# Distant Networks: ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION - Effective December 1st



## James Long

The Florida Southern District Court has spoken:*ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION*
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is

*ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED* that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively "Echostar"), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby *PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED* from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms "secondary transmission," "primary transmission," "primary network station," and "network station" shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.

*DONE AND ORDERED* in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2006.​Emphasis is in original.

If you are looking for the now closed previous threads on the issue (for background) here they are:
Distant Networks: 9/12 Settlement Details and other court filings ...
September 15th-October 20th

EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)
August 28th-September 15th

FOX request for Distant Networks Injunction (NO INJUNCTION ISSUED)
September 1st/2nd

EchoStar Rejected by High Court Justice, Must Halt Distant Networks
August 22nd-September 1st

EchoStar Loses Distant Network Appeal
July 26th-August 8th


----------



## makman

Crap.

I think it means no RV waivers too.

Mitch


----------



## boylehome

Besides losing the DNS on Dec. 1. 2006 what if any, are E*'s plans to satisfy customers (other then the supplying new market Local into Locals)?"


----------



## James Long

No Distants = No Distants regardless of waivers, RV exceptions, etc.

E* hasn't announced any plans ... they have not announced the court loss either. I suspect locals will be rolled out ASAP - beyond the 175 total they were shooting for.

The cynic in me says: "You'll probably get PPV coupons too. "


----------



## Chris Walker

Ok so now Dish, ABC, CBS, and NBC appeal the decision.


----------



## boylehome

Chris Walker said:


> Ok so now Dish, ABC, CBS, and NBC appeal the decision.


What benefits would result in an appeal? Would this extend the shut-off date? Most likely the Supreme will flush it as they pretty much told the lower court what to do.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## Chris Walker

minnow said:


> Wow !! I was 180 degrees wrong on this one. I thought for sure that because of all the last minute filings as well as the agreement with all but Fox that a settlement would be allowed. Holy Crap !! Never ever second guess what some judge is thinking. I still fail to grasp why the judge just didn't issue this back in August and save everyone involved all the wasted legal wrangling.
> Well as for me, so long E*. I qualify for distants with Direct and I guess that's where I'll be heading.


I'd wait for the switch to be thrown before I go switching providers.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## minnow

I read the entire decision. This judge is a real pip. His written decision stated that since the Appellate Court so ordered the nationwide injunction, he must follow the direction given. OK., I agree. But why allow all the parties to keep on babbling on and on. Why the hell didn't he just order the injunction back in August and be done with it. This judge wasted all the litigants time and money as well as take up valuable time from the Court itself. I'm sure there were plenty of other cases this Judge could of been spending his time on, instead of wasting everyones time on an issue that was decided the moment the Appellate Court demanded the injunction.


----------



## juan ellitinez

minnow said:


> Wow !! I was 180 degrees wrong on this one. I thought for sure that because of all the last minute filings as well as the agreement with all but Fox that a settlement would be allowed. Holy Crap !! Never ever second guess what some judge is thinking. I still fail to grasp why the judge just didn't issue this back in August and save everyone involved all the wasted legal wrangling.
> Well as for me, so long E*. I qualify for distants with Direct and I guess that's where I'll be heading.


You will be better off going through a canadian "broker"


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## James Long

There will be an appeal ... whether it gets far is a question for the next court. The next court is the one who mandated the permanent injunction - and they can override their own mandate.

Plus there is action with the Supreme Court pending.

The judge was nice enough to delay this and set an effective date far enough into the future that E* is not going to have to wake up in the morning with all distants gone. One last chance to save distants?


----------



## s8ist

ok, so what does this mean for the E* subscriber?


----------



## Ewingo401

I don't get it...how can Direc TV have distants but its illegal for Echostar to have them?


----------



## JohnH

According to the Court, EchoStar did not play by the rules.


----------



## Badger

s8ist said:


> ok, so what does this mean for the E* subscriber?


It means if you have distant networks through E* they will be gone by December 1st even if you legally qualify for them. E* broke the rules now everybody loses!


----------



## JohnH

minnow said:


> I really don't want to play those games. Direct can get me the programming I want legitimately. E* played fast and loose with the rules and why should I now bend the law(or break it) because E* are a bunch of idiots.


Does DIRECTV offer Locals for your market?


----------



## jonsnow

Supreme Court anyone?
Those two acts of congress are breaking the first admendment, they both
abridge the freedom of speech and go against the spirit of the declaration of independence 
when it comes to pursuit of happiness and liberty and hampers states rights with the regulation of
the free flow of commerce.


----------



## Badger

jonsnow said:


> Supreme Court anyone?
> Those two acts of congress are breaking the first admendment, they both
> abridge the freedom of speech and go against the spirit of the declaration of independence
> when it comes to pursuit of happiness and liberty and hamper the free flow of commerce between
> states and counties.


That sounds nice but has no basis in fact.:nono2:


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## Tower Guy

James Long said:


> The Florida Southern District Court has spoken:*ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION*​




Thank you James Long for your comprehensive reporting of this case!​


----------



## tedb3rd

It's all about money... Money. Money. Money.


----------



## Phil T

Fox wouldn't settle. First time in a long time, Rupert got back at Charlie.

Problem is the consumers lose.


----------



## Geronimo

While an appeal is likely I have to say that any predictions i might have made realative to how the judge might rule were 100% wrong.


----------



## BillJ

Does this also apply to CBS-HD for those in O&O markets? I have all the network locals but I'm still able to get WCBS-HD off the 61.5 satellite. Nice during football season because the east coast regional games are often different than our midwest games.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

While I can understand penalties if Dish was breaking rules... I cannot understand a "death penalty" of sorts.

Supposedly the big reason why Dish's takeover of DirecTV (buyout) was not allowed a couple of years ago was because it was deemed unfair as it would create a relative monopoly.

Handcuffing one provider while telling the other one "go for it" seems to essentially accomplish the same thing, if distants are a big deal... and the government would then become a party to creating a forced monopoly if they are unfairly restricting one company over another.

Fines and penalties are ok if there were laws/rules broken... but telling Dish they can't do the same distants that DirecTV can as long as they follow rules from now on seems dubious to me.

I could see if the courts forced Dish to cut off ALL distants on December 1st and then re-qualify everyone. This would be a secondary penalty (to any fines levied of course) that would possibly lose Dish business during the hassle of customers requalifying for services they already qualified for in the past... but I could see the courts forcing this and watching to ensure Dish followed the rules from now forward.

But cutting them off and not allowing Dish to follow the same rules as DirecTV in the future doesn't seem like it will fly legally. Only way to make that work is to rescind DirecTV's distants as well.


----------



## James Long

BillJ said:


> Does this also apply to CBS-HD for those in O&O markets? I have all the network locals but I'm still able to get WCBS-HD off the 61.5 satellite. Nice during football season because the east coast regional games are often different than our midwest games.


There has been some discussion over whether or not the provision of the CBS-HD feeds was under the distants rules or an agreement outside of the rules. They were offered before "digital distants" were added to the law. I wouldn't count on keeping them.

We should learn more from E* in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## James Long

HDMe said:


> Fines and penalties are ok if there were laws/rules broken... but telling Dish they can't do the same distants that DirecTV can as long as they follow rules from now on seems dubious to me.


The trouble is that there is a penalty in law for what E* did - that penalty does not extend to other DBS companies who were more willing to quickly come into compliance.

I realize that because someone else stole from WalMart I now cannot enter one of their stores without passing through several layers of video surveilance - and those restrictions have now carried to other stores - we're living life on camera because of the thieves. We also have to live with E*'s audit team thanks to people who broke the rules. I suppose we have become accustomed to the "one has wronged let's punish them all" restrictions on life.

But we don't all go to jail when our neighbor is found guilty of a crime. This punishment was earned by E*'s willful acts. It's up to the appeals court now (or the Supreme Court) to decide if the penalty fits the crime. The court certainly will not be punishing D* for E*'s violations.


----------



## untouchable

IMHO, E* broke federal laws, even if it was to please the customers they have, it was still wrong...they deserve to lose the feeds, and should not get them back...and if they do, the FCC should perform audits on all of their accounts to see if they are in violation or not...Do you think that they would cut a break for D* and give them back just for customer satisfaction?? I don't think so.


----------



## makman

James Long said:


> It's up to the appeals court now (or the Supreme Court) to decide if the penalty fits the crime.


Actually, it's not. When Congress gives a range of penalties, the courts can decide on an appropriate penalty. It this case there is no ambiguity. Congress mandated a specific penalty. It is up to Congress to change that.

That does not mean that a higher court cannot find that Echostar did *not* willfully engaged in a "pattern or practice" of violations of the statute (or whatever the verbiage is that mandated the penalty), therefore removing the need for the penalty.

A higher court can also rule that the arguments in favor of allowing the consent agreement were valid and the judge erred in not allowing it.

Mitch


----------



## Tower Guy

HDMe said:


> Handcuffing one provider while telling the other one "go for it" seems to essentially accomplish the same thing, if distants are a big deal... and the government would then become a party to creating a forced monopoly if they are unfairly restricting one company over another.


In the bigger scheme of things the elimination of the Distant Signal License is not a big penalty. While the reported number of subscribers to DNS sounds like alot, the vast majority of those now have access to their local affiliate via satellite. A significant number of others who are still in markets without LiL can actually receive a local affiliate over the air. I estimate that the remaining number of E* subscribers who will be SOL for the major networks will be about 25,000. That's not much of a handcuff.


----------



## neljtorres

This means for all of us that have Distant Networks were doomed.


----------



## UTFAN

James Long said:


> The Florida Southern District Court has spoken:*ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION*
> THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is
> 
> *ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED* that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively "Echostar"), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby *PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED* from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms "secondary transmission," "primary transmission," "primary network station," and "network station" shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.
> 
> *DONE AND ORDERED* in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2006.​Emphasis is in original.


So I'm clear on this, a judge that I never had a chance to vote on, prevents me from receiving programming that modern technology allows me to receive at a reasonable price?

Taking away my freedom of choice?

And this is government of the people?

Not hardly.

Either way, HOOK'EM HORNS!


----------



## cicijay

They are deciding what is best for us. We must just trust them to do what is best.:lol: 

That is why I can only get low power non-HD digital ABC,NBC and Fox and NOT EVEN digital CBS. 

Thanks You congress for watching out for my best interests. I am not smart enough to know why I am not allowed to receive network HD, I must just understand that I am unable to know what is best for me or why they keep giving my local affiliates waivers from the FCC laws.


----------



## tampa8

Well count me too as one who was completly wrong on what the decision would be. But - I still think there is something more to it - something that made the judge wait this long. And maybe that something is what Dish is hoping will win on appeal. But realistically it does seem over.


----------



## Bruno 812

I know for a fact that DTV is giving out locals to customers who should not get them. This is being done because of the system DTV has in place to qualify customers for locals.

Does this mean i should notify NAB so maybe DTV will lose out on giving all DTV customers their LOCALS. 

Misery loves company ...just think of all the customers DTV could lose to Dish just to get locals ....but maybe DTV customers could still get Distant.

Maybe this would make Murdick agree to droping the suit.


----------



## James Long

UTFAN said:


> So I'm clear on this, a judge that I never had a chance to vote on, prevents me from receiving programming that modern technology allows me to receive at a reasonable price?
> 
> Taking away my freedom of choice?
> 
> And this is government of the people?


Think of it this way:

There are two liquor stores in town.
One sells to minors and other violations of the law.
The other works within the law.

The liquor board comes by and takes away the liquor license for the store that violated the law. Is it the law's fault that the store could not follow the law? This also creates a monopoly since the other store is now the only one able to sell alcohol. Should the store with violations be allowed to continue to remain open just to avoid a monopoly? Should the store with no violations be forced to close because of the store that violated the law?

E* offered distants to customers they should not have served and have now lost their license to offer distants to anyone (effective Dec 1st). Unless they can convince a court to reverse the decision, customers are going to have to find another provider.

BTW: There are many situations due to the current law where E* customers who would have legally been able to keep distants will not be able to get distants from D*.


----------



## Tran Sponder

Now would be a great time to switch. Ruperts got 150 HD networks coming in soon. HD locals to 70% of its customers.

You'd have to submit waivers for your DNS's again though. No way around that. They won't turn them on without them. I think their waiver process is seperated from the CSR's so even the CSR's can't turn it on.

First TiVo, now DNS's... What's Dish gonna lose next? DBS licenses!?!


----------



## James Long

I'll believe D*'s promises when I see them fulfilled.

BTW: E* hasn't lost DVR service - and they are planning around the TiVo court loss (see other threads) and their DBS licenses are not at risk.


----------



## cicijay

I guess alot of people "move" in December. 

That's why this judgment is such a joke.


----------



## James Long

If this judgement sticks those people will have to move to D* and possibly lie to D* about their service address. There will probably be a few who "move" to Canada as well. "Moving" on the E* system will only get you locals from wherever you moved to (which in a spotbeam world may not work that well - after distants there is no reason to keep those channels on ConUS beams).

Personally I'd wait until E* makes a statement on the matter. E* can have distants until Dec 1st ... there is no rush to replace them. There is plenty of time left.


----------



## kenglish

If DirecTV starts playing fast and footloose with the copyright laws, they'll be the next ones to get their fingers cut off.

Over the past couple of years, copyright owners (and their "subs"....like TV stations) have discovered that programming is their "gold mine". Everyone wants to distribute the programming for a fee, but no one wants to take the risks of producing the programming. So, why would you think that the ones who are paying dearly to produce the programs are going to sit back and let someone rip them off?

TV programming has become the most lucrative business in the world. Programming providers now have even more incentive to protect their investments.


----------



## Bruno 812

Tran Sponder said:


> Now would be a great time to switch. Ruperts got 150 HD networks coming in soon. HD locals to 70% of its customers.


So if NAB hears how DTV is doing the same thing but with locals should they also lose the ability to broadcast HD locals??


----------



## DCSholtis

Bruno 812 said:


> So if NAB hears how DTV is doing the same thing but with locals should they also lose the ability to broadcast HD locals??


Have proof??


----------



## Stewart Vernon

In this case, I find it hard to believe DirecTV wouldn't be at least in violation of some parts.

We have all these "movers" and it seems like their lying to Dish (or DirecTV) in order to get locals from another market create a violation-by-default as well since both companies know customers do this and they do not verify the service address clearly... so it seems like ultimately to be fair you'd have to prevent both companies from providing distants.

I just don't see how you can slap one and not the other... I would be highly surprised to find out that DirecTV has not violated some of the same rules. I am not surprised Dish has violated them though.

I do agree with the poster who said the distants thing is probably not a huge deal, as it probably only affects a small number of subscribers. Yes, if it affects you then it is bad... but I bet the percentage of Dish's total customer base is very small.


----------



## James Long

It isn't "movers" that got E* in trouble.

E* has done their fair share of violations on their own, including: never terminating those not eligible for grandfathering and providing locals to people within Grade B without waiver (ignoring Grade Bs outside of the customer's DMA). It is all detailed in the Appeals Court ruling against E*.


----------



## Michael P

James Long said:


> It isn't "movers" that got E* in trouble.
> 
> E* has done their fair share of violations on their own, including: never terminating those not eligible for grandfathering and providing locals to people within Grade B without waiver (ignoring Grade Bs outside of the customer's DMA). It is all detailed in the Appeals Court ruling against E*.


Just how did the plaintifs discover that E* was ignoring the rules? Unless someone from one of the networks was able to sub to DNS illegally how would they know?


----------



## zmark

Charlie should take away the distants next week, and in their place put up a slate listing all the Congressmen who voted for the bill that made this happen.


----------



## sNEIRBO

tedb3rd said:


> It's all about money... Money. Money. Money.


BINGO! As a wise man in the 70's once said about the Watergate Investigation . . . "follow the money."


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## bruin95

Does this decision include the "superstations" like WPIX and WWOR? I've been getting these for years through E* and live 2700 miles from NY.


----------



## James Long

Superstations are untouched by this ruling.
Local stations (in market) and "Significantly Viewed" stations are also untouched.


----------



## Chris Walker

Considering Congress is already probing this matter and FOX's illegal behavior, I highly doubt we see a cutoff. Members of Congress have already stated that they do not feel this is appropriate action (the injunction that is), but that they can not do anything about it UNTIL the injunction has actually been issued.


----------



## Chris Walker

minnow said:


> Maybe if Cheap Charlie had offered the 100 million settlement back in 1998, us subscribers wouldn't be facing a December 1st shutoff. As much as I am pissed about having to switch providers now, I place 100% of the blame at Ergen's doorstop. He's the one that could of prevented this suit from ever reaching this stage and now it's the subscribers that will taking it in the shorts. And let me add that a fistfull of free PPV coupons ain't gonna cut the mustard this time.


If Charlie settled back then, both you and I along with many others probably wouldn't have distants today. E* put up a fight against the broadcasters, if D* would have stood beside them instead of rolling over and jumping in the bed with NAB, maybe some progress would have been made. I do NOT have anger towards E* or Charlie over this matter, they (he) have been one of the biggest supporters of distant signals.


----------



## stuart628

Where were those documents? I have yet to see this come across any news wire or anything ( not saying its not there, I just havent been able to find it, and I thought this would be a BIG deal.) so baiscally the age old forum question-Link?


----------



## ggw2000

Tower Guy said:


> In the bigger scheme of things the elimination of the Distant Signal License is not a big penalty. While the reported number of subscribers to DNS sounds like alot, the vast majority of those now have access to their local affiliate via satellite. A significant number of others who are still in markets without LiL can actually receive a local affiliate over the air. I estimate that the remaining number of E* subscribers who will be SOL for the major networks will be about 25,000. That's not much of a handcuff.


your numbers are whacked!! You have no idea how many of us are out there that get neither of your mentioned methods. Please provide proof, if you don't have it don't throwout info when you have no idea what your talking about:nono2: .


----------



## James Long

stuart628 said:


> Where were those documents? I have yet to see this come across any news wire or anything ( not saying its not there, I just havent been able to find it, and I thought this would be a BIG deal.) so baiscally the age old forum question-Link?


I got the documents directly from the court website (subscription login required - no restriction on sharing what is found).

Media generally get things from press releases. I am surprised that other sites following the issue have not picked up on the story (bloggers usually follow court sites as I did to find this). I'm also surprised that we broke the story here - I really expected to find out about it via press release and have to wait for the court documents. FLSD court upgraded their document system on October 12th which made the documents available faster.


----------



## Alan R. Pope

What ever happened to SENATE BILL S-2644, THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND RURAL CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL TELEVISION ACT. This was approved in NOV.2004. This bill would allow areas that cannot receive a HDTV over the air signal to receive a national feed of ABC,NBC,CBS, AND FOX, VIA SATELLITE. I live 65 miles WEST of LAS VEGAS and only get analog signals via translator The folks in VEGAS get HDTV over the air. How the heck does the government have the right to tell me what I can watch or not watch? This is AMERICA and I have the right to watch what ever channels I want when ever I want, be it EAST TIME ZONE or WEST TIME ZONE.


----------



## levibluewa

Rupert (FOX) is in bed with Georgy. Georgy has friends in Florida and the Supreme Court. Guess who's going to turn out on top...until they're sent to prison that is.
G-O-P (Gone tO Prison, yet!).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> It isn't "movers" that got E* in trouble.


Yeah, I know in this case it was a completely different kind of violation that got Dish in trouble... but I can't help but think the "movers" are essentially violating the same rules too... that being reception of distants that they are not entitled to receive by law.

Plus, I find it hard to believe that DirecTV hasn't violated at least one of the other set of rules that Dish was caught in doing.

But when it all settles out, and Dish has the rest of the local markets covered anyway... I suspect this will amount to little loss for Dish in terms of customer flight.


----------



## Badger

Chris Walker said:


> If Charlie settled back then, both you and I along with many others probably wouldn't have distants today. E* put up a fight against the broadcasters, if D* would have stood beside them instead of rolling over and jumping in the bed with NAB, maybe some progress would have been made. I do NOT have anger towards E* or Charlie over this matter, they (he) have been one of the biggest supporters of distant signals.


So you think that it would have "made it all better" if D* had continued to violate the law like E* did? E* violated federal law and D* didn't. What part of that is so difficult to understand? All but 25 Fox stations had made a settlement with E* a couple of months ago but that didn't change the fact that they had continued to break federal law for the last 6-7 years after the courts specifically ordered them to stop giving subs DNS that didn't qualify! I hope E* figures out a way to get DNS to subs that actually qualify for them or gets LIL's to them via satellite.


----------



## GeorgeLV

Alan R. Pope said:


> What ever happened to SENATE BILL S-2644, THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND RURAL CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL TELEVISION ACT. This was approved in NOV.2004. This bill would allow areas that cannot receive a HDTV over the air signal to receive a national feed of ABC,NBC,CBS, AND FOX, VIA SATELLITE. I live 65 miles WEST of LAS VEGAS and only get analog signals via translator The folks in VEGAS get HDTV over the air. How the heck does the government have the right to tell me what I can watch or not watch? This is AMERICA and I have the right to watch what ever channels I want when ever I want, be it EAST TIME ZONE or WEST TIME ZONE.


Why do you only get "analog signals via translator"? Both Dish and DirecTV have had Las Vegas locals for a long time. DirecTV even has Las Vegas HD locals.


----------



## Badger

levibluewa said:


> Rupert (FOX) is in bed with Georgy. Georgy has friends in Florida and the Supreme Court. Guess who's going to turn out on top...until they're sent to prison that is.
> G-O-P (Gone tO Prison, yet!).


The law that caused this injunction was passed before GW was in office! Monica's boyfriend was the president when it was made law. LOL


----------



## James Long

HDMe said:


> But when it all settles out, and Dish has the rest of the local markets covered anyway... I suspect this will amount to little loss for Dish in terms of customer flight.


At the moment E* has around 800k to 1 million distants customers. That leaves more that 12 million completely unaffected by this injuction. Some of them may leave out of confusion or anger or even unfounded fear that something else will be next. (Not completely unfounded with the Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS, Lifetime and other contract dispute channel loss problems in E*'s past.) But 12 million unaffected customers helps soften the blow.

For those who lose distants many may not be able to get distants from DirecTV (without "moving" - lying about their service address). I doubt if a significant number of the total would consider "moving" as an option ... many might go to D* out of anger even if they can't get distants. Perhaps having distants was the only thing keeping them with E*.

There will be E* customers who will be able to switch to D* and get distants - with new waivers required if they live within Grade B coverage or need an RV exemption. Considering the court claim that around half of E* subscribers in 2002 were illegal (a percentage that I hope is no longer true) we could be talking about a half million people who will not get distants from D* (without lying) and a half million at most who could get distants. The real question being if today, as a new customer, they can get distants from D*.

The last quarterly report took this loss of customers seriously. A lot of the real impact will come when the general public is made aware of the December 1st date and what E* does to mitigate the loss.

BTW: The political comments need to stop.


----------



## Alan R. Pope

GeorgeLV said:


> Why do you only get "analog signals via translator"? Both Dish and DirecTV have had Las Vegas locals for a long time. DirecTV even has Las Vegas HD locals.


We get analog channels over the air,(translators), also can get LAS VEGAS channels on DISH, but not in HD. DIRECT TV has 2 vegas hd channels up. Negosiating with the other channels.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## Badger

James Long said:


> At the moment E* has around 800k to 1 million distants customers. That leaves more that 12 million completely unaffected by this injuction. Some of them may leave out of confusion or anger or even unfounded fear that something else will be next. (Not completely unfounded with the Disney/ABC, Viacom/CBS, Lifetime and other contract dispute channel loss problems in E*'s past.) But 12 million unaffected customers helps soften the blow.
> 
> For those who lose distants many may not be able to get distants from DirecTV (without "moving" - lying about their service address). I doubt if a significant number of the total would consider "moving" as an option ... many might go to D* out of anger even if they can't get distants. Perhaps having distants was the only thing keeping them with E*.
> 
> There will be E* customers who will be able to switch to D* and get distants - with new waivers required if they live within Grade B coverage or need an RV exemption. Considering the court claim that around half of E* subscribers in 2002 were illegal (a percentage that I hope is no longer true) we could be talking about a half million people who will not get distants from D* (without lying) and a half million at most who could get distants. The real question being if today, as a new customer, they can get distants from D*.
> 
> The last quarterly report took this loss of customers seriously. A lot of the real impact will come when the general public is made aware of the December 1st date and what E* does to mitigate the loss.
> 
> BTW: The political comments need to stop.


Sorry about my political comment above. It was done "tongue in cheek" and I won't do it again.


----------



## Tran Sponder

James Long said:


> If this judgement sticks those people will have to move to D* and possibly lie to D* about their service address. There will probably be a few who "move" to Canada as well. "Moving" on the E* system will only get you locals from wherever you moved to (which in a spotbeam world may not work that well - after distants there is no reason to keep those channels on ConUS beams).
> 
> Personally I'd wait until E* makes a statement on the matter. E* can have distants until Dec 1st ... there is no rush to replace them. There is plenty of time left.


Of course. I'm sure that E* will reach an agreement (Even more $$$). D* gets hit with its fair share of lawsuits, but E* is pushing it. I wouldn't call them circling the drain by a long shot, but they're certainly getting sloppy.

A fair portion of the E* suscribers will likely have local channels in their area with D*. And some of the E* subscribers who got their DNS's illegally by some fault of E* are probably eligable, but the E* just didn't bother checking and turned it on because they were lazy. E* outsources a lot of CSR's overseas, so it's easy to push them around, which a lot of people do when "the game's starting in a few hours".

TiVo's lawsuit had some merit, but was likely more of a desperate move by a company that's looking at losing more than half of their market share in just a year.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm sure Dish is concerned about any loss of subscribers... I'm just wagering that they will not actually see the loss that they might be worried about as a worst-case scenario.

Since you can't carry a waiver over to DirecTV if you switch... you would have to qualify today under today's standards... so peeling back the layers of the onion, some folks may find that they switch to DirecTV and still cannot get distants.

As JL was saying, there still maye be some churn from folks that just want to stick it to Dish on principle... but I can't believe that the actual loss will be more than a minor drop in the bucket when all is said and done.

Still seems like an unfair application of the law, though, to me even if Dish was knowingly violating a law. I understand about consequences, but this seems rather heavy-handed especially when you also factor in that FOX stations were a hold-out preventing an overall settlement and those are owned by DirecTV (Dish's only real satellite competitor).


----------



## JohnH

Tran Sponder said:


> Of course. I'm sure that E* will reach an agreement (Even more $$$). D* gets hit with its fair share of lawsuits, but E* is pushing it. I wouldn't call them circling the drain by a long shot, but they're certainly getting sloppy.


The agreement scenario has been thrown out.

What could they offer the Supreme Court that would erase the "Pattern and Practice" violation finding?


----------



## JohnH

HDMe said:


> Still seems like an unfair application of the law, though, to me even if Dish was knowingly violating a law. I understand about consequences, but this seems rather heavy-handed especially when you also factor in that FOX stations were a hold-out preventing an overall settlement and those are owned by DirecTV (Dish's only real satellite competitor).


Seems to me the penalty has always been the same for this infraction.

FOX did not own DIRECTV at the time of the infractions in this case. IIRC, the settlements reached by DIRECTV were sometime before FOX acquired it.


----------



## Tweakophyte

Hi-

It has been so long, how do I know if this effects me? Is it only if I get a local from another area? I know here (in Denver area) we used to get CBS HD from either coast, and now we have our local feed. Would that mean I'm okay?

Also, this is not the thing where FOX is going to be taken from us, is it?

Thanks,


----------



## Bruno 812

HDMe said:


> Since you can't carry a waiver over to DirecTV if you switch... you would have to qualify today under today's standards... so peeling back the layers of the onion, some folks may find that they switch to DirecTV and still cannot get distants.


In my area DTV does not have locals and the networks around here dont even look at a waiver anymore. I used to be able to get a lot of my customers some waivers but none have got them lately. I agree that most customers *will not *get distants if they switch to DTV.


----------



## JohnH

Tweakophyte said:


> Is it only if I get a local from another area?Thanks,


Yes, if it is a Distant Network Station affiliated with ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX.

The situation with CBS HD East and CBS HD West may not be affected by this. It is an unknown which likely will require clarification. Also, a clarification as to how this affects Digital Distants is likely to be required.


----------



## crackasmile

Didn't see this question addressed anywhere on this thread looking through it, so I will ask:

I live in a market that doesn't have an ABC affiliate within about 60-70 miles of here. After Dec 1, would *E be able to provide another ABC network of some kind?


----------



## kstuart

minnow said:


> So what do any of you think E* will do to mitigate this decesion ? I would think E* would be shi**** and getttin' to think that 500,000 subs may cancel service.


Most of these numbers are way, way too high.

There are very roughly 1,000,000 subscribers with one or more distant channels.

By December 1st, Dish should have local channels provided to roughly 97% of subscribers.

By simple math, only 30,000 will not be able to get their network channels from Dish. Also, remember that the judgement is because Dish was providing Distants to a lot of people who *did not qualify*. Those people *will not qualify for Distants from DirecTV either*.

Remember that the judge ruled *against* Dish paying *$100,000,000* to the network affiliates. So, Dish still has that money.

Dish could provide all Distant Network subscribers with Free Locals For A Year, and still have $40,000,000 left over to cover the cost of the loss of business of the few thousand who truly qualify for distants and will move to DirecTV to get them.

I think the loss of Distants will cost Dish less than $100,000,000 - but they came up with that much for the settlement in order to try and avoid a hit on the stock value due to the "bad news".

PS


> Maybe if Cheap Charlie had offered the 100 million settlement back in 1998, us subscribers wouldn't be facing a December 1st shutoff.


Uh, I hope your wife handles the finances  ... If someone had bought $100 million worth of EchoStar stock back in 1998, it would be worth $1 Billion today. (Which is one reason why Billionaire George Soros owns 17 million shares of EchoStar.)


----------



## kstuart

[This is a separate post because it is a separate issue.]

I just read the "Explanation" (the second PDF linked to the first post).

1) There are a lot of areas for appeal. The judge made a lot of "judgement calls" - because that is his job, of course. In many cases he says "EchoStar and the Affiliates say there is ____ , but I do not find that there is ____". There are also some points where he says that his court is obligated to take a certain action and that it does not have discretionary powers, and it seems likely that a higher court with more discretionary powers could take a different action. For example, one of the ___ above is "new evidence", and a higher court might feel that the Settlement *is* "new evidence".

2) What the Judge actually personally felt about the case was revealed in a footnote that I will quote here:


> 2
> Additionally, the Court finds some merit in Fox's concerns regarding the complexity of
> the proposed settlement agreement that Echostar and the Affiliate Associations ask this Court to
> oversee. After nearly eight years of protracted litigation before this Court and the Court of
> Appeals, with the conclusion of this case at hand, Echostar and the Affiliate Associations now ask
> the Court to veer down a new path that might spawn a whole new set of issues, leading to even
> more protracted litigation for what skeptics might say is Echostar's attempt to buy its way out of
> an adverse judgment.


(I think it is clear that the Judge counts himself among one of those "skeptics".)


----------



## boylehome

My Congressman commented on this case. Here are two of his paragraphs:



> "On September 21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied EchoStar's appeal of a May ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 11th Circuit ruled in favor of broadcast networks who sued EchoStar for illegally retransmitting "distant network signals." Under the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), satellite television providers may retransmit broadcast network programming from a network affiliate outside the local market to households that cannot receive over-the-air broadcasts from the network affiliate in their market. However, the 11th Circuit found that EchoStar had been retransmitting these distant network signals to households that could receive local broadcasts over the air. The court stated, "We have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the SHVA."
> 
> The 11th Circuit's ruling requires EchoStar to shut down all retransmission of distant network signals, even to households that are legally entitled to receive them under SHVA. In my view, this injunction goes too far and effectively punishes hundreds of thousands of consumers in remote rural areas who have done nothing illegal. Unfortunately, as a member of Congress, I cannot intervene in a particular legal dispute while it is pending before the courts. By constitutional design, there is a virtual "brick wall" between the legislative and judicial branches of government. However, now that EchoStar has exhausted its appeals, I hope that Congress will consider legislation in the near future to help rural consumers who have lost access to broadcast programming as a result of the 11th Circuit's decision."


I think that with the courts ruling there is future hope if pursued by those concerned. I doubt the Networks and NAB will be of much help to us. Can anyone refresh my memory about the U.S. Supreme Court action on September 21, where they denied EchoStar's appeal of a May ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals?


----------



## James Long

crackasmile said:


> I live in a market that doesn't have an ABC affiliate within about 60-70 miles of here. After Dec 1, would *E be able to provide another ABC network of some kind?


If there is an ABC affiliate anywhere in your market you should be able to get it (assuming the station has not refused to be carried). If there is no ABC affiliate in your market E* might be able to provide one from a neighboring market via the "Significantly Viewed" rules.


kstuart said:


> By simple math, only 30,000 will not be able to get their network channels from Dish.


It isn't simple math. The 95% with locals is a population figure that doesn't relate to actual subscribers. E*'s customers are more rural. We have not seen a figure for what percentage of E* customers have locals.


kstuart said:


> 2) What the Judge actually personally felt about the case was revealed in a footnote that I will quote here:
> 
> 
> 
> 2
> Additionally, the Court finds some merit in Fox's concerns regarding the complexity of the proposed settlement agreement that Echostar and the Affiliate Associations ask this Court to oversee. After nearly eight years of protracted litigation before this Court and the Court of Appeals, with the conclusion of this case at hand, Echostar and the Affiliate Associations now ask the Court to veer down a new path that might spawn a whole new set of issues, leading to even more protracted litigation for what skeptics might say is Echostar's attempt to buy its way out of an adverse judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> (I think it is clear that the Judge counts himself among one of those "skeptics".)
Click to expand...

I don't blame him for being skeptical. E* violated one of this judge's previous injuctions in this matter. E* has lost the trust of the judge.


----------



## JohnH

crackasmile said:


> Didn't see this question addressed anywhere on this thread looking through it, so I will ask:
> 
> I live in a market that doesn't have an ABC affiliate within about 60-70 miles of here. After Dec 1, would *E be able to provide another ABC network of some kind?


If you are in the correct County, you might be provided with a Significantly Viewed affiliate from Indianapolis.

No one apparently is voicing an opinion of what effect this finding will have on Digital Distants.


----------



## James Long

boylehome said:


> Can anyone refresh my memory about the U.S. Supreme Court action on September 21, where they denied EchoStar's appeal of a May ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals?


Justice Thomas refused to issue an immediate stay in the case, trusting the judgement of the appeals court and district court. The case isn't over at the Supreme Court. (See here)

If you are looking for the now closed previous threads on the issue (for background) here they are:
Distant Networks: 9/12 Settlement Details and other court filings ...
September 15th-October 20th

EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)
August 28th-September 15th

FOX request for Distant Networks Injunction (NO INJUNCTION ISSUED)
September 1st/2nd

EchoStar Rejected by High Court Justice, Must Halt Distant Networks
August 22nd-September 1st

EchoStar Loses Distant Network Appeal
July 26th-August 8th


----------



## TechnoCat

UTFAN said:


> So I'm clear on this, a judge that I never had a chance to vote on, prevents me from receiving programming that modern technology allows me to receive at a reasonable price?
> 
> Taking away my freedom of choice?
> 
> And this is government of the people?
> 
> Not hardly.
> 
> Either way, HOOK'EM HORNS!


You kinda missed the point of government there. You're not supposed to vote for judges - you're supposed to vote for executives and legislators. Since both significant parties surrender some freedoms - they just choose different ones - you already lost a set of freedoms. But the judge did the job, which is to APPLY the written law. It was the legislators that wrote the law that cost you the freedom.


----------



## Tran Sponder

Bruno 812 said:


> In my area DTV does not have locals and the networks around here dont even look at a waiver anymore. I used to be able to get a lot of my customers some waivers but none have got them lately. I agree that most customers *will not *get distants if they switch to DTV.


What's your market? I know some affiliates are in markets that are currently under negotiation with D* for new coverage are being a little stodgy about new waivers. Are they just not responding or are they flat out denying them? Are you submitting the waivers yourself or are you going through D*?

Frankly FOX affiliates in paticular are flat out denying them recently. Try again after Dec 18. Also make sure that you're including that your customers have been using large and expensive off air antennas to get their locals to no avail.

Also, if a cust can get cable, obviously they won't grant the waivers. Write down that you've explored all possiblities and still can't get local coverage.

One of the biggest reasons (aside from the reasons above) why a local affiliate won't grant a waiver is because they're planning market coverage with either E* or D* in the future.


----------



## Darkman

Tran Sponder said:


> ...


I like your nickname, Tran Sponder 

I guess Trans Ponder would sound funny as well... :lol:


----------



## Tran Sponder

kstuart said:


> By simple math, only 30,000 will not be able to get their network channels from Dish. Also, remember that the judgement is because Dish was providing Distants to a lot of people who *did not qualify*. Those people *will not qualify for Distants from DirecTV either*.


If the statement that they can provide locals to 95% of their 13 million customers, that actually translates to 650,000 customers that would need DNS's. However, as James Long stated that is a basic statement that E* throws around, and in my opinion is likely more in their favor than the actual data reveals.

Recently affiliates have been much more carefull about granting those waivers, and in some cases like FOX affiliates, just flat out denial.

My issue is with consumer confidence. A lot of affected E* customers are probably thinking "what's next?" and on top of that D* rollout of HD coverage might make this a mute point in a year or so. E* isn't even launching satellites to cover for the ones that are failing. How's E* going to stand up in the future? Don't get me wrong though, right now at D*, customers are upset with the DVR models that have been released. A portion of those people have R15's and HR20's that are FULL of bugs both software and hardware and D* hasn't come up with a solution fast enough. So don't think I'm a D* fanboy or anything...

D* and E*'s biggest competition isn't each other, it's cable. Verizon's and AT&T are rolling out fibre optics and D*'s (I don't know how much to asterik anymore so I just won't say it) is working on 802.16. Where is E* fitting into any of this?


----------



## James Long

E* has not completely given up ... They do have one replacement satellite in the works. Losing distants isn't an easy hit - but it will NOT be fatal.


----------



## cicijay

Alan R. Pope said:


> What ever happened to SENATE BILL S-2644, THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND RURAL CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL TELEVISION ACT. This was approved in NOV.2004. This bill would allow areas that cannot receive a HDTV over the air signal to receive a national feed of ABC,NBC,CBS, AND FOX, VIA SATELLITE. I live 65 miles WEST of LAS VEGAS and only get analog signals via translator The folks in VEGAS get HDTV over the air. How the heck does the government have the right to tell me what I can watch or not watch? This is AMERICA and I have the right to watch what ever channels I want when ever I want, be it EAST TIME ZONE or WEST TIME ZONE.


I have an interest in this also. It was my understanding that this didn't mean they had to broadcast in HDTV just digitally.

In my area ABC,NBC and Fox are broadcasting digitally but at such low power that you must be within about 10 miles of the NBC tower. CBS is not broadcasting digitally and they keep getting waiver after waiver.

If this Bill was actually passed then I understand it would mean I can get the HDTV feed of my CBS affiliate since they do not broadcast digitally.


----------



## cicijay

Distants were a gray area 15 years ago and Dish lost.

Congress has worked on claifying the laws over the last 15 years. I can't imagine Congress would be very happy about the courts telling dish that they can not implement something that congress has specifically given dish the right to do. (as long as dish follows the current rules). For example, I have gotten ABC,NBC and Fox waivers in the last few years by following the rules congress made very clear.

Fortunately we do have a system of checks and balances and as a result I predict congress will get involved. Perhaps this may end up being in the best interest of all the viewers.

In my area there is no ability to get HD network feeds and it doesn't appear thet there will be until 1/2009 so any involvement from congress can certainly not make it any worse.


----------



## James Long

15?


----------



## minnow

Congress may very well step in, but it will be to late. Those like me that are entitled to distants will either go back to cable or over to Direct. And once we are there, it will be damn difficult to be wooed back. Even if Congress works at warp speed, one is probably looking at a year or so(at least) before this issue is resolved. I don't think many of us with distant networks are going to go in "standby" mode waiting for Congress to act. I'll wait and see what happens as I understand Direct has got something in the works to get us E* subs to sign up with them. And who knows, maybe Charlie gets another stay of execution, but come 12/1/06 I'll have made my move one way or the other.


----------



## James Long

If D* comes up with something it will have to be better than the offers we heard about on August 25th (see here).

A $150 rebate for customers in 10 markets. This was an offer for purchases made 8/21/06 to 10/02/06. If D* offers something this time around, it needs to be better than just 10 markets.


----------



## Jim5506

jonsnow said:


> Supreme Court anyone?
> Those two acts of congress are breaking the first admendment, they both
> abridge the freedom of speech and go against the spirit of the declaration of independence
> when it comes to pursuit of happiness and liberty and hampers states rights with the regulation of
> the free flow of commerce.


Archie Bunker School of Law


----------



## rtd2

James Long said:


> E* has not completely given up ... They do have one replacement satellite in the works. Losing distants isn't an easy hit - but it will NOT be fatal.


James,
I agree 100% and I'M NOT switching to Direct for ANYTHING! Echo customer since 1998 and I currently have ALL the Distant network feeds EAST AND WEST! and find it troubling in the first place that I cant BUY and watch any network I want in the privacy of my home but thanks to our wonderful courts and legislators I guess they know best! :nono: Here in Biloxi,Gulport market we are in a VOID of sorts. ONLY 2 LOCAL stations wlox-abc and wxxv-fox (which is operating at a GRADE "F" in my book!) No "LOCAL" cbs,nbc, ect. From Dish OR Direct BUT "LOCAL" cable company (AKA a Monopoly )Carries all these channels and HAVE 2 of Each Networks CBS-Moblie AND New Orleans also NBC -WPMI Moblie and wdsu New Orleans , fox New orleans and WALA Fox -Mobile AND 2 abc's Newoleans and local wlox so I SUBSCRIBE to Distants from Dish AND "LIfeline Pkg"from LOCAL cable CO-monopoly. for 12.99 month includes channels 2-13 (all networks and Local cable CO DOSENT ADVERTISE this Pkg but they HAVE to OFFER IT!) so Let them cut off the Distants will just save me 1.50 x's 8...Plus I can get an HD antenna and pick up Most of these stations OTA-HD for free to compliment my New 622,211 and HD service....Bottom line is I AINT switchin! Thanks for the report!


----------



## crackasmile

I am in Vigo County and I don't think Significantly Viewed applies here. Am I wrong?



JohnH said:


> If you are in the correct County, you might be provided with a Significantly Viewed affiliate from Indianapolis.
> 
> No one apparently is voicing an opinion of what effect this finding will have on Digital Distants.


----------



## kstuart

Jim5506 said:


> jonsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court anyone?
> Those two acts of congress are breaking the first admendment, they both
> abridge the freedom of speech and go against the spirit of the declaration of independence
> when it comes to pursuit of happiness and liberty and hampers states rights with the regulation of
> the free flow of commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> Archie Bunker School of Law
Click to expand...

It's been decades since I saw Archie Bunker, so the relevance of that is obscure to me (let alone any 20-something).

But jonsnow's comment is certainly accurate in terms of the *spirit* of the First Amendment.

Imagine if a Law or a Judge decided that you could not sell the "New York Times" in other cities, because it competed with the local newspapers there. There would be outrage, and it would certainly be overturned on Constitutional grounds.

Before someone jumps up with some way in which network TV channels are different, please also note that all OTA channels are subsdized by the taxpayer - by being given free OTA bandwidth, which nowadays is one of the most expensive commodities for those who which to distribute programming or services.


----------



## richiephx

Personally, I think this whole process of locals is stupid. It is such a waste of bandwidth and duplication of programming for both E* and D*. Before DBS, how did people watch tv programs?...with a rooftop antenna or rabbit ears and, those that could afford it, cable. The majority of households never had to pay a premium to watch tv, except for cable. As viewer options increased and more and more people got DBS, the available programming increased and they had to pay a premium to get more variety. Now, the federal gov't, via special interests, stuck their two cents in and created this nonsense. Now, some people may have limited or no choice. Personally, if I am paying a premium for programming, I should be able subscribe to any channel I choose to pay for. The gov't should stay out of my personal life and not tell me what I can or can't watch. Vote ALL the encumbents out and push for term limits in congress. That's a start.


----------



## Alan R. Pope

Senate Bill S.2644, Which Was Passed In Nov 04 Said,"this Legislation Gives The Federal Communications Commission Two Years To Develop A Map Of The United States That Shows Which Households Do Not Receive A Digital Over The Air Signal". Consumers In Areas That Are Not Able To Receive A Digital Signal Will Be Eligible To Receive A National High Definition Network Feeds For Nbc, Cbs, Abc, And Fox. This Can Only Be Done, However, If The Satellite Company First Provides The Local Analog Stations. This Is Called The Digital White Area. This Bill Was Introduced By Senator John Ensign Of Nevada. This Bill Was Adopted As Part Of The Omnibus Spending Bill Approved By The U.s. Senate. I Hope This Information Is Helpful.


----------



## boylehome

TechnoCat said:


> You kinda missed the point of government there. You're not supposed to vote for judges - you're supposed to vote for executives and legislators. Since both significant parties surrender some freedoms - they just choose different ones - you already lost a set of freedoms. But the judge did the job, which is to APPLY the written law. It was the legislators that wrote the law that cost you the freedom.


Very good points TechnoCat. If E* would have complied with the law, then we would not be having any of these discussions. We would still continue to have DNS in the future, if qualified. Legislators were ill famed respective to SHVA and its amendments. It was clearly a law designed by and made for the Networks which was greased by the NAB. It should have been labeled NAHVON BS - Networks Against Home Viewing Of Networks By Satellite.


----------



## Chris Walker

Assuming worst-case scenario and appeals don't work and E* can't get legislation passed and distants go dark, the ONLY way I stay with E* is if they replace my 3 508s with dual tuner DVRs.


----------



## Chris Walker

kstuart said:


> Remember that the judge ruled *against* Dish paying *$100,000,000* to the network affiliates. So, Dish still has that money.


How can a judge tell the plantiffs they can't have what they want when the defendants are willing to give it to them? This has appeal written all over it.


----------



## Chris Walker

boylehome said:


> My Congressman commented on this case. Here are two of his paragraphs:
> 
> I think that with the courts ruling there is future hope if pursued by those concerned. I doubt the Networks and NAB will be of much help to us. Can anyone refresh my memory about the U.S. Supreme Court action on September 21, where they denied EchoStar's appeal of a May ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals?


Exactly, the congressmen in Colorado have already launched a probe on the matter but like your reply said, their hands and Congress' hands are tied until the injunction was issued. IMO, the injunction will either be stayed or there will be legislation.


