# Distant Networks: "NPS Distants" on Dish Network Equipment - Legal Issues



## James Long

Wednesday at the Florida District Court:
1071 *MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Echostar and Two Parties Acting in Concert Should Not Be Held In Contempt by All Plaintiffs.*

The plaintiffs are claiming that E* is working with NPS to provide distants.
See EchoStar to Provide Ku Bandwidth to National Programming Service for the press release.


----------



## kstuart

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, their argument is faulty, as the injunction only applies to those acting in conjunction with E* on Oct 20th.

Amazing how professional lawyers cannot even read a sentence accurately.

And, the main thrust of the complaint is that Echostar's customers will be able to receive the channels without having to change equipment - as if the customers were somehow to blame.


----------



## TNGTony

Channels 5531-5538 ate "Test Channels" that just went up in Engineering mode. I guess my guess was correct. TP 15 at 119° was cleared off completely at 3 am easter today and loaded with these "test channels"


----------



## JohnH

The 4 Los Angeles SD Networks are still on Tp 15

The 8 test channels are not in the traditional E* Engineering package, but have each been assigned to a unique code, which is not familiar and probably does not exist elsewhere in the entire system.


----------



## TNGTony

Oops... Sorry... missed those.  Perhaps Dish is just leasing 2/3 of a TP 

See ya
Tony


----------



## JohnH

This works out correctly. It leaves 12 channels on the TP. Normal loading for better PQ. 

Check my edit about the Tiers.


----------



## joblo

Thanks, as always, James, for providing the court documents.

Are the attached exhibits available?

It would be interesting to see just how "flagrantly contumacious" this "scheme" is.

Edit:


JohnH said:


> This works out correctly. It leaves 12 channels on the TP. Normal loading for better PQ.
> 
> Check my edit about the Tiers.


So possibly the test channels are not NY/LA but NY/Denver, and four more 55xx channels will appear later.

Didn't NPS package the "Denver 5" years ago?

Edit 2: The ironic thing about this "scheme", if they can actually get away with it, is that because NPS sells no LIL whatsoever, they'll be able to sell DNS to a whole lot more people than E* could.


----------



## JohnH

joblo said:


> Thanks, as always, James, for providing the court documents.
> 
> Are the attached exhibits available?
> 
> It would be interesting to see just how "flagrantly contumacious" this "scheme" is.
> 
> Edit:
> So possibly the test channels are not NY/LA but NY/Denver, and four more 55xx channels will appear later.
> 
> Didn't NPS package the "Denver 5" years ago?
> 
> Edit 2: The ironic thing about this "scheme", if they can actually get away with it, is that because NPS sells no LIL whatsoever, they'll be able to sell DNS to a whole lot more people than E* could.


The channels could be anything as they are separate from the other channels on the TP.

NPS is uniquely qualified to offer this service. They have been selling Distant Networks on C band for years and already have a qualification system in place. They also are not the C band provider which is owned by EchoStar.

I was also thinking about that ironic thing earlier this morning. 

So far this new service seems to be "above board".


----------



## BobS

I checked the calendar and since it is not April 1st, I must assume that you are serious. Perhaps you misread the injunction. Perhaps _you _are being contumacious. In either case your "analysis" is so ridiculous that nobody should give it any weight.



kstuart said:


> Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, their argument is faulty, as the injunction only applies to those acting in conjunction with E* on Oct 20th.
> 
> Amazing how professional lawyers cannot even read a sentence accurately.
> 
> And, the main thrust of the complaint is that Echostar's customers will be able to receive the channels without having to change equipment - as if the customers were somehow to blame.


----------



## dave1234

Sounds like CBS is trying to make a preemptive strike. It seems unlikely the court would act on this as no violation of the injunction has occurred yet. It won't occur unless the assertion in the filing turns true on Dec. 2 and distants are still being delivered. But then I'm not a lawyer so what makes sense to me is irrelevant.:lol:


----------



## Darkman

joblo .. or anyone else, hehe...

In simple words.. to summarize this.. - what is happening.. or what might happen with this thingy .. between E* and this NPS?

The bottom line.. - they found some loophole to provide those locals to customers?
If so... Free ..or it will not be free?
Or what else this partnership might do, etc...

In simple English though please..


----------



## Darkman

Actually i might have some idea by now on what is happening or might happen...

I just read posts #8. 9, 10 of this thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=71442


----------



## Greg Bimson

kstuart said:


> Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, their argument is faulty, as the injunction only applies to those acting in conjunction with E* on Oct 20th.
> 
> Amazing how professional lawyers cannot even read a sentence accurately.


It wasn't the lawyers that misread anything.

This was the tact used by DirecTV during the last week of Februrary, 1999, prior to their injunction being enforced. That was when DirecTV severed their relationship PrimeTime 24 and started their own service.

Unfortunately for Dish Network, the way the injunction is worded would seem to make this action illegal:


> *ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED* that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communtications Corporation ... and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby *PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED* [from using the license contained in Section 119, Title 17, with any network station affiliated with ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC].


This quite easily is against the terms of the injunction.


----------



## whatchel1

The injunction has an issue date that it was effective. That isn't the same as the cut off date. so I think that any partnership agreed to at a time after the issuance date are not affected by the shut off on the 1st. If E* has an agreement for carriage of another company post the injunction date will not be included in the shut off.


----------



## kstuart

Exactly.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, using some sort of Einstein or Hawking definition of *present tense* won't fly.

But I suppose it might be interesting to speculate whether an Egyptian Pharoah who went through a Star Gate to 2007 and then provided Distant Networks to E* customers would be in violation...


----------



## Greg Bimson

What definition of present tense?

Effective 1 December, [insert list of parties here, which could grow] *are* hereby permanently enjoined and restrained [insert distant networks here].

I thought the word "are" is present tense? Or is this going to turn into some kind of presidential debate?


----------



## BobS

Greg Bimson said:


> What definition of present tense?
> 
> Effective 1 December, [insert list of parties here, which could grow] *are* hereby permanently enjoined and restrained [insert distant networks here].
> 
> I thought the word "are" is present tense? Or is this going to turn into some kind of presidential debate?


I think some people are trying to make something of the fact that the "those acting in concert" somehow indicates a specific point in time. The injunction should be seen as a "status." That is, until the law is changed (by the Congress or the Supreme Court), E* has a permanent barrier to doing something. The "acting in concert" is a continuous evaluation. Whatever day it is you check to see if E* or their stooges are using the license. Any attempt to read in freezing the reference point to the date of issue is beyond silly. Injunctions by their very nature are prospective (forward looking). The court says to the party - "You shall not do X." Sometimes you can have a mandatory (as in "mandate") in which the court says "You shall do X." - but those are uncommon and not relevant here. Although the court of appeals instruction to Judge D. was mandatory in two senses 1. It was required by law and 2. It was an order to do something.


----------



## makman

I think this will get struck down by the judge. I don't think it will get struck down by tomorrow. I think that if and when the new legislation is passed, NPS will have a new (and now legal) customer base.

Mitch


----------



## Darkman

Time will show i guess...


----------



## whatchel1

In concert would mean that the company is part of E* or working for E*. NPS doesn't qualify as in concert. Reason is they are buying space from E*. That means they are separate from E*. Which means they have the right to buy the customer base from E* and offer their services to that base outside of E*. Then all that E* has to do is drop the price that is charged to their customers to off set the new service that the customers will pay to NPS. This way neither are in violation of the injunction. Also most likely NPS will not offer the same stations thst E* was selling them so it isn't the same package. NPS did offer to C-band the Denver 5 as well as other cities on the E coast. So if you were getting the NY stations you will be offered another E coast set of stations from say Miami. On the W. coast the stations offered could be San Francisco or Seattle instead of LA. To stop this it would mean that a new injunction would have to be issued against NPS to stop delivery to then customer base. Which if I remember correctly they have already compiled with the law and can't be enjoined to stop carriage of their stations.


----------



## JohnH

Will the court tell NPS it cannot provide Distants? NO

Will the court tell NPS they cannot lease satellite space? NO

Will the court tell NPS they cannot procure data services for system administration? NO

Will the court tell EchoStar they cannot lease their capacity to someone else? NO

Is there a paper trail to prove the "concert" thing???

Acquiring the database from EchoStar would constitute a "concert" of sorts. That would be a questionable move if this is to pass the totally separate thingy.

Rumor is it may be Atlanta and San Francisco.


----------



## kstuart

Of course, we have seen many times that legal issues are overlooked by humans acting on their emotions, whether or not they are judges.

We saw that the Judge disregarded the fact that there were no legal impediments to allowing an extension in order to avoid negative impacts on innocent parties - namely, the customers.

So, even if this NPS scheme has no direct financial benefit to E* and thus is only a convenience to E* customers, nevertheless it seems likely that the Judge will act against it. However, that action could likely be overturned on appeal.

PS *James* - I assume that your system does not have access to the "Exhibits" ? It would be interesting to read the letters from NPS to the Networks announcing their intent to broadcast Distant Networks.


----------



## whatchel1

The mailing list doesn't have to come from E* they can buy it from another party that distributes to E* customers. Dish has sold it to others in the past and that is the most likely place that NPS will go to get it. You just need a marketing mind to realize that any list that came from E* would be suspect. Why would E* sell to a "competitor"? Beginning to think that maybe E* will do this and and "get" out of the distant nets business. Then if they are no longer supplying distant nets to their customers why would they have to comply with the injunction or put up the $20 m. They can just have the agreement with other providers and not even have to sell to anyone outside of the legal DMA's. This also means that before long almost everyone that gets nets via sat may be contacted by NPS to come over to them. I would love this in that I might be able to buy a net from some other place as long as I also had the locals on my E* program pack. I would jump in a hot second to be able to get HD's out of say Atalanta or Dallas instead of the dorkie locals I have here. In fact that would allow me to record OTA and national HD at the same time w/ no conflict. Like I said you have to think of marketing not legal here.


----------



## Boba Fett

Could this be Dish related ? It was on the NPS web site. http://www.callnps.com/

https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/


----------



## Greg Bimson

kstuart said:


> We saw that the Judge disregarded the fact that there were no legal impediments to allowing an extension in order to avoid negative impacts on innocent parties - namely, the customers.


Uh, we saw that there were no "legal" impediments to have Dish Network terminate their subscriber base by 1 December. This had less to do with the subscribers and more to do with Echostar wishing to continually extend their use of distant networks.

If Dish Network can terminate CBS stations owned by Viacom three years ago overnight, they certainly can comply with the distant network cut-off.


kstuart said:


> So, even if this NPS scheme has no direct financial benefit to E* and thus is only a convenience to E* customers, nevertheless it seems likely that the Judge will act against it.


This NPS scheme has a direct financial benefit to Dish Network. Dish Network is receiving compensation for leasing the transponder to NPS.


----------



## whatchel1

Boba Fett said:


> Could this be Dish related ? It was on the NPS web site. http://www.callnps.com/
> 
> https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/


See the marketing is already to pull the trigger starting tomorrow. I know I will call them I used to be one of there C-band dealers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Just playing devil's advocate...

Say a registered sex offender lives in the neighborhood. By law he is prevented from being alone with any children, and cannot have them in his home. So... let's say he has a 4 bedroom home, and he leases one of the rooms to a tennant who happens to have a child. Once local law enforcement gets wind of this, do you really think they would permit such a living arrangement?

By comparison... if Dish is to be legally prevented from offering distants... it would seem that leasing their transponder to another company for the express purpose of offering distants that would be viewable by Dish customers on Dish equipment... is a slippery legal slope.


----------



## James Long

joblo said:


> Thanks, as always, James, for providing the court documents.
> 
> Are the attached exhibits available?


Yes. The key document is marked confidential and propriatary ... it gives the price that NPS is paying per month for that transponder, the rate for temporary space at an E* uplink (for three months) and other rules of the deal.

NPS does not have to offer distants under the contract - although distants are discussed. It is their transponder to do with as they please. There is a lot of separation in the contract ... phrases where "the customer" (NPS) is entirely responsible for choosing, gathering, uplinking and selling whatever content they want to. All E* has to do is keep the transponder working.

What NPS is not getting is access to customer lists and marketing information. They apparently have to find their own customers. Perhaps they will put up a free to air channels promoting their service at some point. They have the room.

BTW: The contract took effect yesterday.


JohnH said:


> NPS is uniquely qualified to offer this service. They have been selling Distant Networks on C band for years and already have a qualification system in place. They also are not the C band provider which is owned by EchoStar.


Their history certainly helps the argument ... this isn't a shell created to play games.


dave1234 said:


> Sounds like CBS is trying to make a preemptive strike.


Don't miss the "et al". This case has been named CBS et al since it began. The motion was filed on behalf of ALL parties against E*, not just CBS.


kstuart said:


> PS *James* - I assume that your system does not have access to the "Exhibits" ? It would be interesting to read the letters from NPS to the Networks announcing their intent to broadcast Distant Networks.


It has them all ... but even though it was filed with the court as a public document I'd rather not publish something marked confidential and proprietary so the contract itself is out. I've attached their notification letter.

I will give NPS credit. THEY provided the platntiffs with a copy of the contract. They told the plaintiffs of their plans. NPS is not hiding this action.


----------



## Darkman

Maybe soon we will need a separate Sub-Forum for the NPS then  :lol:

Same as we have one for Sky Angel here:
http://www.dbstalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=60&f=77


----------



## Tower Guy

James Long said:


> This isn't a shell created to play games.


If that is true, then NPS must provide the receiver authorization and guide information with no help whatsoever from Echostar. If it works that way I'd be surprised.


----------



## Shellback X 23

Greg Bimson said:


> If Dish Network can terminate CBS stations owned by Viacom three years ago overnight, they certainly can comply with the distant network cut-off.This NPS scheme has a direct financial benefit to Dish Network. Dish Network is receiving compensation for leasing the transponder to NPS.


My DNS, with RV Waiver, (NYC & DEN) went bye bye yesterday. Time will tell about getting them back on 119 via another "Provider". I get LIL at my winter location but have never subscribed to LIL's at my summer location as they are on 148.


----------



## derwin0

Boba Fett said:


> Could this be Dish related ? It was on the NPS web site. http://www.callnps.com/
> 
> https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/


Right now it says


www.mydistantnetworks.com said:


> Please come back Friday, December 1st, 2006 to process your Distant Network order. Site will be available on that day.


 Be interesting to see what's there tomorrow.


----------



## minnow

HDMe said:


> Just playing devil's advocate...
> 
> Say a registered sex offender lives in the neighborhood. By law he is prevented from being alone with any children, and cannot have them in his home. So... let's say he has a 4 bedroom home, and he leases one of the rooms to a tennant who happens to have a child. Once local law enforcement gets wind of this, do you really think they would permit such a living arrangement?
> 
> By comparison... if Dish is to be legally prevented from offering distants... it would seem that leasing their transponder to another company for the express purpose of offering distants that would be viewable by Dish customers on Dish equipment... is a slippery legal slope.


Wow that metaphor is a real stretch. Next we'll read the one about two trains leave the opposite coast at the same time ........


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I honestly don't care a whole lot, since I do not have nor want distant networks since I like my locals just fine... though I do empathise with folks who need distants and even some of the folks who just want them even without need.

But I just think this is a slippery loophole slope to tread unless Dish wants to keep the legal system agitated. I don't see how any longterm good can come from continuing to call attention to themselves on this particular issue. Better to take the punishment, and let it go... though I don't think the punishment is 100% fair since honest customers are hurt as much as customers who should never have had distants.


----------



## jc17981

Is it possible that, in their greed, the network affilliates may have shot themselves in their feet?

What I am thinking is that, if this flies, there may be quite a few "unserved" households that are all of sudden eligible for DNS.

According to the SHVERA...

You also may be eligible to receive distant signals because you reside in an “unserved household.” If your satellite carrier does not offer local-into-local service in your market and if you cannot receive broadcast stations over-the-air, you may be considered an “unserved household.”

If I am correct in what I have read so far, this would be another satellite carrier, and will not be carrying any LIL channels. Thus, they would be able to provide DNS to viewers that currently can not receive them due to LIL being provided.

Does this sound like a possibility?


----------



## lamp525

Boba Fett said:


> Could this be Dish related ? It was on the NPS web site. http://www.callnps.com/
> 
> https://www.mydistantnetworks.com/


When I click on questions it sends me to GMail..Does this mean that anybody that wants to spend the money can get distant local channels??


----------



## oldave

lamp525 said:


> Does this mean that anybody that wants to spend the money can get distant local channels??


Not to be too much of a cynic, but with enough money, you can receive any television station you want to view. From solutions as simple as a Slingbox and dedicated receiver in the city of your choice to a fiber feed from the city of choice, there are myriad options. All it takes is money.


----------



## joblo

jc17981 said:


> they would be able to provide DNS to viewers that currently can not receive them due to LIL being provided.
> 
> Does this sound like a possibility?


Oh yes&#8230;. JohnH and I already commented about this on page 1 of this thread.

Indeed, ironically, for NPS to have any chance of success in its claim not to be acting "in concert" w/E*, it cannot tie its services to E* services in any way, not w/r/t LIL or any other E* package.

A further irony for me is that it was actually Greg Bimson who gave me the first clue, some months back, that this might be E*'s ace in the hole. As part of his never-ending and tireless effort to Educate the Great Unwashed about the Evils of Statutory Licensing, I remember him writing, in another forum, something to the effect that "I could start up BimsonStar tomorrow and provide DNS without any consent from any broadcaster whatsoever." And a light bulb went on, and I thought about SA and USSB, etc&#8230;.

But I sat on my hands, and I didn't post, 'cuz I figured the less advance public speculation about this possibility, the better&#8230;.

And now there are literally hundreds of posts in that same other forum debating the legality of this scheme, most from people who haven't read even one page of the relevant legal documents.

I'll make no prediction whether this scheme will fly with the courts or not, but I will say that nobody should be terribly surprised ("shocked, Shocked, SHOCKED" ) that E* is trying this gambit.



James Long said:


> It is their transponder to do with as they please.
> [&#8230;]
> Perhaps they will put up a free to air channels promoting their service at some point. They have the room.


It certainly does look like the LA distants will be moving to spotbeam very soon, however.



lamp525 said:


> Does this mean that anybody that wants to spend the money can get distant local channels??


Only if "anybody" spends the money on "moving expenses"&#8230;.


----------



## James Long

Tower Guy said:


> If that is true, then NPS must provide the receiver authorization and guide information with no help whatsoever from Echostar. If it works that way I'd be surprised.


It looks like it will be as separate as SkyAngel.

Whether or not that is separate enough is a good question. E* seems to be confident that the way they are doing this is legit. I've attached their initial response.

Sorry for the delay. It has been a long week at work.


----------



## oldave

It's interesting that if I start up DaveStar tomorrow, and purchase transponder space from DirecTV/News Corp, there would be no issue. However, if I buy that transponder space from Echostar, I'd be in contempt?

Seems like the court directing who I may buy from (you can buy satellite transponder space from anybody you choose... except Echostar), which strikes me as problematic from a legal standpoint.

What I do with that transponder space would be entirely up to me. What I uplink, who I choose to sell it to, etc. 

Lately, I've wondered which of the "Big 4" networks is going to be first to break ranks and re-write their affiliation contracts to stipulate that anybody who wants it can buy the network via satellite, without waivers from the local affiliate... 

With the exception of local news/weather/sports (which some stations make no pretense of providing), there's no longer a valid reason that the "local broadcast station" paradigm makes sense anymore, especially considering the vehemence many here displayed in another thread regarding emergency/weather information.

I realize that the last two paragraphs are off topic to this thread... so I'll start a new topic about that


----------



## James Long

oldave said:


> It's interesting that if I start up DaveStar tomorrow, and purchase transponder space from DirecTV/News Corp, there would be no issue. However, if I buy that transponder space from Echostar, I'd be in contempt?


That is part of E*'s argument, including USSB leasing transponders from DirecTV in the past (although USSB held the license, similar to SkyAngel). It would be cleaner if "DaveStar" had an FCC transponder license.

SkyAngel initially launched on 119° on E*'s licensed transponders before they moved to their licensed space on 61.5°.


----------



## oldave

James Long said:


> That is part of E*'s argument, including USSB leasing transponders from DirecTV in the past (although USSB held the license, similar to SkyAngel). It would be cleaner if "DaveStar" had an FCC transponder license.
> 
> SkyAngel initially launched on 119° on E*'s licensed transponders before they moved to their licensed space on 61.5°.


But faster and more convenient if I don't have to apply for one.

Look, I can ride to Atlanta in the morning, lay some cash on somebody's desk, and in 10 minutes, I have an LMA on their radio and/or TV station, programming whatever I want to program.

And I can lay some cash on DirecTV... or Loral... or whoever is operating satellites... and transmit the "Paint Drying Channel" if I choose. Or even lay that cash on Echostar and have the same privilege...

However, if I choose to make deals with Viacom, Disney, GE and News Corp to carry their respective "broadcast networks," I'm in contempt of court if I bought the space from Echostar... but I'm not in contempt if I buy it from anybody else.

If that's the case, then the court might as well go ahead and charge me with contempt... and trust that the feeling's mutual.


----------



## James Long

A reminder that a satellite provider does not need the permission of the channels it carries as a distant channel. There is no contract required between NPS and the stations or network (and if one exists it is likely in conflict with the network affiliate contract).

For the legal minded: NPS is uplinking San Fransisco and Atlanta? A station cannot be offered as a distant within it's own market --- so no Atlanta distants within the Atlanta DMA (not a big deal since Atlanta locals are available from other carriers). In the San Fransisco DMA NPS cannot offer SF distants --- but in white areas or if waivered they could offer Atlanta distants. If NPS decided to offer SF in SF they would have to do it under the locals laws (which would be a big pain).


----------



## joblo

James Long said:


> It would be cleaner if "DaveStar" had an FCC transponder license.


I agree. This is the one thing that concerned me with this idea after reading about BimsonStar: does this fly using E*'s FCC licenses?

Now another question:

E*'s filing seems to indicate that its agreement w/NPS precludes E* from offering DNS to any current or future E* subs, now or in the future. If so, does this render S4067 moot?

Btw, I really can't see any reason at this point not to go ahead and post the "confidential" documents, since E* seems to have revealed most of the salient points; not to mention that NPS seems to have broken the confidentiality itself when it gave the document to the nets. But if you still have reservations about posting the whole thing, could you shed some light on the issue of the agreement as it might affect S4067? (The passage of which, as of this writing, E* is still pushing for on channel 240, btw.)

Edit:



James Long said:


> A station cannot be offered as a distant within it's own market


True, and an interesting point, given that NPS is reportedly planning to market these channels only as E/W pairs.


----------



## BobS

joblo said:


> A further irony for me is that it was actually Greg Bimson who gave me the first clue, some months back, that this might be E*'s ace in the hole. As part of his never-ending and tireless effort to Educate the Great Unwashed about the Evils of Statutory Licensing, I remember him writing, in another forum, something to the effect that "I could start up BimsonStar tomorrow and provide DNS without any consent from any broadcaster whatsoever." And a light bulb went on, and I thought about SA and USSB, etc&#8230;.


I don't think he meant to suggest that this was feasible but rather was using a hypothetical to demonstrate the power of the statutory license. So your suggestion that he though it "evil" is misplaced. Of course, if Mr. B wants to say otherwise then I'm in error. Not to fight the last battle again but there still are restrictions on retransmission of distant signals without consent. I assume that those limitations are implicit in the comments about this issue.


----------



## joblo

BobS said:


> I don't think [Greg Bimson] meant to suggest that this was feasible


Oh, I'm quite sure he didn't mean that....

Hence the "irony"....

:lol:


----------



## BobS

Not a chance. Unserved status has nothing to do with LIL. Unserved is defined in terms of OTA and is used to determine DNS eligibility. Simply because a DBS has chosen not to offer your locals does not make you unserved. The logic of this is clear - minimize stepping on localism and encourage DBS to get locals up and running as quickly as possible. If you permit DNS to be used as a substitute for LIL (like the Leahy bill), the incentive evaporates. Returning to basics - DNS was developed to provide network programming to those who would otherwise would have none. It is not a tool to pick and choose your fav stations from "the big city" or avoid sports restrictions by tuning into the local signal. If LIL is available (forgetting the rare exceptions) then the 17 USC 119 license doesn't apply. I assure you that some semantic argument over getting DNS from a "different" company that doesn't offer locals is not going to prevail. Statutory interpretation ain't beanbag and reading the text of one section of one statute may be satisfying but is meaningless.



jc17981 said:


> Is it possible that, in their greed, the network affilliates may have shot themselves in their feet?
> 
> What I am thinking is that, if this flies, there may be quite a few "unserved" households that are all of sudden eligible for DNS.
> 
> According to the SHVERA...
> 
> You also may be eligible to receive distant signals because you reside in an "unserved household." If your satellite carrier does not offer local-into-local service in your market and if you cannot receive broadcast stations over-the-air, you may be considered an "unserved household."
> 
> If I am correct in what I have read so far, this would be another satellite carrier, and will not be carrying any LIL channels. Thus, they would be able to provide DNS to viewers that currently can not receive them due to LIL being provided.
> 
> Does this sound like a possibility?


----------



## James Long

joblo said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> A station cannot be offered as a distant within it's own market
> 
> 
> 
> True, and an interesting point, given that NPS is reportedly planning to market these channels only as E/W pairs.
Click to expand...

If I were NPS I'd probably avoid those two markets ... but they could do an "east only" or "west only" sale within those markets if they wanted to.

NPS can only sell to white areas and the waivered anyways. How much white area exists in those two markets?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

oldave said:


> It's interesting that if I start up DaveStar tomorrow, and purchase transponder space from DirecTV/News Corp, there would be no issue. However, if I buy that transponder space from Echostar, I'd be in contempt?


On the surface it seems that way to me too... however, consider this...

You want to get into the cigarette distribution business. Company A and Company B are existing distribution companies that regularly sell & distribute cigarettes and other items to customers all over the country, and they also have extra trucks available for rent to enterprising folks like yourself.

You can rent trucks from Company A or Company B to deliver your goods. BUT... Company A just recently was found guilty of trafficking in illegal substances across borders and has lost their rights to distribute those same substances. Wouldn't it be a little suspicious if you suddenly rented trucks from Company A and wanted to use those trucks to distribute cigarettes to the same customer-base they were just found guilty of violating the law in distributing to?

Not saying distants are evil... or claiming to know all there is to know about law... but it seems to me that IF this sort of thing was allowed to fly with Dish as a workaround for their punishment... then the whole law becomes a moot point as it literally becomes unenforcable... in which case retroactively why even punish Dish for violating it when they can this easily get around it?


----------



## rtd2

makman said:


> I think this will get struck down by the judge. I* don't think it will get struck down by tomorrow*. I think that if and when the new legislation is passed, NPS will have a new (and now legal) customer base.
> 
> Mitch


EXACTLY! Dish ask for april to Delay the injunction and it was DENIED. this is Dish's way to BUY more time till the legislators can get back hard at work  and get a LAW signed that trumphs the kagaroo courts order to shut these channels down! Its 12:35AM *DEC. 1st *and ALL my DNS channels (Fox,Cbs,Abc and Nbc) are STILL on (east and west feeds) Waiting in the WHITE AREA on the Kill signal to hit at any second


----------



## BobS

oldave said:


> But faster and more convenient if I don't have to apply for one.
> 
> Look, I can ride to Atlanta in the morning, lay some cash on somebody's desk, and in 10 minutes, I have an LMA on their radio and/or TV station, programming whatever I want to program.
> 
> And I can lay some cash on DirecTV... or Loral... or whoever is operating satellites... and transmit the "Paint Drying Channel" if I choose. Or even lay that cash on Echostar and have the same privilege...
> 
> However, if I choose to make deals with Viacom, Disney, GE and News Corp to carry their respective "broadcast networks," I'm in contempt of court if I bought the space from Echostar... but I'm not in contempt if I buy it from anybody else.
> 
> If that's the case, then the court might as well go ahead and charge me with contempt... and trust that the feeling's mutual.


You can make any deal you care to and as long as you don't use the 17 USC 119 license, all is well. So go forth and negotiate. If you are successful, E* would be more than happy (and authorized) to beam network signals out the wazoo. You don't even have to make a pretense of being separate. DNS alone is not a viable service. What receiver is being used? Using a Dish receiver is obvious collusion.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> Not a chance. Unserved status has nothing to do with LIL.


If your satellite carrier has your local market's stations you are not unserved. This doesn't transfer between carriers (for example the availability of a local market on E* does not affect D* or NPS) but it CERTAINLY affects your status on your own satellite carrier.

IE: If you subscribe to E* or cable for locals it doesn't stop D* from serving you distants. But if D* has locals in your market they _cannot_ serve you distants (unless grandfathered in Dec 2004).


BobS said:


> Simply because a DBS has chosen not to offer your locals does not make you unserved.


But the opposite is true and more important. A satellite carrier that provides locals in a market cannot provide distants in that market to new customers. A customer signing up for D* service today in a D* local served market is not "unserved" regardless of OTA reception.


BobS said:


> If LIL is available (forgetting the rare exceptions) then the 17 USC 119 license doesn't apply. I assure you that some semantic argument over getting DNS from a "different" company that doesn't offer locals is not going to prevail.


NPS being separate only has to worry about OTA "unserved". One having locals available via cable or another satellite carrier does not affect their right to provide distant feeds under 17 USC 119.

If any of this agrees with you that is good!


----------



## joblo

rtd2 said:


> Its 12:35AM *DEC. 1st *and ALL my DNS channels (Fox,Cbs,Abc and Nbc) are STILL on (east and west feeds)


Your location says Mississippi. Are you sure your clock is set correctly? 



James Long said:


> How much white area exists in those two markets?


SF had at least one zip that was white for all nets when I checked a few years ago.

Never checked Hotlanta, but Clay County, NC and northern GA are definitely mountainous areas, so white areas are likely there. Certainly couldn't get much on the FM radio when I drove through there a few years ago.

You didn't answer my question re the E*/NPS agreement's impact on S.4067. It does occur to me that that bill will still be necessary to restore SV and the special cases in certain states, but is that all it will do at this point?

Has E* really agreed never to sell NY/LA distants again once NPS begins operation, even if Congress restores its license?


----------



## rtd2

James Long said:


> If your satellite carrier has your local market's stations you are not unserved. This doesn't transfer between carriers (for example the availability of a local market on E* does not affect D* or NPS) but it CERTAINLY affects your status on your own satellite carrier.
> 
> IE: If you subscribe to E* or cable for locals it doesn't stop D* from serving you distants. But if D* has locals in your market they _cannot_ serve you distants (unless grandfathered in Dec 2004).But the opposite is true and more important. A satellite carrier that provides locals in a market cannot provide distants in that market to new customers. A customer signing up for D* service today in a D* local served market is not* "unserved" regardless of OTA reception*.NPS being separate only has to worry about OTA "unserved". One having locals available via cable or another satellite carrier does not affect their right to provide distant feeds under 17 USC 119.
> 
> If any of this agrees with you that is good!


How does this apply to those of us in the WHITE areas> According to Antenna web the ONLY 2 channels in my Local DMA (ABC,FOX)are carried by cable & have a grade "c" OTA rating
The rest of the networks (CW,CBS,NBC) are out of state BUT are avail. on local cable.I'd much rather STAY in the white and KEEP DNS than HAVE local I can get cheap on Basic cable. BTW I'm in Gulfport/Biloxi Market


----------



## James Long

joblo said:


> You didn't answer my question re the E*/NPS agreement's impact on S.4067. It does occur to me that that bill will still be necessary to restore SV and the special cases in certain states, but is that all it will do at this point?


I don't hold out hope that S.4067 will do anything - perhaps the next incarnation will. If passed as is it would restore SV as well as give E* permission to sell distants under the more restrictive "17 USC 119A" (one distant per network, distant not available if there is a local carried or SV available).

Restoring SVs and special cases is important. Perhaps the lost of the special stations will move Congress to action. Two years after crafting those stations into the law is too early to lose them.


joblo said:


> Has E* really agreed never to sell NY/LA distants again once NPS begins operation, even if Congress restores its license?


I don't see a non-compete in the agreement with NPS. NPS is free to carry any channel for any price that they want. E* has no editorial control. (If NPS wanted to offer a $10 "Family Pack" of twelve channels instead of distants they could.)

Should E* regain the right to transmit distants they can. NPS can compete or move on to other programming. It is their transponder to do with as they please.


----------



## rtd2

joblo said:


> Your location says Mississippi. Are you sure your clock is set correctly?
> 
> SF had at least one zip that was white for all nets when I checked a few years ago.
> 
> Never checked Hotlanta, but Clay County, NC and northern GA are definitely mountainous areas, so white areas are likely there. Certainly couldn't get much on the FM radio when I drove through there a few years ago.
> 
> You didn't answer my question re the E*/NPS agreement's impact on S.4067. It does occur to me that that bill will still be necessary to restore SV and the special cases in certain states, but is that all it will do at this point?
> 
> Has E* really agreed never to sell NY/LA distants again once NPS begins operation, even if Congress restores its license?


OPPS NO!:blush: its 1 hr. FAST ....Stupid Daylight savings STILL got me Screwed up :icon_stup BUT NOW its OFFICIALLY 12:06 AM CDT and I'm WATCHING/listening to ER on 24s NBC-WEST :joy:


----------



## James Long

rtd2 said:


> How does this apply to those of us in the WHITE areas> According to Antenna web the ONLY 2 channels in my Local DMA (ABC,FOX)are carried by cable & have a grade "c" OTA rating
> The rest of the networks (CW,CBS,NBC) are out of state BUT are avail. on local cable.I'd much rather STAY in the white and KEEP DNS than HAVE local I can get cheap on Basic cable. BTW I'm in Gulfport/Biloxi Market


E* is done with distants thanks to the injunction.

NPS should be able to help you once they start selling their service.


----------



## BobS

James Long said:


> If your satellite carrier has your local market's stations you are not unserved. This doesn't transfer between carriers (for example the availability of a local market on E* does not affect D* or NPS) but it CERTAINLY affects your status on your own satellite carrier.


Not true. These are two different things (albeit with little practical impact). For instance - if you are outside grade B but have LIL - you are still "unserved" by definition but are blocked from receiving DNS by operation of another section of the law. If you are not "unserved" and LIL is available then you can go OTA, cable, DBS as you choose and DNS is not available (leaving out the SV question). If you are not "unserved" and LIL is not available then you go OTA or cable or seek a waiver. If you are unserved and there is no LIL then DNS is available (except for E* now). The important thing to note is that even if LIL is up and running if you (in some really unusual situation) cannot receive the signal then DNS is not LIL-blocked but may be via the served/unserved dichotomy. The only way I see this happening is if you live next to a cliff with your locals in the sky on the cliff-side and opposite to a DNS satellite.



James Long said:


> IE: If you subscribe to E* or cable for locals it doesn't stop D* from serving you distants. But if D* has locals in your market they _cannot_ serve you distants (unless grandfathered in Dec 2004).But the opposite is true and more important. A satellite carrier that provides locals in a market cannot provide distants in that market to new customers. A customer signing up for D* service today in a D* local served market is not "unserved" regardless of OTA reception.NPS being separate only has to worry about OTA "unserved". One having locals available via cable or another satellite carrier does not affect their right to provide distant feeds under 17 USC 119.


I disagree. If you are receiving (or is available) LIL from any DBS then DNS is not available (except for the cliff situation above). Now I haven't read the cable section closely (17 USC 111?) but cable is really a different animal and I don't see why you are not right on this point. In other words, you can play the DNS game by adding cable but you cannot via another DBS. How often does a cable company run past homes that are beyond grade B? I would think the low density would prohibit it but who knows?



James Long said:


> If any of this agrees with you that is good!



I'm agreeable. I am just stating my analysis based upon what I know (or at least think I know). I just don't see anything in the law that lets you do an end run by using multiple DBS companies. If there were, say 10 DBS providers, and you had DNS eligibility could each one provide 2 different of each network so that you had 20x ABC (NY, LA, CHI, ATL, DFW, MSP, MIA, PHX, DET, BOS....)? This of course assumes being in the footprint and that your name is Bill Gates, Jr. (even DNS $ adds up quickly)


----------



## rtd2

James Long said:


> E* is done with distants thanks to the injunction.
> 
> NPS should be able to help you once they start selling their service.


Thanx... Guess there web site will be as busy as walmart on black friday!

info. over at Satguys

Starting tommorow December 1st, you will be able (if you qualify) to order Distant Networks at http://www.mydistantnetworks.com

The pricing on Distant Networks are as follows:

For qualified customers, the pricing for the networks will be as follows:

ABC East and West $2.50/month
NBC East and West $2.50/month
CBS East and West $2.50/month
Fox East and West $2.50/month

All 4 Distant Networks (East and West) $9/month (package price)

2.50 PER channel @ 900K subs.uhmm Thats a Buck (1$)PER channel increase.. not as BAD as it Could be...all and all price is FINE. Cant Expect a SMALLER Company to OFFER it for the Same rate! ...I'll be Asking for the PACKAGE east and west coast Just wonder about Waivers? all Mine are over Seven years old Except Fox which is 5 WEEKS old!(Finally got it after atleast 5 denials)


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> The important thing to note is that even if LIL is up and running if you (in some really unusual situation) cannot receive the signal then DNS is not LIL-blocked but may be via the served/unserved dichotomy. The only way I see this happening is if you live next to a cliff with your locals in the sky on the cliff-side and opposite to a DNS satellite.


Some spots do not cover their entire LIL market. In those cases, the "I have LIL" rule that prevents distants is automatically waived. Grade B and the rest of the law still applies.


BobS said:


> I disagree. If you are receiving (or is available) LIL from any DBS then DNS is not available (except for the cliff situation above).


Find that in the law. What one provider provides does not affect the other providers. Under that rule DirecTV could not offer distants in markets where E* offered locals.


BobS said:


> How often does a cable company run past homes that are beyond grade B? I would think the low density would prohibit it but who knows?


Cable operations could be entirely outside of the Grade B coverage. The SV list that was originally created for them was a way for stations to force their way onto cable systems in communities where they might not get carried based on signal strength issues, but cable is much more free to carry what they receive than satellite is.


BobS said:


> I just don't see anything in the law that lets you do an end run by using multiple DBS companies. If there were, say 10 DBS providers, and you had DNS eligibility could each one provide 2 different of each network so that you had 20x ABC (NY, LA, CHI, ATL, DFW, MSP, MIA, PHX, DET, BOS....)? This of course assumes being in the footprint and that your name is Bill Gates, Jr. (even DNS $ adds up quickly)


I don't see anything in the law that would prevent it.

Prior to today (just talking DBS) one could sign up with D* and get two distant cities, sign up with E* and get two distant cities. The law says a satellite carrier can _provide_ no more than two stations of a network within the same day. It doesn't restrict the customer from receiving service from more than one company.


----------



## James Long

joblo said:


> That's why, contrary to popular belief, "moving" is not illegal, per se, and why individuals have no "right" to DNS, even in white areas with no LIL service from anybody. (Again contrary to popular belief.)


"Moving" is contract fraud. When one signs up for service they say that they will be using the service at the service address. Movers lie to the carrier to cause them to violate 17 USC 119 and/or 17 USC 122 and provide channels they are not permitted to offer.

Think of it as using fake ID to buy cigarettes or booze. There is probably some law against posessing false identification which would not be enforced unless that identification was presented to the government (such as a police officer or poll worker, amongst others). The law would crack down harsher on the seller of the restricted item --- regardless of the quality of the fake ID. The seller sold something to someone they were not legally allowed to serve.

(Although why distants keep getting compared to vices is interesting.)

Lying on a contract could be taken to court. It would be interesting to see the outcome of such a case related to a "mover". Would the court understand the concept?


----------



## joblo

In the interest of avoiding a rehash of an old debate, the following is a slightly revised version of a previous, now deleted, post.



BobS said:


> If there were, say 10 DBS providers, and you had DNS eligibility could each one provide 2 different of each network so that you had 20x ABC (NY, LA, CHI, ATL, DFW, MSP, MIA, PHX, DET, BOS....)?


Yes, absolutely. Your interpretation is dead wrong on this point.

I mean, seriously, think about this. By your interpretation, D* would be forbidden from offering DNS in any area once E* began offering LIL and vice-versa. That's nonsensical. Each company's channel offerings would be at the mercy of all other carriers' contracts. Nobody could do business that way.



> I just don't see anything in the law that lets you do an end run by using multiple DBS companies.


It's not an end run at all, because SHVA and its descendants govern the behavior of carriers, not subscribers, a point many people simply refuse to understand. That's why, contrary to popular belief, individuals have no "right" to DNS, even in white areas with no LIL service from anybody.


----------



## James Long

Sure, cut out the part I replied to ... 

If anyone wants to recook that debate we can start a new thread next week. Too busy to get into it now.


----------



## joblo

Well, hey, James, you can follow suit and delete your reply also, and this one, or you can leave it in. I'm not trying to sneak one by you or anything, but we're not going to agree, so why rehash that debate? I didn't need that line to make my point, so I took it out.

Sorry, I should have known better than to go there in the first place…..

But you're the mod, not me, so you're the one that will have to police the thread integrity if it degenerates. However you handle it is fine by me.....


----------



## kstuart

I've been thinking about the debate over NPS, and it boils down to the usual situation of both sides being right. The reason for that being true, is that the penalty for E*'s violation of the law regarding Distants service is nonsensical.

E* is a business. A penalty would be a large financial fine. Such a penalty would only affect E*.

However, the permanent injunction preventing E*'s Distants service goes far beyond that, in that it a) penalizes E*'s customers, and b) rewards E*'s competitors - neither of which is a sensible response to the "crime" by the courts. The fact that the Judge characterized E*'s $100 million dollar offer as "trying to buy your way out of the situation" rather than as a penalty, shows his shockingly limited grasp of business and finance.

Having to change service to DirecTV (to continue to receive Distants) would be a significant difficulty and inconvenience for me (just as an example). There is a tree in the way of 101 from my current dish, so a new one would need to be installed. Then I would need to learn how to use different receivers and remotes, and I would have to recreate the many timers on my two DVR receivers. There would also be the issues of possibly missing some channels only found on E*, as well as possible increased cost for the same channel lineup. Thus, a significant penalty to customers exists in terms of both time and money due to the injunction.

The Judge's refusal to even delay the implementation also shows his callous disregard for the innocent parties - the customers. For example, in my area, Distants are turned off, but installers have not yet arrived in the area to do installations of second dishes (that are required for LIL). It's also a very difficult time of year for installing anything, whether OTA antenna or second dish or even a cable feed (see my avatar).


----------



## James Long

When congress wrote the death penalties they probably thought that no company would ever want to get to the point of having it applied. It took E* eight years to get there ... a settlement a few years ago would have been a lot more impressive than after an appeals court had to MANDATE that the local court issue the injunction per the law.

The judge has granted his fair share of delays ... I've only been interested since August (when the actual turn off of channels appeared to be a reality instead of just another line in an old continuing case). Since then instead of immediately issuing the injunction (which would have been before the settlement) he gave E* one more chance to defend itself. E*'s defense was a last second settlement with all but one party and claims of unfairness that the final party didn't settle.

The injunction was issued two months after the mandate, and it was given an effective date far enough away to notify customers and make other arrangements. Delays put in by the judge. He could have delayed until April ... or accepted the settlement (just to be shot down by the appeals court for not following the mandate). The only step left for now is the Supreme Court where arguments have yet to be scheduled.

Sure, this court decision hurts customers - but the law provides for this penalty. The only bar in town doesn't get to keep it's liquor license just because it is inconvenient for customers to go elsewhere. Leahy's late bill might change the landscape to protect customers --- but Congress decided the penalty was appropriate.

It is a shame that NPS did not start service earlier ... perhaps in August. It would have given customers a transition period instead of a cold shutoff.


----------



## joblo

There wasn't a clear business opportunity for NPS until the injunction became a certainty.


----------



## ckinninger

Wow! Nice move Charlie! 

This should fly. NPS is qualified and not E*. It's E*'s space but they don't sell the DNS. Like E* provides networks on some satelltes they lease as well.

Nice deal for a struggling NPS company as well. E* will lose a couple dollars on DNS sales but not many customers. Customers won't be stuck with receivers that can't get networks. Win.. Win. 

Direct should be happy about this since E* won't sell DNS... Or will they be saddened because they won't take any desperate customers away from the competition?

CK


----------



## garys

I tried the website this morning and was informed I could not get distants. Then I received this email.

Due to the overwhelming response to Distant Networks, we are experiencing significant delays with our Network Eligibility & Qualification status. To ensure we establish  the proper qualification & connection requirements for you, we will also need your individual unique satellite receiver # (i.e. smart card or access card #).

Thanks for your patience & understanding. Please allow 7 to 10 days for a response.

Smart Card/Access Card # |________________________|

Email address: |__________________________| needed for us to respond back to you,


----------



## Chris Blount

SkyReport story published this morning:

NPS Aims To Fill DISH Net Breach

EchoStar's loss of 800,000-plus distant net customers could become the National Programming Service's (NPS) gain. As the court-ordered deadline loomed for the company's DISH Network to cut off all distant network signals, NPS's Mike Mountford struck a last-minute deal with the EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen to provide service for the subs left out to dry.

Under the agreement, which is similar to deals that EchoStar has with other programming vendors, NPS would lease a transponder for $150,000 per month. In exchange, the company would be able to sell its distant signal programming to disenfranchised DISH customers that fit the so-called "white area" criteria.

The deal could prove a windfall for NPS which currently has 57,000 C-Band subscribers (an enormously successful C-Band service by today's standards). In order to receive the distant net signals, customers would have to sign up with NPS either through the company's website (http://www.mydistantnetworks.com/) or by phone (800.786.9677). Costs for the signals will range from $2.50/month for one signal to $9/month for all four signals.

Potential customers would need to meet qualification criteria for the service and NPS will handle all customer service operations. Once qualified, a DISH customer would receive the distant networks seamlessly through their DISH equipment.

Late Thursday both the broadcasters and DIRECTV had publicly objected to the NPS scheme, claiming it would violate the injunction against DISH providing distant network services. At press time, an emergency request was pending before Judge William Dimitrouleas, who issued the original injunction.

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## RickD

garys said:


> I tried the website this morning and was informed I could not get distants. Then I received this email.
> 
> Due to the overwhelming response to Distant Networks, we are experiencing significant delays with our Network Eligibility & Qualification status. To ensure we establish the proper qualification & connection requirements for you, we will also need your individual unique satellite receiver # (i.e. smart card or access card #).
> 
> Thanks for your patience & understanding. Please allow 7 to 10 days for a response.
> 
> Smart Card/Access Card # |________________________|
> 
> Email address: |__________________________| needed for us to respond back to you,


I got the same message and tried to reply...Email was sent back to me?


----------



## BobS

Your point about a local spotbeam is well taken although my guess would be that this is a not a frequent occurence. I would think that most spots slop over into neighboring markets (i.e. overlap). I see your argument and interpretation about multiple DBS companies. However there is something about this situation that doesn't look right. I could just be a loophole but I would be willing to concede that if you are DNS-eligible that the mere existence of LIL by a different company would not disqualify you. Although this would be another incentive for the lackadaisical company to get LIL up. However the actual receipt of locals via Company A simultaneously with DNS from Company B flies in the face of logic and the intent of the statutory license. I would not be surprised if a court ruled likewise because it is ridiculous to prohibit DNS and LIL by the same company while permitting it via a split. I guess we shall see. This requires more thought (after another cup of coffee).



James Long said:


> Some spots do not cover their entire LIL market. In those cases, the "I have LIL" rule that prevents distants is automatically waived. Grade B and the rest of the law still applies.Find that in the law. What one provider provides does not affect the other providers. Under that rule DirecTV could not offer distants in markets where E* offered locals.Cable operations could be entirely outside of the Grade B coverage. The SV list that was originally created for them was a way for stations to force their way onto cable systems in communities where they might not get carried based on signal strength issues, but cable is much more free to carry what they receive than satellite is.I don't see anything in the law that would prevent it.
> 
> Prior to today (just talking DBS) one could sign up with D* and get two distant cities, sign up with E* and get two distant cities. The law says a satellite carrier can _provide_ no more than two stations of a network within the same day. It doesn't restrict the customer from receiving service from more than one company.


----------



## Mikey

I've been on the fence for this one until now. E* only gets $150k/month for the lease, and none of the millions that they were getting for providing distants previously. So I think this does pass the stink test, with NPS handling the sub qualifications separately from E*. 

DirecTV is just PO'd because they won't get a windfall from E* defections, and the broadcasters are PO'd because they don't get the $100mil settlement from E*.


----------



## Link

Will customers be billed separately from NPS every month?? I tried some relatives' addresses that I know should qualify for ABC and it says they don't.

I stand corrected. I tried another address and it says they qualify for all four networks and they can enter their credit card information and purchase them now. They should only qualify for ABC but it lists all 4.


----------



## Shellback X 23

I called the 800 number this morning and got turned down as my billing address has LIL. It seams that they have no way, at this time, to handle trucker and RV waivers. I might get to my billing address a couple of days a year if that.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Mikey said:


> I've been on the fence for this one until now. E* only gets $150k/month for the lease, and none of the millions that they were getting for providing distants previously. So I think this does pass the stink test, with NPS handling the sub qualifications separately from E*.


I have a better one for you. I got to thinking about this last night, while away from the computer.

Dish Network must have an active role in providing the distant networks through NPS. The smart card is an Echostar-owned asset, which couldn't possibly be covered in the lease. Whatever assignment of claims is done for leasing and ownership for transponders and uplinks, the entire scheme fails the smell test because NPS will require Echostar's help in some fashion in order to authorize channels. Add to that in order for this arrangement to work that NPS must lease transponder space from Echostar, and you get the idea.

"in active concert".


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> I could just be a loophole but I would be willing to concede that if you are DNS-eligible that the mere existence of LIL by a different company would not disqualify you. Although this would be another incentive for the lackadaisical company to get LIL up. However the actual receipt of locals via Company A simultaneously with DNS from Company B flies in the face of logic and the intent of the statutory license.


It would be unfair to institute such a policy now. How many years have there been two satelliet companies? It is entirely possible for a customer to sign up with D* and get distants and sign up with E* and get locals in a market D* doesn't serve. The 2004 law does not say "if ANY satellite carrier carries locals under 17 USC 122". It is focused ONLY on the carriers as individuals.

Stations may not like it when a satellite carrier carries distants in their markets instead of their local signal. The best response to that is not to grant waivers. That is the biggest incentive to the satellite carriers to cover 100% of the LIL markets. People in white areas in non-LIL markets are only a small portion of people in non-LIL markets.

Follow the logic of enforcement. How would Company B know you were getting locals from Company A? The companies tried this before (not allowing distants to be sold to people who had subscribed to cable within 90 days). The "honor system" didn't work.

The intent of the stautory license is to provide network signals to those who cannot receive them OTA. In 2004 that was clarified to say that your own market's LILs are preferred (by law if not customer) to distant signals, The intent remains on providing network signals to those who cannot receive them OTA.

If the intent of the license was only to provide distants to those who had _no other way_ of seeing the networks it would need to be written differently.


----------



## rocatman

Just for speculation but if NPS is allowed by the courts to offer SD distants as proposed, could they also offer HD distants in a similar manner especially to DMAs that do not have any HD/digital locals??? I think Congress would be all for this because it would be a way to speed up the conversion of local channels to digital/HD. Certainly Dish would still want to provide HD locals to the larger markets but this type of arrangement would bridge the gap until all locals are converted.


----------



## whatchel1

rocatman said:


> Just for speculation but if NPS is allowed by the courts to offer SD distants as proposed, could they also offer HD distants in a similar manner especially to DMAs that do not have any HD/digital locals??? I think Congress would be all for this because it would be a way to speed up the conversion of local channels to digital/HD. Certainly Dish would still want to provide HD locals to the larger markets but this type of arrangement would bridge the gap until all locals are converted.


I have emailed them to ask just that question. I had HD waivers since my local CBS & ABC are LP SD. I want my HD back.


----------



## Larry Caldwell

James Long said:


> NPS is free to carry any channel for any price that they want. E* has no editorial control. (If NPS wanted to offer a $10 "Family Pack" of twelve channels instead of distants they could.)


I would hope that NPS improves the DNS service to include regional DNS feeds. I was dismayed when E* switched from Seattle to LA for distant source on the West Coast. I have a very small DMA, and it took a long time for Dish to provide locals in this area. After being stuck with LA television for several years, I yearned for a PNW news feed.

The ideal distant nets would be regional feeds. If you split the country into half a dozen regions, you could have Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, South, Rocky Mountains, SoCal and PNW feeds.


----------



## Mikey

Greg Bimson said:


> I have a better one for you. I got to thinking about this last night, while away from the computer.
> 
> Dish Network must have an active role in providing the distant networks through NPS. The smart card is an Echostar-owned asset, which couldn't possibly be covered in the lease. Whatever assignment of claims is done for leasing and ownership for transponders and uplinks, the entire scheme fails the smell test because NPS will require Echostar's help in some fashion in order to authorize channels. Add to that in order for this arrangement to work that NPS must lease transponder space from Echostar, and you get the idea.
> 
> "in active concert".


It still seems to me that if:

1. $150K/month is fair market value for a CONUS transponder, and
2. E* isn't getting an under-the-table kickback from NPS,

then this looks like a completely valid transaction, within the guidelines of the court decree. After all, you don't have to buy a receiver from Dish. You can get that from anyone, even e-bay, at whatever price the market decides is fair.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Mikey said:


> then this looks like a completely valid transaction, within the guidelines of the court decree. After all, you don't have to buy a receiver from Dish. You can get that from anyone, even e-bay, at whatever price the market decides is fair.


Did you not read what I wrote?

In order to have access to these channels, you must:
1) qualify, through NPS' qualification, which is Decision Mark
2) then have someone authorize your Dish Network-owned smart card in a Dish Network designed receiver.

However the receiver authorization codes are being worked out, somewhere in this scenario Dish Network MUST help. It is their security system that is being used for authorizations, and therefore, Dish Network is in active concert with NPS in order to deliever distant network programming.


----------



## Mikey

Greg Bimson said:


> Did you not read what I wrote? ...


Okay, Greg, don't get snippy. I read what you wrote and responded with my point of view. If E* doesn't make a profit off this deal with NPS, then I don't see the violation. I don't have any supporting documentation, but I imagine that $150k/month is probably just enough to cover R&D and operations cost on the transponder.


----------



## Link

How is E* telling customers about being able to order on NPS? I know from these forums, but most people probably have no clue.


----------



## BobS

Link said:


> How is E* telling customers about being able to order on NPS? I know from these forums, but most people probably have no clue.


For the purposes of the injunction whether or not E* makes money, loses money or breaks even is not relevant. The "acting in concert" does not necessarily mean a conspiracy to circumvent the injunction. It simply means some sort of cooperation that involves using the 17 USC 119 license. E* is a leper. Any contact that touches upon the licenses is a violation. I think it is axiomatic that use of the E* system that involves CA issues is a no-no and since the law requires a fee of some sort, I think this is a non-starter. I would be working to ensure that a new law meets the legitimate needs of subscribers and promotes competition.


----------



## joblo

BobS said:


> The "acting in concert" does not necessarily mean a conspiracy to circumvent the injunction. It simply means some sort of cooperation that involves using the 17 USC 119 license.


Ok, how about this for "cooperation":

I called AAD today re DNS. They told me they could not find my phone number in the records. They said E* provided them with records of all of their DNS customers, and since they couldn't find my name or number on that list, they could not qualify me for DNS. I suggested we forget about E* and just set up a whole new account. They checked with supervisor and said no. They repeated to me several times that I should contact "my satellite service provider" and tell them to forward my information so they, AAD, could serve me. I repeated the call and went through essentially the same exchange again with a second CSR, supervisor, etc.

Now maybe my "records" were unavailable due to a technical snafu that will be fixed later, but let's consider the implications.

Suppose I got DNS from E* before LIL was available, and legally had both before the injunction. Further suppose that I only cared about broadcast channels, and therefore did not have a base package with E*. In that case, if a new company began offering DNS, I might want to register my displeasure at E*'s behavior by switching to the new company entirely and discontinuing my E* subscription. But if the new company refused to qualify anyone not on a list provided by E*, E* could prevent such defections simply by not telling the new company about any DNS subs that didn't also have an E* base package.

In effect, by controlling the list of subs ADD uses for qualification, E* can restrict AAD to providing supplementary rather than competitive service. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if this meets the legal definition of "acting in concert" or not, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test in my book.


----------



## kstuart

I tried the NPS web site and had the same result as someone else, it said "qualified", yet listed no channels and a total of $0.00 . Calling the phone number seems to be the way to go.

The NPS people said they would submit waivers for me for ABC and CBS (which have a crappy repeater tower that seems to date from the 19th century - I think that the only purpose of the tower is to keep people from qualifying for distants - fortunately I was grandfathered until today).

Overall, very good service at the phone number at the top of the thread, no wait for a phone rep (probably because only Forum readers know about it), no voice mail prompts, phone rep was knowledgeable about all aspects of distants and satellite service. 

Currently some glitches with the service - one Atlanta channel has no sound and the other one has no picture or sound. 

But the NBC and FOX SF stations look good. They seem to have analog grain.


----------



## JohnH

In order to have a concert you must have an orchestration. Who did that?

BTW: NPS is using their own provider code for authorization of this service. Perhaps they are paying a maintenance and services fee as well.

I would not expect any other channel offerings from them for some time.


----------



## JohnH

Link said:


> How is E* telling customers about being able to order on NPS? I know from these forums, but most people probably have no clue.


There was a chat on those extra Distant info channels at midnight Mountain this morning. Probably some other times by now.


----------



## Steve H

Is NPS offering HD or SD olny?


----------



## JohnH

Steve H said:


> Is NPS offering HD or SD olny?


SD only.


----------



## Link

kstuart said:


> I tried the NPS web site and had the same result as someone else, it said "qualified", yet listed no channels and a total of $0.00 . Calling the phone number seems to be the way to go.
> 
> The NPS people said they would submit waivers for me for ABC and CBS (which have a crappy repeater tower that seems to date from the 19th century - I think that the only purpose of the tower is to keep people from qualifying for distants - fortunately I was grandfathered until today).
> 
> Overall, very good service at the phone number at the top of the thread, no wait for a phone rep (probably because only Forum readers know about it), no voice mail prompts, phone rep was knowledgeable about all aspects of distants and satellite service.
> 
> Currently some glitches with the service - one Atlanta channel has no sound and the other one has no picture or sound.
> 
> But the NBC and FOX SF stations look good. They seem to have analog grain.


I wouldn't mind having KTVU 2. It is one of the few large market Fox stations that Fox doesn't own. Instead it is owned by Cox Broadcasting. They also own independent station KICU 36 in the market. KTVU used to be carried on Primestar as the west coast Fox affiliate.


----------



## whatchel1

I've contacted NPS by email to see if they are going to have HD's. I'm out of the HD for both CBS & ABC (had an HD waiver for both and was able to get CBS).


----------



## Steve H

I called NPS and was told I don't qualify................they cannot explain how I was qualified before and not now. I have waviers on file with Dish but NPS tells me those are no longer valid.


----------



## whatchel1

I just shot off an email to [email protected] to see if there can be anything can be done for those of us that have waivers. Not holding my breath that I will get a positive response from either E* or NPS.


----------



## neljtorres

I qualify here in puerto rico paid already but still not up yet!


----------



## kevinab1984

I live here in bluefield, wv and i got them all except CBS wich i had to submit a waiver and they are only billing me $7.50 per month for the 3 adn i have them on all the televisions in the home!! but when i called to submit my waiver they told me that i should only get abc and fox 
but somehow i got fox nbc and abc !!


----------



## harsh

kstuart said:


> And, the main thrust of the complaint is that Echostar's customers will be able to receive the channels without having to change equipment - as if the customers were somehow to blame.


I've heard similar complaints from DirecTV dealers trying to sell to Sky Angel subscribers.


----------



## whatchel1

Here is the reply E* sent to me and mine reply to them. More or less what I expected.

Been there done that. They don't have HD channels. They only have SD's which I don't qualify for anyway. I also wouldn't pay extra for SD nets anyway.

Mr. Sir,

I am sorry for the court's ruling on the distant network shut off by 12/01/2006. At this time we are asking our customers to log onto www.mydistantnetworks.com in referencing All American Digital Company. The company provides a similar service that you can subscribe to receive programming and view those channels on your Dish Network receivers and equipment. On Friday, October 20, a District Court judge issued an order rejecting the joint settlement agreement between EchoStar and the broadcasters and entering a permanent injunction requiring EchoStar to shut off Distant Network channels to all customers by Dec. 1, 2006. This goes for "all" providers, not just Dish Network. I implore you to be patient with Dish as we are doing everything we can to offer our customer's those channels. Thanks for your time and concerns!

Executive Communications
Dish Network
"Treat Humankind as an End- Not as a Means."


----------



## Greg Bimson

> This goes for "all" providers, not just Dish Network.


Wow. This is becoming borderline absurd.


----------



## Link

Is there a chance that Dish could use NPS to provide other programming to viewers besides Distant Networks? If they get in a dispute with a channel like they did with Lifetime they can just have NPS provide it a la carte.


----------



## Badger

whatchel1 said:


> Here is the reply E* sent to me and mine reply to them. More or less what I expected.
> 
> Been there done that. They don't have HD channels. They only have SD's which I don't qualify for anyway. I also wouldn't pay extra for SD nets anyway.
> 
> "Barcia, Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Mr. Hatchel,
> 
> I am sorry for the court's ruling on the distant network shut off by 12/01/2006. At this time we are asking our customers to log onto www.mydistantnetworks.com in referencing All American Digital Company. The company provides a similar service that you can subscribe to receive programming and view those channels on your Dish Network receivers and equipment. On Friday, October 20, a District Court judge issued an order rejecting the joint settlement agreement between EchoStar and the broadcasters and entering a permanent injunction requiring EchoStar to shut off Distant Network channels to all customers by Dec. 1, 2006. This goes for "all" providers, not just Dish Network. I implore you to be patient with Dish as we are doing everything we can to offer our customer's those channels. Thanks for your time and concerns!
> 
> Frank Barcia
> Executive Communications
> Dish Network
> (720) 514-7839
> Email: [email protected]
> "Treat Humankind as an End- Not as a Means."


I wonder if NAB has informed the judge about E*lying to people and telling them that ALL providers have to shut down DNS on December 1st? Talk about slimey business practice!:nono2:


----------



## Tower Guy

Badger said:


> I wonder if NAB has informed the judge about E*lying to people and telling them that ALL providers have to shut down DNS on December 1st? Talk about slimey business practice!:nono2:


Wouldn't "all" also apply to NPS?


----------



## neljtorres

I dont know but I order my Distant Netwrks and there are up!
Picture quality is not so good.


----------



## harsh

Badger said:


> I wonder if NAB has informed the judge about E*lying to people and telling them that ALL providers have to shut down DNS on December 1st? Talk about slimey business practice!:nono2:


Fibbing to prevent an exodus is the order of the day for companies such as this. Comcast used their agreement with TiVo to hold on when their own DVR solution was clearly boofy. DirecTV has claimed that their HD DVR is "bug free" and continued to claim to be the HD leader well after they were following a crowd. Microsoft claimed that Windows XP was their "most <fastest|secure|easy to use> release ever".

I don't mean to suggest that misleading is an ethical practice, but as long as it is relatively harmless, I can overlook it as background noise. The key is to have the resources to know that what they are claiming is false. That's why we're here.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> However the receiver authorization codes are being worked out, somewhere in this scenario Dish Network MUST help. It is their security system that is being used for authorizations, and therefore, Dish Network is in active concert with NPS in order to deliever distant network programming.


SkyAngel uses E*'s equipment in the same way that NPS will be doing ... although it appears that NPS will be using an electonic connection to E*'s system that allows instant activations instead of next day or later.


joblo said:


> I called AAD today re DNS. They told me they could not find my phone number in the records. They said E* provided them with records of all of their DNS customers, and since they couldn't find my name or number on that list, they could not qualify me for DNS. I suggested we forget about E* and just set up a whole new account. They checked with supervisor and said no. They repeated to me several times that I should contact "my satellite service provider" and tell them to forward my information so they, AAD, could serve me.


Why do I think that your post may become an exhibit in a court case ...

E* providing a list of DNS customers should NOT be their qualification process. Not being on E*'s list should absolutely not be a disqualification. The contract and public statements say that NPS will be using DecisionMark.
ANYONE should be able to call up and order distants (if qualified) ... even if they have cancelled their E* accounts. If that isn't possible then there is fiction in E*'s initial court reply. :nono:


----------



## cj9788

Well I called NPS today and was told that they can not give me DNS because E* did not provide my phone number. From the charlie chat last night I discovered that since I receive my LiL I can not get DNS from NPS because of SHVERA. I think that is a load of garbage because I received DNS and LiL before 12/08/2004 and under SHVERA I am able to have both under the law. Also under SHVERA since NPS is the independent company selling the DN signals and since NPS does not offer LiL and since I live in a true white area then I should be able to receive DNS since NPS does not offer LiL. In fact I called the NPS C-Band customer service and my address qualified for DNS on C-band. When I asked why I can not receive it via the E* equipment the rep said to hold and transfered me to the DNS line for E* customers. That rep said I could not get DNS because E* did not give them my number. What a crock!


----------



## James Long

Retyped because I crashed my browser - summary not as good as my first attempt!.

The plantiffs (networks and affiliates) filed a suggested alternative motion to the contempt motion filed Wednesday - the alternative calls for a clarification of the injuction. They also filed a suggested restraining order against NPS distants. 

NPS filed an opposition to Wednesday's motion and requested a hearing.

E* requested a hearing and noted that they would be filing a response Monday - extended to give them one business day to respond to today's filings.

Attached:
1) Part 1 of the motion for clarification
2) Part 2 (file size limit or it would be one file)
3) The proposed clarification
4) The proposed restraining order

Note that a summary of last night's Charlie Chat posted by dfergie is used as evidence against E* in the motion. Apparently the Chat contained a push for customers to sign up with All American Distants.

7.3MB of documents uploaded to the court site today. Glad to be able to share a sample!


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> Well I called NPS today and was told that they can not give me DNS because E* did not provide my phone number. From the charlie chat last night I discovered that since I receive my LiL I can not get DNS from NPS because of SHVERA. I think that is a load of garbage because I received DNS and LiL before 12/08/2004 and under SHVERA I am able to have both under the law. Also under SHVERA since NPS is the independent company selling the DN signals and since NPS does not offer LiL and since I live in a true white area then I should be able to receive DNS since NPS does not offer LiL. In fact I called the NPS C-Band customer service and my address qualified for DNS on C-band. When I asked why I can not receive it via the E* equipment the rep said to hold and transfered me to the DNS line for E* customers. That rep said I could not get DNS because E* did not give them my number. What a crock!


Another post that can be in the plantiff's next court filing. Per E*'s court filing's one's relationship to E* and one's relationship to NPS are entirely separate.

NPS is digging a hole!


----------



## whatchel1

So where is the summary of the Charlie Chat you are referencing that dfegrie wrote? The non Charlie Chat is on Sat Guys forum.


----------



## cj9788

James Long said:


> NPS is digging a hole!


I agree if they are separate then they should not be using any E* lists to verify DNS for anyone. I should be able to give them my Address and that and that alone should tell them if I am elgible for NPS to provide me DNS.

James what do you think of the SHVERA comments that I posted? You are one of the experts on the subject.


----------



## James Long

The plaintiffs referred to this thread: Special Charlie Chat Recap (Midnight Mst) (SatGuys)

The plaintiffs provided their own transcriptions of the audio.


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> James what do you think of the SHVERA comments that I posted? You are one of the experts on the subject.


I guess the best that I can. It scares me that NPS is using the same interpretation as BobS. 

It seems that being a E* customer who had distants is a prerequisite for getting NPS distants. That has to stop or it will be dead easy to prove that they are acting 'in concert'. The ONLY qualification that NPS should be using is where you live. The only reason to ask if you have E* service is for authorization and to make sure you can receive the signals (similar to the way SkyAngel has people verify reception of 61.5° when activating service).


----------



## shamus46

Can somebody tell me where I can download a Satellite waiver request form?
Thanks


----------



## James Long

You ask the satellite company that you potentially could receive distants from to request the waivers.
They ask the station (usually through a third party, such as DecisionMark).
The station either denies or approves the waiver, or waits longer than 30 days and the waiver is automatically approved.

Contacting the local station directly doesn't give you waivers (but it may convince the station to grant waivers when requested through channels). In order to answer the question (where is the form) you'd have to look at the provider who could sell you distants. E* can't do that.


----------



## cj9788

James thanks for the quick response.

This whole fiasco is crummy. If NPS is acting on their own then my address is all they should need to qualify me. It should not matter is E* can/does provide me LiL. Since NPS does not offer LiL to any one they can under the provide DNS to any one in a true white area. It should not matter that E* can/does. If I was a C-Band sub in a true white area with my DMA's locals from cable then under SHVERA I am not served and I could receive DNS from my C-band provider as long as that C-Band provider does not offer LiL. Why they added the LiL as a served house hold is unbelivable. Just more pandering to the NAB!

Any way I received an e-mail from NPS asking for my smart card numbers I sent it to them but am not holding my breath. Looks like I am going to miss all the shows I would DVR from LA untill I can buy a new DVR.



shamus46 said:


> Can somebody tell me where I can download a Satellite waiver request form?
> Thanks


As far as I know the waiver comes from your provider. I have never seen any waivers availbel on line with the exception of an RV waiver.


----------



## suptech

This sucks in so many ways, I have lost count.
The LAW is an ASS. This is simply bad legal mumbo - jumbo. In Canada you can get any network feed from 4 different time zones..no big deal. In fact they advertise this as a feature .
Hmm what a concept.


----------



## suptech

Yesterday after the loss of our east and west coast feeds, I phoned Dish.
Got them to send me two TWO, dual tuner PVR /DVR 625 's to replace our Dishplayers.
cost is $49 each plust tax .
Not thrilled as there are now a bunch more fees for leasing and PVR'ing.
This is simply to make up for the fact that I now need a differnt way to handle two / three inputs / feeds to watch TV shows that are on at the same time 


This is quite surreal.
The new shiny replacements will cost me much more in recurring fees .
And this is all about TV !

........ sigh....


----------



## Link

James Long said:


> I guess the best that I can. It scares me that NPS is using the same interpretation as BobS.
> 
> It seems that being a E* customer who had distants is a prerequisite for getting NPS distants. That has to stop or it will be dead easy to prove that they are acting 'in concert'. The ONLY qualification that NPS should be using is where you live. The only reason to ask if you have E* service is for authorization and to make sure you can receive the signals (similar to the way SkyAngel has people verify reception of 61.5° when activating service).


Directv uses DecisionMark to qualify customers for distants, so couldn't you could check Directv's site to see what your address qualifies for. Then it should be the same with NPS I would think--regardless of whether you had distants before on E*.


----------



## James Long

DirecTV's address broker should be adjusted for the 142 markets with LIL. If NPS were playing as a completely independent company anyone with a white address could get distants regardless of LILs being available from someone else.

DirecTV's distants eligibility tool is here --
http://directvdnseligibility.decisionmark.com/app/Results.aspx

I tried an address in a nearby town that cannot receive ABC OTA (our ABC is a LP station). Prior to the change at the end of 2004 residents of this town could still get distants via E* or D* despite having a LIL ABC affiliate.


> *Eligibilty review for the following:*
> 418 N MAIN ST
> MIDDLEBURY, IN 46540-9216
> 
> *Standard Distant Network Service*
> Not available because DIRECTV offers local network programming in your area​


Doesn't help as the ABC is blocked due to 2004 SHVERA changes not becase of a Grade B conflict. ABC HD is allowed (the LP WBND does not broadcast in HD yet - it's signal will reach that town when it goes live).

