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. Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    From other discussions here, it appears Dish Network has abdicated any possibility of true "distant network service". Dish Network signed a non-compete with NPS for two years. So, even if Dish Network regains the ability to provide distant network service, they will not be allowed to do so until December, 2008.
     
  2. Mikey

    Mikey Hall Of Fame

    1,295
    0
    Oct 26, 2004
    Charlie needs to forget about DNS now. That fight is over, and the outcome (with NPS) is as good for Charlie as it could be, under the circumstances. E* gets to keep most of the legitimate unserved DNS subs out there, and their additional programming packages. DirecTV and the NAB get squat, and that's what they deserve.
     
  3. FTA Michael

    FTA Michael Hall Of Fame

    3,474
    5
    Jul 21, 2002
    If that Congressional relief comes through, I'd bet that Dish could find enough change under its sofa cushions to buy up NPS. ;)
     
  4. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Yeah, a briefcase of money in the middle of the table tends to clear up matters pretty quickly....
     
  5. BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    Come on you know Charlie better than this. Once E* gets DNS back, it tears up the contract and boots NPS off the satellite. Of course, NPS sues but E* comes up with some cockamamie legal theory and drags it out until NPS folds or goes bankrupt. A leopard (Charlie) doesn't change its spots (m.o.) Remember you heard it here first.
     
  6. whatchel1

    whatchel1 Hall Of Fame

    1,086
    0
    Jan 10, 2006
    Be smarter to keep NPS for DNS. That way he can make a deal to carry more than the 2 sets he has now if they want to add say a Mountain Time Zone. He also no longer has to worry about the maintenance of the systems.
     
  7. Mike D-CO5

    Mike D-CO5 Hall Of Fame

    3,099
    2
    Mar 11, 2003
    I see Charlie buyin the NPS company or even partnering with them to provide Distant networks for Dish exclusively if the legislation goes through that allows it.
     
  8. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    E* needs distants for the partial markets, otherwise they might as well let NPS keep them and deal with the problem.
     
  9. kstuart

    kstuart Icon

    643
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    Actually, NPS can provide a better Distant Network service than E* could have either under the Settlement, or under the Bill introduced in the Senate.

    NPS can provide earlier timezone channels (which would have been prohibited under the Settlement) and can provide two different channels for the same network (which would have been prohibited under the Senate Bill).

    Having two different network channels is a feature valued by subscribers who want to avoid pre-emptions, or have duplication in case of temporary weather problems. Having earlier timezone channels is valued by some subcribers who go to bed earlier than is implied by prime-time scheduling.
     
  10. Darkman

    Darkman Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,901
    3
    Apr 16, 2002
    United States Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer has recommended the District Court deny the Emergency Motion asked for by the network affiliates asking that EchoStar be held in contempt. In recommending the contempt motion be denied, Magistrate Judge Seltzer had this to say in his order filed Friday:

    “Here, the District Court’s Order of Permanent Injunction clearly bars EchoStar from providing any distant programming services—even wholly legitimate distant programming services. The Order, however, does not by its terms prohibit EchoStar from leasing equipment—hardware—to an independent non-party, which (non-party) may then provide distant network programming.”

    “The arguments of EchoStar and NPS are well-taken. At bottom, the transaction between the two is nothing more than an equipment lease. EchoStar is not only out of the prohibited business, but it has not part of NPS’s distant network programming. It therefore is not doing indirectly what it formerly did directly.

    "Aside from the equipment lease revenue—which EchoStar receives whether NPS signs up 1 million subscribers or none at all—the only benefits that EchoStar derives are the incidental accrual of goodwill) for alerting its subscribers to a substitute provider) and the potential preservation of its permissible activities (which lie outside the scope of the injunction). Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that EchoStar and NPS are 'acting in concert' to violate the Permanent Injunction. There being no factual basis for an order of contempt, the undersigned declines to certify the matter to the District Judge for further contempt proceedings.”

    The parties have 5 days within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Judge.

    ---
    Source: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/121806newsletter.cfm
     
  11. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
  12. cable_killer

    cable_killer Mentor

    35
    0
    Feb 5, 2006
    Yet another way for Direct Tv to try and win the battle of service. In case you did not know, Direct Tv is behind the suit. If they do not watch out they too will lose the rights to distant networks for falsifing information to get the distant local feed!!!!!
     
  13. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Let's go back to 1998 for a moment and see how it all began ...

    Four networks and four affiliate groups against Echostar.

    No, it isn't about DirecTV.
     
  14. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    I think a strong case can be made that Fox's ownership of DirecTv is the part of the cause for this continuing and not settling since, as I understand it, Dish was able to negotiate a settlement with the others at one time along the way.
     
  15. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    IIRC that "one time" was after the appeals court mandated the injunction and it was just a matter of time until the judge issued the order. A bit late in the game.

    E* has done a lot to keep the IMPRESSION that the co-ownership of Fox and DirecTV is what led to the injunction. There are enough cold hard facts presented in the appeals court mandate to show that E* wasn't squeaky clean and just being picked on. They were guilty as charged.

    They might have got away with it if they would have immediately proven all of their customers were eligible and not failed any more audits of their distants business. They couldn't do that and instead were proven to continue to provide distants to customers AFTER they were informed that those customers didn't qualify. They blew it.

    And it is over except the final appeal. The Supreme Court will be talking about the case in January - if they decide that it deserves a hearing I'll be very surprised.
     
  16. BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    Excuse me while I go into the back room and scream [insert The Girl from Ipanema as bumper music].......Ok, I feel much better. Can somebody explain why people (who theoretically read posts as well as write them) continue to repeat this garbage? Especially a "super moderator"?
     
  17. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Ahhhh, but if they were able to negotiate a settlement "at one time" with the other 3, why not the last one? If the settlement had been reached after the appeals court mandated the injunction I suspect the mandate put Dish in a "bargaining mood" that was acceptable to 3/4 of the plaintiffs. If all four had settled there would have been no need for the injunction.
     
  18. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Rather than scream in the back of the room and deafen all others, read my comments. If "my understanding" is wrong show me where. I do sort of like Jobim's songs though.
     
  19. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    I don't think that anyone has said they are squeeky clean, including myself. Charlie has a reputation of walking a fine line, this time he fell off the line and got bit.
     
  20. James Long

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

    51,544
    2,428
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Reading the comments that came with the injunction, the judge did not believe that once mandated by the appeals court he had an option - regardless of settlement.

    Perhaps Fox national had rejected previous settlement offers and E* and the other Plantiffs just didn't bother to do a deal without Fox network prior to August. But it was late in the game and when push came to shove even the agreeing affiliate groups and networks were happy to tear up the agreement and push full steam into getting the injunction in place - and then defending it when they felt the NPS deal was infringing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements