# DISH Files for permission to provide distant networks (Court Tracking)



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish has applied for a temporary waiver of the injunction barring them from providing distant networks. The application was filed on May 28. The waiver they are seeking is a 120-day waiver. This is a limited waiver that Dish is seeking. If granted, it would allow Dish to provide distants to short markets in which Dish was not providing local service as of December 31, 2009.

Judge Dimitrouleas has ordered that any interested parties file their papers by noon on June 3. As of now, the injunction still stands.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH's initial filing is attached ... hopefully this will move swiftly for them.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

runner861 said:


> ...Judge Dimitrouleas has ordered that any interested parties file their papers by noon on June 3. As of now, the injunction still stands.


Reading the DISH's filing, it appears the judge intends to grant the waiver in the afternoon of 6/3/10. If there are any parties wishing to file responses before noon, 6/3/10, they will just get their responses on the record, not serving any purpose for the decision to grant the waiver.

I guess Dish must also prove to the judge that on 6/3/10 they will indeed cover all 210 markets.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

OK. Now for the interesting question. Under the draft order would Dish be limited to the FCC significantly viewed list? Or might they start delivering Santa Barbara ABC to the Monterey DMA?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> Reading the DISH's filing, it appears the judge intends to grant the waiver in the afternoon of 6/3/10. If there are any parties wishing to file responses before noon, 6/3/10, they will just get their responses on the record, not serving any purpose for the decision to grant the waiver.
> 
> I guess Dish must also prove to the judge that on 6/3/10 they will indeed cover all 210 markets.


The way I read the new 119 section (g)(2)(C)(i), DISH needs to have made a good faith effort to provide locals to ALL DMAs. So far that effort has been prep work ... customers are still waiting for their locals. Having a noon filing deadline will give DISH the chance to actually make the channels that are not under the injunction available BEFORE the decision is made. DISH's noon filing can be a certification (of sorts) that they are actually delivering all markets. And if The Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas agrees, the few distants that are uplinked and ready to go can be turned on as soon as he signs the order. Perhaps by the end of the day.

Giving "interested parties" time to comment is not part if the law ... it will be interesting to see if any do file comments. If I were an attorney for CBS et al (or another officially interested parted) my request to Judge Dimitrouleas would be to ask DISH for verification that all markets are served (as required by the law) before lifting the injunction.

Also note that this temporary waiver is limited ONLY to short markets that were not served at all on December 31st, 2009. It does not apply in markets that had LIL service on December 31st. The rest of the country will have to wait until DISH finishes the full certification process.



phrelin said:


> OK. Now for the interesting question. Under the draft order would Dish be limited to the FCC significantly viewed list? Or might they start delivering Santa Barbara ABC to the Monterey DMA?


Significantly Viewed stations are no longer blocked by the injunction and can be turned on at any time. STELA moved SVs out of the "distants" portion of the law where the injunction applies into the "locals" portion of the law where no injunction exists against DISH.

Santa Barbara ABC cannot be delivered to Monterey until the order is signed. SVs can be delivered even if the Judge sleeps in until next week.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Also note that this temporary waiver is limited ONLY to short markets that were not served at all on December 31st, 2009. It does not apply in markets that had LIL service on December 31st. The rest of the country will have to wait until DISH finishes the full certification process


Ah, got it. "...at all...." Thanks.

I was just to tired to reread the whole bill.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Also note that this temporary waiver is limited ONLY to short markets that were not served at all on December 31st, 2009. It does not apply in markets that had LIL service on December 31st. The rest of the country will have to wait until DISH finishes the full certification process
> ...


You're right. I forgot that Monterey is an existing market (too many new markets coming).

Unless Monterey was added since December 31st, 2009, I believe DISH cannot provide that Santa Barbara local.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Monterey has been receiving HD locals since the new satellite was moved to the 129 location. I don't recall when that was, but I believe about a year or more ago. Monterey had received SD locals for many years before that. So, this waiver, if granted, will not address the situation in Monterey.

Dish is seeking a temporary and partial waiver of the injunction. If it is granted, as appears likely, the injunction will still stand. It will just be waived for 120 days for short markets into which Dish was not providing local service as of December 31, 2009.

I also noted that Dish was trying in its moving papers to get the judge to simply grant the waiver without even having the other parties heard. Dish stated in its moving papers that "no comment from the former parties is contemplated or required." The judge wasn't buying that, and it was stupid for Dish to state that in its papers. Dish now has the law on their side, but trying to cut the other parties out makes it look like they are trying to be underhanded.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I also noted that Dish was trying in its moving papers to get the judge to simply grant the waiver without even having the other parties heard. Dish stated in its moving papers that "no comment from the former parties is contemplated or required." The judge wasn't buying that, and it was stupid for Dish to state that in its papers. Dish now has the law on their side, but trying to cut the other parties out makes it look like they are trying to be underhanded.


DISH is correct ... The "other parties" have no standing under STELA for the temporary waiver.

DISH can lose the waiver by failing to make a good faith effort to provide local-into-local service to all DMAs, but there is no certification or advance proof required. The law states "Upon a request ... a court that issued an injunction ... shall waive such injunction". All DISH is required to do is ask.

The qualified carrier status and establishment of qualified carrier recognition is a separate process that requires the five part statement of eligibility. That will lead to a more "permanent" waiver (which will allow distants to all _qualified_ customers regardless of market). Even filing for "qualified carrier status" leaves no discretion for the court - "Upon receipt of a statement of eligibility, the court shall recognize the entity as a qualified carrier and issue the waiver under paragraph (1)."

I believe the judge understands the legal requirements he is under. All DISH has done is clearly state the law. I believe it would have been better if DISH actually had the new markets available before filing but they will be active before Judge Dimitrouleas rules. The key will be not violating the terms of the temporary waiver once issued and the "qualified carrier status" once obtained.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Dish was correct that the law does not require filings by third parties. As long as Dish demonstrates all 210 markets are covered, and upon Dish’s request for the waiver, the judge “shall” grant such waiver.

The judge of course has the discretion as far as whether he wants others to file responses or not, the law does not prohibit that, but if he relies upon any third party’s opposition (if there will be any), rather upon the above sole criterion, to deny Dish’s request, he would have violated the law.

Opps, James got ahead of me.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The court is not going to issue a waiver without giving the other parties an opportunity to be heard. Congress did not authorize that the waiver would be granted at an ex parte hearing.

I stand by my statement. The judge handled it correctly. Dish should not appear to be underhanded. The other parties are entitled to be heard. They are parties to the suit. That is not to say that they will oppose Dish, or that they will even want to be heard. But, if a party tries to cut another party out, or in any way appears to be underhanded, the court will remember. It can hurt a party's credibility at some later date. Remember, when a party is in front of a judge, that party's credibility is at stake. There is a right way to do something, and a wrong way to do something.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are some judges that like to write their own laws - I do not believe Judge Dimitrouleas is one of them. The law is pretty clear what is required before issuing the temporary waiver and what is required after. There is no requirement for counter filings nor hearings of any kind. The law says the court SHALL issue the waiver upon request. After the waiver is issued interested parties are free to complain that DISH isn't following the law. But there are no prerequisites for the temporary waiver.

The concern I expressed has now been cleared up. DISH has made available the in market locals for the 29 markets and now offers local-into-local service into all DMAs.

One less reason to delay the temporary waiver.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

There is never a requirement for counter filings. The opposing party can always decline to file any response. So the assertion that there is no requirement for counter filings means nothing.

My point is only that the other parties must be given an opportunity to respond. Whether they respond is up to them. To not allow them the opportunity to respond is not ethical. The judge clearly understands this, and therefore did give the other parties the opportunity to respond on an expedited basis.

The substantive basis in law for granting the temporary waiver has nothing to do with the procedural mechanisms that the court must follow. The other parties must be given the opportunity to respond. The judge understood this, and that is what he did.

Are you suggesting that the judge should have granted Dish's request in chambers, without even hearing from the other parties?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> My point is only that the other parties must be given an opportunity to respond.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the judge should have granted Dish's request in chambers, without even hearing from the other parties?


Yes. The law permits it.

Are you suggesting that there will be a hearing before the judge grants the waiver?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*NOTICE THAT INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO
DISH'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF INJUNCTION*

Following issuance of the Court's June 1, 2010 Order Requesting Expedited Response to Motion For Temporary Waiver [DE 1176], DISH Network Corporation f/k/a EchoStar Communications Corporation ("DISH") conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel concerning that Order [DE 1176] and DISH's Application for Temporary Waiver [DE1174]. As a result of that consultation, undersigned counsel for DISH is authorized to represent to the Court that Plaintiffs do not oppose the Court immediately granting DISH's Application for Temporary Waiver [DE1174] and entering today the [Proposed] Order Granting Temporary Waiver. During this consultation, Plaintiffs and DISH agreed to a slightly modified [Proposed] Order, granting DISH's Application for Temporary Waiver, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

DISH hereby gives notice to the Court of this nonopposition and modified [Proposed] Order. For months, DISH has been planning to launch local service to the local markets that Congress intended to benefit from STELA at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow, June 3, 2010. Therefore, *DISH respectfully asks that the Court enter the attached [Proposed] Order as early as possible today so that DISH can meet this schedule.*

(Emphasis added by DISH.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I am not aware of anything in STELA that says the other parties shall not be given the opportunity to respond. Read it--it is not there.

I didn't say there will be a hearing. I said, "without even hearing from the other parties." Hearing from the other parties means giving them a chance to respond. It doesn't mean holding a hearing. I didn't say something like, "without even holding a hearing."

Please reread my prior post.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I believe it is clear now why the opposing parties must be given a chance to respond. They consulted with Dish, and ultimately do not oppose the request by Dish for the waiver. However, the consultation resulted in the proposed order (which will likely be signed by the judge) being slightly modified.

It was necessary for all parties to be given a chance to be heard. That is how our courts work.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

runner861 said:


> I am not aware of anything in STELA that says the other parties shall not be given the opportunity to respond. Read it--it is not there.
> 
> I didn't say there will be a hearing. I said, "without even hearing from the other parties." Hearing from the other parties means giving them a chance to respond. It doesn't mean holding a hearing. I didn't say something like, "without even holding a hearing."
> 
> Please reread my prior post.


The new law does not require that the plaintiffs given a chance to respond. You can have your opinion, but please do not read more into the law itself.

The fact the judge asked for response and giving the plaintiffs only two days, well short of even the usual time allowed in an emergence filing, made it clear the judge intended to issue the waiver after the noon of 6/3/10. Had there been any opposition to the waiver, it would not have mattered because the new law required the judge to grant such waiver when:

1) The provider demonstrates that he has made LIL available to all markets; and

2) that he has made a request for such waiver.

No more, no less.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am not aware of anything in STELA that says the other parties shall not be given the opportunity to respond. Read it--it is not there.


Very little is there. That is the problem. The law (actual law) does not give a 12 step process toward getting the temporary injunction. It gives a ONE step process ... ask and you SHALL receive. I don't believe Congress intended to override any normal court process, but the law doesn't state "shall after hearing from both sides" nor "shall without hearing" - it just states "shall".

You're reading in extra steps, I'm reading in no extra steps required. We're both wrong and we're both right as the law specifies neither of our assumptions.

Fortunately the parties are willing. Today's filing clears up any questions that the judge may have about opposition to the request. It should be an easy grant.



runner861 said:


> I believe it is clear now why the opposing parties must be given a chance to respond. They consulted with Dish, and ultimately do not oppose the request by Dish for the waiver. However, the consultation resulted in the proposed order (which will likely be signed by the judge) being slightly modified.


Did you note what the modification was? Would signing it the original way made a difference?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

runner861 said:


> I believe it is clear now why the opposing parties must be given a chance to respond. They consulted with Dish, and ultimately do not oppose the request by Dish for the waiver. However, the consultation resulted in the proposed order (which will likely be signed by the judge) being slightly modified.
> 
> It was necessary for all parties to be given a chance to be heard. That is how our courts work.


The court works according to the law, the new law, not the old law. The parties in that lawsuit operated under the old law. The judge had given the parties an opportunity to file their papers with respect to Dish's waiver request, not because he wanted to know if any one of them opposed the waiver and his decision would take such opposition into consideration, it was a matter of excercising his discretion in allowing filing of papers, but his decision will not be based on such papers, only the above two factors I had stated.

The fact Dish consulted with the other parties was again Dish's choice, not required, but by having it on the record no one opposes such waiver certainly is in Dish's favor, because even if later there might be some minor issues, Dish can resolve them with ease while keeping the waiver in place, compared to if other parties had opposed the waiver.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

One change that I note is that the revised proposed order includes language that "all terms in this Order including but not limited to 'unserved households' and 'short markets' shall be defined as those terms are defined in STELA."

I don't believe that the change would likely have made a difference, but the language clarifies these terms in case a dispute arises in the future.

The other change is that the locations of the phrase "DISH Network Corporation f/k/a EchoStar Communications Corp. ("DISH")" is moved to an earlier position in the first paragraph. I believe that change is not substantive.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

jacmyoung said:


> The court works according to the law, the new law, not the old law. The parties in that lawsuit operated under the old law. The judge had given the parties an opportunity to file their papers with respect to Dish's waiver request, not because he wanted to know if any one of them opposed the waiver and his decision would take such opposition into consideration, it was a matter of excercising his discretion in allowing filing of papers, but his decision will not be based on such papers, only the above two factors I had stated.
> 
> The fact Dish consulted with the other parties was again Dish's choice, not required, but by having it on the record no one opposes such waiver certainly is in Dish's favor, because even if later there might be some minor issues, Dish can resolve them with ease while keeping the waiver in place, compared to if other parties had opposed the waiver.


I am talking about procedurally how the court implements the law and makes a ruling. It does not matter whether we are talking about the old law or the new law, the parties always have a right to be heard. If in the unlikely event one of the other parties had opposed the waiver, the court certainly would have taken that opposition into consideration. It doesn't mean his honor would have agreed with it, or that the ruling would be any different, but it would have been considered. That is how the courts work.

The fact that you concede that there could have been some minor issues in the future, issues that Dish can resolve now while keeping the waiver in place, shows that you intuitively understand that the other parties need the opportunity to be heard prior to the waiver being granted.

I expect that the proposed modified order will be signed by the judge at any time.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

runner861 said:


> If in the unlikely event one of the other parties had opposed the waiver, the court certainly would have taken that opposition into consideration. It doesn't mean his honor would have agreed with it, or that the ruling would be any different, but it would have been considered. That is how the courts work.


Even if the judge had agreed with the opposition, he would still have been compelled to grant the waiver, unless the opposition would have demonstrated that either Dish could not have reasonably offered LIL to all markets by 6/3/10, and/or Dish failed to request such waiver. Any opposition on other basis would not be considered in determining the waiver, it would have just been made into the record.



> The fact that you concede that there could have been some minor issues in the future, issues that Dish can resolve now while keeping the waiver in place, shows that you intuitively understand that the other parties need the opportunity to be heard prior to the waiver being granted.


I did not concede anything, what I said was, any opposition (unless as I said based on the above two conditions proven not being met) would not have prevented the grant of the waiver, however since there is no opposition, the waiver, once granted, would have a much more solid base to continue, even if in the future there might be issues that can be used by the parties to argue that the waiver should be withdrawn, again in a later time.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

jacmyoung said:


> Even if the judge had agreed with the opposition, he would still have been compelled to grant the waiver, unless the opposition would have demonstrated that either Dish could not have reasonably offered LIL to all markets by 6/3/10, and/or Dish failed to request such waiver. Any opposition on other basis would not be considered in determining the waiver, it would have just been made into the record.
> 
> I did not concede anything, what I said was, any opposition (unless as I said based on the above two conditions proven not being met) would not have prevented the grant of the waiver, however since there is no opposition, the waiver, once granted, would have a much more solid base to continue, even if in the future there might be issues that can be used by the parties to argue that the waiver should be withdrawn, again in a later time.


I have never commented on the substance of any possible objection. I have only commented that the other side will have the opportunity to be heard before the court makes a ruling. That is what the judge did. That is the way courts in the United States work.

You are confusing the procedural way in which a court makes its rulings with the substantive issue the court is considering.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

runner861 said:


> I have never commented on the substance of any possible objection. I have only commented that the other side will have the opportunity to be heard before the court makes a ruling. That is what the judge did. That is the way courts in the United States work.
> 
> You are confusing the procedural way in which a court makes its rulings with the substantive issue the court is considering.


I don't think I ever said the other parties should not be heard, obviously when the judge allowed the other parties to file papers in response to this Dish's request, the parties were given the opportunity to be heard. What we are saying is, no matter what those parties had said, even if they had objected to the waiver, it would not have resulted in the deny of the waiver request, with only two exceptions, either there were clear evidence that Dish would not have been able to provide LIL to all markets by a certain date, and/or Dish somehow had failed to make the request for such waiver.

Therefore in all practicality, any papers, had they been filed, objections or not, would not have caused a deny of the waiver. I think this has been our point. And it is precisely that the lawyers of the parties had read the new law the same way we did, they decided not to file any papers, rather simply allowed the Dish lawyers to relay the information to the court that they did not oppose the waiver, because they knew as we do it was pointless to file any papers.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The judge has signed the revised proposed order. It is now the order of the court, effective today, although signed yesterday.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Attached.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

Hopefully it won't be to long now and those of us affected by this ruling can receive our missing channels.

I did a hard reboot and as of 12:30 CST the CBS station out of Dothan is still not available for those of use in the Panama City area..... at least it's not showing up in my program guide.

Stu


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

psdstu said:


> Hopefully it won't be to long now and those of us affected by this ruling can receive our missing channels.
> 
> I did a hard reboot and as of 12:30 CST the CBS station out of Dothan is still not available for those of use in the Panama City area..... at least it's not showing up in my program guide.


It won't be until DISH gets their "qualified carrier" status. That is the next step.

The temporary waiver only allows DISH to import distants into short markets that did not have local-into-local service on December 31st, 2009. Unless WTVY is on the Significantly Viewed list for your county/city DISH cannot deliver it to you.

At the moment channel 7920 WTVY remains unavailable to everyone except DISH engineering. No reset on your end will fix that.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

James Long said:


> It won't be until DISH gets their "qualified carrier" status. That is the next step.
> 
> The temporary waiver only allows DISH to import distants into short markets that did not have local-into-local service on December 31st, 2009. Unless WTVY is on the Significantly Viewed list for your county/city DISH cannot deliver it to you.
> 
> At the moment channel 7920 WTVY remains unavailable to everyone except DISH engineering. No reset on your end will fix that.


Thanks James.

Yes, WTVY is on the SV list for my DMA....

I guess I belived all the hype that those of us in the 8 short markets were going to get our missing stations back on 3 June.

I will just stanby until those who are in the know will advise us in the short markets when our missing network stations will be available.

Stu


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

James Long said:


> It won't be until DISH gets their "qualified carrier" status. That is the next step.
> 
> The temporary waiver only allows DISH to import distants into short markets that did not have local-into-local service on December 31st, 2009. Unless WTVY is on the Significantly Viewed list for your county/city DISH cannot deliver it to you.
> 
> At the moment channel 7920 WTVY remains unavailable to everyone except DISH engineering. No reset on your end will fix that.


I have a friend in Ft. Walton Beach, WTVY was on his cable along with his Pensacola/Mobile DMA locals (i.e. the station was not even needed to get a complete set of locals). {NOTE: This was in the early 90's so perhaps this is no longer the case.} Since Dothan is such a small market I guess that station acquired significantly viewed status in not just Panama city but at least parts of the Pensacola/Mobile DMA area.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I expect DISH is being cautious with the remaining "SV" uplinks and making sure they only make them available to qualified customers. Most SVs were turned on this morning just after 9am. I have not taken a close look to see if there are portions of the market that would not get WTVY as a SV (putting it under the distants law for the remainder of the market).