----------



## boylehome

TechnoCat said:


> You kinda missed the point of government there. You're not supposed to vote for judges - you're supposed to vote for executives and legislators. Since both significant parties surrender some freedoms - they just choose different ones - you already lost a set of freedoms. But the judge did the job, which is to APPLY the written law. It was the legislators that wrote the law that cost you the freedom.


Very good points TechnoCat. If E* would have complied with the law, then we would not be having any of these discussions. We would still have DNS if qualified. Legislators were ill famed respective to SHVA and its amendments. It was clearly a law designed by and made for the Networks which was greased by the NAB. It should have been labeled NAHVON BS - Networks Against Home Viewing Of Networks By Satellite.


----------



## Chris Walker

minnow said:


> Congress may very well step in, but it will be to late. Those like me that are entitled to distants will either go back to cable or over to Direct. And once we are there, it will be damn difficult to be wooed back. Even if Congress works at warp speed, one is probably looking at a year or so(at least) before this issue is resolved. I don't think many of us with distant networks are going to go in "standby" mode waiting for Congress to act. I'll wait and see what happens as I understand Direct has got something in the works to get us E* subs to sign up with them. And who knows, maybe Charlie gets another stay of execution, but come 12/1/06 I'll have made my move one way or the other.


Once again, I think there will be a stay or Congress will step in. I'd bet quite a bit of money that the distant networks will not be cut off on December 1. Stick with E* for the time being if you're happy with them otherwise. D* is not an answer for distant networks, they have been in bed with the NAB for years.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## odbrv

Alan R. Pope said:


> Senate Bill S.2644, Which Was Passed In Nov 04 Said,"this Legislation Gives The Federal Communications Commission Two Years To Develop A Map Of The United States That Shows Which Households Do Not Receive A Digital Over The Air Signal". Consumers In Areas That Are Not Able To Receive A Digital Signal Will Be Eligible To Receive A National High Definition Network Feeds For Nbc, Cbs, Abc, And Fox. This Can Only Be Done, However, If The Satellite Company First Provides The Local Analog Stations. This Is Called The Digital White Area. This Bill Was Introduced By Senator John Ensign Of Nevada. This Bill Was Adopted As Part Of The Omnibus Spending Bill Approved By The U.s. Senate. I Hope This Information Is Helpful.


From the above, it seems that if nothing else happens in the courts and congress; E* will shut down all the analog distants on Dec 1st and can turn on all the HD distants to those in the Digital White Area. Dec 1st comes after Nov o6 when the FCC Digital White Area maps are due. I will be much happier with HD distants than SD distants. Right now more than 70% of my network viewing are the CBS HD on 9484.
I hope the Digital White Area is bigger than the current B signal area for analogs. In fact E* could get more distant subscribers than they loose. Has anyone seen a preliminary version of these Digital White Area maps?


----------



## odbrv

I just found this:
Consumers in 39 Million U.S. Households Cannot Receive Complete Network Digital Service

First-Ever Digital Maps Illustrate and Quantify Even Greater Need for
Speeding up the Digital Transition

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- The Digital Transition Coalition
(DTC) said that, contrary to the claims of the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), the DTV transition has a long distance to traverse before
it becomes a reality. Tens of millions of Americans are still unable to
receive one or more of their local network stations in digital mode. The
coalition released state-by-state maps, using Federal Communications
Commission data, which clearly illustrate the current coverage of digital signals across the nation. The maps were filed with the
FCC as part of the coalition's response to a filing by the NAB.
The coalition hired Primus Geographics to demonstrate the true extent of
the digital transition in America today. It has been clear to most observers
that the transition is lagging and the maps prove that, according to the
coalition.
"This analysis paints a stark picture of the digital transition in this
country," said George Landrith of Frontiers of Freedom, a member of the
Digital Transition Coalition. "It illustrates once and for all that the
transition to digital television is behind schedule and continues to exclude
millions of Americans -- especially those in rural areas. And this is
happening despite the fact that the nation's broadcasters were supposed to be
broadcasting their DTV service at full power by 2002," he said.
The whole text is at http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-20-2004/0002253848&EDATE= It is 2 years old. I am looking for newer reports.


----------



## Ray_Clum

crackasmile said:


> I am in Vigo County and I don't think Significantly Viewed applies here. Am I wrong?


Go to the Dish Network Local Channel Site and enter your address. If it notes Terre Haute Enhansed 1, you should still be able to get WRTV out of Indianapolis. If it notes Terre Haute locals, you won't (but never did).


----------



## terfmop

Ray_Clum said:


> Go to the Dish Network Local Channel Site and enter your address. If it notes Terre Haute Enhansed 1, you should still be able to get WRTV out of Indianapolis. If it notes Terre Haute locals, you won't (but never did).


I live in Vigo county also and have looked into this previously. The 'Terre Haute Enhanced Local' ironically are not for Terre Haute. They are for the surrounding counties like Vermillion or Parke. This leaves the largest city in the area (Terre Haute) with less channels than the smaller surrounding counties; most importantly, no ABC service to Terre Haute.

Even stranger, when you look at the 'significantly viewed' list there is one channel that we do not have in our lineup, despite several attempts to convince the reps at [email protected], that the channel is on the significantly viewed list they keep telling me they legally cannot provide that channel.


----------



## Darkman

Dish Must Stop Selling Distant Signals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn 
10/22/2006 4:03:00 PM

On Dec. 1, EchoStar Communications must stop selling out-of-market station feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming to 800,000 subscribers, according to a nationwide injunction issued Friday by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

EchoStar has just six weeks to pursue a few options, including asking a higher court to narrow the injunction and seeking help from Congress during the lame-duck session slated to begin the week of Nov. 13.

"This is a clear setback for EchoStar. EchoStar's best hope now is that the appeals court will stay this Dec. 1 cutoff date and hear the appeal," said Paul Gallant, a media analyst with Stanford Washington Research Group.

EchoStar settled the copyright dispute with all parties except Fox stations owned by News Corp. Siding with News Corp., Dimitroulous refused to issue an injunction that would have impacted just the 25 markets that have News Corp.-owned Fox stations.

EchoStar customers that lose distant network service can access network programming by subscribing to cable, using an over-the-air antenna, or subscribing to EchoStar's local signal package, if available. EchoStar customers who are legally entitled to buy distant signals could sign up for a such package with DirecTV.

"EchoStar may now consider trying to equip at least some of its customers in non-local-into-local markets with antennas so they can keep getting broadcast TV stations after Dec. 1," Gallant said.

EchoStar spokeswoman Kathie Gonzalez didn't return a reporter's e-mail seeking comment.

To be eligible legally to buy distant signals via satellite, a customer isn't supposed to have over-the-air access to local network programming. Federal courts have found that EchoStar repeatedly sold distant signals to hundreds of thousands of ineligible customers. TV stations sued EchoStar to defend their advertising revenue from wanton invasion by distant signals.

--
( Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6383724.html )


----------



## Ray_Clum

terfmop said:


> I live in Vigo county also and have looked into this previously. The 'Terre Haute Enhanced Local' ironically are not for Terre Haute. They are for the surrounding counties like Vermillion or Parke. This leaves the largest city in the area (Terre Haute) with less channels than the smaller surrounding counties; most importantly, no ABC service to Terre Haute.
> 
> Even stranger, when you look at the 'significantly viewed' list there is one channel that we do not have in our lineup, despite several attempts to convince the reps at [email protected], that the channel is on the significantly viewed list they keep telling me they legally cannot provide that channel.


The SV for Terre Haute does include 1 of the 3 zip codes that make up Terre Haute, I believe it's the south eastern zip code area, but those areas north of I-70 are out of luck.

I've asked about multiple counties that are Indy DMA, but have SV of Louisville channels (I'd "move" to watch my Cardinals). They don't have any of them. More than likely they just haven't negotiated a contract to provide the SV stations.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## tnsprin

odbrv said:


> From the above, it seems that if nothing else happens in the courts and congress; E* will shut down all the analog distants on Dec 1st and can turn on all the HD distants to those in the Digital White Area. Dec 1st comes after Nov o6 when the FCC Digital White Area maps are due. I will be much happier with HD distants than SD distants. Right now more than 70% of my network viewing are the CBS HD on 9484.
> I hope the Digital White Area is bigger than the current B signal area for analogs. In fact E* could get more distant subscribers than they loose. Has anyone seen a preliminary version of these Digital White Area maps?


They must first provide the local analog. Which they will be forbidden to do. So it does not help.


----------



## Greg Bimson

odbrv said:


> From the above, it seems that if nothing else happens in the courts and congress; E* will shut down all the analog distants on Dec 1st and can turn on all the HD distants to those in the Digital White Area. Dec 1st comes after Nov o6 when the FCC Digital White Area maps are due. I will be much happier with HD distants than SD distants. Right now more than 70% of my network viewing are the CBS HD on 9484.
> I hope the Digital White Area is bigger than the current B signal area for analogs. In fact E* could get more distant subscribers than they loose. Has anyone seen a preliminary version of these Digital White Area maps?


This is the part that everyone has misunderstood...

There is a license. It allows for retransmission of distant networks. If the use of the license is terminated, all distant networks are terminated.

As in all analog and digital, since the license covers both.


----------



## Greg Bimson

minnow said:


> I'd was a betting man too. I would of bet a whole lot of money that the Judge was going to approve the settlement. Rationally, it made no sense for the Judge not to of issued the injunction immediately back in August, but yet he allowed the plaintiffs to file motions afterward which led me to think that maybe there was an out here. However his decision quite plainly stated that there was no way the injunction could be stopped once the Appellate Court made the order.


And I had said it before...

The question was whether or not a settlement could outweigh both the mandatory sentence of a permanent injunction as dictated by the penalty of 17 USC 119 (the SHVA/SHVIA distants law) and the mandate from the appeals court, which told the district court to issue an injunction.

There was only one path that could have been taken. The settlement would have waived the mandatory penalty, and even in a civil case, we find out that a mandatory penalty trumps all. The judgment even spelled out that there was no wiggle room.

To me, the only reason to have this discourse was to make the judgment iron-clad. All arguments were heard, and nothing is glaringly wrong with the judgment, except that many people will lose distants because Dish Network spent entirely too much time disregarding the law and then fighting it.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## odbrv

tnsprin said:


> They must first provide the local analog. Which they will be forbidden to do. So it does not help.


No!!! they can supply locals . Only distants will be shut off.


----------



## odbrv

Greg Bimson said:



> This is the part that everyone has misunderstood...
> 
> There is a license. It allows for retransmission of distant networks. If the use of the license is terminated, all distant networks are terminated.
> 
> As in all analog and digital, since the license covers both.


I am surprised. Everything in the court cases only discussed analog. There were no HD on E* when this case came to court.

So this judge is technologically inept. I believe this is sufficient cause for appeal or Congress to simply restate their law that was created after original case arguements.


----------



## derwin0

There is a real simple fix that Dish and the 3 settling networks could implement.
They could provide the New York & Los Angeles channels to unserved markets without using the DNS statitory license, provided ALL non-network programming is blacked out.

Or make a seperate channel that conforms, ala. the national PBS channel that is sent to unserved markets.


----------



## odbrv

derwin0 said:


> There is a real simple fix that Dish and the 3 settling networks could implement.
> They could provide the New York & Los Angeles channels to unserved markets without using the DNS statitory license, provided ALL non-network programming is blacked out.
> 
> Or make a seperate channel that conforms, ala. the national PBS channel that is sent to unserved markets.


This idea would be great for me , especially if they can do it both in SD and HD.


----------



## odbrv

I have sent the following to my 2 senators and congressman:
A judge in Florida has put an injunction on The Dish Network. Effective Dec 1 I will loose the ability to get distant TV Networks. This injunction nullifies two laws passed by congress, the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 and Senate Bill S.2644. I am grandfathered by the 1999 bill to be able to receive distant networks and have waivers from all my local networks to receive distant networks. All this goes away Dec 1st
One of your fellow Congressmen made the following comment:
The 11th Circuit's ruling requires EchoStar to shut down all retransmission of distant network signals, even to households that are legally entitled to receive them under SHVA. In my view, this injunction goes too far and effectively punishes hundreds of thousands of consumers in remote rural areas who have done nothing illegal. Unfortunately, as a member of Congress, I cannot intervene in a particular legal dispute while it is pending before the courts. By constitutional design, there is a virtual "brick wall" between the legislative and judicial branches of government. However, now that EchoStar has exhausted its appeals, I hope that Congress will consider legislation in the near future to help rural consumers who have lost access to broadcast programming as a result of the 11th Circuit's decision." 
Please introduce a bill to get my rights back prior to Dec 1st. A move to Direct TV is not cost feasible .I have close to $4,000 invested in Dish Equipment. Why should cable TV be required to carry networks and Satellite TV be not allowed to carry those same networks. This is technologically illogical.


----------



## James Long

odbrv said:


> I am surprised. Everything in the court cases only discussed analog. There were no HD on E* when this case came to court.
> 
> So this judge is technologically inept. I believe this is sufficient cause for appeal or Congress to simply restate their law that was created after original case arguements.


The law at the time this case started did not include digital stations, but the law has been updated - twice. The license that allows satellite to rebroadcast distant analog stations was EXTENDED in 2004 to allow carriage of distant digital stations.

Think of it this way: You have a license to drive a car. Say the law changes so you can also drive a motorcycle with your normal license. The court permanently revolks your license to drive a car. You can't drive a motorcycle.

The current situation with CBS-HD: I expect that outside of Viacom markets losing analog distants will kill the license to receive CBS-HD. Within Viacom markets E* can come to a private arrangement without using the national license that E* is losing. Hopefully I'm wrong, but that would be my best understanding.


----------



## waltinvt

derwin0 said:


> There is a real simple fix that Dish and the 3 settling networks could implement.
> They could provide the New York & Los Angeles channels to unserved markets without using the DNS statitory license, provided ALL non-network programming is blacked out.


Except that probably goes against the current contracts they have with their afilliates. That's not to say that some of the networks aren't considering something along this line but there's big money in syndication and that may limit what they can do.

In any event, we may get a clue if when Dec 1st gets here and CBS-HD stays lit for O&O and white areas. The other nets may want to work out something similar with Dish but if it's like Greg says and that feed goes dark too, then Dish is probably in trouble.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I seem to recall that both Fox and NBC at one time had setup separate feeds for "distant delivery". Fox had FoxNet, which was a channel owned 100 percent by Fox, and available to sub-100 market cable companies, so that Fox could get into areas where there wasn't an affiliate. I believe NBC had something like NBC Red and NBC Blue, which were nothing more than NBC-owned, copyright-cleared East and West feeds.

Any network can setup something similar, providing they don't void their contracts with their affiliates. That is the problem here. Everyone believes it has something to do with laws that Congress pass and the President signs, while the actual problem is with the contracts between the network and the local affiliate.


----------



## Greg Bimson

odbrv said:


> So this judge is technologically inept. I believe this is sufficient cause for appeal or Congress to simply restate their law that was created after original case arguements.


No, the judge is not technologically inept. James Long said it best with his drivers license analogy.

The problem is that the judge in this case, William Dimitreoulous, was told by the Appeals Court to issue the injunction. The Appeals Court found that Dish Network systematically violated the law, with a pattern or practice of willful infringment, and by following the law, the only penalty that could be given was "the death penalty".

If anything, Dish Network's legal team was so inept (and yes, by association, Dish Network was inept) that they went down the wrong road with no way to turn the car around. Dish Network chose to appeal the last ruling in 2003, and they waited three years before trying to settle. If Dish Network settled in 2003, there would not have been a cut-off. Instead, Dish Network waited to settle until their backs were against a wall, and it was too late.

Remember, there is a large reason why this injunction is occurring: of the data presented to the courts, Dish Network was found to have 20 percent of the people they reported to the court as illegal distant network subscribers. It is this 20 percent number that caused the death penalty. The other issue here is that only the subscribers that Dish Network "qualified" were presented to the court.

Dish Network did not present the subscribers they believed to be grandfathered, or those that had waivers. The problem here is that Dish Network also never presented the court a list with the qualifying data of those that had waivers or were grandfathered, so those customers were also deemed illegal.

The legal team, probably with direction from Dish Network, were so constrained by this that the court really had no other choice than to issue the injunction. Dish Network thought they could buy their way out of it, but by making the case go through the appeals process absolutely sealed their fate.


----------



## kstuart

No word yet from Dish - not even a PR.

I suppose that means that no one has met until this morning, and that they are still discussing their options.

It's interesting that none of the Stock News services has reported this - the Forums are the only ones who have noticed it - I would guess James was the first person to report it. A "scoop" for DBSTalk !


----------



## techreporter

Greetings, 
In light of Friday's ruling, I'm looking to speak with users of distant network signals, preferably in Colorado or other Rocky Mountain states, for a story in Tuesday's Denver Post. What do you plan to do?

Thanks, 
Kimberly Johnson 
Business Reporter 
The Denver Post
[email protected]


----------



## odbrv

I am not asking Congress to save the Dish network. I am asking Congress to save the innocent who are getting the shaft. At least one Congressman agrees that the injunction is going too far and that something should be done to protect the Dish subscrbers who will bear the brunt of this injunction. Maybe you can start thinking how to help the innocent, also. Maybe the death penalty was not sufficient. Maybe Dish should be required to buy back all the equipment from the subscribers they shut off from Distants and pay the cost to buy equivalent equipment from Direct TV. Now there is a true penalty to hurt Dish and help the effected subscribers. Maybe ,Greg should lead the class action case.


----------



## joblo

Wow, go away for a few days and look what happens…

I have to say I'm surprised that the judge ruled this way. But as a previous poster noted, I think his personal sentiments were revealed in the second footnote of the explanation. It seems he’s just had enough of this case.

Please note that the word "distant" appears nowhere in the judge's order. The order strips E* of the right to transmit any ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC stations using the statutory license of 17USC119, period.

In addition to analog DNS, SHVERA added the following to 17USC119 in 2004:

-- SV (17USC119(a)(3))
-- Low power local-into-local (17USC119(a)(15))
-- Digital DNS (numerous references throughout)
-- Certain in-state out-of-market stations, including WMUR in northern NH, Burlington stations in southern VT, and Jackson stations in two counties of southwest MS (17USC119(a)(2)(C))

I suppose one could argue that the injunction applies only to 17USC119 as it existed at the time of suit, and I'm sure E* and the affiliates will appeal on other grounds anyway, but if the order stands as written, it would certainly seem to go beyond just analog DNS.

Although I'm still fairly confident that E* and the affiliates will ultimately prevail in Congress, if not on appeal in the courts, a 1998-99 type outage seems increasingly likely.


----------



## joblo

techreporter said:


> Greetings,
> In light of Friday's ruling, I'm looking to speak with users of distant network signals, preferably in Colorado or other Rocky Mountain states, for a story in Tuesday's Denver Post. What do you plan to do?


I stated in a previous thread that I would first drop locals and later drop E* altogether if this suit caused me to lose distants. Because D* does not provide locals to my service address, I could still get distants from them.

But that was before the affiliates agreed to settle and Fox filed its motion, which, according to the judge, was superfluous, anyway. Under the circumstances, I just can't see giving my business to D*, which is a sister company to Fox.

So I will instead rely initially on grey-market service from Canada, and if it becomes clear that E* will lose and never regain DNS, I will probably join those using fictitious addresses for service from E*. First, I'll move my current subscription to New York, and later I may add additional service in other time zones once it becomes clear whether and what digital and analog services remain available via CONUS transponders.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## harsh

neljtorres said:


> This means for all of us that have Distant Networks were doomed.


More specifically, those who are entitled to DNS are hurt. The fact that there are a substantial number who are not eligible for DNS is why E* is in this pickle.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> There are two liquor stores in town.
> One sells to minors and other violations of the law.
> The other works within the law.


Think of it this way:

The Gummint goes after one liquor store but doesn't go after the other store because the other store has a published "no sales to minors policy". I question whether the investigation was blind to the D* side. We all know someone on the other side of our fence that is a "mover" or otherwise not entitled to the programming that they get.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> The Gummint goes after one liquor store but doesn't go after the other store because the other store has a published "no sales to minors policy". I question whether the investigation was blind to the D* side. We all know someone on the other side of our fence that is a "mover" or otherwise not entitled to the programming that they get.


This case isn't about a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people who lie to their satellite carrier to get distants. This case is about hundreds of thousands of customers E* knowingly provided distants to at "service addresses" that did not qualify. E*'s records were enough proof without looking in to whether or not those customers were at the addresses they provided.

It's not about movers ...


----------



## James Long

This was filed before the injuction, and mentioned in the last thread on this issue, but it appears that the Supreme Court appeal of the 11th Circuit action that mandated the injunction is on track.No. 06-545 Title: Echostar Communications Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Fox Broadcasting Company, et al.
Docketed: October 20, 2006

Oct 17 2006 - Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2006)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/06-545.htm​I was not able to find the full text of the petition.

PS: I like how this case is now "E* vs Fox" not CBS Broadcasting et al. vs E*. 
Shows a little attitude on the part of the lawyers to move the plantiffs around.

If anyone finds the full text, please link.


----------



## Tower Guy

techreporter said:


> Greetings,
> In light of Friday's ruling, I'm looking to speak with users of distant network signals, preferably in Colorado or other Rocky Mountain states, for a story in Tuesday's Denver Post. What do you plan to do?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kimberly Johnson
> Business Reporter
> The Denver Post
> [email protected]


All of Colorado can get their local affiliates on Echostar without the use of the distant network signal license.
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/19
The closest TV markets without locals are in Nebraska and Montana.
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/


----------



## Tower Guy

kstuart said:


> No word yet from Dish - not even a PR.


Finally: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=919986&highlight=


----------



## Darkman

Tower Guy said:


> Finally: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=919986&highlight=


EchoStar Statement in Response to Florida Court Ruling

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 23, 2006--EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) issued the following statement in response to the injunction issued on Friday by a U.S. district court in Miami:

"Over the nine year course of the litigation, EchoStar was able to reach settlements with seven of the eight plaintiffs, representing approximately 90 percent of all television network stations in the United States. We are disappointed the judge concluded that given the statutory language he was required to ignore those settlements and impose the injunction.

EchoStar will continue to do everything possible to prevent consumers from losing their distant network channels. We will ask Congress to clarify the statutory language, and ask the courts to re-consider their decision. In addition, we are taking numerous steps to protect our customers from unnecessarily losing access to those channels.

EchoStar has over 12.46 million subscribers, less than one million of whom subscribe to distant network channels. Federal law prohibits all satellite and cable companies from providing these channels to consumers except in very limited circumstances. EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 175 markets, serving over 95 percent of the U.S. population. These local networks are not part of the court injunction; therefore, a majority of our distant network customers will be able to watch their local network channels without interruption. In the limited areas where local channels are not available by satellite, we also intend to protect our customers by providing free off-air antennas and other alternatives.

Distant network channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast channels that originate from a market outside the community in which a subscriber lives. The ruling does not involve, and there is no danger, that DISH Network customers will lose their local ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox network channels, or any of the other great programming available from EchoStar's DISH Network."

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

CONTACT: EchoStar Communications Corporation
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351
[email protected]

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation


----------



## Badger

Tower Guy said:


> All of Colorado can get their local affiliates on Echostar without the use of the distant network signal license.
> http://ekb.dbstalk.com/19
> The closest TV markets without locals are in Nebraska and Montana.
> http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/


Kimberley I would say the first thing you should ask of Colorado Dish customers is "are you receiving Distant Networks via Echostar?". If their answer is yes then next question, "did they know that this is not legal by federal law". It seems that all Colorado Dish customer CAN receive there locals therefore none qualify by law for Distant Networks. Then seeing as Echostar (Dish) is headquartered in Colorado contact them and see if they will tell you how many in Colorado were receiving Distants via them. I doubt you will get a real answer. It will be interesting to see what information you get and how you report it.


----------



## Darkman

Tower Guy said:


> Finally: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=919986&highlight=


They have now an updated News Release there also:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=920017&highlight=

CORRECTING and REPLACING EchoStar Statement in Response to Florida Court Ruling

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 23, 2006--In BW6303 issued Oct. 23, 2006: fourth graph, third sentence should read: EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. (Sted 175 markets and 95 percent).

The corrected release reads:

ECHOSTAR STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO FLORIDA COURT RULING

EchoStar Communications Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) issued the following statement in response to the injunction issued on Friday by a U.S. district court in Miami:

"Over the nine year course of the litigation, EchoStar was able to reach settlements with seven of the eight plaintiffs, representing approximately 90 percent of all television network stations in the United States. We are disappointed the judge concluded that given the statutory language he was required to ignore those settlements and impose the injunction.

EchoStar will continue to do everything possible to prevent consumers from losing their distant network channels. We will ask Congress to clarify the statutory language, and ask the courts to re-consider their decision. In addition, we are taking numerous steps to protect our customers from unnecessarily losing access to those channels.

EchoStar has over 12.46 million subscribers, less than one million of whom subscribe to distant network channels. Federal law prohibits all satellite and cable companies from providing these channels to consumers except in very limited circumstances. EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. These local networks are not part of the court injunction; therefore, a majority of our distant network customers will be able to watch their local network channels without interruption. In the limited areas where local channels are not available by satellite, we also intend to protect our customers by providing free off-air antennas and other alternatives.

Distant network channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast channels that originate from a market outside the community in which a subscriber lives. The ruling does not involve, and there is no danger, that DISH Network customers will lose their local ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox network channels, or any of the other great programming available from EchoStar's DISH Network."

About EchoStar

EchoStar Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: DISH) serves more than 12.46 million satellite TV customers through its DISH Network(TM), the fastest growing U.S. provider of advanced digital television services in the last five years. DISH Network offers hundreds of video and audio channels, Interactive TV, HDTV, sports and international programming, together with professional installation and 24-hour customer service.

CONTACT: EchoStar Communications Corporation 
Kathie Gonzalez, 720-514-5351 
[email protected]

SOURCE: EchoStar Communications Corporation


----------



## Darkman

Darkman said:


> ENGLEWOOD, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 23, 2006--In BW6303 issued Oct. 23, 2006: fourth graph, third sentence should read: EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. (Sted 175 markets and 95 percent).


That's more like it!

Nice to be accurate, lol


----------



## James Long

Nice polite news release. Optimistic and clarifying.


----------



## odbrv

Badger said:


> Kimberley I would say the first thing you should ask of Colorado Dish customers is "are you receiving Distant Networks via Echostar?". If their answer is yes then next question, "did they know that this is not legal by federal law". It seems that all Colorado Dish customer CAN receive there locals therefore none qualify by law for Distant Networks. Then seeing as Echostar (Dish) is headquartered in Colorado contact them and see if they will tell you how many in Colorado were receiving Distants via them. I doubt you will get a real answer. It will be interesting to see what information you get and how you report it.


You are wrong. There are many subscribers who were grandfathered by previous law to get distants. This new injunction throws out all waivers and grandfathering.


----------



## Darkman

Business Brief -- EchoStar Communications Corp.: Judge Bars Distant Beaming Of Local Network Programs ( http://www.mediainfocenter.org/story.asp?story_id=99425440 )

EchoStar vows to fight injunction ( http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/10/23/daily5.html?from_rss=1 )

EchoStar Faces Cutoff Order ( http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003286880 )


----------



## Badger

Darkman said:


> They have now an updated News Release there also:
> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=920017&highlight=
> 
> EchoStar has over 12.46 million subscribers, less than one million of whom subscribe to distant network channels. Federal law prohibits all satellite and cable companies from providing these channels to consumers except in very limited circumstances. EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. These local networks are not part of the court injunction; therefore, a majority of our distant network customers will be able to watch their local network channels without interruption. In the limited areas where local channels are not available by satellite, we also intend to protect our customers by providing free off-air antennas and other alternatives.
> 
> I find this part of this paragraph very interesting!
> 
> "therefore, a majority or our DISTANT NETWORK customers will be able to watch their LOCAL channels without interuption"
> 
> My interpertation of this is they know (and have known) that a majority of their Distant Network customers have been and are able to receive their Local channels. Seems like they are incriminating themselves.


----------



## James Long

From the Denver Business Journal Article:
"Shares of EchoStar closed at $34.73 Monday -- up 81 cents."


----------



## James Long

Badger said:


> My interpertation of this is they know (and have known) that a majority of their Distant Network customers have been and are able to receive their Local channels. Seems like they are incriminating themselves.


Until December 2004 it was perfectly LEGAL to have distants even though your in market LILs were available. After December 2004 it was perfectly LEGAL to keep distants as long as you had them before LIL was offered in your market or before December 2004. There are a lot of E* customers with legal distants.

The comment about local channels was to help with the confusion that all network stations might be pulled. People need to know what these stations are. They are not your local LIL stations - they are out of market stations from major cities.


----------



## Tower Guy

odbrv said:


> You are wrong. There are many subscribers who were grandfathered by previous law to get distants. This new injunction throws out all waivers and grandfathering.


That's assuming that they obeyed the previous law(s), which the injunction said was NOT done. This implies that the court found that many of those with Grandfather status should never had been given the distant stations in the first place, so the Grandfather status would be invalid.


----------



## tampa8

I am amazed there are still some, who after the hundreds and hundreds of posts on this subject still don't understand and I guess won't take the time to understand, will just post wrong info. (not referring to Tower Guy's post above - he makes a point)

It is entirely possible, and even probable that the vast majority of those now receiving locals and distants are doing so completly legally. What is so hard to understand about that?? If they lived in a white area and had distants before locals were available from Dish, they were allowed to keep the distants when Dish provided their locals, and were allowed to keep both - all allowed under the law. Still more have waivers that allow for the distants. There some, including a moderator at another site who keep saying that if the locals are provided then you should not get distants because distants were meant only if you had no locals available. That is not what the law says as I stated above. There are exceptions. I don't know how many are getting them that should not be as Tower Guy points out, apparently enough that Dish (and some subscribers) must now pay the price. But It seems the Court only looked at what happened before Dish did the requalifying, not at the current practices.


----------



## Badger

odbrv said:


> You are wrong. There are many subscribers who were grandfathered by previous law to get distants. This new injunction throws out all waivers and grandfathering.


Assuming you are correct it still means that all Colorado E* customers can receive locals so therefore they really didn't lose anything but the ability to timeshift which they can do with a DVR. No big deal! I feel for the folks that are legal by todays standards and are losing their DN's on E*. But I guess if their legal they have at least one other option for DN's .


----------



## kstuart

tampa8 said:


> I am amazed there are still some, who after the hundreds and hundreds of posts on this subject still don't understand and I guess won't take the time to understand, will just post wrong info. (not referring to Tower Guy's post above - he makes a point)


My observation over the years is that less than 10% read any posts in a thread other than the first one, prior to writing.

Many times I have seen people post questions that were answered in the post right above theirs ! :nono2:



> From the Denver Business Journal Article:
> "Shares of EchoStar closed at $34.73 Monday -- up 81 cents."


There was no word from DISH or anyone else until after the close of the market. The stock is down almost 1% in afterhours trading.


----------



## James Long

Right now there is a lot of confusion ... the best E* can do is say what they said in their press release: fear not. That will work for a couple of weeks. And then customers will want to know the specific plan for _their_ situation.


----------



## rtd2

James Long said:


> Right now there is a lot of confusion ... the best E* can do is say what they said in their press release: fear not. That will work for a couple of weeks. And then customers will want to know the specific plan for _their_ situation.


No fear here! as I stated before I wont drop dish over this at all ..as I said earlier I have 4 feeds PER network (2each on dish and 2 each on cable) Thats ALOT of choices for ABC,CBS,FAX AND NBC...I like the fact I can watch East and west feeds or locals but if They cut the distants so what...I will get me an OTA HD antenna. thanks for the update. I look for sih to make a BIG push for the final 4% of the National local market


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## boylehome

This is germane to the SHEVA issues at hand. Now that 800,000 plus customers face losing DNS as a result of the Federal Courts rulings, perhaps it is time to plan for the future now. We can tip our hats to NAB for their success in their efforts. Since it is so important that we be restricted to our DMA via Local into Local with uncertainty to some DMA having all available affiliate networks, the affiliates now should help ensure that those in the white areas or grade B areas benefit by getting their channels terrestrially. The affiliate TV stations need to construct and strategically place translators at sites that will provide their channels to those who reside within their DMA to eliminate all white zones. The translators need to do analog and digital, and if the TV station has HD, the translators needs to be capable of rebroadcasting the HD signal and its content. 

A great onus was placed on satellite providers by having to supply local into local, now it is time for the NAB to proactively supply terrestrial signals by logical means. A person shouldn't have to pay for the satellite local into local service as it should be free to them via the airwaves as the Government intends. The whole idea is for the local station to generate revenue via their local market.

Once analog is switched off, there will be a great amount of bandwidth available. The FCC wants to allow use of the freed bandwidth to anyone for different technologies as long as it doesn't interfere with the TV stations signals. This tells me that there could be many translators put to use in strategic locations to guarantee that everyone within the markets receive all affiliate network TV stations.

I'm sure that this would be quite an expense but such is life, and turn about is fair play.


----------



## moonman

From Skyreport......
-------------
Distant Net Fallout at DISH 
By now the news that EchoStar has lost its "distant signals" case has rippled throughout the satellite TV pond, but what remains in the recent decision's wake may be what really leaves the company and its subs wet behind the ears. Beginning Dec. 1, approximately 800,000 DISH subscribers, or about seven percent of the company's entire customer base, will be impacted by U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas' decision in Fort Lauderdale late last week. 

What's important to realize about the injunction, said Bernstein Research's Craig Moffett, is the ruling applies to both subs receiving the distant nets illegally and legally. Dimitrouleas' decision rejects a previous settlement between EchoStar and broadcasters, and by doing so has indicated that the company's repeated violations of the distant net laws require the revocation of all rights to offer the signals. Basically what the judge has done is to say it doesn't matter that EchoStar reached an agreement with the broadcasters, only that the company has openly violated the law, he said. 

"Over the nine year course of the litigation, EchoStar was able to reach settlements with seven of the eight plaintiffs, representing approximately 90 percent of all television network stations in the United States," EchoStar said in a statement. "We are disappointed the judge concluded that given the statutory language he was required to ignore those settlements and impose the injunction." 

Moffett said barring a stay from the Supreme Court, or an "improbable" intervention from Congress, there will be two likely results: a loss of revenue and increase risk of churn. 

"The lost revenue associated with the distant signals package (is) approximately $50 million per year ($5 per month per subscriber)," the analyst said. And the risk of higher churn becomes a looming reality as customers turn to their alternative options for pay TV - namely "cable, using an over-the-air antenna, or DIRECTV. If a quarter of the customers (i.e. 200,000) were to leave over the next six months, the impact would amount to approximately 25 bps of additional churn monthly." 

Moffett also said DIRECTV is likely to be the biggest beneficiary since the customers that are affected are "overwhelmingly rural" where in most cases, cable is not an option. 

The analyst did say, however, that it is not certain customers will abandon DISH. "Ironically, it is the legal distant signals customers who are most at risk since the channels they lose will be legally available from competitors," Moffett said. "For the illegal customers, there is likely no benefit to going somewhere else since the illegal channels won't be available elsewhere, either."


----------



## kenglish

What is so wrong with getting your closest L-I-L market? That should be the most logical solution, and is probably OK under the current laws.

In some instances, the nearest L-I-L market might not be in your home state, which would make a difference in some of your news coverage (you might prefer to keep tabs on your own state's politics), so there might be some exceptions there. Time zones could complicate matters in a few instances, too.

White Area service was invented long before the technology was available to do L-I-L in to the majority of DMAs. It was a stop-gap measure, meant to help a minority of people. It became a monster when too many people wanted to abuse it, and certain providers "helped" them.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## joblo

kenglish said:


> What is so wrong with getting your closest L-I-L market? That should be the most logical solution, and is probably OK under the current laws.


Ken, the law does not recognize your "closest" L-I-L market.

There is your actual market, that is, the one in which you receive service, hence the term _Local-Into-Local_, for which a statutory license is provided in 17USC122; and then, there is everything else, otherwise known as "distant" service, which is licensed in 17USC119, and hence covered by the injunction.

Now, Ken, you know this, you work at a television station in one of those multi-state multi-time-zone DMAs, after all; so why do you continue feigning ignorance?


----------



## JohnH

Sounds like Cable Rules to me.


----------



## James Long

We NEED cable rules applied to satellite. They are much more permissive as to what can be carried.


----------



## boylehome

minnow said:


> And while I agree with your statements 100%, if anyone actually thinks that would happen, their previous job was keeping snowballs from melting in hell.


While your analogy is sound, it is still a worthy effort. Congress could enact a new bill titled, "Quality Terrestrial TV Reception - QTTVR" This time the Satellite Providers could lobby with congress opposed to the NAB. Oh, we know that the NAB would fully support the bill.


----------



## Darkman

EchoStar hit with ruling:
http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5088598,00.html

Judge Rejects DISH Network TV Settlements :
http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=76316

EchoStar Responds to Fox Ruling:
http://www.betanews.com/article/EchoStar_Responds_to_Fox_Ruling/1161709085


----------



## rebkell

James Long said:


> We NEED cable rules applied to satellite. They are much more permissive as to what can be carried.


yes, I would like some of the same options myself, I am one of the early grandfathered subs, wondering what's going to happen to me on Dec. 1, but anyway, I'm located about midways between Knoxville and Chattanooga, the cable offers ABC, CBS, and NBC from both Knoxville and Chattanooga, and the CW and Fox stations from the Chattanooga area, and two separate PBS stations.

I'm not eligible for any of the Knoxville stations on either Dish for Direct, I would think that the Knoxville stations should qualify on one of the satellite outfits, but we've never had any chance to get any of the Knoxville stations, ever.


----------



## jimb

joblo said:


> Wow, go away for a few days and look what happens&#8230;
> 
> I have to say I'm surprised that the judge ruled this way. But as a previous poster noted, I think his personal sentiments were revealed in the second footnote of the explanation. It seems he's just had enough of this case.


Or maybe the judge has a bunch of D* stock? Wouldn't that be a nice conflict of interest :lol:


----------



## Marvin

I was going to say I know a few people around here with Dish who are going to be pretty unpleased about the situation. Neither sat company offers locals here and you can only get CBS and ABC OTA (although with a digital tuner you can get FOX and CW). But there is no NBC affiliate at all. Through Directv I get NBC and FOX from NY. I know I would legitamitely be ticked off if I had them both shut off. Maybe I can make a few referals to D* and get some money for myself as a part of their referal program..heh heh..


----------



## rid0617

Instead of paying anything to E and putting up with this garbage go FTA. You can get a fixed 30 inch dish and receiver and receive over 30 distant channels no charge and perfectly legal. The link below shows the stations available on Galaxy 10. $180 roughly. If you want a motor so you can receive all of the satellites in the belt its about $300. I have the 30 inch dish, motor and standard LNB. I have over 400 channels in my receiver and get to watch TV from all over the world. You want to look at the 5 digit transponder frequencies. 4 digits are C band.

http://www.lyngsat.com/g10r.html


----------



## FTA Michael

Two major differences between Dish distant signals and FTA:

1) To get all four major networks, you need a C-band dish. Those big dishes take some real effort to get right, and there are a lot of places where they're not allowed.

2) The channels can and do change at any time. For a while, folks raved about the Alaskan network channels on C band, then they went scrambled. Other channels arrive and leave with warning.

The fact is that when FTA viewers watch distant OTA stations, they're eavesdropping. Those stations are just beaming their signal to cable systems and other legitimate users. There's lots of good stuff available, but you can't count on any given station or network to always be there for you. But it is free. 

For a friendlier list of Ku-band FTA channels on Galaxy 10R, check here: http://www.ftalist.com/g10r.htm Or for the list of all of the Ku-band English-language channels that are available across the North American sky, go here: http://www.ftalist.com/English.htm


----------



## Darkman

EchoStar to seek help in Congress
http://insidedenver.com/drmn/tech/article/0,2777,DRMN_23910_5091058,00.html

Colorado's EchoStar/DISH Network won't give up the fight 
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?...MPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

EchoStar Faces Cutoff Order
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/cabletv/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003286880


----------



## UTFAN

boylehome said:


> This is germane to the SHEVA issues at hand. Now that 800,000 plus customers face losing DNS as a result of the Federal Courts rulings, perhaps it is time to plan for the future now. We can tip our hats to NAB for their success in their efforts. Since it is so important that we be restricted to our DMA via Local into Local with uncertainty to some DMA having all available affiliate networks, the affiliates now should help ensure that those in the white areas or grade B areas benefit by getting their channels terrestrially. The affiliate TV stations need to construct and strategically place translators at sites that will provide their channels to those who reside within their DMA to eliminate all white zones. The translators need to do analog and digital, and if the TV station has HD, the translators needs to be capable of rebroadcasting the HD signal and its content.
> 
> A great onus was placed on satellite providers by having to supply local into local, now it is time for the NAB to proactively supply terrestrial signals by logical means. A person shouldn't have to pay for the satellite local into local service as it should be free to them via the airwaves as the Government intends. The whole idea is for the local station to generate revenue via their local market.
> 
> Once analog is switched off, there will be a great amount of bandwidth available. The FCC wants to allow use of the freed bandwidth to anyone for different technologies as long as it doesn't interfere with the TV stations signals. This tells me that there could be many translators put to use in strategic locations to guarantee that everyone within the markets receive all affiliate network TV stations.
> 
> I'm sure that this would be quite an expense but such is life, and turn about is fair play.


And they most assuredly aren't "good luck"


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## oldave

IANAL... nor do I play one anywhere. But, of course, I'm going to expound anyway 

17USC119, in para (2), seems to grant the statutory license "if the secondary transmission is made by a satellite carrier to the public for private home viewing, and the carrier makes a direct or indirect charge for such retransmission service to each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission."

Note the "direct or indirect charge."

If E* were to work a deal to pay the networks and not charge customers, it would *appear* that 17USC119 would not apply.

Even if it were not to apply, obviously that wouldn't be a great business decision, but is it possible to do something like that short term while changes in the law are sought?

For that matter, is it possible to work out retransmission rights with the networks that then would not be subject to the provisions of 119? In other words, what's to stop E* from working out contracts outside that particular section?


----------



## Greg Bimson

oldave said:


> For that matter, is it possible to work out retransmission rights with the networks that then would not be subject to the provisions of 119? In other words, what's to stop E* from working out contracts outside that particular section?


Nothing.

What would have to happen is that the network affiliates would need to do a lot of work to clear the copyrights upstream. For example, WABC would have to:

1) clear the copyrights of all ABC programming and the ABC network would have to provide a list of areas where the programming would be available.
2) clear the copyrights of all syndicated programming (such as Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune), and those copyright holders would have to provide a list of areas where their programming could be available.
3) clear the copyrights (if any) for all local commercials and determine to which areas they can be shown
4) clear any copyrights for all programming originated by WABC where there is contracted footage (such as newscasts), and each copyright holder would determine the areas in which it could be shown.

See the problem? It is because each copyright holder can determine where WABC is available that would cause lapses in coverage, because each copyright holder won't give the exact same areas the ability to see certain shows.


----------



## oldave

For an O&O, obviously clearing the network programming would be a non-issue.

I realize the "national" clearance issues, as well... obviously the whole magilla would be a lot easier under 119.

It's a lot of work for 800K potential viewers, granted, and hardly worth it without E* ponying up some $$.

My point really is, this doesn't have to be the end of the world...


----------



## Greg Bimson

oldave said:


> For an O&O, obviously clearing the network programming would be a non-issue.


Actually, let's make an assumption here...

Say that the first run rights to network programming are given to the affiliates.

If that assumption is true, then two points are quite clear:

1) if you are served by local channels from your satellite provider, then you will not qualify for these cleared distants;
2) if you are not served by local channels from your satellite provider, then you will qualify for these cleared distants if you are outside of Grade B range.

Which means these new distants will only offered to a subset of the 5 percent of the households that do not have access to local channels.


oldave said:


> It's a lot of work for 800K potential viewers, granted, and hardly worth it without E* ponying up some $$.


And hence my point. There is no way a network will allow the numbers of potential viewers to be that high. It is the reason why the networks and the affiliate boards went to court in the first place.

Any deal made will definitely will only apply to those that truly need distants, not those that are grandfathered or have another option in their local channels.


----------



## boylehome

The networks O&O will be available to those within the networks O&O DMA. I live in a non network O&O DMA and begrudgingly expect to lose the network O&O channels. I get KCBS now. If I lived in Los Angles, then I would continue to get it. Could Like O&O's networks allow other DMA's with O&O networks to receive their channel as long as it follows the time zone rule?


----------



## Greg Bimson

Think of it this way...

At another board, there is a report from the Rocky Mountain News asking for Coloradans that subscribe to Dish Network and distant locals to be interviewed for the newspaper.

All of Colorado has access to local channels. No matter how the piece turns out, it won't look good. You'll hear people complain that they'll lose their distant channels, which would be important for timeshifting and alternative programming from other affiliates, when others will wonder how in the world they were able to receive this programming. You know, others like cable subscribers or Dish Network subscribers that weren't able to get distant networks will wonder what made these people so "special".


----------



## Greg Bimson

boylehome said:


> The networks O&O will be available to those within the networks O&O DMA. I live in a non network O&O DMA and begrudgingly expect to lose the network O&O channels. I get KCBS now. If I lived in Los Angles, then I would continue to get it. Could Like O&O's networks allow other DMA's with O&O networks to receive their channel as long as it follows the time zone rule?


Your example looks exactly like way the CBS HD feed is distributed on Dish Network. And O&O networks could not allow anyone to receive the channel if they are using the 17 USC 119 license to distribute.

It completely depends upon how the copyrights are cleared. I fully believe all copyright clearances for network affiliate programming use the licenses granted by the SHVA or the successor legislation. Which means that until the networks clear their copyrights, there will not be any distant networks, analog or digital, available.

_Note: it is my opinion that the Dish Network - CBS HD agreement is only a blanket waiver under the SHVA and successor legislation. Therefore, it is my belief that the CBS HD feeds on Dish Network will also disappear on 1 December._


----------



## dbconsultant

Ok, now I'm getting confused. I live in Temecula and the locals we receive are out of Los Angeles (no OTA, we're out in the hills). Does this mean that because I don't live in LA that I will have no networks at all?:eek2:


----------



## Greg Bimson

Riverside County is in the Los Angeles DMA. If you are getting 25 or so local Los Angeles channels, then you will keep entirely what you already have.


----------



## dbconsultant

Greg Bimson said:


> Riverside County is in the Los Angeles DMA. If you are getting 25 or so local Los Angeles channels, then you will keep entirely what you already have.


Thank you!:grin:


----------



## kstuart

Greg Bimson said:


> At another board, there is a report from the Rocky Mountain News asking for Coloradans that subscribe to Dish Network and distant locals to be interviewed for the newspaper.


Read the whole thread if you are going to make an appearance of keeping up.

That post was on this board, previous page of this thread. 