Another address in the market:


> *Eligibilty review for the following:*
> 227 W JEFFERSON BLVD
> SOUTH BEND, IN 46601-1830
> 
> *Standard Distant Network Service*
> Not available because DIRECTV offers local network programming in your area​


Oddly enough the HD table for that address claims that WBND-*DT* has a strong Grade A signal. As noted, WBND-*LD* is not on the air (and is still waiting for an FCC construction permit).

Some errors ... if one is in a market D* doesn't cover that broker would help. That is assuming that NPS actually uses Decisionmark like they claimed they would be doing.


----------



## kb7oeb

JohnH said:


> BTW: NPS is using their own provider code for authorization of this service. Perhaps they are paying a maintenance and services fee as well.


How does this work from a technical stand point, if NPS had their own transponder and uplink in no way connected with E* how much help from E* do they need? Does E* being based on DVB play into it, do they need to pay nagra anything for encryption, do they require E*'s help in relation to being in the EPG?


----------



## chasby

I have locals (from a city 90 miles from my house) and also waivers for CBS, ABC, and FOX, thus allowing me to get NY and LA distants for those networks. 
After my DNS were turned off I went to the NPS web site, entered all the required data and received a response that I qualify for DNS from NPS but I need new waivers from CBS, ABC, and NBC. 
The response indicated that I do have a valid waiver for FOX and I can now have a FOX distant for $2.50 per month.
What goes???
Apparently my FOX waiver was still valid but those for CBS & ABC must be reinstated before I qualify. (My request for an NBC waiver was denied on multiple occasions.)

Has anyone out there been successful in recovering lost waivers?

Anyone have NPS distants and how's the PQ???

chasby


----------



## aginzu

chasby said:


> Anyone have NPS distants and how's the PQ???
> chasby


Picture quality is fair to poor. I get ABC from San Francisco and Atlanta. San Francisco has ghosting that looks like an analog off-the-air signal. Atlanta is o.k., but not as good as what E* generally provides. I suspect that NPS is using a low bandwidth transponder to keep the costs down.


----------



## Greg Bimson

kb7oeb said:


> How does this work from a technical stand point, if NPS had their own transponder and uplink in no way connected with E* how much help from E* do they need? Does E* being based on DVB play into it, do they need to pay nagra anything for encryption, do they require E*'s help in relation to being in the EPG?


Well, you pretty much said what it is. Including the fact that Dish Network will receive $150K a month rent for a transponder, NPS will need assistance in authorizing an Echostar asset to view channels, namely the smart card. I would also assume if Dish Network's channels are assimilated with the NPS distants in the guide, which could be seen as Echostar in participation with NPS. The service doesn't stand alone if it needs Echostar's help, unlike the 57K C-band authorizations that NPS already has.

I believe (so remember this is my opinion) that Dish Network is the "poison pill" in this injunction. Anyone they touch is subject to the injunction, when in comes to the next party being able to offer distant networks. There must be no help from Dish Network at all.


----------



## tsmacro

Greg Bimson said:


> Well, you pretty much said what it is. Including the fact that Dish Network will receive $150K a month rent for a transponder, NPS will need assistance in authorizing an Echostar asset to view channels, namely the smart card. I would also assume if Dish Network's channels are assimilated with the NPS distants in the guide, which could be seen as Echostar in participation with NPS. The service doesn't stand alone if it needs Echostar's help, unlike the 57K C-band authorizations that NPS already has.
> 
> I believe (so remember this is my opinion) that Dish Network is the "poison pill" in this injunction. Anyone they touch is subject to the injunction, when in comes to the next party being able to offer distant networks. There must be no help from Dish Network at all.


This is obviously just a stop-gap measure that they've managed to drum up (give an "A" for creativity and effort anyway) in hopes they won't lose the business of all their distant net customers until they can get legislation pushed through congress. Of course this latest gambit might also be struck down in the courts, but the point is it'll take some time for that to happen as the different sides inolved go through the legal dance of the process. So of course Dish hopes that it takes long enough that if it does get rejected by the courts that congress will have had a chance to act and pass a law more friendly to their interests. I do miss my abc-w feed I had used it a couple times in the past week to record shows when they conflicted w/ sporting events and other shows on at the same time. I only have a dual-tuner DVR, sometimes I could really use a tri or quad-tuner :lol: And that would take care of my need to occasionally time-shift network programming. Oh well I guess that sometimes i'll just have to miss something, I probably watch too much tv anyway!:lol:


----------



## Richard King

aginzu said:


> Picture quality is fair to poor. I get ABC from San Francisco and Atlanta. San Francisco has ghosting that looks like an analog off-the-air signal. Atlanta is o.k., but not as good as what E* generally provides. I suspect that NPS is using a low bandwidth transponder to keep the costs down.


I suspect the poor quality will continue until things work their way through the court system. I just can't see NPS investing a ton of $$ in what could be a very short term project. They are probably simply pulling the pictures out of the air with an off air antenna. Who knows how they are getting the pix back to them.


----------



## toomuchtv

I only have now/next guide info...will this improve? I need to set timers!


----------



## aginzu

toomuchtv said:


> I only have now/next guide info...will this improve? I need to set timers!


Yes. If you reload the guide info it comes up for the usual 9 days.


----------



## aginzu

I think there is a good argument that the NPS arrangement does not viloate the ruling. 

The purpose of the ruling is to prevent Echostar from providing distants to users who are not authorized to receive them. As I understand it, the argument for the total ban on distants, even to those who should legitimately be able receive them, is because "Echostar can't be trusted to evaluate who is authorized and who isn't". Since NPS presumably can be trusted, there is no reason to deny them the ability to provide the service through whatever means are available, including leasing bandwidth from Echostar. The purpose of the ruling is to prevent infrigement on the rights of local stations, not to punish Echostar customers who have a legitimate right to receive the distant networks.

To expand on the liquor license analogy, it would be like a grocery store with a liquor license who gets caught selling to minors and has their liquor license pulled because they can't be trusted to check who they are selling to. They can still sell non-liquor items. If another, trusted vendor with their own liquor license, leases a room in the store with their own checkout facilites, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Note that NPS will not provide service to anyone who wouldn't be able to get it through them via alternative means, thereby cutting off Dish Network distant users who have been getting the service because of Echostar's presumed violation of the original law. Isn't that the purpose of the injunction?


----------



## cj9788

aginzu said:


> INote that NPS will not provide service to anyone who wouldn't be able to get it through them via alternative means, thereby cutting off Dish Network distant users who have been getting the service because of Echostar's presumed violation of the original law. Isn't that the purpose of the injunction?


Not true I called NPS C-Band customer service to inquire about DNS for C-Band and my address in a true white area did qualify for DNS from DENVER and LA.

As long as NPS is using info from E* (customer phone number) to determine if they can offer stinks. If they did not use any E* customer info what so ever then they would be truly independent. Right now if you call NPS the first thing they ask is for your phone number if your phone number is NOT in thier system they then tell you you do not qualify for DNS from NPS and to call your provider. A couple of thier CSR's told me to call E*. If they asked for your address first then qualified you through decesionmark then if your are elgible take your name and smart card numbers to sell you DNS, they would be independent. The fact that they usae E* cutomer data makes the whole thing fishy!

The fact that we reveive LiL from dish should not matter if NPS is a truew independent company because a s a independent company NPS does not offer LiL to any one.


----------



## aginzu

cj9788 said:


> Not true I called NPS C-Band customer service to inquire about DNS for C-Band and my address in a true white area did qualify for DNS from DENVER and LA.
> 
> As long as NPS is using info from E* (customer phone number) to determine if they can offer stinks. If they did not use any E* customer info what so ever then they would be truly independent. Right now if you call NPS the first thing they ask is for your phone number if your phone number is NOT in thier system they then tell you you do not qualify for DNS from NPS and to call your provider. A couple of thier CSR's told me to call E*. If they asked for your address first then qualified you through decesionmark then if your are elgible take your name and smart card numbers to sell you DNS, they would be independent. The fact that they usae E* cutomer data makes the whole thing fishy!
> 
> The fact that we reveive LiL from dish should not matter if NPS is a truew independent company because a s a independent company NPS does not offer LiL to any one.


It's unfortunate that NPS currently is only offering distants to customers on the E* phone list, but that doesn't violate the injunction. That REDUCES, not expands, the number of E* customers that can get distants. I suspect that they want to be extra sure that they are only offering the service to qualified customers initially. Using the E* list as a starting point just adds safety.

I suspect that once the initial flood of new orders is over and the legal issues are settled, they will want to add additional customers, including ones who are not current E* customers and want to replace their C-Band service.


----------



## cj9788

It would violate the injuntion if it can be proven that E* and NPS are working together to offer DNS to subs. If they were using no info whatsoever from E* then IMO that would be a diffrent story.


----------



## aginzu

I don't think that just the use of information is a violation of the injunction. 

Again, remember that the purpose of the injunction is to provide relief to the stations whose rights were infringed, not to prevent consumers who happen to be E* customers from receiving services to which they are legally entitled. Whatever information or facilities NPS uses to deliver services to a consumer who is entiled to those services should be o.k. The injunction to prevent E* from servicing those consumers is because E* was violating the rights of the local stations. They are required to stop those violations and, because they can't be trusted, to stop all DNS services. 

If another vendor can service those customers without violating those rights, why shouldn't they be able to use whatever facilities are available to enable them, including those from E*, to do so?


----------



## Badger

aginzu said:


> I suspect that once the initial flood of new orders is over and the legal issues are settled, they will want to add additional customers, including ones who are not current E* customers and want to replace their C-Band service.


Well ALL AMERICA DIRECT which is the NPS subsidiary that's handling this is also a E* retailer so what service do you think they will recommend to be able to get DNS from them? The Plot Thickens.  LOL


----------



## Greg Bimson

aginzu said:


> It's unfortunate that NPS currently is only offering distants to customers on the E* phone list, but that doesn't violate the injunction.





aginzu said:


> I don't think that just the use of information is a violation of the injunction.


It most certainly is. That is exactly the problem. Dish Network is barred from delivering distant networks. Not only is Dish Network barred, it is also the company's officers, attorneys, etc., all the way down to ersons in active concert or participation with Echostar."

NPS is in active participation with Echostar, now. Especially if Dish Network forwarded the lists.


----------



## aginzu

Greg Bimson said:


> It most certainly is. That is exactly the problem. Dish Network is barred from delivering distant networks. Not only is Dish Network barred, it is also the company's officers, attorneys, etc., all the way down to ersons in active concert or participation with Echostar."
> 
> NPS is in active participation with Echostar, now. Especially if Dish Network forwarded the lists.


So if the local cable company got a list of Echostar customers in the area so that they could provide distants to them would that violate the injunction? If NPS delivered DNS via C-band and was given a list of potential customers by Echostar would that violate the injunction? Now, if they were to deliver it via a satellite transponder they leased from DirectTV would that violate the injunction? If not, then why is leasing the transponder from Echostar any different? Echostar has the right to lease satellite bandwidth to any vendor they want. The injunction does not restrict them from that. It is that vendor's responsibility to determine what service he can or cannot legally provide. How is where they got the list of customer prospects relevant?


----------



## James Long

aginzu said:


> So if the local cable company got a list of Echostar customers in the area so that they could provide distants to them would that violate the injunction?


The local cable company isn't offering distants SOLELY to listed customers of E*. NPS is currently REFUSING to offer distants to anyone who is not on the list of former E* DNS customers. They are NOT doing their own white area qualification as contracted and as they told the court they would be doing. They are taking E*'s word for who is and isn't qualified.

Distants are being offered in cooperation between NPS and E*. They are clearly violating the intent of the injunction and will likely see the "temporary restraining order" that the plantiffs suggested put in place.

If NPS would accept any customer that could provide an address and smart card number with no regard for whether or not that customer is or was an E* customer it would be different. But with their refusal to serve anyone but E* customers who lost distants they are sealing their fate by demonstrating the deep ties between the two companies.


----------



## Beardedbosn

Shellback X 23 said:


> I called the 800 number this morning and got turned down as my billing address has LIL. It seams that they have no way, at this time, to handle trucker and RV waivers. I might get to my billing address a couple of days a year if that.


I was on the website this evening. There is an RV/Trucker waiver to download and FAX in. They bundle the networks so you receive Atlanta and San Francisco for each network subscribed too. $9.00 for all eight per month. Hope this works out, may FAX it out in the morning and see what happens :hurah: Chris


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Incidentally... and here's an interesting rub to things...

IF Dish is not "in concert" with NPS... and NPS is in fact found to be legally a third-party and not "in concert" with Dish... then Dish sharing customer information with NPS in order for NPS to use to qualify customers may very well be in violation with customer privacy agreements in place with Dish.

Could be a whole 'nother can of worms to investigate. If Dish is giving personal/customer information to another company (or maybe even selling it as part of the lease of transponder space agreement), this may be a completely different illegal act.


----------



## whatchel1

James Long said:


> The local cable company isn't offering distants SOLELY to listed customers of E*. NPS is currently REFUSING to offer distants to anyone who is not on the list of former E* DNS customers. They are NOT doing their own white area qualification as contracted and as they told the court they would be doing. They are taking E*'s word for who is and isn't qualified.
> 
> Distants are being offered in cooperation between NPS and E*. They are clearly violating the intent of the injunction and will likely see the "temporary restraining order" that the plantiffs suggested put in place.
> 
> If NPS would accept any customer that could provide an address and smart card number with no regard for whether or not that customer is or was an E* customer it would be different. But with their refusal to serve anyone but E* customers who lost distants they are sealing their fate by demonstrating the deep ties between the two companies.


That would assume that they could add customer's other than E*. Can they add Bell Express Vu or Sky Angel? Both use E* receivers. :bang


----------



## James Long

whatchel1 said:


> That would assume that they could add customer's other than E*. Can they add Bell Express Vu or Sky Angel? Both use E* receivers. :bang


At the moment it appears that NPS is rejecting ALL subscription attempts other than recently dropped E* DNS subscribers.

While I appreciate that "target marketing" might lead to specials for a class of people who recently discovered the need for their service, to refuse service to all other potential customers will only lead to further problems with the courts.


----------



## cj9788

James Long said:


> At the moment it appears that NPS is rejecting ALL subscription attempts other than recently dropped E* DNS subscribers.


James they do provide DNS for C-band but for DBS they only do E*. It even states you have to have or intend to have E* in the RV waiver .


----------



## ckinninger

greg:

is it illegal for a company have an offer "offer only valid for dish customers"... like directv has done in the passed for VOOM customers?

james:

they are qualifying that you are in dns eligilble territory. try changing the address to the middle of new your city and see what happens. i think dish only passed them certain zip coded accounts which qualifies them for the $9 offer. 

======

nps can decide who can buy from them as long as they ALSO qualify in desicionmark.

please don't hammer me for giving info that they can use in court. that is what this whole thread is doing and i am trying help nps. i think it is horrible, the closer we get to a satellite monopoly. 

not allowing a company to offer distants easily really hurts free market competition in satellite tv. voom proved that with no networks, it's bye bye.

ck


----------



## ckinninger

has anyone purchased online from nps and seen how long it takes for the service to come on? i know they don't charge your credit card until later on but when does the service start after the order is made normally?


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> James they do provide DNS for C-band but for DBS they only do E*. It even states you have to have or intend to have E* in the RV waiver .


We are talking about the "entirely separate" new DBS offering of NPS. It doesn't matter how separate their C Band operations are. If you can't get the new service without subscribing or being approved by E* then the new service is just an extension of E* service that should be shut down under the injunction.

Show total independence with the NPS program offering on TP15 on E7 @ 119° and E*'s operations and the new service might survive - but as long as one of the qualifications for NPS DBS is being listed (approved) by E* it is not a separate operation.


ckinninger said:


> please don't hammer me for giving info that they can use in court. that is what this whole thread is doing and i am trying help nps.


NPS needs to help itself. IMMEDIATELY STOP using E* information to qualify customers. OFFER DISTANTS via DBS based only on address qualifications and not any E* list. PROVE that they are as separate as E* and NPS have claimed in their court filings.

I thought this NPS deal might have worked - but the current reports put that in jeopardy.


----------



## rebkell

What became of the grandfathered accounts, did they lose all of their rights in this last go around?


----------



## James Long

rebkell said:


> What became of the grandfathered accounts, did they lose all of their rights in this last go around?


E* never presented records of grandfathering to the court so the court ruled that no one was grandfathered. All of this being moot since E* cannot offer distants to ANYONE at the moment, regardless of grandfathering, waivers, etc.


----------



## rebkell

James Long said:


> E* never presented records of grandfathering to the court so the court ruled that no one was grandfathered. All of this being moot since E* cannot offer distants to ANYONE at the moment, regardless of grandfathering, waivers, etc.


Well, that certainly blows.


----------



## SitkaSat

Thank God or whom ever for NPS. As an Alaskan installer with 2300 customers without networks life has not had a very good outlook lately.
Dish is still paying to have all of the customers upgraded to a second dish for free.
But one installer for 500 customers means they would not all be watching Juneau by sometime in early summer maybe. And we still havn't been able to get an agreement for FOX in Juneau. 
Island customers in Alaska don't really have an alternative


----------



## akron05

I neither get nor need distants since I get LiL from both E* and D* in my area.

Explain to me why DISH cannot provide them and DirecTV can??


----------



## TNGTony

akron05 said:


> I neither get nor need distants since I get LiL from both E* and D* in my area.
> 
> Explain to me why DISH cannot provide them and DirecTV can??


*Sigh*

Simply put... There was a law suit for copyright infringement against Dish and DirecTV by several parties. DirecTV eventually did what the plaitiffs wanted and was released from the law suit some time ago. At that time many DirecTV subscribers who did not legally qualify for distant networks lost them. All their subscribers were requalified for distant networks. So DirecTV was off the judicial hook.

Dish did not "settle" and fought the plaintiffs all the way to the bitter end. Dish was found to be blatantly thumbing their nose at the portion of the law that allows for distant networks to be sold. As a result, the "death penalty" was levied against Dish and only Dish since they were the only defendants remaining in the law suit.

See ya
Tony


----------



## akron05

TNGTony said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Simply put... There was a law suit for copyright infringement against Dish and DirecTV by several parties. DirecTV eventually did what the plaitiffs wanted and was released from the law suit some time ago. At that time many DirecTV subscribers who did not legally qualify for distant networks lost them. All their subscribers were requalified for distant networks. So DirecTV was off the judicial hook.
> 
> Dish did not "settle" and fought the plaintiffs all the way to the bitter end. Dish was found to be blatantly thumbing their nose at the portion of the law that allows for distant networks to be sold. As a result, the "death penalty" was levied against Dish and only Dish since they were the only defendants remaining in the law suit.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


It seems DISH has a history of that. Why would they not just do what was asked? They've now possibly lost a million or so subscribers.


----------



## Greg Bimson

akron05 said:


> It seems DISH has a history of that. Why would they not just do what was asked? They've now possibly lost a million or so subscribers.


Dish Network will not lose a million or so customers. There will be some that leave, because the only reason they were with Dish Network was because they had distant networks, but it will not be close to a million.

But, what will happen to people that have jumped through hoops to go to NPS, if the judge enforces/amends an injunction or issues an order of contempt against this Dish Network and NPS deal? I'm assuming people are getting tired of it.


----------



## tsmacro

I had a waiver from my nearest abc channel (Indianapolis) that allowed me to get abc-w from Dish. I've tried both online and by phone over the past couple of days to get NPS to sell me their abc distant channels based on this waiver or if they couldn't at least resubmit another waiver on my behalf. So far all they do is tell me I don't qualify. Now granted it doesn't seem very smart on their behalf to do so since it's fairly well known that the Indy abc has a habit of pratically rubber-stamping these waiver requests. Someone once told me that they do this to thumb their nose at the George family because they make Indy abc black out the Indy 500, not sure if that's true but it is definitely true that Indy abc tends to approve waiver requests around here where the other nets usually don't. So it seems that NPS is just turning down easy money by not even trying to get me a waiver, you'd think a company that is supposedly based in Indianapolis would be aware of this. And if they were truly operating in concert with Dish they'd just say hey this person had a valid waiver w/ Dish so we should be able to sell him abc distant also. But they haven't, they just say I don't qualify based on my address and phone number.


----------



## cj9788

tsmacro said:


> I had a waiver from my nearest abc channel (Indianapolis) that allowed me to get abc-w from Dish. I've tried both online and by phone over the past couple of days to get NPS to sell me their abc distant channels based on this waiver or if they couldn't at least resubmit another waiver on my behalf. So far all they do is tell me I don't qualify. Now granted it doesn't seem very smart on their behalf to do so since it's fairly well known that the Indy abc has a habit of pratically rubber-stamping these waiver requests. Someone once told me that they do this to thumb their nose at the George family because they make Indy abc black out the Indy 500, not sure if that's true but it is definitely true that Indy abc tends to approve waiver requests around here where the other nets usually don't. So it seems that NPS is just turning down easy money by not even trying to get me a waiver, you'd think a company that is supposedly based in Indianapolis would be aware of this. And if they were truly operating in concert with Dish they'd just say hey this person had a valid waiver w/ Dish so we should be able to sell him abc distant also. But they haven't, they just say I don't qualify based on my address and phone number.


You do not qualify with NPS because E* never gave NPS your phone nummber. Unless you are the exception every single person that has not qualified has been told so after NPS ask for your phone number. It appears that dish only gave NPS accounts of folks who live in white areas and are NOT receiving LiL from Dish network. If they were working sepearately NPS would not ask for your phone number they would first ask for your address to see if you are in a white area. If so then they should ask for your name and smart card numbers. NPS allready knows who you are where you live and what your smart card numbers are. The only possible for them to know that is if E* provided them the info.


----------



## tsmacro

cj9788 said:


> You do not qualify with NPS because E* never gave NPS your phone nummber. Unless you are the exception every single person that has not qualified has been told so after NPS ask for your phone number. It appears that dish only gave NPS accounts of folks who live in white areas and are NOT receiving LiL from Dish network. If they were working sepearately NPS would not ask for your phone number they would first ask for your address to see if you are in a white area. If so then they should ask for your name and smart card numbers. NPS allready knows who you are where you live and what your smart card numbers are. The only possible for them to know that is if E* provided them the info.


Hmmm...I don't know like I said if they got info from Dish it seems to me they'd know I had a valid waiver and that i'd be a good target for them to sell me their distant abc. In my e-mail to them their reply told me my address wasn't in a qualified area. In my phone call I got the automated message that asked for my phone number and then told me I didn't qualify. Maybe you're right and they did get info from E* and are only currently going after white-area customers off their lists w/ no LIL. They certainly don't seem to care about making money off of people w/ valid waiver if my experience is any indication anyway. Of course they actually could be doing their own qualifying, afterall they could easily have info on their own where the white areas are w/out E*'s imput. The first question being the phone # could be just a qualifyer, after all they could look at your area code and exchange and know if there are any white area's within those. If there are then the next question could be for a specific address. Like I said I can see why some people might think they're operating on info from E* but I also can see evidence pointing to them not getting said info from E* and if they did get the info from E* I might ask for a refund if I were them because it's certainly not very complete!


----------



## TBoneit

According to the recap of the Special Charlie Chat at http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=83346 , He also said that DirecTv is another possibilty for locals.

Using the arguments here then DirecTv should also be prohibited from delivering DNS locals.

Some people seem to hate anybody that succeeds in a big way, Charlie, Bill Gates etc.

The argument against Microsoft calls it a monopoly, Huh? What about Linux? Free in some distros, What about Apple? It seems that these days if you build a better mousetrap and the market buys it you are codemned for doing better.

Charlie gets condemned for trying to do for the customers and not rolling over like DirecTV has done and too bad for their customers.


