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

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by James Long, Oct 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 2, 2006 #561 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  2. Dec 2, 2006 #562 of 658
    sasserfolk

    sasserfolk AllStar

    50
    0
    Aug 6, 2005
    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?
     
  3. Dec 2, 2006 #563 of 658
    DennyC

    DennyC Legend

    115
    0
    Dec 24, 2002
    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: frank.barcia@echostar.com"

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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: frank.barcia@echostar.com
     
  4. Dec 2, 2006 #564 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    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 )
     
  5. Dec 2, 2006 #565 of 658
    cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,673
    2
    May 14, 2003
    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!
     
  6. Dec 2, 2006 #566 of 658
    Link

    Link Hall Of Fame

    1,804
    4
    Feb 1, 2004
    I had read it did apply to SV channels too but not sure if that is the case or not.
     
  7. Dec 2, 2006 #567 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    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.
     
  8. Dec 2, 2006 #568 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    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.
     
  9. Dec 2, 2006 #569 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    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.
     
  10. Dec 3, 2006 #570 of 658
    sasserfolk

    sasserfolk AllStar

    50
    0
    Aug 6, 2005
    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.
     
  11. Dec 3, 2006 #571 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  12. Dec 3, 2006 #572 of 658
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    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:mad: .

    I think that's what I said. :confused:

    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.
     
  13. Dec 3, 2006 #573 of 658
    Link

    Link Hall Of Fame

    1,804
    4
    Feb 1, 2004
    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.
     
  14. Dec 3, 2006 #574 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Perhaps what you meant to say. Certainly what you should have said.
    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.
    With all due respect, stop thinking and do some serious reading. Read and understand the rules as they apply to cable.
    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.
     
  15. Dec 4, 2006 #575 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    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 )
     
  16. Dec 4, 2006 #576 of 658
    moonman

    moonman Icon

    798
    0
    Oct 27, 2004
    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
     
  17. Dec 4, 2006 #577 of 658
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Gold Club DBSTalk Club

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The request was denied because the attorneys had improperly filed their request (they did not pay the apropriate fee).
     
  18. Dec 4, 2006 #578 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    hehe:
    ---
    ( The entire article is at the following source: http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=86597 )
     
  19. Dec 6, 2006 #579 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    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 )
     
  20. Dec 7, 2006 #580 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements