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 8, 2006 #581 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    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…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 )
     
  2. Dec 9, 2006 #582 of 658
    Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
  3. Dec 9, 2006 #583 of 658
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    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.
     
  4. dishrich

    dishrich Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    44
    Apr 23, 2002
    And THAT'S even BEFORE they hear about the E*/NPS "deal"... :rolleyes: :lol: :p
     
  5. JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    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.
     
  6. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,673
    2
    May 14, 2003
    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. :)
     
  7. 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 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.
     
  8. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    5
    Jul 21, 2002
    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.
     
  9. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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". :)
     
  10. minnow

    minnow Legend

    178
    0
    Apr 25, 2002

    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.
     
  11. moonman

    moonman Icon

    798
    0
    Oct 27, 2004
    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/
     
  12. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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*?
     
  13. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    5
    Jul 21, 2002
    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?
     
  14. JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    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.
     
  15. JohnH

    JohnH Hall Of Fame

    7,802
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    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. :)
     
  16. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    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.
     
  17. BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    ...and the carrier makes a direct or indirect charge for such retransmission service to each subscriber receiving the secondary transmission.

     
  18. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I suppose we would need to call in a team of lawyers and judges if a carrier decided not to charge. :D
     
  19. 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 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





    -
     
  20. koralis

    koralis Godfather

    299
    3
    Aug 10, 2005
    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. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements