Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Oct 20, 2006.
Haven't we learned our lesson yet about speculating on the meaning of this judge's behavior in such matters?
Sure. It means the judge will make his decision more quickly.
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".
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.
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.
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.)
Only channel guide position and channel name (although the EPGs are separate).
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.
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.
I'm still trying to figure out how Dish Network plans to execute on keeping an RV waiver.
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.
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.
What if E* moved distants to a "sky angel" transponder and "sky angel" offered them alacart to qualifying customers??
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
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?
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?