As noted earlier in this thread, DISH received permission to activate distants for _qualified_ customers in short markets ... but just being in a short market is not qualifying. If there is another CBS that provides a signal to part of the market either that CBS could be carried (if SV) or a waiver would be needed.

It would be an odd situation if WTVY itself was the CBS from which a waiver would be needed for the non SV portions of the market. Something to take a closer look at.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

James Long said:


> I expect DISH is being cautious with the remaining "SV" uplinks and making sure they only make them available to qualified customers. Most SVs were turned on this morning just after 9am. I have not taken a close look to see if there are portions of the market that would not get WTVY as a SV (putting it under the distants law for the remainder of the market).
> 
> As noted earlier in this thread, DISH received permission to activate distants for _qualified_ customers in short markets ... but just being in a short market is not qualifying. If there is another CBS that provides a signal to part of the market either that CBS could be carried (if SV) or a waiver would be needed.
> 
> It would be an odd situation if WTVY itself was the CBS from which a waiver would be needed for the non SV portions of the market. Something to take a closer look at.


Thanks James.

Prior to Dec 2006 I was getting WTVY from DISH, so I assumed....... that when permission was given to activate distants....... that I would once again be a qualified customer.

I guess once I can find out for sure that DISH has WTVY up for the Panama City DMA (hopefully someone here will be able to tell me) and if I am not receving it I will call DISH to find out whats up.

Stu


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

psdstu said:


> Prior to Dec 2006 I was getting WTVY from DISH, so I assumed....... that when permission was given to activate distants....... that I would once again be a qualified customer.


It has been a few years ... and DISH really doesn't want to mess this up and lose permission again.



> I guess once I can find out for sure that DISH has WTVY up for the Panama City DMA (hopefully someone here will be able to tell me) and if I am not receving it I will call DISH to find out whats up.


Keep watching the "Uplink Activity" thread ... whichever is current at the top of the forum. These past couple weeks have been busy with all of the changes but it should calm down. When the station becomes available to someone in your market it will be noted in that thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

More Panama City market information:
WTVY, 4, Dothan, AL is SV in all counties except Franklin and Liberty.
WCTV, 6, Tallahassee, FL is a CBS station that _is_ SV in Franklin and Liberty.

WTVY could be carried as a distant in Franklin and Liberty but WCTV has predicted coverage in at least the eastern portion of the counties so a waiver would be needed. (If I were WCTV I'd tell DISH to carry WCTV as an SV and deny the waiver.) And although WTVY is not SV in those two counties they also have predicted coverage in most of Liberty County. A waiver from WTVY would be needed to get any distant CBS there.

I expect WTVY will be carried in the SV counties (the entire market except Franklin and Liberty) as soon as DISH makes sure than no one in Franklin or Liberty county would get the channels by accident. It will probably be easier to provide WCTV as a SV in the two remaining counties than deal with waivers (WTVY for most of Liberty county and WCTV for eastern Franklin and Liberty).

We'll keep watching for changes. But looking at this market demonstrates just how complicated it can get.


----------



## sasserfolk (Aug 7, 2005)

Still waiting to see what ABC station we will get in the Albany Ga. DMA. I noticed that WTXL in Tallahassee is uplinked with a channel number next to our other locals. I live closer to Columbus, Ga which just got there locals and WTVM would be our closest ABC station. Any thoughts when and which ABC station we may get.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sasserfolk said:


> Still waiting to see what ABC station we will get in the Albany Ga. DMA. I noticed that WTXL in Tallahassee is uplinked with a channel number next to our other locals. I live closer to Columbus, Ga which just got there locals and WTVM would be our closest ABC station. Any thoughts when and which ABC station we may get.


WTXL is the one in the numbering range but seems like a poor choice. It is only SV in Colquitt county. WTVM is SV in four counties. I don't see another ABC that is SV anywhere in the Albany market. The other 12 counties would have to be served under the "distants" law.

As with Panama City, I hope DISH adds WTVM in the counties where it is SV instead of a distant signal.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

Hmm Interesting. I found a list online of SV channels here: svtvstations.webs.com Not sure how acurate it is though. Thought I'd post it here since it seems relevant.

Now *I* have a question: On that site, I'm in the Washington DC DMA but live in Westmoreland County which states that all 5 Richmond stations are SV to me. Which makes sense since I can get those on cable. Now can Dishnetwork just activate those channels for me if I call them?? Or will that come later down the road??


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sasserfolk said:


> Still waiting to see what ABC station we will get in the Albany Ga. DMA. I noticed that WTXL in Tallahassee is uplinked with a channel number next to our other locals. I live closer to Columbus, Ga which just got there locals and WTVM would be our closest ABC station. Any thoughts when and which ABC station we may get.


Howdy neighbor! 

See my post about this same issue here on DBSTalk as well as my reply to you on AVSForum.



James Long said:


> WTXL is the one in the numbering range but seems like a poor choice. It is only SV in Colquitt county. WTVM is SV in four counties. I don't see another ABC that is SV anywhere in the Albany market. The other 12 counties would have to be served under the "distants" law.
> 
> As with Panama City, I hope DISH adds WTVM in the counties where it is SV instead of a distant signal.


James, a couple of points and one correction. 

WTXL may seem like a poor choice, but in all honestly, it's really not. After "The Big Switch", WTVM's signal into the Albany, GA DMA was reduced while WTXL's was increased. I live in the same County as sasserfolk, which is much closer to the Columbus, GA DMA than the Tallahassee, FL DMA, and yet I receive a MUCH better signal on WTXL than WTVM... even though I'm over 30 miles from WTVM's tower, yet over 70 from WTXL's, I get a 100% signal from WTXL.

As for WTVM, they are "Significantly Viewed" in EIGHT (8) counties in the Albany, GA DMA.

I have a LOT of friends with Dish Network, so I'm watching this closely for them! 

~Alan


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

shadough said:


> Hmm Interesting. I found a list online of SV channels here: svtvstations.webs.com Not sure how acurate it is though. Thought I'd post it here since it seems relevant.


That site lists http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations022509.pdf as a source.
I've been using http://www.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations050310.pdf , which is official and 14+ months newer.
I like the way the site you linked lays it out and they claim a May 24th update so perhaps they need to change the FCC link?



> Now *I* have a question: On that site, I'm in the Washington DC DMA but live in Westmoreland County which states that all 5 Richmond stations are SV to me. Which makes sense since I can get those on cable. Now can Dishnetwork just activate those channels for me if I call them?? Or will that come later down the road??


DISH is only providing missing networks now ... no duplicates and no non-network stations. I hope that once the dust settles they add more SVs (such as Indianapolis' WTTV 4 CW station to the Lafayette, Indiana, market). I don't expect to see competing network stations ... but I wouldn't mind seeing them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> WTXL may seem like a poor choice, but in all honestly, it's really not. After "The Big Switch", WTVM's signal into the Albany, GA DMA was reduced while WTXL's was increased. I live in the same County as sasserfolk, which is much closer to the Columbus, GA DMA than the Tallahassee, FL DMA, and yet I receive a MUCH better signal on WTXL than WTVM... even though I'm over 30 miles from WTVM's tower, yet over 70 from WTXL's, I get a 100% signal from WTXL.


It isn't the signal that matters (unfortunately). It is the over the air (non-cable) viewership crossing an arbitrary threshold. So far WTXL has only been added to the SV list in one county ... they need to get themselves listed in more.


> As for WTVM, they are "Significantly Viewed" in EIGHT (8) counties in the Albany, GA DMA.


You're right ...

*Albany, GA*
27-00 WTXL TALLAHASSEE, FL (ABC) SV* - 7666 SD 110° 25s3 *X*
GA: Atkinson, Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien, Calhoun, Coffee, Colquitt, Cook, Crisp, Dougherty, Irwin, Lee, Mitchell, Terrell, Tift, Turner, Worth
WTXL(ABC): Colquitt
WTVM(ABC): Baker, Calhoun, Crisp, Dougherty, Lee, Terrell, Turner, Worth

The issue being that Columbus, GA, is on 77 ... so to carry WTVM a special feed would have to be put on 110 that would NOT be available to Columbus viewers.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

James Long said:


> It isn't the signal that matters (unfortunately). It is the over the air (non-cable) viewership crossing an arbitrary threshold. So far WTXL has only been added to the SV list in one county ... they need to get themselves listed in more.


I'm aware that signal doesn't matter, but my point was that if Dish were to "import" a distant network into the Albany, GA DMA, WTXL actually makes more sense than WTVM since WTXL's signal reaches more viewers in the Albany, GA DMA than WTVM does.

I'm in total agreement with your last statement. The only issue is that I'm not sure they would care enough to do so.

If Dish "imports" them as a "distant" to the whole DMA, which is what I suspect Dish will do, WTXL wins viewers. Mediacom already carries WTVM and WSB, so I'm not sure they'll want to replace WSB with WTXL, and I doubt they'll want to offer three ABC affiliates. DirecTV will be adding locals here in a few months, and I'm very interested in seeing what they bring to the table... but I suspect they'll want to import one channel to the whole DMA as well. It will be interesting to see for sure...

Interestingly enough, I had a conversation several years back with an employee of WCTV (Tallahassee, FL DMA), who interestingly enough now works for WTXL, about SV, and I learned some interesting things. I might see if I can get a hold of him and ask him his thoughts about WTXL and SV....



James Long said:


> The issue being that Columbus, GA, is on 77 ... so to carry WTVM a special feed would have to be put on 110 that would NOT be available to Columbus viewers.


I had that same thought as well (and mentioned it in another thread). I was also surprised to see Columbus got GPB in HD, but not in Albany. Hopefully that's a good omen for Albany subscribers since it's already uplinked and encoded in HD...

I'm WAY off-topic though since this thread is about Court Tracking...

~Alan


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm aware that signal doesn't matter, but my point was that if Dish were to "import" a distant network into the Albany, GA DMA, WTXL actually makes more sense than WTVM since WTXL's signal reaches more viewers in the Albany, GA DMA than WTVM does.


This is where the legal issue comes in. DISH can only carry WTXL to one county in the market as a "significantly viewed" station. If they want to deliver WTXL to the rest of he market they MUST follow the distants laws.

Those distants laws include getting waivers from all affiliates of ABC serving each customer ... and thanks to the change in wording in STELA a waiver for one customer applies to all customers with the same nine digit zip code. (Under the old law it applied to the same five digit zip code. I lived in an apartment complex where six units shared each nine digit zip code. No one shares my current nine digit zip code.) I expect DISH will work out a blanket waiver "for all zip codes in x counties" to make it easier on the stations and on DISH.

Carry WTXL and DISH needs waivers for up to 16 counties, including at least eight counties that WTVM provides coverage for (on paper). If I were WTVM I would not grant such a waiver ... especially for counties where WTVM could be carried as an SV station.

Carry WTVM and DISH has eight counties taken care of immediately ... no waiver required regardless of how strong WTXL or anyone else's signal is.



> I'm in total agreement with your last statement. The only issue is that I'm not sure they would care enough to do so.


If they want carriage it would be in their best interest. The trouble being meeting the threshold. Only OTA viewership counts ... so every viewing WTVM via cable instead of OTA is useless toward meeting the threshold. The SV list was designed for stations without cable carriage to force carriage by proving that they were "significantly viewed" in a defined area. Having carriage makes forcing carriage moot. Perhaps next time (54 months from now!) Congress will do better ... but I digress.



> DirecTV will be adding locals here in a few months, and I'm very interested in seeing what they bring to the table... but I suspect they'll want to import one channel to the whole DMA as well. It will be interesting to see for sure...


It certainly is easier when the whole market is one channel list. I'm hoping that by next week DISH realizes that SVs are easy to provide and adds more instead of relying on the distants/waiver process. But I can understand why a satellite company would want one network for the whole market. 211 markets is easier than 3141 counties to keep track of.



> I'm WAY off-topic though since this thread is about Court Tracking...


Not too bad ... these real world examples give good insight into the problem DISH is facing getting the short markets filled.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Does anyone know if Dish has yet initiated the process with the FCC to receive a qualified carrier certification? This would be the first step for Dish to take in order to have the injunction fully lifted.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Does anyone know if Dish has yet initiated the process with the FCC to receive a qualified carrier certification? This would be the first step for Dish to take in order to have the injunction fully lifted.


From STELA:

STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY.-An entity seeking to be recognized as a qualified carrier under this subsection shall file a statement of eligibility with the court that imposed the injunction. A statement of eligibility must include-
(i) an affidavit that the entity is providing local-into-local service to all DMAs;
(ii) a motion for a waiver of the injunction;
(iii) a motion that the court appoint a special master under Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(iv) an agreement by the carrier to pay all expenses incurred by the special master under paragraph (4)(B)(ii); and
(v) a certification issued pursuant to section 342(a) of Communications Act of 1934.

I'm not finding section 342(a) (which should be 47 USC 342(a) based on some searches. (The copy at the FCC is from 1996 and doesn't include a section 342.) § 339 refers to distant stations but Cornell doesn't have a 342 either.

Do you have a good reference for what this certification would be? I'm assuming that it was a statement or promise by DISH not something the FCC needed to issue. Everything seems to be designed a relationship between DISH and the court that issued the injunction leaving third parties out of the process.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I'll look for sec. 342 tomorrow. It may not have actually been codified yet. Once the bill is signed by the president, it still has to be published in the United States code.

Basically, getting the certificate from the FCC is somewhat complex. The applicant (Dish) must certify that it is providing local service in all markets. It then must provide some technical detail regarding the markets added after the enactment of STELA. This includes maps and census data and technical details about the spotbeams. The FCC can also request additional engineering or market data or any other information the FCC wants.

Then there is a 30-day period for public comment. Within 90 days after the comment period closes the FCC must either grant or deny the certificate.

Once Dish obtains the certificate, Dish can then return to court to seek the removal of the injunction.

It is a cumbersome process. However, the most difficult part is that the applicant must be providing local service in all markets. I believe that Dish is now doing that. There is no reason that I can see that they should not be initiating that process with the FCC at this time. Even if things go smoothly, it still will probably be a few months before Dish can have the injunction fully lifted.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I'll look for sec. 342 tomorrow. It may not have actually been codified yet. Once the bill is signed by the president, it still has to be published in the United States code.


I missed it. Section 342 is added by Section 206 of STELA (the authors of S.649 will have to use a different number if their bill passes). 342 starts on page 91 of the 112 "engrossed Senate" version of the bill.

(a) CERTIFICATION.-The Commission shall issue a certification for the purposes of section 119(g)(3)(A)(iii) of title 17, United States Code, if the Commission determines that-(1) a satellite carrier is providing local service pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 of such title in each designated market area; and
(2) with respect to each designated market area in which such satellite carrier was not providing such local service as of the date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010-
(A) the satellite carrier's satellite beams are designed, and predicted by the satellite manufacturer's pre-launch test data, to provide a good quality satellite signal to at least 90 percent of the households in each such designated market area based on the most recent census data released by the United States Census Bureau; and
(B) there is no material evidence that there has been a satellite or sub-system failure subsequent to the satellite's launch that precludes the ability of the satellite carrier to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (A).​Section (b) is a list of the deep technical information required (beam coverage, census data, etc.).

(c) CERTIFICATION ISSUANCE.-(1) PUBLIC COMMENT.-The Commission shall provide 30 days for public comment on a request for certification under this section.
(2) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.-The Commission shall grant or deny a request for certification within 90 days after the date on which such request is filed.​I'd like to see this move as fast as possible (for DISH's sake) but I'm really looking forward to seeing the data that this request generates. Filed for public comment with the FCC all that deep technical information should be pretty much public.

After these 90+ days there is still the time the court will take to decide. I sure hope DISH moves forward with the SV coverage of portions of the markets (where possible) before then.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> 342 starts on page 91 of the 112 "engrossed Senate" version of the bill.


(Section 342 also starts on page 45 of the







2671-1174-Petition for Relief.pdf court filing that I posted earlier in this thread.)


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Personally I do not see this new certification a big deal, Dish made a point of being able to provide LIL to all DMAs, and now has the waiver, the waiver can be extended. Dish never really lost much business because of the injunction. The public (a very small portion of it BTW) needs Dish to carry the distants more so than Dish needs it.

This is similar to the situation when some people had declared Charlie had lost the distants game, when he managed to let another guy do the carriage for him as if he was carrying the distants. He plays this kind of games well, one only needs to look at the TiVo v. E* case for proof. All eyes have been on the court front and how he had "lost the court fight every time," yet one USPTO action rejecting TiVo's software claims would likely end the case for good.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

jacmyoung said:


> Personally I do not see this new certification a big deal, Dish made a point of being able to provide LIL to all DMAs, and now has the waiver, the waiver can be extended. Dish never really lost much business because of the injunction. The public (a very small portion of it BTW) needs Dish to carry the distants more so than Dish needs it.
> 
> This is similar to the situation when some people had declared Charlie had lost the distants game, when he managed to let another guy do the carriage for him as if he was carrying the distants. He plays this kind of games well, one only needs to look at the TiVo v. E* case for proof. All eyes have been on the court front and how he had "lost the court fight every time," yet one USPTO action rejecting TiVo's software claims would likely end the case for good.


What is/was the reason for DISH requesting this permission if not to provide those of us affected with our missing station?

I did not realize all the legal hurdles that were in the path of providing a missing station for those of us in a short market.

I initally thought that once permission was given allowing DISH to provide distant networks to those of us in these areas that it was going to be a matter of "flipping a few switches" and presto chango-o, here is your missing station.

Looks like this could/will be another long slow process for those of us affected by this issue.

I'd be interested to know over the next few weeks if there is a way to know whether or not DISH is even going to pursue this issue..... or not??

Stu


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I expect that Dish will pursue the issue. It appears that they lobbied to have STELA written with the provisions that allow repeal of the injunction. No company other than Dish benefits from these sections dealing with the repeal. Furthermore, now that Dish is providing service in all markets, Dish can now go forward with the next step--seeking the certification from the FCC.

After Dish gets the certification from the FCC, Dish must return to the court to seek the lifting of the injunction. One of the things that will happen at the court is the court must appoint a special master. I could see things getting dicey at this point. Dish will have to pay for the special master, which I am sure they will do. However, the special master will be monitoring Dish for compliance, which means Dish will have to let the special master into their business so he can monitor it. They may find this intrusive, but they must do it if they want to have the injunction lifted. The special master will report directly to the court.

The special master will be part of their business until at least 2012.

At any time, an aggrieved party can seek to have the "qualified carrier" designation revoked, thus having the injunction reinstated.

Dish may get this injunction lifted, but they won't be operating as freely as Direct or AAD when it comes to distants for several years.

For those persons in a short market who cannot receive distants from Dish at this time, the best option is still AAD.

This part is just speculation by me: Assuming Dish does receive the designation of qualified carrier, but chooses to provide neighboring or close distants to short markets, I think that AAD will remain. Dish must have at least 16 national distants (4 SD west coast, 4 HD west coast, 4 SD east coast, 4 HD east coast) on its system for RV customers. I don't believe that Dish would want to risk losing the RV customers. So I think that AAD customers are going to continue to receive service. Also, Dish's ability to provide distants may be limited by their contract with AAD.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

psdstu said:


> ...I'd be interested to know over the next few weeks if there is a way to know whether or not DISH is even going to pursue this issue..... or not??
> 
> Stu


There is no question Dish will pursue this issue, if you know Charlie, he will go to the very end of the Earth to pursue any issue

My point was, what he has done, like he is doing in the TiVo v. E* case, or on many other issues, he never gives up trying to clear his name when faced with the so-called "defeats" in the court, while most people would just give up, he will go all the way to prove he can still be the last one standing.

