# Lawsuits a Flyin'!



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*EchoStar Takes HBO to Task*

Finding itself in familiar territory, EchoStar is once again going to battle after recently filing a programming access complaint with (the FCC) against HBO. On Nov. 15 the company filed its initial complaint and requested that the filing remain confidential pursuant to FCC rules regarding proprietary information.

A redacted version of the complaint was made available to the public a short time ago.

Specifics of the case are not available as the redacted version says little about the dispute. However, in the filing the company said in order to compete in an increasingly crowded multichannel distribution marketplace, "EchoStar must be able to obtain access to programming on fair and non-discriminatory terms" as required by law. The satellite company said it believes that the program access rules are being broken by the programmer in such a way that EchoStar's ability to compete is being significantly obstructed.

HBO filed a response with the FCC last week requesting that the issue receive enhanced confidential treatment arguing program carriage contracts are its most sensitive documents "which contain information that is at the very heart of how HBO conducts its business."

*CORRECTION - 12/12/06* -- EchoStar filed a complaint against HBO with the Federal Communications Commission. Yesterday's SkyREPORT said the satellite company was taking the programmer to court.

*Time Warner Cable Sues DIRECTV*

Time Warner Cable filed a lawsuit against DIRECTV last week alleging the satellite provider is running false advertisements that the cable company's subscribers will be without certain football games carried by NFL Network. Also cited in the suit, Time Warner Cable claims DIRECTV's campaign declaring high-def superiority - those starring Jessica Simpson and William Shatner - is a little fuzzy, at best.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Time Warner said in the suit that DIRECTV took out newspaper ads in Cincinnati, Green Bay and New York - and other strong NFL markets - claiming Time Warner subs in those areas would not be able to see select games on NFLN unless they subscribed to DIRECTV.

Due to the well-publicized carriage dispute between the cable provider and NFLN, Time Warner's cable systems do not carry the football channel and it's subs, obviously, won't see those games. But, what the ads don't say is that all the games carried by the network will be aired locally via the broadcast networks. A spokesman for Time Warner Cable said the ad's claims are false implying the cable company's subs will be left in the dark without the DIRECTV service.

Contacted by SkyREPORT on Friday, DIRECTV Director of Public Relations Robert Mercer said the company is not commenting on the Time Warner lawsuit at this time.

www.SkyReport.com - used with permission


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Nick said:


> *Time Warner Cable Sues DIRECTV*
> Due to the well-publicized carriage dispute between the cable provider and NFLN, Time Warner's cable systems do not carry the football channel and it's subs, obviously, won't see those games. But, what the ads don't say is that all the games carried by the network will be aired locally via the broadcast networks. A spokesman for Time Warner Cable said the ad's claims are false implying the cable company's subs will be left in the dark without the DIRECTV service.


OK fine. Is the local broadcast mentioned here in HDTV? The NFL Network is ( I Have been watching NFL Network in HD). So if you want these games in HD, you will not get it with Time Warner and can with D*. Correct? So I do not think Time Warner can get so smug.

Cheers


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

gcisko said:


> OK fine. Is the local broadcast mentioned here in HDTV? The NFL Network is ( I Have been watching NFL Network in HD). So if you want these games in HD, you will not get it with Time Warner and can with D*. Correct? So I do not think Time Warner can get so smug.
> 
> Cheers


The local broadcast was in HD here 2 weeks ago but the NFLN games that don't include a local team are un-available unless you have NFLN, so I agree that TW loses that argument. I do find the mention of the HD commercials interesting though because I said the same thing when I saw the Jessica Simpson commercials, they are being sued by someone already over down-rezzing channels to HD-Lite but they say they are broadcast in 1080i. I believe that is a really misleading statement as the 1080i standard is 1920 x 1080i, and does not just indicate 1080 horizontal lines as some have used as an excuse for the statement.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

You would _think_ Echostar would feel like they've spent enough time in court lately.


----------



## pso480 (Sep 29, 2006)

It's all about the lawyers!


----------



## bigjim44 (Nov 10, 2006)

Ain't that the truth.


----------



## danm2z (May 18, 2005)

It would be misleading of DirecTV to claim that home market games were unavailable on TW's cable systems if they were simply available on another channel than NFLN (i.e. local broadcast). As for HD, it's the local channel's decision whether or not to carry the game in HD (depends on what rights they pay for from NFLN). I have Dish, but don't pay for the HD package, so could not get the Ravens in HD on NFLN. In addition, the local channel broadcasting the game did not broadcast it in HD, even on their digital channel.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

I've been wondering about the quality of Echostar's legal consul. It seems they haven't done well in court lately.


----------



## TomH (Jun 11, 2005)

gcisko said:


> OK fine. Is the local broadcast mentioned here in HDTV? The NFL Network is ( I Have been watching NFL Network in HD). So if you want these games in HD, you will not get it with Time Warner and can with D*. Correct? So I do not think Time Warner can get so smug.
> 
> Cheers


It's not a matter of being smug. It's a matter of customers dropping Time Warner in favor od DirecTV based on a falsehood. The bottom line is those people in fact DON'T need to switch to DirecTV to see those games as DirecTV has implied.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

TomH said:


> It's not a matter of being smug. It's a matter of customers dropping Time Warner in favor od DirecTV based on a falsehood. The bottom line is those people in fact DON'T need to switch to DirecTV to see those games as DirecTV has implied.


I believe you are correct if your local team is playing. I believe as someone else stated, that if your local team is not playing, the game will not be re-broadcast localy. So you would miss out with TW. Does anyone know for sure if this is not true?


----------



## Swartzy (Nov 22, 2006)

TomH said:


> It's not a matter of being smug. It's a matter of customers dropping Time Warner in favor od DirecTV based on a falsehood. The bottom line is those people in fact DON'T need to switch to DirecTV to see those games as DirecTV has implied.


Uh... yeah they do. TW is claiming D* has said those say... in Cincinnati, will not see select games unless they subscribe to D* because TW does not carry NFLN.

What are "select" games? Is it the Bengals vs. Ravens game? The Steelers vs. Browns? In Cincinnati... NBC carried the Bengals game, but naturally you had to have D* to see the Steelers game outside of Pittsburgh.

What D* said is true... I don't think they made a direct statement saying those in Cincinnati would not see the Bengals game because it was decided some time ago NFLN would provide the feed to a local affiliate when cities w/ NFL teams made a big stink.

I don't think TW has much of a leg to stand on there. However... I do find it curious D* claims to have the best HD signal. However... having recently installed an antenna to pick up the full bandwidth signal via OTA... I don't actually see as much of a difference in picture quality between D*'s HD locals and OTA as I thought I would...


----------



## Ohioankev (Jan 19, 2006)

Swartzy said:


> Uh... yeah they do. TW is claiming D* has said those say... in Cincinnati, will not see select games unless they subscribe to D* because TW does not carry NFLN.
> 
> What are "select" games? Is it the Bengals vs. Ravens game? The Steelers vs. Browns? In Cincinnati... NBC carried the Bengals game, but naturally you had to have D* to see the Steelers game outside of Pittsburgh.
> 
> ...


Charter used to bash the DISH companies all the time around here.... according to Charter if you had a DISH you'd lose signal 23 hours a day, have no DVR, or video on demand. Seems my 625 can do all of that and i've only lost signal four times and a couple of them were due to the stations being moved to different transponders.

Isn't the NFL airing special playoff games on Thursday night that are broadcast live that would not air on NBC/CBS/FOX? Maybe TW should do thier homework.


----------



## bluedogok (Sep 9, 2006)

My friends with Time Warner here do not get any NFL Network games since we are not a home market. I know they have been considering switching since they are fed up with TWC here and that was before the NFL Network issues.

TWC still runs those "Ditch the Dish" promotions all of the time around here.


----------



## audiomaster (Jun 24, 2004)

Time Warner Cable claims DIRECTV's campaign declaring high-def superiority - those starring Jessica Simpson and William Shatner - is a little fuzzy, at best.<<
Well, I definitely don't want any images of Jessica to be "FUZZY"!!! But Shatner might look better softened up a bit!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

As a huge fan of Time Warner Cable, and an NFL fan, I hope one day the two can come to an agreement. In all honesty I would like to see the NFL Network added to the Sports Tier and then have the price of the Sports Tier raised to $2.95 or at least make it only available for digital cable subscribers. We need to remove analog channels, not add them. NBA TV is in the Sports Tier, why shouldn't the NFL Network be?

The NFL will be offering TW and Cablevision a free preview of the NFL Network at the end of the month. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9867081


----------