----------



## cj9788

tsmacro said:


> Hmmm...I don't know like I said if they got info from Dish it seems to me they'd know I had a valid waiver and that i'd be a good target for them to sell me their distant abc. In my e-mail to them their reply told me my address wasn't in a qualified area. In my phone call I got the automated message that asked for my phone number and then told me I didn't qualify. Maybe you're right and they did get info from E* and are only currently going after white-area customers off their lists w/ no LIL. They certainly don't seem to care about making money off of people w/ valid waiver if my experience is any indication anyway. Of course they actually could be doing their own qualifying, afterall they could easily have info on their own where the white areas are w/out E*'s imput. The first question being the phone # could be just a qualifyer, after all they could look at your area code and exchange and know if there are any white area's within those. If there are then the next question could be for a specific address. Like I said I can see why some people might think they're operating on info from E* but I also can see evidence pointing to them not getting said info from E* and if they did get the info from E* I might ask for a refund if I were them because it's certainly not very complete!


Time will tell.

Have you applied for a waiver yet? You can send a request to them at [email protected] . If you do Send all your account info Name Phone number address and smart card numbers. That way there will be no delay.

I know in my case E* never sent the info as I was told this by a csr at AAD/NPS. They sais I was not in thier system and to contact E* about it.


----------



## James Long

akron05 said:


> I neither get nor need distants since I get LiL from both E* and D* in my area.
> 
> Explain to me why DISH cannot provide them and DirecTV can??


*Neither company can provide distants to a new subscriber in your market.*

There is a loophole that allows subscribers who legally had distants in Dec 2004 to keep them regardless of the availability of LIL in their market, but new subs in LIL markets CANNOT get distants (unless their market is missing a network). If you didn't subscribe to THAT satellite carrier and DNS service in Dec 2004 and have not maintained DNS service since Dec 2004 you are not able to get DNS service.


----------



## Link

tsmacro said:


> I had a waiver from my nearest abc channel (Indianapolis) that allowed me to get abc-w from Dish. I've tried both online and by phone over the past couple of days to get NPS to sell me their abc distant channels based on this waiver or if they couldn't at least resubmit another waiver on my behalf. So far all they do is tell me I don't qualify. Now granted it doesn't seem very smart on their behalf to do so since it's fairly well known that the Indy abc has a habit of pratically rubber-stamping these waiver requests. Someone once told me that they do this to thumb their nose at the George family because they make Indy abc black out the Indy 500, not sure if that's true but it is definitely true that Indy abc tends to approve waiver requests around here where the other nets usually don't. So it seems that NPS is just turning down easy money by not even trying to get me a waiver, you'd think a company that is supposedly based in Indianapolis would be aware of this. And if they were truly operating in concert with Dish they'd just say hey this person had a valid waiver w/ Dish so we should be able to sell him abc distant also. But they haven't, they just say I don't qualify based on my address and phone number.


That is the big problem with this distant network process in that its not done accurately or fairly to begin with (and never has been). DecisionMark's website qualifier on Directv says stations are of a Grade B signal in areas where they are not and viewers should qualify for that distant network.

All addresses within the Terre Haute DMA should qualify for distant ABC because that DMA has no ABC affiliate and hasn't for over 10 years now. I wouldn't think WRTV nor Champaign's WICD would have any jurisdiction to grant waivers based on a DMA they aren't technically a part of. Just like any addresses in the Lafayette, IN DMA should qualify for distant ABC, NBC, and Fox.

Most DMAs across the country have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox stations. The smaller markets do not. In this case, both E* and D* should have an approved replacement network affiliate in those DMAs that are not served by an affiliate of all 4 networks. They should make it a requirement for both DBS companies to provide locals in all markets they have customers. If this was done, there would be no reason to have distant networks and every DBS customer in any DMA would be provided an ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliate.


----------



## Hall

James Long said:


> The local cable company isn't offering distants SOLELY to listed customers of E*. NPS is currently REFUSING to offer distants to anyone who is not on the list of former E* DNS customers. They are NOT doing their own white area qualification as contracted and as they told the court they would be doing. They are taking E*'s word for who is and isn't qualified.


 It's starting to sound like E* certainly provided NPS with a list but that this list only includes people in the "Group C" category, that is, those who "live in one of the 33 markets where neither DISH(no LIL's) network nor any other Pay TV provider offers local network channels,or are missing some channels...". If you're in Group A or B, Dish didn't provide your information because you're not eligible.

If this is the case, it seems that E* might be playing it extra safe, in fact. They know who's eligible and who's not, though they ignored that fact in the past. Now they may be playing by the rules and even making sure that A and B customers don't continue to get distant networks.


----------



## Hall

Link said:


> That is the big problem with this distant network process in that its not done accurately or fairly to begin with (and never has been). DecisionMark's website qualifier on Directv says stations are of a Grade B signal in areas where they are not and viewers should qualify for that distant network.


 Isn't there an "appeals" type process, where you have the TV station come to your location to prove you can receive their signal ?? If you can't get the signal, you get a waiver. If you can, you actually have to reimburse the station for the trip.


----------



## James Long

Hall said:


> It's starting to sound like E* certainly provided NPS with a list but that this list only includes people in the "Group C" category, that is, those who "live in one of the 33 markets where neither DISH(no LIL's) network nor any other Pay TV provider offers local network channels,or are missing some channels...". If you're in Group A or B, Dish didn't provide your information because you're not eligible.
> 
> If this is the case, it seems that E* might be playing it extra safe, in fact. They know who's eligible and who's not, though they ignored that fact in the past. Now they may be playing by the rules and even making sure that A and B customers don't continue to get distant networks.


The question is why E* is involved at all in qualifying distant subscribers for NPS. It is something that they stated in their contract with NPS that they would NOT do and both E* and NPS have filed with the court (beyond the filing of the contract) saying that E* would not be qualifying customers for NPS.

Every customer refused for not being on E*'s "list" is proof of acting in concert.


----------



## rirwin1983

whatchel1 said:


> In concert would mean that the company is part of E* or working for E*. NPS doesn't qualify as in concert. Reason is they are buying space from E*. That means they are separate from E*. Which means they have the right to buy the customer base from E* and offer their services to that base outside of E*. Then all that E* has to do is drop the price that is charged to their customers to off set the new service that the customers will pay to NPS. This way neither are in violation of the injunction. Also most likely NPS will not offer the same stations thst E* was selling them so it isn't the same package. NPS did offer to C-band the Denver 5 as well as other cities on the E coast. So if you were getting the NY stations you will be offered another E coast set of stations from say Miami. On the W. coast the stations offered could be San Francisco or Seattle instead of LA. To stop this it would mean that a new injunction would have to be issued against NPS to stop delivery to then customer base. Which if I remember correctly they have already compiled with the law and can't be enjoined to stop carriage of their stations.


They are acting in concert, because E*'s customers will still be able to recieve the DNS with their EXISTING E* Dish and EXISTING E* IRD's in about 95% of the case. And this deal was only made to "lease" the space AFTER the court orderd the shut off, and was only announced AFTER the judge said no again to extending the cut off date. Now if charley wanted to prevent this deal from looking like what it does to most, he would of made it back in august, and announced it in august, or any time period BEFORE the courts decision. Doing it after, only makes it look like hes trying to circumvent the decision.


----------



## ckinninger

Here is the judges decision in a nutshell in my opinion:

If the spirit of the permanent injunction is to have all DNS customers switch to Directv then the NPS deal is in contempt. If the spirit of the permanent injunction is to stop Dish from making money off DNS then the NPS deal is fair for all, especially for the consumers who spend money on equipment.

E* Handed their DNS business to NPS on a silver platter. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That's the fact.

CK


----------



## cj9788

Hall said:


> It's starting to sound like E* certainly provided NPS with a list but that this list only includes people in the "Group C" category, that is, those who "live in one of the 33 markets where neither DISH(no LIL's) network nor any other Pay TV provider offers local network channels,or are missing some channels...". If you're in Group A or B, Dish didn't provide your information because you're not eligible.
> 
> If this is the case, it seems that E* might be playing it extra safe, in fact. They know who's eligible and who's not, though they ignored that fact in the past. Now they may be playing by the rules and even making sure that A and B customers don't continue to get distant networks.


It is B & C that are able to get the DNS from NPS. The only group excluded is the folks who ARE subbed to LiL from E*.


----------



## cj9788

rirwin1983 said:


> They are acting in concert, because E*'s customers will still be able to recieve the DNS with their EXISTING E* Dish and EXISTING E* IRD's in about 95% of the case. And this deal was only made to "lease" the space AFTER the court orderd the shut off, and was only announced AFTER the judge said no again to extending the cut off date. Now if charley wanted to prevent this deal from looking like what it does to most, he would of made it back in august, and announced it in august, or any time period BEFORE the courts decision. Doing it after, only makes it look like hes trying to circumvent the decision.


They are acting in Concert because NPS is using E* lists to begin the qualifaction process. Read the agreement james posted in the thread about how long it takes for NPS to activate locals.

In the agreement it states that NPS can sell to any one E* customer or not. The fact that you need an E* receiver is not an issue IMO. If I goto Radio Shack buy a 311 and call NPS without E* service then according to the agreement in place NPS can sell me DNS. They just do not seem to be following thier own agreement and that is the reason it will be struck down.


----------



## rirwin1983

cj9788 said:


> Wrong they are acting in Concert because NPS is using E* lists to begin the qualifaction process. Read the agreement james posted in the thread about how long it takes for NPS to activate locals.
> 
> In the agreement it states that NPS can sell to any one E* customer or not. The fact that you need an E* receiver is not an issue IMO. If I goto Radio Shack buy a 311 and call NPS without E* service then according to the agreement in place NPS can sell me DNS. They just do not seem to be following thier own agreement and that is the reason it will be struck down.


Wrong, by using E*'s equiptment they are acting in concert. NPS has their own equiptment and dishes. By leasing the E* TP, Using an E* Reciever, & E* Dish, all of which is required to recieved DNS via NPS for Dish Customers. It would be the same of directv alowing a c-band provider to retransmit DNS to their subs after being told they cant, but the only way they could is with a d* dish and a d* reciever and only if your a current d* sub. I was not saying joe blow can go and do what you sugested, becasuse of course they wouldent be in the e* customer list. which just goes to show you even more how in concert they are acting. if they are needing a smart card number and reciever number to find you in e* list. Additionaly since your e* dish is allready "talking" to Echostar 7, there is no additional work needed.


----------



## wje

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network will not lose a million or so customers. There will be some that leave, because the only reason they were with Dish Network was because they had distant networks, but it will not be close to a million.
> .


Absolutely correct.

Anyone remember when D* caved on this? All their DNS subscribers lost their network feeds, including me. I didn't jump ship, nor did many others. There was, however, one of those absurd class-action lawsuits filed, which gave some lawyer a pile of money and us subscribers a few free PPV coupons. Never could figure out just why D* was liable for following the law.

In support of Charlie, the DNS restrictions really are a crock. They're there to allow local stations to try to continue to monopolize transmission in their region. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't compete legitimately, they shouldn't be propped up by artificial means. I can't get my local NBC, FOX, or CBS affiliates OTA. The Boston CBS affiliate at that time wouldn't grant a waiver. Net result? I stopped watching CBS. Turns out that was no great loss anyway.


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> Wrong





rirwin1983 said:


> Wrong,


I occasionally post on a non satellite board where one would get a warning for starting a post with that word. (I got a warning there for signing my posts with "JL".) It is a rude way to start a post.

Anyways, simply making their programming available via E* equipment is not enough to prove "in concert". The SkyAngel service has for years operated using E* equipment and using satellites owned by E* - they have even gone a step further and had E* receive individual channels and provide the uplink. Until a couple of days ago I don't believe anyone would have considered SA's arrangement "in concert" - it has proven to be quite adversarial over the years with the lawsuits.

NPS not even considering providing service via DBS to people who are not 'approved' by E* is the bigger problem. ANYONE should be able to call up NPS, say that they have compatible equipment and be qualified solely based on their address. Approval should NOT be based on any prior or current customer relationship with E*.

It is E*'s provision and NPS's use of 'the list' that is proving they are in concert --- not the issue that the receivers and dishes happen to be compatible between providers.


----------



## tsmacro

wje said:


> In support of Charlie, the DNS restrictions really are a crock. They're there to allow local stations to try to continue to monopolize transmission in their region. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't compete legitimately, they shouldn't be propped up by artificial means. I can't get my local NBC, FOX, or CBS affiliates OTA. The Boston CBS affiliate at that time wouldn't grant a waiver. Net result? I stopped watching CBS. Turns out that was no great loss anyway.


It's funny how you stopped watching CBS because you didn't get a waiver. Mostly because last year when abc was the only net to grant me a waiver I ended up watching that network more than any other. Why? Well it was just easier to watch their programming because I had another choice as to when I could either watch or record what was on their channel. Which of course in turn makes it more likely that i'm going to keep up on continue watching their shows because i'm not missing episodes. Especially this time a year I live in a household where my fiance is a huge Pacers, IU and Colts fan, so sports come first (gotta love a woman like that  ). We have one tv w/ a 522, so two tuners, there's times when we could use three or four! :lol: Having abc available to watch their prime-time line-up three hours later made it easier to keep up w/ their shows at times. But you know what? Probably 90% of the time or more when I was watching abc it was on the Indy local, so they actually increased the time my eyeballs was on their local commercials by granting me that waiver. Imagine that. Obviously the other Indy nets ended up being very short-sighted by denying me waivers and ended up handing abc a greater share of my time. Oh well you are correct though, the way the whole DMA/network thing is set up is just absolutely ridiculous and is ultimately in need of a major makeover. I mean how stupid is this whole situation really anyway? I mean trying to figure out who ought to be qualified for what they way they have it set currently is almost as convuluted as the tax code! Oh well.:nono2:


----------



## cj9788

James Long said:


> I occasionally post on a non satellite board where one would get a warning for starting a post with that word. (I got a warning there for signing my posts with "JL".) It is a rude way to start a post.
> 
> Anyways, simply making their programming available via E* equipment is not enough to prove "in concert". The SkyAngel service has for years operated using E* equipment and using satellites owned by E* - they have even gone a step further and had E* receive individual channels and provide the uplink. Until a couple of days ago I don't believe anyone would have considered SA's arrangement "in concert" - it has proven to be quite adversarial over the years with the lawsuits.
> 
> NPS not even considering providing service via DBS to people who are not 'approved' by E* is the bigger problem. ANYONE should be able to call up NPS, say that they have compatible equipment and be qualified solely based on their address. Approval should NOT be based on any prior or current customer relationship with E*.
> 
> It is E*'s provision and NPS's use of 'the list' that is proving they are in concert --- not the issue that the receivers and dishes happen to be compatible between providers.


Bascily what i said without the refrence to Skyangle.

Sorry if the wrong starting off my post is against the rules it has been removed.


----------



## akron05

Link said:


> That is the big problem with this distant network process in that its not done accurately or fairly to begin with (and never has been). DecisionMark's website qualifier on Directv says stations are of a Grade B signal in areas where they are not and viewers should qualify for that distant network.
> 
> All addresses within the Terre Haute DMA should qualify for distant ABC because that DMA has no ABC affiliate and hasn't for over 10 years now. I wouldn't think WRTV nor Champaign's WICD would have any jurisdiction to grant waivers based on a DMA they aren't technically a part of. Just like any addresses in the Lafayette, IN DMA should qualify for distant ABC, NBC, and Fox.
> 
> Most DMAs across the country have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox stations. The smaller markets do not. In this case, both E* and D* should have an approved replacement network affiliate in those DMAs that are not served by an affiliate of all 4 networks. They should make it a requirement for both DBS companies to provide locals in all markets they have customers. If this was done, there would be no reason to have distant networks and every DBS customer in any DMA would be provided an ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox affiliate.


Personally, I think if you are in a LiL market that is missing a network affiliate, the law should allow that you get a neighboring market's affiliate, unless it's either unavailable on DISH, out of spot beam range, or non-existant, THEN it defaults to the distant. Shouldn't that make everyone happy?


----------



## darlago78

I called NPS yesterday they told me I was not in their database. I had only the DNS fox in this area of southern west va. for just a couple of months.
However my neighbor across the road and my neighbor behind me qualified for the dns fox. Both of them had been long time dish network subscribers. So why did I did not get my DNS?


----------



## dbconsultant

Would the DNS provided by NPS be in HD? Or SD only like I received via rv waiver from E*?


----------



## Richard King

SD only at this time.


----------



## Link

wje said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> Anyone remember when D* caved on this? All their DNS subscribers lost their network feeds, including me. I didn't jump ship, nor did many others. There was, however, one of those absurd class-action lawsuits filed, which gave some lawyer a pile of money and us subscribers a few free PPV coupons. Never could figure out just why D* was liable for following the law.
> 
> In support of Charlie, the DNS restrictions really are a crock. They're there to allow local stations to try to continue to monopolize transmission in their region. As far as I'm concerned, if they can't compete legitimately, they shouldn't be propped up by artificial means. I can't get my local NBC, FOX, or CBS affiliates OTA. The Boston CBS affiliate at that time wouldn't grant a waiver. Net result? I stopped watching CBS. Turns out that was no great loss anyway.


Yeah that is what will happen with my parents area. The viewers just won't watch ABC anymore. In fact before E* offered locals, most satellite customers just did without watch the local stations. I know some used rabbit ears on a TV (which only gets CBS for the most part) just for local news and weather. Otherwise they never watched the local stations because they would hardly get them with an indoor antenna and they weren't going to spend money for an outside antenna either.

One other problem was you couldn't record with a DVR on off air channels. I never understood why the earlier DVRs weren't capable of recording off air channels when they didn't offer many local cities on E* yet. The DVR didn't do any good in recording shows off the networks. It wasn't until the locals were available on E* could you record your network shows.


----------



## makman

Distant Networks vs. EchoStar Update

Monday December 4, 2006 

On November 29, 2006 the Plaintiffs (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) filed an motion with the United States District Court Southern District Of Florida requesting an Issuance of an Order to Show Cause why EchoStar and “two parties acting in concert with EchoStar” should not be held in contempt. United States District Judge William Dimitrouleas has issued an order referring this motion to United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for “appropriate disposition or report and recommendation. 

It was further ordered that the parties or their counsel send a copy of all relevant pleading and filing directly to the Magistrate Judge. In a related order, Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case. Stay tuned to the Transmitter News for further updates as they become available.

If you haven’t done so, sign up for the email version of the Transmitter News. We will be emailing updates as they become available.


----------



## Link

makman said:


> Distant Networks vs. EchoStar Update
> 
> Monday December 4, 2006
> 
> On November 29, 2006 the Plaintiffs (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) filed an motion with the United States District Court Southern District Of Florida requesting an Issuance of an Order to Show Cause why EchoStar and "two parties acting in concert with EchoStar" should not be held in contempt. United States District Judge William Dimitrouleas has issued an order referring this motion to United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for "appropriate disposition or report and recommendation.
> 
> It was further ordered that the parties or their counsel send a copy of all relevant pleading and filing directly to the Magistrate Judge. In a related order, Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case. Stay tuned to the Transmitter News for further updates as they become available.
> 
> If you haven't done so, sign up for the email version of the Transmitter News. We will be emailing updates as they become available.


Why do the networks not want E* broadcasting distant networks to those that need them? I guess they don't care if some areas of the country are without their programs. Some friends have already been calling and emailing me on what happened to their ABC station. I figure this will continue all week.


----------



## Link

TNGTony said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Simply put... There was a law suit for copyright infringement against Dish and DirecTV by several parties. DirecTV eventually did what the plaitiffs wanted and was released from the law suit some time ago. At that time many DirecTV subscribers who did not legally qualify for distant networks lost them. All their subscribers were requalified for distant networks. So DirecTV was off the judicial hook.


Well they didn't requalify everyone. I know at least 10 or so people that have Directv distant networks that should have only qualified for ABC--unless they were protected if they had them before 1999 or should they have lost them regardless? At any rate, they still have them today and no channels were cut off in 2003. My parents have had distant networks since they got Directv in 1995.


----------



## James Long

makman said:


> Distant Networks vs. EchoStar Update
> 
> Monday December 4, 2006
> 
> On November 29, 2006 the Plaintiffs (ABC, NBC, CBS & FOX) filed an motion with the United States District Court Southern District Of Florida requesting an Issuance of an Order to Show Cause why EchoStar and "two parties acting in concert with EchoStar" should not be held in contempt. United States District Judge William Dimitrouleas has issued an order referring this motion to United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for "appropriate disposition or report and recommendation.


Mentioned court documents appeared today.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the request for a hearing ... I've attached the arguements. It appears that the lawyers are trying to clarify and verify what has been reported here (and obviously at SatGuys) abiut how NPS is qualifying for their service.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> Mentioned court documents appeared today.
> 
> The plaintiffs filed a response to the request for a hearing ... I've attached the arguements. It appears that the lawyers are trying to clarify and verify what has been reported here (and obviously at SatGuys) abiut how NPS is qualifying for their service.


Do you have the Judge's order yet?

Mitch


----------



## James Long

Link said:


> Why do the networks not want E* broadcasting distant networks to those that need them?


They likely don't mind people _WHO NEED THEM_ getting distants. The issue was that E* was selling distants to people who, by legal definitions, did not need distants to view network programming. Because it was apparent that E* did not know the difference between someone who needed service and someone who merely wanted an option E* lost the priviledge of offering distants.

The current situation seems to be E* offering distants via another company. Based on reports, NPS has yet to prove their independence when it comes to offering, qualifying for and authorizing the purchase if distants via DBS.


----------



## James Long

makman said:



> Do you have the Judge's order yet?


Yes, but it is boring.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> Yes, but it is boring.


So what exactly is a magistrate judge vs Judge Dimitrouleas? It sounds like he has punted to the new judge who can do as he pleases.

Mitch


----------



## James Long

Think of them as assistant judges -MAGISTRATE JUDGES - Judicial officers who assist U.S. district judges in getting cases ready for trial, who may decide some criminal and civil trials when both parties agree to have the case heard by a magistrate judge instead of a judge.

Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The judges of each district appoint one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so that the judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

Magistrate judges disposed of 500,897 matters in 1992. In 1994 there were 369 full-time and 110 part-time magistrate judges.
source​


----------



## Link

James Long said:


> They likely don't mind people _WHO NEED THEM_ getting distants. The issue was that E* was selling distants to people who, by legal definitions, did not need distants to view network programming. Because it was apparent that E* did not know the difference between someone who needed service and someone who merely wanted an option E* lost the priviledge of offering distants.
> 
> The current situation seems to be E* offering distants via another company. Based on reports, NPS has yet to prove their independence when it comes to offering, qualifying for and authorizing the purchase if distants via DBS.


Is it possible then that people who are ordering and have ordered distants from NPS will get those shut off also??

A few people called me today about not having ABC and I gave them the website to go on and sign up for ABC. I just hope its not a waste of their time if they are going to lose it again.


----------



## James Long

If the judge issues a restraining order against NPS and orders their shut off they could go away. I don't expect them to go away instantly the moment an order is issued - E* and NPS will probably take it as far as they can through the courts before shutting them off.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> If the judge issues a restraining order against NPS and orders their shut off they could go away. I don't expect them to go away instantly the moment an order is issued - E* and NPS will probably take it as far as they can through the courts before shutting them off.


Which probably means a few days for the Appeals court to refuse to revisit the issue, and a few days for the supremes to refuse.

Mitch


----------



## James Long

Here is Echostar's opposition to all plantiff's emergency motion for issuance of an order to show cause, and alternative motion for clarification of the permanent injuction.

In other words, their side of the argument over NPS DBS Distants.


----------



## psnarula

James -- these motions are fascinating. How do you get these .pdf files?