Any obstacles that may exist in this next pursuit of the issue, will pale in comparison to what he had been faced with in the past in this distants case.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> This part is just speculation by me: Assuming Dish does receive the designation of qualified carrier, but chooses to provide neighboring or close distants to short markets, I think that AAD will remain. Dish must have at least 16 national distants (4 SD west coast, 4 HD west coast, 4 SD east coast, 4 HD east coast) on its system for RV customers. I don't believe that Dish would want to risk losing the RV customers. So I think that AAD customers are going to continue to receive service. Also, Dish's ability to provide distants may be limited by their contract with AAD.


I have found no proof that DISH has signed a non-compete contract with AAD. The deal they filed with the court (years ago) was a simple payment for bandwidth. As long as AAD can afford to pay for the bandwidth there is a good chance their service will survive.

DISH undercutting the AAD subscriber base by offering an alternative source for network programming (locals, SVs and distants from neighboring markets) at no incremental cost to the customer is not going to help AAD stay in business. DISH doesn't have to turn a profit on distants ... their profit comes from their overall service offerings. AAD has to make money on distants. They can't shift the cost of distants over to another part of their customer's bill. Distants is their bill. I don't believe their service can survive on the leftovers.

Once all this FCC/court action is complete and DISH is qualified to offer distants an RV offering would be trivial. They may wait for the day AAD calls up and says they can no longer afford to lease the transponders. AAD's inability to pay is the likely end to any contract DISH and AAD have - regardless of any assumed "non-compete". But that outcome is months away.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't know for sure what the contract between AAD and Dish says either. And, whatever it says, it has an expiration date. However, there must be some agreement. Also, I find it curious that in the Monterey-Salinas market, Dish is preparing to import a Santa Barbara ABC affiliate. Santa Barbara is a small market located some 200 miles away, although it is the market to the south. Cable offers the San Francisco ABC affiliate in the Monterey-Salinas market, and Direct offers the San Francisco and Los Angeles ABC affiliates. San Francisco is only 90 miles away and covers news in the Monterey-Salinas area. Los Angeles, although 300 miles away, is a major market. The Santa Barbara affiliate is not desired in Monterey-Salinas. However, to offer the San Francisco or Los Angeles affiliate would mean that Dish would be directly competing with AAD. There may be other reasons why Dish wants to offer Santa Barbara to Monterey-Salinas--they share the same spotbeam, for example.

On the other hand, there may be more going on here than just the transponder lease agreement. AAD's website also markets the Dish service, so there is some business arrangement there. Furthermore, under the injunction, Dish is required to operate at arm's length from AAD. Once the injunction is gone, that is no longer the case. We just don't know the whole story. I would hate to see the Monterey-Salinas market lose access via Dish equipment to either KGO or KABC. The Santa Barbara affiliate can't fully fill that void. Both KGO and KABC have Sacramento bureaus, so viewers of those stations receive news from our state's capital. I don't think that the Santa Barbara affiliate offers anything other than ABC programming that is of interest to viewers in Monterey-Salinas.

However, I agree with you that a RV offering by AAD would be trivial. At the same time, if AAD goes away, I expect that Dish will pick up those AAD stations. Dish does not want to lose the RV customers.

Lastly, I believe that Dish will initiate the certification process with the FCC very soon. The waiver Dish currently has is only good for 120 days, although it can be extended. However, if Dish does not become a qualified carrier, the waiver will ultimately expire, and Dish will be unable to carry any distants.

I agree that I would like to see "significantly viewed" carriage be widely instituted by Dish as soon as possible.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

runner861 said:


> For those persons in a short market who cannot receive distants from Dish at this time, the best option is still AAD.


The problem with that is that not everyone in a "short market" can receive distants from AAD.

In the case of Albany, GA, the reason why I'm in a thread regarding Dish Network, most subscribers cannot receive ABC via AAD.

Years ago, WTVM used to grant waivers for those outside of their DMAs, but when Dish Network lost the ability to offer distants, WTVM got inundated with waiver requests, and they implemented a DENY ALL policy, and later joked about turning down former President Jimmy Carter's waiver request (though he's in their DMA, so not very surprising).

I'm not quite sure what WTXL's policy regarding waivers are, since I'm lucky to have ABC DNS with DirecTV from years ago when WTVM was granting waivers, and when WTXL's broadcast signal didn't carry as far, but I don't think they grant waivers as much now either.

Heck, there's parts of my county where at one time, you had to submit waivers to THREE ABC affiliates (WTVM, WTXL, WDHN). 

BTW, is WTXL available to Colquitt Co. subscribers yet?!

~Alan


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The earlier versions of STELA, formerly SHVERA, were the products of heavy lobbying by the NAB. While these earlier versions strongly protected the local stations from competition, they were in many cases unfair to viewers and blocked viewers from receiving a network. Some of these viewers could not receive a signal over the air, yet were still blocked from receiving a distant network. And many local stations were arbitrarily denying waivers, even to viewers where there signal was not receivable over the air.

With Dish hopefully regaining the ability to offer distants, and with Dish covering all markets, the instances of viewers being unable to receive a single network or even multiple networks should decrease. Also, now any station that is "significantly viewed" outside of its market can be offered by both Dish and Direct to any areas where the station is "significantly viewed." However, the FCC maintains a list of "significantly viewed" stations, and sometimes a station may have a lot of viewers in a neighboring market, yet not be on the "significantly viewed" list.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

My area has an ABC an CBS station from the Southwest of here listed as SV yet Directv offers neither of them, instead, Direct offers a PBS station from the North which isnt even on the list. *shrug*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Also, I find it curious that in the Monterey-Salinas market, Dish is preparing to import a Santa Barbara ABC affiliate.


There is a saying about uplinks ... a channel isn't available until it is available. On Friday afternoon DISH made available three stations that were not uplinked in test mode and pulled down the expected channels for those three markets:
6742 WBAL (11 Local) BALTIMORE, MD (NBC) SV* removed from 110° 23s5 (East Virginia) (SD Salisbury, MD market Hidden)
6742 WHAG (25 Local) HAGERSTOWN, MD (NBC) SV* added to 119° 5sB16 (Philadelphia) (SD Salisbury, MD market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*

6761 WTVH (5 Local) SYRACUSE, NY (CBS) SV* removed from 110° 4s4 (WMassachusetts) (SD Utica, NY market Hidden)
6761 WWNY (7 Local) CARTHAGE, NY (CBS) SV* added to 119° 1sA15 (Hartford) (SD 8PSK Utica, NY market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*

6782 WSTM (3 Local) SYRACUSE, NY (NBC) SV* removed from 110° 4s4 (WMassachusetts) (SD Watertown, NY market Hidden)
6782 WKTV (2 Local) UTICA, NY (NBC) SV* added to 119° 1sA15 (Hartford) (SD 8PSK Watertown, NY market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*​
Plus DISH "moved" two other test locals (6671 WREG (3) MEMPHIS, TN (CBS) SV* and 6672 WMC (5) MEMPHIS, TN (NBC) SV*) to a transponder that doesn't have those channels on them (I expect a name change next week). The list of channels isn't set in stone.

If Monterey-Salinas has no SV ABC they will have to be served by a distant. Hopefully DISH will pick a different one when they get permission to carry one.



> Furthermore, under the injunction, Dish is required to operate at arm's length from AAD. Once the injunction is gone, that is no longer the case.


Remaining arms length is best. Otherwise one could argue that DISH was providing more than two distant signals to a subscriber and get their permission to carry distants pulled again permanently.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alan Gordon said:


> Heck, there's parts of my county where at one time, you had to submit waivers to THREE ABC affiliates (WTVM, WTXL, WDHN).


Unless their coverage has reduced or the affiliation changed that situation has not changed. Waivers are still required to get a distant from every affiliate of that network that has coverage.



> BTW, is WTXL available to Colquitt Co. subscribers yet?!


Nope.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

This is an excerpt from an email from Dish:

"I forwarded your email to our Programming Department so that I could find out exactly what the laws are concerning the Distant Networks. The response I was received was as follows: We will not be offering Continental U.S. distant networks. Also, everything concerning AAD will remain in place and as is. The new law will primarily give us the right to import missing network affiliates from adjacent markets into short markets."

My belief: Dish will not directly compete with AAD. In other words, Dish will not provide nationwide distants and will not provide as neighboring distants any of the stations provided by AAD. This explains the otherwise illogical decision of Dish to provide Santa Barbara ABC, rather than San Francisco ABC or even Los Angeles ABC, to Monterey-Salinas. Providing San Francisco or Los Angeles ABC would place Dish in direct competition with AAD. Should AAD ever cease to provide service, Dish will pick up the 16 channels provided by AAD. This will allow Dish to retain RV customers and to continue to provide the same channels to AAD's current customers, as well as to any customers who prefer the distants offered by AAD instead of the neighboring distant. Given the situation, this is the best outcome for Dish, AAD, and the customers.

Only when all local markets are offered, all significantly viewed channels are available, and distants are available as needed, will all customers nationwide be able to receive all of the networks, wherever the customer lives or is traveling.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> My belief: Dish will not directly compete with AAD. In other words, Dish will not provide nationwide distants and will not provide as neighboring distants any of the stations provided by AAD.


We will see. It is interesting to see that at this point, months before the earliest date it would be legal for DISH to offer distants nationally, that they have "no intention" to do so. But I wouldn't read too much into the temporary pre-selection of any channel.



> This explains the otherwise illogical decision of Dish to provide Santa Barbara ABC, rather than San Francisco ABC or even Los Angeles ABC, to Monterey-Salinas.


DISH has not provided the Santa Barbara ABC to customers in the Monterey-Salinas market and cannot provide _ANY_ ABC until the court rules that DISH is a "qualified carrier" months from now.



> Only when all local markets are offered, all significantly viewed channels are available, and distants are available as needed, will all customers nationwide be able to receive all of the networks, wherever the customer lives or is traveling.


Interesting speculation. I disagree. I believe that DISH will have an RV offering ... but it is premature for DISH to be announcing it at this time, so they are not.

I don't expect AAD to be able to pay their bills once DISH competes with them by providing networks to the remaining markets (even if they are not the "preferred" stations). Their rates are too high. I don't believe AAD can live on one market's preference for a different distant affiliate. (Then again, I'm surprised they have lived this long.)


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For those that might be interested, there is no AAD anymore. They became Sobongo.com this year. Type AllAmericanDirect.com into your browser and you will be redirected.

However, the relevant My Distant Networks web pages still exist and in the About the text goes on and on about AllAmericanDirect.com so their webmaster is a bit slow.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> For those that might be interested, there is no AAD anymore. They became Sobongo.com this year. Type AllAmericanDirect.com into your browser and you will be redirected.


I had not heard of AAD until they went on DISH (even though the My Distant Networks page says they started in 1983). It is just a brand of "National Programming Service, LLC (NPS)" which offers C-band services.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH has not provided the Santa Barbara ABC to customers in the Monterey-Salinas market and cannot provide _ANY_ ABC until the court rules that DISH is a "qualified carrier" months from now.


I did not say that they are providing it to Monterey-Salinas. Take another look at my post (or at your quote of my post). I said that they have made the decision to do so, as evidenced by your uplink reports listing the station as uplinked but unavailable.

Why do you think that Dish will have an RV offering? And if they do have an RV offering, why wouldn't it be available to any qualified subscriber, either as an additional distant or as a substituted distant?

Is there anywhere where Dish is providing as a distant, or uplinking as a potential distant, any station provided by AAD/Sobongo?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > DISH has not provided the Santa Barbara ABC to customers in the Monterey-Salinas market and cannot provide _ANY_ ABC until the court rules that DISH is a "qualified carrier" months from now.
> ...


As previously posted:


James Long said:


> There is a saying about uplinks ... a channel isn't available until it is available. On Friday afternoon DISH made available three stations that were not uplinked in test mode and pulled down the expected channels for those three markets:


The decision isn't made until the channels are actually available to customers.

Please don't read the uplink reports as anything more than they are. Over the years we've seen dozens of channels uplinked and not made available. You have given an equally plausible explanation for the choice in that the station currently listed is on the same spotbeam as the rest of the Montery channels. And I've shown three stations that have changed and two more that will likely change. Don't consider an unavailable uplink as writing in stone.



> Why do you think that Dish will have an RV offering? And if they do have an RV offering, why wouldn't it be available to any qualified subscriber, either as an additional distant or as a substituted distant?


I don't see any reason for DISH to not include locals (distants as locals) when they sell full price packages as an RV account. Networks are important ... why cut $5 off the bill and send people to the competition (possibly losing the entire account to DirecTV) when one does not have to?

Home subscribers are different - with 100% local market coverage and some people getting a legal distant network station included in their local package the market is much smaller and more fragmented. DISH has yet to provide different SV stations of the same network to the same DMA ... I don't see the willingness to get granular with distants for home users. (Opinion, of course.)



> Is there anywhere where Dish is providing as a distant, or uplinking as a potential distant, any station provided by AAD/Sobongo?


DISH has been uplinking neighboring DMA stations. Monterey is the only short market bordering an AAD uplinked city. Drawing a conclusion from a single example is probably not a good thing. Hopefully over the next couple of months retailers in the Monterey area can talk to DISH and get KGO carried.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dealers talking to Dish won't get KGO carried in Monterey-Salinas if there is a contract between AAD and Dish prohibiting that from happening. We just don't know what that contract says or when it expires--at least I don't. Possibly the moderator does.

I know that AAD/Sobongo, Dish, and Direct testified before Congress about the renewal of SHVERA/STELA. AAD/Sobongo didn't act like they were planning to leave the business of distant networks. Dish wanted to get back into the business. Direct didn't talk much about distant networks. And the NAB representative asked Congress to do away with the distant license in its entirety. When he was asked about short markets, he said that he was not aware of any short markets, and that badly damaged his credibility.

It seems like the moderator would like to see national/major city distants done away with, and AAD/Sobongo out of business. Why is that? Also, wouldn't Dish want to see the AAD customers keep their distant networks intact, either through Dish or AAD? Doesn't that make the most business sense?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Who really NEEDS distant networks ?
You can break it into a few general classes.

#1 - RVers, truckers, people who live on a boat fulltime
#2 - people who live in said "short" markets (missing 1 or more of the major networks)

For group #1 - national networks make the most sense - put them on a CONUS transponder

For group #2 - where possible, provide SV's from adjacent markets, then go to the nationals if necessary.

Another option that could work (if the major networks wanted to / changed their afiliate agreements) - provide East Coast / west Coast feeds of their programming directly as channels on the DBS providers. The networks would probably want this confined to our designated groups.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

What I really had in mind was filling in the short markets with those said "closest" markets available that are covered by the appropriate spotbeams. There are however, some people in areas so remote that there isn't any "neighboring market" to get them from - so a national feed would need to be used.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dealers talking to Dish won't get KGO carried in Monterey-Salinas if there is a contract between AAD and Dish prohibiting that from happening.


You certainly seem to be here to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the issue. Having NO PROOF that KGO is not uplinked because of an assumed contract clause you assume it is true. There are other explainations. Please keep an open mind.


> We just don't know what that contract says or when it expires--at least I don't.


Then perhaps you can stop speculating that it says what you have said it says in several threads?

It is a really cool conspiracy theory that you won't get KGO as part of your local package via DISH in some sort of plot to make sure you and you neighbors continue to pay AAD for the service. But that is all it is.



> It seems like the moderator would like to see national/major city distants done away with, and AAD/Sobongo out of business. Why is that?


I have already clearly stated that AAD can continue to provide the service for as long as they can pay their transponder lease and maintain a contract with DISH. Having DISH provide free SV and distants to many markets cuts down the need for AAD service and will cut into their profit margin. I wish them luck surviving.



> Also, wouldn't Dish want to see the AAD customers keep their distant networks intact, either through Dish or AAD? Doesn't that make the most business sense?


Only until DISH can offer the service themselves. Until then it is two transponders that DISH cannot use for anything else (their own distants service, more national HD, etc.)

BTW: Let's stick to discussing DISH's potential carriage of distants and not get into "some people" remarks. DISH has made more mistakes than KGO in their list of "not available" potential short market stations. Details in the next post.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*A reminder that NONE of the "uplinked" stations are written in stone. There is no guarantee by DISH or myself that these stations will be the ones eventually provided in the short markets.*

The following markets are "short" at least one network station. The station listed is the one currently in test mode marked for that market. All test channels are always subject to change. A channel isn't available until it is available.

The counties in each market are listed, along with the stations of the missing network that are SV in each market. Counties listed after "Distant:" have no affiliate of the missing network that is SV. Note that being in the "distant" list does not mean that there is not OTA coverage in that county by a station of the network that would require a waiver before receiving a distant.

*Albany, GA*
27-00 WTXL TALLAHASSEE, FL (ABC) SV* - 7666 SD 110° 25s3 *X*
GA: Atkinson, Baker, Ben Hill, Berrien, Calhoun, Coffee, Colquitt, Cook, Crisp, Dougherty, Irwin, Lee, Mitchell, Terrell, Tift, Turner, Worth
WTXL(ABC): Colquitt
WTVM(ABC): Baker, Calhoun, Crisp, Dougherty, Lee, Terrell, Turner, Worth
Distant: Atkinson, Ben Hill, Berrien, Coffee, Cook, Irwin, Mitchell, Tift

*Dothan, AL*
7-00 WJHG PANAMA CITY, FL (NBC) SV* - 8567 SD 110° 4s7 *X*
AL: Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston
GA: Early
WSFA(NBC): Coffee, Dale
WJHG(NBC): Geneva, Houston
WALB(NBC): Early
Distant: Henry

*Jackson, TN*
3-00 WREG MEMPHIS, TN (CBS) SV* - 6671 SD 110° 25s14 *X*
5-00 WMC MEMPHIS, TN (NBC) SV* - 6672 SD 110° 25s14 *X*
TN: Carroll, Chester, Gibson, Hardin, Henderson, Madison
WREG(CBS): Carroll, Chester, Gibson, Hardin, Henderson, Madison (ALL)
WTVF(CBS): Carroll, Henderson
WMC(NBC): Chester, Gibson, Hardin, Henderson, Madison
WSMV(NBC): Carroll, Henderson
WPSD(NBC): Carroll
Note: 25s14 does not carry the Memphis stations shown. The following CBS and NBC network stations are on 25s14.
WEVV Evansville, IN (CBS)
WFVS Cape Girardeau, MO (CBS)
WFIE Evansville, IN (NBC)
WPSD Paducah, KY (NBC)

*Lafayette, LA*
33-00 WVLA BATON ROUGE, LA (NBC) SV* - 8486 SD 110° 25s12 *X* 5262 HD 129° 9s42 *X*
LA: Acadia, Evangeline, Iberia, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Vermillion, St Landry, St Martin
KALB(NBC): Acadia, Evangeline, St Landry
WVLA(NBC): Iberia, Lafayette, St Martin
KPLC(NBC): Jefferson Davis
Distant: Vermillion

*Larado, TX*
3-00 KSAT SAN ANTONIO, TX (ABC) SV* - 8121 SD 110° 23s22 *X* 5270 HD 110° 25s22 *X*
TX: Webb, Zapata
No ABC is significantly viewed in these two counties.

*Monterey, CA*
3-00 KEYT SANTA BARBARA, CA (ABC) SV* - 9186 SD 110° 23s42 *X* 5270 HD 129° 15s32 *X*
CA: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Cruz
No ABC is significantly viewed in these three counties.

