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

#51 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:09 AM

The judge gave Echostar 45 days to show cause why an injunction should not be issued. Taht is separate and distinct from the other matter you cite.

No, that wasn't separate from the other matter.

Both the plaintiffs and Echostar asked the court for the 45 day delay in proceedings, and the judge denied it.

This is how the court proceedings moved since the case was handed back to District Court.

The District Court dismissed the 45 day delay in proceedings, but gave Dish Network until 12 September...

8/28/06 997 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not immediately enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's mandate. Response to Order to Show Cause due 9/12/06 (Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 8/28/06) [EOD Date: 8/31/06] (ss) [Entry date 08/31/06]

That was the show cause order, ruled on 28 August. So Dish Network was given 16 days or so.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:21 AM

No, that wasn't separate from the other matter.

Both the plaintiffs and Echostar asked the court for the 45 day delay in proceedings, and the judge denied it.

This is how the court proceedings moved since the case was handed back to District Court.

The District Court dismissed the 45 day delay in proceedings, but gave Dish Network until 12 September...

8/28/06 997 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not immediately enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit's mandate. Response to Order to Show Cause due 9/12/06 (Signed by Judge William P. Dimitrouleas on 8/28/06) [EOD Date: 8/31/06] (ss) [Entry date 08/31/06]

That was the show cause order, ruled on 28 August. So Dish Network was given 16 days or so.




Greg what are you trying to prove? The injunction is not in place. you are just arguing in circles. There is no injunction at this time and we will see if there is one on Sept 12--or 11 if you accept that count. Personally I think that there will be but all of your posts about how no other outcome is possible are just mistaken.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#53 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:32 AM

I never said the injunction was in place. I only said that the judge must issue one, which is the point where you and I differ.

#54 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:40 AM

Actuually that si pretty darned close to being right. I have consistently said that Echostar has till a date certain to show cause why there should be no injunction. What we differ on really is what the word MANDATORY in the term mandatory injunction refers to. What I have told you consistently is that it refers to the fact that when the injunction is issued one of the parties is mandated to perform a certain act but that certain things can happen to prevent that from happening. You argue that it means that the lower court MUST issue the injunction even if the matter is settled out of court.

Even Fox enteresd into settlement negotiations so all parties have indicated that they werwe at least willing to discuss one. Fox's actions make the possibility of one unlikely but you never support the idea that the judge must issue the injunction even if the matter is settled---or Echostar comes up with another argument.

At this point it appears that this is moot. I see no way out for Echostar except a settlement and that is more unlikely with each passing day.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#55 OFFLINE   Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,918 posts
Joined: May 05, 2003

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:50 AM

At this point it appears that this is moot. I see no way out for Echostar except a settlement and that is more unlikely with each passing day.

We agree on something. :)

What we differ on really is what the word MANDATORY in the term mandatory injunction refers to.

True. I do move a few of the words around.

The issue to me is that there is only one remedy issued by Congress and the Presdient if the law is violated to the degree Echostar was found guilty. To me, that is the law mandates what the courts must do. And that is to issue a permanent injunction. That is why you'll note I keep saying (because I believe) the courts hands are tied to this action.

#56 OFFLINE   Geronimo

Geronimo

    Native American Potentate

  • Gold Members
  • 8,296 posts
Joined: Mar 23, 2002

Posted 07 September 2006 - 11:56 AM

We agree on something. :)True. I do move a few of the words around.

The issue to me is that there is only one remedy issued by Congress and the Presdient if the law is violated to the degree Echostar was found guilty. To me, that is the law mandates what the courts must do. And that is to issue a permanent injunction. That is why you'll note I keep saying (because I believe) the courts hands are tied to this action.



Well you just showed that the word mandate has yet another meaning----but it still does not mean that no other outcome is possible. there will bea n injunction if no settlement is reached and if one is then the court will review it and likely accept it. But agin if there is no settlement then the injunction will happen---but not because it si referred to as a mandatory injunction.
I never cared for all the signatures that insult posters with other points of view.

#57 OFFLINE   bobukcat

bobukcat

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,965 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2005

Posted 07 September 2006 - 12:58 PM

Great op-ed, Bob.

Try this one...

The broadcasters have been walked over for nine years, due to the length of the appeals process. When the doomsday scenario came to pass from the Appeals Court, now all of a sudden it was finally in Dish Network's interest to settle the suit, for $100 million. For some reason, Dish Network still wants access to the distant network license. Probably because that license is the only way Dish Network will be able to serve rural customers with network HDTV.

Fox is very leery of this. Fox doesn't want to have to go back to court when Dish Network violates the copyrights again like they have for the past nine years.

IF ANYONE THINKS THE REPS FROM COLORADO IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN ON 12 SEPTEMBER, realize this...

The judge could simply ask Dish Network why an injunction should not be issued. Dish Network could say you'll harm our rural customers, Fox is a bad guy, we've come to a settlement with the affiliate boards.

Then the judge could simply state that the only punishment for a pattern or practice of willful infringement is a permanent injunction. SO, either you can pay the affiliate boards $100 million and then be injuncted against the license, or you can scuttle the settlement and pay nothing, then be injuncted against the license.

The only thing right now that matters is 12 September. Obfuscation of the issue will not help any.


I guess I would take the "two wrongs don't make a right" view if they can make a compelling case that the situation would create a unfair monopoly in the rural areas and Fox was deliberitely working to that means by refusing a reasonable settlement.

I may be dead wrong on this but I think if all the parties in the suit reached an agreement the courts would see no more reason to issue the injunction or any other punishment to E* since the injured parties would have been compensated to their satisfaction- they would just kill the case and move on to the next item on their busy docket. I suppose they could view it as a criminal act rather than a civil act but I wouldn't expect it to play out that way.

#58 OFFLINE   Chris Walker

Chris Walker

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 232 posts
Joined: May 19, 2004

Posted 07 September 2006 - 05:42 PM

You mean the way Charlie is in bed with the Colorado elected officials??


No, I was referring to how Directv is in bed with the NAB and Rupert is in bed with the conservative administration.

#59 OFFLINE   Chris Walker

Chris Walker

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 232 posts
Joined: May 19, 2004

Posted 07 September 2006 - 05:45 PM

Roll your eyes all you want but its the good ole boy Charlie who is breaking the law......again.....Rupert is not violating one single condition in this case. That arguement wouldnt hold up in court. Get Real.


Actually Rupert is breaking the law, he is using his ownership of the FOX network to attempt to harm a competitor of Directv's. Clear violation, and he will be slapped down for it.

The truth of all this is if Directv didn't throw their customers under the bus in '99 and fought alongside E* to keep the distant networks to those who wanted them, we probably wouldn't have to worry with this anymore. Instead, Directv was more interested in pleasing the NAB and giving the big FU to their customer's wants. So Dish has had to fight it alone while Directv has been the NAB's puppet.

"Somebody up there doesn't care... DIRECTV"

#60 OFFLINE   Mike D-CO5

Mike D-CO5

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,099 posts
Joined: Mar 11, 2003

Posted 07 September 2006 - 06:07 PM

Amen Chris !!

#61 OFFLINE   jonaswan2

jonaswan2

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 895 posts
Joined: Oct 29, 2005

Posted 07 September 2006 - 07:39 PM

"Somebody up there doesn't care... DIRECTV"

There slogan is now "Good TV. Better TV. DirecTV."

#62 OFFLINE   UTFAN

UTFAN

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 230 posts
Joined: Nov 11, 2005

Posted 07 September 2006 - 09:55 PM

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.



Neither Allard or Salazar are players. But both get to send out news releases that they're protecting us from all the evil in the world.

End of the day, it means nothing, and I agree with other posters that both, along with the rest of their colleagues have far more important things to worry about.

While I wish the Fox O&O's would complete a deal with DISH, I understand what they're doing, and why they're doing it. And the tactics they're using in impacted markets is right out of the DISH playbook.

It's business. Of course, that often leaves us a tad puckered, but there it is.

Charlie and Rupert will eventually work this out.

#63 OFFLINE   Mike D-CO5

Mike D-CO5

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,099 posts
Joined: Mar 11, 2003

Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:28 AM

I like that saying UTFAN. I am feeling a" tad puckered. " I often feel that way in the prison I work at when we have riots or fights, escapes etc. Especially when I am in a cell block alone with over 144 convicts and they are pissed off at the other officer who just left for the day and they want to bitch at me.

My ass sure gets puckered.:sure:

#64 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

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

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:57 AM

Maybe it's time for a Congressional Probe in to whether we really need DNS anymore.

This would be especially important since the Government is in a huff to revamp the EAS System and take on so many Homeland Security issues. With L-I-L, people might be much safer if they had their nearest city's network programming, not something from thousands of miles away. And, it's time that satellite joined the Broadcasters and Cable companies, in being able to alert their viewers, no matter what channel they might be watching.

#65 OFFLINE   cj9788

cj9788

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,663 posts
Joined: May 14, 2003

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:54 PM

I do not see what is wrong with a probe to see if there is even a chance that News Corp is using it's ownership of FOX to give D* an advantage. E* has many truley egible DNS subscribers who will proabbyly jump ship to D* granted in the whole scheme of things it wont put E* out of bussines but it will have an impact. The other networks found the settlement agreeable and if FOX would settle the whole matter can be resolved. E* pays up and requalifies all DNS subs.




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