----------



## James Long

The US Courts system operates a system of websites for the district and other major courts.
More information is available at http://pacer.uscourts.gov/*P*ublic *A*ccess to *C*ourt *E*lectronic *R*ecords (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from Federal Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts, and the U.S. Party/Case Index via the Internet.source​
The PACER system provides electronic access to case information from federal courts across the United States. *The information gathered from the PACER system is a matter of public record and may be reproduced without permission.* However, the PACER customer assumes all responsibility for consequences that arise from use of the data.Empahsis added - source​


----------



## cj9788

I called NPS today, tried again to get DNS based only on my address. They refused to proceed after the rep could not find my phone number. I explained that they should not be asking my phone number and that of course I am not in the system as I have never done bussiness with them (NPS). The very patient rep explained that they can only sell DNS at the current time to customers in thier system. I responded with how does soem one get in the system and he said he did not know that they just do..??? Well I am still waiting for them to respond to the e-mail I sent with my smart card numbers. And in the mean time I dug up an old 3900 that has been deactivated for ever and a day (yes it has the yellow card). Since the agreement that JL posted states you do not have to be a E* sub I am going to have my wife send an e-mail with her name ( our E* account is in my name) and the 3900's smart card number to see what happens.


----------



## Richard King

Charlie has dug his own grave here. It's a shame because it could have all been so easy if NPS were simply signing up all takers to DNS. NPS and Echostar both have the reputation of going the limit in legalities. I think this time they both overstepped. It's really too bad and a VERY expensive mistake to make.


----------



## derwin0

The agreement states specifically that NPS can sign up NON-Dish subscribers.
Perhaps they are using the Dish phone list to get started immediately, while they set up a system that can handle non-dish subscribers.
If they can show movement in that area, that should satisfy the courts.


----------



## Link

derwin0 said:


> The agreement states specifically that NPS can sign up NON-Dish subscribers.
> Perhaps they are using the Dish phone list to get started immediately, while they set up a system that can handle non-dish subscribers.
> If they can show movement in that area, that should satisfy the courts.


If they are leasing satellite space to provide their service, your E* account is irrelavant. You can sign up for Sky Angel with E* equipment that has nothing to do with your E* account and programming, so this should be the same way. Otherwise, I'd say it definitely violates the court order.

Anyone should be able to take E* equipment and sign up (in areas that qualify) for the distant services only.


----------



## James Long

Hmmm ...

E*'s request for a hearing has been removed from the court website. Apparently they intended it to be filed under seal. Nothing confidential in that one though.


----------



## Darkman

In response to the Networks asking the Florida Federal Judge for clarification of his order and possibly an order preventing NPS from broadcasting distant network stations using space leased on an EchoStar satellite, it was basically pointed out that enough is enough.

The EchoStar response said, in part: "EchoStar accepts the decision of the this Court. It has complied, and will continue to comply, with the Permanent Injunction. EchoStar shut off distant network channels to all of its approximately 900,000 subscribers. It is out of the distant network signal business. Plaintiffs do not and cannot contest these facts.

EchoStar's lease agreement with National Programming Service LLC ("NPS") does not alter these facts. That Agreement is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Permanent Injunction and the statutory remedy embodied in the injunction.. Under the agreement's terms, EchoStar will not qualify consumers for access to distant network programming, will not activate or de-activate subscribers, and will not earn any revenue from that business. NPS has the right to use the leased transponder to transmit any video programming it desires.

While use of a portion of the transponder to transmit distant network channels was not unexpected, the fact remains that that decision was made by NPS, which may use all or a portion of the transponder capacity for other purposes in its discretion."

The EchoStar filing continues: ...

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120506newsletter.cfm#H1 )


----------



## rtd2

Darkman said:


> In response to the Networks asking the Florida Federal Judge for clarification of his order and possibly an order preventing NPS from broadcasting distant network stations using space leased on an EchoStar satellite, it was basically pointed out that enough is enough.
> 
> The EchoStar response said, in part: "EchoStar accepts the decision of the this Court. It has complied, and will continue to comply, with the Permanent Injunction. EchoStar shut off distant network channels to all of its approximately 900,000 subscribers. It is out of the distant network signal business. Plaintiffs do not and cannot contest these facts.
> 
> *EchoStar's lease agreement with National Programming Service LLC ("NPS") does not alter these facts. That Agreement is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Permanent Injunction and the statutory remedy embodied in the injunction.. Under the agreement's terms, EchoStar will not qualify consumers for access to distant network programming, will not activate or de-activate subscribers, and will not earn any revenue from that business. NPS has the right to use the leased transponder to transmit any video programming it desires. *While use of a portion of the transponder to transmit distant network channels was not unexpected, the fact remains that that decision was made by NPS, which may use all or a portion of the transponder capacity for other purposes in its discretion."
> 
> The EchoStar filing continues: ..
> 
> ---
> ( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120506newsletter.cfm#H1 )


That is easy enough even a Judge should understand it


----------



## James Long

If only E* and NPS could demonstrate that statement to be true.

Early reports were that one *must* be an E* subscriber and on a particular list of subscribers provided by E* to NPS in order to get distants via NPS's DBS service. This is in direct conflict to the claims of E* and NPS that their operations are separate.

People should be qualified for NPS DBS distants *solely* based on their address. If NPS wants to verify posession of E* equipment (needed to receive said signals) before authorizing customers it is a good idea - but to require potential customers to have an E* account and be listed by E* as distant customers (in effect be pre-approved by E*) or be _refused service_ is wrong.

NPS needs to cut the ties, approve customers with no regard to their status with E*, and get many cases of them doing so before the court or they will lose the ability to sell distants via E*'s transponder.


----------



## cj9788

NPS call 1

Just called NPS again told them I heard that they sell DNS and that I was a SKY Angel sub and wanted to sub to DNS. The rep asked me if I also subbed to E*. I asked her why and she told me that at the current time NPS is only selling to E* customers. 

Call two:

Called NPS and told them that I wanted to see if I qualified for DNS the rep asked me for my phone number I gave it to him and was told that I am not eligible. I asked why and was again told that since my number is not in the system I am not a qualified sub. This time I asked what makes me a qualified sub and the rep actually told me that E* is providing them with the info. I then told the rep that I live in a true white area and asked if they could check my address. He told me that he could not do that. I was told that E* sends them the subs and the ones that NPS qualifies they put in the system. He told me if I was in fact in a true white area then they should get my info from E* soon. That they are getting more and more info from dish and should have all eligible subs within 10-15 days. I then asked him if he new about the agreement between dish and nps and he said that he did not that he was just a csr. I then told him that I receive locals from E* and he told me that if I receive locals from E* then I WILL not be getting DNS from NPS because it would violate the law and that is what got E* in trouble to begin with. I then asked him if NPS as an independent company provides Locals other than DNS and he told me no they only provide DNS. So I asked if I dropped my locals with E* would they then sell me locals and he actually told me it all depends on if I am in a white area and E* gives them my info. I also asked him about non E* customers recving DNS from NPS and was told no at the current time they only sell to active E* customers. I thanked him and hung up.


These guys are fracking up big time. All it takes is for one of the CBS lawyers to call NPS just the way I did and the Lawyers would have admissible proof that E* and NPS are NOT following the argreement that was given to the courts. Do not expect this deal to last!


----------



## James Long

Slow day for the courts ... 

As noted earlier in this thread, E* filed a request for hearing marked "filed under seal" through the public system. Not a good way of having a document sealed. That document was removed from the public system today.

All parties are now addressing the magistrate judge --- all have requested a hearing as that is the fastest way to resolve the issue and either stop NPS or get on with life.

All parties have also agreed to put off awarding legal fees to the plantiffs so their lawyers can concentrate on more important matters (the NPS issue). There is also mention of a possible settlement on paying the legal fees.

Also NPS filed again objecting to the contempt order and to the proposed restraining order.

So far no schedule from the magistrate as to when he will wade into this matter and set a date. A reminder that when the judge referred this to the magistrate he specifically said that no emergency existed.


----------



## whatchel1

cj9788 said:


> NPS call 1
> 
> Just called NPS again told them I heard that they sell DNS and that I was a SKY Angel sub and wanted to sub to DNS. The rep asked me if I also subbed to E*. I asked her why and she told me that at the current time NPS is only selling to E* customers.
> 
> Call two:
> 
> Called NPS and told them that I wanted to see if I qualified for DNS the rep asked me for my phone number I gave it to him and was told that I am not eligible. I asked why and was again told that since my number is not in the system I am not a qualified sub. This time I asked what makes me a qualified sub and the rep actually told me that E* is providing them with the info. I then told the rep that I live in a true white area and asked if they could check my address. He told me that he could not do that. I was told that E* sends them the subs and the ones that NPS qualifies they put in the system. He told me if I was in fact in a true white area then they should get my info from E* soon. That they are getting more and more info from dish and should have all eligible subs within 10-15 days. I then asked him if he new about the agreement between dish and nps and he said that he did not that he was just a csr. I then told him that I receive locals from E* and he told me that if I receive locals from E* then I WILL not be getting DNS from NPS because it would violate the law and that is what got E* in trouble to begin with. I then asked him if NPS as an independent company provides Locals other than DNS and he told me no they only provide DNS. So I asked if I dropped my locals with E* would they then sell me locals and he actually told me it all depends on if I am in a white area and E* gives them my info. I also asked him about non E* customers recving DNS from NPS and was told no at the current time they only sell to active E* customers. I thanked him and hung up.
> 
> These guys are fracking up big time. All it takes is for one of the CBS lawyers to call NPS just the way I did and the Lawyers would have admissible proof that E* and NPS are NOT following the argreement that was given to the courts. Do not expect this deal to last!


Your little routine proves that a CSR can be made to make statements to satisfy the questions. It may get the records subpoenaed. I think you were leading the witness to get your answers.


----------



## BobS

whatchel1 said:


> Your little routine proves that a CSR can be made to make statements to satisfy the questions. It may get the records subpoenaed. I think you were leading the witness to get your answers.


There is nothing wrong with leading a witness during cross-examination or if he has been declared hostile. Just wait until a decent lawyer gets a crack at it.


----------



## Darkman

EchoStar Says It's Just Taking Care of Subs:
http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=87243


----------



## Chris Blount

DISH Responds to Opposition

After being forced to turn off its distant network signals last week, and after the 'Better TV for All' company teamed up with NPS to help those 800,000 or so DISH Network subscribers find an alternative, the National Association of Broadcasters immediately tried to pull the plug on the arrangement. Using an unusual vehicle to air its position, the usually tight-lipped EchoStar has gone public with its take on the NAB-led cease and desist order over the company's latest business deal.

Court papers show that the NAB coalition of networks is asking Florida Federal Judge William P. Dimitrouleas to clarify the permanent injunction he handed down to DISH in hopes that a newly-defined ruling will prevent EchoStar and NPS from moving forward with their business plan. In response, EchoStar said that the company fully accepts the court's decision and will continue to comply with the injunction.

"EchoStar shut off distant network channels to all of its subscribers (and) is out of the distant network signal business," the company said. "EchoStar will not qualify consumers for access to distant network programming, will not activate or de-activate subscribers, and will not earn any revenue from that business."

Further, EchoStar said, NPS rightfully can use leased transponder capacity to transmit any video programming the company desires.

In its court filings, EchoStar maintained that the NAB-led push for a temporary restraining order is unwarranted because they have not identified any harm they will suffer "if NPS, instead of DIRECTV," provides distant net signals to DISH subscribers. If the judge upholds the request, EchoStar said, "only consumers and NPS will be harmed."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## Greg Bimson

From today's (Wed, 6 Dec) SatBizNews.com:

DECISIONMARK HALTS NPS DISTANT CLEARANCES


----------



## Mike D-CO5

What does that mean Greg?


----------



## Greg Bimson

In order to qualify for distants, one must be in a "white-area" or receive a waiver. Decisionmark is the company that provided data to Dish Network and NPS, and still does for DirecTV, which maps out the eligible "white-area" zip codes. 

If Decisionmark says you need a waiver, Decisionmark would be the company that submits the waivers to the stations, and would report back to the satellite provider regarding eligibility.

No Decisionmark, and one would wonder where NPS would get the information about waivers.


----------



## James Long

NPS claims that their distants subscriptions are approved by DecisionMark. Apparently DecisionMark is refusing to approve any of NPS's clearances (effective when isn't clear from a headline) which puts NPS in a position where they cannot offer distants (without finding another legal method of determining who is 'unserved').


----------



## Badger

Mike D-CO5 said:


> What does that mean Greg?


Not Greg but it what is means is that E* is the only one "qualifying" potential NPS/ All American Direct DNS customers and they don't qualify them unless they SUBSCRIBE to E* service. Of course you could signup for E* through ALL American direct as they are reported to be a E* retailer and then you MAY be good to go on DNS.  I think DecisionMark wants to put all the distance they can between themselves and E*/NPS/All American Direct!


----------



## James Long

I wouldn't be suprised to see a breach of contract suit against DecisionMark by NPS (unless their contract allows DecisionMark to cease offering service abruptly). Or perhaps a suit by DecisionMark against NPS for using their name in marketing without using their service to qualify former E* customers. I'm sure it will end up in court one way or another.


----------



## shephrd

Received the following email from AllAmericanDirect.com after submitting information on their site and getting a message saying that I am ineligible for distant network service:

"Due to the overwhelming response to Distant Networks, we are experiencing significant delays with our Network Eligibility & Qualification status. To ensure we establish the proper qualification & connection requirements for you, we will also need your individual unique satellite receiver # (i.e. smart card or access card #).

Thanks for your patience & understanding. Please allow 7 to 10 days for a response.

Smart Card/Access Card # |________________________|

Email address: |__________________________| needed for us to respond back to you,"


----------



## James Long

Unless something got filed late in the day ...

1102) The magistrate approved new deadlines for dealing with attorney fees (which were already stipulated to by all parties).

1103) The plaintiffs (networks and affiliates) filed another document supporting their side. I have attached it along with it's attachments.

BTW: If you decide to repost these files on another site please at least give credit to where you downloaded them. Thanks.


----------



## cj9788

whatchel1 said:


> Your little routine proves that a CSR can be made to make statements to satisfy the questions. It may get the records subpoenaed. I think you were leading the witness to get your answers.


You think I got the answers I wanted?!?!

No I did not. I wanted them to ask me for my address and make absolutly no mention of E* whatsoever. It is so obvious that they are not following the agreement that is in place between the 2 companies. The same agreement filed with the court. If you need to be an E* sub then they are not following the agreement. If they need to get info from E* before they can qualify me then they are not following the agreement. If they are not following the agreement the court has no option but to kill the deal.


----------



## James Long

cj9788 said:


> NPS call 1
> 
> Just called NPS again told them I heard that they sell DNS and that I was a SKY Angel sub and wanted to sub to DNS. *The rep asked me if I also subbed to E**. I asked her why and she told me that at the current time NPS is only selling to E* customers.
> 
> Call two:
> 
> Called NPS and told them that I wanted to see if I qualified for DNS the rep asked me for my phone number I gave it to him and was told that I am not eligible. *I asked why* and was again told that since my number is not in the system I am not a qualified sub. This time *I asked what makes me a qualified sub* and the rep actually told me that E* is providing them with the info.


On both calls the CSR was the first to mention E* --- I don't see the questions as leading.

The call one question about E* from the CSR would be acceptable if it was to discover if you had a dish pointed at 119° (a SkyAngel only sub would likely be pointed at 61.5° only) but the statement the CSR volunteered is clearly a problem.

The call two question solidifies that - "what makes me a qualified sub?" "E*'s info."


----------



## Mikey

Seems to me that the NPS csr's are totally clueless on how to qualify people. I'm guessing that the E* data should only be used to determine if the applicant is already getting locals from E*. If that was the case, it would automatically disqualify the applicant. That's how I think it was supposed to be used.


----------



## James Long

Mikey said:


> Seems to me that the NPS csr's are totally clueless on how to qualify people. I'm guessing that the E* data should only be used to determine if the applicant is already getting locals from E*. If that was the case, it would automatically disqualify the applicant. That's how I think it was supposed to be used.


Why would getting locals from E* automatically disqualify a person from getting distants from another carrier?

Since NPS doesn't offer locals they are able to provide distants to anyone who is qualified solely based on where they live (white area or waivers) and DO NOT have to consider whether or not the customer has locals via another provider.


----------



## Mikey

James Long said:


> Why would getting locals from E* automatically disqualify a person from getting distants from another carrier?
> 
> Since NPS doesn't offer locals they are able to provide distants to anyone who is qualified solely based on where they live (white area or waivers) and DO NOT have to consider whether or not the customer has locals via another provider.


I meant that would be a disqualifier if the applicant was a current Dish sub.


----------



## James Long

Mikey said:


> I meant that would be a disqualifier if the applicant was a current Dish sub.


The question remains. A person should not be qualified or disqualified for receiving distants from one company based on their subscriptions with another company.

NPS is an entirely separate company - right? Why are they acting "in concert"?


----------



## Mikey

James Long said:


> The question remains. A person should not be qualified or disqualified for receiving distants from one company based on their subscriptions with another company.
> 
> NPS is an entirely separate company - right? Why are they acting "in concert"?


My understanding of SHVERA was that if a customer had LIL for his DMA, he wouldn't be allowed DNS. So, E* is being very careful now to keep from violating that clause of the law. Since NPS doesn't seem to have any input from D* on their customer base, it may be that's why they aren't authorizing D* subs.


----------



## Richard King

> DECISIONMARK HALTS NPS DISTANT CLEARANCES


A theory here: 
Decisionmark has been providing their services to Echostar and to NPS on individual seperate contracts. Echostar has been passing their information on to NPS. I would think that Decisionmark probably has a clause in their contract to provide services that the information they provide will not be shared with outside parties. Echostar is obviously sharing this info with an outside party (NPS) and is in violation of the contract. NPS, being the recipient of the info is an active party and this violates THEIR contract with Decisionmark.... all just a theory.


----------



## James Long

Mikey said:


> My understanding of SHVERA was that if a customer had LIL for his DMA, he wouldn't be allowed DNS.


You have a misunderstanding of SHVERA. The rule only applies to the satellite carrier who has locals in your market -- not to the customer. Otherwise D* would not be permitted to sell distants in the 40 or so markets that they do not have local service in that E* serves. (Or to anyone with cable.)


----------



## whatchel1

cj9788 said:


> You think I got the answers I wanted?!?!
> 
> No I did not. I wanted them to ask me for my address and make absolutly no mention of E* whatsoever. It is so obvious that they are not following the agreement that is in place between the 2 companies. The same agreement filed with the court. If you need to be an E* sub then they are not following the agreement. If they need to get info from E* before they can qualify me then they are not following the agreement. If they are not following the agreement the court has no option but to kill the deal.


I didn't say you got the answers you wanted. I said you lead the witness. With the way you asked the questions It lead the 2 of you down a road that had only 1 conclusion.


----------



## cj9788

Well I again called NPS today and they are doing things a little diffrent.

The rep answered "May have have the phone number from your Dish Network account" (Yes he specificly asked it this way). I gave him my phone number then he asked for my name. This was DIFFRENT. I gave hime my name and he said Mr. 9788 unfortunatly your are not in our system and we need to call you back so that we can get your address and see if you qualify for DNS from our company. I offered to give it to him now and he told me that there was too much call volume and he could not take now but some one would call me back in the next 7-10 days. I thanked him and the call ended.


Also I watched the Charlie chat again today and I noticed some thing I had not caught before. WHen Charlie was answering an E-mail from a sub in Macon he told the sub that No provider could offer him DIstants because he recvd LiL. He said something else that floored me. He told the sub that if he could not not get his locals via an OTA then he could possibly recv DNS from another provider that is not offering LiL to his DMA he then said he could POSSIBLY recv DNS from ADD but they would need to qualify him. Now this was in direct contridiction to the pie chart segment at the begining of the chat where Charlie told us if we were in section A we could not get DNS from NPS. 

Now he has me confused. First I thought he just was quoteing the law incorrectly to keep us all from dropping our LiL and jumping to AAD. Was the ansewr to the sub in Macon a freudian slip (becasue he knows the law just doesnt follow it) and he wants us to get DNS from AAD but wants to be on record saying group A can not get them. 

Any insight from the experts would be appreciated.


----------



## cj9788

whatchel1 said:


> I didn't say you got the answers you wanted. I said you lead the witness. With the way you asked the questions It lead the 2 of you down a road that had only 1 conclusion.


If you say so. But James pretty much summed it up above in post 216.

I never once mentioned DIsh Network in either call. In call one I just wanted to see if AAD would sell DNS to a non E* sub as agreed to in the agreement they filed with the court. I can not say that they wont as I can not tell the future. All I know is that at the current time they will not sell you DNS if you are not an E* sub. My intention was not to lead it was to find out if they could sell DNS to a non E* sub and a E* sub not in the SYS.


----------



## James Long

whatchel1 said:


> I didn't say you got the answers you wanted. I said you lead the witness. With the way you asked the questions It lead the 2 of you down a road that had only 1 conclusion.


Yep, he asked questions without mentioning E* that led down the path to the truth: NPS is only signing up specific E* customers at this time for their new DBS based service and one cannot qualify without being on E*'s magic list.

This wasn't one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" types of questions. These were straight forward calls asking for a straight answer - "why won't you sell me distants!"

This is a perfect example of why companies need to know what they are doing before letting CSRs loose on phone lines. Get the script right - make sure that callers know that NPS _WILL_ be qualifying all potential customers in the future but for now they are concentrating _FIRST_ on those affected by E* losing distants. It would be better if they handled non-E* distants subs at the same time, but it could be explained that they are giving people who just lost distants first chance at getting them "back".


----------



## whatchel1

James Long said:


> Yep, he asked questions without mentioning E* that led down the path to the truth: NPS is only signing up specific E* customers at this time for their new DBS based service and one cannot qualify without being on E*'s magic list.
> 
> This wasn't one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" types of questions. These were straight forward calls asking for a straight answer - "why won't you sell me distants!"
> 
> This is a perfect example of why companies need to know what they are doing before letting CSRs loose on phone lines. Get the script right - make sure that callers know that NPS _WILL_ be qualifying all potential customers in the future but for now they are concentrating _FIRST_ on those affected by E* losing distants. It would be better if they handled non-E* distants subs at the same time, but it could be explained that they are giving people who just lost distants first chance at getting them "back".


The thing is that NPS may not be working in concert but the contract may say that NPS has to serve the customers that Decisionmark supplies them. Decisionmark very possibly is only supplying only E* customers until a certain date and of course the CSR's are so up on the correct thing to say that they were telling ppl that they can only sell to E* customers. When they should be saying we have to serve the ones on this list 1st then we can add new customers of our own.


----------



## James Long

Today NPS asked for it's out of state lawyers again ... this time they filed the fees. 

Also NPS filed a response and explaination of current events ...
It seems that NPS paid DecisionMark to look over E*'s distant customer database and 'pre-approve' (if you will) to see who on that list could get distants. That is apparently "the list" that NPS is referring to.

The second document also refers to DecisionMark's abrupt refusal to qualify customers.

Documents attached ... enjoy!

BTW: If you decide to repost these files on another site please at least give credit to where you downloaded them. Thanks.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Wow. My name has been sullied. I've been called a "former Dish Network subscriber".


----------



## Richard King

I've been called worse, I think?


----------



## Tower Guy

Greg Bimson said:


> Wow. My name has been sullied. I've been called a "former Dish Network subscriber".


Don't worry, they think Greg Bimson is only a "pseudoname".


----------



## Richard King

I find the Decisionmark discussion interesting. It may provide a case for NPS to go after the networks and other plaintifs in their own case (and I hope they do).


----------



## minnow

So if DecisionMark is no longer participating, how is NPS proceeding with qualifying new subscribers ?


----------



## James Long

minnow said:


> So if DecisionMark is no longer participating, how is NPS proceeding with qualifying new subscribers ?


They are not. All they have to go on is the "pre-approved" batch of E* customers that NPS ran through DecisionMark on November 28th.

It is odd ... in today's response (PDF above) they say "EchoStar did not provide any subscriber lists to NPS through DecisionMark". Then they describe a scheme where EchoStar provided NPS with basic (name address phone) information of customers so NPS could judge whether or not it was worth starting a distants service for E* customers. It seems that their "limited purpose" agreement with E* was immediately violated by NPS by converting this list of E* customers into a pre-approved list of NPS customers (just call, we know you are good). They play dumb that they didn't know that the list were subscribers or were eligible then they clearly state that they took the same list and run through DecisionMark as a 'pre-approval' list."If a former EchoStar customer contacts NPS, NPS may access the batch file provided by Decisionmark *to determine that customer's eligibility* for distant network signaling,"​NPS is clearly using the information provided by E* for more than an estimate of how many E* customers could use NPS for service - they used that information to create a pre-approval list. Does that "limited purpose" fits within E*'s agreement? If not then NPS has violated it's agreement with E* - if it is permitted then E* is working with NPS to approve customers.

When NPS asked for a list of potential distants subscribers what did they expect? The list was CLEARLY a list of subscribers who E* believed would qualify for distants (or were receiving distants from E*).

What a mess! The lease of that transponder is even MORE tied to the provision of distants than before. Not only did NPS want to lease the transponder, but they wanted proof in advance that the specific service they wished to offer (distants) was viable!

I'm not sure I'm happy about E* providing customer information to a third party that may or may not be treating that information with due respect and confidentiality. But that is a subject for another post.


----------



## minnow

Which then begs the question, how viable now is NPS. With limited potential customers and no way now to provide service to new customers who don't appear on the "list", and with a big monthly rent payment due to E*, it makes one wonder if NPS can afford to provide DNS to those fortunate enough to sign up before DecisionMark pulled out.


----------



## Richard King

> I'm not sure I'm happy about E* providing customer information to a third party that may or may not be treating that information with due respect and confidentiality.


I am certain that there were confidentiality conditions attached to the list.


----------



## aginzu

Making NPS non-viable was the goal of the plaintiffs (especially FOX) in the first place, so that they could assure a monopoly for DirecTV.

It's a bad sign when a company is losing market share and resorts to using the government to hamper its competitors at the expense of the innocent consumer.


----------



## whatchel1

aginzu said:


> Making NPS non-viable was the goal of the plaintiffs (especially FOX) in the first place, so that they could assure a monopoly for DirecTV.
> 
> It's a bad sign when a company is losing market share and resorts to using the government to hamper its competitors at the expense of the innocent consumer.


Things might start changing now that Rupert is unloading Directv to a different media company.


----------



## James Long

Richard King said:


> I'm not sure I'm happy about E* providing customer information to a third party that may or may not be treating that information with due respect and confidentiality.
> 
> 
> 
> I am certain that there were confidentiality conditions attached to the list.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is just a matter of trust. NPS was provided the list '_solely for the limited purpose of testing and building the Company's internal systems (the "purpose"), and for no other purposes_' (paragraph 1) and yet in the court document above NPS openly admited that they submitted the list to Decisionmark to determine if delivering distants 'made economic and business sense'. In addition the NDA states that '_any and all work product derived from or related to the Confidential Information, in any manner whatsoever, shall be the exclusive property of ESLLC._' (paragraph 4). Yet NPS's work product, the Decisionmark annotated list, is admittedly being used to qualify customers. ('NPS may access the batch file provided by Decisionmark to determine that customer's eligibility'.)

It seems that NPS is using the data beyond what the NDA would allow ... which raises the question of whether they can be trusted not to further violate the NDA.


whatchel1 said:


> Things might start changing now that Rupert is unloading Directv to a different media company.


Ah, that is just a ruse by Rupert to put distance between Fox and DirecTV so he can say in court that the companies are not related.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Richard King said:


> I am certain that there were confidentiality conditions attached to the list.


But as I mentioned earlier in the thread... did Dish customers grant permission for Dish to give this information to NPS in the first place for any use? Privacy policies are intended to prevent just this sort of thing from happening... so Dish may have opened a new can of worms to go with the already existing one!


----------



## whatchel1

James Long said:


> I suppose that is just a matter of trust. NPS was provided the list '_solely for the limited purpose of testing and building the Company's internal systems (the "purpose"), and for no other purposes_' (paragraph 1) and yet in the court document above NPS openly admited that they submitted the list to Decisionmark to determine if delivering distants 'made economic and business sense'. In addition the NDA states that '_any and all work product derived from or related to the Confidential Information, in any manner whatsoever, shall be the exclusive property of ESLLC._' (paragraph 4). Yet NPS's work product, the Decisionmark annotated list, is admittedly being used to qualify customers. ('NPS may access the batch file provided by Decisionmark to determine that customer's eligibility'.)
> 
> It seems that NPS is using the data beyond what the NDA would allow ... which raises the question of whether they can be trusted not to further violate the NDA.Ah, that is just a ruse by Rupert to put distance between Fox and DirecTV so he can say in court that the companies are not related.


Are you saying that this deal is just a ruse?

It appears that two long standing media rivals have buried the hatchet at least long enough to put the News Corp/Liberty Media deal to bed.

It is being reported in The New York Times' Web site that Rupert Murcoch's News Corp will transfer its controlling stake in DIRECTV to Liberty Media as a part of a deal to buy back News Corp stock from Liberty. In the deal, it is reported that Liberty will get DIRECTV, three regional sports networks and $500 million in cash for the News Corp shares it owns. In return, Liberty would give Murdoch it's 19 percent voting stake as well as their 15 percent nonvoting stake in News Corp, reported the New York Times citing a banker and executive close to the deal.


----------



## James Long

whatchel1 said:


> Are you saying that this deal is just a ruse?


I was joking about D*. But I wouldn't be suprised to see a mention in the next plantiff's filing about the sale.


----------



## whatchel1

James Long said:


> I was joking about D*. But I wouldn't be suprised to see a mention in the next plantiff's filing about the sale.


Yeah I didn't realize you were joking. It doesn't work well w/o a smilie on the forums.


----------



## James Long

whatchel1 said:


> Yeah I didn't realize you were joking. It doesn't work well w/o a smilie on the forums.


I did use one. Like this ->


----------



## Richard King

> It is odd ... in today's response (PDF above) they say "EchoStar did not provide any subscriber lists to NPS through DecisionMark". Then they describe a scheme where EchoStar provided NPS with basic (name address phone) information of customers so NPS could judge whether or not it was worth starting a distants service for E* customers. It seems that their "limited purpose" agreement with E* was immediately violated by NPS by converting this list of E* customers into a pre-approved list of NPS customers (just call, we know you are good). They play dumb that they didn't know that the list were subscribers or were eligible then they clearly state that they took the same list and run through DecisionMark as a 'pre-approval' list.


My understanding of the reading is different than yours. As I understand it they got the list to not only set up their internal systems, but to also test the viability of the business, which means testing the addresses for legality of receiving distant nets. If I were in NPS's shoes, the first thing that I would have done is to send them to Decisionmark and check their validity and work up a percentage of how many were good and not good. This appears to be what they did. They then have something that they can do their projections to create a business plan and other systems to make it all work. If they couldn't send the names off to Decisionmark they would have to rely on the word of Dish that they all had been approved, not a good position to be in to start a new business.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Richard King said:


> As I understand it they got the list to not only set up their internal systems, but to also test the viability of the business, which means testing the addresses for legality of receiving distant nets. If I were in NPS's shoes, the first thing that I would have done is to send them to Decisionmark and check their validity and work up a percentage of how many were good and not good.


That is fine. Then the list would need to be thrown out the window once the analysis was completed.

Instead this has become the "absolute, de-facto qualification list". Which of course was supplied by the same company that has an injunction placed upon it.

By all "appearance", it simply looks like Dish Network has outsourced their distant networks. That is a no-no. Without Echostar, NPS/AAD does not have a valid DBS business.


----------



## Tower Guy

Greg Bimson said:


> That is fine. Then the list would need to be thrown out the window once the analysis was completed.


Hypothetically speaking:

NPS to Decisionmark;

Please tell me how many subscribers on this list qualify for distant networks?

Decisionmark to NPS

Here's the list. Would you like to buy our services to qualify each individual subscriber, the rate is X cents per database query.

NPS to Decisionmark

Sure, where do I sign?

Decisionmark to NPS

I see that you are signing up customers without access to our database. That avoids the per subscriber charges that we agreed to.

NPS to Decisionmark

Too bad.

Decisionmark to NPS

Our contract has been violated, you're cut off.


----------



## wcswett

Hmmm... I'm in a white area in the Atlanta DMA, which has local-into-local on spotbeams. I wonder if I could get the Atlanta channels from NPS, for RV or other use outside of the spot beam, as those must necessarily be on a CONUS transponder...

--- WCS

< with Oh Canada playing in background >


----------



## James Long

Richard King said:


> If I were in NPS's shoes, the first thing that I would have done is to send them to Decisionmark and check their validity and work up a percentage of how many were good and not good. This appears to be what they did. They then have something that they can do their projections to create a business plan and other systems to make it all work.


And going that far should be enough. The later dips into that data for the actual approval of customers is what I believe gets them in the most trouble. Sure, use a huge database to make sure your software can handle huge databases - and if permitted run the addresses to see if the business venture is viable. But keeping that list (or a "work product" that is covered under the NDA) available for CSRs to use? Not cool.


----------



## James Long

Tower Guy said:


> Hypothetically speaking:


We have the actual chain of events, so hypothosis isn't needed.


> NPS to Decisionmark;
> 
> Please tell me how many subscribers on this list qualify for distant networks?


More accurately: "Please tell me how many subscribers on this list qualify for distants, annotate the list with what networks they qualify for and what Grade signal of each network they are receiving." The November 28th run of the list was on a contract that asked for more than a count.


> Decisionmark to NPS
> 
> Here's the list. Would you like to buy our services to qualify each individual subscriber, the rate is X cents per database query.


The list as provided by the November 28th contract was already annotated. A license agreement to use Decisionmark's software for two years starting December 1st (renewable) for live qualification was signed after receipt of the annotated list.


> Decisionmark to NPS
> 
> I see that you are signing up customers without access to our database. That avoids the per subscriber charges that we agreed to.


Actually, NPS paid Decisionmark per record and per qualified subscriber on their first run (not just a payment for running X records but a bonus, if you will, for successful hits).


----------



## James Long

Today in Court:

NPS got approval for their out of state lawyers (they paid the fee this time).

EchoStar responded to the plantiff's request for information, basically refusing to provide customer lists and restating what we have read before ...
But it is attached if you want to read it again! 

The issue of the lists is VERY carefully worded to avoid saying the obvious.
"We didn't provide a list _indirectly_ through Decisionmark" - no, E* provided a direct list that NPS ran through Decisionmark.
"We didn't provide an analysis of whether our customers could receive distants" - no, but they DID provide the customer list needed to create such an analysis.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> But keeping that list (or a "work product" that is covered under the NDA) available for CSRs to use? Not cool.


Actually, I don't see it as a problem, in my opinion. If it violated the NDA, DISH has a claim against NPS. They of course would not make this claim. If they did, then NPS may have to pay DISH for using this list. This would be acting in concert. No payment, no "acting in concert".

Mitch


----------



## James Long

Wouldn't ALLOWING NPS use the "work product" (which is covered under the NDA) to be used for qualifying customers be "acting in concert"? E* should complain (at least to the Florida court) that the list was not being used for it's indended purposes but they are declining to defend their NDA in this matter. Otherwise it becomes a (wink wink) here's a list for you to use to 'test' your database and to decide if your service is viable. It (wink wink) isn't nessisarily a list of distant subscribers but (nudge nudge) Decisionmark can tell you if they qualify (or not).

Curiosity, but if NPS has been trying to cut a deal with E* since August to rent this transponder and market their own DBS service (which may or may not be DNS) to E* receivers why would they wait until November 28th to decide if it was a viable service to offer?


----------



## makman

I don't see it as acting in concert if Echostar gets nothing out of it. 

The list given was not of DNS eligible customers. It was of customers who cannot get LIL from DISH. Granted that should not matter to NPS which is a separate company.

Mitch


----------



## James Long

The failure here seems to rest mainly on NPS ...

E*'s filing seems to leave it open for a company to use customer lists that it provides for marketing purposes, even though in this case the NDA had a listed purpose and NPS has made several court filings stating that they were not contacting subscribers on the E* provided list.

Instead NPS turned the list into a "pre-approved" customer list. Which would not have been bad except in the way that it was presented to customers.

NPS should have NEVER told a single customer about that list. Checking against the list would save them from checking again with Decisionmark - but what they did when a customer was NOT on that list is the problem. The correct "next step" would have been to check their live Decisionmark link or take contact information and call the customer back if the link was down. Their real "next step" was to tell the customer to call E* and basically refuse service to anyone not on the Decisionmark processed E* provided list.

A simple "we are overwhelmed with response but will be happy to take your name, address and phone and get back to you" or "please call back in three days" or anything except the "call E*" response would have been better.

It was the CSRs that introduced the E* connection into the approval process --- NPS should NEVER have let that happen.

How do they fix it? Kinda hard now that Decisionmark has cut off live qualifications. Their best solution would have been to get as many customers who were not on "the list" signed up as quickly as possible and prove that "the list" from E* is not the only way of getting service - but without Decisionmark they cannot do that.

First impressions are very important --- NPS has made a bad first impression.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

makman said:


> I don't see it as acting in concert if Echostar gets nothing out of it.


Two minor things with that thought...

Firstly, Dish is getting something out of it. Most obviously they are getting some money from NPS for the lease fee on the transponder usage. Without NPS, Dish would not be making money directly from the use of those transponders as they are "in concert" with NPS leasing them. Perhaps less obviously, IF this arrangement keeps 900,000 (or less as some of us think) subscribers from leaving Dish and going to DirecTV or elsewhere, then Dish also benefits from that as well by virtue of not losing business from those customers.

Secondly, and maybe this should have been first... but "in concert" doesn't have to benefit Dish in the form of money. Clearly it *should* benefit them... but companies have been known to be charitable and even take a loss on something to gain good PR... so it is very easy to be "in concert" with someone and yet not benefit monetarily.


----------



## Richard King

James Long said:


> And going that far should be enough. The later dips into that data for the actual approval of customers is what I believe gets them in the most trouble. Sure, use a huge database to make sure your software can handle huge databases - and if permitted run the addresses to see if the business venture is viable. But keeping that list (or a "work product" that is covered under the NDA) available for CSRs to use? Not cool.


Good point, James.


----------



## Greg Bimson

New thought just occurred. And this one isn't good, as we've ignored one of the most fundamental issues of law...

Why was any list given by Dish Network to NPS at all?

NPS needed to understand if there was a viable business? They cannot depend on Dish Network for any information, otherwise Dish Network's _participation_ is required.

Think about it. Why in the world does NPS/AAD go to Dish Network and inquire about starting a distant network service, then turn around and require every bit of help from Dish Network to accomplish this, from the broadcasting assets to the receivers and also a customer list?

The Dish Network agreement with NPS/AAD appears to be an "outsourcing" agreement for distant network service. That most definitely would be against the terms of the injunction.

Now for the most important piece of evidence...

NPS has stated that Dish Network gave NPS/AAD a list of subscribers. This list would contain subscriber information in markets where Dish Network: 1) does not provide local channels; and 2) loses a complement of four networks in "short markets".

The special Charlie Chat states that Dish Network distant network subscribers fall into three categories:

A) those in a market where Dish Network offers local channels. Those subscribers would not be able to get distant networks under any circumstance. This assertion would be incorrect. NPS should be allowed to sign up distant network subscribers in an area such as southern Utah, because NPS does not offer local channels and there aren't so many translators for the big networks in Salt Lake, Phoenix or even Grand Junction that would cover the area.

B) those Dish Network subscribers that did not take local channels and truly qualified. Again, if NPS had nothing to do with Dish Network, this point is moot.

C) those Dish Network subscribers that are in markets where Dish Network does not offer local channels and truly qualified.

It turns out the list given to NPS was for the category B and category C customers.

It also turns out that the special Charlie Chat, which was given before the injunction was enforced, links the categories of subscribers and the list given to NPS. That means the two are certainly working together.


----------



## boylehome

This list issue is a flag raiser. Could it mean that NPS went to E* and said something like, "we see you have lost DNS, we are starting a business and need to rent your transponders, plus need your subscribers to so to get us up and running?" That seems rather honest but still in civil matters all one needs is a preponderance of doubt. From what we have seen from dicisions, it looks like the scale is tipped away from E* favor.


----------



## cj9788

They just need to stop using any E* info and start entering all customers manualy at the point of contact. If the address qualifes based soley on desecionmark then an account is created smart card numbers entered payment secured and finaly activation of channels. 

They appear to be going that route when I called yeterday they took my name and address without asking for my phone number at the beginning of the call. They then told me they would call me back as the system they need to qualify my adddress is not available. Obviously a reference to not having real time info from decision mark. 

Now I wonder if and when decesionmark is available to NPS will the broker factor in LiL from E* and D* in all white areas. If so then no one in an LiL area will be getting DNS from NPS. They would be bound to the qualifaction from Decisonmark.


----------



## Richard King

> Now I wonder if and when decesionmark is available to NPS will the broker factor in LiL from E* and D* in all white areas. If so then no one in an LiL area will be getting DNS from NPS. They would be bound to the qualifaction from Decisonmark.


If they do this, all Directv would need to do is fill the holes that are not currently covered by either DBS service (not that many left) to put NPS out of the distant signal business.


----------



## James Long

NPS made a couple of filings ...
A Motion to Intervene in the case between E* and the Plantiffs (1111)
NPS feels that they are under attack and have a right to defend themselves.
(No new details in this filing.)

A Resonse to the Plantiff's Motion to Clarify (1112)
NPS feels that the clarification requested is a revison that is not permitted by law.
(Again, no new details in this filing.)

The Plantiffs replied to NPS' Friday response (1113) focusing on two points - that E* provided NPS with a highly proprietary list of customers most likely to sign up for NPS services and then they get odd, they claim that NPS offering distants would 'vitiate' the "if local, no distant" provision of SHVERA. The Plantiffs claim that NPS doesn't understand the provision. (Personally, it appears that the Plantiffs are misunderstanding SHVERA - unless DirecTV is willing to turn off distants in all markets where E* offers locals. The "if local, no distant" provision does not apply between carriers.)

NPS also filed for another Indianapolis (their hometown) lawyer to be allowed in the Florida Court --- with fee so it will likely be approved!


----------



## moonman

Story here..... http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/121206newsletter.cfm#H1


----------



## James Long

moonman said:


> Story here..... http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/121206newsletter.cfm#H1


Cool - trust an Indiana judge to get it right! 

Restraining order attached ...


----------



## James Long

The Indiana judge's rationale for issuing the TRO is attached --


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> The Indiana judge's rationale for issuing the TRO is attached --


It is the same document as above.


----------



## James Long

makman said:


> It is the same document as above.


I just noticed that ... I've corrected the first post with the TRO.


----------



## Nick

When Decisionmark stopped processing qualifications for former DISH subs that wanted distant signals via National Programming Service - something smelled fishy. Bbroadcasting interests had threatened the Cedar Rapids-based company with legal action, and Decisionmark - trying to keep itself out of hot water - complied with the demands.

But NPS asked a U.S. District Court in Indianapolis for an emergency hearing to force Decisionmark to resume the transactions - as called for by the contract between the two companies - and it appears a judge has ruled in its favor.

U.S. District Judge David Hamilton ordered Decisionmark to rescind its suspension of services under the Software Licensing Agreement it has with NPS and told the company to immediately begin processing the customer requests of NPS. The ruling, however, is not permanent. Judge Hamilton said the order will go into immediate effect for 10 days unless it is earlier terminated or modified.

NPS still awaits a decision from the U.S. District Court in Florida between the network affiliates and EchoStar over the permanent injunction handed down to DISH Network earlier this month.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## tsmacro

BobS said:


> I don't want to beat this to death but what E* or any party has to say is interesting and certainly listened to but does not dictate the outcome. The point that I was trying to make is that a judge could reasonably interpret the statute in the way I indicated. It is not a case where the a/the is dispositive because (again as I pointed out) there is an underlying assumption that the person is dealing with one and only one DBS company. In other words, this situation is not one that Congress addressed. Therefore in case of a controversy the court must use the law and established methods of interpretation to solve the problem. In this case a court could, repeat, could determine that in consideration of all the evidence that doing an end run around the principle of "no distants if locals" wouldn't be allowed. This is much, much different that the E* case where Congress spoke directly to the issue at hand in unambiguous terms. If the black and white print of a law were always clear and expansive enough to cover every circumstance we wouldn't need judges just flowcharts.


Now I do find it interesting when the ruling was made against Dish and there was last minute attempts at appeals and deals with the nets and people were looking at different ways the whole thing could be interpreted you were one of the people who kept hammering people with the "letter of the law" and that there was no room for interpretation. Now that a ruling has gone in favor of NPS which could benefit E* all the sudden you're the one talking about interpreting things differently. Not saying that you do, but I could certainly understand how one might interpret from your posts in these matters that you might have an bias against E*.


----------



## Tower Guy

James Long said:


> One must admit that having two out of the then four DBS carriers offering distants _was_ viable in 2004. Having two out of the now four DBS carriers offering distants is the same math.


Same math; but completely different intent. NPS exists solely to circumvent the Echostar injunction. There's no other way to interpret it. As long NPS serves only white areas without E* LiL, and the LiL market rollout continues without let-up, few are harmed, and the customer benefits.

However, if NPS causes E* to slow down their LiL rollout schedule, NPS continues to sell DNS in markets where LiL becomes available from Echostar, and/or begins offering DNS in white areas that are current E* LiL markets; NPS can't afford to defend themselves against lawsuits by all the companies that would be harmed by such action.


----------



## James Long

E* isn't slowing down putting in LIL markets because of NPS. They did hit a plateau this year and generally have not been adding them - even before the NPS deal - until this recent rush. Having NPS offer distants doesn't help E* stay out of the locals business. They STILL want that $$ per month fee for locals and they are still many markets ahead of D*.

I'm sure someone will claim that NPS is leading to a 'slowdown' but those people need to look at the past. It can't get much slower than where E* has been the past year or so.


----------



## James Long

Nothing out of Florida's Southern District, but the NPS vs Decisonmark issue continues with Decisionmark asking the judge in Indiana's Southern District to determine whether or not it's performance under the contract with NPS would violate the Permanent Injunction (issued in Florida).

Based on the previous statements from the court in Indiana I don't see him interfering with the eight year old Florida based case and making such determination. His court didn't issue the Permanent Injunction and he has no authority over the Florida Southern District.

The core of the NPS vs Decisionmark issue is the suspension of services that occured with less than two hours warning at a critical time for NPS (during initial signups). The clause in the contract seems clear that service would be terminated if there was a court order - but in this case _NO COURT ORDER EXISTS_ and Decisionmark suspended service solely based on a third party complaint and threat of lawsuit. There is no "out" in the contract for that.

According to court documents, NPS is paying Decisionmark over $25,000 per month for use of their databases and servers. (Plus there is a $5 fee per network for any waivers granted through Decisionmark's system.) Decisionmark wants a $500,000 bond and full indemnity against any claims of the Florida Plantiffs.

I hope the judge holds them to their contract - It does not appear that NPS is seeking damages for the time that Decisionmark services were not available, but not having Decisionmark for the past week certainly didn't help business.

BTW: There is no claim by Decisionmark that NPS violated the contract. Only the fear that by honoring the contract they would be a target of claims by the Florida Plaintiffs. It seems clear that Decisionmark doesn't have a strong case (unless the Florida Court rules against NPS - which is covered in their contract).

Here are Decisionmark's words. Enjoy!


----------



## minnow

What a bunch of wimps. Get one strong arm phone call and they fold like a paper tent in tornado. Glad the judge told them to obey the contact.


----------



## James Long

22 posts from this thread that have more to do with other issues than NPS have been moved to a new thread in the Legislative Issues forum.

Should having LIL from Company A prevent you from getting DNS from Company B?

Please allow this thread to concentrate on the battle between the Plaintiffs and EchoStar/NPS or the related NPS vs Decisionmark issue. Thanks!


----------



## James Long

No new documents posted.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> No new documents posted.


Any idea if there will be a hearing, or if/when the judge will rule?

Mitch


----------



## James Long

If/when a hearing date is set, or if a hearing is denied, the court will post a notice. Until then we wait.


----------



## James Long

Two things need to happen real quick (and I've probably mentioned them before but it bears repeating).

1) NPS must sign up as many customers independently of E* as they can. Examples such as cj9788 who were not on the list E* provided yet qualified are key.

2) E* must get rid of the stragglers. No more stories of people having distants and a court filing detailing how E* ensured that no customer was receiving distants from E*.

So far the few forum reports of "I still have distants" have not made the court papers. Perhaps they are less important to the Plantiffs than the descriptions of how NPS was doing business. In any case, the cleaner the operation is and the quicker it becomes "clean" the better.


----------



## derwin0

James Long said:


> 2) E* must get rid of the stragglers. No more stories of people having distants and a court filing detailing how E* ensured that no customer was receiving distants from E*.


L.A. moves to spots, so that's probably a good step in that direction.


----------



## James Long

The magistrate judge has recommended that the Plantiff's motions for contempt and clarification be *DENIED*.

The injunction DOES NOT APPLY to NPS broadcasting distants, even via EchoStar's transponders and receivers.


----------



## rtd2

James Long said:


> The magistrate judge has recommended that the Plantiff's motions for contempt and clarification be *DENIED*.
> 
> The injunction DOES NOT APPLY to NPS broadcasting distants, even via EchoStar's transponders and receivers.


'Bout time...shame they even had to defend their position(NPS) Cant wait to see what the NAB, or Any of ECHO/NPS competion will do now?


----------



## boylehome

James Long said:


> The magistrate judge has recommended that the Plantiff's motions for contempt and clarification be *DENIED*.
> 
> The injunction DOES NOT APPLY to NPS broadcasting distants, even via EchoStar's transponders and receivers.


Now lets see if the plaintiffs file objections within the 5 day limit. My bet is they will file.


----------



## James Long

boylehome said:


> Now lets see if the plaintiffs file objections within the 5 day limit. My bet is they will file.


Would it be impolite to respond "well, duh." ? :lol:

The judge does not have to follow the magistrate's recommendation and it would be foolish for the Plaintiffs not to try to point out some perceived error. But the recommendation is certainly a step in Echostar's favor.


----------



## Ohioankev

James Long said:


> Two things need to happen real quick (and I've probably mentioned them before but it bears repeating).
> 
> 1) NPS must sign up as many customers independently of E* as they can. Examples such as cj9788 who were not on the list E* provided yet qualified are key.
> 
> 2) E* must get rid of the stragglers. No more stories of people having distants and a court filing detailing how E* ensured that no customer was receiving distants from E*.
> 
> So far the few forum reports of "I still have distants" have not made the court papers. Perhaps they are less important to the Plantiffs than the descriptions of how NPS was doing business. In any case, the cleaner the operation is and the quicker it becomes "clean" the better.


I called DISH and told them that I still had distants on my DISH and they told me not to worry about it(ABC-W) that it will be gone shortly, three days later it was removed. So i'm no longer getting the last distant feed that i had been getting. 
So they are working on it.


----------



## BobS

If E* regained the ability to provide DNS, how long would it take Charlie to show up in court in an attempt to abrogate the NPS agreement? I would guess you could measure the time in nanoseconds. Is anybody in an E* LIL receiving DNS from NPS (actually receiving, not trying to get)? As a matter of fact, I'm going to conduct my own poll. If you have LIL *and *DNS how are you subscribing? Use the following format to reply, noting that the greyed-out options are invalid and should not be used.

LIL/DNS/method

E*/D*/white
E*/NPS/white
D*/E*/white
D*/NPS/white
E*/D*/waiver
E*/NPS/waiver
D*/E*/waiver
D*/NPS/waiver
E*/D*/grandfather
E*/NPS/grandfather
D*/E*/grandfather
D*/NPS/grandfather
E*/D*/RV-trucker
E*/NPS/RV-trucker
D*/E*/RV-trucker
D*/NPS/RV-trucker


----------



## makman

BobS said:


> If E* regained the ability to provide DNS, how long would it take Charlie to show up in court in an attempt to abrogate the NPS agreement? I would guess you could measure the time in nanoseconds. Is anybody in an E* LIL receiving DNS from NPS (actually receiving, not trying to get)? As a matter of fact, I'm going to conduct my own poll. If you have LIL *and *DNS how are you subscribing? Use the following format to reply, noting that the greyed-out options are invalid and should not be used.




That is why it is only a 2 year contract. If Charlie regains the right to give DNS to legal recipients, he simply has to wait it out. It is not like they are not already his customers for other programming. Near the end of the 2 years, he simply does not renew the NPS contract.

E*/NPS/RV-trucker

Mitch


----------



## James Long

BobS, if you want your own poll go set one up. Don't polute a long running thread with an issue that has already been split away from this thread.

As noted earlier in the thread, E* has a non-compete with NPS. If by some court action E* regains permission to transmit distants they can't. I've posted just the pertinent paragrapg below.

E* has held the right to transmit SV stations (if they regain permission to do so).


----------



## James Long

makman said:


> That is why it is only a 2 year contract. If Charlie regains the right to give DNS to legal recipients, he simply has to wait it out. It is not like they are not already his customers for other programming. Near the end of the 2 years, he simply does not renew the NPS contract.


DNS for everyone dies at the end of 2009 (unless congress extends the deadline again). As for analog source DNS, that pretty much dies in February 2009 when the analog sources are scheduled to go away.


----------



## cj9788

James

So because of the non compete contract there would be no way to get DNS from E* (if they win in Suprem Court or by the bill) and NPS atthe same time? I was kinda of hope full that if E* was allowed to send DNS again that I could get NY/LA from E* and SFO/ATL from AAD. It would not violate SHVERA because it says that the company can not provide more than 2 cities from each network. I thought it would be cool 2 cities from E* and 2 cities from AAD.


----------



## James Long

There are always possiblities ... NPS could decide to go out of the distants business and use their leased transponder for other programming. E* could buy out the contract. But as it stands, it is a two year contract for transponder space and IF NPS uses it to transmit distants, E* will not compete.

NPS did write a cancellation provision in their contract with Decisionmark. If after two months NPS decides that offering distants is not a viable business they can cancel with Decisionmark (saving $25k+ per month) and go on to other programming.


----------



## James Long

Quote of the day from yesterday's magistrate recomendation:


> The Permanent Injunction is directed only to the prohibited activity of providing
> distant network programming; it is not directed to nor intended to penalize EchoStar's
> other, permissible activities. Neither SHVIA nor the Permanent Injunction require that
> EchoStar suffer harm to its legitimate activities. Were it otherwise, the Injunction (as
> mandated by the Act) would have required that EchoStar cease all business. The fact that
> the Agreement may assist EchoStar in retaining customers of its permissible activities -
> which are not the targets of the Injunction - does not undermine the purpose of the Act or
> otherwise violate the Permanent Injunction.
> 
> Barry S. Seltzer
> United States Magistrate Judge
> (footnote 23 as continued on page 23)


----------



## Hall

James Long said:


> NPS did write a cancellation provision in their contract with Decisionmark. If after two months NPS decides that offering distants is not a viable business they can cancel with Decisionmark (saving $25k+ per month) and go on to other programming.


 If you presume most people get the $9/mo deal from NPS, it only takes 17,000 customers to cover the lease cost of the transponder ! There are potentially 300,000 (Group A) eligible customers, correct ?? If they get a third of those, it seems to be a VERY profitable business ! Of course, they have to deduct the fees they pay to the broadcasters and I suspect no one knows what those rates are.


----------



## James Long

Hall said:


> Of course, they have to deduct the fees they pay to the broadcasters and I suspect no one knows what those rates are.


They were specified in 17 USC 119 as 6¢ per subscriber per month for distant network stations (the exact figure was removed by SHVERA).

$150,000 for the transponder (monthly), $25,000 for Decisionmark (monthly), $5 per network per granted waiver (one time fee) - those are the known costs. Add in the reception and rebroadcast of the stations (which is unknown but not cheap). They are temporarily leasing uplink space for $5000 per month from E* ... Probably looking at $200-$250k before serving a single customer, per month. (And I have not mentioned staffing.)

Divided by $9 for those who qualify for all four networks they would need 27k subscribers ... round that up to 30k and they should be able to make payroll. I don't see that as an impossible goal, especially now that the court is preparing to make it clear that it is a legal business.


----------



## joblo

James Long said:


> As noted earlier in the thread, E* has a non-compete with NPS. If by some court action E* regains permission to transmit distants they can't. I've posted just the pertinent paragrapg below.


I dunno, James.

The way I read that paragraph, it bars E* from selling Atlanta/SF as DNS, and that's all.

And I can't help thinking that's by design. The legal documents may be all well and good, but it's way too convenient. To think there are no unwritten agreements here or that E* has had no input into NPS's choice of programming or other modes of operation seems naïve, to say the least.



James Long said:


> They were specified in 17 USC 119 as 6¢ per subscriber per month for distant network stations (the exact figure was removed by SHVERA).


The royalty fee is now 20¢, per 37CFR258.3.


----------



## Richard King

Is that per station or per subscriber?


----------



## Hall

Safe to say "per subscriber".


----------



## Richard King

I really meant per person per station. If I have locals am I paying 20 cents per station or 20 cents total for the distant feeds?


----------



## joblo

20 cents per station per month per sub


----------



## Hall

What if you don't qualify for all (4) major networks, but only (2) of them ?? As noted, it's 'per station, per customer'.


----------



## James Long

For NPS: 20¢ per station per customer means $1.60 of the $9.00 that NPS charges those fortunate enough to qualify for all four, or 40¢ of the $2.50 for each network a customer purchases individually.

$250,000 per month for fixed costs, net $7.40 from a $9 subscriber, 33.7k subscribers needed before paying for backhauls and staff. Call it an even 40k before they make profit.


----------



## BobS

Ok everybody, like Woodsy says: Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute! Forget the poll. But James you miss my point. I understand what you are saying but Charlie is such a sleaze that I am sure he would attempt to jettison the NPS contract if he regains DNS privileges. I asked how long this would take because I don't think he wants to give up a day's DNS profits. By the by, somewhere else you said DNS royalties were 40 cents/sub/net/month. I think the amount is 20 cents (to be 23 cents in a couple of weeks) regardless of the number of DNS signals you get. But I could be wrong.



James Long said:


> BobS, if you want your own poll go set one up. Don't polute a long running thread with an issue that has already been split away from this thread.
> 
> As noted earlier in the thread, E* has a non-compete with NPS. If by some court action E* regains permission to transmit distants they can't. I've posted just the pertinent paragrapg below.
> 
> E* has held the right to transmit SV stations (if they regain permission to do so).


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> Ok everybody, like Woodsy says: Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute! Forget the poll. But James you miss my point. I understand what you are saying but Charlie is such a sleaze that I am sure he would attempt to jettison the NPS contract if he regains DNS privileges.


I see that personal attacks are common with you, even directed at the head of a major international corporation. 


BobS said:


> I asked how long this would take because I don't think he wants to give up a day's DNS profits. By the by, somewhere else you said DNS royalties were 40 cents/sub/net/month. I think the amount is 20 cents (to be 23 cents in a couple of weeks) regardless of the number of DNS signals you get. But I could be wrong.


"Somewhere else" is the post above yours. I'm trusting joblo for the price on this one (as he posted it a few posts back in this thread). If it is 20¢ per station it would be 40¢ per network with NPS since NPS sells networks in pairs.


----------



## Tower Guy

BobS said:


> I understand what you are saying but Charlie is such a sleaze that I am sure he would attempt to jettison the NPS contract if he regains DNS privileges.


In the event that E* regains DNS privileges they could buy out NPS pretty cheaply.


----------



## dave1234

James Long said:


> Quote of the day from yesterday's magistrate recomendation:


I think this quote(see James post above) speaks volumes of the real intent. I don't think E cares about distants as much as subscribers. Here's some rough math(because I don't know what the distants cost)...

1,000,000(subscribers) * $5.00(cost of distants) * 12(months) = $60,000,000. not a big sum for E.

1,000,000(subscribers) * $50(monthly E sub) * 12(months) = $600,000,000 this is a big sum....
Assuming E loses these subsribers to D.


----------



## BobS

James Long said:


> I see that personal attacks are common with you, even directed at the head of a major international corporation. "Somewhere else" is the post above yours. I'm trusting joblo for the price on this one (as he posted it a few posts back in this thread). If it is 20¢ per station it would be 40¢ per network with NPS since NPS sells networks in pairs.


Did I attack Rupert Murdoch? Oh, you mean Charlie. A major international corporation? Didn't know E* was available in Europe and Asia. A personal attack in the logic sense is something like "BobS says HD and digital are two different concepts. But BobS is a sleazebag so we shouldn't believe what he says." Charlie has a long, public history of dishonest conduct. Calling him a sleaze is simply a shorthand way of saying this. Don't forget that *I* was a big fan of his before he betrayed me and every other E* customer. I wrote glowing papers in college about his entrepreneurial talent and service to humanity. Like so many here, I didn't see the lack of integrity that lay underneath. Unlike some here, I am not willing to overlook his character defects in the interests of getting the entertainment programming I want or because of a conspiratorial obsession with Newscorp*. But I'm a sport. Why don't you conduct a poll and ask the people if Charlie is a sleaze, a shining white knight or simply the head of a major international corporation.

With regard to the royalty rate, right above _is_ somewhere else.  I had been doing other things and didn't go back to check the location since it wasn't crucial to the issue. I think joblo's rate is correct (until 1/1/2007). I read "each station" as, well, "each station" not "each pair of stations" or "each package of stations." I am not up on all of the terminology, sorry.

*Don't tell anyone but I don't much care for Mr. Murdoch either for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which is his use of a "convenience" American citizenship. I consider that a bigger affront than anything (that I am aware of) Ergen has done. But this forum is about DBS and Murdoch's transgressions don't play a role (at least directly) in the discussion.


----------



## James Long

We are drifing a little ...
:backtotop


----------



## rocatman

I was wondering about NPS providing distant HD networks for Dish. I don't remember all the HD provisions in SHREVA but could use of NPS circumvent some of the SHREVA requirements and allow folks at least in some of the smaller markets to receive distant HD networks sooner?


----------



## James Long

IIRC SHVERA allows distant "digital stations" under similar rules to analog distants. The first caveat would be the "no earlier timezone" --- people west of the Central time zone would not be able to get any distant broadcasting on the Eastern/Central schedule.

The second is in qualification. IIRC the signal testing rules are not in effect yet - so the idea of providing "digital stations" based on local digital signal coverage is yet to come.

All, IIRC. Probably more detail in old threads in the SHVERA "Legislative Activities" forum.


BTW: No court documents made public today. A transcript was filed in Indiana but it was not available via PACER at last check.


----------



## bmanner

rocatman said:


> I was wondering about NPS providing distant HD networks for Dish. I don't remember all the HD provisions in SHREVA but could use of NPS circumvent some of the SHREVA requirements and allow folks at least in some of the smaller markets to receive distant HD networks sooner?


I lost the CBS HD feed from NY due to this injunction. Now I have NO WAY to received a CBS HD signal (Milan TN in Western TN, Central TZ). Not from Dish, Not from Direct, Not from Cable, Not from OTA (Memphis is 75 miles away). I know that I don't know all of the legalities related to this mess, however I believe I should be able to pay for a CBS HD feed from somewhere. That seems like a reasonable right that someone has taken away.


----------



## minnow

The other site has posted the Judges ruling that was made on Friday and made available today. The Judge has upheld the decesion from the Magistrate. DNS from NPS is a GO !!!


----------



## James Long

Drat. The court didn't change the "Date of last filing:" from "12/15/2006"
Filed: 12/15/2006 Entered: 12/18/2006


> For the foregoing reasons, the Court does not find that modification of its Order of Permanent Injunction is warranted. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a change in circumstances requiring modification of the Injunction nor that the relief sought is required by either the Act or the mandate of the Eleventh Circuit.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> Drat. The court didn't change the "Date of last filing:" from "12/15/2006"
> Filed: 12/15/2006 Entered: 12/18/2006


So the judge basically said that that the plaintifs case is so weak, he is not waiting for the 5 days to see if they can come up with anything better. I guess at this point they would have to appeal to the Appeals court.

Mitch


----------



## James Long

The plaintiffs can still complain - it does give them direction on how to frame their complaints. There is an appeal court if the Plaintiff's feel there is more to say. (Not to mention a "motion for reconsideration", but both are unlikely to change anything.)

While coming to the same conclusion, it is interesting how Judge Dimitrouleas found new words to give an opinion instead of echoing the writing of Magistrate Seltzer. There is a lot in the decision that I like ...


> What Plaintiffs seek is not really a clarification of the Injunction but rather a modification of that Order, to broaden its current scope to include the conduct it now complains of between EchoStar and NPS.
> ...​Neither the Act nor the mandate impose a requirement that EchoStar refrain from any business with customers formerly receiving distant network signals, nor does it prohibit other providers from transmitting those signals to those former customers who qualify as unserved under the Act.
> ...​That EchoStar has found a way to minimize harm to its customers and itself, and likely prevent a windfall to its competitors, does not require this Court to modify the injunctive relief entered to encompass conduct not intended to be banned by the Act or the Eleventh Circuit's mandate, and the Court does not find good cause to enter such broad relief.


And most important to the future of NPS:


> Plaintiffs also argue that the modification is necessary because allowing NPS to proceed with the current Agreement with EchoStar would "vitiate the 'if local, no distant' provisions of the SHVERA." Plaintiffs assert that if the NPS/EchoStar Agreement is permitted, a household's ability to receive local-to-local service will have no bearing on whether it can receive distant network signals through EchoStar's satellite, despite the requirement of the Act and the Court's Injunction. The Court finds Plaintiffs' argument unpersuasive. The Agreement between NPS and EchoStar which would permit NPS to utilize EchoStar's satellite transponder expressly provides that it is NPS, not EchoStar, who will determine subscriber eligibility to receive distant network signals. Thus, the prohibition against EchoStar's transmission of distant programming remains intact. Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that NPS's method of making those determinations is unlawful; if Plaintiffs believe NPS's provision of distant network signals and method of qualifying customers to be in violation of the Act, they may file a separate action against NPS. *The Court will not expand the existing Injunction, however, to ban the conduct of third parties who have not been shown to have violated either the Act or the Court's prior orders.*
> (citations removed; emphasis added)


The pretty much seals the deal that NPS has permission to compete for distants customers without any additional restrictions placed on them simply because they lease an E* transponder or serve E* equipment. It is a good win for NPS.

The Plaintiffs wanted the injunction clarified - they got the injunction clarified.


----------



## James Long

For those keeping track, the 10 day temporary restraining order that requires Decisionmark to provide services to NPS expires tomorrow. NPS has applied (and Decisionmark won't oppose) to extend that temporary restraining order indefinately:


> Plaintiff, National Programming Services, LLC ("NPS"), requests the Court extend the Temporary Restraining Order entered in the above matter on December 11, 2006 ("TRO") until a final resolution in CBS Broadcasting, Inc. el al v. EchoStar Comm'n Corp., et. al, Case No. 1:98-cv-2651-WPD, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Florida matter"), including any appeal thereto. Counsel for defendant Decisionmark Corp.'s ("Decisionmark") has indicated that Decisionmark will not oppose a motion for such an extension.
> 
> As indicated in NPS's Notice of Magistrate's Report and Recommendation in Florida Case, filed December 15, 2006, and the attachment thereto (docket # 21), the magistrate judge in the Florida matter filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the District Court judge deny the motion to show cause (i.e., ruling in favor of NPS) and further ordered that any objections to the report be filed within five days. No objections have yet been filed, and the District Court has not yet ruled on the matter.
> 
> Because a final resolution of the Florida matter will not be made prior to the expiration of the TRO on December 21, 2006, NPS respectfully requests an extension of the TRO until the District Court makes a final determination of the matter, and any appeal of such decision has been resolved or the time for appeal has expired.


Just protection to make sure Decisionmark doesn't cut off NPS again - although now that the Judge ruled in Florida (a fact missing in this ruling) it seems unnessisary to compel Decisionmark.


----------



## James Long

First the good news for NPS ... out of Indiana. The TRO that requires Decisionmark to perform according to contract and qualify customers has been extended indefinately.

Now the other news ... out of Florida. The plaintiffs have filed an objection to the magistrate's report (it would have been odd not to have filed), would like the decision reconsidered and have also refiled asking for discovery.

Attached is the plaintiff's objection (in two parts) and their wish list for discovery.


----------



## minnow

Those motions aren't going to change the decision of the Judge. This latest filing of garbage may have a twofold purpose; first, keep the costs running for NPS and Dish for lawyers to answer these filings and hope that NPS runs out of money and secondly, the plaintiffs are just paving the way to an appeal. The plaintiffs appear to be on the verge of desperation and throwing the perverbial load of crap against the wall to see what, if any thing sticks.


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> First the good news for NPS ... out of Indiana. The TRO that requires Decisionmark to perform according to contract and qualify customers has been extended indefinately.
> 
> Now the other news ... out of Florida. The plaintiffs have filed an objection to the magistrate's report (it would have been odd not to have filed), would like the decision reconsidered and have also refiled asking for discovery.


This is sweet (for NPS) ... LATER THE SAME DAY Judge Dimitrouleas placed an order supporting Magistrate Seltzer _AND_ denying the motion for reconsideration and motion for discovery.

But, if course, the Plaintiffs have filed notice of an appeal. 

Merry Christmas everyone !!!


----------



## BNUMM

James Long said:


> This is sweet (for NPS) ... LATER THE SAME DAY Judge Dimitrouleas placed an order supporting Magistrate Seltzer _AND_ denying the motion for reconsideration and motion for discovery.
> 
> But, if course, the Plaintiffs have filed notice of an appeal.
> 
> Merry Christmas everyone !!!


Just a quick note to thank Jim for the efforts to present the facts by posting the court documents. As an installer of Dishnetwork I like to keep informed and too many times I only hear rumors. Your extra effort saves me the time of finding what is true and what is not. Keep up the good work.


----------



## lwilli201

Greg Bimson said:


> Dish Network is receiving compensation for leasing the transponder to NPS.


Goes a little deeper than that.

Go to allamericandirect.com/index.htm (have not made 5 posts yet so I can not post links 

Note that All American Direct is in the top 5 of Dish retailers.


----------



## James Long

To keep this thread cleaner for the ongoing legal issues, I've moved the customer experience discussion into a new thread:
Distant Networks from NPS - Experiences

Yes, that means three threads are active -One for discussion of the larger case against E* that will be discussed by the Supreme Court (to decide whether or not to hear the appeal) on January 7th.
One for discussion of the new legal complaint against E* and NPS and their "scheme" to transmit DNS via an E* satellite, and
One for customer experiences with signup and picture quality, etc.​
(If anything major happens a new thread on that subject will open and the older one will close. We will also post a headline.)


----------



## James Long

Apparently NPS now trusts that they can do business with Decisionmark without the protection of the court.


> Plaintiff, National Programming Services, LLC ("NPS"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses the above action without prejudice. Defendant Decisionmark Corporation has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, so no order from the Court is required.


In a separate filing NPS requested the temporary restraining order be terminated.

No word out of Florida since before Christmas.


----------



## JerryEl

The court is forgetting about financial issues of the consumer and so did the "new" law over this local TV thing.

In my case I'm going to have to put up at least a 50' directional antenna in order to get all the local channels which I will have to also pay for the installation since I am unable to do it. Who knows, 50' might not do it. The local CBS guy told me it's my fault for building my house down the hill in a small valley instead of up at the top of the hill. Yeah...uh huh!

I'm about fed up with this whole thing and even the locals I do get from Dish have such pitifu al picture it's annoying watching it. I'm trying to watch the Sugar Bowl now and it's so washed out that if not for the uniform colors you couldn't tell which team was what. So much for HDTV unless you like Discovery and ESPN.

Rural living has its plusses but decent TV isn't one of them.
What law needs to be passed is that HDTV qualtiy local channels including all the major networks should be mandatory for all cable and sat providers. If they would just give me the football games I'd be happy.

I just paid $12 to NPS to try and get certified for locals all over again after a heck of a time requesting special waivers before due to my particular house location. Even provided a survey with ground elevations to one station after threatening a sit-in. Went through the same thing with the big dish, then DirecTV, years ago.
It's a continuing saga of consumer be damned...


----------