*Panama City, FL*
4-00 WTVY DOTHAN, AL (CBS) SV* - 7920 SD 110° 4s7 *X*
FL: Bay, Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Walton, Washington
WTVY(CBS): Bay, Calhoun, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Walton, Washington
WCTV(CBS): Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Jackson, Liberty

*Terre Haute, IN*
20-00 WICS SPRINGFIELD, IL (ABC) SV* - 7900 SD 119° 3sB13 *X* 5260 HD 129° 12s30 *X*
IN: Clay, Daviess, Greene, Knox, Martin, Parke, Sullivan, Vermillion, Vigo
IL: Clark, Crawford, Jasper, Lawrence, Richland
WICS is not SV in any county in the market.
WRTV(ABC): Clay, Greene, Parke, Vermillion
Distant: Daviess, Knox, Martin, Sullivan, Vigo; Clark, Crawford, Jasper, Lawrence, Richland


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With that said, back to personal opinion. 

I believe DISH is being overly cautious in their interpretation of STELA. They delayed releasing any SV channels until after the court allowed "short market distants" (into markets with no service on Dec 31st). They are not providing WREG even though it is SV to the entire market. They are currently pointing to WICS for Terre Haute when it is not SV in any portion of the market and another ABC is SV in the market. Panama City could be covered by deciding which CBS to carry as SV in each county. Jackson TN could be split to decide which NBC to carry to each county.

If I were in charge of any of the stations listed I would not authorize a single waiver. DISH has permission to carry the SVs. They should do that to the fullest extent allowed by law.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> You certainly seem to be here to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the issue. Having NO PROOF that KGO is not uplinked because of an assumed contract clause you assume it is true. There are other explainations. Please keep an open mind.
> Then perhaps you can stop speculating that it says what you have said it says in several threads?
> 
> It is a really cool conspiracy theory that you won't get KGO as part of your local package via DISH in some sort of plot to make sure you and you neighbors continue to pay AAD for the service. But that is all it is.


Who said that I am in Monterey? It is just a market that I am watching, as are others. I always keep an open mind and go where the evidence takes me. However, the fact that Dish has uplinked the Santa Barbara ABC to Monterey does show that Dish intends to offer that station in Monterey. Perhaps Dish will change its mind, perhaps not. There is a contract between AAD and Dish, and that will play a role in what distants Dish offers. It is unlikely that AAD would sign a contract where it could be put in a position that it would be directly competing with Dish. That would not make business sense. There are also technical issues of spotbeams and satellite space. That will also play a role. There is no conspiracy theory, only discussion of the evidence. However, it is vitally important that this board include differing points of view.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Too many assumptions and not enough evidence. One could assume that WRTV Indianapolis is not the ABC for the Terre Haute market because AAD/NPS is based out of Indianapolis? Looking at the bigger picture (bigger than the one market) one can see several "mistakes" in the uplinked & not available list. It is more likely that linking KEYT in a market that won't have any ABC for months is just another one of those mistakes. (Mistakes were fixed in Salisbury, MD, Utica, NY, and Watertown, NY, when those markets got their final network.) The biggest remaining mistake seems to be WREG, which is SV to 100% of the Jackson, TN, market but DISH's last action was to point the Jackson feed away from the transponder where the feed actually exists.

"To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient." (Peter James, derived from a Stewert Chase quote.) You believe "There is a contract between AAD and Dish, and that will play a role in what distants Dish offers." I believe saying 'will play a role' is reading too much into a contract that, frankly, hasn't been read.

I look forward to following the FCC and court action and seeing what DISH does to provide _a_ missing network station to the remaining short markets.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Your comparison is not apt. AAD is not providing WRTV. AAD is providing KGO and KABC, the two most likely affiliates to be desired in Monterey, and the two affiliates also available there via Direct and in the case of KGO on cable. So if Dish provides WRTV as a distant, it is not directly competing with AAD. If Dish provides KGO or KABC as a distant, it is directly competing with AAD. The only interesting thing would be if Dish does provide as a distant any station also offered by AAD. This would show that the contract does not prohibit direct competition between Dish and AAD.

The contract between Dish and AAD exists and it likely plays a role in what distants Dish can carry.

The important thing on this board is that the issues be discussed and no point of view be overwhelmed or suppressed. The mistake explanation is viable. So is the explanation that what is offered is governed by the spotbeam. (Does the San Francisco spotbeam cover the entire Monterey-Salinas market?) The explanation that the contract between AAD and Dish governs the situation is equally viable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What you are missing is that there are a lot of mistakes that can be found. To categorically state that the apparent future use of KEYT instead of KGO is because of a clause in a contract that you have not read is not looking at the big picture. You might as well blame ALL of the mistakes on AAD. You're pushing your viewpoint pretty hard. I've tried to demonstrate the big picture. This is about more than one channel in one market.

The SF HD feeds are on 119 spot A02 which covers as far south as Santa Barbara.
The SF SD feeds are on 110 spot 43 which covers as far south as San Luis Obispo.
KGO could easily be used for the entire Monterey market.

The LA HD feeds are on 129 spot 33 which covers as far north as Santa Barbara.
The LA SD feeds are on 119 spot B03 which covers as far north as Fresno.
KABC would not cover the entire Monterey Market.

KEYT Santa Barbara is on 110 spot 42 for SD and 129 spot 32 for HD. The same spots (although a different 129 transponder) as the Monterey market.
KFSN Fresno is on 110 spot 38 and 129 spot 32 for HD. Spot 38 does not cover the Monterey market.

If I were sitting in Colorado and needed to "uplink" a placemark for a future ABC KEYT would be the easy choice. I would not have to look up spot beam coverage ... same spots as the market matches nicely. That doesn't mean that the station would ever be made available. Uplinks are not written in stone.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Thanks for the spotbeam information.

I stated in my last post that there are at least three equally plausible explanations--spotbeam coverage, mistake, or contract. Who knows, there may even be other explanations. I'm not pushing one over the other, but I won't let the contract explanation get pushed to the side. There is a contract, whether you or I have read it, it still exists.

I also look forward to seeing what happens with the "qualified carrier" situation with the FCC and the court. Congress certainly designed a rather cumbersome process that Dish has to go through.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Please read the top of page 6 of 22 of this agreement. It provides the answer. Or if yours is not paginated the same as mine, read the last paragraph of Article 3, section 3A. There is a non-compete clause.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> James, please read the top of page 6 of 22 of this agreement. It provides the answer. Or if yours is not paginated the same as mine, read the last paragraph of Article 3, section 3A.


That's a quick reply. Sandbagging?

As noted, the court filed contract is old and written at a time where the only hope of DISH offering distants was winning the appeal. A lot has changed.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

This was the contract in 2006. It is likely that any amendments to this contract, such as when AAD began HD service, retained the same framework, so I would expect that the non-compete clause remains. It appears that the current behavior of both Dish and AAD is in concordance with the terms of the 2006 contract.

It is unlikely at this time, or after it becomes a "qualified carrier," that Dish will be offering as distants any station from SF, NY, LA, or Chicago. It appears unlikely that Dish will offer national distants, although Dish could offer national distants from other cities.

I expect that AAD will continue as is for the present time. Once Dish becomes a "qualified carrier," we shall see what happens to AAD. With no direct competition from Dish, it may be able to continue. On the other hand, it may experience some loss in customer base and may not continue. If that happens, I expect that Dish will pick up the service now offered by AAD.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

phrelin said:


> For those that might be interested, there is no AAD anymore. They became Sobongo.com this year. Type AllAmericanDirect.com into your browser and you will be redirected.
> 
> However, the relevant My Distant Networks web pages still exist and in the About the text goes on and on about AllAmericanDirect.com so their webmaster is a bit slow.


so THATS who sobongo is. I saw an email from them but had no idea who they were and why it was sent to me.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The non-compete clause is simple. It just says that Dish shall not provide to Dish subscribers as a distant network channel any of the channels that AAD is providing. However, Dish can provide "significantly viewed" channels and "special market" channels. I am unsure what "special market" channels are. However, as long as AAD operates, unless this clause is eliminated (very unlikely), Dish won't be providing as distants any channels from SF, NY, LA, or Chicago.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> However, as long as AAD operates, ...


With DISH offering competing service for "free" (local stations, SV stations and distants from other markets as part of the normal package price) I don't expect that to be a long time. NPS must pay for their transponder ... their potential market is shrinking. Basic subscribers (those that just want television, not a hobby) paying up to $4.99 per channel when it is their only way of seeing network content is a different market than those who want a different affiliate of a network they have and are willing to pay premium channel prices.

Will NPS have the customer count to survive or will they gracefully bow out of distants via DISH in November? Perhaps Sobongo will keep them in business. People do buy through shopping channels.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

People do want to see news from other cities. Sometimes someone grew up in an area and still wants to see that news broadcast. AAD is carrying stations from what many would consider highly desirable markets. Those factors weigh in favor of AAD. On the other hand, some people just want a network and don't care what market the station originates from.

Will Dish have national distants from other cities to service RV customers? Or will Dish leave the RV market to AAD? That is another factor that will affect the future of AAD.

Does anyone know what "special market" channels are?


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

Maybe I messed a reference to this here, but AAD/NPS does offer another valid service. For those of us with only SD locals - and pretty bad looking ones at that - AAD/NPS can give us HD alternatives. I am able to get CBS and Fox with an antenna, but not ABC or NBC, so I get them with AAD. That gives me all four networks in HD along with the locals in fuzzy vision.

I'm wondering if Dish's adding the locals will affect new subscribers ability to qualify for the AAD service.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Whether you get locals through Dish or not, and whether the Dish locals you get are SD or HD, will not affect in any way your qualification for service from AAD. You do point out another reason for AAD to continue service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jackson, TN got it's SV/Distants ... one less "short" market.

6671 WREG (3) MEMPHIS, TN (CBS) SV* removed from 110° 25s14 (NW Tennessee) (SD Jackson, TN market *TEST* Hidden)
6672 WMC (5) MEMPHIS, TN (NBC) SV* removed from 110° 25s14 (NW Tennessee) (SD Jackson, TN market *TEST* Hidden)
6671 KFVS (12 Local) CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO (CBS) SV* added to 110° 25s14 (NW Tennessee) (SD Jackson, TN market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
6672 WPSD (6 Local) PADUCAH, KY (NBC) SV* added to 110° 25s14 (NW Tennessee) (SD Jackson, TN market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Does anyone know what the status of the certification process with the FCC is? That is the first step Dish must take in order to be designated a "qualified carrier." After getting the certification from the FCC, Dish must return to court and seek the "qualified carrier" designation. This entire process must be completed within 120 days from the date that Dish received the temporary waiver. If it is not completed within 120 days, the temporary waiver will lapse and Dish will be unable to provide any distants. Dish can seek to extend the temporary waiver if the "qualified carrier" process is not complete, but then they are at the court's mercy as to whether to grant the extension.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

I was wondering if anyone knows exactly "who" benefited from this ruling?

I thought that at first that those of us in the "short" markets were going to be able to get our missing channels, and this would happen on 3 June.

There was a big push to get this ruling signed to allow DISH to activate some channels on 3 June.

So just what was the rush, who saw any benefits from this ruling on 3 June?

Stu


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have not audited every market that got locals, so I can't say all of the markets who benefited from the ruling. The only people who COULD benefit from the ruling would be customers in markets that did not have locals on December 31st, 2009.

Markets that had locals on December 31st, 2009, will have to wait until the longer process is complete in order to see any benefit. This process will take several months.

Separate from the court action in Florida, DISH _can_ offer significantly viewed stations. DISH has done so in several markets, but DISH has not taken full advantage of the law (STELA). In most cases there is not a single station that covers the entire market as a SV station and DISH seems hesitant to divide markets and offer part of a market one station and another part of a market a different station.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Or offer one part of a market a SV station and offer the other part of the market no comparable station. That would be the outcome if a station is classified as SV in one part of the market and not classified as SV in another part of the market. This might be difficult for Dish to administer logistically (depending on how their equipment is programmed), and also might lead to angry customers.

If and when the injunction is lifted, then Dish can offer generally speaking a station that is classified as SV in part of the market to the entire market. It would be classified as a distant station in those parts of the market where it is not classified as SV.

As I noted earlier, Dish has 120 days from the day that the temporary waiver was granted to become a "qualified carrier." If Dish is not a "qualified carrier" by that date, the temporary waiver will lapse and Dish will have to disconnect the distant stations it is currently carrying.

The court does have the power to extend the temporary waiver, but only for "good cause." Dish would be at the mercy of the judge. "Good cause" is left undefined in the law, so the judge could determine that almost anything is or is not "good cause."


----------



## lacruz (Feb 24, 2005)

Anybody heard/know if AAD will ever offer anything other than distant ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS? Distant Channels such as CW or PBS...especially PBS.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

lacruz said:


> Anybody heard/know if AAD will ever offer anything other than distant ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS? Distant Channels such as CW or PBS...especially PBS.


From what I've been hearing, PBS is likely not offered due to rulings by the network. That is supposedly why Dish and Direct only offer an SD national PBS feed, and I would have to assume the same would apply to AAD. I for one would love to have access to a PBS HD channel but doubt that will happen anytime soon. As a result I no longer watch many of my former favorite PBS shows like Nova and American Experience.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> Or offer one part of a market a SV station and offer the other part of the market no comparable station. That would be the outcome if a station is classified as SV in one part of the market and not classified as SV in another part of the market. This might be difficult for Dish to administer logistically (depending on how their equipment is programmed), and also might lead to angry customers.
> 
> If and when the injunction is lifted, then Dish can offer generally speaking a station that is classified as SV in part of the market to the entire market. It would be classified as a distant station in those parts of the market where it is not classified as SV.
> 
> ...


Thanks runner.

I have no way of knowing if DISH is pursuing the "qualified carrier" status. I tried asking a CSR and they claimed to not know anything about the issue.

I wasn't aware that DISH is currently providing "distant stations"..... I know that in the Panama City DMA that DISH is not providing WTVY to any of it's customers....... so at least in this DMA there would be no distant station to disconnect.

Does this issue apply to DIRECT TV as well? Although Direct TV does not provide any LOCAL service to the Panama City DMA, they do provide LOCAL service to the Dothan AL DMA, and Dothan DMA gets it's NBC from WNBC. Not sure how DIRECT TV can provide something that DISH cannot?

Stu


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

at now $7.00 a month, how many of you would sub to the Superstation Package if DISH offered the HD feed.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Direct is allowed to provide distant network stations to any eligible customer. Dish was involved in a lawsuit, and in 2006 a court issued an injunction barring Dish from providing any distant station to any customer. Dish was a hundred percent out of the distant network stations business. AAD is a separate vendor that leases space from Dish. AAD, being under no injunction, can provide distant stations to any eligible customer on Dish's equipment.

When Congress renewed the distant license earlier this year, they set up a process by which Dish can become a "qualified carrier." That means essentially that Dish, once it gains "qualified carrier" status, can have the injunction lifted and can once again provide distant stations to eligible customers.

Dish has obtained a limited waiver of the injunction, good for 120 days only. Dish can provide distant network stations to any market that Dish started to carry this year. Any market which Dish was already carrying prior to this year is unaffected by the temporary waiver, and Dish remains unable to provide distants to any market it was already carrying prior to this year.

Right now, if you are unable to get distant networks through Dish, your best bet is to contact AAD. AAD has recently changed its name to Sobongo. WNBC is one of the stations offered by AAD/Sobongo.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> AAD has recently changed its name to Sobongo.


NPS has redirected the "AllAmericanDirect.com" website to Sobongo but has not changed the name of AAD to Sobongo.

Sobongo is "Shop Online, Buy Online, N Go". NPS is using their channel 240 as a shopping channel showing slides of all sorts of things that one may wish to buy with a phone number to order.

One of the slides on channel 240 is for "myDistantNetworks" ... which is the 'new' name for AllAmericanDirect.

The root company of AAD/myDistantNetworks is NPS - National Programming Service, LLC, based out of Indianapolis. They provide subscription to C band services.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

levibluewa said:


> at now $7.00 a month, how many of you would sub to the Superstation Package if DISH offered the HD feed.


I'd pay something extra to get the HD feeds of the Superstation SDs I now get.


----------



## gonzalo8575 (Feb 21, 2007)

I would also pay to get the HD version.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=10-124
Commission seeks comment on application by Dish Network for Certification as qualified carrier pursuant to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010.
Date Created: 06/04/2010
Status: Open
Total Filings: 0
Filings in last 30 days: 0​Apparently the application has been filed (weeks ago?).
I am unable to find the application online ... I expect it will be posted as part of the proceeding at some point.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

My CC is still being charged as: All AmerDirec So sobongo is just a name their using to sell merchandise.

Also, AAD/NPS existed long before they leased space on Dish, right? So why assume that without Dish, AAD/NPS would die? Sure they've increased their subscribership but they're also paying for transponder space as well which i'd expect cuts into any/all/most of their profit. If they lose dish then they would simply have just the C-band service. They might even find some customers jumping from dish to c-band to continue service (so as to not let their waivers expire). I would expect if Dish went back into DNS they would probably have a qualification process similar to D*. D* currently won't allow customers to even file waivers if they are in a DMA that D* provides service for.


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

I would never, ever, expect that we could get to an a la carte choice of programing, but oh if there were some way that my dad, who resides in the cleveland market (and presently subscribes to cable), could receive KDKA via Dish, or frankly, any other method, he would be ecstatic. 

As a Pittsburgh Steelers/Pirates fan, he would jump to that provider instantly!!

I sometimes wonder if the restrictions placed on viewing markets is something akin to the days of Universal's & Disney's battle against the Sony Betamax: the studios' powers that be, thought they were doing themselves good by trying to ban VCRs from recording television programming. Ironically, when the dust settled, and the VCR won out, it ended opening up the most lucrative, and lifesaving market for movie studios.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The restrictions are in place because of the affiliation agreements between local stations and the network. The viewer is not a party to the deal. Each station gets the first air right to network programming in their own market. Cable carriage rules ensure that most stations get carried within their coverage area, satellite carriage rules define coverage area by market. But the root of the problem comes down to the exclusive nature of the contract and how the networks have decided to carve up the nation.

Progress can still be made in leveling the playing field between cable and satellite ... but the networks and affiliates work against that as much as possible.


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

I understand the nature of such restrictions.

I guess my point was to suggest that perhaps the networks and affiliates may be narrowing themselves out of what could be a better deal for them if they allowed for something other than what they have been allowing all along.

I have always said that I would rather seel to people what they want, rather than what they need, or have to take!


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Let's not minimize the problems with "satellite carriage rules define coverage area by market" as many of us are in DMA's that practically are unrelated to anything real.

I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area DMA. Sutro Tower, from which most of the networks' signals emanate is located about 140 miles from me with mountains in between and the NBC affiliate broadcasts from even further south.

If you look at a map with my house in the middle, as the crow flies the Sacramento, Chico and Redding DMA stations are located closer than San Francisco:








Facts about the stations:

All can be viewed off the air with the same result - _not at all_.
It is a shorter drive to San Francisco than to the other three cities, _drives measured in hours_.
No local advertising can be found on any of the stations, meaning there is no economic basis for determining which DMA we're in.
News coverage is also about the same - Sacramento might have some coverage of political problems and crime, San Francisco might offer coverage of crime, and the other two wouldn't offer anything but coverage of a mass murder.
Based on my experience when I had both Sacramento and San Francisco, Sacramento offered the best weather coverage.
The determination that put us in the San Francisco Bay Area DMA was simply arbitrary and capricious. If I had hundreds of thousands of dollars to waste, it would be fun to challenge that rule in court solely on that basis.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

It is unfortunate that the NAB has been able to tie the viewers up in knots with all its power in Congress. There are stations that provide virtually no local coverage in some areas, yet claim the area for purposes of network exclusivity. There are local stations that have let their over-the-air signal become degraded, knowing that they can rely on satellite and cable for their market coverage. Yet, when a viewer with an outdoor antenna seeks a waiver because he/she cannot receive the over-the-air signal, they simply deny the waiver. Many local stations simply deny all requests for a waiver just as a blanket policy.

