# NAB Attacks DISH Distant Nets Challenge



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

NAB Attacks DISH Distant Nets Challenge

The National Association of Broadcasters responded to EchoStar's newest effort at the Supreme Court, saying the satellite TV company's challenge of the ban on distant network signals shows that it's not interested in helping local TV.

"It is inconceivable that EchoStar professes support for local station carriage, while at the same time attempting to undercut the U.S. system of broadcasting," NAB President Eddie Fritts said in a statement. "NAB will vigorously defend the territorial integrity of all free, local television stations, and we fully expect the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the EchoStar appeal."

On Tuesday, EchoStar asked the Supreme Court to overturn a September 2001 ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to limit local affiliate networks to only areas surrounding their origination.

Current law provides that consumers can only access local network channels, and prohibits viewers from watching stations originating from other areas of the country. EchoStar said it believes the distant network signals law violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The NAB disagreed with EchoStar's case. "With careful consideration, Congress explicitly protected the market integrity of local television stations in all 210 markets when it passed the Satellite Home Viewer Act," Fritts said.

"The concept of localism - which is the foundation of community service in free, over-the-air broadcasting - was further validated when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit summarily rejected EchoStar's challenge to the law," he said.

Reposted with permission from SkyReport.COM


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2002)

Scott,i unlike others on the dbs boards have had their distants taken off by dish network. Since i won't be getting my locals by no time soon. I emailed dish about others who have had their distants taken away.

She said i wasn't too worry,because i won't get mine taken away. i thought maybe because off the local channels that was the reasoning. Do you believe if and when the merger goes through that there will all 210 locals being transmitted? I doubt it.

What about cetain cities who don't have all teh big 4 networks(abc,cbs,nbc,and fox)? What is there's no wb,upn. Where does the city get it's channels to provide those programming? Maybe some cities don't have a fox,or nbc,or wb channel. Would they go the next dma area to receive them? It's only fair.

My locals out of duluth,mn don't have an upn channel. only on cable you get kmsp-9(out of minneapolis). Would they put thaton a local?


----------



## jegrant (Mar 24, 2002)

I don't know for sure that it will work out this way - I don't think anyone does, but IF the merger happens and they carry all 210 markets, I'd definitely be in favor of allowing all missing networks in a DMA to be filled in with the ones from the closest DMA that has them.

Either that, or the merged DBS provider ought to be allowed to start a "satellite-only" affiliate of (at least) WB and UPN similar to the "cable-only" WB and UPN affiliates out there.


----------



## jlvideo (Apr 7, 2002)

I think i would only fair to consumre to get the next closest city for those whose local doesn't have any of the major 4 or wb,upn.

Some people dont' so. Some peopel like myself like watching newcasts from other cities. it's intersting to see what their weather,local news is doing. I don't it's justifiable to have all these indy channels as well for the locals. There can be too many.


----------

