the receiver at the cabin all the time.



> This is simply a matter of James not wanting to admit that he is wrong in his interpetation of the service agreement. Really silly when he will look the other way when it comes to "moving". WHat you are doing is really a variation of the same theme if you think about it. The only thing different is that you are really physcially moving the receiver between two houses.


Exactly. Unlike some people who have an invisible address to get different locals or distants, I actually have a place


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> Yes there are terms (which, by the way, the facts blast stuff doesn't count because it isn't the terms on the Dish site) but it is no different then when you say to the cop "yes sir I won't speed" and then you do it any way.


The line I have repeated enough IS from the terms on the Dish website. The Fax Blast echos the terms where it says for two residences you need two accounts.

Telling a cop you are not going to speed and then speeding is either a lie or gross incompetence. If you want to say your "interpretation" of the rules is no different are you claiming to be a liar or incompitent?


TonyM said:


> I just find it funny that James has such an issue with me carting a recever back and forth to the point that he will sit there and spew the terms in post after post when there are people on this board who have "moved" to get distants


You have chosen to put yourself on the radar and continue to step up in front of the crowd to brag about your actions. Most movers make their post and fade away into the woodwork.


TonyM said:


> I have the locals for my area as designated by the Dish qulifier


Unless you have mislead, you have the locals for your cabin and not the residence where you use the service.


TonyM said:


> But he has an issue with me doing that yet someone else "moves" and nothing happens.


Poor baby! Would you like a dummy to suck on? I've commented on "moving" before. Other posters have had the sense to admit that it is wrong and go on with their lives.


TonyM said:


> Or better yet, someone steals service and if it isn't reported, nobody knows about it or they try and help them.


More false information from a guy who can't even give E* the accurate address where he uses the service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I believe that James is mistaken in his belief that even ONE receiver has to have a seperate account for services at two locations.


The rule doesn't give an exception for one receiver. It is a nice clear simple sentence I have quoted many times in this thread (three times in the same post). If you want service at two residences get two accounts.

If that requires you to also get a second receiver (due to the limitations of how many accounts you can have on a receiver) that doesn't excuse the rule.


Mike D-CO5 said:


> Unless you are getting locals from the cabin address you want and can't get at your physical home address.


That's the trick he is pulling. "Moving" to get channels he does not qualify for at his main residence.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> The line I have repeated enough IS from the terms on the Dish website. The Fax Blast echos the terms whene it says for two residences you need two accounts.


wrong. I have read the terms and that is not on there. 



> Telling a cop you are not going to speed and then speeding is either a lie or gross incompitence. If you want to say your "interpretation" of the rules is no different are tou claiming to be a liar or incompitent?


when you get pulled over, the cops say to slow down and usually you say "OK officer" but if you get pulled over again, obviously you didn't listen 



> You have chosen to put yourself on the radar and continue to step up in front of the crowd to brag about your actions. Most movers make their post and fade away into the woodwork.


eh, not really. But I'll let you keep thinking that.



> Unless you have mislead, you have the locals for your cabin and not the residence where you use the service.


I use it at the cabin. What part of that can't you get.



> Poor baby! Would you like a dummy to suck on?


would you like another VIP receiver to suck on or molest?



> I've commented on "moving" before. Other posters have had the sense to admit that it is wrong and go on with their lives.


um, no they don't. They still do it now don't they? You just have an issue with me doing it. Why is that? Is it because I am a moderator at Satelliteguys? There have been other people in this thread who have responded to it yet you don't say anything to them.



> That's the trick he is pulling. "Moving" to get channels he does not qualify for at his main residence


my main residence is the cabin according t Dish and thats where I recieve the locals.



> More lies from a guy who can't even give E* the accurate address where he uses the service.


Tell ya what. I'll drop my pants and you can kiss my big fat ass James. Accusing me of stealing is where I draw the line. And since you think I steal, how come you haven't banned me?
Oh yeah that's right. According to the rules you _might_ delete my post and you _might _ ban me for stealing (according to the rules) yet you have people here who steal Dish Network (and provides lots of info to your site) yet whenever some one say that, the thread gets deleted and that person who said it gets banned. Yet the stealer stays. Boy pretty sad when you need to get your info from a person who steals Dish Network.

I guess I better make a copy of this because you'll delete it. I'm pretty sure of it.

So in closing, you worry about yourself and I'll worry about myself. I'll continue to move my receiver between 2 spots and you'll continue to molest your VIP receivers

"oh baby....you're so shiney" :lol:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TonyM said:


> wrong. I have read the terms and that is not on there.


Learn to read. It is one line before lines you quoted yesterday. Try a word search if you can't find it.


TonyM said:


> I use it at the cabin. What part of that can't you get.


The part where you use it at another residence. Two residences. Get it?


TonyM said:


> would you like another VIP receiver to suck on or molest?


Well that is an intelegent reply.


----------



## TonyM (Aug 14, 2003)

James Long said:


> Learn to read. It is one line before lines you quoted yesterday. Try a word search if you can't find it.


Facts blast are not for public consumption and not in the Terms. I read the terms yesterday and the only thing you have going is if I move the box I'm suppose to call Dish "within reason" to tell them I've moved.



> Well that is an intelegent reply.


well isnt that what you're doing behind those boxes in your avatar?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

That is quite enough fellas. Closing this thread.


----------