The NAB has way too much power and has gotten Congress to set these archaic and rigid rules in place. But the NAB can threaten any member of Congress who doesn't vote their way with not being able to buy television ads when it comes time for the next election.

When I watched some of the Congressional hearings on the renewal of STELA, I saw testimony by the representative of the NAB. His main focus was to convince Congress to repeal the distant license altogether. When he was asked by one of the members of Congress what his position was with regard to short markets and the distant license, he said that he was unaware of any short markets. He did lose some credibility at that point.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The NAB has way too much power and has gotten Congress to set these archaic and rigid rules in place. But the NAB can threaten any member of Congress who doesn't vote their way with not being able to buy television ads when it comes time for the next election.


An empty threat. For federal office a station CANNOT refuse a specific candidates request for air time. But a station can decide to not air any ads for a particular race. The equal time provisions protect a politician from stations picking who's ads they run. It doesn't stop the station from making editorial comments - with equal time for reply.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Are you referring to the "fairness doctrine," which has not really been enforced in decades, or are you referring to an existing federal statute?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Are you referring to the "fairness doctrine," which has not really been enforced in decades, or are you referring to an existing federal statute?


You're close. The fairness doctrine applies to issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, immigration and even less controversial topics). The goal being airing both side of the issues. Enforcement has been light, which is good for certain stations that really don't want to air an opposing viewpoint to their teaching programs.

Keep reading 47 CFR 73 and you'll find the federal regulations pertaining to candidates for federal office, including § 73.1944 Reasonable access. (a) "Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act provides that the Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to, or to permit purchase of, reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy."

For more information check out "The Public and Broadcasting".


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Thank you. I will take a look.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I am unable to view the proceeding 10-124 on the FCC website. That is, I can see that the proceeding exists, but I cannot view the actual filing. Does anyone know how to view it? The 30-day comment period is rapidly coming to an end, and no one yet has filed a comment. How can one file a comment if one cannot see the filing?

On another note, AAD is now answering its phone as Sobongo. It is also still accepting orders for 13 months of service if one pays the full amount in advance.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am unable to view the proceeding 10-124 on the FCC website. That is, I can see that the proceeding exists, but I cannot view the actual filing. Does anyone know how to view it? The 30-day comment period is rapidly coming to an end, and no one yet has filed a comment. How can one file a comment if one cannot see the filing?


Where do you see that the 30-day comment period has begun let alone will be ending soon?

Normally a public notice or application will be filed under the proceeding.

You may also wish to check the Media Bureau's home page for updates (along with the link to the proceeding).
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I am not familiar with FCC proceedings. However, I note that the FCC lists on its website that the proceeding seeking comments on the application of Dish to become a "qualified carrier" was created on June 4.

Meanwhile, Section 206, as stated in STELA, states under subsection (c), Certification Issuance, that the Commission shall provide 30 days for public comment on the request for certification. The Commission then has 90 days to grant or deny the request for certification.

Dish then must go back to court and seek to have the injunction lifted. It will be lifted if Dish has the certification. Otherwise, the injunction will remain.

The timing is important here. Dish has received a temporary, 120-day waiver of the injunction with regard to markets that were unserved as of December 31, 2009. The temporary waiver is outlined in Section 105 of STELA. The waiver was issued on June 3. That means that the 120 days are up on September 30. If Dish is not a "qualified carrier" by that date, the temporary waiver will expire and Dish will have to disconnect its distant network service. Of course, the temporary waiver can be extended for "good cause," but that term is undefined in STELA. Dish would be at the mercy of the judge. It is uncertain whether the judge would find "good cause."

I believe that Dish intends to be a "qualified carrier" prior to September 30, so that Dish can petition the court to permanently lift the injunction.

I am using the section numbers that appear in the text of STELA, not the section numbers that will be used when the text of STELA is published in the United States Code.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> (1) PUBLIC COMMENT.-The Commission shall provide 30 days for public comment on a request for certification under this section.
> (2) DEADLINE FOR DECISION.-The Commission shall grant or deny a request for certification within 90 days after the date on which such request is filed.


The second deadline is the only one that one should assume the clock is ticking on. The FCC apparently has until September 4th (or earlier, depending on the date filed) to render a decision. STELA doesn't state the exact timing of the 30 days, although with a decision deadline looming I would hope that there would not be too much more delay.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> I am not familiar with FCC proceedings. However, I note that the FCC lists on its website that the proceeding seeking comments on the application of Dish to become a "qualified carrier" was created on June 4.
> 
> Meanwhile, Section 206, as stated in STELA, states under subsection (c), Certification Issuance, that the Commission shall provide 30 days for public comment on the request for certification. The Commission then has 90 days to grant or deny the request for certification.
> 
> ...


Does the "qualified carrier" status DISH is seeking only apply to these short markets?

Albany, GA
27-00 WTXL TALLAHASSEE, FL (ABC) SV - 7666 SD 110° 25s3 X

Dothan, AL
7-00 WJHG PANAMA CITY, FL (NBC) SV - 8567 SD 110° 4s7 X

Juneau, AK
7-00 KFXF FAIRBANKS, AK (FOX) SV - 9381 SD 110° 26s46 X

Lafayette, LA
33-00 WVLA BATON ROUGE, LA (NBC) SV - 8486 SD 110° 25s12 X

Larado, TX
3-00 KSAT SAN ANTONIO, TX (ABC) SV - 8121 SD 110° 23s22 X 5270 HD 110° 25s22 X

Monterey, CA
3-00 KEYT SANTA BARBARA, CA (ABC) SV - 9186 SD 110° 23s42 X 5270 HD 129° 15s32 X

Panama City, FL
4-00 WTVY DOTHAN, AL (CBS) SV - 7920 SD 110° 4s7 X

Terre Haute, IN
20-00 WICS SPRINGFIELD, IL (ABC) SV - 7900 SD 119° 3sB13 X 5260 HD 129° 12s30 X

I'm not sure why DISH applied for a 120 waiver, nothing in either the Dothan or Panama City DMA has/was changed as a result of the waiver being approved.....both markets are still missing the above channels?

Hopefully this will all be resolved soon.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The temporary waiver doesn't help DISH in any market where they had locals on December 31st. It only helps them in new markets.

If granted (by the court) the "qualified carrier" status would allow DISH to offer distants in the remaining short markets.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The "qualified carrier" status that Dish is seeking applies to all markets across the board. If Dish becomes a "qualified carrier," the injunction will be lifted and Dish will be able to provide distant network service to any qualified customer.

Right now, Dish has a 120-day waiver that allows it to provide distant network service to any market that it was not serving as of December 31, 2009. That is a very limited pool of markets. I am not sure whether Dothan or Panama City fall into that pool. I know that Monterey does not fall into that pool.

As far as the public comment period, we are in a strange situation. It appears that the request for certification as a "qualified carrier" was filed with the FCC by Dish on June 4. I am unclear if we are in the public comment period, since I don't see how the FCC can solicit public comments when the filing is not available (at least not available online). I sent the FCC an email inquiring about this situation, but as of yet no response. I believe that the FCC will not act on the request by Dish to be certified as a "qualified carrier" until the public comment period has expired. If the FCC were to grant Dish the "qualified carrier" certification without allowing for the proper public comments, the certification would be vulnerable to being stricken by a court.

It seems most logical that the public comment period should commence immediately upon the request for certification being filed with the FCC by Dish. Certainly Congress intends that the FCC will take into account any public comments when it makes its decision.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The "qualified carrier" status that Dish is seeking applies to all markets across the board. If Dish becomes a "qualified carrier," the injunction will be lifted and Dish will be able to provide distant network service to any qualified customer.


The question was where does it help DISH and DISH customers.

As DISH is unable to provide distants (without waivers) in any market that has that network provided as a local within the market and DISH has locals in every market the number of customers that can be given distants is severely limited.

The primary place where it helps is the short markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*Commission Seeks Comment on Application by Dish Network for Certification as a Qualified Carrier Pursuant to the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010.*
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1036A1.pdf

Responses due: July 20, 2010
Replies due: July 30, 2010


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The question was where does it help DISH and DISH customers.


Actually, the question was this: "Does the "qualified carrier" status DISH is seeking only apply to these short markets?" The post then referenced eight specific markets.

Although the "qualified carrier" status will primarily be used to provide distants in short markets, there are other situations where Dish will be able to provide distants. Whether Dish actually does provide distants in those other situations is another question.

I believe my answer that the "qualified carrier" status will allow Dish to provide distants to any qualified customer is correct.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A 7 MB file ... but the application is online now.

Filing Information ...
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015658707

Direct Link ...
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020514475


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The application for "qualified carrier" status is stamped "filed/accepted" on June 30. As per STELA, the FCC has 90 days from that date to make a decision. The 90 days is up on September 27. The temporary waiver expires on September 30.

However, getting the "qualified carrier" certification is not the end of the line. Dish then has to return to court and ask the court to lift the injunction. Dish also has to satisfy the court of some other matters in order to get the injunction lifted--mainly issues concerning the special master. The special master will be a possibly intrusive presence in Dish's business until 2012.

Of course, the FCC may issue its decision prior to September 27, and the entire process may conclude well before September 30. However, the timeline could be close.

Thus far I do not see any comments posted on the FCC filing.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Thus far I do not see any comments posted on the FCC filing.


I was a bit disappointed with the application. I thought that DISH had to provide coverage information for ALL markets, not just the new markets. Also the date of enactment being February 27th? I expected that date to be in May when the president signed the bill into law.

In any case filings are to come ...
What we will see in filings? Perhaps a station or group that doesn't feel that they were treated fairly in negotiations using the opportunity for sounding off. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few Internet geeks sounding off (as they did during the comment period for the Echostar purchase of R-1 and the licenses). I've seen some pretty odd filings in that comment system over the years.

Hopefully we will see some very intelligent questions asked and answered and not a lot of garbage. All we know for sure is the comment period ends July 20th with replies due by July 30th so there will be no FCC action (unless they post their own set of comments/questions for DISH) until August.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Where do you see the date of enactment as February 27?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Where do you see the date of enactment as February 27?


In the PDF I linked from the FCC website (DA 10-1036).
Although taking a second look it appears the FCC got it right on page 1 (footnote 1) and wrong on page 2 (footnote 8)!

"STELA was enacted on May 27, 2010 (S. 3333, 111th Cong.)."
"The effective date of STELA, and its enactment date for most purposes, is February 27, 2010. See STELA § 307(a)."

The wrong date stuck out more when I read it the last time.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

There are additional filings in Proceeding 10-124. I haven't had a chance to review them.

James, I would be interested in hearing your opinion, as well as the opinion of anyone else. I will read the filings when I get a chance over the weekend.

A quick glance--they seem to be the same documentation already filed, but I have to do a closer review to be sure.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> A quick glance--they seem to be the same documentation already filed, but I have to do a closer review to be sure.


They appear to be identical. The only difference being the filing broken up into 25 page documents and photoscanned instead of printed to PDF. A lesson in how to take a 7meg document and make it 19meg.

It looks like the original document was electronically filed and the FCC has now added the paper filed version. The only difference is that they missed page 116 of 119 when scanning. (A title page for Attachment E.) The accepted stamp is in a different place on page one. No real content changes. Both were filed/accepted on the same day.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

There are new comments in the "qualified carrier" application Dish has filed with the FCC. The comment is from Delmarva Broadcast Service, and I am reviewing it now.

It is interesting. Delmarva Broadcast Service appears to be stating that Dish is in fact not providing local service to the Salisbury, MD market. The comment concedes that Dish may have the capacity to provide the service, but states that negotiations have halted because Dish is failing to respond to inquiries from Delmarva. The comment also states, that, as far as it knows, Dish is not providing any other local stations to the Salisbury market.

The comment makes the point that, should Dish attain "qualified carrier" status, it will not be allowed to import distants to Salisbury.

It appears to me that Salisbury may be missing an NBC station, so I think that if the injunction is lifted, Dish can import an NBC to that market. In fact, if this is a market in which service was "added" after December 31, 2009, Dish could currently import a distant NBC to that market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> It appears to me that Salisbury may be missing an NBC station, so I think that if the injunction is lifted, Dish can import an NBC to that market. In fact, if this is a market in which service was "added" after December 31, 2009, Dish could currently import a distant NBC to that market.


DISH currently carries WHAG HAGERSTOWN, MD (NBC) (possibly as significantly viewed) and the local WCPB SALISBURY, MD (PBS) in that market. WBOC is the CBS and FOX affiliate and WMDT is the ABC affiliate for that market ... DISH has uplinked those three feeds (ABC, CBS, FOX) but have not made them available due to the lack of agreement with the stations.

In retrans disputes there always seems to be a party that claims that the other side has stopped talking ... and perhaps rightfully so if the negotiations are going poorly. It appears that this broadcaster may just be using the proceeding as leverage - claiming DISH does not carry all markets because they have refused to cave in to the demands of this broadcaster for carriage.

The way I read the law DISH does not have to carry all channels in all markets ... they only have to offer carriage to all channels. Failure of WBOC and WMDT to allow their feeds to be carried should not prevent DISH from meeting the "we offer carriage in all markets" standard required by law for the distants waiver.

If this broadcaster prevails in blocking DISH's attempt to provide distants it would block distants nationwide and give extra leverage to all stations that wish to refused to be carried by DISH without extraordinary cost. It would be best for all who want distants (including distants in the new markets added this year) that DISH win this particular challenge. Otherwise the only out of market stations available on DISH will be significantly viewed stations.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

And if this station really wants to be carried, all it has to do is elect "must carry."


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> And if this station really wants to be carried, all it has to do is elect "must carry."


True.

I don't believe the broadcaster is providing false information to the FCC (never a good idea) so I'll take it as stated that DISH didn't approach WHAG until May 20th. Under SHVERA DISH should have provided a 60 day notice. (See 47 USC 338 (h)(2) )

It is possible that DISH provided such a notice at some time in the past (a time forgotten by WHAG). But expecting an agreement in 9 days and then apparently ending negotiations? I look forward to DISH's reply comments to this comment to see what they have to say on this issue.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

WHAG is definitly NOT an SV station. Its on the other side of maryland, in the mountains. I can't even pick it up w/ an ANT from here in VA.

As fas as I know, there is no NBC station on Delmarva. I am only aware of the CBS 16, and the ABC 47? I think. FOx may be on a sub channel, which didn't exist until the advent of DTV. I think the cable companies out there carry the FOX an NBC stations out of Baltimore. Maybe even FOX DC.

Currently WHAG is given to all DC area subs, as Hagerstown is considered the "DC metro area" for some reason. I hadnt even heard of the station till it popped up in my guide one day.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The actual Significantly Viewed stations for the Salisbury Market: (NBC's highlighted)
*Sussex County, DE*
WBOC-TV, 16, Salisbury, MD (CBS/FOX in market)
WMDT, 47, Salisbury, MD (ABC/CW in market)
WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD (ABC)
WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD (NBC)
WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD (CBS)
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC (FOX)

*Dorchester County, MD*
WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD (ABC)
WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD (NBC)
WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD (CBS)
WNUV, 54, Baltimore, MD (CW)
WBOC-TV, 16, Salisbury, MD (CBS/FOX in market)
WMDT, 47, Salisbury, MD (ABC/CW in market)
WRC-TV, 4, Washington, DC (NBC)
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC (FOX)
WJLA-TV, 7, Washington, DC (ABC)
WUSA, 9, Washington, DC (CBS)

*Somerset County, MD*
WBOC-TV, 16, Salisbury, MD (CBS/FOX in market)
WMDT, 47, Salisbury, MD (ABC/CW in market)
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC (FOX)

*Wicomico County, MD*
WBOC-TV, 16, Salisbury, MD (CBS/FOX in market)
WMDT, 47, Salisbury, MD (ABC/CW in market)
WMAR-TV, 2, Baltimore, MD (ABC)
WBAL-TV, 11, Baltimore, MD (NBC)
WJZ-TV, 13, Baltimore, MD (CBS)
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC (FOX)

*Worchester County, MD*
WBOC-TV, 16, Salisbury, MD (CBS/FOX in market)
WMDT, 47, Salisbury, MD (ABC/CW in market)
WTTG, 5, Washington, DC (FOX)

WBAL would work for three out of five markets ... WRC would work in one.
WHAG _*is*_ a distant.


----------



## surfinguru (Jun 16, 2006)

Guys, can you help me out to understand all this? I currently have service in San Jose, CA but will be moving to Santa Cruz, CA in a few weeks. How do I ensure I maintain the major networks? (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

You will be changing markets, going from San Francisco to Monterey-Salinas. In San Francisco, Dish carries all four networks in HD. Monterey-Salinas is a short market, lacking an ABC affiliate. Dish does carry the other three networks in HD in Monterey-Salinas.

In order to receive ABC in Santa Cruz, you have several options. You can mount a rooftop antenna and try to receive KGO. That may or may not work, depending on your location.

You can receive ABC via AAD. AAD offers KGO, but only in SD. AAD also offers KABC in HD.

Dish will probably be again allowed to provide distants starting in a few months. When/if that happens, Dish will probably add to the Monterey-Salinas market the distant ABC station KEYT, from Santa Barbara. That is a station that has few to no viewers currently in the Monterey-Salinas market. If KEYT has any viewers in Monterey-Salinas, it would be some in the extreme southern end of the market, which is very rural, receiving it OTA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> There are new comments in the "qualified carrier" application Dish has filed with the FCC. The comment is from Delmarva Broadcast Service, and I am reviewing it now.


Reply comments (if DISH wishes to reply) are due today, July 30th. We may not see them posted until Saturday but worth checking.

I'm surprised there were not more comments before the July 20th deadline. If DISH offers a good reply to Delmarva they will probably slip in under the radar and get the certification that they want.

Personally ... I wish they had not rushed in to getting the certification. I'd rather see them use as many SV stations as possible (even if they do not cover entire markets SV - use them where they can) than import distants. Although the law does not require it, I believe they should carry section 122 channels to the fullest extent of the law before considering distants.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Reply comments (if DISH wishes to reply) are due today, July 30th. We may not see them posted until Saturday but worth checking.
> 
> I'm surprised there were not more comments before the July 20th deadline. If DISH offers a good reply to Delmarva they will probably slip in under the radar and get the certification that they want.
> 
> Personally ... I wish they had not rushed in to getting the certification. I'd rather see them use as many SV stations as possible (even if they do not cover entire markets SV - use them where they can) than import distants. Although the law does not require it, I believe they should carry section 122 channels to the fullest extent of the law before considering distants.


Carrying the SV stations is a good idea, but they still have to get permission to carry those stations from the stations themselves. They may have trouble on that front. Or they may encounter resistance from the local stations. Some of the SV stations may be a duplicate network station of a local station, and the local station does not want to see its audience fragmented.

Plus, they have to get their certification. Their temporary waiver expires 120 days from the date it was granted, and if they have not made efforts to get their certification, it is likely that the judge would allow the temporary waiver to expire. Then Dish would have to disconnect their current distant station customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Carrying the SV stations is a good idea, but they still have to get permission to carry those stations from the stations themselves. They may have trouble on that front. Or they may encounter resistance from the local stations. Some of the SV stations may be a duplicate network station of a local station, and the local station does not want to see its audience fragmented.


I was thinking in "short" markets where SVs would fill the role of the missing network. I don't expect DISH to carry SVs that are of a network already in that market (although it would be nice to be on equal footing with cable).



> Plus, they have to get their certification. Their temporary waiver expires 120 days from the date it was granted, and if they have not made efforts to get their certification, it is likely that the judge would allow the temporary waiver to expire. Then Dish would have to disconnect their current distant station customers.