PS Your posts read like you have a large short on DISH stock... and if you don't, all you are doing is free work for all those who do.... Which reminds of me of all those people who pay $20 to advertise someone else's company (by buying their T-shirts)...


----------



## Greg Bimson

kstuart said:


> Read the whole thread if you are going to make an appearance of keeping up.
> 
> That post was on this board, previous page of this thread.


And it was also on another board. However, I got the newspaper wrong, as it was the Denver Post.


> PS Your posts read like you have a large short on DISH stock... and if you don't, all you are doing is free work for all those who do.... Which reminds of me of all those people who pay $20 to advertise someone else's company (by buying their T-shirts)...


Hey, I'm just trying to be informative. You know, like when people's opinions are asked and a handful of people, including myself, realized when the Appeals Court mandated the injunction be issued and remanded the case back to District court to issue the injunction that the injunction was the only course the judge could take.

No, instead we have a ton of people that literally believed the settlement was a done deal, and that if there is an injunction, that it would only bar retransmissions against Fox Owned-and-operateds.

Instead, one must now find another way to criticize me.

The jist of what I said was correct. The fact that I got the newspaper wrong does not circumvent the issue.


----------



## Codeman00

James....I am totally confused here with all that I have read.. I want to know if I personally am going to lose my distant networks. You stated here that anyone that gets distants from Dish won't get them anymore.



James Long said:


> No Distants = No Distants regardless of waivers, RV exceptions, etc."


However, a friend and I talked to Dish a month ago (independently) and asked them how this judgement could affect me. They told me that I was unaffected by any of the court's ruling due to where I live (Jackson, TN). Is this true? Will I not be affected or will I lose my distant networks just like everyone else?

Currently, I cannot get NBC, or CBS from an antenna because the closest broadcast spot is from Memphis, 60 miles away---I'm in a White Area. I can get ABC and Fox thru antenna. Since I can't get NBC or CBS with an antenna, you're telling me that Dish can't offer me my channels anymore and that I have to go to cable to get them?


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## James Long

Unless E* gets the ruling overturned, they will not be able to sell distants to anyone - regardless of how worthy they are of receiving service.

All E* will be able to sell you are the local stations from within your own market (where available).


----------



## Link

James Long said:


> Unless E* gets the ruling overturned, they will not be able to sell distants to anyone - regardless of how worthy they are of receiving service.
> 
> All E* will be able to sell you are the local stations from within your own market (where available).


My parents live in a DMA with no local ABC affiliate. They get ABC from Chicago as do many of the subscribers in their area since that is the closest option for them. Because of this ruling, E* cannot offer that any longer--even to markets with missing network affiliates? I wouldn't think networks would want to lose viewers by not having an affiliate option in all DMAs.

I don't understand why E* just doesn't put an ABC station in the locals package like they did with WB/CW. Subcribers get a $1.00 local network credit for the missing affiliate but they have to pay $1.50 for a distant ABC therefore costing 50 cents more than others that have it in their locals package.

I assumed this was the whole reasoning to still have distants available was to provide them in markets with missing affiliates. Otherwise why are they even needed if no one qualifies for them any longer?


----------



## James Long

E* wants to offer them ... the example you gave is a perfect situation on why they are valuable. But they messed up (putting it lightly) and are now losing the ability to offer distants.

The fight isn't over, but the outcome is pretty much decided. E* needs to work something out before December 1st.


----------



## Tower Guy

Link said:


> My parents live in a DMA with no local ABC affiliate.................. Because of this ruling, E* cannot offer that any longer--even to markets with missing network affiliates?
> 
> I don't understand why E* just doesn't put an ABC station in the locals package like they did with WB/CW.


In many cases such as your parents, there is a nearby ABC station that is "significantly viewed" in that area. Assuming that the adjacent market has local into local service, the full implementation of the rules by E* would fill in most of those holes.


----------



## Codeman00

minnow said:


> What is the city of origin for your networks ? That will tell us if your getting distant feeds or just getting nets from your DMA or significantly viewed.


ABC and Fox are in my city...Jackson, TN. All other networks are out of Memphis which is one hour away. I can only get those networks if I had cable...they are not offered to me through Dish.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## Greg Bimson

"Today's Headlines" from satbiznews.com on Friday, 27 October:

ECHOSTAR STILL PONDERING DISTANT HD FATE



Codeman00 said:


> ABC and Fox are in my city...Jackson, TN. All other networks are out of Memphis which is one hour away. I can only get those networks if I had cable...they are not offered to me through Dish.


Codeman is in a world of trouble, just like minnow: Dish Network doesn't offer his local channels, and will no longer be able to retransmit distant networks. Therefore, no networks will come in for these people anymore.


----------



## bmanner

Codeman00 said:


> ABC and Fox are in my city...Jackson, TN. All other networks are out of Memphis which is one hour away. I can only get those networks if I had cable...they are not offered to me through Dish.


Codemann00,

I'm in the same boat. I'm in Milan and receive ABC, PBS, & FOX via antenna. However I receive the CBS HD feed from NY. If I loose that, I will look for other alternatives. I thought DISH was going to "turn up" the Memphis stations that were being broadcast in HD soon? Not sure if this would be considered "distant" for us?


----------



## scooper

Codeman will either have to switch to Direct, erect a large OTA antenna, or do some business with the local cable company. He could just drop Dish and do the cable completely, or check if they offer a "lifeline" package that is mostly just the locals. I'm sorry - but that's the way the ball bounces for you.

It maybe the same story for others as well -


----------



## kstuart

Just remember that the legal process on this situation is not complete (assuming that Dish continues to appeal).

And, some Congressional reps have made noises about legislation to change the situation.

(Nothing new - both are in the thread further above.)


----------



## Tower Guy

Codeman00 said:


> ABC and Fox are in my city...Jackson, TN. All other networks are out of Memphis which is one hour away. I can only get those networks if I had cable...they are not offered to me through Dish.


Jackson is in Madison County, TN. Here is the FCC significantly viewed list:

WBBJ-TV, 7, Jackson, TN
+WJKT, 16, Jackson, TN (formerly WMTU)
WREG-TV, 3, Memphis, TN (formerly WREC)
WMC-TV, 5, Memphis, TN
WHBQ-TV, 13, Memphis, TN
+WPTY-TV, 24, Memphis, TN

Jackson is not a Local market for E*. There is a local ABC, Fox and PBS located in Jackson. The Significantly Viewed rules protect the Jackson ABC, FOX, and PBS stations but would allow WREG and WMC from Memphis.

The problem is that E* has not yet implemented Significantly Viewed in Jackson.


----------



## boylehome

I phoned E*. The voice tree has a distant network selection. The message is informative. It basically states that 12-01-06 anyone receiving network programming outside their DMA will lose those channels to Include; ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC. It did state that there are very, "rare exceptions" but stresses that those now receiving the networks (via DMA - assumed) are safe and will continue to receive them. By the time the legislators get some new law or amened the SHVERA, enough time will have passed for E* to get all DMA LiL working in HD.


----------



## toomuchtv

Codeman00 said:


> ABC and Fox are in my city...Jackson, TN. All other networks are out of Memphis which is one hour away. I can only get those networks if I had cable...they are not offered to me through Dish.


I'm in Lexington, so I'll have to go cable also. I would like to know if E* has any plans for Jackson. I'd be happy to take it IF I could get Memphis to fill in. Oh well, the basic pkg. w/ Charter is reasonably priced & it will include Nashville along w/ Memphis.


----------



## wrestler_498

hello I live in the Minot-Bismarck-Dickinson DMA, and i currently receive WFLD out of Chicago. but no distant CBS, since neither Fox nor CBS is available in my area is there anything i can do to at least receive either Fox or CBS? that is if the distant nets are taken off.


----------



## Codeman00

Wow..I'm amazed that 2 people are on this board that live close to me. I already have basic cable (in addition to Dish) which gives me the closest local networks so its not an issue of me actually losing my networks altogether. I just hate that I would lose the ability it DVR my network shows off of my 622 and I really hate that I will not be able to tune into my distant Fox or CBS of choice for NFL games. Add to that come NCAA tournament time, I have to watch the SEC games instead of my Big Ten games. This is really going to suck.


----------



## Darkman

Court Slams Dish Over Signal Imports

EchoStar Must Stop Selling Out-of-Area Big-4 Station Feeds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn 10/30/2006

Washington- EchoStar Communications has until Dec. 1 to stop selling out-of-market station feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming to 800,000 Dish Network subscribers scattered in markets around the country, according to a nationwide injunction handed down Oct. 20 by a U.S. District Court Judge in Florida...

... etc ...

Signal Spat

Key events in the dispute between EchoStar and broadcasters over distant network signals:

1998: Broadcasters sue EchoStar over distant network sales. 
1999: Congress allows DBS to offer local TV signals. 
May 2006: 11th Circuit orders distant-signal injunction. 
July 2006: Some House lawmakers urge private settlement. 
Aug 28: Settlement announced but excludes News Corp. 
Aug. 31: News Corp. urges lower court to reject settlement. 
Oct. 20, 2006: Judge impose nationwide injunction, effective Dec. 1. 
SOURCE: Multichannel News research

'CLEAR SETBACK'

"This is a clear setback for EchoStar. EchoStar's best hope now is that the appeals court will stay this Dec. 1 cutoff date and hear the appeal," said Paul Gallant, a media analyst with Stanford Washington Research Group...

... etc ...

NEWS CORP. OPPOSITION

News Corp. is expected to resist any attempt by EchoStar to relax the terms of the injunction...

... etc ...

POLS GET ACTIVE

On Capitol Hill, some lawmakers remain concerned about the fate of EchoStar customers who were eligible for distant network signals but were nevertheless cut off...

... etc ...

CBS HD IMPACT

Separately, EchoStar has a deal that allows it to offer the high definition feed of a CBS affiliate to any household within a market that includes a CBS-owned affiliate. But the injunction would doom that in about 20 major markets...

--
( The entire article (LONG) is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6386174.html )


----------



## kstuart

boylehome said:


> I phoned E*. The voice tree has a distant network selection. The message is informative. It basically states that 12-01-06 anyone receiving network programming outside their DMA will lose those channels to Include; ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC. It did state that there are very, "rare exceptions" but stresses that those now receiving the networks (via DMA - assumed) are safe and will continue to receive them. By the time the legislators get some new law or amened the SHVERA, enough time will have passed for E* to get all DMA LiL working in HD.


Yes, it is interesting that the recording has *no* mention whatsoever of anything like "we are trying to get the ruling reversed by legal or legislative means".

Instead, it just says that it is going to have to turn them off on December 1st.

It sounds like E* feels that there is little likelihood of getting any stay or reversal before December 1st, and that those who don't have LIL will still be around several months from now - if and when they get distants back.


----------



## cj9788

Funny how Newscorp's D* will directy benefit from this cut off.


----------



## tomdkat

Based upon a recent court ruling, on December 1st, 2006, there will be
some changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be
able to continue to receive your local networks and other great
programming that DISH Network currently provides. Unfortunately, we will
be no longer able to provide Distant Networks to customers regardless of
past qualifications.

Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX broadcast channels that
originate from a market outside the community in which our customers
live. Federal law prohibits all satellite and cable companies from
providing these channels to consumers except in very limited
circumstances.

The local ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX network programming in your market will
not be affected.

Our customer service representatives do not have any additional
information. Over the next few days, tune to channel 240 or visit
www.dishnetwork.com to learn more.

We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH
Network customer.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Darkman said:


> CBS HD IMPACT
> 
> Separately, EchoStar has a deal that allows it to offer the high definition feed of a CBS affiliate to any household within a market that includes a CBS-owned affiliate. But the injunction would doom that in about 20 major markets...


No analog NOR digital distants.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## keppra808

Hi i have a question i have both la and ny dns along with hawaii crappy local channels, and i live in hawaii. I called dish network recently and asked about the december 1st ruling, and they said i am not going to lose my distant network.

from this discussion i am alittle confused still and starting to understand that people with there regular market abc and nbc who does have fox or cbs in their local market area and has a distant network channel to substitute will be affected by this ruling is this correct or what.


----------



## scooper

If it is from another market - you will lose it. No way around it. Sorry.


----------



## TNGTony

Sorry Keppra808... The ruling affects ALLLLLL distant network channels for EVERYONE. The info you were given was from the failed settlement attempt.

Once again, ALL analog distant Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC stations that do not originate in your area (except for "significantly viewed" channels in the 6000 channel range) will be cut off on or before December 1, 2006. It doesn't matter who waives at you or whose grandfather you know or where you live or even if you are king of the known universe. The channels shown on channels 241-247 are gone December 1 (yes 8000-8003 and 8100-8103 too).

CBS HD is another story. Greg and other columnist say it will be cut off with absolutely nothing to back it up other than "the judge said CBS so he MUST have meant CBS HD too". I say it wont because the channel is made available though a contract between Dish and CBS and even if the Judge MEANT to say CBS HD too, it was never part of the suit in the first place.

See ya
Tony


----------



## JohnC

I keep reading posts from people considering switching to D*. This stinks because FOX aka D* is responsible for E* losing the distant networks. Every one agreed to the settlement except Fox owned and operated stations. Since D* and Fox are sister companies, it appears that this is a conflict of interest which should not be allowed by the regulatory agencies that allowed the owner of Fox to acquire control of D*.

However, if I did not have have all of the networks available with E*, I would have to consider the D* and cable options like many are. This is a really disgusting situation that has made me very angry at D*. I hope that somehow we do not lose our distant networks.


----------



## techgirl7

I guess it's a small consolation - but folks who live in areas where their networks can be pulled in on an off-air roof antenna, E* will be installing them for free. Think about it this way, it hurts E* much more than it does the subscribers individually for losing the ability to offer distant nets.


----------



## Tower Guy

JohnC said:


> I keep reading posts from people considering switching to D*. This stinks because FOX aka D* is responsible for E* losing the distant networks. Every one agreed to the settlement except Fox owned and operated stations. Since D* and Fox are sister companies, it appears that this is a conflict of interest which should not be allowed by the regulatory agencies that allowed the owner of Fox to acquire control of D*.


Are you saying that if any industry has only two players and one of the two breaks the law the other should be powerless to stop it?


----------



## JohnC

Tower Guy said:


> Are you saying that if any industry has only two players and one of the two breaks the law the other should be powerless to stop it?


I am saying that E* reached a settlement with all of the involved parties except the Fox owned and operated stations. The independent Fox stations all agreed to the settlement. When News Corp bought controling interest in D*, a huge concern was the influence that News Corp might be able to exert on E* through its Fox network and cable operations. This appears to be case here.


----------



## Greg Bimson

JohnC said:


> am saying that E* reached a settlement with all of the involved parties except the Fox owned and operated stations. The independent Fox stations all agreed to the settlement.


Okay. Let's go back to the timeline, then...

Dish Network was sued by the big four networks and their four affiliate boards in 1998.

After numerous appeals, the case was finally heard, and the verdict was in as of mid-2003. Dish Network would have been forced to requalify all their distant network subscribers.

Dish Network appealed the verdict to the Appeals Court in August, 2003, because they felt it was unjust. Subsequently, the network affiliate boards cross-appealed, because Dish Network would not settle and because they felt that a nationwide injunction should have been issued.

Then, in May, 2006, the Appeals Court handed a 3-0 decision, mandating that the lower District Court issue a nationwide and permanent injunction against Echostar barring use of the license granted in 17 USC 119. It is worth noting that the Appeals Court felt that Dish Network and their legal team were overzealous in their claims to the court.

Dish Network then appealed again to have the entire panel of jurists on the Eleventh Circuit Court listen to the arguments, which was subsequently refused in August, 2006.

Dish Network also appealed to the Supreme Court to have that court issue a stay in the injunction order handed by the Appeals Court. The Supreme Court then declined to issue the injunction in August, 2006.

Only after every appeal was practically exahusted, *eight-plus years* after the original court date, that Dish Network then decided to settle the lawsuit.

Nothing like trying to settle a lawsuit after the appeals process is practically over and you find yourself in a corner with your back against the wall. Especially when the "death penalty" is the mandated penalty a judge must issue for a pattern or practice of willful infringment.


----------



## Greg Bimson

TNGTony said:


> CBS HD is another story. Greg and other columnist say it will be cut off with absolutely nothing to back it up other than "the judge said CBS so he MUST have meant CBS HD too". I say it wont because the channel is made available though a contract between Dish and CBS and even if the Judge MEANT to say CBS HD too, it was never part of the suit in the first place.


I have nothing to back it up????

From the very first post of this topic, originally posted by James Long, without James' emphasis:


> ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
> THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is
> 
> ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively "Echostar"), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms "secondary transmission," "primary transmission," "primary network station," and "network station" shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.
> 
> DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2006.


The law contained in 17 USC 119 is for:
distant networks, both analog and digital;
trucker and RV waivers; and,
significantly-viewed channels.

If there is a belief that only the analog channels are going away, then everyone needs to reread the order.

There are too many people that believe the CBS HD feed is available to Dish Network through a contract. I am sure there is a contract, but if the contract states, "CBS hereby authorizes a waiver for the CBS network under 17 USC 119 for all viewers within range of only CBS-owned affiliates," then the agreement is using the license that will be terminated on 1 December. After all, if the agreement is a blanket waiver of the SHVIA/SHVERA, then of course the injunction will nullify the contract.


----------



## James Long

BTW - It wasn't my emphasis - it was the court's.


----------



## keppra808

i think we are going to be able to keep the distant, its just a process of step echostar has to go through. if echostar was sure enough that us distant subscribers would lose these channel, think about it, they would have to redo their website, they would have to take out do you qualify for distant channel on the website but they havent, i am in no worries right now, until that part of the page is redone.


----------



## Greg Bimson

keppra808 said:


> if echostar was sure enough that us distant subscribers would lose these channel, think about it, they would have to redo their website, they would have to take out do you qualify for distant channel on the website but they havent, i am in no worries right now, until that part of the page is redone.


Echostar does not have to do anything until 1 December, 2006. The belief that anything needs to change until the injunction takes effect is just hope.

I will state that if Dish Network can come to an agreement with the big four networks regarding network retransmissions into white areas, then there could be a possible work-around. But that work-around would only apply to people that truly qualify: those people in the 35 markets where Dish Network does not supply local channels and are truly in a white area. And if the networks are able to come to an agreement, it would probably only be for the network portion of the schedule for which the networks own the copyrights, such as the normal prime-time, nightly network news, the Saturday morning kids shows and the Sunday morning press shows. The sports shows on the networks would be gone, simply because the networks do not own the copyrights on any of it. So would the syndicated fare, such as Wheel of Fortune, ET, Oprah and the rest, as those are not owned by the network.


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## keppra808

The ruling does not affect Dish Network customers who receive local broadcast channels via satellite. In order to qualify for distant-network access, customers must typically be unable to receive local broadcast programming over the air. 


Does that mean i am not affected if i have the hawaii locals plus la and ny distant??


----------



## minnow

aa


----------



## keppra808

thats sucks ass, i hate the damn hawaii locals, i will kill myself if i have to hear to ****ting news, stupid football, and crappy delayed shows


----------



## keppra808

i miss california i wish i was back there


----------



## minnow

[a


----------



## Greg Bimson

minnow, keppra808 wouldn't qualify for distant locals now. DirecTV services Hawaii with the MPEG4 Spaceway satellites, so because locals are now offered in Hawaii, no one can receive distants as a new customer.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## James Long

Gentlemen - please remember that this is a family forum and watch your language.

Thanks.


----------



## cicijay

I received a call from Dish telling me that my distant networks would be shut off due to a court ruling on December 1st. I gave her a little bit of a hard time but she was very nice and tried to have a dish installed to get my locals that are now available. She obviously got the short end of a straw at work yesterday!


----------



## The Guv

If I lose my distant networks (NBC, ABC, CBS, both LA & NY, and my CBS HD AND if I am able to get distants (especially the west coast distant networks) from DIRECT TV, I will switch to Direct. Nuff' said.


----------



## James Long

Easy enough to check --- go to DirecTV's address broker. If there are locals for your area you won't get conflicting networks as distants. There are going to be a lot of people who wnon't be able to get distants from D* either.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Oh, I can make it even easier. If The Guv is not in the Quincy market, DirecTV has the rest of the Illinois local channels available. Therefore, only if The Guv lives in the Quincy market will he qualify for distant networks. Because DirecTV carries the rest of the markets in Illinois, DirecTV is prohibited from giving anyone in those markets distant network channels.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> Therefore, only if The Guv lives in the Quincy market will he qualify for distant networks.


With the additional restriction that he must get waivers from any network affiliates who allegedly reach his home with a Grade B signal for each network he wishes to view.


----------



## Larry Caldwell

I just wanted to make a comment about distant network feeds. I switched to locals as soon as they were available. The Dish CSR was surprised that I wanted to give up my grandfathered status, and warned me that I would not be able to get distants back. I couldn't wait to be rid of the east and west coast feeds, particularly the feed out of LA, which has to be the worst television in the USA. Every news show had some celebrity crap taking up air time, and they kept breaking into regular programming with news of some freeway chase. 

The East Coast feed was better, but only useful because I could record the programs three hours earlier. With a DVR, that is not really relevant. There's always something to watch on the hard drive, and it doesn't matter to me if I watch ER on Friday because I went to bed early Thursday night.

I suspect that the vast majority of Dish customers will be able to switch to their local feed, particularly since Dish is on a drive to finish their DMA coverage. 

The only people who will be really inconvenienced are RV owners who travel outside the coverage of their spot beam. Setting up a dish at every stop is a lot of work for very little return, since most RV parks have cable hookups available.


----------



## BobS

*What happens December 1st with reference to E*?

1. No DNS for anyone. (NY, LA, whatever)
2. No SV for anyone.
3. No distant "CBS-HD" for anyone.

Why?

All three of these services use the statutory license of 17 USC 119.

Why are my locals (LIL) not affected?

Because LIL uses the statutory license of 17 USC 122. Although if you read the section carefully:

17 USC 119(a)(7)(B)(i)

if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier, for private home viewing, of the primary transmissions of any primary network station affiliated with the same network.....

Note that it does not say that the injunction is to be limited to stations which used the 119 license. Taken at face value it bars LIL via the 122 license. However as a matter of statutory interpretation (122 enacted after 119, etc.), the injunction will not impact LIL.

Now can anybody provide an argument as to why this analysis is incorrect?*


----------



## Lou

If I don’t like my local Chevy dealer, I can buy my car anywhere else. If I want to know the news in another part of my country, there shouldn’t be laws making it difficult to do so. Yes I am fully aware of The System created in the stone-age… which television still live in. At the end of the day I continue to believe in freedom of choice and resent being told I am owned by a local television station, so on December 1st, I will boycott my local networks. I can still get all the local news & information I need outside the Big 4. 

For those switching to Direct TV, I suggest you reconsider and look to the North. Why would you want to reward those who did this to you?


----------



## Greg Bimson

From BobS' quote:


> Note that it does not say that the injunction is to be limited to stations which used the 119 license. Taken at face value it bars LIL via the 122 license. However as a matter of statutory interpretation (122 enacted after 119, etc.), the injunction will not impact LIL.
> 
> Now can anybody provide an argument as to why this analysis is incorrect?


Because the networks sued under the auspices of a violation of the license contained in 17 USC 119. What you have listed as the penalty is for violating the license in 17 USC 119. That does not impact anything in 122, as the violation is only for section 119.


Lou said:


> If I don't like my local Chevy dealer, I can buy my car anywhere else.


Yep. Or you can go straight to the manufacturer in some cases.


Lou said:


> If I want to know the news in another part of my country, there shouldn't be laws making it difficult to do so.


Hmm. Interesting. What law makes it difficult to do so?

I mean, if you want news in another part of the country, have you contacted the stations in the other part of the country you are interested in? After all, if you want a new Chevy, you go to an authorized Chevy dealer or the manufacturer. Why can't you go to the local station and buy their newscasts, or an authorized dealer of those stations? Could it be because those networks, in the network/affiliate relationship, do not have the right to resell the network programming to you?


Lou said:


> Yes I am fully aware of The System created in the stone-age&#8230; which television still live in. At the end of the day I continue to believe in freedom of choice and resent being told I am owned by a local television station, so on December 1st, I will boycott my local networks. I can still get all the local news & information I need outside the Big 4.


At least someone realizes that the issue with distant networks is truly because of the networks, and their business model.


Lou said:


> For those switching to Direct TV, I suggest you reconsider and look to the North. Why would you want to reward those who did this to you?


Uh, let's not start talking out of both sides of the mouth.

Unless people have forgotten, Dish Network lost the original suit in mid-2003. At that point, they could have decided to settle with the big four network affiliate boards, FOX network and CBS network. Instead, they insisted going to the Appeals Court.

The Appeals Court found that Dish Network violated the law blatantly; that Dish Network had a pattern or practice of willful infringment of the copyright law. Their decision was issued in May, 2006.

Dish Network then decided they'd appeal to the entire bench at the Appeals Court (called an _en banc_ request). The _en banc_ request was denied in July, 2006.

Dish Network then decided to appeal to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay in the injunction. That request was denied by Justice Thomas in early August, 2006.

Dish Network had no intention of settling the suit until they had no choice. Well, because of the process, it was too late to settle, and the injunction was issued. And surprisingly enough, the only true culprit here is Dish Network.

If you are to blame the networks for not allowing you to get out-of-market, distant networks, then you must blame Dish Network for putting everyone in danger of losing the distant networks they had. Dish Network's record-keeping was horrible; what they presented in court is downright criminal. Hence the reason the injunction was issued.


----------



## dlp85x

Well I guess E* has started to turn off distants ... I came home to find all of my distant networks gone from the program guide.  I had them earlier today. Oh well, they were good while I had them, my bill will be a tad bit cheaper now. I can't get them through D* since they carry my locals Anybody else notice theirs turned off? I just wish they would've waited until 12/1 per the injunction. Maybe they are starting to shut off those who already get locals now, and wait until 12/1 to shut off those with distants but no local package.


----------



## MikeW

Doesn't make any sense for them to have been shut down today. It's not like their actions now will have any effect on the injunction.


----------



## Chris Walker

The savemychannels.com website is back up and channel 240 has been updated. Everyone please go to savemychannels.com and fill out the form letter to inform your local congress and senate members about the threat of the distant network shutoff. Even if you don't recieve distant networks, this injunction affects distant HD and significantly viewed as well so most everyone will be impacted one way or the other.

You can also call 202-224-3121 and leave a message with your local representatives. Thanks to everyone who helps!


----------



## Greg Bimson

MikeW said:


> Doesn't make any sense for them to have been shut down today. It's not like their actions now will have any effect on the injunction.


Okay.

Imagine that on 1 Decmeber, Dish Network takes all distant networks from everyone. Also keep in mind that Dish Network's fourth quarter is usually pretty busy.

Can you imagine the 800,000 to 1 million subscribers calling up Dish Network on 1 December to find out what happened to their local channels? That kind of call volume would paralyze a call center.


----------



## dlp85x

MikeW said:


> Doesn't make any sense for them to have been shut down today. It's not like their actions now will have any effect on the injunction.


It doesn't. I guess that they are starting to gradually turn the distants off a little over a month in advance so they don't mess up their system (or overwhelm the CSRs, as explained before in this thread and others.) I knew something was up since I left my receiver on FOX-W (KTTV channel 248), and when I came home and turned on my TV, I saw a message stating the channel is a subscription channel and it isn't purchased. It isn't the same message you see if you try to tune in a non-purchased channel (such as for a higher programming package) ... it basically had the same message except the top of the 'box' was red, not grey and blue.

For those who still can tune in distants in the 240s and 8xxx channels, enjoy them while you can ... since its obvious the countdown to programming loss has already started. No more KTTV news at 1am ET or KNBC news at 2am for me anymore.


----------



## ggw2000

I just went to the above website and clicked on the "what's at stake" button. After reading about how "Charlie" singlehandedly got us through Katrina and 911 I almost had tears in my eyes. The only thing missing was a picture of him with a halo over his head  .
What I want to see is a picture of him being "booked" in handcuffs for continuously breaking the law that has caused those of us with LEGAL waivers being cutoff due to his arrogance and downright studidity!


----------



## Chris Walker

dlp85x said:


> Well I guess E* has started to turn off distants ... I came home to find all of my distant networks gone from the program guide.  I had them earlier today. Oh well, they were good while I had them, my bill will be a tad bit cheaper now. I can't get them through D* since they carry my locals Anybody else notice theirs turned off? I just wish they would've waited until 12/1 per the injunction. Maybe they are starting to shut off those who already get locals now, and wait until 12/1 to shut off those with distants but no local package.


I don't know why they would do that, call them and ask them if it was a mistake. Until 12/1 nothing should be cut off


----------



## Chris Walker

ggw2000 said:


> I just went to the above website and clicked on the "what's at stake" button. After reading about how "Charlie" singlehandedly got us through Katrina and 911 I almost had tears in my eyes. The only thing missing was a picture of him with a halo over his head  .
> What I want to see is a picture of him being "booked" in handcuffs for continuously breaking the law that has caused those of us with LEGAL waivers being cutoff due to his arrogance and downright studidity!


It's past the point of being angry at Charlie, we need to flood our representatives and get something done when they convene November 13th. I will repeat something I have said many times, if Charlie Ergen wasn't the CEO of Echostar, most of us would not have distants right now. He and Dish have fought harder than anyone would reasonably expect a company to fight to appease the 1 million of us that get these channels.


----------



## James Long

BTW: The next milestone for this case is at the Supreme Court.

Justice Thomas may have single handedly denied the stay of injuction, but the petition for a writ of certiorari remains filed. A response due November 20, 2006. Some time in the next three weeks the Supreme Court will decide whether (or not) to hear the appeal.


----------



## dlp85x

ggw2000 said:


> What I want to see is a picture of him being "booked" in handcuffs for continuously breaking the law that has caused those of us with LEGAL waivers being cutoff due to his arrogance and downright studidity!


What I really don't get is how E* should be 100% at fault for everything related to the injunction. Yes, I am sure there are probably a lot of instances where the CSR 'flipped the switch' by accident and turned on DNS to unqualified customers, and I know a few times in the past that E*'s website had a problem which allowed some people to get distants when they weren't qualified. But my whole point is that the local stations themselves are at fault too. I live under 30 miles away from my locals, and NBC & FOX (both network-owned) approved my waivers, before the 45 days were up on the waiver (so its clear they didn't ignore it and let it pass, it was a legal approval.) It is interesting since NewsCorp. owns my local FOX, and they approved my waiver only to turn around and not settle with E* while their own stations are blindly approving waivers for everybody.

What I'd like to see is some retribution for the local stations that approved customers who clearly shouldn't have received the distant networks given their close proximity to the station, like me. I'd not be surprised if the majority of E* viewers who (in News Corp. and other's eyes) "were wrongly qualified by E* in the first place" to get distant network stations received LEGAL approvals from their local stations in grade A coverage, or had a local who simply ignored the waiver during the 45-day period and let it automatically approve. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to have waiver approvals and enjoyed watching the distant channels, but if I shouldn't have gotten them in the first place (according to some people in past posts given how close I am to the locals), then maybe the local stations should be held accountable since they allowed me to get the distant signals, not E*. E* wouldn't give me the signals unless the locals approved it, since my address didn't automatically qualify in the address broker.

Maybe that's why FOX-owned stations (at least two of them, WTTG Washington & KRIV Houston) approved waivers for customers who live within the grade A signal coverage, and can obviously get a clear color picture OTA from their signal. Newscorp. probably knew that if these stations approved the customers that were too close to the station that E* would be at fault since they are the signal providers.



Chris Walker said:


> I don't know why they would do that, call them and ask them if it was a mistake. Until 12/1 nothing should be cut off


I will probably do so tomorrow morning if nobody else reports loss of programming. I surely won't lose anything I already lost. I could've just been the lucky person at the top of the 'shutoff' list. :nono:


----------



## James Long

dlp85x said:


> Maybe that's why FOX-owned stations (at least two of them, WTTG Washington & KRIV Houston) approved waivers for customers who live within the grade A signal coverage, and can obviously get a clear color picture OTA from their signal. Newscorp. probably knew that if these stations approved the customers that were too close to the station that E* would be at fault since they are the signal providers.


That is a ridiculous accusation. If E* had waivers they would NOT be in violation of the law for those customers.


----------



## dlp85x

I would like to add as of 10:23 PM, I am getting channels 240 and 250 with the title "INFO" showing information from E* about the channel shutoffs. Up until now (including earlier when I had the stations initially taken away) I haven't received either channels, although I know others has been receiving a channel (I think 240) showing the same info for a while now.


----------



## dlp85x

James Long said:


> That is a ridiculous accusation. If E* had waivers they would NOT be in violation of the law for those customers.


Well all I know is that KRIV approved a waiver for a friend of mine who lived in downtown Houston, in grade A signal coverage, and NBC & FOX in Washington approved me while I live within the same grade A signal contour. I also read in posts on this site a long time ago where a local FOX O&O station approved every waiver since the distant stations offered were co-owned by the network. I know I am considered to have the same waivers as someone in a true 'white area' since they were approved, I just meant that it would be easy for Newscorp. and others to say "Well customer X lives downtown, and he has distants and gets clear grade A reception of locals ... that is illegal." while ignoring the fact that me (and probably a lot others) are getting distants while living in grade A areas (who shouldn't be getting them according to the law) due to legal waiver approvals and grandfathering. I agree it is a ridiculous accusation (and probably not a good example to express my point), but it does seem odd that Newscorp. would not want to settle with E*, while their own stations were approving waivers to customers who shouldn't get them due to their location.


----------



## James Long

That's the whole point of tracking the waivers. So that if a station would try something that stupid they would be called on their lie. The simple answer is "we have waivers from your station for that customer".


BTW: Don't forget that this is the SECOND injunction that has been issued in this case. The first injunction was simple - a basic "E*, follow the law and stop providing distants to unqualified subscribers". E* failed to follow that injunction. READ the ruling that came along with this injunction - The court would have issued the injunction per the MANDATE from the appeals court regardless of if the parties settled or not and regardless of Fox's petition.

Don't try to blame Fox for not settling after it was too late. Blame E* for not settling before it was too late. Blame E* for not following the first injunction. Blame E* for not following the law.


----------



## dlp85x

James Long said:


> That's the whole point of tracking the waivers. So that if a station would try something that stupid they would be called on their lie. The simple answer is "we have waivers from your station for that customer".


You're right. What I'd like to know is how many customers E* gave DNS to (outside of the 'movers') that didn't get waivers approved or (like I said before) were able to get illegally them due to a website malfunction. They were sure to not allow me to get CBS & ABC DNS after my locals denied me!  I'm sure most of the DNS customers (well I hope) legally got waiver approvals like I did. I'll still give E* a call tomorrow morning unless others report DNS shutdowns, since the messages on channels 240/250 mention that 'we might have to remove DNS unless Congress steps in' ... it doesn't state that 'some of you might already have your signals taken away.'


----------



## Chris Walker

dlp85x said:


> I would like to add as of 10:23 PM, I am getting channels 240 and 250 with the title "INFO" showing information from E* about the channel shutoffs. Up until now (including earlier when I had the stations initially taken away) I haven't received either channels, although I know others has been receiving a channel (I think 240) showing the same info for a while now.


Yes this channel has been active since October 1st under the name of "Free Local Channel Preview Info", it was renamed "Distant Network Channels" tonight and the video loop changed.


----------



## Chris Walker

James Long said:


> BTW: The next milestone for this case is at the Supreme Court.
> 
> Justice Thomas may have single handedly denied the stay of injuction, but the petition for a writ of certiorari remains filed. A response due November 20, 2006. Some time in the next three weeks the Supreme Court will decide whether (or not) to hear the appeal.


James, didn't Thomas deny the stay BEFORE there was a settlement? I believe this was the case but I may be mistaken.


----------



## dlp85x

Chris Walker said:


> Yes this channel has been active since October 1st under the name of "Free Local Channel Preview Info", it was renamed "Distant Network Channels" tonight and the video loop changed.


Yep, its just for some reason my receiver wouldn't pick it up until at least an hour or two after my distants were shut off! Until now it went from 239 (WGN) to 242 (NBC-W).


----------



## Chris Walker

James Long said:


> That is a ridiculous accusation. If E* had waivers they would NOT be in violation of the law for those customers.


What confuses me is that during 2004 when I had my distant NBC shut off for a month before I got it back was that Dish had been requesting waivers from my local affiliates even though I already had them. I am not sure if this was just a backup waiver or what, but I saw the list online ("check my waiver status") of what had been done and FOX and CBS were shown as approved on Dish's first attempt, ABC was denied then approved a month later, and the NBC was denied 5 times before I recieved the letter from Dish that they could no longer provide NBC to me. It took me talking to the head engineer to get the waiver approved and get NBC back. It seems to me like Dish has been covering their butts going on at least 2 years now so for them to not have any evidence of people being eligible is mindboggling.


----------



## Chris Walker

dlp85x said:


> Yep, its just for some reason my receiver wouldn't pick it up until at least an hour or two after my distants were shut off! Until now it went from 239 (WGN) to 242 (NBC-W).


So you just had the LA distants I assume? That's odd they would turn them off without notice to you first. Even when I just had NBC turned off for a month in 2004, Dish sent me a certified letter 45 days in advance.


----------



## dlp85x

Chris Walker said:


> So you just had the LA distants I assume? That's odd they would turn them off without notice to you first. Even when I just had NBC turned off for a month in 2004, Dish sent me a certified letter 45 days in advance.


For NBC I just had LA (KNBC). For FOX I had all of them (NY, LA, Chicago, Denver, Atlanta...maybe thats why I get nothing now haha). There was a time a while back where the E* site allowed you to get all available stations per network, not just two. I only had one NBC since I requested LA only, and E*'s site wouldn't allow me to add a 2nd one as I explained before with their 'tech difficulty' message.


----------



## James Long

Chris Walker said:


> James, didn't Thomas deny the stay BEFORE there was a settlement? I believe this was the case but I may be mistaken.


Yes. When CA11 sent the mandate back to FLSD Echostar filed with the Supreme Court asking for a stay of injuction while they filed their writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas refused to stay the injunction, trusting that the lower courts had made the right decision.

Then the FLSD judge demanded E* show cause why an injunction not be issued.
In response to that Fox filed their petition asking for the injunction (unneeded) and E* settled with all other parties and tried to use that as their cause for not having an injunction issued. Time and court filings passed. Finally the FLSD court judge ruled on October 20th that he had no choice, regardless of settlement or Fox's petition - he had to follow the mandate.

So far no further filings have been seen in response to the injunction. The writ of certiorari filing at the Supreme Court was in response to the CA11 mandate, even though it wasn't filed until after the injunction was issued.


----------



## James Long

dlp85x said:


> There was a time a while back where the E* site allowed you to get all available stations per network, not just two.


BTW: That is illegal. Just one of the parts of the law E* was guilty of violating.


----------



## dlp85x

James Long said:


> BTW: That is illegal. Just one of the parts of the law E* was guilty of violating.


Yep. And I've had all 5 FOX stations at once (6 including my local FOX) for at least a year, and never once was I contacted by E* to drop 3 of them, even after I added NBC DNS to my account. Maybe they are going over their database and dropping those who have more than 2 of the same network first since its an obvious violation, which would explain me not having any DNS right now.


----------



## TNGTony

James Long said:


> BTW: That is illegal. Just one of the parts of the law E* was guilty of violating.


I though Dish stopped doing this when the SHVIA specifically barred more than two distants per net in 2000. The old SHVA had no such restrictions.

See ya
Tony


----------



## James Long

E* stopped doing a lot of things but apparently they let a few customers slip through the cracks. The last statistics we saw in the lawsuit was for 2002. I believe they have done much better with NEW customers since then but still did not clean up all of the old accounts.


----------



## Darkman

One positive thing might come out from this - TNGTony's channel chart might get somewhat smaller in size  (J/K)


----------



## James Long

Eight lines smaller for the distants (not counting the additional four channels broadcasting the "you are losing channels" video and the text on the home market channel numbers listing the channel as a distant). Not much of a savings there.

Adding the next 35 markets will take up space on the charts. About the only way the chart will get a great deal smaller will be with the loss of SV stations.


----------



## Link

I remember years ago when we used to have C-Band satellite we had the Primetime 24 channels and the Denver 5 networks. Every so often we'd get some notice saying one of our local stations was challenging us having one of the networks. We would just switch programming providers and then never have to deal with it. We never did lose them. We also paid for another east coast network package called the Netlink A3 that gave us WHDH Boston, WPLG Miami, and WUSA Washington DC. We liked having stations from different areas of the country and were willing to pay for them. Our local stations have always been poor pathetic stations so it was nice seeing what real TV stations were like!


----------



## minnow

James Long said:


> Eight lines smaller for the distants (not counting the additional four channels broadcasting the "you are losing channels" video and the text on the home market channel numbers listing the channel as a distant). Not much of a savings there.
> 
> Adding the next 35 markets will take up space on the charts. About the only way the chart will get a great deal smaller will be with the loss of SV stations.


I emailed [email protected] asking when they may have a date for bringing my locals to Dish. The reply I got was not at all encouraging stating that they had no date set. And my DMA has NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX/CW affiliates so it's as if they'd have to play the SV game either. I wasn't looking for an exact date, just an idea if they even have a plan but nothing. Kinda of sealed their fate with me as far as continuing my subscription with E*. When my distants go dark so does my E* service. 
So if E* has the same "plan" for the remaining unserved DMA's, Tony's list may in fact be getting smaller after all.


----------



## dishrich

Link said:


> I remember years ago when we used to have C-Band satellite we had the Primetime 24 channels and the Denver 5 networks...We also paid for another east coast network package called the Netlink A3 that gave us WHDH Boston, WPLG Miami, and WUSA Washington DC. We liked having stations from different areas of the country and were willing to pay for them.


Oh YEA, I had ALL of those packages on my BUD as well - THOSE were the days.   My favorites were the PT West nets, which was ABC-Seattle, CBS-San Fran & NBC-LA, not only for the time-shifting aspect, but I liked watching their news as well.
Actually, you CAN still get PT24 East & the "Denver 8" now on BUD, but you have to have a 4DTV to get either. (the Denver 8 includes TWO PBS's & the MyTV affiliates)


----------



## Tower Guy

Lou said:


> If I don't like my local Chevy dealer, I can buy my car anywhere else.


Perhaps you can.

But you have to physically go elsewhere to do business with another car dealer. Your local car dealer has the same kind of territorial franchise that a TV station has.

If you want TV from somewhere else, you should actually live there, eh?


----------



## dishrich

James Long said:


> Adding the next 35 markets will take up space on the charts. About the only way the chart will get a great deal smaller will be with the loss of SV stations.


Has anyone given any thought that since E* will NOT be able to do SV either, then is it really worth their time to even bother with some of these smaller markets that ONLY have 1-2 network affiliates?  

Ex: A market like St.Joe, MO, that ONLY has an ABC affiliate. Since E* will NOT be able to offer ANY CBS, NBC, or FOX affiliate into this market, do you REALLY think many people will sign up for E* service, when they find out they can ONLY get ABC & NONE of the other "big 4" nets? (when all the while all of it's competitor's, INCLUDING D*, can)

IMHO, the ONLY way this is going to be feasable for E* to do these markets, is to get the law altered to make SV legal for them.


----------



## OakIsle

I called Direct and gave them my address. I mentioned the situation with E* and asked them if I switched services to them, would I be able to get my local and distant channels. I gave them my zipcode and they told me I qualified for both. I asked again "would I be able to get my west coast feed from ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC as well as an east coast feed of the same networks. They told me yes I could recieve both of each. Is this just to get me to switch, or do you think they are on the up and up, but down the road they will be pulled also?


----------



## mhowie

OakIsle said:


> I called Direct and gave them my address. I mentioned the situation with E* and asked them if I switched services to them, would I be able to get my local and distant channels. I gave them my zipcode and they told me I qualified for both. I asked again "would I be able to get my west coast feed from ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC as well as an east coast feed of the same networks. They told me yes I could recieve both of each. Is this just to get me to switch, or do you think they are on the up and up, but down the road they will be pulled also?


What is your zip? I qualify under Dish (or at least did many years ago when I initially began subscribing to the distants) but when I go to the DirecTV website and plug in my address info, it reports I do not qualify for distants.


----------



## OakIsle

Check your inbox


----------



## Lou

Greg writes, “ I mean, if you want news in another part of the country, have you contacted the stations in the other part of the country you are interested in? After all, if you want a new Chevy, you go to an authorized Chevy dealer or the manufacturer. Why can't you go to the local station and buy their newscasts, or an authorized dealer of those stations? Could it be because those networks, in the network/affiliate relationship, do not have the right to resell the network programming to you?” 
As I said and you recognized, I understand everything behind this. My point is that is was easy to dial up New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver and or LA news but so much anymore. Yes there are other avenues but nothing easier than punching in a channel #. Therefore it is restrictive. And yes it’s because of what I consider an antiquate system and I have a problem with that..

Your rebuttal regarding Looking North instead of towards Direct TV; I know and understand the history. I am saying I wouldn’t want to reward the company that delivered the decisive blow. An agreement would have been reached if it wasn’t for the owners of Direct TV. Therefore, in my opinion, if you are prepared to dump Dish and move to Direct TV simply because you can get an out-of-market networks, I suggest do not penalize the company that supported your goal (DISH) and do not move to the company that ultimately made DISH take down the signals you wanted. If distants are your driving force, you have another option. The people North are there for you and they are not tied into any of this game playing. For about $25 you can enhance your programming choice and add 2 US Network feeds as well as several Canadian feeds. The combination would give you the most flexible time shift option out there (let’s not talk DVR, it’s not live and doesn’t let you surf). I know someone that has Northern access and while the example I saw was rare, he was able to watch a show airing at 5 different times.


----------



## joblo

dishrich said:


> Has anyone given any thought that since E* will NOT be able to do SV either, then is it really worth their time to even bother with some of these smaller markets that ONLY have 1-2 network affiliates?


Uh, yes. As I said in another thread:


joblo said:


> Without DNS to fill in the missing networks, uplinking one and two station markets may not be cost-effective.
> 
> In light of the DNS injunction, it will be interesting to see whether Harrisonburg launches on schedule, and if so, whether the package includes CBS and NBC, which would necessarily be subject to the looming December 1 shutoff.


Since posting this, the announced launch date for Harrisonburg locals has come and gone, and those locals are indeed on hold. WHSV says here that "Dish has suspended any expansion until it can appeal the judge's ruling."

But it's been reported in the uplink thread that Palm Springs became available today, so this "suspension" probably only applies to markets without a full compliment of major networks.


----------



## cj9788

I wrote the following in another thread.

The plain and simple fact is the violations E* is accused of are not recent after the ruling in 2003 E* made sure that no new inelgible subscribers received DNS. Many subs posted that they recevied the dreaded letter as E* cut off inelgible subs. The address broker was revamped to make sure that those exsiting subs could not sign up again for the lost channels. In fact the only violation after 2003 that I have knowledge of was that at a time the address broker allowe elgible subs to obtain more than 2 cities signals. That was quickly fixed. Granted E* brought this on themselves but they did take steps to fix the problem. They did settle albeit a little too late with all of the plaintifs the orginal lawsuit with the exception of the 25 Newscorp/Direc tv owned FOX stations. (things that make you go hmmmm) The SHEVRA law needs to be amended to alow a settlement or way around the permanent injunction.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Lou said:


> An agreement would have been reached if it wasn't for the owners of Direct TV.


I would suggest you go back and reread the attachments on the first post, specifically the one that outlines the judge's explanation.

The judge had no choice but to issue the injunction because:
1) the penalty for a pattern or practice of willful infringment is a permanent injunction of the license, and;
2) the higher court mandated that the injunction be issued.

The settlement occurred after the Appeals Court remanded the case to the District Court.

The company (or should I say companies) that forced the judge to issue the injunction are the network affiliate boards, not FOX. They are the ones that cross-appealed to the Appeals Court, to have the Appeals Court give a more severe penalty. FOX had nothing to do with the cross-appeal.

You might wish to read the court documents before blindsiding a party that didn't do as much to remove distant network feeds as the other parties.


----------



## Chris Walker

Greg Bimson said:


> I would suggest you go back and reread the attachments on the first post, specifically the one that outlines the judge's explanation.
> 
> The judge had no choice but to issue the injunction because:
> 1) the penalty for a pattern or practice of willful infringment is a permanent injunction of the license, and;
> 2) the higher court mandated that the injunction be issued.
> 
> The settlement occurred after the Appeals Court remanded the case to the District Court.
> 
> The company (or should I say companies) that forced the judge to issue the injunction are the network affiliate boards, not FOX. They are the ones that cross-appealed to the Appeals Court, to have the Appeals Court give a more severe penalty. FOX had nothing to do with the cross-appeal.
> 
> You might wish to read the court documents before blindsiding a party that didn't do as much to remove distant network feeds as the other parties.


Greg, you really believe that even if FOX settled, the injunction would have been issued? I just can't see that happening. I think the judge would have accepted the settlement if it wasn't for FOX's insistence on the injunction.


----------



## James Long

Chris Walker said:


> Greg, you really believe that even if FOX settled, the injunction would have been issued? I just can't see that happening. I think the judge would have accepted the settlement if it wasn't for FOX's insistence on the injunction.


I disagree. At that point in time, after it had gone to the appeals court and especially after the mandate had been issued it was a done deal. I was hopeful that the additional delays were signals from the judge that something else was possible - but it seems that it was just dotting I's and crossing T's.

Think about if you were the judge ... for eight years you have put up with the case - claims, counter claims and promises that were not kept. You showed leniency in issuing a partial injuction and yet that still was not followed. Then at the last minute - really after the last minute - the parties come to you and say "never mind"? Too late.

Based on the wording of the decision I firmly believe that EVEN IF FOX SETTLED along with the other parties the injunction would have been issued.


----------



## tnsprin

James Long said:


> I disagree. At that point in time, after it had gone to the appeals court and especially after the mandate had been issued it was a done deal. I was hopeful that the additional delays were signals from the judge that something else was possible - but it seems that it was just dotting I's and crossing T's.
> 
> Think about if you were the judge ... for eight years you have put up with the case - claims, counter claims and promises that were not kept. You showed leniency in issuing a partial injuction and yet that still was not followed. Then at the last minute - really after the last minute - the parties come to you and say "never mind"? Too late.
> 
> Based on the wording of the decision I firmly believe that EVEN IF FOX SETTLED along with the other parties the injunction would have been issued.


Actually if all parties drop the suit, the court would normally not issue a ruling.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Chris Walker said:


> Greg, you really believe that even if FOX settled, the injunction would have been issued? I just can't see that happening. I think the judge would have accepted the settlement if it wasn't for FOX's insistence on the injunction.





tnsprin said:


> Actually if all parties drop the suit, the court would normally not issue a ruling.


Here is the problem that everyone is missing...

The settling network affiliates boards never dropped anything. A tentative settlement was reached, but needed to be approved by the judge. Also, because the five remaining plaintiffs had a guilty verdict against Echostar, withdrawing from the suit became impossible. Notice that even with the tentative settlement, none of the affiliate boards dropped out of the suit.

The judge stated that a) because the penalty for a pattern or practice of willful infringment is a permanent injunction of the license, anb b) because the Appeals Court *mandated* the District Court to issue the injunction, that was the District Court's only course of action.

So, if all parties agreed to the settlement, it still would have been rejected and the injunction would have been issued. You will need to read the judge's explanation to understand this fact.


----------



## Darkman

Customers lose side Dish

EchoStar forced to cut access to distant stations. Colorado is not among the states the chairman says are most affected by the court-ordered injunction.

By Kimberly S. Johnson 
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/02/2006 10:01:37 PM MST

Dish Network customers with local-network stations from outside their communities are beginning to see some of their channels go black.

Charlie Ergen, co-founder and chairman of EchoStar Communications, which operates Dish, told Satelliteguys.us, a website devoted to satellite TV, that the signals were being turned off randomly and that Douglas County-based EchoStar is working to resolve the problem.

"As you know, on Oct. 20, 2006, a district court judge issued an order rejecting the joint settlement agreement between EchoStar and broadcasters and entered a permanent injunction requiring us to shut off 'distant network' channels to all customers by Dec. 1, 2006," Ergen wrote in a letter to retailers posted on Satelliteguys.us. "As a result we must start turning off customers daily over the next 30 days to meet the Dec. 1 date.

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4594467 )


----------



## bbomar

dlp85x said:


> Well I guess E* has started to turn off distants ... I came home to find all of my distant networks gone from the program guide.  I had them earlier today. Oh well, they were good while I had them, my bill will be a tad bit cheaper now. I can't get them through D* since they carry my locals Anybody else notice theirs turned off? I just wish they would've waited until 12/1 per the injunction. Maybe they are starting to shut off those who already get locals now, and wait until 12/1 to shut off those with distants but no local package.


My distants disappeared from the guide on November 1. Probably I was in the grandfathered category since I had them since 1998. The LA channels gave me a way to record something if I forgot to set a timer and then noticed that during the evening. I am in the Nashville DMA and get the Nashville stations OTA and via satellite so it is no big deal for me. I also get all Huntsville, AL stations OTA. The county next to mine (which starts less than a mile down the road) qualifies for Huntsville stations as "frequently viewed". I have never tried to get those channels via satellite and probably wouldn't qualify based on the county I am in. Does anyone know if Dish allows subscribers to get stations with frequently viewed status?


----------



## BobS

Egad! Why is this so difficult to understand? E* does have (a very small number) of SV stations up. However it doesn't make any difference as they will be discontinued on 12/1. The statutory license is the same. I don't think E* has any non-network SV at this time. Thus _*any *_current SV (because it is an ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX affiliate) is covered by the injunction.

Here is the relevant text:

_17 USC 119(a)(3)
Secondary transmissions of significantly viewed signals.

17 USC 119 (a)(3)(A)
In general. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2)(B),_

*[SV doesn't count against 2 per network limitation]*

_and subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, *the statutory license provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to the secondary transmission of the primary transmission of a network station* or a superstation to a subscriber *who resides outside the station's local market (as defined in section 122(j) *_

*[Thus SV (for purposes of this section) is by definition distant. If it is a station affiliated with a network - it is a Distant Network Station!]*

_but within a community in which the signal has been determined by the Federal Communications Commission, to be significantly viewed in such community, pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, applicable to determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are significantly viewed in a community._

*[This is the same license used for "DNS"]*

_*17 USC 119(a)(3)(B)*
Limitation. Subparagraph (A) shall apply only to secondary transmissions of the primary transmissions of network stations and superstations to subscribers who receive secondary transmissions from a satellite carrier pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 [17 USC 122]._

*[Must have LIL to get SV]*

There. I feel so much better.



bbomar said:


> My distants disappeared from the guide on November 1. Probably I was in the grandfathered category since I had them since 1998. The LA channels gave me a way to record something if I forgot to set a timer and then noticed that during the evening. I am in the Nashville DMA and get the Nashville stations OTA and via satellite so it is no big deal for me. I also get all Huntsville, AL stations OTA. The county next to mine (which starts less than a mile down the road) qualifies for Huntsville stations as "frequently viewed". I have never tried to get those channels via satellite and probably wouldn't qualify based on the county I am in. Does anyone know if Dish allows subscribers to get stations with frequently viewed status?


----------



## JohnH

Me thinks you are using the wrong version of the law. Consider only the SHVA and SHVIA as those are the ones in the Injunction.


----------



## James Long

Curiosity, but if one has their drivers license permanently revolked and then their state legislature passes a law that says anyone can operate a motorcycle as part of their driver's license (instead of a separate license or not at all). Does that mean that the person with the revolked license can operate a motorcycle?

Congress _extended_ the law that allows distants to include SVs. If they would have written a separate section or included SVs in 122 instead of 119 E* would have been better off, but congress tied the new stuff to the old. Without the underlying license SVs appear to be gone.

Perhaps E* will leave them up while they argue their case ... perhaps this will be another eight year lawsuit for violating 119. But under the injunction, the channels are gone.


----------



## JohnH

Not only did they extend the law, but they also added new privileges. I picked up a helicopter pilot's license along the way, so to speak, and I still travel, but landing spots are bit less available.


----------



## BobS

Sorry but that's not how it works. SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA are all session laws or parts of session laws that must be read in conjunction with every other applicable law. I am using Title 17, United States Code which codifies the session law provisions applicable to copyright which was updated after SHVERA. I don't have the wrong law. Other people (in my opinion) have the wrong interpretation.



JohnH said:


> Me thinks you are using the wrong version of the law. Consider only the SHVA and SHVIA as those are the ones in the Injunction.


----------



## BobS

James Long said:


> .....Congress _extended_ the law that allows distants to include SVs. If they would have written a separate section or included SVs in 122 instead of 119 E* would have been better off, but congress tied the new stuff to the old. Without the underlying license SVs appear to be gone..


It made perfect sense to simply use the existing law - SV is a subset of DNS. The FCC has a broader definition of SV but that does not make much practical difference. Congress took the FCC list but excluded stations that were actually local to the subscriber. LIL was given its own section because it is a different animal with peculiar needs. If you use the statutory definition rather than simply the FCC list then no local can be SV; every SV is distant but not every distant is SV. If someone can provide an example where this isn't true, I'd be glad to retract my statement.



James Long said:


> .....Perhaps E* will leave them up while they argue their case ... perhaps this will be another eight year lawsuit for violating 119. But under the injunction, the channels are gone.


----------



## cj9788

CBS HD appears to unphased by the cut off people who have lost DNS still have CBS HD. Either it was an oversight which I doubt or as stated time and time again it is not provided under the 119 license.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> It made perfect sense to simply use the existing law - SV is a subset of DNS. The FCC has a broader definition of SV but that does not make much practical difference. Congress took the FCC list but excluded stations that were actually local to the subscriber. LIL was given its own section because it is a different animal with peculiar needs. If you use the statutory definition rather than simply the FCC list then no local can be SV; every SV is distant but not every distant is SV. If someone can provide an example where this isn't true, I'd be glad to retract my statement.


So much to pick apart ...

The path to the situation we have today (ignoring the injunction) started with section 119 for distants and superstations and 122 for in market locals. Where cable's list of SV stations fell was irrelevant. Satellite carriers carried network stations from outside of the market (and defined superstations) based on 119 and any station from inside of the market based on 122.

When Congress decided to "level the playing field" in 2004 they added SV stations to satellite. Prior to the latest changes in law stations from neighboring markets COULD have been carried as distants, but they would have had to be carried under the same rule as a far off distant - limit two per network with waivers from ALL Grade B stations of the same network. The 2004 changes allowed a SV station to be carried without the permission of the in market station. Closer to a level playing field.

But modifying 119 for SV was THE WRONG PLACE, IMHO. Congress spoke of a level playing field but on cable SVs are considered locals. In fact, the SV list was created for cable to help stations force their way onto cable systems by proving that they were significantly viewed in the area (the definition of SV remains based on OTA viewing). Which means there are natural holes in the list for channels cable is forced to carry due to other rules or voluntarily carries. But the crux of the problem comes down to 119 vs 122. On cable SVs are considered locals - for some reason on satellite Congress made them distants. If Congress was really looking for a "level playing field" SVs should have ended up in 122 (and the definition should have also included all Grade B stations).

SVs in their own markets is irrelevant as 122 allows their carriage.


----------



## JohnH

Ignoring the injunction is not allowed.

You are saying they are injoined from doing anything allowed in 119 regardless of how many revisions there are now or in the future.

The injunction as in post #1 of this thread only injoined E* from providing what was allowed in the SHVA as amended by SHVIA not the items which were added by SHVERA.

"ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is"

IIRC, SV stations require retrans consent negotiations. Distant Networks do not. Also, there is no mention of Network in the SV area.

Maybe these are all items which they will seek "clarification" of.


----------



## kstuart

Greg Bimson said:


> So, if all parties agreed to the settlement, it still would have been rejected and the injunction would have been issued. You will need to read the judge's explanation to understand this fact.


I *did* read the judge's explanation. I will paraphrase it:

" EchoStar, NBC, CBS and ABC say that the injunction does not have to be issued for technical reasons A, B, C, D, E, F and G. However, in my opinion, I don't feel that technical reasons A, B, C, D, E. F and G are true."

and then in a *footnote* he said, and the following is very close to a word for word quote: " I don't think that EchoStar should be allowed to buy their way out of this situation. "

That footnote *is* the basis for the decision. *Like, Duh!*

Judges are not computers, they are primates, who, like all primates, are driven by their emotional reactions to other primates.

If you look at legal decisions over the past 400 years, you will find a vast number of entirely illogical decisions on all levels - including huge Supreme Court decisions.


----------



## James Long

JohnH said:


> The injunction as in post #1 of this thread only injoined E* from providing what was allowed in the SHVA as amended by SHVIA not the items which were added by SHVERA.
> 
> "ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
> THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is"


Hundreds of posts later I somehow missed that distinction ... which MAY be the "loophole" that E* will rely on to leave on SV and other 2004 permitted stations (that were not permitted prior to the 2004 changes).

The question comes down to "*On what authority does E* offer significantly viewed stations* (and other stations added by SHVERA.)*?* " On the authority of 119? Even though the base authority of 119 has been revolked?

Guess that's why E* has the lawyers ...
BTW: Digital distants were added by SHVERA as well, so if SVs are allowed to stand would digital distants stand even if analog distants are not permitted?


----------



## BobS

Oh, puhleeze - if there were any sort of "loophole" to be exploited doncha think it would have been done? The reference to the laws is simply to state the authority for the injunction. It is not limiting the impact of that injunction to what it might have been if we were in 1988. The injunction stops E* from using the 17 USC 119 license. If today that means 200 stations versus the 80 around back when the law was written so be it. It is not like an ex post facto criminal law that makes some act illegal after its commission. This is a civil case withdrawing a privilege granted by statute. Hypothetically, if everyone were satisfied by LIL then the 119 license would be of no interest and E* could walk away without any adverse impact. Would you then argue that nonetheless we must find a way to punish E* equivalent to what would have been the case 18 years ago? You answered your own question - E* no longer will have the 119 "key." Any door that is opened by the 119 key will be closed to E*. They can still use their 122 key. Until Charlie screws that up.



James Long said:


> Hundreds of posts later I somehow missed that distinction ... which MAY be the "loophole" that E* will rely on to leave on SV and other 2004 permitted stations (that were not permitted prior to the 2004 changes).
> 
> The question comes down to "*On what authority does E* offer significantly viewed stations* (and other stations added by SHVERA.)*?* " On the authority of 119? Even though the base authority of 119 has been revolked?
> 
> Guess that's why E* has the lawyers ...
> BTW: Digital distants were added by SHVERA as well, so if SVs are allowed to stand would digital distants stand even if analog distants are not permitted?


----------



## BobS

Technically this wasn't a decision but an order. The decision was rendered back in May. The footnote would be trivial dictum in any case. Contrary to what you state, the judge here *is* essentially a robot. His action is ministerial. He is to do what the Court of Appeals told him to do. He doesn't have discretion unless he wants to be sanctioned/impeached. The whole fire drill over the last couple of months was to ensure that the case was sealed tight to avoid appeals on technical matters. The outcome was never in doubt except by several wishful thinkers on dbstalk.



kstuart said:


> I *did* read the judge's explanation. I will paraphrase it:
> 
> " EchoStar, NBC, CBS and ABC say that the injunction does not have to be issued for technical reasons A, B, C, D, E, F and G. However, in my opinion, I don't feel that technical reasons A, B, C, D, E. F and G are true."
> 
> and then in a *footnote* he said, and the following is very close to a word for word quote: " I don't think that EchoStar should be allowed to buy their way out of this situation. "
> 
> That footnote *is* the basis for the decision. *Like, Duh!*
> 
> Judges are not computers, they are primates, who, like all primates, are driven by their emotional reactions to other primates.
> 
> If you look at legal decisions over the past 400 years, you will find a vast number of entirely illogical decisions on all levels - including huge Supreme Court decisions.


----------



## BobS

So what did you pick apart? The history is interesting but not necessarily relevant. The statutory license for SV (as defined by Congress) is located in 119. The situtation with cable likewise is useful for historical purposes but does not translate directly into any meaningful rules for DBS. Because of must carry/carry one carry all, LIL is different than SV and it was smart to keep them separate. Perhaps SV should have its own section? You are correct in that although there has been movement towards parity, cable is different than satellite. It doesn't have to make sense - it's the law.



James Long said:


> So much to pick apart ...
> 
> The path to the situation we have today (ignoring the injunction) started with section 119 for distants and superstations and 122 for in market locals. Where cable's list of SV stations fell was irrelevant. Satellite carriers carried network stations from outside of the market (and defined superstations) based on 119 and any station from inside of the market based on 122.
> 
> When Congress decided to "level the playing field" in 2004 they added SV stations to satellite. Prior to the latest changes in law stations from neighboring markets COULD have been carried as distants, but they would have had to be carried under the same rule as a far off distant - limit two per network with waivers from ALL Grade B stations of the same network. The 2004 changes allowed a SV station to be carried without the permission of the in market station. Closer to a level playing field.
> 
> But modifying 119 for SV was THE WRONG PLACE, IMHO. Congress spoke of a level playing field but on cable SVs are considered locals. In fact, the SV list was created for cable to help stations force their way onto cable systems by proving that they were significantly viewed in the area (the definition of SV remains based on OTA viewing). Which means there are natural holes in the list for channels cable is forced to carry due to other rules or voluntarily carries. But the crux of the problem comes down to 119 vs 122. On cable SVs are considered locals - for some reason on satellite Congress made them distants. If Congress was really looking for a "level playing field" SVs should have ended up in 122 (and the definition should have also included all Grade B stations).
> 
> SVs in their own markets is irrelevant as 122 allows their carriage.


----------



## James Long

Without understanding the history you have no clear path to the future. Congress made a mistake by putting SVs which are local stations on cable into the section where distants are for satellite. So much for an level playing field.

If Congress wanted to level the playing field they would have written appropriate laws that would have given satellite providers the same rights to carriage as cable providers - instead of restricting satellite from providing a customer the same local channels that cable can (and in many cases must) provide. SVs were a step in the right direction, but not a complete solution.

But Congress blew it ... in 2004.

You are not a lawyer for E*, I'll leave it up to them to advise E* on what can and cannot be done and what precisely the injunction applies to. At this point it appears that E* has not removed a single SV station - yet the distants shutoff has begun. Perhaps SVs will be done last ... perhaps E*'s lawyers will decide it is worth it to "test" the judge's precise language in the injuction affects the law AS AMENDED IN 1999.

We will find out E*'s opinion in about 26 days ... probably sooner if it is mentioned on the Tech Forum in 9 days. Perhaps sooner than that. E* has been selling SVs as locals, regardless of where the license was written in the law. If Congress takes a fair look at it I believe they will see them as locals too - along with the other stations written in to SHVERA. Time will tell.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> You are not a lawyer for E*, I'll leave it up to them to advise E* on what can and cannot be done and what precisely the injunction applies to. At this point it appears that E* has not removed a single SV station - yet the distants shutoff has begun. Perhaps SVs will be done last ... perhaps E*'s lawyers will decide it is worth it to "test" the judge's precise language in the injuction affects the law AS AMENDED IN 1999.


This is a good point. Maybe Dish Network's lawyers will complete a deja vu circle and tell the Supreme Court that the Appeals Court did about seventeen things wrong in their decision with those complaints in the filed writ of certoriari.

However, let's not confuse what Dish Network is doing right now for what is court-ordered. The cut-offs are occurring NOW because Dish Network wants their customer base to call Congress and because Dish Network doesn't want their phone lines lit up like George Burns' last birthday cake on 1 December.

Remember, when there was a programming spat, Dish Network could turn everyone off at the tip of a hat. So we know Dish Network could simply remove the authorizations for everyone on 1 December for the distant network channels. There aren't anywhere near as many subscribers with signficantly-viewed channels or CBS HD that can't get cut-off in one shot on 1 December.

The only questions are the appeal at the Supreme Court, the interpretation of the injunction at the courts, and if Congress will do something before the injunction occurs.


----------



## BobS

James Long said:


> Without understanding the history you have no clear path to the future. Congress made a mistake by putting SVs which are local stations on cable into the section where distants are for satellite. So much for an level playing field.


*Good line - not sure what it means. I don't know if a level playing field is public policy. In any even, the complexities of must carry and unique cable capabilities probably were factors in deciding which statutory license to use. I think parallelism between cable and satellite is a good idea. I just don't know if the inherent differences are enough to prevent congruency.*


James Long said:


> If Congress wanted to level the playing field they would have written appropriate laws that would have given satellite providers the same rights to carriage as cable providers - instead of restricting satellite from providing a customer the same local channels that cable can (and in many cases must) provide. SVs were a step in the right direction, but not a complete solution.


*DBS is a rapidly evolving mechanism. Cable is relatively mature. I think with time we will see what you suggest. There are multiple policy considerations and it is not useful to insist on a simple "satelliteshouldbenodifferentthancable" rule.*



James Long said:


> But Congress blew it ... in 2004.


*So call them Monica and push for improvements.*



James Long said:


> You are not a lawyer for E*, I'll leave it up to them to advise E* on what can and cannot be done and what precisely the injunction applies to. At this point it appears that E* has not removed a single SV station - yet the distants shutoff has begun. Perhaps SVs will be done last ... perhaps E*'s lawyers will decide it is worth it to "test" the judge's precise language in the injuction affects the law AS AMENDED IN 1999.


*Are you sure? Perhaps I play on on satellite TV. You have to admit that their advice has been so hot. Unless you believe (as I do) that this case is simply another step in a long term strategy.*



James Long said:


> We will find out E*'s opinion in about 26 days ... probably sooner if it is mentioned on the Tech Forum in 9 days. Perhaps sooner than that. E* has been selling SVs as locals, regardless of where the license was written in the law. If Congress takes a fair look at it I believe they will see them as locals too - along with the other stations written in to SHVERA. Time will tell.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> However, let's not confuse what Dish Network is doing right now for what is court-ordered. The cut-offs are occurring NOW because Dish Network wants their customer base to call Congress and because Dish Network doesn't want their phone lines lit up like George Burns' last birthday cake on 1 December.


I don't know how fast E* could disconnect viewers if push came to shove and the channels had to go away immediately. I know what E* claimed it would take - wouldn't it be unwise for them to submit documentation to the court claiming they needed a long period of time and then magically be able to turn them off overnight? Calling Congress right now will have little impact - there are 435 representatives there hoping to either keep their jobs or leave at the end of the year. They have more on their mind this weekend than a vague request for them to somehow change a court ruling that has yet to be ruled on by the supreme court. Congress likes process. Perhaps when they come back on the 13th those who are re-elected will consider new business. But they are going to need a SOLID request - not a vague statement.


Greg Bimson said:


> Remember, when there was a programming spat, Dish Network could turn everyone off at the tip of a hat. So we know Dish Network could simply remove the authorizations for everyone on 1 December for the distant network channels. There aren't anywhere near as many subscribers with signficantly-viewed channels or CBS HD that can't get cut-off in one shot on 1 December.


Generally speaking in programming spats E* replaced the audio and video of the channel with other content (easy to do) and used existing authorization codes that were already on customer's receivers. Because E* uses the same authorizations for the 240's as they do for the 8000/8100 range channels they need to separate out of market subscribers that are being dropped from in market subscribers who will keep the stations. For Chicago and Denver distants they certainly need to turn off the right people.

If it were up to me I'd send a new "tier" to the receivers in each of the distant's home market and then at the appointed time just move the authorizations for the locals over to the new "tier".

The other mass kill option would be to move the channels to spots - even if it means moving other local stations off of the spots temporarily to have enough space. This would limit viewing of distants to the general area of the local market while E* continued the authorization changes.


Greg Bimson said:


> The only questions are the appeat at the Supreme Court, the interpretation of the injunction at the courts, and if Congress will do something before the injunction occurs.


If you want a fun question consider this: If congress is asked to change 119 to weaken the "death penalty" (perhaps even remove it) does it matter? The same argument that says that injunction applies to the law as of 1999 that gives hope to keeping SV and other new stations can be used to say that a 2006 amendment to the law would not prevent an injunction.

IMHO the best that Congress can do is to move SVs and any other network stations they want E* to be allowed to carried out of 119 and into 122 or a new section. If I were E* that would be my primary focus ... protect the close "distants" that people CAN get from cable.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> DBS is a rapidly evolving mechanism. Cable is relatively mature. I think with time we will see what you suggest. There are multiple policy considerations and it is not useful to insist on a simple "satelliteshouldbenodifferentthancable" rule.


Spoken like a true lover of cable --- keep the playing field uneven so that cable can carry channels satellite is forbidden to carry. (Not that you are a true lover of cable, just that would be their viewpoint.)

It would probably be too confusing and time consuming to fix SVs unless that is the primary push of E* when they get around to saying what legislation they want. It wouldn't be hard to say that E* is permitted to carry any station within it's defined DMA and/or within it's Grade B coverage area under the same must carry/consent to carry rules that 122 LILs are currently carried. And THEN add the SV list for good measure.


----------



## James Long

More court filings on Friday, simple summary - E* wants until April 16th to comply.
Documents attached. Some attachments include pages from previous documents.1023 Filed & Entered: 11/03/2006 Motion to Amend/Correct
First MOTION to Amend/Correct [1019] Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, Order on Motion for Hearing,,, [1020] Order by EchoStar Communications Corporation. Responses due by 11/20/2006 (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Lopez, Javier)

1024 Filed & Entered: 11/03/2006 Motion to Expedite
First MOTION to Expedite Consideration of its Motion for Reconsideration of Court's October 20, 2006 Order of Permanent Injunction by EchoStar Communications Corporation. (Attachments: # (1))(Lopez, Javier)​The 2nd file is the "Text of Proposed Order"


----------



## TNGTony

I can hear the "Denied" rubber stamp from here!


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> If you want a fun question consider this: If congress is asked to change 119 to weaken the "death penalty" (perhaps even remove it) does it matter? The same argument that says that injunction applies to the law as of 1999 that gives hope to keeping SV and other new stations can be used to say that a 2006 amendment to the law would not prevent an injunction.


I'll give you one better...

The "grandfather" status that is in 17 USC 119 is directly related to the possible injunction but settlement that DirecTV faced with the networks back in 1999. You know, if you had distants as of this date and you were in a predicted Grade B area, you were allowed to keep them?

Sure, this means getting Congress to get off their duff and actually pass another law which amends 17 USC 119. I just don't know if the lawmakers would actually do so. A little digging by lawmakers will lead them to discover that almost half of the distant network subscribers on Dish Network were not properly documented; i.e., 20 percent of subscribers on the list of "qualified" subscrber Dish Network turned over to the courts were ineligible, and ZERO of the grandfathered and waivered subscribers are valid with respect to the proof submitted to the courts.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> More court filings on Friday, simple summary - E* wants until April 16th to comply.


And ignore the mandate given by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for an "immediate" injunction?

Tony is right: 99.99 percent denied.


----------



## BobS

You ain't kidding. This judge must have the patience of Job. Apparently Charlie won't stop until he's wearing *orange*. The documents are way too long. Here is the condensed version:

"Charlie Ergen request that your (stupid) honor put off (once again) our complying with the law. Specifically, long enough to lobby the new Congress to save my sorry butt. And make it due on tax filing day (the 15th being on Saturday) so the anti-government emotion is at its peak. I'll show you who's really in charge."



TNGTony said:


> I can hear the "Denied" rubber stamp from here!


----------



## BobS

*



Originally Posted by James Long 
If you want a fun question consider this: If congress is asked to change 119 to weaken the "death penalty" (perhaps even remove it) does it matter? The same argument that says that injunction applies to the law as of 1999 that gives hope to keeping SV and other new stations can be used to say that a 2006 amendment to the law would not prevent an injunction.

Click to expand...

**You are confusing two things. (1) The provision of the law that dictates a mandatory injuction and (2) The impact of that injunction. A statute that is written without specific reference to time, place or condition applies to the time, place and condition in which it is applied. There is no reference in the statute that limits the injunction. Therefore it enjoins X whatever X is even if it would have enjoined Y (whether less or more than X) in 1999. If operative portion of the law itself is changed then under general statutory construction it supersedes an older provision on the same subject (although courts try to reconcile the differences first). In this case, Congress will certainly include language that clearly limits the scope of the injunction by some factor to achieve the results desired. The two issues are quite different.*


----------



## DonLandis

QUOTE-TNGTony-

_"CBS HD is another story. Greg and other columnist say it will be cut off with absolutely nothing to back it up other than "the judge said CBS so he MUST have meant CBS HD too". I say it wont because the channel is made available though a contract between Dish and CBS and even if the Judge MEANT to say CBS HD too, it was never part of the suit in the first place."_

When are you going to give up on this and just settle down and eat some CROW?

Last week I received a notice from Dish Network I would be losing my CBS HD channel due to the court ruling on December 1. They apologized for it and assured me I should be able to continuie to receive CBS programming from my Jacksonville station. They also said they are doing everything that can to reverse this injunction before December 1st. I believe that a notice sent specifically to me in name is pretty definite they plan to elininate the CBS-HD channel I get and the only one I get under my waiver. Whether this is part of the suit or not, whether this is part of the CBS contract or not, it seems the Court has made it clear to the lawyers at Dish, waivered CBS- HD channel will go. Now those in the O&O market may, indeed be a different catergory. I'm not receiving CBS-HD as part of the O&O contract.

Let us know how the Crow tasted, TNGTony.


----------



## SkyBluffLady

For me, as a senior and as a resident of the far reaches of the NW, it's all about losing the ability to watch prime TV earlier than what's available on the West Coast. Pls don't flame me for not knowing this, but after reading all of the pages on this thread, I still have a question: With an RV waiver, we are frequently on the road and outside our home spotbeam. If we lose our distants, will we be unable to receive ANY network programming while on the road? Before LILs, our Dish subscription came with Los Angeles affiliate networks.


----------



## scooper

I wouldn't count on that waiver keeping your distants at this time. I'd love to be wrong, but it looks like to me that you might want to plan on jumping ship to DirectTv if you want to continue to use an RV waiver. Just MHO, and I am not a lawyer...


----------



## heavyharmonies

DonLandis said:


> Last week I received a notice from Dish Network I would be losing my CBS HD channel due to the court ruling on December 1. They apologized for it and assured me I should be able to continuie to receive CBS programming from my Jacksonville station. They also said they are doing everything that can to reverse this injunction before December 1st. I believe that a notice sent specifically to me in name is pretty definite they plan to elininate the CBS-HD channel I get and the only one I get under my waiver. Whether this is part of the suit or not, whether this is part of the CBS contract or not, it seems the Court has made it clear to the lawyers at Dish, waivered CBS- HD channel will go. Now those in the O&O market may, indeed be a different catergory. I'm not receiving CBS-HD as part of the O&O contract.


Has anyone else received this cutoff notice?

I have CBSHD (and only CBSHD) by waiver, and have to date received no such notice.


----------



## kstuart

BobS said:


> Technically this wasn't a decision but an order. The decision was rendered back in May. The footnote would be trivial dictum in any case. Contrary to what you state, the judge here *is* essentially a robot. His action is ministerial. He is to do what the Court of Appeals told him to do. He doesn't have discretion unless he wants to be sanctioned/impeached. The whole fire drill over the last couple of months was to ensure that the case was sealed tight to avoid appeals on technical matters. The outcome was never in doubt except by several wishful thinkers on dbstalk.


Okay, if you (and all Ergen-haters) are right, and the Judge was just acting according to law rather than as a human being with emotions, then he will grant the motion for an extension, because:

a) The case has already taken 8 years, the Judge took a far longer time than anyone expected (e.g. the Settlement Document said "September ___ 2006" under the space for the Judge's signature) and thus indicated by his actions that there was no hurry. So there is no legal reason to not extend the deadline.

b) The argument that the December 1st impacts the customers is undoubtedly true for the Distant Network customers.

So, if the judge is a rational "robot" (to use your term), then he will approve the extension. But, if the real reason is emotional (and probably some variant of the widespread feeling that Ergen is an unsophsticated 'hick' and therefore should not have billions of dollars), then the judge will quickly deny the extension - even though there is no ratoinal and legal grounds for denying it - and thus force the customers to scramble to put up antennas, second dishes, or DirecTV dishes - with some of us doing that in the snow or rain (see avatar).


----------



## CABill

heavyharmonies said:


> I have CBSHD (and only CBSHD) by waiver, and have to date received no such notice.


There were several qualification routes to get CBS-HD, and I'd expect (gut, no authority to cite) those getting it with waiver to be more vulnerable. I would like to see more reports from people that do get cut off for something to clarify things.


----------



## BobS

*What routes were these? I though it was rather simple.

1. You are in a CBS O&O affiliate area.

and

2a. You are not in the Grade B contour of any non-O&O CBS affiliate. (=automatic waiver by CBS corporate)

or

2b. You get a waiver from any and all non-O&O CBS affiliates the Grade B contour of which you are in.*



CABill said:


> There were several qualification routes to get CBS-HD, and I'd expect (gut, no authority to cite) those getting it with waiver to be more vulnerable. I would like to see more reports from people that do get cut off for something to clarify things.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> And ignore the mandate given by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for an "immediate" injunction?
> 
> Tony is right: 99.99 percent denied.


He put off an "immediate" injuction by giving E* until September 20th to show cause, by waiting until October 20th to rule, and by giving an effective date of December 1st. (If you want to get picky he put of 'immediate' years ago, but that was before the appeals court slapped his hands and mandated that he do his job.)

Glad to see that you give it a .01 % chance (one in 10,000). Is that higher or lower than a snowball's chance in summer? 


BobS said:


> And make it due on tax filing day (the 15th being on Saturday) so the anti-government emotion is at its peak. I'll show you who's really in charge."


The 15th is a Sunday ... but the math was explained by E* ... 120 business days.


BobS said:


> There is no reference in the statute that limits the injunction.


And yet the judge himself choose to specify the exact point in time. Judicial error again? Seems like he is good at making errors (some pointed out by CA11 on the last appeal and some new ones).


----------



## TNGTony

DonLandis said:


> When are you going to give up on this and just settle down and eat some CROW?


On December 2nd when we find just how many people actually lose CBS HD DIRECTLY due to the court ruling, not just an error then blamed on the court order.

See ya
Tony


----------



## DonLandis

TNGTony- This is one time when I hope *I'm* wrong. But so far, it seems I will be losing it according to all indicators. I will be able to report my channel here on December 4th since I will be out of the country on the kill date Dish told me in the letter. My current Bill is still charging the $1.50 for this month's CBS-HD which is line item listed.

Again in case some don't understand, I would represent a loss of CBS-HD obtained with a legal waiver for a NON-O&O market. I believe, gut feeling, that the only ones who will continue to receive CBS-HD will be those in an O&O market. I hope I'm wrong.

PS- If I get a good internet connection, I'll be able to see on Dec 2nd from Miami and my sling box at the earliest.


----------



## clarkbaker

Direct likely has the same problem as Dish. Going to Direct will only be a 'delaying' action.. it won't solve your problem as precedence is 'set' and it will go through the courts 'faster'.. Certainly if the FCC doesn't do it.. Dish will sue them to make it 'competative'. Standard legal manuverings.



minnow said:


> Wow !! I was 180 degrees wrong on this one. I thought for sure that because of all the last minute filings as well as the agreement with all but Fox that a settlement would be allowed. Holy Crap !! Never ever second guess what some judge is thinking. I still fail to grasp why the judge just didn't issue this back in August and save everyone involved all the wasted legal wrangling.
> Well as for me, so long E*. I qualify for distants with Direct and I guess that's where I'll be heading.


----------



## James Long

DirecTV has already been sued ... they settled out of court and ceased violating the law. Unless they are now violating the law there is no reason for DirecTV to lose distants.


----------



## joe42

Question - How do I find out what's considered "Significantly viewed" channel.

I'm in the same boat as the person who has no ABC affliliate. I live in S Oklahoma and am currently getting ABC out of Dallas through Dish. No local ABC affiliate. 

If I read all of this correctly - 
I went to the Dish Network site and put in my address. It listed my local channels I qualified for (which from what I understand I get to keep). Below that it said I qualified for Distant Network channels (Dallas, NY, and a few other cities) - and these are getting pulled by Dec 1st right?

After that the Superstations still listed on the cite as WB and UPN but are now CW and MYNETWORKTV - These will remain unaffected. 

Nothing mentioned about "Significantly viewed" channels though. So if there's none listed am I to assume I don't have any? 

The ABC channel is available through the local cable company so at least some people other than sat subscribers watch it here.


----------



## James Long

People with E* SV channels will get an "enhanced locals" package. The big list on the locals page doesn't have too many listed as "enhanced".


----------



## joe42

James Long said:


> People with E* SV channels will get an "enhanced locals" package. The big list on the locals page doesn't have too many listed as "enhanced".


Okay I found the list thanks to another message. KDFW and WFAA out of Dallas are considered "Significantly viewed" channels where I live. I called E* to find out if they could put them under this and I could keep them. All the person did was go on the website and do a search like I could. 
I talked to 2 different people and they had no idea what I was talking about.

Finally I asked one of them what it would take to add these to channels to my local package since they are "siginifincantly viewed" according to the FCC. I kept getting "I'm sorry sir we can't add them at this time." I kept asking "Yeah I know you can't. Who do I need to talk to get them added or reccommend adding them?" "I'm sorry sir... " repeat again and again.

I emailed them with a link to the list of "Significantly viewed" channels. I sure hope I can get them to add them to our area. If they aren't then anyone with Dish in S OK is going to lose the ability to watch ABC.


----------



## James Long

It is possible that those stations will be going away (if you can get them added). Too much limbo and not enough "official answers" at the moment. Given a choice E* would leave on all local channels to all subscribers - but the law does not give them that choice.

BTW: For the amateur lawyers out there ...
The last modification of SHVA (SHVERA) actually became law as part of H.R.4818 the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005".TITLE IX--SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004
TITLE I--STATUTORY LICENSE FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS
SEC. 106. EFFECT ON CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS.
Nothing in this title shall modify any remedy imposed on a party that is required by the judgment of a court in any action that was brought before May 1, 2004, against that party for a violation of section 119 of title 17, United States Code.​You can search for H.R.4818 in the 108th Congress at the Library of Congress "Thomas" site for more information.


----------



## OakIsle

James Long said:


> DirecTV has already been sued ... they settled out of court and ceased violating the law. Unless they are now violating the law there is no reason for DirecTV to lose distants.


I hope this is true. I called DirectTV and asked if I could receive both the east and west coast feeds from the 4 major networks. After putting me on hold for awhile and checking with a couple people, she said I qualified. I then checked online using their link to see if my address qualified for distants, and it did not. I'm hoping that link is wrong and she is right. I will get a name of someone prior to switching once I lose them with E*. 
I'd hate to have them tell me on the phone that I could get them, then make the change, and get the news later that I didn't qualify.


----------



## Greg Bimson

DirecTV can be sued again if they screw it up.

And trust me, with the way the affiliate boards feel, they wouldn't hesitate to file a suit.


----------



## bbomar

joe42 said:


> Question - How do I find out what's considered "Significantly viewed" channel.


You may have already located the complete list on the FCCs SHVERA page:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-187A2.pdf

However, it looks like Dish doesn't offer all possible SVs, and maybe none after Dec. 1.


----------



## bgrauberger

Tower Guy said:


> Perhaps you can.
> 
> But you have to physically go elsewhere to do business with another car dealer. Your local car dealer has the same kind of territorial franchise that a TV station has.
> 
> If you want TV from somewhere else, you should actually live there, eh?


But what about newspapers? I live in Georgia and can walk to the local convenience store and purchase a New York Times, as well as an Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a Macon Telegraph. I understand the law restricts me from receiving distant networks, but I don't understand the logic of it. If this is a free market society, why shouldn't I be able to subscribe to the Denver Networks if I feel they are superior to my locals. That is the basis of competition, if someone has a superior product they have nothing to worry about. Just my 2cents .


----------



## Jim5506

The logic of it is that it is the mandate of the FCC to maintain local supremicy in each TV market. If outside stations were allowed to swamp local stations, there soon would be only 4 or 5 national stations and you would never get any local news or programming. This is also why the FCC limits the amount of programming the networks can provide to local stations.


----------



## bgrauberger

Jim5506 said:


> The logic of it is that it is the mandate of the FCC to maintain local supremicy in each TV market. If outside stations were allowed to swamp local stations, there soon would be only 4 or 5 national stations and you would never get any local news or programming. This is also why the FCC limits the amount of programming the networks can provide to local stations.


I respectfully disagree, I believe the majority of people would still prefer their local news and sports, so the demand would still be there. If that were the case using the newspaper example, then why are local newspapers still striving?


----------



## Tower Guy

bgrauberger said:


> But what about newspapers? I live in Georgia and can walk to the local convenience store and purchase a New York Times, as well as an Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a Macon Telegraph. I understand the law restricts me from receiving distant networks, but I don't understand the logic of it. If this is a free market society, why shouldn't I be able to subscribe to the Denver Networks if I feel they are superior to my locals. That is the basis of competition, if someone has a superior product they have nothing to worry about. Just my 2cents .


You miss the significance of the copyright law.

The out of town papers that you buy are the original, printed by the copyright owner, not reprinted by a third party. Distant stations are not original, but a copy of the original, and can't be sold just like an out of town printer can't make illegal copies of a newspaper.


----------



## bgrauberger

Tower Guy said:


> You miss the significance of the copyright law.
> 
> The out of town papers that you buy are the original, printed by the copyright owner, not reprinted by a third party. Distant stations are not original, but a copy of the original, and can't be sold just like an out of town printer can't make illegal copies of a newspaper.


Perhaps I am missing something as I am not a lawyer, but many of the articles in the newspapers are by the associated press, it seems that the newspapers are purchasing the rights to the copyright when purchasing the ap articles and are then free to distribute them to anyone they wish, along with the local newspaper articles. Why is this different than local networks purchasing programming, and therefore purchasing the copyright rights then rebroadcasting to whomever they wish? I am not arguing your point with this question, I truely want to understand the logic in limiting the broadcast of networks.

Thanks


----------



## Greg Bimson

bgrauberger said:


> Why is this different than local networks purchasing programming, and therefore purchasing the copyright rights then rebroadcasting to whomever they wish?


Because the network does not allow the local affiliate to resell the programming. It is one of the terms of the network/affiliate contract.

Of course, there are some laws and some judicial decsions that have impacted that contract on a limited basis. The distant network issue is one of those laws.


----------



## bgrauberger

Greg Bimson said:


> Because the network does not allow the local affiliate to resell the programming. It is one of the terms of the network/affiliate contract.
> 
> Of course, there are some laws and some judicial decsions that have impacted that contract on a limited basis. The distant network issue is one of those laws.


Sorry, I'm still not clear, and forgive my ignorance . Someone is making the money off of the network programming be it the networks themselves or the local affiliates from purchasing them. They are then being broadcast to millions of homes. Dish customers are paying for these broadcasts be it local or distant. It seems the only person losing by allowing distant networks is the local affiliates, whom can keep their customer base by offering local programming. I can understand if the Networks disallowed the distant broadcasts of their networks, but I don't understand why the FCC is involved in this decision, and if this was the case, the Networks could pull the local channels affiliation if the local channel was broadcasting outside of there area. But this is not the case, the Networks are allowing the local channels (such as Denver) to broadcast distant networks. I know I may sound ignorant, but I don't see why the government is involved in this, and why the networks are opposed to this. Or are you saying that the Distant Networks (such as the Denver channels) sued the Networks to allow distribution on a limited basis, or how did the distant network decision come about?

BTW, I'm a little biased on the matter, because I moved here from Colorado and would love the opportunity to watch the Bronco games .


----------



## Greg Bimson

bgrauberger said:


> ...the Networks are allowing the local channels (such as Denver) to broadcast distant networks. I know I may sound ignorant, but I don't see why the government is involved in this, and why the networks are opposed to this. Or are you saying that the Distant Networks (such as the Denver channels) sued the Networks to allow distribution on a limited basis, or how did the distant network decision come about?


I'll try to make this easy.

There are two pieces of US Code that allow local channels to be rebroadcast by satellite, with respect to the copyright. One has been on the books for darn near 20 years, and is Title 17, Chapter 119.

So, long story very short, any satellite provider can take any network station, and rebroadcast that station to anyone that is not in an area served by a local broadcast affiliate. For a satellite company, this law allows the satellite company to do this without the need for a contract.

So, if I started a satellite company and wanted to rebroadcast KUSA out of Denver, I can simply do it, as long as I don't give anyone the channel that is in range of an NBC affiliate. And I do not need to even talk to the owners of KUSA.

The issue is that Dish Network was giving these distant network stations without qualification. So of course the affiliates were mad.

The government was involved because they were the ones that granted the license; the courts are involved when there is an issue with violations of the license.


----------



## Tower Guy

bgrauberger said:


> Perhaps I am missing something as I am not a lawyer, but many of the articles in the newspapers are by the associated press, it seems that the newspapers are purchasing the rights to the copyright when purchasing the ap articles and are then free to distribute them to anyone they wish, along with the local newspaper articles. Why is this different than local networks purchasing programming, and therefore purchasing the copyright rights then rebroadcasting to whomever they wish? I am not arguing your point with this question, I truely want to understand the logic in limiting the broadcast of networks.
> 
> Thanks


The Associated Press is a cooperative that allows anyone who is willing to pay the rights to the articles. There are no territorial rights to AP stories.

However, some newpaper stories are written and syndicated by companies such as Knight Ridder. Those stories have territorial rights. If there were no such rights, Knight Ridder would sell the story once, and everyone else would copy it without restrictions. This action would deprive Knight Ridder the rightful fruits of their labor.


----------



## bgrauberger

Thank you all for the posts. To summarize, my understanding is the issue is copyright infringement by Dish Network, for rebroadcasting w/o permission to people not authorized by the networks to receive the transmission. If I'm understanding correctly, this makes sense to me. Hope I'm not coming across as an idiot, I'm just not familiar w/the laws involved in this issue, and I appreciate the feedback to help me w/understading. Although, I would still love to watch the Bronco Games .


----------



## Tower Guy

bgrauberger said:


> Thank you all for the posts. Although, I would still love to watch the Bronco Games .


Are you in a location that could pick up a nearby market that is carrying the Broncos? Below is one example where Greenboro, SC had the Broncos, but Atlanta, GA did not.

http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/07-CBS.gif

As a Bills fan, I watched the game yesterday on WFXV in Utica, NY because WXXA in Albany had Dallas/Washington.

http://www.gribblenation.net/nflmaps/09-FOX.gif


----------



## BobS

*Almost. You need two things (1) Copyright clearance which can be provided by 17 USC 119 and (2) Permission of the owner of the signal (the network a/o affiliate). The copyright owner is generally NOT the network/affiliate.*



Greg Bimson said:


> I'll try to make this easy.
> 
> There are two pieces of US Code that allow local channels to be rebroadcast by satellite, with respect to the copyright. One has been on the books for darn near 20 years, and is Title 17, Chapter 119.
> 
> So, long story very short, any satellite provider can take any network station, and rebroadcast that station to anyone that is not in an area served by a local broadcast affiliate. For a satellite company, this law allows the satellite company to do this without the need for a contract.
> 
> So, if I started a satellite company and wanted to rebroadcast KUSA out of Denver, I can simply do it, as long as I don't give anyone the channel that is in range of an NBC affiliate. And I do not need to even talk to the owners of KUSA.
> 
> The issue is that Dish Network was giving these distant network stations without qualification. So of course the affiliates were mad.
> 
> The government was involved because they were the ones that granted the license; the courts are involved when there is an issue with violations of the license.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> Almost. You need two things (1) Copyright clearance which can be provided by 17 USC 119 and (2) *Permission of the owner of the signal (the network a/o affiliate). The copyright owner is generally NOT the network/affiliate.*


Nope. Satellite carriers do *NOT* need the permission of the station that they wish to carry as a distant. The can, under 17USC119, pick up any network affiliate that they want and air it anywhere that they want as long as that customer isn't "served" by another affiliate of the same network.

Echostar could have chosen to carry random stations throughout the US as distants, as long as they didn't offer them to someone within Grade B (or with an LIL affiliate starting in 2005) without a waiver.


----------



## BobS

*Incorrect. This has nothing to do with 17 USC 119. It is a prohibition under 47 USC 325. There are several exceptions (including some for DBS) but as blanket statement the original contention is not true. Neither was mine as written. I should have said "As a general rule...." or "With some exceptions...."*



James Long said:


> Nope. Satellite carriers do *NOT* need the permission of the station that they wish to carry as a distant. The can, under 17USC119, pick up any network affiliate that they want and air it anywhere that they want as long as that customer isn't "served" by another affiliate of the same network.
> 
> Echostar could have chosen to carry random stations throughout the US as distants, as long as they didn't offer them to someone within Grade B (or with an LIL affiliate starting in 2005) without a waiver.


----------



## Darkman

DirecTV Downplays EchoStar Injunction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn 
11/6/2006 5:45:00 PM

DirecTV said 850,000 EchoStar Communications subscribers won't be "overly inconvenienced" by the court-ordered denial of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox programming that originates on TV stations located outside of the subscribers' home markets.

DirecTV issued a statement saying that "virtually every" EchoStar customer who is going to lose distant signals can retain access to network programming by viewing their local affiliates with an off-air antenna, over cable or via EchoStar's and DirecTV's local signal packages.

"Affected customers do have options," DirecTV said. "As usual, the free market is providing a strong solution to this challenge."

In October, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction that bars EchoStar from selling distant network signals after Dec. 1 because the satellite carrier had been found guilty of selling distant networks to hundreds of thousands of legally ineligible customers.

Distant network signals are not allowed to be sold indiscriminately because local network TV stations have exclusivity rights. Under copyright law, only customers who can't get a clear picture with an off-air antenna are legally eligible to buy distant signals.

Last Friday, EchoStar asked U.S. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to postpone the injunction until April 16, claiming that its computerized programming-authorization system could "crash" under the stress of dealing with hundreds of thousands of customers looking to replace their distant signals.

---
( Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6388785.html )


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> Incorrect. This has nothing to do with 17 USC 119. It is a prohibition under 47 USC 325. There are several exceptions (including some for DBS) but as blanket statement the original contention is not true. Neither was mine as written. I should have said "As a general rule...." or "With some exceptions...."


Post a link to where satellite carriers need to ask permission to carry a station as a distant. It's a good challenge.

BTW: Please stop using bold for your entire posts. There is no reason to yell at us unless you think volume wins out over truth.


----------



## BobS

You're a smart guy. I know you can find the cited law. I don't consider bold yelling and have never seen it defined as such (CAPS IS YELLING!) The use of bolding was designed primarily to make reading easier for those of us of a certain age and secondarily to clearly delineate different posters. But color can be used as well for the latter. I never worried about volume because I always have the truth :hurah:



James Long said:


> Post a link to where satellite carriers need to ask permission to carry a station as a distant. It's a good challenge.
> 
> BTW: Please stop using bold for your entire posts. There is no reason to yell at us unless you think volume wins out over truth.


----------



## Darkman

I, too, always thought CAPS WAS YELLING .. and NOT bold! 

And personally, i don't consider bold being "YELLING" neither


----------



## BobS

Clarification prompted by an exchange on another thread: the statutory license of 17 USC 119 covers DNS, SV, and Superstations. However the injunction only covers ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC. So with regard to SV, they will be cut off on Dec 1 but only if they are affiliates of the four mentioned networks. However I imagine that most of the few available SV stations are network.


----------



## James Long

Looking back ...


BobS said:


> Almost. You need two things (1) Copyright clearance which can be provided by 17 USC 119 and (2) Permission of the owner of the signal (the network a/o affiliate). The copyright owner is generally NOT the network/affiliate.


When challenged: "Satellite carriers do NOT need the permission of the station that they wish to carry as a distant. " we got the reply.


BobS said:


> It is a prohibition under 47 USC 325.


Nope ...

Try 47 CFR 76.64 ... no multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of any commercial broadcasting station without the express authority of the originating station, *except* ... A commercial broadcast signal may be retransmitted without express authority of the originating station if ... The distributor is a satellite carrier and the signal is transmitted directly to a home satellite antenna, provided that: The broadcast station is owned or operated by, or affiliated with a broadcasting network, and the household receiving the signal is an unserved household.​Explicit permission from the station to rebroadcast any network station to any unserved customer (those served by 17 USC 119). No permission needed from the station.


----------



## Mikey

BobS said:


> You're a smart guy. I know you can find the cited law. I don't consider bold yelling and have never seen it defined as such (CAPS IS YELLING!) The use of bolding was designed primarily to make reading easier for those of us of a certain age and secondarily to clearly delineate different posters. But color can be used as well for the latter. I never worried about volume because I always have the truth :hurah:


You're saying that you have trouble reading *YOUR OWN POSTS?* You obviously have no trouble reading everyone else's posts in a normal font.


----------



## Darkman

Take it easy on him, Mikey...

It's just his style more likely.. that's all 

BTW,


Mikey said:


> You're saying that you have trouble reading *YOUR OWN POSTS?*


That's bold and CAPS ------> so that's .. YELLING, lol 

(just stating the obvious basically)


----------



## James Long

:backtotop ...


----------



## joe42

With all the satellite and cable companies out there they really should all be allowed to provide networks to anyone. 

To me the simplest solution to keep the local stations and companies happy. Have 100% of the local market available under any cable or satellite. If your local DMA does not carry 1 or more of the networks then you should be able to receive those networks from a Neighboring or closest DMA to your area that has them.

That seems like the easiest solution to me anyway.


----------



## BobS

First of all - please note that a statute always trumps a regulation on the same subject when there is a conflict. So you would have done better to quote the US Code. Second - you either missed or ignored my follow-up post. My original response was to Greg saying (my interpretation) that he could set up his own satellite service and freely rebroadcast any network signal to anyone without locals. This is what I dispute. However I failed to note that there are exceptions in my original response but did so in the follow-up. Even the CFR section you quote is restricted (limited) in that it is in relation only to the unwashed, er, unserved. This is one of the exceptions. An exception does not make the rule. I will go back and look at what Greg wrote. If I misread his comment, I apologize to all impacted but my statement about needing signal owner permission is still the default condition. You cleverly (?) included a reference to 17 USC 119, where none appears in the original. This section is independent of 17 USC 119 (which deals with the copyright statutory license). Some of the terms may be defined the same but this section is in no way dependent upon the statutory license existing. Here unserved(1) is not the same as unserved(2) In summary - to rebroadcast you need (1) Permission of the copyright owners or some substitute (like the statutory license) *AND*(2) Permission of the signal owner unless a statutory exception applies. Just as the statutory license does not apply in all cases (as E* learned the hard way) neither do the exceptions to 47 USC 325. As a practical matter, Greg is probably correct. But that does not change what the law says.



James Long said:


> Looking back ...When challenged: "Satellite carriers do NOT need the permission of the station that they wish to carry as a distant. " we got the reply.Nope ...
> 
> Try 47 CFR 76.64 ... no multichannel video programming distributor shall retransmit the signal of any commercial broadcasting station without the express authority of the originating station, *except* ... A commercial broadcast signal may be retransmitted without express authority of the originating station if ... The distributor is a satellite carrier and the signal is transmitted directly to a home satellite antenna, provided that: The broadcast station is owned or operated by, or affiliated with a broadcasting network, and the household receiving the signal is an unserved household.​Explicit permission from the station to rebroadcast any network station to any unserved customer (those served by 17 USC 119). No permission needed from the station.


----------



## James Long

17 USC 119 helps by providing the definition of unserved. You cannot look at the law without looking at the entire law. But back to your "reference" ... 47 USC 325 is a big chunk of code .... and it still says you are wrong! (See here - although the dates have not been updated on that page to reflect the extensions made in 2004.)
§ 325 (b) Consent to retransmission of broadcasting station signals
{The wonderful section that says permission is needed?}
(2) This subsection shall not apply-
(C) until December 31, 2004, to retransmission of the signals of network stations directly to a home satellite antenna, if the subscriber receiving the signal-
(i) is located in an area outside the local market of such stations; and
(ii) resides in an unserved household;​Your own reference CONFIRMS what is in the CFR reference ... no permission is needed. 
You did read the reference before referring to it, didn't you? :grin:

A new satellite service offering distants to unserved areas would be perfectly legal. As long as that service didn't violate the laws (like E* did) they would do fine - just don't sell channels to people within Grade B of any other affiliate of each network and don't sell channels within their own market.
In New York sell Boston locals ... or Miami, or Chicago, or Terre Haute for that matter as long as the customer lives outside all the Grade Bs for that network.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## Greg Bimson

minnow said:


> What I found amazing is that Charlie admitted that E* pushed this Distant lawsuit too far.


The thumping sound you hear is me patting myself on the back. 

I'm sorry for all of those that will lose distants, especially those that will have no other options. It should have _never_ gotten that far.


----------



## James Long

Charlie Ergen (after explaining the 900,000 number and it's relationship between in LIL market and outside LIL market customers):I think the part that I feel worse about is, customers trust us and customers rely on us for their networks and we as a management team made some poor decisions in hindsight and their are consequences and potential consequences to customers who did nothing wrong. I hate to make mistakes and I don't feel good about it. Having said that, I worked on the legislation. I know that it is not congressional intent for these customers to lose their signal. We'll see if congress will do something about it.​
There are a couple of times where Mr Ergen refers to RV owners as if they are going to be able to keep their distants. I believe that these references are erroneous.

I suspect we will hear more next Monday on the Tech Forum (even though it is a Tech Forum).


----------



## BobS

Ok - here's another chance for glory - the SV issue. There seem to be some confusion/disagreement (ok, that's an understatement). My position:

SV's are simply a special category of distants in this context (the FCC list includes locals and distants but 119 specifically excludes locals as SV). Thus they use the 119 license (as do Superstations). Since the injunction applies only to network signals (ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC), any SV that belongs to one of the four disappears on December 1. Any SV not affiliated with these networks stays. SV's are distants but have the advantage of not counting towards the maximum of two per network per day limit. SV's have the disadvantage is that there is no royalty payment.

So agree/disagree? December 2nd looms.




Greg Bimson said:


> The thumping sound you hear is me patting myself on the back.
> 
> I'm sorry for all of those that will lose distants, especially those that will have no other options. It should have _never_ gotten that far.


----------



## James Long

Bob, you're going to need to find someone who disagrees with you if you want a fight. The consensus has been SVs are distants and are gone ... if you're joining the majority great! but don't make it sound like you invented that position. 

Distant networks: Gone - regardless of how the customer qualified or any waivers.
SV Stations: Gone if they are network stations - unless Congress moves them out of 119.*
Local Stations: SAFE - as long as they are not offered to that customer using the 119 license.

Easy way to put it: _Any network affiliate station that is offered to a customer using 119 as the copyright license will be gone as soon as E* can turn it off._

The court ordered "by December 1st" - E* requested an extension to April 16th. Don't assume that if a station is still available on December 2nd that it will be there forever. (Even saying we will find out December 2nd is suspect.)


----------



## Greg Bimson

BobS: we agree.


----------



## James Long

More court filings on Tuesday - A notice of appeal finally appears along with the judge's order granting "expidite consideration" - Filings due by Nov 13th with replies due by Nov 17th.1025 Filed: 10/27/2006, Entered: 11/06/2006 Notice of Appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to [1019] Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, Order on Motion for Hearing and [1020] Order EOD DATE: 10/20/06 by EchoStar Communications Corporation, EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation, Direct sat Corp, Filing Fee $ FEE NOT PAID; Copies to USCA and Counsel of Record. (bg)

1026 Filed: 11/06/2006, Entered: 11/07/2006 Order on Motion to Expedite
ORDER granting [1024] Motion to Expedite Consideration; Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for modification shall be filed on or before 11/13/2006. Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 11/06/2006. (bs)​


----------



## Terry K

Even if they offer all 210 markets, some markets do NOT have all 4 affiliates. St Joseph is a good example of this. Just one network affiliate, KQTV. Under SigViewed, DISH can legally offer all of the major KC network affils to that market, however, the judge's order apperantly blocks this. 

No one is going to want just one channel if its the only local in existance in that market.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## joblo

minnow said:


> Any speculation as to the granting of the expedited appeal may mean ?


Oh please.

Haven't we learned our lesson yet about speculating on the meaning of this judge's behavior in such matters?


----------



## Greg Bimson

joblo said:


> Haven't we learned our lesson yet about speculating on the meaning of this judge's behavior in such matters?


Yep.


minnow said:


> Any speculation as to the granting of the expedited appeal may mean ?


Sure. It means the judge will make his decision more quickly.


----------



## James Long

Granting the motion ONLY speeds up the process of looking at the request. If he had not granted the motion it would have followed a normal timetable that would likely have put the deadline for filings and responses too close to December 1st to make a difference.

As it stands, E* MUST follow the judge's order by (not on, by) December 1st. If the judge rules against E* again and does not amend the injuction E* still MUST follow the injunction. If that is technically impossible - tough. (Although what the penalty for not having all of the distant subscribers disconnected by December 1st is not stated. It is a "you will" without an "or else".)

Personally, I just see it as speeding up the rejection process. 

Nice to see an appeal has been filed - but we've been down that path before. Fortunately IF the appeals court hears the case they CAN do something. It is their mandate. A court may modify their own mandate.

And then there is still the Supreme Court action pending - still waiting to see if they will hear the case based on the last appeal (the one that ended with the mandate).

The lawyers will still be making a living long after distants "go dark".


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## minnow

joblo said:


> Oh please.
> 
> Haven't we learned our lesson yet about speculating on the meaning of this judge's behavior in such matters?


I don't think Dish has a snowballs chance to prevail here. My comment had to do with whether the judge may allow more time to Dish to turn off DNS to 900,000 subs. If all the replies to the motions are due on the 17th, the Judge is not going to be making a ruling at the earliest until the week of 20th. That doesn't leave but 10 days at the most for Dish to comply.

And to answer James question about penalties for failure to comply by 12/1; I imagine the judge could hold E* in contempt of court and assess penalties which I suppose could include jail.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I took some time to glance over Echostar's issue why they need until 16 April for the shut-offs occur.

The funny thing is I could swear instead of worrying about the authorization process, Dish Network could simply use a slate on the distant network channels stating these channels have been removed. That fixes the authorization problem.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> The funny thing is I could swear instead of worrying about the authorization process, Dish Network could simply use a slate on the distant network channels stating these channels have been removed. That fixes the authorization problem.


The authorization codes for the distants in the 240's are shared with the real channels in the 8000's. All customers would have to do would be to look to the higher channel. Then there are the distants that are not in the 240's ...

E* needs to remove the authorization channel by channel, receiver by receiver. They could do a batch job but they need to be careful not to deauth people who get the channel as a LIL local. Yes, the 240's could become slates in a heartbeat (or at least quickly) - but stopping distant subs from viewing the home channels in the 8000's, not so easy. (Moving all distants to spots would help eliminate distant subs quickly - as I have mentioned before in this thread.)

BTW: It's the same reasoning - exact same documents - that E* previously filed with the court saying they needed an extended period of time to be able to shut off distants without affecting other customers (normal auth/deauth activity, PPVs, etc.)


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## James Long

Only channel guide position and channel name (although the EPGs are separate).


----------



## TNGTony

The 240 range was there from day one. The 8000 range was added much, much later when "must carry" kicked in jan 2002 and Dish moved all the local channels to the 8000 range. Originally channels 241-247 were "Prime-Time 24" channels. When Prime-time 24 lost round one of this court case in summer of 1998 Dish switched to the NYC and LA local nets to avoid the first shut-off order which was directed at PT24. (Essentially it took 8½ years for the courts to catch up to Dish)

The same thing happened to the superstations. All the superstations are available on their "local" channel slots in the 8000 range. But they are also on their original channel slots on the 230 channel range.

See ya
Tony


----------



## JohnH

And there are still those which don't know that the distants can be shutoff by changing the codes on those channels. This would have no affect on Local into Local of the same channels. The problem with doing that is the RV waiver people would also lose their "distants" at the same time. One other problem would be addressing the account changes of all those 900,000 in a bulk cutoff. Thus the subscriber by subscriber activity currently underway. Let's hope it goes faster.


----------



## Greg Bimson

JohnH said:


> This would have no affect on Local into Local of the same channels. The problem with doing that is the RV waiver people would also lose their "distants" at the same time.


I'm still trying to figure out how Dish Network plans to execute on keeping an RV waiver.


----------



## James Long

JohnH said:


> And there are still those which don't know that the distants can be shutoff by changing the codes on those channels. This would have no affect on Local into Local of the same channels.


This would be possible if they changed the codes to a channel someone who has that market's locals should already have ... for example changing Chicago's big four stations to the code used for one of the non-network stations in Chicago such as WGN's local. Give us access to the NIT/SDT and we'll have the distants off without killing locals in no time!* Let E* do it and it will take 120 business days. 


JohnH said:


> The problem with doing that is the RV waiver people would also lose their "distants" at the same time. One other problem would be addressing the account changes of all those 900,000 in a bulk cutoff. Thus the subscriber by subscriber activity currently underway. Let's hope it goes faster.


I don't see where E* gets the authority to continue serving RV customers. I'm with Greg on this.

* I have not checked the other out of market mirrors to see if E* is using the same code for the home version as the out of market version. Still, every market that has a network station being used out of market also has other stations that are limited to just that market with a code that could be used.


----------



## juan ellitinez

What if E* moved distants to a "sky angel" transponder and "sky angel" offered them alacart to qualifying customers??


----------



## James Long

E* would probably get slapped silly by the judge.

The same if E* "rents" a transponder at 119° to SkyAngel or some other independent company for them to provide distants as a separate entity. Justice may be blind, but it is not stupid.

At this point if SA decided to start it's own "distants" service everyone involved would cry foul so loud that it would never go through.


----------



## juan ellitinez

James Long said:


> E* would probably get slapped silly by the judge.
> 
> The same if E* "rents" a transponder at 119° to SkyAngel or some other independent company for them to provide distants as a separate entity. Justice may be blind, but it is not stupid.
> 
> At this point if SA decided to start it's own "distants" service everyone involved would cry foul so loud that it would never go through.


 they wouldbe part of the "sky angel service".. just viewable on a e* receiver


----------



## James Long

juan ellitinez said:


> they wouldbe part of the "sky angel service".. just viewable on a e* receiver


And any such offering started now would be the subject of a lawsuit. Who is going to pay SkyAngel's costs in such a suit? E*? Wouldn't that just prove further that the two systems were working together to circumvent a judge's ruling and the injunction?


----------



## BobS

Now wait a minute Jimbo - I thought that anybody could offer distants (at least to the unserved). If SkyAngel is an unrelated legal entity, who is going to sue and on what basis?



James Long said:


> And any such offering started now would be the subject of a lawsuit. Who is going to pay SkyAngel's costs in such a suit? E*? Wouldn't that just prove further that the two systems were working together to circumvent a judge's ruling and the injunction?


----------



## James Long

ANYONE can sue anyone ... this is America! (OK, there are some restrictions - but they are usually sorted out in court after the suit has cost both parties some money.)

The suit would be based on just how "unrelated" the entities are. Right now E* uplinks the SkyAngel service and operates the satellite the channels are transmitted back to viewers on. E* doesn't own the licenses to those transponders, but they are certainly "related". At least enough to file the suit.


----------



## Greg Bimson

The point here is that Sky Angel would have to willingly start some kind of distant service, without any help. Sky Angel could not enter into some kind of an agreement with Dish Network in order to provide this service.


----------



## BobS

What consensus? I quick review of posts on the subject indicate a wide variety of opinion. I didn't do a complete analysis but I think I was the first (or one of the first) people to say that SV and DNS were not necessarily different animals. But I am not interested in that piece of trivia. There is a persistent question on why E* is light on the SV channels.** Clearly somebody doesn't understand the situtation as you do. You own statement that "SVs are distants and are gone*" - is incorrect as not all distants are network stations, which you acknowledge further in your comment. The dispute shouldn't be framed (as it has been) between one camp that says "SV's are unaffected" and another that says "SV's are gone." The truth lies in between.

*now if you meant that all of the SV's that E* offers are network (I don't know if that is true or not) and will be gone then that is a different matter but you should be clear in which set of stations you are referring to.

**I find this an interesting question. Assuming E* is not in the predicament it is or is restored at some point. What are the factors that argue for or against more SV stations? I can only think of financial ones.



James Long said:


> Bob, you're going to need to find someone who disagrees with you if you want a fight. The consensus has been SVs are distants and are gone ... if you're joining the majority great! but don't make it sound like you invented that position.
> 
> Distant networks: Gone - regardless of how the customer qualified or any waivers.
> SV Stations: Gone if they are network stations - unless Congress moves them out of 119.*
> Local Stations: SAFE - as long as they are not offered to that customer using the 119 license.
> 
> Easy way to put it: _Any network affiliate station that is offered to a customer using 119 as the copyright license will be gone as soon as E* can turn it off._
> 
> The court ordered "by December 1st" - E* requested an extension to April 16th. Don't assume that if a station is still available on December 2nd that it will be there forever. (Even saying we will find out December 2nd is suspect.)


----------



## BobS

Greg Bimson said:


> The point here is that Sky Angel would have to willingly start some kind of distant service, without any help. Sky Angel could not enter into some kind of an agreement with Dish Network in order to provide this service.


I dunno. I don't think SA would be required to set up its own infrastructure. Satellite space is rented all the time. Now using SA as a front or "cut out" for E* is clearly a no-no but the injunction applies to E* operations and isn't a ban on the use of its tangible property - at least I don't think so. Need to ruminate some more.


----------



## James Long

*There is a persistent question on why E* is light on the SV channels.*
Their prior claim was that they have added all of the SVs that they could.
It is all speculation anyways.

*SVs are distants and are gone*
Read the whole post ... I put the caveat in the next section (and there are a few non-network stations in the 6200 channel range where most SVs are uplinked. The consensus doesn't always quote the caveats in every post.

Our posts will all be as long as the legal documents if we always included every little caveat that we all understand exists. 

How is E* planing on keeping RV customers?
Would you like to join the consensus on that one and say they can't?

SkyAngel ...
If E* is involved in any way with the provision of distants via SkyAngel or some "independent" source of distants for E* customers it will be suspect. At the moment SkyAngel collects it's own bills ... a good thing that helps separate the companies. Yet E* does the actual auth/deauth work for SA. If there was some "independent offering" E* would probably get in trouble for any promotion of it. It has trouble written all over it. I doubt if SkyAngel would cooperate in such a scheme anyways, but it wouldn't last.

E* is down to the last 40 markets. Getting network SVs back should be their primary goal ... perhaps legally keeping RV subs would be a good idea (although it is an easy path to be abused). Messing around with schemes to continue distants to people they cannot legally serve? Not a good idea.


----------



## kstuart

- The text of the email from DISH about RV waivers (on satguys) sounds like it was written when they thought the settlement would be approved "... we fought for this provision... ". My guess is that the CSRs are just pulling up that response from their customer issue response system.

- I'll reiterate that if the Judge's decision was purely based on legal issues, then he will have no reason not to approve the delay, since the delay prevents harm to innocent parties - the customers, and the whole process has taken years already, so no big deal if it takes a few more months to conclude. (He might make it a little earlier than DISH's request just to avoid the appearance of capitulation to a guilty party.) IMHO, if the Judge denies any delay request, then it shows that the emotional statement made in the footnote is indeed the underlying motive, rather than so-called legal requirements.

- Any other entity could provide Distants. As close as they could get would be to buy DISH's customer list - since any company can do so. DISH could provide whatever services to that company, but it would have to be at industry standard rates, and the other company would probably need to have no ownership by Ergen or DeFranco. Of course, DISH could not include the billing for that company in its own bills. If Sky Angel qualifies with all this, they could provide distants using services provided by DISH at standard rates. The main requirement IMHO is that E*, Ergen and DeFranco cannot receive any revenue or earnings from the distant subscriptions.

- In terms of what happens if the motion is denied and the Distants are not shut off on December 1st, there is not a "penalty", because the shutoff *IS* the penalty. In theory, Federal Marshalls would show up in Cheyenne to disconnect the feeds...


----------



## James Long

kstuart said:


> - In terms of what happens if the motion is denied and the Distants are not shut off on December 1st, there is not a "penalty", because the shutoff *IS* the penalty. In theory, Federal Marshalls would show up in Cheyenne to disconnect the feeds...


That would be fun. :grin:

I believe that the judge will grant or deny the change to April 16th based on who he believes should still receive the channels and the evidence presented proving they NEED more time. He has seen the recently refiled documents before and still set Dec 1st as a date (45 days).

If he believes that there are exceptions to his injunction he may give more time. But If he considers his injunction total and does not receive further evidence that it really will take 120 business days I don't see the injunction being modified by this court.


----------



## Lou

Scanning through this tread and just noticed Tower Guy wrote; “But you have to physically go elsewhere to do business with another car dealer. Your local car dealer has the same kind of territorial franchise that a TV station has. If you want TV from somewhere else, you should actually live there

Not so much. I can by a car from any dealer and I don’t have to leave my home. A few years back a friend in Denver told me about his deal on a new car. It just so happens the wife wanted one of those and no one, anywhere near Cleveland, came close to the price. So I called the dealer in Denver who offered the same price and delivered the car to my door. I can have a car delivered from 1000 mile away, I can have any cities newspaper delivered to my door and I can dial up out of town radio stations on the web. Perhaps living in America has given me an attitude. I have a basic problem with being told a local television station owns me. 

Yes yes yes, the system, the system, the system. You know there was a time when you couldn’t choose between phone or power providers and then we grew up.


----------



## James Long

The closest example would be soft drink bottling companies, which have territorial rules like network affilates that are enforced (probably more heavily than TV affiliates). But nevertheless the rules ARE there for TV affiliates -- each station agreed to the rules when they became an affiliate. For them to offer their signal outside of their defined market violates their affiliate contract. They can't do it.

The distants law was a way to get around that contract. The stations DO NOT have to grant permission for their feeds to be used, so they do not violate the contract. The law makes sure that the "distant" stations are not offered where another station holds rights (originally by Grade B and now also including each station's entire LIL market) unless they choose to waive their rights. It is a simple thing.

But some people still want the government to interfere with the private affiliate contracts further. Try to remember that the distants laws are a step toward government interference in private contracts, not a restriction on the industry. 17 USC 119 is a permissive law - without it (as E* is finding out) there would be no distants.


----------



## Tower Guy

Lou said:


> Scanning through this tread and just noticed Tower Guy wrote; "But you have to physically go elsewhere to do business with another car dealer. Your local car dealer has the same kind of territorial franchise that a TV station has. If you want TV from somewhere else, you should actually live there
> 
> Not so much. I can by a car from any dealer and I don't have to leave my home. A few years back a friend in Denver told me about his deal on a new car. It just so happens the wife wanted one of those and no one, anywhere near Cleveland, came close to the price. So I called the dealer in Denver who offered the same price and delivered the car to my door. I can have a car delivered from 1000 mile away, I can have any cities newspaper delivered to my door and I can dial up out of town radio stations on the web. Perhaps living in America has given me an attitude. I have a basic problem with being told a local television station owns me.
> 
> Yes yes yes, the system, the system, the system. You know there was a time when you couldn't choose between phone or power providers and then we grew up.


You left out the best part, "EH?"

Just because a dealer in Denver sold a car in Cleveland doesn't mean that he had the legal right to do so.

You bought an original copy of the newspaper, not a pirated copy.

ASCAP and BMI sell rights to music to anyone who is willing to pay. Unlike the rights owners of TV shows they do not exersize their copyrights exclusively.

If you don't understand the differences I'm wasting my time.


----------



## Darkman

By John Eggerton, STAFF

(Broadcasting & Cable) _ National Association of Broadcasters President David Rehr says the association is opposing any extension of EchoStar's deadline for the court-ordered dropping of its delivery of distant network TV station signals.

EchoStar asked for a 120-day extension of a Florida District Court's Oct. 20 order that it no longer deliver distant network signals to its customers as of Dec. 1.

Rehr said he was been coordinating with interested board members--they are meeting this week in Washington--and that NAB plans to send a letter to the Hill opposing any extension and asking Congress not to weigh in and to let the injunction take effect.

Rehr said he hopes the market "works through the illegals EchoStar has been retaining."...

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=79967 )


----------



## DennyC

On the subject of RV waivers and whether those that have them will still receive distant networks, the DISH CSR I talked to this morning was unequivocal: those that have RV waivers will NOT receive distant networks. However, she went on to say that those with RV waivers are encouraged to call Dish as often as they want to (even daily) with a change-of-physical-address-- so they'll be able to receive the local channels in whatever area they're traveling in.

This is unacceptable, of course-- it hearkens back to the days before RV waivers, when we called in whenever we changed time zones just so the clock in the guide would be right. I gave up doing that when the hold times got unreasonable, I'm certainly not going to do it daily as we travel,

So, for me, after more than ten years with Dish, this is the end. Direct TV will not only sell me the distant networks I need, they'll give me two dual-tuner DVR's, for free, to get me started-- Charlie has NEVER been that generous.


----------



## derwin0

DennyC said:


> This is unacceptable, of course-- it hearkens back to the days before RV waivers, when we called in whenever we changed time zones just so the clock in the guide would be right. I gave up doing that when the hold times got unreasonable, I'm certainly not going to do it daily as we travel,


Simple solution:
When traveling, just change your address to New York (Eastern), Chicago (Central), Denver (Mountain), or Los Angeles (Pacific) depending on what time zone you are in. They're all ConUS, so can get them anywhere.


----------



## DennyC

derwin0 said:


> Simple solution:
> When traveling, just change your address to New York (Eastern), Chicago (Central), Denver (Mountain), or Los Angeles (Pacific) depending on what time zone you are in. They're all ConUS, so can get them anywhere.


Good idea, and for those RVer's that can't leave Dish for some reason, it's probably the best solution. Downsides, for me, include the required phone calls, the loss of time shifting capability (by having only one set of network feeds), and the necessity of resetting all the DVR timers every time we change feeds. We presently get the network feeds at three different times (east, west, and Phoenix) and hate to lose that capability. Consequently, I'll switch to Direct, despite the fact that it's going to cost me $300 + labor to make my RV roof dish point at the right satellites.

Not that I'm looking forward to Direct TV. I called to sign up this morning, it took almost three hours, went through 6 different CSR's, an installation guy, and a supervisor-- and I'll still be amazed if I get exactly what they say I will, for the price they said I should. On the plus side, on half-a-dozen different calls, I never had to hold for someone to pick up-- instant "service" (such as it was), every time.


----------



## CABill

What were you told by the CSRs about being able to get east/west/ and phoenix? Were you able to have the distants on the "RV receiver" be the same account as the other receivers? I'd heard that DirecTV had stopped granting "earlier time zone" and RV receivers that could get distants had to be a separate account. Was that just FUD based on what you were told?


----------



## DennyC

CABill said:


> I'd heard that DirecTV had stopped granting "earlier time zone" and RV receivers that could get distants had to be a separate account.


I'd heard that, too-- but according to CSR's that I asked, it's not true. They all agreed (some after lengthy consultations with their supervisors) that I didn't need a separate account for the RV-- all I need to do is submit the appropriate paperwork, and once it's accepted I'll be allowed to add the distant networks to the account.

I specifically asked if all the receivers on the account would receive the distant networks, or if I'd have to designate one as specific to the RV-- and they said all receivers would have them.

Interestingly, the RV waiver paperwork that Direct requires differs from that of Dish in one significant aspect. The Dish paperwork accurately reflects the law and requires only that the _dish_ be permanently installed on the RV-- it doesn't say anything about the receiver. The Direct paperwork, OTOH, specifies that both the dish _and_ the receiver stay in the RV-- which makes more sense, but is a direct contradiction to what the CSR's said. They were unanimous that there nothing wrong to with moving the receiver back and forth between house and RV.

Bottom line, I'm fairly confident that, one way or the other, I'll get the distants in the RV, which is my priority. If I end up getting them at home as well, that's icing on the cake (with four DVR tuners available in my new setup, time shifting becomes less of a problem). The only way they'd _really_ piss me off is to demand that I establish a second account for the RV. But, given the amount of misinformation I had to wade through today, nothing would surprise me.


----------



## Darkman

Darkman said:


> NAB Opposes EchoStar Distant-Signal Injunction Delay
> 
> By John Eggerton, STAFF
> 
> (Broadcasting & Cable) _ National Association of Broadcasters President David Rehr says the association is opposing any extension of EchoStar's deadline for the court-ordered dropping of its delivery of distant network TV station signals.
> 
> EchoStar asked for a 120-day extension of a Florida District Court's Oct. 20 order that it no longer deliver distant network signals to its customers as of Dec. 1.
> 
> Rehr said he was been coordinating with interested board members--they are meeting this week in Washington--and that NAB plans to send a letter to the Hill opposing any extension and asking Congress not to weigh in and to let the injunction take effect.
> 
> Rehr said he hopes the market "works through the illegals EchoStar has been retaining."...
> 
> ---
> ( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=79967 )


NAB Holds Off On EchoStar Letter

By John Eggerton, STAFF

(Broadcasting & Cable) _ Hold the phone. NAB isn't sending a letter to Congress after expressing its opposition to any extension to EchoStar's court-ordered yanking of distant network TV signals December 1.

NAB had been preparing the letter http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6389682.html?display=Search+Results&text=EchoStar , but is "standing down for the time being," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.

----
Source: http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=80364


----------



## BobS

Won't work. 1. If you use a large city for convenience or desire for that market, E* is again doing what got it into trouble. 2. Even if you give the actual city that you happen to be in, I don't think it qualifies. I think the term "reside" as used here means more than a transitory presence. To permit this would be essentially to allow E* to resume DNS to RV/Truckers (albeit with more hassle). This is Ergenesque game playing that the judge is not going to like. I don't believe Charlie would be this stupid. He would do better to wait for Congressional action and give out free antennas and expand LIL in the meantime.



derwin0 said:


> Simple solution:
> When traveling, just change your address to New York (Eastern), Chicago (Central), Denver (Mountain), or Los Angeles (Pacific) depending on what time zone you are in. They're all ConUS, so can get them anywhere.


----------



## BobS

A specific "or else" is not needed. Defiance of a court order (such as an injuction) is called "contempt" - if the judge wants to, he could put Charlie in the clink until the turn offs are complete. He is not going to buy the "impossibility" defense. Charlie has less than zero credibility.



James Long said:


> ....As it stands, E* MUST follow the judge's order by (not on, by) December 1st. If the judge rules against E* again and does not amend the injuction E* still MUST follow the injunction. If that is technically impossible - tough. (Although what the penalty for not having all of the distant subscribers disconnected by December 1st is not stated. It is a "you will" without an "or else".)


----------



## James Long

The last time E* defied an injunction from this judge it took several years for the judge to give the "or else" ... a stiffer injunction. It doesn't seem like there is a next step available.


----------



## CABill

DennyC said:


> I'd heard that, too-- but according to CSR's that I asked, it's not true.


Thanks for the info. I'd appreciate you update whenever you do get the RV paperwork resolved. And I hope it goes well for you.


----------



## BobS

I think you may be mixing up a couple of different things or maybe I don't understand your comment. I am not an expert on the history of the case (here Bimson, here Bimson, good boy!) During an appeal process, the injunction may either be stayed by the judge or higher authority. If not, noncompliance can get you jailed. I don't recall defiance of an active injunction by E*. Please provide details.



James Long said:


> The last time E* defied an injunction from this judge it took several years for the judge to give the "or else" ... a stiffer injunction. It doesn't seem like there is a next step available.


----------



## Greg Bimson

The original injunction on this case was stayed until the appeals process played out. Therefore, if a violation of the injunction is noted, Echostar will be in contempt. It just depends on which party complains to the court.


----------



## James Long

IIRC the original injunction wasn't much more than a "follow the law" ... it did not provide any more restriction on E* than if they simply followed the law. More of a "warning ticket".


----------



## DennyC

CABill said:


> I'd appreciate you update whenever you do get the RV paperwork resolved.


I'll start a new thread with a title including the words "RV Waiver" when it all gets resolved one way or another.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> Correct. Only exception is that the 2003 decision by Judge Dimitrouleas also stated since no evidence of grandfathered DNS subscribers was given, then Dish Network has no grandfathered DNS subscribers. All grandfathered subscribers would have to be requalified.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## James Long

There is enough wrong with that article (the assumption that If FOX would have settled the injunction would not have been issued) that it should be labeled specualtion --- don't trust the numbers!


----------



## TNGTony

Nothing new, but I just got this e-mail moments ago from Dish:

Dear [TNGTony],

Based upon a recent court ruling, there may be some small changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be able to continue to receive your local networks and other great programming that DISH Network currently provides.

So, you are NOT in danger of losing any of your local network channels, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX, from your community, and you can still enjoy all of the other great programming we provide, like ESPN, USA, Discovery and Showtime, without interruption.

But unfortunately, as a result of a recent court ruling, no later than December 1st, 2006, we may no longer be able to provide distant networks to customers regardless of past qualifications. Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast channels that you receive that originate from a market outside your community.

In addition, DISH Network continues to do everything possible to prevent you from losing your distant network channels before December 1st. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels - or learn more about what is happening in Washington about this issue - you can go to www.savemychannels.com which will walk you through how you can contact and email your representatives in Congress to ask them to protect your channels. Because we are running out of time, we ask you to call and email today.

Please visit channel 240 for additional information.

We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH Network customer.


----------



## James Long

I forgot to mention it when I saw it earlier today, but DishNetwork has also (finally) put this link on their website:
*Distant Network subscribers - click here*
*DISTANT NETWORK PROGRAMMING UPDATE*

A district court judge issued an injunction requiring DISH Network to shut off so-called "distant network" channels no later than December 1, 2006. Only about seven percent of DISH Network's 12.46 million subscribers receive Distant Network Programming (which includes ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast that originate from outside your local community).

This decision has NO impact on the vast majority of DISH Network subscribers:

Local network channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) from most local communities are NOT impacted and will be available without interruption.
Non-network channels (ESPN, USA, Discovery, Showtime) are NOT impacted and will be available without interruption.
If you are a Distant Network subscriber, DISH Network continues to do everything we can to preserve distant network channels for as many DISH Network customers as possible. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels - or learn more about what is happening about this issue - click here​


----------



## DishDog

Did you ask about receiving HD DNS? They told me I can only get the 380x DNS channels.


----------



## Darkman

EchoStar's Hill Play Will Face Opposition

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn
11/13/2006

Washington- The National Association of Broadcasters will oppose legislation that would allow EchoStar Communications to escape a federal injunction cutting off distant-network feeds to 850,000 satellite homes on Dec. 1.

EchoStar hopes that during this week's post-election lame-duck session, Congress will pass a law that would largely void a permanent injunction and allow the company to continue beaming ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox stations from New York and Los Angeles to its Dish Network customers around the country who can't obtain the same programming locally with off-air antennas....

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6390299.html )


----------



## James Long

I wonder if that article was written before the NAB withdrew their letter?

BTW: E* did file an appeal on the 8th with the appeals court. Still waiting on other actions in court.


----------



## colavsfaninnwia

Darkman said:


> EchoStar's Hill Play Will Face Opposition
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> By Ted Hearn
> 11/13/2006
> 
> ---


Darkman, you must be really good. How did you make a post on Nov 11th on an article posted with today's date?  Just curious~Colavsfan


----------



## James Long

That is the date on the article he linked. 

*TODAY IN COURT*
The affiliate associations have filed a response OPPOSING E*'s request for extra time. Seems that the affiliates feel that E* has made its bed and must now lie in it. They also contrast the public "don't worry" statements given to customers and investors against the court filings that claim dire straights.

Complete document attached!


----------



## rp3259

Dish has offered to come to my house in January to install an off air antenna that will allow me to pickup CBS and Fox some 70 miles away. At the Direct website I can get Fox out of LA or NY. I would switch if I could get CBS out of either location.


----------



## Darkman

colavsfaninnwia said:


> Darkman, you must be really good. How did you make a post on Nov 11th on an article posted with today's date?  Just curious~Colavsfan


Cuz, i guess, it was a weekend, etc .. and they post articles on line more likely on weekends included.. but they date those for Monday for example.. (more likely the date it will appear in their paper for example)

I think i actually posted one (in closed now Al-Jazeera thread) with a Nov 20 th date.. (from Mcleans magazine .. or something like that) ..
I guess they put it online.. but are planning to publish it in their magazine Next Monday


----------



## Link

My relatives live in an area where there is no local ABC station. If Dish cannot provide an ABC station of any kind, I know many of them will switch to cable because they won't stand for not having ABC especially since ABC has a lot of the current popular primetime shows and college football on the weekends. Directv doesn't even provide local stations for their area so no one will switch to them.


----------



## minnow

**


----------



## Darkman

The article is here:
http://www.chrisholmesonline.com/2006/11/13/next-up-state-run-television/


----------



## James Long

Darkman said:


> The article is here:
> http://www.chrisholmesonline.com/2006/11/13/next-up-state-run-television/


Yet another article from an author with only half a clue. 

E* lost distants by not following the law - not because of Fox TV's refusal to accept E*'s last minute post mandate settlement.


----------



## Greg Bimson

And I am going to hammer this guy.


----------



## CornChex

Well, when I got up this morning, my distant networks were gone, and only my local (Meridian, Mississippi) networks remained. My wife said, "It is not December 1st yet!"and I pointed out to her that the official word was that they would be shut off BEFORE December 1st.

Several years ago I had only antenna, and the local networks came in blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. I chalked that up to a poor antenna (even though I tried many different types over the years.) Now, with DISH these channels are still blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. It made me realize that the stations may just have old equipment and be broadcasting poor signals.:nono2: 

I am interested to know how many still have their distant networks...


----------



## Darkman

Greg Bimson said:


> And I am going to hammer this guy.


Tell him to come here, lol...

All of us will hammer him then (AKA. will educate him somewhat then)


----------



## WI0T

James Long said:


> Yet another article from an author with only half a clue.
> 
> I read that "article"...You're giving him a half a clue too much.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rod


----------



## James Long

He understands that distants are going away, that E* is losing them and D* isn't, and that there is very little hope of reprieve. Some people don't have that half a clue yet.


----------



## WI0T

James Long said:


> He understands that distants are going away, that E* is losing them and D* isn't, and that there is very little hope of reprieve. Some people don't have that half a clue yet.


Okay, I'll buy that. I stand corrected.:sure:


----------



## rebkell

CornChex said:


> Well, when I got up this morning, my distant networks were gone, and only my local (Meridian, Mississippi) networks remained. My wife said, "It is not December 1st yet!"and I pointed out to her that the official word was that they would be shut off BEFORE December 1st.
> 
> Several years ago I had only antenna, and the local networks came in blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. I chalked that up to a poor antenna (even though I tried many different types over the years.) Now, with DISH these channels are still blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. It made me realize that the stations may just have old equipment and be broadcasting poor signals.:nono2:
> 
> I am interested to know how many still have their distant networks...


I lost mine today also, I'm pretty sure they were there last night, they are gone today.


----------



## CornChex

rebkell said:


> I lost mine today also, I'm pretty sure they were there last night, they are gone today.


Thanks, *rebkell.* We are sad at our house, because we have watched the "Today" show out of New York at 6:00 AM for years. It doesn't come on until 7:00 AM here, and we are at work by that time.  I'm sure we'll get adjusted to it, though.


----------



## BobS

Somebody should ask him (I'm not going to cast pearls before swine) how many DNS stations would be available if the evil, nasty law that required the injunction had never been written. Anybody want to guess? (Ben Stein mode on) Anybody? Anybody?



James Long said:


> He understands that distants are going away, that E* is losing them and D* isn't, and that there is very little hope of reprieve. Some people don't have that half a clue yet.


