Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Senators seek congressional probe of DirecTV


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Chris Blount

Chris Blount

    Creator of DBSTalk

  • Administrators
  • 17,176 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2001

Posted 06 September 2006 - 06:28 AM

Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.

Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."

The dispute involves a long-running legal battle over the re-transmission of "distant network" channels.

More HERE.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:34 AM

Senators Seek Satellite TV Probe
By JOHN DUNBAR, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

Colorado's two senators have asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to look into an escalating dispute involving the nation's two dominant satellite television companies.

Sens. Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, asked the committee in a letter last Friday to examine whether The DirecTV Group Inc., controlled by global media giant News Corp., "has engaged in behavior that would threaten the viablity of the satellite TV market."

The dispute involves a long-running legal battle over the re-transmission of "distant network" channels.

More HERE.


Lets see now 2 Colorado Senators and E* which is based in Colorado. Do I smell campaign contributions? LOL The senators certainly are humming the E* mantra! What the senators seem to be saying is "let E* keep violating federal law" or it will wreck satellite tv. How absurd! D* was in the same boat a few years ago and complied with court orders and followed the law and E* didn't. Does anyone think that if it was switched and D* was the one in trouble now we would have heard from the Colorado guys? Even if Fox would have settled that wouldn't change the Federal Appeals court ruling.

#3 OFFLINE   PoitNarf

PoitNarf

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,880 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:57 AM

It's a good thing Congress has solved all of our major problems already and can now look at these minor issues! :sure:

#4 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 06 September 2006 - 07:59 AM

Next parking ticket I get, I'm getting Con-Gress involved!

#5 OFFLINE   kariato

kariato

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 52 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2002

Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:01 AM

Lets see now 2 Colorado Senators and E* which is based in Colorado. Do I smell campaign contributions? LOL The senators certainly are humming the E* mantra! What the senators seem to be saying is "let E* keep violating federal law" or it will wreck satellite tv. How absurd! D* was in the same boat a few years ago and complied with court orders and followed the law and E* didn't. Does anyone think that if it was switched and D* was the one in trouble now we would have heard from the Colorado guys? Even if Fox would have settled that wouldn't change the Federal Appeals court ruling.


There is a clear conflict of interest between News Corps ownership of DirectTV and their position on this case. Yes E* broke the law (even though in my humble opnion that law is not in the consumers interest). Does that mean that News Corp should try to create a monopoly position in the rural TV. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, I'm sure that Colorado Senators do have a relationship with E* but News Corp has so many relationships with others in the political area that they have used extensively in the past.

This situation does not pass the smell test in any shape or form.

#6 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:07 AM

Sorry to be so flippant, but it's just another example of business playing politics.

DNS was invented to "bandaid" a problem.....people in some areas didn't have Network TV available, so they got a national feed or two as a stopgap measure. When DBS came about, they wanted in on it, too. So, they got to sell the DNS "bandaid". Then, certain companies decided to bend the rules, and bootleg the service to any and every one who asked. And, as I understand it, to many who never asked!

Now that L-I-L is available almost everywhere, there is no "need" (as it was originally interpreted) for DNS.....most everyone could be supplied with signals from their own DMA, and usually their nearest big city. If they are truly in a "white area", they should legally qualify for whatever nearby city they can reliably receive off a spot beam.

The whole thing is now a non-issue.

#7 OFFLINE   naijai

naijai

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,137 posts
Joined: Aug 19, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:17 AM

And i know a lot of cutomers that have the DNS that were upset when Directv took them away
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.
Winston Churchill

DIRECTV employee since May 2003.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views DO NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#8 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:31 AM

Sorry to be so flippant, but it's just another example of business playing politics.

DNS was invented to "bandaid" a problem.....people in some areas didn't have Network TV available, so they got a national feed or two as a stopgap measure. When DBS came about, they wanted in on it, too. So, they got to sell the DNS "bandaid". Then, certain companies decided to bend the rules, and bootleg the service to any and every one who asked. And, as I understand it, to many who never asked!

Now that L-I-L is available almost everywhere, there is no "need" (as it was originally interpreted) for DNS.....most everyone could be supplied with signals from their own DMA, and usually their nearest big city. If they are truly in a "white area", they should legally qualify for whatever nearby city they can reliably receive off a spot beam.

The whole thing is now a non-issue.


Good post! DNS should be a thing of the past with one exception. I agree that true white areas should get their closest locals via satellite and that's it!

#9 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 08:37 AM

And i know a lot of cutomers that have the DNS that were upset when Directv took them away



Upset yes but how many actually left D*? I'll bet not many as I've watched D* steadily grow their subs. By the way D* didn't take away DNS the government did! D* complied, E* didn't.

#10 OFFLINE   Jhon69

Jhon69

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,637 posts
Joined: Mar 27, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 09:55 AM

This is just E*'s way of trying to take the spotlight off of them.It's pretty pathetic
the way Charlie Ergen does business,and that's another reason why I'm now a D*
subscriber.

#11 OFFLINE   DCSholtis

DCSholtis

    Up The Irons!

  • Registered
  • 5,743 posts
Joined: Aug 07, 2002

Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:30 AM

I think this quote says it all!!!

Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.

"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.


Nuff said!!!
Dan Sholtis
"The Raiders will be back. I have unshakable confidence, the will to win, and I just know that the fire that burns brightest in this building is the will to win. And we will win. We will win."---Al Davis. Rest In Peace, Al

#12 OFFLINE   markman07

markman07

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 376 posts
  • LocationMinnesota
Joined: Dec 22, 2005

Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:33 AM

I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!

#13 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 18,668 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:42 AM

This is just E*'s way of trying to take the spotlight off of them.

Are you suggesting that it is appropriate to investigate one of the competitors without investigating the other? Because E* is made to stop violating federal policy, will D* necessarily follow?

D* seems to have a pretty big following on the North side of the Great Lakes as well as a very high concentration of sports "movers" (which isn't D*'s fault; it is some of their unscrupulous and self-righteous subscribers that are intentionally misleading). Spotbeams and significantly wider market coverage will eventually root out most of these types.

If the congressmen are successful in their attempt to go to bat for a constituent in this national issue, D* is in a much poorer position to saturate the LIL markets and will likely suffer heavier damage. At least with this investigation being government sponsored, it will take a very long time to come to a conclusion.

#14 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:44 AM

There is a clear conflict of interest between News Corps ownership of DirectTV and their position on this case. Yes E* broke the law (even though in my humble opnion that law is not in the consumers interest). Does that mean that News Corp should try to create a monopoly position in the rural TV. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, I'm sure that Colorado Senators do have a relationship with E* but News Corp has so many relationships with others in the political area that they have used extensively in the past.

This situation does not pass the smell test in any shape or form.

\

If Fox settled with E* it wouldn't change what's happening! It's not about agreements it's about E* not following the courts original order. All Fox/Murdock have done is ask the District court to move on and do what was ordered by the Federal Appeals court.

#15 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 10:48 AM

Are you suggesting that it is appropriate to investigate one of the competitors without investigating the other? Because E* is made to stop violating federal policy, will D* necessarily follow?

D* seems to have a pretty big following on the North side of the Great Lakes as well as a very high concentration of sports "movers" (which isn't D*'s fault; it is some of their unscrupulous and self-righteous subscribers that are intentionally misleading). Spotbeams and significantly wider market coverage will eventually root out most of these types.

If the congressmen are successful in their attempt to go to bat for a constituent in this national issue, D* is in a much poorer position to saturate the LIL markets and will likely suffer heavier damage. At least with this investigation being government sponsored, it will take a very long time to come to a conclusion.


D* followed the original court order (stop violating federal policy) several years ago and E* didn't, plain and simple.

#16 OFFLINE   bobukcat

bobukcat

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,964 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2005

Posted 06 September 2006 - 11:14 AM

I don't think there is any question that E* violated court orders for some time, and that they could / should be held accountable for that. However, with FOX being the only network that has refused to settle they are not only going to prevent themselves and the other networks from recieving over $100 Million dollars in damages as negotiated in a settlement, they are taking all the channels (including their own) away from ~1 Million viewers. I think you would have to be extremely naive not to suspect that the ownership of D* and FOX being the same has nothing to do with this!

The gvt nixed the E* + D* merger for Monopoly concerns and then let Rupert buy D* instead, IMO that has a lot more to do with Rupert vs. Charlie's "friends in high places" than any real protection of the consumer.

Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a DNS customer on either service, but I do get my LIL from E*.

#17 OFFLINE   kariato

kariato

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 52 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2002

Posted 06 September 2006 - 11:56 AM

\

If Fox settled with E* it wouldn't change what's happening! It's not about agreements it's about E* not following the courts original order. All Fox/Murdock have done is ask the District court to move on and do what was ordered by the Federal Appeals court.


No Fox is blocking a deal that would allow DSN's to continue which is not in the interests of consumers in white area but is definately in the interests of Direct TV a direct compeitior to E*. This shows that highly vertically integrated corporations inhibit competition and hurt the consumer. Do I believe that DSN are historic as pointed out here but again over consolidation in key industries is hurting consumers.

#18 OFFLINE   HD_Wayne

HD_Wayne

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 110 posts
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 12:23 PM

I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


I agree completely. I fact I would go one step more and would like to be able to get the network feeds directly in HD. Particuarly PBS which so far E* has not seen in their judgement to supply local pbs in HD.

Wayne

#19 OFFLINE   cabanaboy1977

cabanaboy1977

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,473 posts
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 06 September 2006 - 01:40 PM

I think we should be able to get any station we want as long as we paid for it! If I want the locals in South Texas and I pay for them...give them to me. Just like if I want to read the Chicago Tribune in Denver I can!


AMEN! I would love to have West coast feeds and BBC stations. I'm willing to pay for them. What do they care I don't watch the commericals that's why I have a DVR.
1 R15's and 2 HR20-100

#20 OFFLINE   Badger

Badger

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 184 posts
Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted 06 September 2006 - 02:39 PM

No Fox is blocking a deal that would allow DSN's to continue which is not in the interests of consumers in white area but is definately in the interests of Direct TV a direct compeitior to E*. This shows that highly vertically integrated corporations inhibit competition and hurt the consumer. Do I believe that DSN are historic as pointed out here but again over consolidation in key industries is hurting consumers.


Fox WON in court. As their spokesman said "It took 8 years to correct this and WE won and winners don't make settlements" (paraphrased). The Federal Appeals Court has made their decision and it has nothing to do with any recent actions by Fox. Is that so hard to understand? E* violated Federal law and was odered to comply with the law from that point on. E* did not comply and now as a penalty is losing the right to provide DNS. Is that hard to understand? E* is being penalized because they broke the law period! Pointing fingers at others is meaningless. E* did this to themselves when they continued to violate federal law!




Protected By... spam firewall...And...