I would have moved slower ... got what they could up and not use distants on day one. It seems like they were in such a rush to add the final markets they didn't bother to get local carriage deals completed. DISH's reply comments will be key ... are they making a fair attempt at carrying all markets? Is what they have done good enough?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I was thinking in "short" markets where SVs would fill the role of the missing network. I don't expect DISH to carry SVs that are of a network already in that market (although it would be nice to be on equal footing with cable).
> 
> I would have moved slower ... got what they could up and not use distants on day one. It seems like they were in such a rush to add the final markets they didn't bother to get local carriage deals completed. DISH's reply comments will be key ... are they making a fair attempt at carrying all markets? Is what they have done good enough?


I believe you are correct. And if they for whatever reason don't get their certification, then they are in a real world of hurt and face possibly having to disconnect their current distant stations. This temporary waiver situation puts additional pressure on them.

Perhaps the best way to have done it would be not to even have obtained a temporary waiver. Just add the missing markets, add the SV's, then when all that is settled, seek the certification. Then after obtaining the certification and getting the entire injunction lifted, add distants as needed across the markets.


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

So, is this what the short markets are waiting for? Panama City Fl missing CBS and Dothan Al missing NBC among the DMA's.

Bit confused again.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joecap1946 said:


> So, is this what the short markets are waiting for? Panama City Fl missing CBS and Dothan Al missing NBC among the DMA's.
> 
> Bit confused again.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I'm not sure of the situation in Panama City and Dothan. However, if those markets were carried by Dish starting in 2009 or earlier, then Dish cannot presently provide distants to those markets. Dish can provide SV stations to those markets, and that may be able to provide the missing networks. If that doesn't work, then Dish will be able to provide distant networks only after the injunction is lifted.

If either or both of those markets were added anytime in 2010, then Dish can currently provide distant networks to fill the void.

Again, I'm not personally familiar with the situations in Panama City and in Dothan. But I have just stated the general rules.


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

Thanks Runner,

I can't speak for Dothan AL, but in Panama City we used to get our CBS from Dothan AL. When Dish had to give up distants, I had to purchase my CBS from AAD (still do).

So now I am totally confused. Both CBS from Dothan and NBC from Panama City are owned by the same company. Panama City doesn't have CBS from Dothan, and Dothan doesn't have NBC from Panama City. They are both SV channels in each DMA.

Have I confused you yet..?? 

Thanks for your reply

Joe


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joecap1946 said:


> I can't speak for Dothan AL, but in Panama City we used to get our CBS from Dothan AL. When Dish had to give up distants, I had to purchase my CBS from AAD (still do).
> 
> So now I am totally confused. Both CBS from Dothan and NBC from Panama City are owned by the same company. Panama City doesn't have CBS from Dothan, and Dothan doesn't have NBC from Panama City. They are both SV channels in each DMA.


I believe these were discussed near the beginning of this thread ... and are the channels that were in my mind when I said that I believe that DISH should do SV first. Stations that can be carried now as SVs in a portion of the neighboring market without any further permission from the courts - but DISH has declined.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I believe these were discussed near the beginning of this thread ... and are the channels that were in my mind when I said that I believe that DISH should do SV first. Stations that can be carried now as SVs in a portion of the neighboring market without any further permission from the courts - but DISH has declined.


That may be part of the hitch. If a station qualifies as SV only in part of the market, then Dish can only offer that station in the part of the market where it qualifies as SV. Dish may not want to split up markets. Customers might get upset if the viewers in the northern part of the market are receiving ABC, while the viewers in the southern half of the market have to do without ABC. (I'm just using an abstract illustration, not specific to any market.)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> That may be part of the hitch. If a station qualifies as SV only in part of the market, then Dish can only offer that station in the part of the market where it qualifies as SV. Dish may not want to split up markets. Customers might get upset if the viewers in the northern part of the market are receiving ABC, while the viewers in the southern half of the market have to do without ABC. (I'm just using an abstract illustration, not specific to any market.)


SV'd in those specific markets:
*Panama City, FL*
WTVY(CBS): Bay, Calhoun, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Walton, Washington
WCTV(CBS): Calhoun, Franklin, Gulf, Jackson, Liberty

*Dothan, AL*
WSFA(NBC): Coffee, Dale
WJHG(NBC): Geneva, Houston
WALB(NBC): Early (GA)
Distant: Henry

Split Panama City in two and it is covered ... Dothan would be more complicated. DISH may not want to split markets (especially in cases like Dothan where a six county market would get three different NBC stations depending on county) but it would provide a legally available network signal without relying on distants.

Sometimes it is about more than what DISH wants but serving their viewers.


----------



## joecap1946 (Aug 22, 2008)

Thank you both for trying to sort out this issue. So I'm thinking it's going to be a very long time before we have a local CBS. I was just curious. I'm glad I have AAD.

Your so right is stating that Dish does what it wants to do, not what the public wants or needs.

Appreciate the responses.

Joe


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish has filed a 14-page reply to Delmarva's comment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish has filed a 14-page reply to Delmarva's comment.


The reply seems sufficient to me - it covers the questions I had about the timeline and reinforces what section 122 carriage means while noting that no one else complained. The attachments proved the point that they wanted to make.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The fact that the no broadcaster other than Delmarva filed a comment is very telling. Evidently, Delmarva wants to be paid and decided to apply some pressure to Dish through the comment process. Although we don't know the specifics of the negotiations, Dish apparently doesn't feel that Delmarva's signal is worth much. Delmarva should probably just elect "must carry," like the local PBS station did. This comment by Delmarva is unlikely to derail the "qualified carrier" process.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The fact that the no broadcaster other than Delmarva filed a comment is very telling. Evidently, Delmarva wants to be paid and decided to apply some pressure to Dish through the comment process. Although we don't know the specifics of the negotiations, Dish apparently doesn't feel that Delmarva's signal is worth much. Delmarva should probably just elect "must carry," like the local PBS station did. This comment by Delmarva is unlikely to derail the "qualified carrier" process.


Fortunately their problem can be solved pretty quickly by agreeing to carriage under whatever terms DISH wants ... carriage of the sub-channel is a natural - and something DISH wants as well. There are too many local stations wanting too much per subscriber for carriage.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Retransmission consent was an issue that Ergen brought up when he appeared before the House Technology, Communications, and Internet Subcommittee in February 2009. He requested either that the payment for retransmission be eliminated, and that all stations could be retransmitted locally at no cost to the satellite carrier, or, in the alternative, that Congress set a fee for retransmission. The representatives seemed to think that they didn't want to deal with that issue in STELA.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish has provided a letter to the FCC in which it acknowledges making an ex parte presentation to several FCC personnel. The letter has been posted under the open proceeding 10-124. Dish is requesting that the "qualified carrier" certification be issued as soon as possible.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

Has there been anymore information on whether or not those of us in the Short Markets will be getting our missing channels anytime soon?

Thanks!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Still waiting on the FCC ... and then the court.


----------



## Voyager6 (Apr 17, 2006)

E* gets it's STELA certification. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0902/FCC-10-159A1.pdf



> As required by STELA,
> DISH's application was placed on public notice and one comment was filed.3 STELA states that the
> Commission "shall issue" a qualified carrier certification to any satellite carrier, upon making certain
> determinations regarding the service provided by that carrier.4 After review of DISH's filing and
> ...


The only public comment was made by a Salisbury, MD station that E* has not reached a carriage agreement with.


> 6. As required by STELA, we provided 30 days for public comment on the DISH filing.18
> The only comment filed was a challenge to DISH's statement that it is providing local service in every
> DMA.19 Delmarva Broadcast Service, LLV is the operator of WMDT-TV, Salisbury, MD ("WMDT").
> After being notified of DISH's intent to begin local service, WMDT elected retransmission consent for
> ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Voyager6 said:


> E* gets it's STELA certification. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0902/FCC-10-159A1.pdf


Excellent! Now back to the courts with "permission slip" in hand ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FYI: No filing with the court in Florida yet ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

1:98-cv-02651-WPD CBS Broadcasting, et al v. EchoStar, et al

Date of last filing: 06/02/2010



Still tapping my fingers waiting for the filing ...


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The temporary waiver expires on September 30. We will see a filing soon, even if it is just a request to extend the temporary waiver. As of now, Dish only has limited authority to provide distant networks, and no authority as of September 30. They had better take care of business soon.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

It's been 2 weeks now and I sure was hoping that DISH would have made their filing by now???

Not sure what the hold up is but those of us in the Short Markets having been waiting for years to get our missing stations back........ hopefully this will be resolved soon!


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

psdstu said:


> It's been 2 weeks now and I sure was hoping that DISH would have made their filing by now???
> 
> Not sure what the hold up is but those of us in the Short Markets having been waiting for years to get our missing stations back........ hopefully this will be resolved soon!


One thing that could be holding it up is the designation of the special master. There may be some difficulty locating one that all the parties can agree on. Of course, this should have been informally worked out sooner between the parties, but it may not have been. And the court can choose and appoint one over any party's objection, but it is better if the parties can all agree and present the name to the court.

This all is speculative by me, but it is what I have been thinking for a while. I had expected an immediate filing.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

So the Pacer website indicates still no filing in the distants lawsuit as of now. Of course, the website can be a little slow in getting the documents online. Nevertheless, if I am not mistaken, the temporary waiver expires on September 30. I don't know that there is enough time for Dish realistically to get the injunction lifted prior to September 30. If Dish doesn't get the injunction lifted by that date, Dish will either have to request an extension of the temporary waiver and hope for a favorable ruling, or Dish will have to disconnect its current distant network service.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

DISH doesn't have a distant network service!


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

levibluewa said:


> DISH doesn't have a distant network service!


Dish has a limited distant network service at this time.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Where, what and to what subs?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

levibluewa said:


> Where, what and to what subs?


Dish has a limited, temporary waiver from the injunction barring Dish from providing distant network service. Dish is allowed to provide distant network service only in markets that it was not serving with local channels as of Dec. 31, 2009. So, Dish can provide DNS to any market in which Dish started providing local channels as of Jan. 1 or later.

The temporary waiver is scheduled to expire on Sept. 30. Dish is seeking to have the entire injunction lifted. However, the timeline on that is uncertain at this time.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

James Long said:


> 1:98-cv-02651-WPD CBS Broadcasting, et al v. EchoStar, et al
> 
> Date of last filing: 06/02/2010
> 
> Still tapping my fingers waiting for the filing ...


Looks like yet another week has gone-by without a filing....... what in the world is DISH waiting for now???


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish had better do something. The temporary waiver expires on Thursday. As of now, come Thursday, they do not have a distant network service anymore.

Another question comes to mind: Why did Dish even seek a temporary waiver? Why not just wait until the entire injunction is lifted? That way they avoid any time crunches, like the one they are in now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish had better do something. The temporary waiver expires on Thursday. As of now, come Thursday, they do not have a distant network service anymore.
> 
> Another question comes to mine: Why did Dish even seek a temporary waiver? Why not just wait until the entire injunction is lifted. That way they avoid any time crunches, like the one they are in now.


Why did DISH wait for the injunction to add SV stations to markets that were active 12/31/09? It seems that they have a different interpretation of the law.

By my interpretation all of the new 2010 markets will lose their out of market channels when that injunction expires. They need to get that extended pronto.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

It is possible that Dish has filed something. Sometimes the court gets behind on scanning the documents and updating the website. Still, it doesn't look good.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Still no filing as of today. It looks unlikely that Dish can get the injunction lifted by Sept. 30, the date that the temporary waiver expires. I expect that Dish will file soon to extend the temporary waiver. The decision to extend or not extend is up to the judge. If the waiver is not extended by Sept. 30, Dish must disconnect its distant network service.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish has requested an extension of the temporary waiver, and it was unopposed. The court has granted an extension to November 15. The Dish moving papers indicate that the discussions and negotiations between the parties regarding the lifting of the injunction are ongoing, but there are unresolved issues.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> Dish has requested an extension of the temporary waiver, and it was unopposed. The court has granted an extension to November 15. The Dish moving papers indicate that the discussions and negotiations between the parties regarding the lifting of the injunction are ongoing, but there are unresolved issues.


Thanks runner861 for the update..........sadly, it appears that those of us who have been waiting for this process to playout in the short markets will be waiting for sometime again for these mystery issues to be resolved........


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish has now filed the motion to have the injunction lifted. The motion and associated documentation is voluminous.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Dish has now filed the motion to have the injunction lifted. The motion and associated documentation is voluminous.


Thanks for the update.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish is requesting the appointment of a special master. Dish will pay for the special master, and is requesting a cap of $100,000. 

Dish is requesting that the injunction be lifted. At this time, the other parties are refusing to join in that motion.

The attachments to the motion are the current law, the affidavit of Rex Povenmire, the agreement for Dish to pay the expenses of the special master, the qualified carrier certification, and the proposed order waiving the injunction.

The court issued an order establishing that any response/opposition to the motion shall be filed by October 29. Dish then has until November 3 to file a reply.

The temporary waiver expires on November 15, and it appears that the court wants to have this matter wrapped up prior to that date. We can expect a ruling sometime after the 3rd and before the 15th.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It will be interesting to see the opposition. DISH has spent their time so far (including the extension) trying to get an agreement. I'd say those efforts failed since this isn't a joint motion.

The opposition filing should point out the differences between the parties. I hope it is legitimate and not a "they messed up before why trust them now" complaint.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The efforts apparently did fail. I don't know what the problem is. It may be a disagreement about who the special master will be or a disagreement about how extensive the duties of the special master will be. This is just my speculation. If the opposition is just they messed up before why trust them now, then the judge is likely to dismiss that.

Realistically, there is no question that the injunction will be lifted. I see more of an issue being how does Dish handle things once the injunction is lifted. Dish does not want to get in trouble again, and if they do, this is likely is their last chance to ever transmit distants. I think they will be conservative in providing distants. On the other hand, they don't want to deny distants to legitimate customers. Will the decision of who is eligible to receive distants be outsourced to Decisionmark? How will Dish handle the situation with waivers? Or will Dish even accept waivers?

Will they have any CONUS distants, or will it just be neighboring markets on spotbeams? Will they offer distants to RV customers? If they offer distants to RV customers, that would require some distants to be on CONUS. Will AAD continue? Or will Dish pick up the AAD service? Or will the AAD service just be abandoned?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The efforts apparently did fail. I don't know what the problem is. It may be a disagreement about who the special master will be or a disagreement about how extensive the duties of the special master will be. This is just my speculation. If the opposition is just they messed up before why trust them now, then the judge is likely to dismiss that.


I don't think that is the problem...

Dish Network must go to the court and get the judge to lift the injunction with the new law in hand. There is no derailing the process, as outlined by law.

The "opposition" needs to do nothing.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Greg Bimson said:


> I don't think that is the problem...
> 
> Dish Network must go to the court and get the judge to lift the injunction with the new law in hand. There is no derailing the process, as outlined by law.
> 
> The "opposition" needs to do nothing.


The opposing parties have refused to join in the motion to lift the injunction. There was a lot of bad blood between the parties, which one can still view just by looking back at the back and forth documents that were filed at the end of 2006. Passions have had time to cool, but there may still be animosity.

Dish's current moving papers indicate that Dish has conferred with the other parties but they have refused to join in the motion. Dish even sought an extension of the temporary waiver back in September so that negotiations could continue.

The opposing parties have until October 29 to file their opposition. If they file none, then we know that they have no real objection. If they file something, we'll see it at that time.

I think that realistically the injunction will be lifted. However, there are requirements that Dish must satisfy in order to have it lifted. And in law, it is not over until it is over. There is always a chance that something unexpected could derail the process.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> The opposing parties have refused to join in the motion to lift the injunction. There was a lot of bad blood between the parties, which one can still view just by looking back at the back and forth documents that were filed at the end of 2006. Passions have had time to cool, but there may still be animosity.
> 
> Dish's current moving papers indicate that Dish has conferred with the other parties but they have refused to join in the motion. Dish even sought an extension of the temporary waiver back in September so that negotiations could continue.
> 
> ...


runner861,

Thanks for your update on this situation. I understand that this affects a rather small number of DISH customers, but for those of us in the short markets, this is a very important issue and one that we hope is resolved soon.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Plaintiffs (CBS et al.) have filed their response to the motion to lift the injunction and the motion to appoint the special master. Plaintiffs neither oppose nor join in Dish's motion to lift the injunction. This is a tacit admission that the motion will be granted.

Plaintiffs object to Dish's choice of a special master. Plaintiffs are asking for someone with more experience in the area of copyright law. Plaintiffs are requesting 30 days for Dish and the parties to meet and confer to see if they can agree on a special master.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Plaintiffs object to Dish's choice of a special master. Plaintiffs are asking for someone with more experience in the area of copyright law. Plaintiffs are requesting 30 days for Dish and the parties to meet and confer to see if they can agree on a special master.


As you expected!

The two sides have been talking about the special master for the last month. Will 30 more days make a difference?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> As you expected!
> 
> The two sides have been talking about the special master for the last month. Will 30 more days make a difference?


I think that if the court does hold off on appointing a special master for 30 days, it will not directly affect the lifting of the injunction. In other words, I expect that the injunction will be lifted with possibly no special master in place for the first 30 days.

Whether the court will just appoint the special master suggested by Dish, or another person of the court's choosing, or whether the court will wait 30 days to allow the parties further meeting and conferring, is an open question. I don't really see what will be accomplished in 30 days that hasn't already been done. In their opposition, plaintiffs did not advance their own suggested name. Dish, in their moving papers, does advance a name. In my opinion, there is no reason to grant 30 days of further meeting and conferring.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I think that if the court does hold off on appointing a special master for 30 days, it will not directly affect the lifting of the injunction. In other words, I expect that the injunction will be lifted with possibly no special master in place for the first 30 days.


I agree. The two filings today support that.

Plaintiff's counsel has conferred with counsel for DISH and has been advised, because *this matter is separate from Defendant's pending and unopposed motion for waiver of the injunction in the case*, counsel for DISH concurs in Plaintiffs' request for an additional thirty (30) days in which to submit candidates for consideration by the Court for appointment to serve as Special Master.​
That leaves it open for the judge to waive the injunction ... unless he decides to wait until the Special Master is in place. I see no reason to wait.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I agree. The two filings today support that.
> 
> Plaintiff's counsel has conferred with counsel for DISH and has been advised, because *this matter is separate from Defendant's pending and unopposed motion for waiver of the injunction in the case*, counsel for DISH concurs in Plaintiffs' request for an additional thirty (30) days in which to submit candidates for consideration by the Court for appointment to serve as Special Master.​
> That leaves it open for the judge to waive the injunction ... unless he decides to wait until the Special Master is in place. I see no reason to wait.


That is how I see it as well. Of course, the ultimate decision belongs to the judge. He can rule however he chooses and could deny 30 days even though Dish concurs with the request of the Plaintiffs. However, unless the judge really sees things differently than the parties, I expect that the injunction will be lifted soon, possibly as soon as today.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The court lifted the injunction barring Dish from providing distant networks. The order was signed on October 29, but it did not make it onto the court's website until today.

The court agreed, in a separate order, to wait 30 days until appointing a special master. During that time, the parties will have the opportunity to meet and confer to see if they can agree on a candidate to recommend, or to submit additional names for consideration. The court has not eliminated former Chief Justice Harding, Dish's proposed special master, as a candidate.

Ultimately, the court will choose a special master. The court is not limited to candidates submitted by Dish or the opposing parties.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The court lifted the injunction barring Dish from providing distant networks. The order was signed on October 29, but it did not make it onto the court's website until today.


Injunction lifting order attached.

So far DISH has made no changes to their channels to activate the "distants" that they had uplinked but not available. Updates as events warrant.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Officially Dish has been back in the distant networks business since Friday. We will see how things develop. If I remember correctly, Dish was completely out of the distant network business as of December 1, 2006. They are back in three years and eleven months later.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Officially Dish has been back in the distant networks business since Friday. We will see how things develop. If I remember correctly, Dish was completely out of the distant network business as of December 1, 2006. They are back in three years and eleven months later.