----------



## fishbait

CornChex said:


> Well, when I got up this morning, my distant networks were gone, and only my local (Meridian, Mississippi) networks remained. My wife said, "It is not December 1st yet!"and I pointed out to her that the official word was that they would be shut off BEFORE December 1st.
> 
> Several years ago I had only antenna, and the local networks came in blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. I chalked that up to a poor antenna (even though I tried many different types over the years.) Now, with DISH these channels are still blurred, ghosted, and fuzzy. It made me realize that the stations may just have old equipment and be broadcasting poor signals.:nono2:
> 
> I am interested to know how many still have their distant networks...


CornChex, I live 90 miles north of you (Meridian) and my Distants were cut off this morning also 11/14/06


----------



## jericho

BobS said:


> Somebody should ask him (I'm not going to cast pearls before swine) how many DNS stations would be available if the evil, nasty law that required the injunction had never been written. Anybody want to guess? (Ben Stein mode on) Anybody? Anybody?


I don't think that's his point though. I see his point to be that ANY consumer should be able to watch distant locals. And I'd have to agree with that. (this coming from a customer that just lost my Denver and L.A. DNS channels last night, in the middle of a show I was watching) In an age where we have a ridiculous amout of TV to select from, why should we have to choose between which quality prime time shows we watch?


----------



## BobS

Ok, let's do this stepwise. Did you own the programming you received on the Denver channel or did somebody else?



jericho said:


> I don't think that's his point though. I see his point to be that ANY consumer should be able to watch distant locals. And I'd have to agree with that. (this coming from a customer that just lost my Denver and L.A. DNS channels last night, in the middle of a show I was watching) In an age where we have a ridiculous amout of TV to select from, why should we have to choose between which quality prime time shows we watch?


----------



## jericho

BobS said:


> Ok, let's do this stepwise. Did you own the programming you received on the Denver channel or did somebody else?


Did I own the programming? I paid for the programming, is that what you mean?


----------



## BobS

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Did you own the programming? It's a simple question. A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.



jericho said:


> Did I own the programming? I paid for the programming, is that what you mean?


----------



## jericho

BobS said:


> I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Did you own the programming? It's a simple question. A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.


No I do not own the programming. I am not a production company.


----------



## BobS

See, that was easy. Now since you do not own the programming some other entity must. And just to shortcut this process - it ain't E*. Now do you agree that if somebody else owns "X" and you want "X" - you cannot just walk up and take "X" from the owner nor hire a goon to do the same for you? Feel free to wax poetic but please answer the question.



jericho said:


> No I do not own the programming. I am not a production company.


----------



## jericho

BobS said:


> See, that was easy. Now since you do not own the programming some other entity must. And just to shortcut this process - it ain't E*. Now do you agree that if somebody else owns "X" and you want "X" - you cannot just walk up and take "X" from the owner nor hire a goon to do the same for you? Feel free to wax poetic but please answer the question.


I will start by answering your question right up front. Yes I actually agree with you, laws should be followed and nobody should be ripped off from their rightful profits. If E* did not follow the law then that is bad thing.

However, my point is not about who is disobeying laws. My point is, should the laws be the way they are? Should congress block companies like E* from being able to sell Distant locals if they return a negotiated part of those profits to the production company/network stations in other markets? If so, why? Its money for the networks and money for Dish and more optional programming for a viewer to purchase. What is the bad part of this deal?


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Did you own the programming? It's a simple question. A "Yes" or "No" will suffice.


Normally we play lawyers in this thread, not prosecutors. 

Stipulated: *Without SHVA and it's updates people would not be able to receive distant network signals.* This is due to the non-compete contracts that each affilate has signed with the networks. Under those non-competes stations are given first run rights within their own market. Outside of their market the station does not have the right to broadcast the programming (stations cannot agree to allow their signal to be rebroadcast outside of their own markets without violating the non-compete part of their network contracts). Networks are similarly restrained from providing programming nationwide ... they have sold off their rights to affilates. The only place they could, theoretically, broadcast their programs is where there are no affilates.

Enter SHVA --- Granting permission to satellite carriers to offer channels without the permission of the networks or local stations (getting around their network contracts) but imposing a set of rules that respects those rights - protecting the areas that each station has permission to broadcast to under the non-competes.

Without the laws E* (and D*) would have been forced to discontinue carriage of network stations.


----------



## dishrich

James Long said:


> Networks are similarly restrained from providing programming nationwide ... they have sold off their rights to affilates. The only place they could, theoretically, broadcast their programs is where there are no affilates.


Hmm, let's put a small disclaimer in here - EXCEPT where the network has under contract to do this for specific programming. Take for example where the networks have sold rights for their daytime serials to Soapnet, which obviously is nationwide. (I remember reading back where the affiliates had a HISSY about that one, but the networks did it anyway  )

I'm sure there's other's I'm not think of now, but Soapnet definitely came to mind...


----------



## James Long

Soapnet isn't first run.

NBC plays a lot of it's shows on Bravo ... sometimes within days of the network airing. But, as their contracts provide, the affiliate gets the chance to show the program first. (In some cases when affiliates refuse to carry a program the network the offers that program to a competing station - still under the general rule that the affiliate gets the program first.)

If the networks wanted to start a day or week delay satellite feed they could for most programming. (Some may be restricted further than first run.)


----------



## BobS

jericho said:


> I will start by answering your question right up front. Yes I actually agree with you, laws should be followed and nobody should be ripped off from their rightful profits. If E* did not follow the law then that is bad thing.


Well this is a change from "I see his point to be that ANY consumer should be able to watch distant locals. And I'd have to agree with that."



> However, my point is not about who is disobeying laws..


Your point cannot be severed from the law.



> My point is, should the laws be the way they are? Should congress block companies like E* from being able to sell Distant locals if they return a negotiated part of those profits to the production company/network stations in other markets?


You still don't understand. Congress is NOT blocking anyone by providing the statutory license. Congress is, in fact, greasing the skids so unserved people can receive network programming. Without it, there would be no, zero, zilch, nada, bupkus DNS. E* is NOT the owner. They do not have the right to sell programming as they see fit. They tried to do so and got caught.



> If so, why? Its money for the networks and money for Dish and more optional programming for a viewer to purchase. What is the bad part of this deal?


Well, to the extent there are any copyright laws, Congress is protecting the interest of the owners of the materials. The general idea is that giving limited protection encourages the production of a social good. As noted, Dish does not own the material. They are merely the delivery boys. I cannot give you a complete analysis but, for whatever reason, those who own the rights to the material chose to do it this way. Now you may lobby Congress for a change in the law (although you won't succeed) but you do not have the right to take someone else's property (or have E* do it for you) EVEN if you "pay" for it. Incidentally, you probably know how much you pay E* for DNS but do you know how much E* pays for each DNS subscriber-month? In summary, ABC/affiliate does not want to sell you WABC. They want you to watch the local affiliate. In effect, ABC is forced to sell the signal to "unserved" customers. Limiting DNS to the unserved was a limitation that Congress imposed on a general license to mitigate the impact on the copyright holder. As far as prime time is concerned the schedule is pretty much the same for each affiliate. I don't buy this "inferior local signal" argument. I think some people are so invested in the supposed superiority of NY and LA that psychologically they start to see a lower quality picture.

The purpose in taking you through the analysis step by step was for you to discover (which you did in part) the fallacy of the any DNS, anytime, anywhere by, anybody argument.

Once I purchased a door from an estate sale that had a Best lock installed. I wanted to change the core. Best wouldn't sell me one. They don't deal with the end consumer, only builders and commercial property managers. It didn't matter that I was willing to pay (a lot) for it. It was just the way they did business. Do you think that I should run to Congress or otherwise force them to sell me what I wanted?


----------



## littlepond

Lost my DNS today (11/14). They said they were turning them off little by little!


----------



## WI0T

BobS said:


> Somebody should ask him (I'm not going to cast pearls before swine) how many DNS stations would be available if the evil, nasty law that required the injunction had never been written. Anybody want to guess? (Ben Stein mode on) Anybody? Anybody?


No point in asking, he'll just filter your response out....Which is his right as it's his
private rant. However our involvement is not worth it, as it's not meant to be fair
and open discussion.


----------



## Jon Ellis

I also lost my DNS today (11/14) sometime between 2:42 and 5:00 a.m. CT. So long, Good Day LA!


----------



## ckinninger

is there any talk at dish about changing the ny and la abc, cbs, nbc, fox to spot beams like the rest of the networks on 119?


----------



## harsh

ckinninger said:


> is there any talk at dish about changing the ny and la abc, cbs, nbc, fox to spot beams like the rest of the networks on 119?


If nothing happens to stop DNS removal, they will likely move those markets off of CONUS.


----------



## Badger

cougart said:


> Just thought I should mention to all that I "moved" today and got my distant networks back and this time in HD. I was very mad to lose my DSN's especially since I work for 4 of the local stations and the GM's just approved my waiver without hesitation.


Wonder how that happened? I thought the Injunction ordered ALL E* DNS shut down even for folks that are "legal" with the exception of maybe rv'ers.


----------



## James Long

Waivers will be irrelevant in 16 days on E*. What cougart has done is worked outside the law and told Dish Network that he lives in another market. He has not actually got distants back, he just has the appropriate local channels for the market he told E* he is now living in. We call that "moving" - with the quotes - because he didn't actually move to the market, he just moved his service address.

Perhaps some day E* will audit service address and "movers" will be shaken.


----------



## joblo

cougart said:


> Just thought I should mention to all that I "moved" today and got my distant networks back and this time in HD.


So I'm guessing you're in Casper, WY and "moved" to Denver?

What signal reading do you have on the Denver spot?



harsh said:


> If nothing happens to stop DNS removal, they will likely move those markets off of CONUS.


Atlanta has been scheduled to move to spot for a long time anyway.

Denver and LA spots have space readily available.

Space on the NY and Chicago spots is a lot tighter, but they might be able to squeeze in more channels there if they shuffle things around a bit.


----------



## Greg Bimson

James Long said:


> Perhaps some day E* will audit service address and "movers" will be shaken.


Knowing how Dish Network operates, they wouldn't self-audit until someone takes them to court.

Now, forgive me on the specifics. In a nutshell, here is what cougert has done...

For compliance purposes, every distant network subscriber has been put on a list and given *to some entity* for tracking distant network subscribers. I wish I could remember what entities are receiving the distant network subscriber lists.

By moving, cougert has been able to remove himself from that list, but is now on the list of Denver market subscribers given to the Denver market stations.

So, McGraw-Hill (the ABC affilate), Gannett (the NBC affiliate), CBS and FOX will now have this subscribers name and address. If any of these entities have received the former distant network lists, and start seeing too many people move, I can guarantee that someone will walk into court to stop "moving".


----------



## James Long

Gotta check the law (SHVERA), but why would the local station be receiving a list of LIL subscribers? 

BTW: I believe the company is DecisionMark that handles qualifying and lists for E* on Distants.


----------



## joblo

IIRC:

Stations get lists of both LIL and DNS customers in their own DMA. Nets also get lists.

But the distant stations don't get lists, so the Denver stations will not know that their new LIL viewers are former DNS viewers unless the nets cross-check and tell them.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I am looking in US code from copyright.gov, section 122(b):


> (b) Reporting Requirements. -
> 
> (1) Initial lists. - A satellite carrier that makes secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a network station under subsection (a) shall, within 90 days after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to the network that owns or is affiliated with the network station a list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and street address, including county and zip code) all subscribers to which the satellite carrier makes secondary transmissions of that primary transmission under subsection (a).
> 
> (2) Subsequent lists. - After the list is submitted under paragraph (1), the satellite carrier shall, on the 15th of each month, submit to the network a list identifying (by name in alphabetical order and street address, including county and zip code) any subscribers who have been added or dropped as subscribers since the last submission under this subsection.
> 
> (3) Use of subscriber information. - Subscriber information submitted by a satellite carrier under this subsection may be used only for the purposes of monitoring compliance by the satellite carrier with this section.
> 
> (4) Requirements of networks. - The submission requirements of this subsection shall apply to a satellite carrier only if the network to which the submissions are to be made places on file with the Register of Copyrights a document identifying the name and address of the person to whom such submissions are to be made. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain for public inspection a file of all such documents.


So I then found the list requirements from section 119(a)(2)(C):


> (C) Submission of subscriber lists to networks. - A satellite carrier that makes secondary transmissions of a primary transmission made by a network station pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall, 90 days after commencing such secondary transmissions, submit to the network that owns or is affiliated with the network station a list identifying (by name and street address, including county and zip code) all subscribers to which the satellite carrier makes secondary transmissions of that primary transmission. Thereafter, on the 15th of each month, the satellite carrier shall submit to the network a list identifying (by name and street address, including county and zip code) any persons who have been added or dropped as such subscribers since the last submission under this subparagraph. Such subscriber information submitted by a satellite carrier may be used only for purposes of monitoring compliance by the satellite carrier with this subsection. The submission requirements of this subparagraph shall apply to a satellite carrier only if the network to whom the submissions are to be made places on file with the Register of Copyrights a document identifying the name and address of the person to whom such submissions are to be made. The Register shall maintain for public inspection a file of all such documents.


So, Fox has been receiving lists of distant network subscribers for years. Now, the Fox local channels will be able to compare anyone that "moves" this month to the last distant network list provided by Dish Network.


----------



## James Long

Thanks for the lookup.

Interesting that both sets of lists are "to the network". It would make it easy for networks to spot movers and distant to locals conversions.


----------



## cougart

First, I didn't think Denver was on a spotbeam I had Denver before without a problem. Second the Denver stations really could care less about gaining 1 new viewer, besides I really didn't go outside the law. I actually own the land that has the new address I gave Dish. Therefore the only thing wrong I did was tell them my equipment was there, nothing else.


----------



## joblo

I stand corrected.

For some reason, I was under the impression that the stations got lists, but in looking at the change history of the statute, it appears that the lists have always gone to the networks, so any information that the stations received must have been provided by the networks.

But this means that nets have had the ability to track “moving” patterns for years, and yet have never done anything about it. Somehow I don’t see that changing, especially if E* moves the distant stations to spot beams, which will severely limit the distance people can “move”.

cougart:

The Denver majors are NOT on a spot beam now, but they may well move there soon. In that case, you will need to be in the spot to keep receiving them.

Hence my earlier question: what signal reading do you have on the Colorado spot transponders, 12 and 4 at 110? Or to ask another way, are you receiving ALL the Denver locals now or do you have difficulty with any of the new ones you have acquired, such as KRMA and KTVD?


----------



## Greg Bimson

joblo said:


> But this means that nets have had the ability to track "moving" patterns for years, and yet have never done anything about it. Somehow I don't see that changing, especially if E* moves the distant stations to spot beams, which will severely limit the distance people can "move".


Oh I completely agree. The difference is with the impending distant network cut-off, I suspect "moving" will be taken to a higher level. One poor soul on another forum ordered a remote from DirecTV as a "mover", and forgot to change his address.

DirecTV has removed his ability to "move". I don't know if DirecTV is removing the ability to "move" on a larger scale throughout their subscriber base, but if so, then I think there may be plans afoot.

Think about it. If the requirement is to give additions and deletions to the network for both distant and local networks, Dish Network's November 2006 lists will be HUMONGOUS. The distant network list will be large because of the deletions. But if the local list is much larger than normal due to "moving", it would be the first real correlation that the networks receive for "movers" en masse.


----------



## FTA Michael

Great info, Greg. Thanks!

About the networks pursuing phony movers, I could easily see a sabre-rattling form letter go out from the networks, but I'm a little fuzzy as to how much in damages they could sue for. No real damage money = little incentive to spend a lot to chase the movers.

Back to the notion that the DN shutoff will make NY/LA drop from Conus, my guess is that they'll stay on Conus for a long, long time. As long as there is hope from Congress, from the FCC, from _anybody_ (can Dish get a presidential pardon?), then IMHO Dish will keep them ready to activate on thousands of receivers at a moment's notice.


----------



## joblo

Greg Bimson said:


> But if the local list is much larger than normal due to "moving", it would be the first real correlation that the networks receive for "movers" en masse.


But it won't be the first time at all.

With each new spot beam spot satellite put into service, we've seen a rash of posts here and in every other satellite forum from people who lost service and presumably had to "move" to a new address. I expect E7 and E8 caused far more "moves" than the DNS shutdown will. E10 probably had a lesser but still noticeable impact.

Besides, what exactly would the nets and/or their affiliates be asking a court to do if they sued? Consider that it's taken eight years to litigate section 119 violations, and in the end the affiliates got a death penalty that they don't really want, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to settle.

Well, as currently written, section 122 has the same death penalty. You really think the nets or their affiliates would want to establish a "pattern and practice" of 122 violations now? Over some small percentage of "movers", people who have obviously chosen to lie?

Aside from the mandatory death penalty that the nets and their affiliates wouldn't really want, think about what such a finding would mean if they could establish it. Using the same threshold as in the DNS case, it would mean that 20% of E* subscribers are sufficiently dissatisfied with their local stations to lie in order to get better ones.

Far from helping the affiliates, a finding like that could be the kiss of death for the whole affiliate distribution system.

But in reality, I doubt there are or ever will be anywhere near that many "movers", so I doubt anything will happen that hasn't happened before; i.e. "movers" who get caught lose service, end of story.



FTA Michael said:


> Back to the notion that the DN shutoff will make NY/LA drop from Conus, my guess is that they'll stay on Conus for a long, long time. As long as there is hope from Congress, from the FCC, from _anybody_ (can Dish get a presidential pardon?), then IMHO Dish will keep them ready to activate on thousands of receivers at a moment's notice.


They could devote the freed ConUS space to extra PPV and VOD and still preserve the option to move distants back to ConUS overnight if necessary.

For that matter, I think E* could terminate DNS overnight, too, if they really wanted to do that, simply by reassigning the distant channels to a local only tier.

We saw a rash of posts about losing DNS a week before the election, and now that Congress is back, we're seeing another rash of posts. It seems pretty obvious that E* is turning off subs early to aid its lobbying effort, and that in its petition to modify the injunction, E* has once again told the court a lot of stuff and nonsense.


----------



## Greg Bimson

joblo said:


> Besides, what exactly would the nets and/or their affiliates be asking a court to do if they sued? Consider that it's taken eight years to litigate section 119 violations, and in the end the affiliates got a death penalty that they don't really want, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to settle.
> 
> Well, as currently written, section 122 has the same death penalty. You really think the nets or their affiliates would want to establish a "pattern and practice" of 122 violations now? Over some small percentage of "movers", people who have obviously chosen to lie?


Actually, let's take the stance that the affilates got the "death penalty" they didn't really want. Those affiliate boards a) asked for the death penalty upon cross-appeal and b) are now filing motions to force Dish Network to terminate distant network service on 1 December.

Now, I don't think a "20 percent" threshold would apply in this instance. There is no way that 20 percent of the local channel subs are "movers", so the pattern and practice is off the table.

But it would not surprise me to see some kind of "cease and desist" letters and even a suit filed to stop the practice, if the subscriber lists show too many "movers" this month.

After all, Dish Network is under the microscope here. Comply with the cut-off by 1 December unless the judge extends the termination date. The last thing that Dish Network needs is having the networks go back into court and state "moving" has compromised the compliance.

The networks will just want the "moving" practice to stop. Just like the networks wanted the practice of distant network violations to stop. Unfortunately, Dish Network felt compelled to fight and ended up throwing valid distant network subscribers under the bus. I can't believe they'd make the same mistake twice.


----------



## joblo

Greg Bimson said:


> But it would not surprise me to see some kind of "cease and desist" letters and even a suit filed to stop the practice, if the subscriber lists show too many "movers" this month.


Letters to whom to cease and desist from what?



> I can't believe they'd make the same mistake twice.


Well, you have more faith in E* than I do, then. It seems to me E* has always done whatever they thought they could get away with, and they're still trying.

Or do you believe their latest court filing that says they just can't get the DNS shutoff done in less than 120 business days without major disruptions in service to other customers?

Recall that E* turned off CBS O&Os in a retrans dispute a few years ago, overnight, while leaving the same stations available to DNS subs without disruption. Since CBS is near the ownership cap of something like 38% penetration, that presumably affected far more subs than the DNS shutdown will. Yet the call centers didn't collapse, the billing system didn't collapse, there was no great auth/deauth crisis, life just went on.

The bottom line is that E* has been lying to the court straight along for eight years and they're still doing that, as far as I can see. I mean, I'd like to agree with you, Greg, that E* has finally learned its lesson, but tell me, please, what in E*'s recent behavior makes you think so?


----------



## Greg Bimson

joblo said:


> Letters to whom to cease and desist from what?


Letters from the networks (and presumably their affiliate boards) sent to Dish Network to cease and desist giving customers local-into-local that simply change their service address.


joblo said:


> Well, you have more faith in E* than I do, then. It seems to me E* has always done whatever they thought they could get away with, and they're still trying.
> 
> Or do you believe their latest court filing that says they just can't get the DNS shutoff done in less than 120 business days without major disruptions in service to other customers?


The latest filing is a joke. You are certainly correct that the CBS retrans dispute didn't kill Dish Network or their systems.


joblo said:


> I mean, I'd like to agree with you, Greg, that E* has finally learned its lesson, but tell me, please, what in E*'s recent behavior makes you think so?


Well. Nothing.

I am just guessing if faced with this type of suit again that Dish Network would simply comply. I don't think customers would be too happy if Mr. Charles Ergen stood up and apologized _again_ for carrying an issue too far _again_.


----------



## bobojo

cougart said:


> First, I didn't think Denver was on a spotbeam I had Denver before without a problem. Second the Denver stations really could care less about gaining 1 new viewer, besides I really didn't go outside the law. I actually own the land that has the new address I gave Dish. Therefore the only thing wrong I did was tell them my equipment was there, nothing else.


Are you getting east and west coast feeds? Or, just the Denver locals that include HD?

Does anyone know the radius for the spot beam areas like San Fran Bay Area?


----------



## joblo

Greg Bimson said:


> I don't think customers would be too happy if Mr. Charles Ergen stood up and apologized _again_ for carrying an issue too far _again_.


Well, ya know, E* does all these silly little chats and this seems to be remarkably successful at personalizing, for many people, both supporters and detractors, what are really just rational business decisions of a multi-billion dollar operation.

Someone asked earlier how much E* pays for distant signals. The answer is 20 cents per channel per sub per month. They sell them for $1.50. Even at one distant channel per sub, E* would clear a million dollars a month on DNS alone. And most DNS subs probably have several distant channels; I, for instance, had twelve. So E* is well into 7 figures a month on DNS, and almost certainly in six figures for every business day.

Now lawyers are expensive, but not that expensive. You and I and every other forum reader with a brain can see that E*'s requested extension is nothing but a blatant stall, but if it should succeed in pushing back the effective date of the injunction by even a single day, it would be money in the bank for E*. And they may get an extra week, two weeks, or even another month. I hope they don't, I would think they won't, but with this judge, who knows?

Then there's the $100 million dollar settlement offer. I've seen people complain that this cost would be passed on to subscribers, and also that it's way less than the illegal profits E* has reaped over the years. The first of these is wrong and the second is irrelevant. The reality is that E* calculated the expected subscriber losses from the DNS shutdown, multiplied that by projected subscriber acquisition costs, and determined that it would cost them somewhat more than $100 million to restore their current monthly revenue stream after losing DNS. Therefore, $100 million was a bargain, so they offered it.

E* took a calculated risk with DNS. They're not doing as well now as they probably hoped, but non-compliance with SHVA/SHVIA will probably still be a nine-figure win for them overall. And if the only downside to another nine-figure win were a second apology from the CEO, I'm sure E*'s shareholders would expect nothing less.

This is laissez-faire capitalism at its finest&#8230;


----------



## Tower Guy

FTA Michael said:


> Great info, Greg. Thanks!
> 
> I'm a little fuzzy as to how much in damages they could sue for. No real damage money = little incentive to spend a lot to chase the movers.


122 (f) (1) (B)

(B) any statutory damages shall not exceed $5 for such subscriber for each
month during which the violation occurred.


----------



## James Long

FTA Michael said:


> About the networks pursuing phony movers, I could easily see a sabre-rattling form letter go out from the networks, but I'm a little fuzzy as to how much in damages they could sue for. No real damage money = little incentive to spend a lot to chase the movers.


There is also a "death penalty" in 17 USC 122 (f)(2) that would kill the ability to provide locals for a pattern of violations.(2) Pattern of violations. -
If a satellite carrier engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of secondarily transmitting to the public a primary transmission embodying a performance or display of a work made by a television broadcast station to subscribers who do not reside in that station's local market, and are not subject to statutory licensing under section 119 or a private licensing agreement, then in addition to the remedies under paragraph (1) -(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court -(i) shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of that television broadcast station (and if such television broadcast station is a network station, all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network); and

(ii) may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was carried out; and​(B) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a local or regional basis with respect to more than one television broadcast station, the court -
(i) shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission in that locality or region by the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of any television broadcast station; and
(ii) may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was carried out.​And guess who gets to prove the case?g) Burden of Proof. -
In any action brought under subsection (f), the satellite carrier shall have the burden of proving that its secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a television broadcast station is made only to subscribers located within that station's local market or subscribers being served in compliance with section 119 or a private licensing agreement.​Guilty until proven inocent?

If a "pattern or practice" of allowing people who do not live in the appropriate place get another market's locals is proven, it is goodbye to local TV (not just networks). Since it seems to be on a per station basis I doubt if anyone will go after the satellite carriers ... but the penalty is there.


----------



## cougart

I get channel 12 and 4 on 110 at around 70% signal strength. There is a town about 45 miles straight from me that is in the Denver DMA so I would assume that it has to be part of the spot beam. How accurate can they actually be with their spotbeams?


----------



## cougart

Chasing the "movers" is surely not going to be a huge priority comapred chasing stealers who get their purchased reciever on a friends account. But if the law required them to chase "movers" then they would have to do it. 

Personally if they ever shut my dish off for moving I will just go to Direct TV and have my GM approve my waivers again and then get the Denvers in HD. But most if not 99% don't have the ability of an easy waiver approval. I actually used to be the one who approved them for us but now I am just one of our chief engineers.


----------



## cougart

joblo said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> Hence my earlier question: what signal reading do you have on the Colorado spot transponders, 12 and 4 at 110? Or to ask another way, are you receiving ALL the Denver locals now or do you have difficulty with any of the new ones you have acquired, such as KRMA and KTVD?


Where can I get spotbeam information. I would like to know what is going to happen to the Denvers in the future even though I have no problems now.


----------



## James Long

Spotbeam Maps
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/satmaps.htm


----------



## Darkman

By Ted Hearn 
11/15/2006 6:11:00

The House adjourned Wednesday until Dec. 5, ensuring that Congress won't disturb the court injunction that requires EchoStar Communications to cut off distant network signals to 850,000 customers.

A federal court ordered EchoStar to stop selling distant feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming after determining that EchoStar had broken copyright law by selling the channels to hundreds of thousands of legally ineligible subscribers.

The Senate is expected to adjourn Thursday or Friday and not resume the lame-duck session until Dec. 5.

Congress could come to EchoStar's rescue if enough disconnected subscribers put heat on their lawmakers. Distant network programming is popular because it provides rural viewers with access to network affiliates in New York and Los Angeles. Benefits include out-of-market sporting events and time-shifted primetime and late-night network fare.

It's not clear whether EchoStar customers will rebel and create a fuss on Capitol Hill. Since EchoStar provides local TV stations in 170 markets, many of those cut off from distant network signals would be losing a convenience, not a necessity.

In a letter to House colleagues Wednesday, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) said EchoStar shouldn't be rewarded for its "blatant disregard" of copyright law and shouldn't be allowed "to use its customers as human shields in the debate on the legality of its operations."

On Thursday, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) are planning to introduce a bill that would assist EchoStar in the dispute, Leahy spokesman David Carle said Wednesday. In January, Leahy becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

---
Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6391939.html


----------



## cougart

I doubled checked my spotbeam signal. It is actually 108% on 12, which was was denver channel 20 comes in on. So I should be ok in the long run.


----------



## khearrean

Well, I now join the ranks of those who have lost their distants! Last night while watching Seinfeld on Fox Chicago, wham! there it went! Gone! Lost! Adios! :eek2: I'm suffering DT's I think; sort of like losing an ol' friend! I've been getting Fox Chicago (legally) via waiver for a long time.
My OTA antenna won't pick up my local Fox and Dish's newly added LIL's show my local Fox with an absolutely horrible PQ! (nothing like Chicago). I just can't believe I have to settle for this quality....And I've already been communicating with Dish Quality to no avail..
I simply cannot believe there is not some exception for those of us who have legitimate PQ/signal issues & because of that allowed to keep the waiver active (at least in this case for Fox). But I know there's not...I just had to vent 

Ken


----------



## FTA Michael

James Long said:


> If a "pattern or practice" of allowing people who do not live in the appropriate place get another market's locals is proven, it is goodbye to local TV (not just networks). Since it seems to be on a per station basis I doubt if anyone will go after the satellite carriers ... but the penalty is there.


I was talking about whether the networks would go after the "movers" themselves. Unless you think that the satellite carriers could be found liable for allowing themselves to be deceived by "movers", then IMHO the first step would be for the networks to lean on the satellite carriers to take steps (dictated by the networks?) to verify that service addresses are legitimate.


----------



## James Long

There doesn't seem to be a federal penalty for "movers" (unless one wants to look at the fraud statues since they are giving deceptive information to the satellite carriers). The penalty would be on the satellite carrier if they fail to correct the problem.

Probably the biggest detering factor is the way the law is worded. For individual customers they could say "this person's address does not exist" and get them booted at a certain cost - the burden of proof being on the satellite carrier is helpful - the network doesn't have to prove the address is bad or incorrect.

Getting to the "pattern or practice" is harder -- documenting a few thousand customers with illegitamate addresses would be the first step. But now we have to get back to the law --- the death penalties applies to stations and (if a network station) other stations of that network.  If Fox, for example, complained that people outside the LA market subscribed to KTTV (as an LA local) and E* had allowed them to do that without challenge they could prohibit E* from carrying KTTV and all affiliated Fox stations with a permanent injunction under 17 USC 122. But the strict wording of the law would not prevent E* from continuing to carry other locals. It would take a lawyer to decide if Fox would have standing to complain that KABC, KNBC and KCBS were also easily available outside of the LA market and should also have the death penalty imposed. (In the distants case all networks and affiliate groups were party to the case - if they went after E* on locals they would likely cooperate again.)

Best case (for the networks) is that they prove "pattern or practice" on major stations from LA or NY and get a permanent injunction against carrying those stations and other affilated stations. But is that what they really want?

In the distants case it hurts the networks that people in markets without one of their affiliates will not be able to see their programming via satellite on E* as of December 1st. It doesn't hurt the stations except in neighboring markets that were added in 2004 under SHVERA or any "close distants" that E* set up with waivers. If the networks went for a death penalty on locals they would be removing their own programming from a lot of viewers with no replacement available (other than another carrier). Meanwhile independent stations and new networks remain on the satellite feeds. Probably not the smartest move.

So IF the networks go after E* on this issue I suspect it will be more of a death by a thousand pinpricks approach ... challenging every new locals subscriber that has a suspect address and requiring E* to prove that the address is valid - but not seeking another permanent injunction.


----------



## Greg Bimson

And let's not forget the only reason a permanent injunction was issued was because the Appeals Court went back through case law and determined that a misqualification of 20 percent was a "pattern or practice". The process of "moving" is far less than 20 percent of local-takers.

And since it is being reported that Murdoch may be quite willing to let DirecTV go by the end of the year, I suspect that Malone wouldn't care.


----------



## James Long

Greg Bimson said:


> And since it is being reported that Murdoch may be quite willing to let DirecTV go by the end of the year, I suspect that Malone wouldn't care.


I'm trying to stay away from inferrences that the Permanent Injunction was only issued because of DirecTV. Sorry if the use of KTTV brought that into play.

DirecTV and cable would gain from E* losing their LILs but the networks and affilates would lose more by not being available via E*. In the distants case there are always the local markets to fall back on ... some other source of the programs (except in markets without an affiliate). It won't get done this year, but I suspect SV and other 'close distants' will be returned by congress once stations realize that they are losing viewers in neighboring markets. Hopefully they will do it right and add Grade B as a definition while they are in there.


----------



## Greg Bimson

No problem, James. But I think you are missing my point: the appeals court found a "pattern or practice" because Dish Network was giving 20 percent of their distant network subscribers the feeds illegally, and that is what determined "pattern or practice". "Movers" wouldn't approach that 20 percent threshold for "pattern or practice".


----------



## plainsman

I live in Eastern Montana - in the lowest ranked market in the US: Glendive, MT.
I currently get distants (2 sets) and am in a bit of a pickle that even 'moving' won't cure ... all advice appreciated.

Glendive has 1 station (CBS) - I think it'll be a while before Dish picks that one up -- and never HD ... and that station is to the NE of me, w/ my house backing up to 200' of hills to the NE. I won't ever pick up that station OTA. I have waviers but understand that doesn't matter any more.

I might be able to receive network stations OTA -- w/ the largest antenna I can find, about 50 air miles away -- and not in my 'market'. Did I mention the wind out here? -- it's going to take a really solid installation to keep the antenna in one piece on the roof. I really am one for which distants were made.

Looking at the spot beam maps it gets even better ... on E10 I'm just outside tp 36 and at the edge of tp 33 ... North Dakota. never really wanted to move there.

cougart reported solid signal for tp12 -- all the way up in Casper, WY ... any idea how far north useful signal for that TP would reach? moving to Denver sounds a lot better.

I can't even move to Billings, MT as the coverage charts show those stations on the satellite @ 148 degrees - and I'm only setup for 110, 119 and 129.

thoughts, suggestions?

thanks,
plainsman


----------



## cheechcat

rebkell said:


> I lost mine today also, I'm pretty sure they were there last night, they are gone today.


This totally blows!!

I lost my DNS (out of Los Angeles) 2 days ago and in order for me to receive my local channels in Fairbanks, Alaska, I need a second dish in order to pick up the 110 satellite :hissy:

I called Dish Network and they were willing to reimburse me a reasonable amount of money for the upgrade. Well, according to a few local installers, it's going to cost $300-$500 for just the equipment. We only have 4 authorized installers for Dish, but every single one of them are swamped. The told me to call back in 4-6 weeks 

I've been a loyal customer for 6 years but I need to gain access to the major networks. I live in a valley with rugged terrain so I am unable to receive local channels off of an antennae. I have called my peeps in the senate and in congress and I have sent e-mails.

I'm going to miss Survivor tonight!!! :hissy:

This sucks!! I think I may have to get cable


----------



## TonyM

plainsman said:


> Looking at the spot beam maps it gets even better ... on E10 I'm just outside tp 36 and at the edge of tp 33 ... North Dakota. never really wanted to move there.


Bismarck/Mandan/Minot is on 110 and you should be able to get that spotbeam. The counties next to Glendive have those locals so you should be able to "move" there but they dont have 2 of the channels on there.


> cougart reported solid signal for tp12 -- all the way up in Casper, WY ... any idea how far north useful signal for that TP would reach? moving to Denver sounds a lot better.


Denver Big 4 are CONUS (whole US) due to the large area for the DMA. so you could "move" there no issues



> I can't even move to Billings, MT as the coverage charts show those stations on the satellite @ 148 degrees - and I'm only setup for 110, 119 and 129.
> 
> thoughts, suggestions?
> 
> thanks,
> plainsman


you could add a DPP44+ and a 2nd dish for 110/119/129/148


----------



## James Long

Discussion of the new legislation proposed by Senator Leahy and others can be found here:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=70310


----------



## dishrich

TonyM said:


> Denver Big 4 are CONUS (whole US) due to the large area for the DMA. so you could "move" there no issues


Unless E* decides to move them to Denver spot with the REST of the Denver locals...


----------



## naptime

cheechcat said:


> I called Dish Network and they were willing to reimburse me a reasonable amount of money for the upgrade. Well, according to a few local installers, it's going to cost $300-$500 for just the equipment.


Cheechcat, did you call the number on the post card? I tried that today and they told me no upgrade available in Alaska. I thought the court order forced Dish to provide the upgrade, regardless of location. Anybody?

I had checked a few weeks ago with an installer in Fairbanks, and he said the Fairbanks locals off the 110º spotbeam came in fine on a 24" dish, but not any other programming.


----------



## James Long

The court did not order E* to provide locals. They only ordered that E* cease providing distants by December 1st.


----------



## DennyC

Since my new Direct TV account is up and running (complete with distant networks, via RV waiver) I called to cancel Dish this morning. As expected, the guy at Retention made all the usual offers to try to get me to stay, I politely declined, and after 20 minutes and numerous holds, I was finally able to terminate my service.

Here's what really pissed me off, though. The fellow insisted that ALL satellite providers, including Direct TV, will cut off all distant networks on December 1. I know that's nonsense, of course-- but lots of people will probably believe it. He insisted that this wasn't his take on it, but is the official position of Dish Network.

If that's true, I find it despicable that Charlie's actually telling his minions to flat-out LIE to his customers. Guess I shouldn't be surprised....


----------



## TonyM

dishrich said:


> Unless E* decides to move them to Denver spot with the REST of the Denver locals...


honestly I can't see them doing that unless they are going to cut off some of their legit Denver subs. Remember, Denver DAM goes into Nebraska and all the way to the Montana/Wyoming border so the spotbeam is gonna have to be bigger than some normal ones


----------



## joblo

TonyM said:


> honestly I can't see them doing that unless they are going to cut off some of their legit Denver subs. Remember, Denver DAM goes into Nebraska and all the way to the Montana/Wyoming border so the spotbeam is gonna have to be bigger than some normal ones


But remember, LIL customers are required to have access to ALL locals, not just big 4 networks. If E* left the nets ConUS just to serve far-flung parts of the Designated Soviet Area that the spot beam does not, that would be illeg-oh, wait&#8230;

I forgot, this is E*.

Never mind.


----------



## ckinninger

the current law is dumb. i can't name one person who doesn't watch networks. dish breaks the law, and we get stuck with equipment that doesn't work anymore. then we can go buy directv equipment? 

fine dish until THEY learn. they would learn or go bankrupt from fines. so they'd learn. this was so simple. the law doesn't take into consideration innocent bystanders who now have a piece of junk product they spent a lot of money on...which makes the current law simply idiotic.


----------



## cheechcat

naptime said:


> Cheechcat, did you call the number on the post card? I tried that today and they told me no upgrade available in Alaska. I thought the court order forced Dish to provide the upgrade, regardless of location. Anybody?
> 
> I had checked a few weeks ago with an installer in Fairbanks, and he said the Fairbanks locals off the 110º spotbeam came in fine on a 24" dish, but not any other programming.


I haven't gotten a post card from Dish Network yet (but I haven't checked my mail recently either). I just called the regular customer service number for Dish that I got off their web site. I had to ***** and complain until I got them to agree to pay for the entire upgrade. Unfortunately, all 4 of our local installers want me to pay for the upgrade first and then for me to get reimbursed by Dish. I think the installers are trying to cover their a$$ and make sure they get paid. I called Dish customer service again and confirmed that they will reimburse me directly.

We'll see. I'm so ready to go with DirecTV or cable :new_cussi

What really pisses me off is that I had ABC out of Anchorage on Monday (off of the 119 satellite) and now they are telling me that I can only get it off of the 110 satellite. I'm so confused.


----------



## naptime

cheechcat said:


> What really pisses me off is that I had ABC out of Anchorage on Monday (off of the 119 satellite) and now they are telling me that I can only get it off of the 110 satellite. I'm so confused.


You are now only eligible for the Fairbanks locals, which Dish offers only on the 110º satellite (brilliant move, but I guess they had no choice since, to my understanding, there is no room for them on 118º). So, if you're not tucked in some valley with no line of sight to 110º, that is your only option, barring some new legislation (see the Sen. Leahy thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=70310). I just wanted to warn you that since the locals apparently can be had with a separate 24" dish, if you buy a larger one, Dish may give you some grief on that. Maybe we both need to do more research, but I wouldn't count on the word of the support personnel on this one.


----------



## cheechcat

naptime said:


> You are now only eligible for the Fairbanks locals, which Dish offers only on the 110º satellite (brilliant move, but I guess they had no choice since, to my understanding, there is no room for them on 118º). So, if you're not tucked in some valley with no line of sight to 110º, that is your only option, barring some new legislation (see the Sen. Leahy thread: I just wanted to warn you that since the locals apparently can be had with a separate 24" dish, if you buy a larger one, Dish may give you some grief on that. Maybe we both need to do more research, but I wouldn't count on the word of the support personnel on this one.


It's so bogus!! When I questioned the customer rep from Dish about the move of ABC from 119 to 110 she said that they were moving ALL locals to 110. Whatever!! I'm so disgusted about the whole situation. I currently have a 1.3m dish (I think) I just know it's a good sized one. They told me I would need another dish in addition to what I have. I guess it's the same setup as the Dish 500? I don't know. I did read the thread about Sen. Leahy but it still seems like we will need to get the additional setup in order to get the Fairbanks local package. I just want to get my channels from Los Angeles again.

The guy at Dish Alaska told me to call him back next week, Lou's said he was back logged for 6-8 weeks and then Northstar won't even answer their phone. And on top of that, the phone number for E Scape, who I really liked and did all my business with, is disconnected.

This is so frustrating!!


----------



## Darkman

November 17, 2006

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator:

In light of the recent federal court injunction against Echostar Communications' transmission of distant network signals to all of its satellite television customers, Consumers Union is concerned that hundreds of thousands of rural consumers who were legally receiving distant networks from Echostar will be left without affordable access to broadcast television programming. Moreover, we are concerned that, with only one other satellite television provider available, rural consumers will be left without meaningful marketplace choice and that competition may be irreparably harmed.

Customers who live in "white areas" and who were legally receiving distant broadcast networks from Echostar should not be penalized for the company's wrongful acts. Yet it is likewise essential the company not be immunized from the legal repercussions of violating the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act and that it be provided with strong incentives to both comply with the law and provide local-into-local service so that Echostar subscribers receive the benefit of local broadcast news. Consumers Union therefore supports timely passage of legislation that would balance the need to protect rural consumers and promote greater access to local broadcast coverage with strong provisions that deter current and future violations of statutory requirements relating to distant signal transmission.

It is essential that Congress act to address this important issue prior to December 1, the date on which Echostar's subscribers in white areas will lose distant broadcast networks. Please feel to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Jeannine Kenney
Senior Policy Analyst
Washington Office

---
Source: http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/004027.html


----------



## James Long

The affiliate associations filed their response OPPOSING E*'s request for extra time on November 13th (as I previously reported in this thread). What I missed (probably due to the court's processing) is that Fox Broadcasting filed it's own separate response OPPOSING E*'s request.

They filed 119 pages of argument and exhibits ... I've attached the argument.

There were more filings on Friday ... 
1030: *Echostar advised the Florida court that the 11th Circuit has stated that it will not rule on the Motion to Stay until the Florida court rules on the Motion of Modification.*

1031: *Fox requesting $225,728.63 in legal expenses for August 26th-November 15th.*
1032-34: 55 pages of documents supporting their claim for legal expenses.

The request is a simple document, so just that page or so is attached.

Enjoy!


----------



## James Long

Part of Fox's filings included the filing that E* made to the Supreme Court.
This request for a stay was denied by Justice Thomas (but the petition for a writ of certiorati - basically acceptance of the case by the court - mentioned in this filing has now been filed and has not yet been accepted or rejected by the court).


----------



## TonyM

joblo said:


> But remember, LIL customers are required to have access to ALL locals, not just big 4 networks. If E* left the nets ConUS just to serve far-flung parts of the Designated Soviet Area that the spot beam does not, that would be illeg-oh, wait&#8230;
> 
> I forgot, this is E*.
> 
> Never mind.


There are some DMA's where the whole DMA can't get the locals....Duluth, MN is a good example (use them alot)

The DMA is NE Minnesota, Northern WI and one county in Michigan
The county in Michigan and the WI county that borders it can't get Duluth loclas even though that is their DMA. I know on the old 110 satellite Cook County (the fartherst NE county) couldnt get them. I havent heard about if E10 works there or not.

So Dish is doing this already


----------



## joblo

TonyM,

The situations are not the same. Both D* and E* have certain markets uplinked on spot beams that do not cover the entire DMA. In these cases, they do not sell LIL service in the portion of the DMA that cannot receive the signal, and the white areas outside the spot remain eligible for DNS -- with E*, only until Dec. 1 -- even though the DMA is uplinked. The point is, in these situations, LIL is all or nothing. You’re either in the spot or not.

But if E* were to sell Denver local service outside the Denver spot beam to customers who can receive only the channels distributed via ConUS beam, that would violate the carry-one-carry-all mandate of SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA.

This is actually a moot point, however, because according to E*, the Denver spot beam covers the DMA. The settlement agreement previously posted has a list of the DMAs where E*’s spots do not provide total coverage, both for SD and HD, and Denver is not on either list.

For SD, the listed markets are: Albuquerque, Duluth, Phoenix, Reno, Wichita.

For HD, the listed markets are: Dallas, Portland.


----------



## BobS

There is nothing illegal in providing DNS to subscribers in an LIL serviced area if the LIL signals cannot reach that subscriber.


----------



## Link

Why did Directv not get this against them? My parents have had Directv for 11 years now and have always gotten New York and LA networks. That was one reason they got satellite to begin with (back then you could just get them added). They get CBS, NBC, and Fox over the air but the only one with an acceptable picture is CBS.

Directv doesn't offer locals to their area and they don't care about having them. If the distants go off Directv, then they will likely switch to cable since distants is about the only thing Directv offers them over cable.


----------



## James Long

Discussion of the new legislation proposed by Senator Leahy and others can be found here:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=70310

Please make any posts about the legislation in the new thread. Thanks.


----------



## BobS

1,458 posts and you ask a question like this? :nono2: Perhaps you post but never read? You need to take Professor Bimson's short course on the history of the litigation. I can accept a new person asking something like this but a grizzled old veteran? I am embarrassed for you. :sure:



Link said:


> Why did Directv not get this against them? ........


----------



## Greg Bimson

Because DirecTV already did "get this against them", in 1999. CBS and FOX successfully sued DirecTV and PrimeTime24, and gained an injunction to force DirecTV to requalify everyone.


----------



## Darkman

New: EchoStar Distant Network UPDATE!

Friday November, 17 2006

EchoStar attorneys this afternoon filed paperwork with the United States District Court in Florida asking for a ruling on their Motion for Modification as soon as possible.

On November 3rd, EchoStar filed its Motion For Modification with the District Court asking for the Court to issue a modification, allowing them until April 17th to turn off all distant network services. That same day, EchoStar also filed a Motion to Stay with the United States Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit.

The 11th Circuit issued a memorandum on November 9th instructing counsel they would not rule on the Motion to Stay because the motion would be suspended until such time as the original Motion for Modification, filed with the District Court had been disposed.