The channels added in new short markets earlier this year included distants ... but having _permission_ to distribute distants to the fullest extent of the law - on par with DirecTV - did restart Friday.

The short markets that existed pre 12/31/09 should be the first to get their channels. Then we'll see how it goes from there.

BTW: DirecTV has been making changes to their system, including distants at no extra charge in short markets where they didn't carry locals.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The channels added in new short markets earlier this year included distants ... but having _permission_ to distribute distants to the fullest extent of the law - on par with DirecTV - did restart Friday.
> 
> The short markets that existed pre 12/31/09 should be the first to get their channels. Then we'll see how it goes from there.
> 
> BTW: DirecTV has been making changes to their system, including distants at no extra charge in short markets where they didn't carry locals.


I am just thinking about how this will develop. In short markets where Dish is only offering SD locals, does Dish plan to offer distants in HD? I see no reason why the distants can't be offered in HD. I know that SV stations can only be offered in SD to a local market that is only carried in SD, but I do not believe that the same restriction applies to distants.

I am not readily familiar with the situation at DirectTV, but are you saying that the change is they are offering distants at no extra charge in short markets? Do they offer the distants in SD or HD? As far as I know, they have always been able to offer distants in short markets. Are they offering distants from neighboring markets, or are they offering distants from a few cities only?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am just thinking about how this will develop. In short markets where Dish is only offering SD locals, does Dish plan to offer distants in HD? I see no reason why the distants can't be offered in HD. I know that SV stations can only be offered in SD to a local market that is only carried in SD, but I do not believe that the same restriction applies to distants.


The distants "testing" are in the same definition as the rest of the market. If the in market channels are HD then the distants are HD.

Legally I agree that distants could be HD in a SD market ... but I believe that would just annoy most subscribers and just fuel their demand for all HD carriage. DISH does not have the bandwidth to carry every market in HD and won't for a couple more years.



> I am not readily familiar with the situation at DirectTV, but are you saying that the change is they are offering distants at no extra charge in short markets? Do they offer the distants in SD or HD? As far as I know, they have always been able to offer distants in short markets. Are they offering distants from neighboring markets, or are they offering distants from a few cities only?


DirecTV is offering their national distants via ConUS feeds. I don't believe they are offering closer distants via spotbeams like DISH is. I have not tracked it in detail but there are threads in the DirecTV forum mentioning the change.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Injunction lifting order attached.
> 
> So far DISH has made no changes to their channels to activate the "distants" that they had uplinked but not available. Updates as events warrant.


What is the link to the distants that are uplinked but not available? Also, how do you get such good access to the uplink changes?


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

runner861 said:


> What is the link to the distants that are uplinked but not available? Also, how do you get such good access to the uplink changes?


I believe James and P Smith both have PC cards / satellite tuners for their PCs that can read the tables off the satellite. They capture a stream of data, then parse through the captured data. I wish I had one myself ...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> What is the link to the distants that are uplinked but not available? Also, how do you get such good access to the uplink changes?


I don't keep a comprehensive list of "uplinked - not available" but market by market they can be seen on the pages I keep on my website. See http://jameslong.name/markets/ and choose the one you're interested in.

The tables that describe what is on DISH's system (or may be on it for unavailable channels) are transmitted in the clear ("free to air") so it is easy to see what is apparently there. There have been times DISH has tried to be more cautious in their channel naming but it isn't hard to figure out the basics of what they may be planning by taking a peek under the hood. (And that is why I say "apparently" ... an unavailable channel in the table could be anything or nothing. DISH knows people watch the tables ... so sometimes they hide things or do things just to be seen.)

There are also those at this site that do the same monitoring for DirecTV's system.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

I'm glad this has been resolved for those of us in one of the Short Markets.....but I am mistified by what DISH is waiting for to "flip the switch" and start providing us our missing channels???? 

It's not like they didn't know this might happen.......and now we are still waiting in limbo for at least some comment from DISH on what the plan is?

What in the world are they waiting for now?


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

psdstu said:



> I'm glad this has been resolved for those of us in one of the Short Markets.....but I am mistified by what DISH is waiting for to "flip the switch" and start providing us our missing channels????
> 
> It's not like they didn't know this might happen.......and now we are still waiting in limbo for at least some comment from DISH on what the plan is?
> 
> What in the world are they waiting for now?


I have been wondering the same thing. As far as I know, the distant stations that Dish wants to use are already uplinked. It could be as simple as the person at Dish who will handle this issue has not been at work for a few days. Or, perhaps Dish wishes to conclude an agreement with AAD for transfer of service prior to turning these stations on. It seems like there may be some activity behind the scenes, although I am just speculating.

As far as the next activity from the court, I expect that we will see the court appoint a special master within about thirty days. Then it will be interesting to see any reports that the special master may periodically file with the court.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Outside of the stations carried by AAD I can't imagine what "distant" stations DISH currently has uplinked and ready to go. Neighboring locals would be less of a problem as subs would fall within the local spotbeam. Otherwise??? Even if they offered what AAD is carrying that would necessitate additional sat and transponder space. I'm anxiously awaiting news from DISH.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AAD's contract began in November ... it would be a good time to allow that contract to expire ... although the non-RV customers will be ticked when they lose distants forever. (There is no grandfathering.) Home customers would only be able to get a distant if there was no station or subchannel of that network of that network in their market ... the "white space" customers who can currently get a local and distants would lose their distants.

DISH would get their transponders back ... which would give them transponders to offer an RV distants service via DISH.

Personally I'd like to see DISH put their service on 72.7 in MPEG4. 72.7 could become a "Dish 300" one orbital location RV service with every channel DISH carries on it ... which is great for RVrs (at least in most the eastern half of the US).


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't know how closely Dish has read the Court of Appeals decision from 2006. This is the decision that basically enforced the provision of SHVIA that put Dish out of the distant networks business. There is a line that states as follows: "EchoStar's current subscribers are free to seek grandfathered eligibility from another satellite carrier so long as it can be proven that they qualify."

The decision is available at 450 F3d 505, and the quoted part is at 517. It is possible, although just speculation, that Dish intends to pick up the AAD service and grandfather all AAD subscribers. This would avoid upset and disruption of their service. Now that the injunction is lifted, Dish and AAD are free to work together and coordinate their services.

The AAD-Echostar contract (as originally worded) expired on November 30, 2008, but would automatically renew for successive one-year periods unless either side gave the other written notice of termination ninety days in advance. That means that, unless the contract has been modified, the contract has been likely already renewed to November 30, 2011. There is a non-compete clause in the contract which basically states that Dish cannot offer as distants any AAD stations. That would be NY, LA, Chicago, and SF.

Dish may want to negotiate an early termination of the contract and a transfer of subscriber information from AAD to Dish, so that Dish can seamlessly pick up the service. This would make the most sense from a customer service standpoint. However, this would require the agreement of AAD and Dish to a modification of the contract. Dish cannot unilaterally take this action.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I don't know how closely Dish has read the Court of Appeals decision from 2006. This is the decision that basically enforced the provision of SHVIA that put Dish out of the distant networks business. There is a paragraph that states as follows: "EchoStar's current subscribers are free to seek grandfathered eligibility from another satellite carrier so long as it can be proven that they qualify."


The catch is that proving qualification would be all but impossible, because iirc, grandfather status is not transferable from one provider to another.



> The decision is available at 450 F3d 505, at 517. It is possible, although just speculation, that Dish intends to pick up the AAD service and grandfather all AAD subscribers. This would avoid upset and disruption of their service.


This seems unlikely to me. First, I think Dish would have to effectively buy AAD in order to maintain the grandfather status of its subs, but second, I would be surprised if Fox and other station groups did not have clauses preventing Dish from offering such grandfathered service in their most recent carriage contracts. (Otoh, for Fox or anybody else to require Dish to terminate its AAD contract could be considered tortious interference, so not likely.)



> The AAD-Echostar contract (as originally worded) expired on November 30, 2008, but would automatically renew for successive one-year periods unless either side gave the other written notice of termination ninety days in advance. That means that, unless the contract has been modified, the contract has been likely already renewed to November 30, 2011. There is a non-compete clause in the contract which basically states that Dish cannot offer as distants any AAD stations. That would be NY, LA, Chicago, and SF.


This makes sense, and I think it also makes sense for Dish to continue leasing transponders to AAD as long as they are willing to pay and Dish has no immediate need to recover the space for its HD LiL rollout.

Consider that Dish's primary business need for DNS is to be able to offer complete network packages in short markets so that they can compete effectively with cable and DirecTV in those markets. They also need an RV service to compete with DirecTV, but they don't need to sell DNS themselves for that purpose; as long as AAD's service is up and running they have a counterpoint for DirecTV and they can make their money on the rest of the RV service.

Regarding transponder space, Dish can only recover about one-third of a transponder if it maintains an MPEG2 RV service. Moving that service to MPEG4, as James suggests, may not be practical, because RVs are ideal targets for older MPEG2 equipment that has been replaced by MPEG4 equipment in the houses.

The AAD service also gives Dish leverage in any carriage negotiations with local stations, because under the latest SHVA incarnation, the only station with waiver authority is the local DMA station itself. So Dish can point subs at AAD's service and legitimately say that if their request for a waiver through AAD is denied, it is the local, blacked out station that is denying them service.

For all these reasons, I think the smartest thing for Dish to do would be to simply complete the short market packages and allow AAD to continue as is for now.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> The catch is that proving qualification would be all but impossible, because iirc, grandfather status is not transferable from one provider to another.
> 
> This seems unlikely to me. First, I think Dish would have to effectively buy AAD in order to maintain the grandfather status of its subs, but second, I would be surprised if Fox and other station groups did not have clauses preventing Dish from offering such grandfathered service in their most recent carriage contracts. (Otoh, for Fox or anybody else to require Dish to terminate its AAD contract could be considered tortious interference, so not likely.).


I originally thought that grandfathered status was not transferable from one provider to another. However, I am aware of nothing in the code that states that. Second, it appears, based on the quote mentioned in the 2006 Court of Appeals decision, the courts believe that grandfathered status is transferable.

If the grandfathered status is transferable, AAD could simply discontinue service and Dish could simply begin the identical service to the identical subscribers. This would require AAD to transfer to Dish the subscriber information demonstrating that each subscriber was eligible for the distant network service at the time that service was commenced.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I originally thought that grandfathered status was not transferable from one provider to another. However, I am aware of nothing in the code that states that.


It isn't written as a prohibition on transfers.

Note that the SHVA laws generally govern behavior of satellite carriers, not subscribers. The grandfathering thus attaches to the service as provided by the carrier, and maintains only as long that carrier continues that service to that subscriber. The law creates no entitlement for the unserved household, itself, so there's essentially nothing to transfer. In fact, I think the latest versions of the law are written more clearly in this regard precisely because Echostar tried to assert grandfathering as a subscriber entitlement, to which the court responded specifically in the footnote from which you took your quote. (I remember reading that footnote when the decision was issued.)



> Second, it appears, based on the quote mentioned in the 2006 Court of Appeals decision, the courts believe that grandfathered status is transferable.


Not really. This is a more complete version of the quote:



> EchoStar makes a related argument that, by denying subscribers their duly-earned grandfathered status, the court deprived them of their property without due process of law. EchoStar relies primarily on language in EchoStar I, that "[e]ligibility [for grandfathered status] belongs to the subscriber, and nothing is said in the statute about carriers." 265 F.3d at 1212. *Even assuming that *this language vests in subscribers a property interest for which they are entitled to due process, it is certainly not a right to receive service from EchoStar. *EchoStar's current subscribers are free to seek grandfathered eligibility from another satellite carrier so long as it can be proven that they qualify.* We therefore reject EchoStar's constitutional argument.


The line you quoted assumes an interpretation of the law that the court does not endorse; as such, it does not indicate that the court believes grandfathered status is transferable. It simply says that to the extent grandfathered eligibility attaches to the subscriber, assuming it does at all, the subscriber is free to seek that eligibility elsewhere.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> It isn't written as a prohibition on transfers.
> 
> Note that the SHVA laws generally govern behavior of satellite carriers, not subscribers. The grandfathering thus attaches to the service as provided by the carrier, and maintains only as long that carrier continues that service to that subscriber. The law creates no entitlement for the unserved household, itself, so there's essentially nothing to transfer. In fact, I think the latest versions of the law are written more clearly in this regard precisely because Echostar tried to assert grandfathering as a subscriber entitlement, to which the court responded specifically in the footnote from which you took your quote. (I remember reading that footnote when the decision was issued.)
> 
> ...


Actually, the way you display it is not how it appears. It is not a footnote, and it stands in a separate paragraph from how you displayed it. Here it is, quoted directly from the opinion, no changes:

"EchoStar makes a related argument that, by
denying subscribers their duly-earned
grandfathered status, the court deprived them of
their property without due process of law.
EchoStar relies primarily on language in EchoStar
I, that "[e]ligibility [for grandfathered status]
belongs to the subscriber, and nothing is said in
the statute about carriers." 265 F.3d at 1212. Even
assuming that this language vests in subscribers a
property interest for which they are entitled to due
process, it is certainly not a right to receive
service from EchoStar.
Page 13
450 F.3d 505, *517; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15068, **30;
78 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1865; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29,182

EchoStar's current subscribers are free to seek
grandfathered eligibility from another satellite
carrier so long as it can be proven that they
qualify. We therefore reject EchoStar's
constitutional argument."

Therefore, I at this time continue to stand by my opinion that there is a credible argument that grandfathered status can be transferred. What changes/clarifications in language with regard to grandfathered status appear in STELA?


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

I don't have time to review STELA right now, but the language you cite from the appeals court decision is definitely part of footnote 25, which is very lengthy and runs across several pages of the PDF version I downloaded at the time the decision was handed down. The quote I presented is indeed one single and complete paragraph of footnote 25.

The apparent separation into a separate page and paragraph is presumably an artifact of the LEXIS rendering.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> I don't have time to review STELA right now, but the language you cite from the appeals court decision is definitely part of footnote 25, which is very lengthy and runs across several pages of the PDF version I downloaded at the time the decision was handed down. The quote I presented is indeed one single and complete paragraph of footnote 25.
> 
> The apparent separation into a separate page and paragraph is presumably an artifact of the LEXIS rendering.


You are right, it is part of footnote 25. It is a lengthy footnote. However, it is in a separate paragraph, as I displayed it. I have looked at two different renderings.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

runner861 said:


> You are right, it is part of footnote 25. It is a lengthy footnote. However, it is in a separate paragraph, as I displayed it. I have looked at two different renderings.


See bottom of page 23, attached.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My opinion is that grandfathering SHOULD follow the subscriber but from reading it appears to be tied to the relationship between a subscriber and a particular provider. It seems to be a convoluted mess. While there are phrases where it appears the grandfathering belongs to the customer the law applies to the secondary transmission of the channels, not the reception.

DISH seems to be approaching this with an abundance of caution. There is no requirement that DISH offers a distants service or distants as fill in. It is an optional service. I believe that DISH will protect their need for distants as fill ins by not taking chances with "grandfathered" customers.

One issue with transferring a customer's grandfathered status is how to apply how the customer qualified. Pre-STELA to get distants via AAD a customer had to live in a white area (no coverage from any affiliate of that network) or get a waiver from all affiliates who had predicted coverage. I believe that STELA loosened up the rules so now out of market channels don't block carriage (a nice loophole for AAD). But that same customer would not qualify via DISH or DirecTV if an in market affiliate of that network was carried. If qualifications follow the customer, what is to prevent a customer from signing up for AAD under their looser qualifications and then transferring to DISH or DirecTV where they would not have qualified? I don't see broadcasters allowing such a loophole - and tracking "at the time the customers go AAD distants their new carrier did not have local channels in their market" is too granular (and isn't written into law).

The abundance of caution says not to mess with grandfathering.

As for the future of AAD ... they still have a role. As long as they can pay for their transponder space and DISH can make more money leasing transponders to AAD than using the transponders themselves the have a future. But with both DISH and DirecTV providing fill in networks for "free" (part of a base package) I don't see a lot of people paying hundreds of dollars extra per year to get a second copy. At some point AAD's customer base will shrink and the transponder lease will grow to the point where offering a service will not be economical.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

joblo said:


> See bottom of page 23, attached.


The version you cite to has the sentences as part of one paragraph. The versions I have seen have it in two paragraphs. Nevertheless, the wording remains the same. It appears that, although arguably dicta, the court is at least acknowledging the possibility that grandfathered status can be carried with the subscriber and taken from one carrier to another. I would be interested to see if STELA has further addressed that issue.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> My opinion is that grandfathering SHOULD follow the subscriber but from reading it appears to be tied to the relationship between a subscriber and a particular provider. It seems to be a convoluted mess. While there are phrases where it appears the grandfathering belongs to the customer the law applies to the secondary transmission of the channels, not the reception.
> 
> DISH seems to be approaching this with an abundance of caution. There is no requirement that DISH offers a distants service or distants as fill in. It is an optional service. I believe that DISH will protect their need for distants as fill ins by not taking chances with "grandfathered" customers.
> 
> ...


I agree that it is a messy area to get into, and Dish may not want to, at least not without the full knowledge of the special master. I only put it out there as a possibility, since I noticed that part of the opinion. That is the only published appellate opinion I am aware of that deals with that area of law.

Of course, we are all wondering what is the delay in turning on the rest of the distants.

As far as customers purchasing AAD, then transferring their grandfathered status to Dish, or even Direct for that matter, it may be a loophole that broadcasters wouldn't like. However, if the loophole exists, and if that started occurring, it would be something that Congress would have to fix. Some people (mainly plaintiffs in the distants lawsuit) thought that AAD itself offering the distants service was a loophole that STELA did not allow. The courts thought otherwise, leaving that loophole, if it is a loophole, to Congress to address. Congress wasn't bothered by the AAD service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> As far as customers purchasing AAD, then transferring their grandfathered status to Dish, or even Direct for that matter, it may be a loophole that broadcasters wouldn't like.


One service purchasing another is a one time event. Unless AAD sets up shop again, creates another list of customers again and sells out to DISH again it isn't the same problem as allowing an individual to qualify with one company and then transfer their qualification to another company at will.

I believe the wording in the decision was to protect the customers of DISH (not DISH, but their customers) for that one event back in 2006. If one was grandfathered (legally) via DISH one could have transferred that grandfathered status to another carrier. At least that would be the concept. DISH had so many illegally grandfathered customers (people who should not have been receiving distants) that sorting out the legal from the illegal would have been complicated. It was much easier for the other carrier to simply start from scratch and see if that customer was qualified on the day they applied (for AAD and DirecTV).


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> One service purchasing another is a one time event. Unless AAD sets up shop again, creates another list of customers again and sells out to DISH again it isn't the same problem as allowing an individual to qualify with one company and then transfer their qualification to another company at will.
> 
> I believe the wording in the decision was to protect the customers of DISH (not DISH, but their customers) for that one event back in 2006. If one was grandfathered (legally) via DISH one could have transferred that grandfathered status to another carrier. At least that would be the concept. DISH had so many illegally grandfathered customers (people who should not have been receiving distants) that sorting out the legal from the illegal would have been complicated. It was much easier for the other carrier to simply start from scratch and see if that customer was qualified on the day they applied (for AAD and DirecTV).


I am in total agreement. The grandfathered list (if Dish even had one in 2006) was unusable. The issue came up in the court opinion. However, it would appear that the list maintained by AAD is reliable. It seems possible that Dish and AAD could work together to transfer the AAD subscribers to Dish, if AAD and Dish agreed to do so. Now that the injunction is lifted, they can work together.