In today's filing, EchoStar is asking the District Court to rule on their Motion for Modification "as soon as practicable." Since the motion to stay is due in the offices of the 11th Circuit by November 20th it would appear EchoStar is asking for a ruling from the District Court prior to 11/20. If the District Court were to rule in EchoStar's favor on their Motion for Modification, allowing them until April 17th to turn off the distant networks, or the 11th Circuit would grant EchoStar a stay, then the possibility exists that government intervention could run it's course without the networks ever being turned off.

---
Source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111706newsletterupd.cfm#H1


----------



## Darkman

By Greg Tarr, STAFF

(TWICE) _ El Segundo, Calif. DirecTV launched a pre-emptive strike of sorts at competitor EchoStar's attempts to get Congressional relief from a pending injunction that will force it to end distant network TV service to some 900,000 DISH Network subscribers on Dec. 1.

DirecTV issued a statement Wednesday to help clarify for potentially impacted DISH Network subscribers the actions they face and the possible solutions to losing network TV programming they have available to them including signing up for DirecTV services.

EchoStar did not return phone calls for comment.

--- etc ----

...DirecTV points out that EchoStar said it will try to provide off-air antennas and other alternatives to those subscribers living in areas where no local-into-local broadcast channel services are available.

DirecTV continued that EchoStar lost its ability to offer distant network services because it "has been violating the law for years" and that a Federal Court found that "EchoStar disregarded the limitations of its statutory license and sought to avoid its obligations under the [law] at every tur.We have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act."

"Congress put rules in place to ensure fair and open competition," DirecTV said. "For nearly a decade, EchoStar violated the laws that its competitors were following. After a nine-year legal battle, copyright holders were finally able to enforce the law and level the playing field. In the end, fair and open competition is the best way to ensure that consumers everywhere get the kinds of innovation, choices and service they deserve."

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.digitalprosound.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=83430 )


----------



## James Long

As expected, the FLSD court has denied E*'s request to put off the cutoff until April.

The good news is that the appeals court was holding off consideration waiting for the resoultion of the request. Now they are free to act.

10 days until the cutoff ...


----------



## Darkman

Associated Press
Article Last Updated:11/21/2006 02:09:06 PM MST

A federal judge rejected an attempt by Echostar Communications Corp., owner of the Dish Network, to delay the date it must stop providing distant feeds of network programming to thousands of satellite TV customers.

U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas said the feeds must cease Dec. 1 as ordered, finding in an order Monday that there was not sufficient reason to change it.

"The time to prepare for such an outcome was months ago ... not weeks before the injunction would take effect," Dimitrouleas said in his ruling...

--
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4700075 )


----------



## Link

BobS said:


> 1,458 posts and you ask a question like this? :nono2: Perhaps you post but never read? You need to take Professor Bimson's short course on the history of the litigation. I can accept a new person asking something like this but a grizzled old veteran? I am embarrassed for you. :sure:


I apologize for not paying closer attention.

I just know a friend of mine fought and fought with Dish about 5 years ago over getting all the distant networks but one and not being able to get the full New York/LA/Superstations packages for $9.99. Only getting ABC, NBC, and Fox made them pay $4.50 for east coast and $4.50 more for the west coast then another $5.00 for Superstations. Had they "qualified" for all 4, they would have saved money getting the East/West Nets and Superstations for $9.99. Dish made it difficult and wouldn't budge at all.

I also knew some people that Directv gave distants to when they complained about not getting any networks on satellite and this was AFTER 1999. So it was hard for me to believe Dish has the injunction and Directv does not.


----------



## TNGTony

Was it after 2003? That is when DirecTV requalified the whole customer base. Had Dish done the same thing at that time they would not have been slapped with this injunction.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson

TNGTony said:


> Was it after 2003? That is when DirecTV requalified the whole customer base. Had Dish done the same thing at that time they would not have been slapped with this injunction.


It wasn't necessarily that Dish Network had to requalify the whole customer base. Dish Network would have only had to settle with FOX, CBS and the networks' affiliate boards in 2003. That would have meant the trip to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which Echostar initiated, would have been rendered a non issue and no injunction would have ever been required.


----------



## Link

TNGTony said:


> Was it after 2003? That is when DirecTV requalified the whole customer base. Had Dish done the same thing at that time they would not have been slapped with this injunction.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


I'd say it was between 1999 and 2003. Even so, the Directv customers I mentioned still wouldn't have qualified for distant network channels even though Directv let them have them. Must have been the CSR.

My parents have had distant networks since they got Directv in 1995. In 1999, when they had that court rulling, their CBS and Fox were cut off. They had no local ABC and had a waiver for NBC so those stayed on. Later it was decided they could keep their distant networks if they had them prior to 1999 I think.

When I found this out I called Directv and got the CBS and Fox distants added back. I also did this for 5 or 6 other people I knew that had had distants cut off and got them restored on Directv.

Had Directv requalified everyone in 2003 in the area where my parents live, then they would have only qualified for ABC not all 4 networks and to my knowledge no one lost their distant stations in 2003.


----------



## cj9788

TNGTony said:


> Was it after 2003? That is when DirecTV requalified the whole customer base. Had Dish done the same thing at that time they would not have been slapped with this injunction.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Ah but E*did re-qualify everyone after the 2003 ruling. I remember because I lost some dns channels shortly after the ruling. E* had to change their maps and it made most of the white areas shrink in size. One example was Key West before the ruling Key West qualified for all 4 nets. After the ruling only 2 of the four were available. This happened in DMA's all over the country. Do a search here at DBS Talk there was much discussion about this. The dreaded letter was being sent to DNS subs all over the place.

IMO what the court ruled on is E* prior to the 2003 ruling because aside from some glitches that allowed people to order ala carte more than two DNS cities E* has been in compliance. The biggest beef was the way E* qualified DNS subs. The maps E* was using allowed many people in grade B areas access to DNS. I know because I scoured the country looking for white area zip codes that were legible for dns and they were few and far between. Then to add insult to injury D* had different maps. The Key West example is a good one aging. While E* after the 2003 ruling only offered 2 DNS nets D* had all four. Zips that only qualified for 1 or 2 nets at E* were different @ D*. I thought that was strange at the time and pointed it but no one paid much attention to it.

So the days of red light green light dis appeared. But fault was found. Then the new system was changed and more people lost DNS. They changed again in 03 but the sins prior are proving to be a death sentence unless the 11th or SCOTUS does something before 12/1


----------



## ckinninger

James Long said:


> As expected, the FLSD court has denied E*'s request to put off the cutoff until April.
> 
> The good news is that the appeals court was holding off consideration waiting for the resoultion of the request. Now they are free to act.
> 
> 10 days until the cutoff ...


Nothing in from the appeals court? Echo is appealing the legality of the penalty?

Thanks.

PS I just started reading it... looks interesting but I don't want to be the one to provide a summary.


----------



## Link

How is it that WB/CW affiliates were added to local packages where the DMA didn't have a local affiliate? Why can't the same be done with whatever networks are missing in a DMA? That way they wouldn't be selling Distant Networks any longer but could provide a replacement affiliate in DMAs that needed them. This also would give all E* customers all broadcast networks for their $5.00 a month instead of having to pay $1.50 extra per distant station.

I can't think the broadcast networks would want areas where they don't have a local station to lose their programming.


----------



## James Long

ckinninger said:


> Nothing in from the appeals court? Echo is appealing the legality of the penalty?


Yes. E* has two appeals running ---

1) at the Appeals Court -- Appealing the injunction that was issued by the FLSD court on October 20th. This is the same court that mandated that an injunction be issued. E* declared an emergency when filing the appeal but it has been held up because E* also filed for the modification of the injunction by the lower court. The appeals court was waiting to see if the emergency existed before acting. (If the lower court would have modified the injunction no emergency would exist.) As of Wednesday the case was marked as an emergency appeal. Before the FLSD court's recent rejection it was not marked online as an emergency.

2) at the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) -- Appealing the mandate of the injunction issued by the appeals court. E* asked SCOTUS to stay the injunction pending the decision of SCOTUS to hear (or not) the appeal of the mandate. That stay was denied back in August. SCOTUS still has not decided (or at least announced) whether or not they will be hearing the appeal. Many appeals are dismissed without a hearing.


----------



## Greg Bimson

cj9788 said:


> Ah but E*did re-qualify everyone after the 2003 ruling. I remember because I lost some dns channels shortly after the ruling.


Yes, but that wasn't necessarily because the courts made Dish Network requalify subscribers. Dish Network may have decided to requalify people to reduce their unqualified subscriber base. I also seem to recall a couple of retransmission consent agreements that caused some requalifications. The specific spats in question that I recall were the Allbritton Communications disagreement, and the Viacom disagreement. It was the Dish Network agreement with Viacom that restored the CBS owned-and-operated stations and that removed CBS Network from the DNS lawsuit. I do recall requalifications due to these two retransmission agreements.


Link said:


> How is it that WB/CW affiliates were added to local packages where the DMA didn't have a local affiliate? Why can't the same be done with whatever networks are missing in a DMA? That way they wouldn't be selling Distant Networks any longer but could provide a replacement affiliate in DMAs that needed them. This also would give all E* customers all broadcast networks for their $5.00 a month instead of having to pay $1.50 extra per distant station.


Because all adding a distant WB/CW to a local package is the exact same as "distant network service". If a market does not have a network, the use of the distant network service license is what makes the WB/CW available to markets wihtout WB/CW.

That is also how people in Terre Haute receive ABC.

And it is available because of the same license which Echostar will be prohibited from using as of 1 December. So, once the injunction is in effect, the use of delivering a distant ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC are ended, whether it is because of "distant network service" or because it is being used to add a distant network to a local channel package. Note that this does not apply to WB/CW, because neither party sued under the terms of the SHVIA.


----------



## BobS

But are the CW/WB substitutions actually superstations? Superstations are indeed covered by the same license but don't have the same penalties attached as network stations. I haven't seen such a situation but a "substitution" into a local package is simply marketing and does not, as you indicate, change the underlying authority.



Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but that wasn't necessarily because the courts made Dish Network requalify subscribers. Dish Network may have decided to requalify people to reduce their unqualified subscriber base. I also seem to recall a couple of retransmission consent agreements that caused some requalifications. The specific spats in question that I recall were the Allbritton Communications disagreement, and the Viacom disagreement. It was the Dish Network agreement with Viacom that restored the CBS owned-and-operated stations and that removed CBS Network from the DNS lawsuit. I do recall requalifications due to these two retransmission agreements.Because all adding a distant WB/CW to a local package is the exact same as "distant network service". If a market does not have a network, the use of the distant network service license is what makes the WB/CW available to markets wihtout WB/CW.
> 
> That is also how people in Terre Haute receive ABC.
> 
> And it is available because of the same license which Echostar will be prohibited from using as of 1 December. So, once the injunction is in effect, the use of delivering a distant ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC are ended, whether it is because of "distant network service" or because it is being used to add a distant network to a local channel package. Note that this does not apply to WB/CW, because neither party sued under the terms of the SHVIA.


----------



## JohnH

BobS said:


> But are the CW/WB substitutions actually superstations? Superstations are indeed covered by the same license but don't have the same penalties attached as network stations. I haven't seen such a situation but a "substitution" into a local package is simply marketing and does not, as you indicate, change the underlying authority.


WPIX and WWOR are "Superstations". The WB was a "Network" when it existed. The CW is likely a "Network" now, but the "Superstations" are still "Superstations". There can be no new "Superstations" now, though.


----------



## BobS

JohnH said:


> WPIX and WWOR are "Superstations". The WB was a "Network" when it existed. The CW is likely a "Network" now, but the "Superstations" are still "Superstations". There can be no new "Superstations" now, though.


Understood. I was asking if the "local" substitutions were actually Superstations vs some other WB/CW/MY station.

Note to Greg B. - My comment in the previous post is somewhat ambiguous. I meant to say something like "As you (Greg B.) have indicated, the license for Superstations is the same as for network stations." The sentence could be read as saying that you were suggesting otherwise (despite the commas which makes it clear to me).


----------



## James Long

JohnH said:


> The CW is likely a "Network" now,


The definition of "Network" is time based. If it were not a network on the magic date, it will never be a network under the law (unless the law is changed).


----------



## joblo

The network definition is not time-based, at least not in the sense that James means. Only certain applications of the definition, notably the provisions for nationally distributed superstations, are time-based.

So WPIX, KTLA, WGN, and KWGN qualify both as network stations and nationally distributed superstations. In most aspects, the distinction is irrelevant. Both are exempt from retrans consent, and the royalty rates, while once different, are now the same.

But only distant nets, not national supers, are exempt from syndex and network non-dup, and in the section of code that spells that out, the supers definition seems to take precedence. So the NY/LA WB/CWs were/are subject to syndex and net non-dup, while the Miami and San Diego WB/CWs were/are not, and that’s why they were/are preferred for use as the WB/CW distants in local packages.


----------



## BobS

I thought that once an existing superstation (as noted there can be no new ones) becomes owned, operated or affiliated with a network - it ceases to be (legally speaking) a superstation. The key point I was commenting on is that violation of superstation distribution limits does not have the injunction as a possible outcome unlike "network" stations. So my questions:

Are any/all of the five listed still legally superstations (without regard to how they are packaged/marketed)?

Although I don't think it is possible for a station to be both a SS and a NS (simply because the definitions include/exclude affiliation as a requirement), if they are so which "character" is primary?



joblo said:


> The network definition is not time-based, at least not in the sense that James means. Only certain applications of the definition, notably the provisions for nationally distributed superstations, are time-based.
> 
> So WPIX, KTLA, WGN, and KWGN qualify both as network stations and nationally distributed superstations. In most aspects, the distinction is irrelevant. Both are exempt from retrans consent, and the royalty rates, while once different, are now the same.
> 
> But only distant nets, not national supers, are exempt from syndex and network non-dup, and in the section of code that spells that out, the supers definition seems to take precedence. So the NY/LA WB/CWs were/are subject to syndex and net non-dup, while the Miami and San Diego WB/CWs were/are not, and that's why they were/are preferred for use as the WB/CW distants in local packages.


----------



## joblo

Well, first off, only ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC networks/stations were ever party to the lawsuit, and the "pattern and practice" finding only applied to those nets, so whether E*'s five supers are CW network stations or supers is irrelevant for purposes of the injunction. Those stations are not covered by the injunction either way.

Second, I believe, technically, the CW stations are no longer superstations, BUT, you need to understand, a "superstation", as defined by SHVA, etc., is any non-network station, and that is NOT what gives the five national supers their special status.

The provisions that make those five special (really, six, because WGN would also qualify, but that's another story) do include time-based references to networks, such that they remain special as long as they don't affiliate with ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC, which were the only qualified nets in 1995.

Here is the relevant code:



> *47USC339(b)* Extension of network nonduplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackout to satellite retransmission
> (1) Extension of protections
> 
> Within 45 days after November 29, 1999, the Commission shall commence a single rulemaking proceeding to establish regulations that -
> (A) apply network nonduplication protection (47 CFR 76.92) syndicated exclusivity protection (47 CFR 76.151), and sports blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to the retransmission of the signals of nationally distributed superstations by satellite carriers to subscribers; and
> 
> (B) to the extent technically feasible and not economically prohibitive, apply sports blackout protection (47 CFR 76.67) to the retransmission of the signals of network stations by satellite carriers to subscribers.​
> *47USC339(d)* Definitions
> (2) Nationally distributed superstation
> 
> The term "nationally distributed superstation" means a television broadcast station, licensed by the Commission, that -
> (A) is not owned or operated by or affiliated with a television network that, as of January 1, 1995, offered interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States;
> 
> (B) on May 1, 1991, was retransmitted by a satellite carrier and was not a network station at that time; and
> 
> (C) was, as of July 1, 1998, retransmitted by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of section 119 of title 17.​


Note that clauses (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) can both apply to the same station, but since (A) simply applies a superset of the protection in (B), the practical effect is that even though the CW supers may now be considered network stations, they are effectively still "nationally distributed superstations" when it comes to syndex and network non-dup, which makes them problematic for use as distant nets.


----------



## Darkman

By Kimberly S. Johnson
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/24/2006 10:26:00 AM MST









"Served an unsavory DISH"

---
Alice Mitchell and her late husband had spent more than three months a year traveling the country in their recreational vehicle, using a Dish Network receiver to view local broadcasts from Denver and Los Angeles.

Earlier this month, Mitchell, who lives in Monroe, Wash., 35 miles northeast of Seattle, received a letter from Dish Network, telling her that she wouldn't receive those channels after Dec. 1.

Mitchell, 65, has been eligible to receive distant-network signals for RV travel because her local satellite signal dies once she leaves the area.

"They said our RV waivers are no good anymore," Mitchell said in a phone interview.

Mitchell is one of 900,000 Dish home, business and RV customers losing out- of-area network channels, following a U.S. district court ruling in October against Douglas County-based EchoStar Communications Corp., which provides Dish service.

Some customers have already been shut off. Most, like Mitchell, are frustrated...

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4712846 )


----------



## cj9788

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, but that wasn't necessarily because the courts made Dish Network requalify subscribers. Dish Network may have decided to requalify people to reduce their unqualified subscriber base. I also seem to recall a couple of retransmission consent agreements that caused some requalifications. The specific spats in question that I recall were the Allbritton Communications disagreement, and the Viacom disagreement. It was the Dish Network agreement with Viacom that restored the CBS owned-and-operated stations and that removed CBS Network from the DNS lawsuit. I do recall requalifications due to these two retransmission agreements.Because all adding a distant WB/CW to a local package is the exact same as "distant network service". If a market does not have a network, the use of the distant network service license is what makes the WB/CW available to markets wihtout WB/CW.


I wish I had kept the letter I received from E* in June of 2003 it specificly stated the due to a recent court ruling they were no longer able to offer my FOX and NBC DNS and that waivers had been submitted on my behalf. . Greg you took part in the discussion at the time I am surprised that your memory is fuzzy on this. All E* DNS subs were requalified in the summer of 2003. E* had to change from the grade b map they were using which made many cities unable to recv DNS. I have said it before and I will say it again after 2003 E* was in compliance under the law, why they failed to show proof is the big question. Why they did not settle at that time is an even bigger question.

I have tried to search for the 2003 ruling from both the 11th and the SFDC but to no avail.

James if the 2003 ruling from the South Florida District Court is still on PACER would you mind posting it.


----------



## BobS

However, the definition of superstation in 17 USC 119 is slightly different. It doesn't require that the affiliation be with a 1995-qualified network, any network (with similar definitional requirements about hours and affiliates) will suffice. Of course there could be yet another definition of network lurking about somewhere.



joblo said:


> Well, first off, only ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC networks/stations were ever party to the lawsuit, and the "pattern and practice" finding only applied to those nets, so whether E*'s five supers are CW network stations or supers is irrelevant for purposes of the injunction. Those stations are not covered by the injunction either way.
> 
> Second, I believe, technically, the CW stations are no longer superstations, BUT, you need to understand, a "superstation", as defined by SHVA, etc., is any non-network station, and that is NOT what gives the five national supers their special status.
> 
> The provisions that make those five special (really, six, because WGN would also qualify, but that's another story) do include time-based references to networks, such that they remain special as long as they don't affiliate with ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC, which were the only qualified nets in 1995.
> 
> Here is the relevant code:
> 
> Note that clauses (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(B) can both apply to the same station, but since (A) simply applies a superset of the protection in (B), the practical effect is that even though the CW supers may now be considered network stations, they are effectively still "nationally distributed superstations" when it comes to syndex and network non-dup, which makes them problematic for use as distant nets.


----------



## Greg Bimson

cj9788 said:


> I wish I had kept the letter I received from E* in June of 2003 it specificly stated the due to a recent court ruling they were no longer able to offer my FOX and NBC DNS and that waivers had been submitted on my behalf. . Greg you took part in the discussion at the time I am surprised that your memory is fuzzy on this. All E* DNS subs were requalified in the summer of 2003. E* had to change from the grade b map they were using which made many cities unable to recv DNS.


I can try to find the posts later about the cut-off in June, 2003. However, there wasn't a court ruling that caused the cut-off. The result of this exact suit is the cut-off, which will occur on 1 December, 2006.

Dish Network appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in mid-2003. The District Court judge, Judge Dimitrouleas stayed the injunction for the length of the appeals process. So, there was no real relevent reason why Dish Network cut people off at that time, even though there was a letter floating about saying the courts made Dish Network cut-off some subscribers.

*Superstations*
As to the Superstations, I think Link is refering to the use of the Baltimore and San Diego WB stations added into local channels packages where DirecTV was not retransmitting a WB station. It appears this practice is still being done with the CW, yet on a smaller scale.

Dish Network is also retransmitting the San Diego and Miami CW (and formerly WB) stations to some of the smaller markets without a CW affiliate. This is specifically what was being brought up by Link.

DirecTV and Dish Network were using the distant network license for those stations, not the superstation license.

The superstation license basically spells out the superstations. Of those without a syndex-compliant feed, the five that Dish Network sells in their superstations package are the only five available.

They will always be the only five superstations and available nationwide (but some with restrictions), unless one of the superstations affiliates itself with a big four network (ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC). That is when the superstation status is superceded by having the superstation in question become a network affiliate.


----------



## Greg Bimson

And here would be one of those discussions about the letters.


----------



## Link

I'd be curious to know if any DMA has ever been affected in ratings by satellite subscribers getting distant networks over the local ones. If the distant station ever beats them out in the ratings book that should tell you something that viewers don't care much for your local station.

What happened to E* adding significantly viewed channels? Some friends of mine live in Terre Haute, IN which is Vigo County. They should be able to get WRTV 6 (ABC, Indianapolis) as a significantly viewed station and for ABC programming in their local package. Two counties to the north are receiving it and have for at least 6 months, but why is Vigo county not getting it? They'll lose their ability to have a distant ABC on December 1st, so why not give them WRTV in their local package?


----------



## Darkman

Backs Bill to Soften Distant-Signal Cutoff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ted Hearn
11/27/2006

Washington - A leading consumer group is urging Congress to protect hundreds of thousands of EchoStar Communications subscribers who, by judicial fiat, are nearing the loss of out-of-market feeds of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox programming.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and other publications with a combined subscribership of 7 million, raised its concerns in a Nov. 17 letter to all U.S. senators. Among other things, the letter said legislation should protect not just programming choice but also competition between EchoStar's Dish Network and its main rival, DirecTV, controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

....

( Also in the same story, on the same page there: RURAL HARM , BIG SENATE BACKERS, CHEER FROM ECHOSTAR sub-stories )

The entire article is at the following source by the way: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6394543.html


----------



## TNGTony

Link said:


> They'll lose their ability to have a distant ABC on December 1st, so why not give them WRTV in their local package?


Because WRTV is a distant channel for Terre Haute! SV is affected by the same injunction as NY and LA stations.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Link

TNGTony said:


> Because WRTV is a distant channel for Terre Haute! SV is affected by the same injunction as NY and LA stations.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


So are you saying that Brazil, IN (Parke County) will lose WRTV and WTHR on December 1st?

I have never understood why Brazil, IN got WRTV/WTHR but they didn't add WTTV or WISH and Terre Haute can't have WRTV at least for ABC.


----------



## terfmop

Link said:


> I'd be curious to know if any DMA has ever been affected in ratings by satellite subscribers getting distant networks over the local ones. If the distant station ever beats them out in the ratings book that should tell you something that viewers don't care much for your local station.
> 
> What happened to E* adding significantly viewed channels? Some friends of mine live in Terre Haute, IN which is Vigo County. They should be able to get WRTV 6 (ABC, Indianapolis) as a significantly viewed station and for ABC programming in their local package. Two counties to the north are receiving it and have for at least 6 months, but why is Vigo county not getting it? They'll lose their ability to have a distant ABC on December 1st, so why not give them WRTV in their local package?


I live in Terrre Haute, and the last time I checked, WRTV was not listed as a SV for Vigo county...only for the smaller surrounding counties.


----------



## Link

terfmop said:


> I live in Terrre Haute, and the last time I checked, WRTV was not listed as a SV for Vigo county...only for the smaller surrounding counties.


I don't get that really because my parents in Robinson, IL could pick up the Indy stations with their antenna usually at night so I'd think in Terre Haute if you had a good outside antenna you could pick up all the Indy stations.

I don't see why WRTV and WTTV couldn't be SV for Vigo County.

The Terre Haute DMA just stinks because it doesn't provide enough stations. Most areas get ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, and CW just over the air. In this area most people can get 2 and 10 but not 38. 10 is the only one that works with rabbit ears usually.


----------



## joblo

BobS said:


> However, the definition of superstation in 17 USC 119 is slightly different. It doesn't require that the affiliation be with a 1995-qualified network, any network (with similar definitional requirements about hours and affiliates) will suffice. Of course there could be yet another definition of network lurking about somewhere.


No, Bob, there is only one *SHVA definition of "network": 15 hrs/wk, 25 affiliates, 10 states.*

Let's try this again, from the top:

In SHVA terminology, there are two types of stations, "network stations" and "superstations". "Network stations" are those stations owned and operated by or affiliated with a "network", plus non-commercial educational stations. *All stations other than "network stations" are defined in SHVA as "superstations".* You were right about that the first time, Bob.

The confusion is that SHVA-defined "superstations" and the superstations of common parlance, i.e. those that E* sells, are NOT the same beasts at all, but totally different animals. Let's repeat that: *E* superstations are NOT SHVA superstations.*

The *E* supers are a specially defined class* of stations that may be either "network stations" or "superstations". This set of stations is:*(a) excepted from retrans consent in 47USC325;
(b) excepted from network copyright infringement in 17USC119; and 
(c) subjected to syndex and net non-dup in 47USC339.​*The wording in these three sections is slightly different and the label "nationally distributed superstation" appears only in 47USC339, but when you parse it all out, the words all mean the same thing and describe the same set of stations. (For instance, in one place it says, "was a superstation" in 1991, in another it says, "was not a network station" in 1991. Whatever&#8230;. means the same bloody thing.)

Previously I posted the definition of this class of stations as it appears in 47USC339. Here we see the same set of stations, described in 17USC119:


> *17USC119(a)(7)(E)* Exception. - The secondary transmission by a satellite carrier of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission made by a network station to subscribers who do not reside in unserved households shall not be an act of infringement if -
> (i) the station on May 1, 1991, was retransmitted by a satellite carrier and was not on that date owned or operated by or affiliated with a television network that offered interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States;
> 
> (ii) as of July 1, 1998, such station was retransmitted by a satellite carrier under the statutory license of this section; and
> 
> (iii) the station is not owned or operated by or affiliated with a television network that, as of January 1, 1995, offered interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States.​


Notice that this provision is specifically applicable to network stations, so clearly it was contemplated that stations in this set might become network stations at some point. By provision (iii), *stations remain part of the specially defined class as long as they do not affiliate with ABC, CBS, FOX, or NBC.*

Btw, I think the section 119 exception explains why E* has started offering WPIX and KTLA as CW distants wherever they can get away with it - i.e. where no station requests syndex protection or is eligible for network non-dup protection. Because distribution of these stations to served households cannot be used to establish a "nationwide pattern and practice" of infringement, E* significantly reduces the possibility of an injunction against distant CW delivery, in case the CW should ever file suit.

The thing to note, though, is that if the CW did file suit, and if a nationwide pattern and practice of violations were established based on distribution of the Miami and San Diego CW affiliates, the resulting injunction would also cover WPIX, KTLA, and KWGN. At least, that's the way I read it.


----------



## BobS

The relevant definition is that which is contained within 17 USC 119 itself:

*17 USC 119(d) Definitions.- As used in this section- 
...
17 USC 119(d) (2) Network station.- The term "network station" means-

17 USC 119(d)(2)(A) a television station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, including any translator station or terrestrial satellite station that rebroadcasts all or substantially all of the programming broadcast by a network station, that is owned or operated by, or affiliated with, one or more of the television networks in the United States which offer an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 of its affiliated television licensees in 10 or more States; or

17 USC 119(d)(2)(B) a noncommercial educational broadcast station (as defined in section 397 of the Communications Act of 1934); 
except that the term does not include the signal of the Alaska Rural Communications Service, or any successor entity to that service. 
....
(9) Superstation.- The term "superstation" means a television station, other than a network station, licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, that is secondarily transmitted by a satellite carrier.*

So I agree that a television is either a network station or a superstation. It cannot be both for purposes of applying the 17 USC 119 license. However given the definitions, it is *not *required that a station be an affiliate of one of the "Big Four" to be a network station. Why is this important? Because of the difference in treatment of license violations between the two categories. It doesn't matter if there is another definition in SHVERA or any other law.


----------



## Greg Bimson

It took me a while to find that same passage that joblo found ages ago...

A superstation will continue to be a superstation and be available for rebroadcasting via satellite if...

The station in question was a superstation on some given date (which is May, 1991);
Was carried on satellite (could also be C-band) as of 1 July, 1998; and,
Is not affiliated with a group that was considered a network on 1 January, 1995.

So, even though WPIX is affiliated with the CW, which is a "network" under the terms of the network language, it is considered a superstation because it meets all three criteria in the exception above.

_*Edit:*_ So the only way a "superstation" can be removed is if it affiliates with a network which was in service as of 1 January, 1995: one of the big four.


----------



## Darkman

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - About 34,000 West Virginians will lose touch with their favorite network TV programs on Friday.

After that date, satellite TV provider DISH Network must stop providing subscribers in the rural areas around Beckley, Bluefield, Clarksburg, Parkersburg and Wheeling with distant feeds of several networks...

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20061128&ID=6231499 )


----------



## joblo

BobS said:


> However given the definitions, it is *not *required that a station be an affiliate of one of the "Big Four" to be a network station.


Right. We agree on this, Bob. What I don't quite get is why you're making such a big deal about this point.



> Why is this important? Because of the difference in treatment of license violations between the two categories


What two categories? Big 4 vs. other network? Except for the stations in E*'s superstation package, which I discussed at length previously, there is no difference in treatment between the Big 4 and any other network.

Or do you mean network vs. independent stations--which SHVA calls superstations? That "difference" is simply a logical necessity. I mean, enjoining a company against retransmitting stations affiliated with the same network as a non-network station would be rather nonsensical, don't you think? As in, ineffectual, pointless, meaningless even....



Greg Bimson said:


> So, even though WPIX is affiliated with the CW, which is a "network" under the terms of the network language, it is considered a superstation because it meets all three criteria in the exception above.


Ok, I know what you mean, but the point of my previous post is that, technically, WPIX is NOT considered a "superstation" in the SHVA sense; it's just eligible to be marketed in the manner in which E* markets its superstation package, and will remain so as long as it doesn't affiliate with one of the big 4.

Legal "definitions" can be strange beasts. To label the exceptional stations "nationally distributed superstations", as in 47USC339, is sort of like labeling citrus fruits grown in Florida and California "orange apples". That might work fine as a legal definition in a Fruit Home Grower Act, but it wouldn't necessarily make oranges a subcategory of apples, legally or otherwise.

WPIX can be sold out of market without its consent in CW-served areas, and E* can call it a superstation all it wants, but legally, WPIX is a network station, not a superstation.

But anyway, Greg, do you have any comment about E*'s use of WPIX/KTLA as CW distants or my hypothesis as to the reason for that?

Only E* is doing this, as far as I know, and so I submit it as further evidence, if any is necessary, that E*'s losses in court have not altered its corporate philosophy of walking on the edge of SHVA. Far from adopting a cooperative attitude like D*, they are redoubling their effort to make it as difficult as possible for CW to bring an enforcement action. By George, they'll not be burned again!


----------



## Greg Bimson

I thought that Dish Network was using the CW stations from Miami and San Diego to round out local channel packages without the CW? I would think the reason for using them would be to avoid the superstations, which carry a somewhat hefty fee as compared to the distant network stations.


----------



## BobS

The issue (as I recall) was that someone claimed that only affiliates of the Big Four could ever be subjects of an injunction because they, and only they, were defined as "network stations" because the definition was (supposedly) frozen in 1995 or thereabouts. This is incorrect. If CW/WB/UPN/Pax/MyTV/Joe's Network met the station/hours definition in 17 USC 119 and were abused and decided to go after E* - then the injunction would apply to retransmission of their stations. It makes no difference if a station is defined as a superstation in any other law or any marketing effort. Perhaps we have been talking past each other. Sorry if that's the case.



joblo said:


> Right. We agree on this, Bob. !


I hope so!


----------



## BobS

Perhaps the point of departure is the difference between subscribers who do not reside in unserved households (as in the exception that you quoted) and those who are ineligble to receive distant signals (in the main section). I do not think these groups are the same.


----------



## joblo

<sigh>

Ummmm&#8230;.

Bob, no offense, but do you actually read what I write before dashing off responses??

Several posts back, right after quoting the exception to which you now refer, and in the same post in which I accurately summarized the definitions you later posted, I wrote (emphasis added):



joblo said:


> Btw, I think the section 119 exception explains why *E* has started offering WPIX and KTLA as CW distants* wherever they can get away with it - i.e. where no station requests syndex protection or is eligible for network non-dup protection. *Because distribution of these stations to served households cannot be used to establish a "nationwide pattern and practice" of infringement*, E* significantly reduces the possibility of an injunction against distant CW delivery, in case the CW should ever file suit.


So now you say:



BobS said:


> Perhaps the point of departure is the difference between subscribers who do not reside in unserved households (as in the exception that you quoted) and those who are ineligble to receive distant signals (in the main section). I do not think these groups are the same.


Well, yes! Right!

By George, I think you've got it!

(I think&#8230;&#8230


----------



## Link

Greg Bimson said:


> I thought that Dish Network was using the CW stations from Miami and San Diego to round out local channel packages without the CW? I would think the reason for using them would be to avoid the superstations, which carry a somewhat hefty fee as compared to the distant network stations.


Why after the switch from WB to CW, has Dish been using WPIX instead of the Miami CW station on channel 251?


----------



## joblo

Greg,

Sorry, I missed your response earlier.

See note 12 on Tony’s chart re carriage of NY/LA vs. Miami/SD stations as CW distants. It appears E* is using different stations in different markets.

The royalty fee for supers and distants is now the same, 20 cents.

But for reasons previously stated, I believe the network rate would apply to CW supers, anyway. I’ve found nothing anywhere to suggest that the specially defined 5 (or 6 w/WGN) would necessarily be subject to the superstation rate rather than the network rate, if the rates were in fact different.


----------



## Darkman

Sun staff reports
November 29, 2006

Programming is about to change for local DISH network customers.

Beginning Dec. 1, DISH subscribers throughout North Tahoe and Truckee will no longer get distant networks.

"[Customers] are not losing access to local programming, just to distant networks - those channels that originate outside the community where you live," said Kathie Gonzalez, EchoStar's DISH Network spokesperson....

....
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20061129/NEWS/61128015/-1/rss01 )


----------



## catmom50

A couple questions from a senior citizen who is so confused now...

What do I do, since losing my distant networks last night?

1. Do I jump over to Direct, or will they eventually be in the same boat?
2. Do I get the antenae Dish is offering me free of charge?
3. Wait it out until congress convenes in January and hope for the best??

Thanks everyone for your time,

Catmom in the woods of Central Oregon.


----------



## James Long

catmom50 said:


> A couple questions from a senior citizen who is so confused now...
> 
> What do I do, since losing my distant networks last night?
> 
> 1. Do I jump over to Direct, or will they eventually be in the same boat?
> 2. Do I get the antenae Dish is offering me free of charge?
> 3. Wait it out until congress convenes in January and hope for the best??


1) Check with D* ... depending on where you are you may or may not qualify for distants. There is an address broker on their website.
2) If you are staying with E* free is free. Check antennaweb.org to see how far you are from your locals. If it is a long way the free antenna may not be enough.
3) The legislation has just been published - I have not read it yet so it is hard to discuss. (See the legislation thread in a little while for reactions,) Congress is in session next week but I doubt they will do anything. Reintroduced next year the bill may have a chance. I expect it fixes the "local distants" problems more than the long distance distants.


----------



## Darkman

By Dave Burge / El Paso Times
Article Launched:11/29/2006 06:59:59 PM MST

Dish Network subscribers in El Paso will no longer be able to view CBS affiliate Channel 4-KDBC (cable Channel 3) starting Friday....

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.elpasotimes.com/breakingnews/ci_4742177 )


----------



## James Long

Court filings so far today include the Appeal's Court refusal to stay the permanent injunction issued October 20th.

E* has also filed a quick response to the NPS complaint by the networks and a notice that a longer reply will be filed tomorrow.


----------



## Darkman

Court Of Appeals Rejects EchoStar Motion For Stay: 
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/113006newsletterupd.cfm#H1

EchoStar's Response To Networks Emergency Motion Request: 
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/113006newsletterupd.cfm#H2

Networks Say EchoStar/NPS Agreement Is "Act Of Contempt":
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/113006newsletter.cfm#H1


----------



## Link

I'm sure tomorrow a lot of E* customers who have no clue what is going on with distants will be mad when their channels are cut off with no explanation. Most people I talk to have no clue this is about to happen nor have they received a letter or phone call about it.


----------



## boylehome

CBSHD KCBS is gone from my service. So sad. Darn.


----------



## BobS

boylehome said:


> CBSHD KCBS is gone from my service. So sad. Darn.


You must be mistaken. We were told right here that CBSHD was a *private *contract and had *nothing *to do with the injunction. You're not saying that the naysayers might have been right?


----------



## boylehome

BobS said:


> You must be mistaken. We were told right here that CBSHD was a *private *contract and had *nothing *to do with the injunction. You're not saying that the naysayers might have been right?


Sorry, not mistaken. It is still gone.


----------



## moonman

Darkman said:


> Court Of Appeals Rejects EchoStar Motion For Stay:
> 
> Networks Say EchoStar/NPS Agreement Is "Act Of Contempt":
> http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/113006newsletter.cfm#H1


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

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

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

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


----------



## darthxenu

I have emailed the NAB letting them know that I feel it is unfair that they are only targeting EchoStar and that people should be able to get network channels from any location they choose regardless of where they live. I think anyone unhappy with losing distant networks should contact the NAB.


----------



## zmark

darthxenu said:


> I have emailed the NAB letting them know that I feel it is unfair that they are only targeting EchoStar and that people should be able to get network channels from any location they choose regardless of where they live. I think anyone unhappy with losing distant networks should contact the NAB.


The NAB doesn't care what you think. They only want to count you as served to determine advertising rates. They couldn't care less if you actually watch or not.


----------



## Darkman

By Ted Hearn
12/1/2006 3:10:00 PM

EchoStar Communications said Friday that it would terminate the delivery of distant ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox signals to 900,000 customers by day's end.

But the broadcasters, angered by the direct-broadcast satellite service's actions, have gone to court accusing EchoStar of crafting a business deal designed to circumvent the court-ordered shutoff.

"Everyone will be turned off today if they haven't been already. We are meeting the deadline," EchoStar director of corporate communications Kathie Gonzalez said Friday.

But two days earlier, EchoStar announced it would lease a satellite transponder to National Programming Service, an Indianapolis-based provider of satellite programming to eight- and 10-foot C-band dish owners for more than 20 years.

NPS said it would begin marketing a package that includes ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox signals to EchoStar customers.

-------
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6396540.html )


----------



## tnsprin

Apparently there was a surprise Special DNS Charlie Chat. Anyone here have a recap?


----------



## James Long

tnsprin said:


> Apparently there was a surprise Special DNS Charlie Chat. Anyone here have a recap?


The chat was only made available to former distant subscribers who lost their distants.
(In other words, those of us who didn't subscribe to distants didn't see it.)
Portions of the recap were filed with the court as evidence against E*.

See http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=738345&postcount=108 and beyond. The recap link is in that thread.


----------



## sasserfolk

I noticed today that my "local" CBS station WCTV- Tallahassee, Fl was removed from my "local" channel package. I am in the Albany, Ga. market and WCTV is a "significantly viewed channel" in this market. How is this part of the Distant Network channel issue? What can I do?


----------



## DennyC

I'm irritated that Dish CSR's are telling customers that the injunction applies to all satellite companies, including Direct. Then, I saw a posting in this forum which contained a quote from an email from the executive office (the first quote below) that seems to support this view. I emailed the executive office fellow with a query (second quote below), and got an answer (third quote below) that makes no sense to me. If anybody can figure out what he's talking about ("Direct TV and Cable Companies must abide by this ruling very soon.") I'd appreciate it if you'd enlighten me!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
From Frank Barcia to a subscriber:

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

Frank Barcia
Executive Communications
Dish Network
(720) 514-7839
Email: [email protected]"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From me to Frank Barcia:

"As a long time Dish subscriber, I have been following developments with regard to the Distant Networks with interest. In an email to a subscriber which has been reposted on a DBS bulletin board, you state that the injunction regarding Distant Network channels, "... goes for "all" providers, not just Dish Network." This is also the position espoused by numerous CSR's I've talked to at Dish with regard to the distant networks.

However, since your competitor (Direct TV) still has the ability to provide distant networks to it's subscribers, it would appear that your statement is not just disingenuous, but an ethically repugnant falsification of easily verifiable facts-- in other words, a blatant attempt to prevent mass defection of your subscribers to Direct TV.

If that is not the case, what is your justification for the statement quoted above?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Mr Barcia to me:

"The court's decision affected Dish Network exclusively at the moment and since Dish focuses more on the rural markets and not metropolitan areas as with Direct TV, Dish was instructed to terminate all distant feeds by 12/01/2006. Although Dish does have a lot of metropolitan areas mapped to DMA's currently; there is a great deal of person's in rural markets that chose Dish for the reason of picking up a distant network that Direct TV or Cable didn't offer. Dish was the leader in offering distant feeds to those customers that don't have a local DMA due their location. Direct TV and Cable Companies must abide by this ruling very soon. I hope this helps you understand what you and other customers are going through. Sorry for the confusion; thanks for your commitment to Dish Network!"

Frank Barcia
Executive Communications
Dish Network
(720) 514-7839
Email: [email protected]


----------



## Darkman

Darkman said:


> By Ted Hearn
> 12/1/2006 3:10:00 PM
> 
> EchoStar Communications said Friday that it would terminate the delivery of distant ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox signals to 900,000 customers by day's end.
> 
> But the broadcasters, angered by the direct-broadcast satellite service's actions, have gone to court accusing EchoStar of crafting a business deal designed to circumvent the court-ordered shutoff.
> 
> "Everyone will be turned off today if they haven't been already. We are meeting the deadline," EchoStar director of corporate communications Kathie Gonzalez said Friday.
> 
> But two days earlier, EchoStar announced it would lease a satellite transponder to National Programming Service, an Indianapolis-based provider of satellite programming to eight- and 10-foot C-band dish owners for more than 20 years.
> 
> NPS said it would begin marketing a package that includes ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox signals to EchoStar customers.
> 
> -------
> ( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6396540.html )


Continued....

By Ted Hearn
12/4/2006

....... etc ........

The $9.00 Solution

By Friday, the Web site MyDistantNetworks.com had been set up to allow Dish Network customers to sign up for distant broadcast signals from Atlanta and San Francisco.

The prices, according to Web news and discussion site SatelliteGuys.US, were:

ABC East and West $2.50/month 
NBC East and West $2.50/month 
CBS East and West $2.50/month 
Fox East and West $2.50/month 
All 4 Distant Networks (East and West) $9/month (package price)

The MyDistantNetworks.com site is labeled AllAmericanDirect.com. NPS confirmed Friday that it operates the site.

-Tom Steinert-Threlkeld

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6396752.html )


----------



## cj9788

Well apparently Mr Barcia and eveidently most people posting info that dish is misrepresenting who the injuntion applies to did not watch the charlie chat that was aired at 12:00am MST on 12/01/06. In that chat good ole charlie said that the injunction only applies to E* and that as an alternative customers can get lifeline cable ota allamerican direct or direct tv. Charlie in the chat told us that direct tv was an option. He did not like telling us as he said he wanted to let his customers know what options we had. If people want to bash E* that is fine just do it truthfully. I just wish Mr. Barcia at E* knew what his boss was saying. They definitly need to get on the same page!


----------



## Link

I had read it did apply to SV channels too but not sure if that is the case or not.


----------



## BobS

Link said:


> I agree that it was a conflict of interest between News Corp owning Fox and Directv.


Please explain how. A COI exists where a person owes a duty to "X" while at the same time owning a duty to "Y," where X and Y have competing interests. Somebody being an officer of E* and D* simultaneously might be COI but I can't see how your situation is. Even if there was active and widespread collusion between Fox and DirecTV to scuttle E* (and there is no proof of such), this would be a _coincidence _of interests - not a conflict.


----------



## BobS

sasserfolk said:


> I noticed today that my "local" CBS station WCTV- Tallahassee, Fl was removed from my "local" channel package. I am in the Albany, Ga. market and WCTV is a "significantly viewed channel" in this market. How is this part of the Distant Network channel issue? What can I do?


From the FCC perspective, a SV station can be either a local station or a distant station. However for the purposes of satellite TV, locals are excluded, so by definition any SV is distant. Now the key is that the license being used to provide SV is the same license that is used to provide what are commonly referred to as "DNS." Thus once E* lost the priviledge of using that license for "network stations," any ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox station from outside the subscribers local area could not be carried. Dish may market a "local channel package" but this apparently include both true locals (LIL type) and one or more SV.


----------



## BobS

BobS said:


> From the FCC perspective, a SV station can be either a local station or a distant station. However for the purposes of satellite TV, locals are excluded, so by definition any SV is distant. Now the key is that the license being used to provide SV is the same license that is used to provide what are commonly referred to as "DNS." Thus once E* lost the priviledge of using that license for "network stations," any ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox station from outside the subscribers local area could not be carried. Dish may market a "local channel package" but this apparently include both true locals (LIL type) and one or more SV.


I just noticed that your DMA is a little screwy in that WSWG is physically in your DMA but licensed to a neighboring one. I don't recall the rules for situations like this but will research. Perhaps someone else will know immediately. And yes, I know how to spell "privilege" - a bad spell check dictionary got me.


----------



## sasserfolk

BobS said:


> From the FCC perspective, a SV station can be either a local station or a distant station. However for the purposes of satellite TV, locals are excluded, so by definition any SV is distant. Now the key is that the license being used to provide SV is the same license that is used to provide what are commonly referred to as "DNS." Thus once E* lost the priviledge of using that license for "network stations," any ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox station from outside the subscribers local area could not be carried. Dish may market a "local channel package" but this apparently include both true locals (LIL type) and one or more SV.


Thanks BobS for the explanation. I had been following the distant network issue but did not expect to be affected. I have filed for a waiver in hopes of being able to get CBS back via NPS.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> Please explain how. A COI exists where a person owes a duty to "X" while at the same time owning a duty to "Y," where X and Y have competing interests.


Fox has a duty to deal fairly with rebroadcasters such as cable and satellite companies. DirecTV has a duty to compete for the best deals possible with ALL providers. The co-ownership of these companies is the potential for conflict. If Fox were to give DirecTV better deals because it all helps the combined corporate bottom line. Perhaps "conflict of interest" is not the best words for the situation --- but there is potential for preferential treatment beyond simply liking one provider over another. And clear financial benefit to their collusion.


BobS said:


> From the FCC perspective, a SV station can be either a local station or a distant station. However for the purposes of satellite TV, locals are excluded, so by definition any SV is distant.


For the purposes of satellite TV, locals are irrelevant. One MUST subscribe to all locals (including those that are listed as SV) offered in their own market before being offered ANY SV station.


BobS said:


> Now the key is that the license being used to provide SV is the same license that is used to provide what are commonly referred to as "DNS."


I believe that was an error on the part of Congress. SVs should have been considered extensions of the local market, as they are for cable, instead of included in 17 USC 119.


----------



## BobS

James Long said:


> Fox has a duty to deal fairly with rebroadcasters such as cable and satellite companies. DirecTV has a duty to compete for the best deals possible with ALL providers. The co-ownership of these companies is the potential for conflict. If Fox were to give DirecTV better deals because it all helps the combined corporate bottom line. Perhaps "conflict of interest" is not the best words for the situation --- but there is potential for preferential treatment beyond simply liking one provider over another. And clear financial benefit to their collusion.


The validity of what you say depends on what you mean by "duty," "fairly," "best deal," etc. Many of these terms have specific definitions in the legal context. Suffice it to say that there has been no legal finding of wrongdoing on the part of Fox/DirecTV on this matter. Whether or not you believe that Rupert Murdoch is the devil incarnate is another matter .



James Long said:


> For the purposes of satellite TV, locals are irrelevant.


I think that's what I said.  



James Long said:


> One MUST subscribe to all locals (including those that are listed as SV) offered in their own market before being offered ANY SV station.I believe that was an error on the part of Congress. SVs should have been considered extensions of the local market, as they are for cable, instead of included in 17 USC 119.


Now I know that you know better than this. Your statement is good as a starting point but there can be instances (outside the spotbeam was one you mentioned), or waivers that don't require LIL. Furthermore, it is not clear that ALL LIL stations must be subscribed to. One could make an argument that ony one station is enough or at least a station of the same network as the SV. Since LIL are invariably bundled, this is an academic observation rather than a practical one. Cable is different and the definitions do not always flow over into DBS. I don't think that SV are considered "extensions" of locals (although it may appear that way to the average consumer). The impact of calling SV's = LIL in DBS has serious ramifications - must carry, all or none, cost.... There is no good reason for setting up the paradigm this way. Very few cable systems provide duplicate networks. It is just not cost-effective and doesn't make business sense. If desired, SV stations are available to DBS. It is just a matter of the parties making it happen.


----------



## Link

BobS said:


> Please explain how. A COI exists where a person owes a duty to "X" while at the same time owning a duty to "Y," where X and Y have competing interests. Somebody being an officer of E* and D* simultaneously might be COI but I can't see how your situation is. Even if there was active and widespread collusion between Fox and DirecTV to scuttle E* (and there is no proof of such), this would be a _coincidence _of interests - not a conflict.


I meant to say I can see why E* is seeing it as a way for Directv to be the only DBS provider of distant network channels by the fact that Fox was the only network they couldn't reach a settlement with then causing the judge to give the injunction on them providing distant networks.


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of satellite TV, locals are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's what I said.
Click to expand...

Perhaps what you _meant_ to say. Certainly what you should have said.


BobS said:


> Furthermore, it is not clear that ALL LIL stations must be subscribed to.


Satellite carriers MUST offer all locals on a non-desctiminitory basis. I'm sure that if they decided to offer stations for 20¢ per station per month it would be ruled discriminatory by a court. But that isn't the issue here.


BobS said:


> Cable is different and the definitions do not always flow over into DBS. I don't think that SV are considered "extensions" of locals (although it may appear that way to the average consumer).


With all due respect, stop thinking and do some serious reading. Read and understand the rules as they apply to cable.


BobS said:


> The impact of calling SV's = LIL in DBS has serious ramifications - must carry, all or none, cost....


Not nessisarily. It all depends on how the law is written.

At this point I was going to mention how carriage of LPs is entirely optional ... but for some reasons (don't tell the FLSD court) Congress put the licensing of LPs under 17 USC 119 (a)(15) instead of under 17 USC 122. Technically all LPs that are big 4 networks should be pulled ... although my local LPs were uplinked before LPs were added to 17 USC 119 in 2004 so I assume there was some other arrangement.

In any case, just because something is in the same section as another service does NOT mean that it has to follow the same rules as the other service. All "local" signals including neighboring SV signals (and LP) could be moved into 17 USC 122 with their own qualifications and rules separate from the full power broadcasters within one's own market.


----------



## Darkman

It seems the networks are leaving nothing to chance in their court filings for an Emergency Show Cause Order seeking to have EchoStar declared in contempt of court for leasing satellite space to NPS....

---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120106newsletter.cfm#H1 )


----------



## moonman

Latest........
Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case. Stay tuned


----------



## James Long

moonman said:


> Latest........
> Judge Dimitrouleas denied a request by Mike Mountford of NPS to have attorneys not from the state of Florida to represent his interests in this case. Stay tuned


The request was denied because the attorneys had improperly filed their request (they did not pay the apropriate fee).


----------



## Darkman

hehe:


> ..."EchoStar demonstrates again its arrogant and flagrant contempt for the rule of law. We're hopeful the courts recognize this latest stunt for what it is: a serial copyright abuser's refusal to comply with numerous court verdicts and federal statutes that preserve the enduring value of local broadcasting," stated NAB media relations executive VP Dennis Wharton.
> 
> EchoStar responsed by saying: "We are hopeful the courts will see through the FOX Network-led coalition of broadcasters, whose real intention is to deny consumers their freedom of choice and leave the FOX-owned DirecTV as a monopoly for distant networks."


---
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=86597 )


----------



## Darkman

If you could pick your opponent in an upcoming fight, the natural thing to do would be to pick the weakest, out of shape, clumsiest adversary you could find. But if you are Charlie Ergen and EchoStar, you end up doing battle with the strongest opponent that exists. In the case of the distant network battle, EchoStar is dancing in the ring with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).

The NAB is perhaps the most powerful and most feared organization on capital hill. After all, who would tangle with an organization that is the lobbying power behind over 8,000 radio and television stations? Like I said, "EchoStar sure can pick 'em."...

----
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120606newsletter.cfm#H1 )


----------



## Darkman

WASHINGTON, DC - Local Dish Network satellite TV subscribers, take heart: U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-6th introduced a bill yesterday with Rep. Rick Boucher, D-9th to speed the reconnection of rural customers with the major networks.

The bill, HR 6384, is designed to streamline negotiations between EchoStar - Dish Network's parent company - and ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.

The disruption affected thousands of rural residents who have been unable to receive local network broadcasts via satellite or antennae.

A release from Goodlatte's office said many viewers have been "innocent bystanders in a dispute between EchoStar (Dish Network's parent company) and broadcasters."

A federal court ruling in Florida halted Dish Network's blanket service to distant network markets, citing widespread abuse of copyright laws.

----
Source: http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061207/NEWS01/61207009


----------



## Darkman

Darkman said:


> Thinking Out Loud: EchoStar Sure Can Pick 'Em - Part I
> 
> If you could pick your opponent in an upcoming fight, the natural thing to do would be to pick the weakest, out of shape, clumsiest adversary you could find. But if you are Charlie Ergen and EchoStar, you end up doing battle with the strongest opponent that exists. In the case of the distant network battle, EchoStar is dancing in the ring with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).
> 
> The NAB is perhaps the most powerful and most feared organization on capital hill. After all, who would tangle with an organization that is the lobbying power behind over 8,000 radio and television stations? Like I said, "EchoStar sure can pick 'em."...
> 
> ----
> ( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120606newsletter.cfm#H1 )


EchoStar Sure Can Pick 'Em - Pt. II

One would think that research would be my best friend when writing an article for public release, but I am here to tell you, that is not necessarily so. The more research I did for this article the more confused I became. With every fact and quote uncovered the direction of this article changed, changed, and changed again.

I spent the last few hours (actually the last way too many hours) reading about politics, engineering, associations, government agencies, and money (I also found a story about the unusual mating habits of&#8230;never mind that's another story for another day). The one subject I never saw represented in any of these topics (except the mating habits story) was common sense.

I just finished reading a portion of the FCC's Communications Act of 1934...

--- 
( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120806newsletter.cfm#H1 )


----------



## Darkman

Goodfriend To Lobby Hill For EchoStar:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6398477.html

Consumers lose when satellite TV company ignores law:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006612090305


----------



## Greg Bimson

Darkman's second link there is a letter from Rep. Terry Everett, from Alabama's Second District. And he put the screws to Dish Network:


> To quote from the court's ruling, "We have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the act. ... We seem to have discerned a pattern and practice of violating the act in every way imaginable."
> 
> As punishment for violating federal law, the court ordered EchoStar (Dish Network) to shut off distant network programming to its customers Dec. 1. However, it can still provide its subscribers with local network TV programming, but not "distant" network stations. This ruling only affected EchoStar (Dish Network) since the 11th Circuit Court determined they had willfully broken federal law.
> 
> In recent weeks, EchoStar (Dish Network) has informed its subscribers that it can no longer provide distant network programming and it suggested its customers contact Congress to complain that the company is being unfairly punished. It should be made clear that the federal court decided EchoStar (Dish Network) broke the law. It is unfortunate that the company chose to ignore the law rather than work within it to provide its subscribers these programs.


I am afraid that many in Congress will turn a deaf ear to Dish Network for this reason alone. Congress may address significantly-viewed, but probably will not address the restoration of distant networks in a positive light.


----------



## dishrich

Greg Bimson said:


> I am afraid that many in Congress will turn a deaf ear to Dish Network for this reason alone.


And THAT'S even BEFORE they hear about the E*/NPS "deal"...  :lol:


----------



## JohnH

THE NPS deal does not bother me at all.

What is buging me is the fact that after E* supposedly sent disconnect commands to all 900,000 Distant Network Subscribers, some of the forums members were still reporting they were still receiving Distant Networks. The number of reports on the forums was not of a large magnitude, but consider how many among the members which are aware of the activity would choose not to report and then expand that number to the entire group of 900,000, there could have a substantial group still receiving Distant Networks. EchoStar has the capabillity of removing the Distant Network packages from the system and placing many of the channels on local spotbeams. They have not done any of that. They certainly were in a hurry to eliminate the Significantly viewed channels(perhaps because that was the only way) which BTW was a service they were very slow to add.

It would seem that a company that is "out of the Distant Network Business" and is seeking grace from Congress would have gone the necessary distance to insure there were no authorized subscribers receiving Distant Networks.


----------



## cj9788

I think they are going to stay on CONUS until the bills pass or fail and till the supreme court weighs in. If the bills pas E* maybe able to get back into the dns game. So in theory we could have DNS from E* and NPS. That would be great NY/LA from E* and ATL/SFO from NPS. The broadcast world would be livid.


----------



## James Long

The supreme court case will go to conference (to decide if the case will or will not be heard at all) on *January 5th, 2007*. Any congressional solution will have to wait for the next congress.

E* is claiming to have cut off ALL 900,000 subscribers. They need to make that so. We've discussed ways of doing that that do not require a move to spotbeams. It just needs to be done. Every subscriber that continues to get distants is a violation of the injunction far beyond the NPS concerns.


----------



## FTA Michael

Just a question: Maybe some folks still have distants somehow, but is anyone still *paying* for distants that they're not supposed to get? I just wonder if the problem is in not getting an update signal because some database has already forgotten that they were subscribing.


----------



## James Long

17 USC 119 doesn't require that a customer pays for distant services.
17 USC 119 only requires that the satellite carrier provides them within the rules.
The injunction requires that a specific satellite carrier not provide them at all.

E* needs to figure this out and "get'r done".


----------



## minnow

James Long said:


> 17 USC 119 doesn't require that a customer pays for distant services.
> 17 USC 119 only requires that the satellite carrier provides them within the rules.
> The injunction requires that a specific satellite carrier not provide them at all.
> 
> E* needs to figure this out and "get'r done".


Or what ? If those that still have them(and that has to be an insignifcant number of subs), and these subs keep their collective mouths shut, whose to know. Let the NAB get warrants and go house to house of all Dish subs and find out.


----------



## moonman

From SkyReport:
------------------
Legislative Relief in DISH's Future? 
With EchoStar being forced to turn its back to the 800,000-or-so DISH Network subscribers that had been receiving its distant network signals, the company was holding out for some legislative relief that never came. But now that the blackout has reached across the entire country, and certain constituents are being affected, one Congressman has sponsored a bill designed to settle the dispute and turn the signals back on.

Because rural residents - specifically those in northern Michigan - have lost access to their distant network signals, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has signed onto legislation that would allow a settlement of the dispute that is blocking DISH from carrying the out-of-market channels. According to a release from Stupak's office, the legislation would make clear that the court has the authority to accept any settlement reached between the networks, broadcasters and the satellite company allowing individual agreements for DISH to provide network programming.

While "we cannot allow DISH Network to break the law, this legislation would help allow a balanced solution that upholds the law, but does not penalize rural television viewers," Stupak said. "This legislation does not guarantee a solution, but it at least gives the court authority to accept any agreements between the networks, the broadcasters and DISH."

Stupak said that his constituents who lost their network signals due to the dispute may have other options - namely cable or DIRECTV -but that those services are not always available. The Congressman said he would continue to work with his colleagues for a solution "that upholds the law, but does not penalize rural television viewers," - especially in Michigan.

In related news, National Programming Service - the company offering distant network signals to alienated DISH subs - is now facing problems of its own for trying to provide the service recently taken from EchoStar. Last week, NPS was forced to stop connecting customers to the out-of-market signals because Cedar Rapids-based Decisionmark - the company maintaining white-area household databases - stopped processing the company's clearance requests. The move by Decisionmark to withhold its data from NPS keeps the satellite company from determining potential customers' eligibility to receive the distant nets.

According to a court filing, NPS President Mike Mountford said that the broadcasters are strong-arming Decisionmark claiming the service it's providing violates the court's ruling against EchoStar and if continued would face contempt proceedings. The broadcasters "have launched the legal equivalent of total war against NPS, with all the secondary effects and destruction that such implies," the company wrote.

Decisionmark VP of Operations Herb Skoog told SkyREPORT "there is nothing Decisionmark can comment on regarding this situation," and attempts to reach Mountford were unsuccessful. As of press time, EchoStar had not answered requests for comment.
--
Reposted with permission from http://www.skyreport.com/


----------



## James Long

minnow said:


> Or what ? If those that still have them(and that has to be an insignifcant number of subs), and these subs keep their collective mouths shut, whose to know. Let the NAB get warrants and go house to house of all Dish subs and find out.


I don't consider members of this web forum as insignificant - perhaps more of a representative sample. Most people here know that they should have lost their distants - most have reported losing them and a few have reported still having them. I'm assuming others are keeping their mouths shut (as you suggest).

The burden of proof is on E* in this matter (go back to 17 USC 119 if you don't believe it). The affiliates don't have to prove that people are receiving the channels contrary to the rules, E* has to prove that the people receiving distants are not receiving them in violation of the rules.

Per the injunction, how many customers should be receiving distants from E*?


----------



## FTA Michael

I don't like to bring up the P word, but past court cases suggest that there are certain individuals who receive Dish channels that they didn't pay for, at least until they get caught. Did E* violate their distant network responsibilities with these unfortunate viewers? I would say that they did not.

Those who had paid for distant networks were not the same as the group I just mentioned, but now they are either paying for something they aren't supposed to get from E*, or as I suggested earlier, their distants have been "forgotten" by E* so that they aren't paying for them. _If_ E* can say that it has tried to turn off every improper distant network that it knows about, what more can it do?


----------



## JohnH

I doubt anyone who reported they were still receiving Distant Networks was a Hacker. We are not referring to Hackers. We are referring to people receiving Distant Networks which were authorized by EchoStar. 

As to the what more can EchoStar do: They can remove the Distant Network packages from the System.The packages do not need to be there since the company is out of the Distant Network Business.


----------



## JohnH

Now would be a good time for EchoStar to re-evaluate every locals subscription to insure it is a locals subscription and not a misplaced Distants subscription. There were some of those along the way.


----------



## James Long

FTA Michael said:


> I don't like to bring up the P word, but past court cases suggest that there are certain individuals who receive Dish channels that they didn't pay for, at least until they get caught. Did E* violate their distant network responsibilities with these unfortunate viewers? I would say that they did not.


I would agree (although I can't think of a P word - an H word comes to mind).

With hackers E* did not provide access to the channels to subscribers that were not qualify. In this case E* provided the access and could be considered negligent in not turning off access per the court ordered injunction.


----------



## BobS

...and the carrier makes a direct or indirect charge for such retransmission service to each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission.



James Long said:


> 17 USC 119 doesn't require that a customer pays for distant services.
> 17 USC 119 only requires that the satellite carrier provides them within the rules.
> The injunction requires that a specific satellite carrier not provide them at all.
> 
> E* needs to figure this out and "get'r done".


----------



## James Long

BobS said:


> ...and the carrier makes a direct or indirect charge for such retransmission service to each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission.


I suppose we would need to call in a team of lawyers and judges if a carrier decided not to charge.


----------



## James Long

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

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

Please discuss in the NPS thread ... posted here to make sure people who are not following both threads see this action.
See http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=754779#post754779

-


----------



## koralis

Greg Bimson said:


> Darkman's second link there is a letter from Rep. Terry Everett, from Alabama's Second District. And he put the screws to Dish Network:I am afraid that many in Congress will turn a deaf ear to Dish Network for this reason alone. Congress may address significantly-viewed, but probably will not address the restoration of distant networks in a positive light.


Congress could choose to ammend the act such that Dish can carry and offer the distants for their consumers (good for constituants) but not allow Dish to profit from distants (no billing as punishment... bad for dish, again, good for customers.)

Even Charlie wins compared to what he has now, since he might lose a little revenue from local charges, but won't lose a subscriber wholesale to the competition.


----------



## Greg Bimson

From other discussions here, it appears Dish Network has abdicated any possibility of true "distant network service". Dish Network signed a non-compete with NPS for two years. So, even if Dish Network regains the ability to provide distant network service, they will not be allowed to do so until December, 2008.


----------



## Mikey

koralis said:


> Congress could choose to ammend the act such that Dish can carry and offer the distants for their consumers (good for constituants) but not allow Dish to profit from distants (no billing as punishment... bad for dish, again, good for customers.)
> 
> Even Charlie wins compared to what he has now, since he might lose a little revenue from local charges, but won't lose a subscriber wholesale to the competition.


Charlie needs to forget about DNS now. That fight is over, and the outcome (with NPS) is as good for Charlie as it could be, under the circumstances. E* gets to keep most of the legitimate unserved DNS subs out there, and their additional programming packages. DirecTV and the NAB get squat, and that's what they deserve.


----------



## FTA Michael

Greg Bimson said:


> So, even if Dish Network regains the ability to provide distant network service, they will not be allowed to do so until December, 2008.


If that Congressional relief comes through, I'd bet that Dish could find enough change under its sofa cushions to buy up NPS.


----------



## BobMurdoch

Yeah, a briefcase of money in the middle of the table tends to clear up matters pretty quickly....


----------



## BobS

Greg Bimson said:


> From other discussions here, it appears Dish Network has abdicated any possibility of true "distant network service". Dish Network signed a non-compete with NPS for two years. So, even if Dish Network regains the ability to provide distant network service, they will not be allowed to do so until December, 2008.


Come on you know Charlie better than this. Once E* gets DNS back, it tears up the contract and boots NPS off the satellite. Of course, NPS sues but E* comes up with some cockamamie legal theory and drags it out until NPS folds or goes bankrupt. A leopard (Charlie) doesn't change its spots (m.o.) Remember you heard it here first.


----------



## whatchel1

BobS said:


> Come on you know Charlie better than this. Once E* gets DNS back, it tears up the contract and boots NPS off the satellite. Of course, NPS sues but E* comes up with some cockamamie legal theory and drags it out until NPS folds or goes bankrupt. A leopard (Charlie) doesn't change its spots (m.o.) Remember you heard it here first.


Be smarter to keep NPS for DNS. That way he can make a deal to carry more than the 2 sets he has now if they want to add say a Mountain Time Zone. He also no longer has to worry about the maintenance of the systems.


----------



## Mike D-CO5

I see Charlie buyin the NPS company or even partnering with them to provide Distant networks for Dish exclusively if the legislation goes through that allows it.


----------



## James Long

E* needs distants for the partial markets, otherwise they might as well let NPS keep them and deal with the problem.


----------



## kstuart

Actually, NPS can provide a better Distant Network service than E* could have either under the Settlement, or under the Bill introduced in the Senate.

NPS can provide earlier timezone channels (which would have been prohibited under the Settlement) and can provide two different channels for the same network (which would have been prohibited under the Senate Bill).

Having two different network channels is a feature valued by subscribers who want to avoid pre-emptions, or have duplication in case of temporary weather problems. Having earlier timezone channels is valued by some subcribers who go to bed earlier than is implied by prime-time scheduling.


----------



## Darkman

United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer has recommended the District Court deny the Emergency Motion asked for by the network affiliates asking that EchoStar be held in contempt. In recommending the contempt motion be denied, Magistrate Judge Seltzer had this to say in his order filed Friday:

"Here, the District Court's Order of Permanent Injunction clearly bars EchoStar from providing any distant programming services-even wholly legitimate distant programming services. The Order, however, does not by its terms prohibit EchoStar from leasing equipment-hardware-to an independent non-party, which (non-party) may then provide distant network programming."

"The arguments of EchoStar and NPS are well-taken. At bottom, the transaction between the two is nothing more than an equipment lease. EchoStar is not only out of the prohibited business, but it has not part of NPS's distant network programming. It therefore is not doing indirectly what it formerly did directly.

"Aside from the equipment lease revenue-which EchoStar receives whether NPS signs up 1 million subscribers or none at all-the only benefits that EchoStar derives are the incidental accrual of goodwill) for alerting its subscribers to a substitute provider) and the potential preservation of its permissible activities (which lie outside the scope of the injunction). Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that EchoStar and NPS are 'acting in concert' to violate the Permanent Injunction. There being no factual basis for an order of contempt, the undersigned declines to certify the matter to the District Judge for further contempt proceedings."

The parties have 5 days within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge.

---
Source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/121806newsletter.cfm


----------



## James Long

A reminder that the NPS issue is being discussed in it's own thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=758804#post758804

The next step has already been taken and Judge Dimitrouleas has written an order reflecting the same outcome as the Magistrate's ruling.


----------



## cable_killer

James Long said:


> The Florida Southern District Court has spoken:*ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION*
> THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is
> 
> *ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED* that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively "Echostar"), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby *PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED* from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms "secondary transmission," "primary transmission," "primary network station," and "network station" shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.
> 
> *DONE AND ORDERED* in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2006.​Emphasis is in original.
> 
> If you are looking for the now closed previous threads on the issue (for background) here they are:
> Distant Networks: 9/12 Settlement Details and other court filings ...
> September 15th-October 20th
> 
> EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)
> August 28th-September 15th
> 
> FOX request for Distant Networks Injunction (NO INJUNCTION ISSUED)
> September 1st/2nd
> 
> EchoStar Rejected by High Court Justice, Must Halt Distant Networks
> August 22nd-September 1st
> 
> EchoStar Loses Distant Network Appeal
> July 26th-August 8th


Yet another way for Direct Tv to try and win the battle of service. In case you did not know, Direct Tv is behind the suit. If they do not watch out they too will lose the rights to distant networks for falsifing information to get the distant local feed!!!!!


----------



## James Long

cable_killer said:


> Yet another way for Direct Tv to try and win the battle of service. In case you did not know, Direct Tv is behind the suit. If they do not watch out they too will lose the rights to distant networks for falsifing information to get the distant local feed!!!!!


Let's go back to 1998 for a moment and see how it all began ...

Four networks and four affiliate groups against Echostar.

No, it isn't about DirecTV.


----------



## Richard King

I think a strong case can be made that Fox's ownership of DirecTv is the part of the cause for this continuing and not settling since, as I understand it, Dish was able to negotiate a settlement with the others at one time along the way.


----------



## James Long

IIRC that "one time" was after the appeals court mandated the injunction and it was just a matter of time until the judge issued the order. A bit late in the game.

E* has done a lot to keep the _IMPRESSION_ that the co-ownership of Fox and DirecTV is what led to the injunction. There are enough cold hard facts presented in the appeals court mandate to show that E* wasn't squeaky clean and just being picked on. They were guilty as charged.

They might have got away with it if they would have immediately proven all of their customers were eligible and not failed any more audits of their distants business. They couldn't do that and instead were proven to continue to provide distants to customers AFTER they were informed that those customers didn't qualify. They blew it.

And it is over except the final appeal. The Supreme Court will be talking about the case in January - if they decide that it deserves a hearing I'll be very surprised.


----------



## BobS

Richard King said:


> I think a strong case can be made that Fox's ownership of DirecTv is the part of the cause for this continuing and not settling since, as I understand it, Dish was able to negotiate a settlement with the others at one time along the way.


Excuse me while I go into the back room and scream [insert The Girl from Ipanema as bumper music].......Ok, I feel much better. Can somebody explain why people (who theoretically read posts as well as write them) continue to repeat this garbage? Especially a "super moderator"?


----------



## Richard King

> IIRC that "one time" was after the appeals court mandated the injunction and it was just a matter of time until the judge issued the order. A bit late in the game.


Ahhhh, but if they were able to negotiate a settlement "at one time" with the other 3, why not the last one? If the settlement had been reached after the appeals court mandated the injunction I suspect the mandate put Dish in a "bargaining mood" that was acceptable to 3/4 of the plaintiffs. If all four had settled there would have been no need for the injunction.


----------



## Richard King

BobS said:


> Excuse me while I go into the back room and scream [insert The Girl from Ipanema as bumper music].......Ok, I feel much better. Can somebody explain why people (who theoretically read posts as well as write them) continue to repeat this garbage? Especially a "super moderator"?


Rather than scream in the back of the room and deafen all others, read my comments. If "my understanding" is wrong show me where. I do sort of like Jobim's songs though.


----------



## Richard King

James Long said:


> IIRC that "one time" was after the appeals court mandated the injunction and it was just a matter of time until the judge issued the order. A bit late in the game.
> 
> E* has done a lot to keep the _IMPRESSION_ that the co-ownership of Fox and DirecTV is what led to the injunction. There are enough cold hard facts presented in the appeals court mandate to show that E* wasn't squeaky clean and just being picked on. They were guilty as charged.
> 
> They might have got away with it if they would have immediately proven all of their customers were eligible and not failed any more audits of their distants business. They couldn't do that and instead were proven to continue to provide distants to customers AFTER they were informed that those customers didn't qualify. They blew it.
> 
> And it is over except the final appeal. The Supreme Court will be talking about the case in January - if they decide that it deserves a hearing I'll be very surprised.


I don't think that anyone has said they are squeeky clean, including myself. Charlie has a reputation of walking a fine line, this time he fell off the line and got bit.


----------



## James Long

> Ahhhh, but if they were able to negotiate a settlement "at one time" with the other 3, why not the last one?


Reading the comments that came with the injunction, the judge did not believe that once mandated by the appeals court he had an option - regardless of settlement.

Perhaps Fox national had rejected previous settlement offers and E* and the other Plantiffs just didn't bother to do a deal without Fox network prior to August. But it was late in the game and when push came to shove even the agreeing affiliate groups and networks were happy to tear up the agreement and push full steam into getting the injunction in place - and then defending it when they felt the NPS deal was infringing.


----------



## Richard King

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=638425&postcount=1
EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)



> During the nine year course of litigation, EchoStar previously settled with hundreds of TV stations and station groups, including the ABC, NBC and CBS networks. With today's announcement, EchoStar has reached settlements with almost 800 total stations. EchoStar had hoped and expected to resolve the dispute with all remaining litigants, but late last week Fox Network declined EchoStar's universal settlement offer and pulled out of the discussions. Consequently, litigation with approximately 25 Fox owned-and-operated stations continues. Though unlikely, *it is possible Fox's last minute tactic could derail the entire settlement *and force EchoStar to seek legislation to protect its subscribers from disruption.


Indeed it did.


----------



## James Long

Richard King said:


> Though unlikely, *it is possible Fox's last minute tactic could derail the entire settlement* and force EchoStar to seek legislation to protect its subscribers from disruption.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it did.
Click to expand...

Remembering that is a press release, which is to say, that article is exactly what E* would like you to think  I like the "unlikely" part of the quote myself.  Wishful thinking is what press releases like that are for!


----------



## BobS

Richard King said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=638425&postcount=1
> EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)
> 
> Indeed it did.


Newsflash for you Richard. Trade rags and other "industry" sources were and are often wrong. I have read reports from supposedly ace reporters on satellite issues that were rife with errors. I can quote several "respectable" people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. It don't make it so.


----------



## Richard King

BobS said:


> Newsflash for you Richard. Trade rags and other "industry" sources were and are often wrong. I have read reports from supposedly ace reporters on satellite issues that were rife with errors. I can quote several "respectable" people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. It don't make it so.


So, are you saying that Fox didn't "decline" the offer and pull out of the discussions? This WASN'T in a "trade rag", it was an official press release from Echostar corporate offices. I would think that if Dish were publishing fiction in official press releases which are read by the investing public that they would have more problems on their hands than distant network cut offs.


----------



## BobS

I am saying that it wouldn't have mattered what Fox did or did not do. The horse was out of the barn. I don't consider a self-serving E* press release more authoritative than an industry journal article. And you know what I think of those.



Richard King said:


> So, are you saying that Fox didn't "decline" the offer and pull out of the discussions? This WASN'T in a "trade rag", it was an official press release from Echostar corporate offices. I would think that if Dish were publishing fiction in official press releases which are read by the investing public that they would have more problems on their hands than distant network cut offs.


----------



## Richard King

If all parties, including Fox, had agreed to the settlement, and Fox was the only hold out, the horse would have been back in the barn. It may have been a "self serving press release", but, it still has to be truthful or they could have some serious SEC problems and by now would have class actions securities litigators (sort of like alligators) crawling all over them.


----------



## Mikey

Richard King said:


> If all parties, including Fox, had agreed to the settlement, and Fox was the only hold out, the horse would have been back in the barn. It may have been a "self serving press release", but, it still has to be truthful or they could have some serious SEC problems and by now would have class actions securities litigators (sort of like alligators) crawling all over them.


Yeah, like Charlie hasn't ever been sued before.


----------



## Richard King

Mikey said:


> Yeah, like Charlie hasn't ever been sued before.


Yea, but he has managed to keep clear of SEC violations and class action scums.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Richard King said:


> It may have been a "self serving press release", but, it still has to be truthful or they could have some serious SEC problems and by now would have class actions securities litigators (sort of like alligators) crawling all over them.


Yes, but, at the time, Echostar "believed" they could settle. A few of us recognized the fact that the Appeals Court told the District Court judge to issue the injunction, and that would probably scuttle a settlement. Of course, when Judge Dimitrouleas finally issued the injunction, it was mentioned in the explanation of the order:

1) Fox had standing to ask for an injunction;
2) The law states that the remedy is for a permanent injunction, and;
3) The higher court directed the lower court to issue the injunction.

Even without point one, if all parties came to a settlement, points two and three are still very valid. If a settlement with all parties was reached, the injunction would have still been issued.


----------



## James Long

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INJUNCTION; AND DENYING JOINT STIPULATION TO ENTER CONSENT JUDGMENT AND APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
1:98-cv-02651-1019 (Citations ommited.)


> p4-5
> Ultimately, whether Fox has standing is irrelevant to the Court's implementation of the appellate court's mandate; the Court has an obligation to implement the mandate issued by the Eleventh Circuit even without the request of any party.
> 
> "When an appellate court issues a clear and precise mandate . . . the district court is obligated to follow the instruction." [] A district court is not free to ignore the law of the case and reinterpret or circumvent an appellate court's mandate where that mandate is specific and unambiguous. [] *Moreover, the Court has a duty to carry out the mandate even without the application of a prevailing party.*





> p5-6
> This Court has an obligation to follow the law of the case and implement that mandate and "cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon a matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded." [] A successful appellant cannot attempt to modify the mandate of the appellate court by its own unilateral action, and "*even at the joint request of the litigants, the district court may not deviate from the mandate of an appellate court.*"


----------



## Greg Bimson

Of course, at the time, some thought a settlement could be reached. Even Dish Network. If you look at the press release in its entiretly, you'll see something at the bottom about "forward-looking statements".

And that would be the disclaimer.


----------



## Richard King

But.... But..... but.... 
Thanks James for doing the work.


----------



## BobS

Richard King said:


> But.... But..... but....
> Thanks James for doing the work.


Oh sure. You won't believe my unsupported statement but you'll believe James just cause he provided documentation. You always did like him better.


----------



## James Long

I made the statement a couple of times before digging up the text.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Heck, everyone has made the statement a couple of times before digging up the text.


----------



## Richard King

BobS said:


> Oh sure. You won't believe my unsupported statement but you'll believe James just cause he provided documentation. You always did like him better.


:lol:


----------



## Richard King

James Long said:


> I made the statement a couple of times before digging up the text.


That just goes to show that I don't like either of you. :lol:


----------



## Richard King

Greg Bimson said:


> Heck, everyone has made the statement a couple of times before digging up the text.


And that just proves that I don't like anyone. :lol:


----------



## HuggieBear

Ok the way I would take it.... Say all parties agreed to the setlment then the plantiff would have dropped the suit and would have been no need for a ruling. Since fox did not agree the judge was mandated to hand down the injunction.

This is no different than if I fall at a store and sue for 100K and before the suit is settled the store offers me 75k and I agree to take it, I tell the judge that the matter has been settled and there is no need for his ruling in the matter. There is no more that he can do.


----------



## James Long

*"even at the joint request of the litigants, the district court may not deviate from the mandate of an appellate court."*

BTW: In your example, you would have sued for 100k, been awarded 90k by the court - gone through the appeals process and have the appeals court order the lower court to award 100k _THEN_ settle for 75k. Settlements are done BEFORE damages are awarded.


----------



## BobS

HuggieBear said:


> Ok the way I would take it.... Say all parties agreed to the setlment then the plantiff would have dropped the suit and would have been no need for a ruling. Since fox did not agree the judge was mandated to hand down the injunction.
> 
> This is no different than if I fall at a store and sue for 100K and before the suit is settled the store offers me 75k and I agree to take it, I tell the judge that the matter has been settled and there is no need for his ruling in the matter. There is no more that he can do.


The law does not state a specific remedy for your case. It did in this instance.


----------



## cj9788

There could be no settlement even if ALL parties agreed as pointed out by JL and many others. That is why HR6384 was introduced. It amends the law to alow a remedy after an injunction has been issued.

All those responses from our elected reps stated they are hopeful that the issue would be settled between the partys in the suit but the LAW did not alow a settlement. I belive that if this gets passed there will be no need for the satellite protection act, as this amendment would allow the settlement.

On second thought now that NPS is in the picture I do not see any of the parties talking settllement.


----------



## Richard King

James Long said:


> *"even at the joint request of the litigants, the district court may not deviate from the mandate of an appellate court."*
> 
> BTW: In your example, you would have sued for 100k, been awarded 90k by the court - gone through the appeals process and have the appeals court order the lower court to award 100k _THEN_ settle for 75k. Settlements are done BEFORE damages are awarded.


Settle for $75K and then give $70K to your lawyers, leaving you with $5K.


----------



## Greg Bimson

HuggieBear said:


> Ok the way I would take it.... Say all parties agreed to the setlment then the plantiff would have dropped the suit and would have been no need for a ruling. Since fox did not agree the judge was mandated to hand down the injunction.


That was the entire misinterpretation.

Because Dish Network was found guilty in a court of law, there is no "settlement". Sure, when it comes to patent infringement cases and the like, once guilt is established a settlement can be reached.

However, in this case, because the Court of Appeals found a pattern or practice of willful violations, the special provision in the law kicked in. A permanent injunction must be issued.

Because the Court of Appeals needed to hand the case back to the lower court and tell the judge to issue an injunction, the lower court had no choice other than to issue the injunction.

A settlement cannot trump either of the last two paragraphs.


----------



## HuggieBear

Richard King said:


> Settle for $75K and then give $70K to your lawyers, leaving you with $5K.


Those damn lawyers!!!!!!!:grrr: :grrr: :crying_sa


----------



## James Long

A little clean up in Florida ...

Apparently Judge Dimitrouleas had not actually ruled against the motion made back on November 29th for an order to show cause. He ruled against the later clarifications and discovery requests on 12/18. Today he ruled against the initial motion.

No notes on the Plaintiff's appeal of this yet. The first hurdle at the supreme court for E*'s appeal of the injunction is tomorrow when the court will look at the filings so they can decide whether or not to accept the case.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

The National Association of Broadcaster certainly played hangman with Charlie Ergen and his little Boo-Boo with distant networks. Oh, Boy, I wish I was there to see David K. Rehr and N.A.B. have the moose with Charlie Ergan of E*. And by all means the Florida judge almost played his violin to DISH Network. It almost over. Distant networks with NPS FOR MY motorhome and trailer. XM and Sirius in my home and car. 
 Judge D* certainly ruled against the Floridie-Lordie concert of concert or comtempt. I hope Supreme court judge Clarence Thomas rules in favor of un-served and R.V.'RS TOO..
A DirecTV guy got ticked off with DirecTV HR20-700 hd dvr unit, and got fed up. Plan to switch to DISH NETWORK.. I found nothing wrong with my home DirecTV hr20-700 hd dvr unit. Because of NFL SUNDAY TICKET, I have it in 2007 and 2008. The video is a little crappy, but not noticeable. I planning to DISH IT UP-R.V. with Dish Network for R.V. AND HI DEFINITION DISTANT NETWORKS.. and DISH NETWORKS VIP 622, is the next receiver, I will get. I hope no phone line is reguired on Dish Network VIP 622 dvr.. DirecTV DVR can't pick up DISTANTS, only local HI DEFINITION locals. 
I know there is still a issue, with TIVO AND DISH NETWORK, but maybe if E* can go along with TIVO AND AGREE to a contract with E*, I bet TIVO will build receivers for Dish Network on DVR'S.
FINNALY, MEDIACOM and Sinclair will not agree to a contract for retransmission consent. I figured Dish Network will gain a bunch of subs.. But when January 1st, 2009 fastly comes, DISH NETWORK better think about, getting HD local's up and consider a goal of only to west coast hd locals to area's involved in mountain regions, like San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Reno, Redding, Sacramento, Eugene, Medford, Portland, Seattle, Billings, Spokane, Yakima, Walla Walla, Boise, Cheyenne, Denver and other City surround bye mountains. Atleast they can do west coast, surround by mountains and east coast hd locals. Federal Government created wasted bandwidth, and it's running DISH NETWORK into the ground. HAPPY NEWS YEARS..


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

James Long said:


> A little clean up in Florida ...
> 
> Apparently Judge Dimitrouleas had not actually ruled against the motion made back on November 29th for an order to show cause. He ruled against the later clarifications and discovery requests on 12/18. Today he ruled against the initial motion.
> 
> No notes on the Plaintiff's appeal of this yet. The first hurdle at the supreme court for E*'s appeal of the injunction is tomorrow when the court will look at the filings so they can decide whether or not to accept the case.


 Hi James, I have been fallowing this distant network thing from DBSTALK.COM since Sept. 1st. By any chance, Did the U.S. Supreme court hear the case, or did E* go home and said forget it. I kinda of thought maybe there be something today, since Mr. Ergen was getting it overturn. Or did any action come from congress?. Thanks R.V. CODMAN.


----------



## James Long

We are likely to hear whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the case in a few days. You can check *here* at the court for status. If the Supreme Court decides to deny this petition it is over for E*'s appeal of the injunction. (I'll post here if I know anything new.)

The Plaintiffs appeal of the decision against them on the NPS issue is another issue (and will be covered in the NPS thread when there is action).

Congress is just finding their seats. We need to keep an eye out for press releases more than anything to find out _if_ anyone tries to save distants. I suspect that there will be a couple of different bills filed to fix the SV and other 'local distants' that went away with the national distants for E*. Congress pushed to get their 'special areas' covered in 2004 ... I can't see them not trying to get SV back for E* customers.

The NPS arrangement has pretty much made returning national distants to dish a moot issue. E* has by contract left the distants business -- but they do (in that contract) reserve the right to offer SVs. Now all E* needs is government permission.

E* is also taking the final steps to remove distants from the system. The 240 range channels are going away. Perhaps they will move NPS distants there (that would be nice for them) perhaps not. Being in the 5700's does help demonstrate that they are a separate service (like SkyAngel in the 9700's). Putting NPS distants on the old E* channel numbers would only serve to annoy the plaintiffs ...

But if the channel numbers are available why not move them? E* certainly doesn't seem to be afraid of annoying the plaintiffs and they have a judge's ruling that the NPS service is permissible under the injunction. It is a toss up, but I would not be surprised to see NPS distants on 241-248 in a few weeks.

Updates, as always, as events warrant.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

James Long said:


> We are likely to hear whether or not the Supreme Court will accept the case in a few days. You can check *here* at the court for status. If the Supreme Court decides to deny this petition it is over for E*'s appeal of the injunction. (I'll post here if I know anything new.)
> 
> The Plaintiffs appeal of the decision against them on the NPS issue is another issue (and will be covered in the NPS thread when there is action).
> 
> Congress is just finding their seats. We need to keep an eye out for press releases more than anything to find out _if_ anyone tries to save distants. I suspect that there will be a couple of different bills filed to fix the SV and other 'local distants' that went away with the national distants for E*. Congress pushed to get their 'special areas' covered in 2004 ... I can't see them not trying to get SV back for E* customers.
> 
> The NPS arrangement has pretty much made returning national distants to dish a moot issue. E* has by contract left the distants business -- but they do (in that contract) reserve the right to offer SVs. Now all E* needs is government permission.
> 
> E* is also taking the final steps to remove distants from the system. The 240 range channels are going away. Perhaps they will move NPS distants there (that would be nice for them) perhaps not. Being in the 5700's does help demonstrate that they are a separate service (like SkyAngel in the 9700's). Putting NPS distants on the old E* channel numbers would only serve to annoy the plaintiffs ...
> 
> But if the channel numbers are available why not move them? E* certainly doesn't seem to be afraid of annoying the plaintiffs and they have a judge's ruling that the NPS service is permissible under the injunction. It is a toss up, but I would not be surprised to see NPS distants on 241-248 in a few weeks.
> 
> Updates, as always, as events warrant.


 The Ball will roll next week then, I have had Dish Network for 8 years, and I will do a motorhome-fifthwheel trailer DISH IT UP-HI DEFINITION. I am consider a un-served subscriber with Dish network, Waiting for NPS to approve my distant networks. Dish Network should have required waivers for distant networks before December 31st, 2004. If they would have done that, I would have gladly helped my provider out. Dish Network is one of the best satellite providers around. I feel bad for Mr. ergen and I appreciate the available program.. I have had Distants for almost 8 years in my R.V. I will never switch to another provider, except get two DISH VIP 622 with no phone hooked up for 12 month, but provide electricity for R.V. to keep both hd receiver on the 119 west longitude, for daily upgrade.

Thank You for being so informative, If we can kick the National Association of Broadcasters-David K. Rehr but, 2007 would mean subs and Dish could Provide wasted bandwidth in hi defintion, but I geuss, if legislation would be fair to Dish Network, Then people may have any waste band Width of H.D. networks by DISH.

Yes, Video on Demand is endanger of being cutdown by the National Association of Broadcaster, Dishing up poop.. I wish federal would stay out of video on demand personel hdtv. I will be getting two Dish Network vip-622 D.V.R. video on demand. Ofcourse DVR'S are programable not to record ABC,NBC, CBS OR FOX., since David K. Rehr and N.A.B. is a !pu****! . They don't care and there hurting consumers. I check N.A.B. site, where it mentioned radio advertising was at it's best during November, no mention of December. Didn't say anything about tv. I know once people have that hdtv D.L.P., THEY NEED TO GET A DISH VIP-622 HD RECEIVER WITH DVR.., I LOVE COMMERCIAL FREE MUSIC FROM XM SATELLITE RADIO AND SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO, AND MY COMMERCIAL SERIES ONE TIVO, SOON TO BE SERIES 3 TIVO, FOR ALL HI DEFINITION PROGRAMING. XM radio is going hi definition, this year with watercolors or xm hitlist as one of them and the heat as the other for hi definition audio. Sirius has bunch of hi definition audio channel taking aim. Buy your hi definition hd satellite radio kit


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman

HuggieBear said:


> Those damn lawyers!!!!!!!:grrr: :grrr: :crying_sa


 Congress had a ton of people bug them with the loosing of there distants. The FOX NETWORK was on the paper, with Dish Network and there lawyers.. satellite tv, then satellite radio. N.A.B. LAWYERS.. JAMES LONG REPLY TO U.S. SUPREME COURT.


----------



## James Long

See new thread for discussion of rec9140's suggestion ...
SCFAPA 2007 - One way to replace SHVERA etc

Let's keep this thread focused on E*'s legal issues with the injunction. Thanks.


----------



## Lord Vader

With the Roberts' Court hearing fewer cases than any SCOTUS ever has, I'd be very surprised if they granted writ in this case. I can't see them bothering with this, for it does not, IMHO, raise any "substantive federal issue."


----------



## James Long

A reminder that the current Supreme Court case is ONLY a review of the appeals court action in mandatating the injunction and their other corrections of the lower court. The Supreme Court is not dealing with the settlement issue or NPS.

The 2nd issue open is the Plaintiffs appeal of the recent lower court ruling against them on NPS. That is just starting at the appeals court and is no where near the Supreme Court level.


----------



## JohnH

EchoStar Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Network Programming 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_J_rB6iYcpQ


----------



## James Long

> The justices, without comment, refused to hear an EchoStar appeal aimed at lifting a federal court order that bars the company from providing network signals directly to those customers on its Dish network. Subscribers now must get those signals from a separate company.


As expected.

Thanks JohnH for finding that and posting.


----------



## James Long

The further distants issues raised in this thread are more suited to the more general Legislative and Regulatory Issues forum. Those recent posts have been placed there in a new thread:

*General Distants discussion (related to E*/NPS and the injunction)*

A new thread will start if/when there is more activity. (The only place to watch now is the appeals court.)

Thanks everyone for following the injunction story here at DBSTalk!


----------



## James Long

As expected, the last word on the injunction comes from the courts.

Here is the Appeals Court acknowledgment of the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case.


----------