On the other hand, I have no idea whether they are even interested in doing this. AAD has sold subscriptions to distants, some for six months or a year in length. So they have obligations to their customers. Dish probably does not want to upset any customers by seeing the AAD service interrupted. And the lease for the transponders may at this time already be extended to November 30, 2011. There is a non-compete clause. These are all issues that both companies will have to address at some point.

What does anyone think is the reason for the delay in turning on the uplinked but not available distants?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> What does anyone think is the reason for the delay in turning on the uplinked but not available distants?


"George is on vacation" is the best I've heard (based on your speculation). 

They have had over four months to think about it. I'm really surprised that they are not lit up.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> "George is on vacation" is the best I've heard (based on your speculation).
> 
> They have had over four months to think about it. I'm really surprised that they are not lit up.


That may well be it.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

Well it looks like yet another week of waiting for our missing channels has come and gone...... this is getting frustrating....:grrr:


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

psdstu said:


> Well it looks like yet another week of waiting for our missing channels has come and gone...... this is getting frustrating....:grrr:


Which specific channels are you waiting for? Are they uplinked to your market at this time?

I don't know what is causing the delay. Perhaps Dish management wants to wait until the special master is in place. Dish's legal representation has secured the lifting of the injunction, but no special master yet been appointed. Dish is not required to wait for the appointment of the special master, but perhaps Dish management has made the decision to wait. I am just guessing; I really have no idea why these distant channels already uplinked to the short markets have not been turned on.

Dish was very eager to turn on distants to short markets that were receiving local service for the first time in 2010. There was a partial and temporary waiver of the injunction that allowed that to occur. In fact, Charlie testified at Congressional hearings that he needed that waiver to make it cost-effective to turn on a series of short markets and complete service to all DMAs. He of course neglected to state that Dish was already providing service to many other short markets, even though Dish was not providing distants to those short markets. For example, Dish has provided HD locals to Monterey-Salinas for about two years, even though that market lacks an ABC station.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

runner861 said:


> Perhaps Dish management wants to wait until the special master is in place.


Is a "special master" similar to a dominatrix?


----------



## vtjman (Jul 25, 2009)

so the court granted another 30 days for the parties to agree on a special master on Oct 29th correct? Then by Thanksgiving there should be a special master in place, and we should expect those short markets to get their adjacent market networks probably the following Wednesday right?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Most of us expected them two minutes after the injunction was lifted ... but apparently "George" was on a Carnival cruise and had some problems getting back to Colorado to flip the switch. I'm sure DISH will turn them on as soon as they are finished crossing the I s and dotting the T s. 

After years of watching DISH operate I've learned to expect the unexpected. Push push push to get the law then get the certification and finally get the waiver and now it is almost like they forgot why they were pushing.

The only thing one can say for sure is that they will be turned on "soon". (DISH's definition of soon is often eventually.)


Seriously - I believe they are being extra cautious so they don't lose the waiver.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> Which specific channels are you waiting for? Are they uplinked to your market at this time?
> 
> I don't know what is causing the delay. Perhaps Dish management wants to wait until the special master is in place. Dish's legal representation has secured the lifting of the injunction, but no special master yet been appointed. Dish is not required to wait for the appointment of the special master, but perhaps Dish management has made the decision to wait. I am just guessing; I really have no idea why these distant channels already uplinked to the short markets have not been turned on.
> 
> Dish was very eager to turn on distants to short markets that were receiving local service for the first time in 2010. There was a partial and temporary waiver of the injunction that allowed that to occur. In fact, Charlie testified at Congressional hearings that he needed that waiver to make it cost-effective to turn on a series of short markets and complete service to all DMAs. He of course neglected to state that Dish was already providing service to many other short markets, even though Dish was not providing distants to those short markets. For example, Dish has provided HD locals to Monterey-Salinas for about two years, even though that market lacks an ABC station.


I live in the Panama City Fl DMA. This DMA was getting WTVY CBS from Dothan AL prior to Dec 2006 when the Court Ordered DISh to stop providing us WTVY.

The Panama City DMA comprises about 7 counties here and the DMA has 2 SV CBS stations.... some in the DMA have WTVY as their CBS SV station (Dothan AL)and some get WCTV as their CBS SV station (Tallahassee FL).

Both stations are uplinked for the area and have been uplinked for sometime now.

In addition Dothan Al is a Short Market, missing NBC which was coming from WJHG out of Panama City prior to Dec 2006.

Both WJHG and WTVY are owned by the same company so it wouldn't appear to be a station owner problem.

I recognize the difficulty of having two SV CBS stations serving the same DMA, but also figured that a Fortune 500 company like DISH had enough forethought to have been able to figure out what the plan was going to be once the court lifted the injunction............and........more importantly.........be able to convey that plan to it's customers......which at least up till now they have been silent about.

I have received a reply today to an e-mail I sent to DISH CEO which states... 
" I am in process of checking with a Corp manager to see if I can get information regarding CBS in your market. I will contact you once I get a response."

Hopefully it won't take to much longer to resolve this issue.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe DISH needs permission from the station for SVs now (the latest law moving SV stations from the distants laws to the locals laws). But SVs (significantly viewed) channels have been legal for DISH to carry since the law was enacted. No waiting, no hoops, just do it. If DISH is planning on carrying a SV station they could have done it months ago.

Distants from further away (not SV) did have to wait for the injunction to be waived (as it has been). These would be the "fill in" locals for any market missing a station but especially markets and areas within markets that don't have a SV station (who would get no coverage if it were not for distants).

I like the idea of using SVs wherever possible. Neither CBS would provide complete coverage of your market but if DISH carried each where they could via the SV laws the entire market would be covered.

But it appears DISH has other plans. For example the ABC station they have "uplinked" for the Terre Haute market is WICS Springfield, IL. A station that is SV nowhere in the market. Yet WRTV Indianapolis, IN _IS_ SV in several counties of that market and is likely more desirable. So why not carry WICS as a distant in the Illinois counties and WRTV as a SV or distant (as needed) in the Indiana counties? The plans that we have seen so far just don't seem to make sense.

I'd like to see DISH carry the channels local cable systems are carrying before bringing in more distant stations ... but at this point I suppose we should be happy if they just start carrying SOMETHING.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

This is the latest Email response I have received from DISH when I asked about Distant Networks in the short markets......

I was advised by a GM in our programming Dept. that we currently have not recovered our distant networks back, but if we do we will be focused on completing markets where technically possible. 

Thank you,

Brian

Makes you wonder............


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

psdstu said:


> This is the latest Email response I have received from DISH when I asked about Distant Networks in the short markets......
> 
> I was advised by a GM in our programming Dept. that we currently have not recovered our distant networks back, but if we do we will be focused on completing markets where technically possible.
> 
> ...


The answer sounds like the doublespeak say nothing answers you get when you email the bank. It is unclear from the answer if the person is even aware that the injunction has been lifted. Did you email the person back and confront him/her with the fact that the injunction has been lifted? If you do that, you at least possibly can force a more specific answer, although I somehow doubt you will get a better answer. Perhaps someone should bring it up at a Charlie chat, although those questions may be heavily screened.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Soon has arrived!

*Channels Now Available*
8567 WJHG (7 Local) PANAMA CITY, FL (NBC) SV* 110° 4s7 (NW Florida) SD Dothan, AL market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
9381 KFXF (7 Local) FAIRBANKS, AK (FOX) SV* 110° 26s46 (Alaska) SD Juneau, AK market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5262 WVLA (33 HD Local) BATON ROUGE, LA (NBC) SV* 129° 9s42 (South Mississippi) HD Lafayette, LA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
8486 WVLA (33 Local) BATON ROUGE, LA (NBC) SV* 110° 25s12 (SE Louisiana) SD Lafayette, LA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5270 KSAT (3 HD Local) SAN ANTONIO, TX (ABC) SV* 110° 25s22 (SC Texas) HD Larado, TX market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
8121 KSAT (3 Local) SAN ANTONIO, TX (ABC) SV* 110° 23s22 (SC Texas) SD Larado, TX market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5270 KEYT (3 HD Local) SANTA BARBARA, CA (ABC) SV* 129° 15s32 (WC California) HD Monterey, CA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
9186 KEYT (3 Local) SANTA BARBARA, CA (ABC) SV* 110° 23s42 (Central California) SD Monterey, CA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
7920 WTVY (4 Local) DOTHAN, AL (CBS) SV* 110° 4s7 (NW Florida) SD Panama City, FL market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5260 WICS (20 HD Local) SPRINGFIELD, IL (ABC) SV* 129° 12s30 (East Missouri) HD Terre Haute, IN market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
7900 WICS (20 Local) SPRINGFIELD, IL (ABC) SV* 119° 3sB13 (Springfield) SD Terre Haute, IN market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*


----------



## vtjman (Jul 25, 2009)

Are there any more that turned on? I am looking for WTXL Tallahassee for the Albany, GA DMA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

vtjman said:


> Are there any more that turned on? I am looking for WTXL Tallahassee for the Albany, GA DMA.


That one (Channel 7666) is still not available.


----------



## vtjman (Jul 25, 2009)

James Long said:


> That one (Channel 7666) is still not available.


That is the ONLY channel not made available???? That is not a good sign.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

vtjman said:


> That is the ONLY channel not made available???? That is not a good sign.


It may be a simple mistake. DISH has already made a couple of corrections after the big uplink.


----------



## bigrich (Jan 3, 2006)

Dish Uplinked WICS Springfield for Terre Haute because WICS has another full power station (WICD) Danville, IL that simulcasts all but the local news from WICS. WICD is easy received in Terre Haute proper and before digital claimed a Grade B signal there.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

James Long said:


> Soon has arrived!
> 
> *Channels Now Available*
> 8567 WJHG (7 Local) PANAMA CITY, FL (NBC) SV* 110° 4s7 (NW Florida) SD Dothan, AL market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
> ...


Thats good news about all the Short markets!!!

Lets hope before to long we can go from SD to HD..... in these Markets!

Stu


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

psdstu said:


> Thats good news about all the Short markets!!!
> 
> Lets hope before to long we can go from SD to HD..... in these Markets!


Four of those are HD ... three are SD only.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

bigrich said:


> Dish Uplinked WICS Springfield for Terre Haute because WICS has another full power station (WICD) Danville, IL that simulcasts all but the local news from WICS. WICD is easy received in Terre Haute proper and before digital claimed a Grade B signal there.


Any idea if this abc channel was made available to the whole Terre Haute DMA or just to the part that's in IL?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

tsmacro said:


> Any idea if this abc channel was made available to the whole Terre Haute DMA or just to the part that's in IL?


And to answer my own question I just punched in a zip code from Terre Haute into dishnetwork.com and it lists abc channel 20 as available there, so I guess it's available on both sides of the IN/IL border. I'm actually surprised they updated their website so quickly. Now if someone would just explain to them that the Superstations haven't been WB/UPN for years now.......:sure:


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The court has appointed Douglas McDonald as special master. His appointment was jointly requested by all parties. He is an expert in copyright law and is admitted in Florida, California, and the District of Columbia.

The court has stated in its order that the parties have 30 days to submit a proposal regarding the duties of the special master. This will be the interesting part of the whole restoration of the distant networks. What type of investigation/monitoring will the special master conduct? What type of reports will he submit to the court?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> What type of investigation/monitoring will the special master conduct? What type of reports will he submit to the court?


I don't expect much investigation ... just monitoring. Someone who will look over the reports that are already part of having a distants service for anomalies. Unless/until DISH starts a nationwide distants service there isn't much to oversee. I expect that the plaintiffs will want a certain level of investigation to verify a percentage of accounts each report. And if/when DISH starts a nationwide distants service investigating the validity of who is being served is key. That is what DISH violated the last time around ... too many accounts receiving distants that were not eligible.

With locals available in 100% of markets national distants would be pretty much limited to RV accounts. Short market distants would be the main service offering. Those should be pretty easy to manage and oversee.

I expect most of the reporting to the court to be done under seal, unless it does not contain any confidential information. Even subscriber counts could be considered confidential. We may just see one page reports from the master stating that he has received and verified the required information from DISH and has found that DISH remains in compliance for whatever time period the report covers. Or we could see more. I don't expect much more. The whole point of having a Special Master is to have them monitor compliance instead of the court. All the court needs to know is if compliance continues.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I don't expect much investigation ... just monitoring. Someone who will look over the reports that are already part of having a distants service for anomalies. Unless/until DISH starts a nationwide distants service there isn't much to oversee. I expect that the plaintiffs will want a certain level of investigation to verify a percentage of accounts each report. And if/when DISH starts a nationwide distants service investigating the validity of who is being served is key. That is what DISH violated the last time around ... too many accounts receiving distants that were not eligible.
> 
> With locals available in 100% of markets national distants would be pretty much limited to RV accounts. Short market distants would be the main service offering. Those should be pretty easy to manage and oversee.
> 
> I expect most of the reporting to the court to be done under seal, unless it does not contain any confidential information. Even subscriber counts could be considered confidential. We may just see one page reports from the master stating that he has received and verified the required information from DISH and has found that DISH remains in compliance for whatever time period the report covers. Or we could see more. I don't expect much more. The whole point of having a Special Master is to have them monitor compliance instead of the court. All the court needs to know is if compliance continues.


Most likely that is the way that things will end up. It is within the court's discretion to accept filings under seal or not. Of course, if Dish does go beyond the short markets, then it will be dealing with waivers. The special master may want to examine the waiver process and report back on that.

As an aside, the AAD site is still working and distants are still available. However, the AAD website has been updated to delete references to the court order preventing Dish from offering distants. At least on the surface, at this time it appears that both Dish and AAD are acting as if the AAD service will continue, and Dish will limit itself to offering neighboring distants other than the AAD stations. Of course, time will tell.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FYI: I've posted a list of all of the local channels that DISH Network currently has uplinked, for reference.
DISH Network Local Channels List


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Huh. So NJN's WNJB is in HD now, but they haven't bothered duplicating it for South Jersey's WNJS?? *sigh*


----------



## tpwillie (Apr 15, 2010)

tsmacro said:


> And to answer my own question I just punched in a zip code from Terre Haute into dishnetwork.com and it lists abc channel 20 as available there, so I guess it's available on both sides of the IN/IL border. I'm actually surprised they updated their website so quickly. Now if someone would just explain to them that the Superstations haven't been WB/UPN for years now.......:sure:


I don't understand why Dish gave us a local channel from Springfield, IL. It is over 100 miles from us and in a different time zone. Indianapolis is only about 50 miles away, in our state and time zone, but not available. It just seems really stupid.

Lou


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Dish doesn't give you your locals to tweak you, it gives you what the Fed says your DMA is.


----------



## tpwillie (Apr 15, 2010)

If the Feds say this is what has to be given to us, why is Directtv now offering ABC from Indianapolis? They just started to advertise they now offer ABC in this area. Why would they be different?

Thanks,

Lou


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Beats me. What's your ZIP code or your DMA?

Dish has rights for: 
Lafayette, IN
6-00 WRTV INDIANAPOLIS, IN (ABC) SV* - 6690 SD 110° 18s13 A
13-00 WTHR INDIANAPOLIS, IN (NBC) SV* - 6692 SD 110° 18s13 A
18-00 WLFI LAFAYETTE, IN (CBS) - 6691 SD 119° 1sA11 A
59-00 WXIN INDIANAPOLIS, IN (FOX) SV* - 6693 SD 110° 18s13 A
62-00 PBS PBS FEED - 6694 SD 119° 8 A

Terre Haute, IN
2-00 WTWO TERRE HAUTE, IN (NBC) - 7902 SD 119° 3sB13 A 5262 HD 129° 12s30 A
10-00 WTHI TERRE HAUTE, IN (CBS) - 7901 SD 119° 3sB13 A 5261 HD 129° 12s30 A
16-00 WUSI OLNEY, IL (ETV) - 7905 SD 119° 3sB13 A 5264 HD 129° 12s30 A
20-00 WICS SPRINGFIELD, IL (ABC) SV* - 7900 SD 119° 3sB13 A 5260 HD 129° 12s30 A
22-00 WVUT VINCENNES, IN (PBS) - 7906 SD 119° 3sB13 A
38-00 WFXW TERRE HAUTE, IN (FOX) - 7903 SD 119° 3sB13 A 5263 HD 129° 12s30 A

Evansville, IN
7-00 WTVW EVANSVILLE, IN (FOX) - 7368 SD 110° 25s14 A 5273 HD 77° 13 A
12-00 WNIN EVANSVILLE, IN (PBS) - 7371 SD 110° 25s14 A 5274 HD 77° 13 A
14-00 WFIE EVANSVILLE, IN (NBC) - 7367 SD 110° 25s14 A 5272 HD 77° 13 A
19-00 WAZE EVANSVILLE, IN (CW) - 7369 SD 110° 25s14 A 7369 SD 77° 13 A
25-00 WEHT EVANSVILLE, IN (ABC) - 7365 SD 110° 25s14 A 5270 HD 77° 13 A
31-00 WKOH OWENSBORO, KY (PBS) - 7372 SD 110° 25s14 A 5275 HD 77° 13 A
44-00 WEVV EVANSVILLE, IN (CBS) - 7366 SD 110° 25s14 A 5271 HD 77° 13 A

Based on that, I assume you're in Terre Haute. If you're in a short market, you get what you get.

edit again: also, it is based on zip code. search for Terre Haute DMA: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=74928


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tpwillie said:


> If the Feds say this is what has to be given to us, why is Directtv now offering ABC from Indianapolis?


The feds say that is OK.

There is no ABC affiliate in the Terre Haute market so DISH and DirecTV can offer any ABC affiliate to fill the gap. DirecTV decided to carry ABC from Indianapolis ... they too could have chosen Springfield IL or even gone with New York (as they have in other markets). DISH chose Springfield IL ... if it were my call I would have chosen Indianapolis or split the market giving Indianapolis to Indiana residents and Springfield to Illinois residents.

The feds limit what is given. In a 'short' market missing a network that limit is not as tight as on where the network is available from an in market station. You get what you get. There is no law compelling DISH or DirecTV to fill in short markets ... the law allows carriage, not requires carriage.

Imagine living in Kosciusko County ... perhaps in Pierceton. South Bend is 40 miles north west. Fort Wayne is 25 miles east. Per the law residents of Pierceton get South Bend locals.

People over the Whitley County line in Larwill (five miles city center to city center but really 0 ft depending on which side of the county line) people get Fort Wayne locals.

The law allows "significantly viewed" locals from out of market. A Pierceton resident could legally get WFFT Fox 55 out of Fort Wayne (but none of the other Fort Wayne channels). A Larwill resident can not get South Bend stations. Neither DISH nor DirecTV offer WFFT to Pierceton residents. They get the low power WBND out of South Bend as their Fox affiliate.


----------



## bigrich (Jan 3, 2006)

WICS has a full power repeater WICD in Danville, IL. They simulcast except for local news. Dish does not uplink WICD. WICD in the analog days claimed a "Grade B" signal in Terre Haute proper and would deny waivers. It is still easy received without much effort OTA in digital. See: http://www.fcc.gov/dtv/markets/maps_current/Champaign-Springfield-Decatur_IL.pdf Digital TV 41


----------



## tpwillie (Apr 15, 2010)

I'm in 47872, Rockville. I don't know what the DMA is but the web sites list us a Terre Haute. It may be what you get is what you get but it also is an indication of customer service. Granted, it is better than no ABC at all but except for the prime time shows it is pretty useless. About 2 miles over is Putnam County and they have all the Indianapolis stations. I understand that up north they may not get the closest staions but a difference of 25 or 40 miles away is a lot different than 60 or 125 and a different state and time zone.

Since Dish is take it leave it and can't provide HD at my house maybe it is a good time tolook at Direecttv a little closer. I like Dish and so far have been happy with them but sometimes things need to be changed. I can't move on a change yet as the trees are bare right now so will have to wait until they fill in. Thanks for the help.

Lou


----------

