1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by JohnH, Aug 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 29, 2006 #41 of 203
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    How to get a lot of markets up without a lot of uplink space ---

    Single Channel Markets:
    Alpena MI, Glendive MT, Lafayette IN, Mankato MN, Parkersburg WV, Saint Joseph MO (if TBN National is used) and Zanesville OH.

    Seven markets that could be complete if they just can fit one channel up each. Probably the biggest cost is for a POP and backhaul for a single channel.
     
  2. Aug 29, 2006 #42 of 203
    Mike D-CO5

    Mike D-CO5 Hall Of Fame

    3,099
    0
    Mar 11, 2003

    Wouldn't they have to provide significantly viewed channels to those single channel markets to fill in the missing networks?
     
  3. Aug 29, 2006 #43 of 203
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They COULD provide SV stations ... probably the best reason to uplink those channels is without the market's own channels E* is forbidden from offering SVs. In some of these markets distants are not available due to neighboring DMA Grade B coverage.

    They are not the biggest markets ... but they have customers and could be "easy adds" if backhaul costs are not too bad.
     
  4. Aug 29, 2006 #44 of 203
    crackasmile

    crackasmile AllStar

    66
    0
    Nov 14, 2004
    Does anyone know how this new development will affect "grandfathered" viewers who now have locals available in their DMA?
     
  5. Aug 29, 2006 #45 of 203
    spaceghostinME

    spaceghostinME AllStar

    51
    0
    Aug 20, 2006
    Yeah, I've been hearing rumors for years, but until it happens I'm not going to get too excited. I heard an interview a while back when there was the WABI/Time Warner hubbub in which WABI said that they had been talking to Dish and were hoping something would come out of that soon, but that it was up to Dish. Of course I am a D* sub, so that wouldn't help me a whole lot right yet, but I'd have to hope that once one of the 2 picks up the market the other one will too, but I guess we'll just wait and see...
     
  6. Aug 30, 2006 #46 of 203
    DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    Requalifing people with a legal FCC waiver may involve adhering to FCC waiver challenge regulations which I believe is spelled out. It's not easy nor cheap to challenge a legal waiver once granted.
     
  7. Aug 30, 2006 #47 of 203
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Waivers can be revoked in the time it takes for someone to stand up. They are not perpetual.
    No one knows anything at this point except for the lawyers that drew up the settlement contract and the parties to the suit.

    Someone on another board brought this up...

    The Appeals Court sent this case back to District Court, simply for the judge to issue the injunction because it is the only remedy available for the violations of the SHVA/SHVIA.

    So, even with a settlement from the affiliate boards, won't the judge still have to issue the injunction?
     
  8. Aug 30, 2006 #48 of 203
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Customers may have to reapply for their waivers. By law, waivers issued prior to December 2004 DO NOT APPLY to customers who have local into local service. Only those in non LIL markets get to keep their waivers. With all the other claims against E*, not cancelling waivers in January 2005 would not seem out of character.
    It depends on the judge and the next judge and the next judge until the injunction is overturned.

    The judge may revolke the injunction due to the settlement - they may not. It seems like his call.

    He could also impose the injunction JUST against future carriage of the FOX network as a distant, since they are the only ones complaining at this point.

    It does bring up an interesting point of law. E* violated 17 USC 119 ... that fact doesn't change even if all parties agree to a settlement. Is the required penalty tied to the plaintiff's request or 17 USC 119?
     
  9. Aug 30, 2006 #49 of 203
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Yes, I'd say it is his call to a point.

    Part of the reason Dish Network is in this jam is that they appealed their punishment, and the Appeals Court hammered them with the "death penalty", stating that the case was being remanded back to the District Court to issue the injunction.
    The penalty is tied to 17 USC 119.

    Yes, I realize that a settlement means that all claims are basically complete, but according to the Appeals Court order, the judge must issue the injunction. Dish Network was found guilty of the violation, found to have willfully infringed, and that they would be subject to the "death penalty" injunction which MUST be issued.

    I assume if all parties agree to the settlement, fine. No one will complain if the injunction isn't issued. But even if one party is still hell-bent on the verdict and relief, I think the judge must issue the injunction to everyone that was injured in the suit. Simply, I am saying that because Fox won't agree, the injunction will apply to all networks, because the verdict and the punishment must stand.

    I am not a lawyer, so I'll need one to explain how a plaintiff can come to a settlement with a guilty party that bypasses the mandatory sentencing. Or, in this instance, how to sever the plaintiffs which settled and those which did not settle, after the verdict has been read.
     
  10. Aug 30, 2006 #50 of 203
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Actually, now that I think about it, the judge could issue the injunction, and then stay the injunction because of the settlement. But I think it is impossible to do if all parties don't agree on the settlement.
     
  11. Aug 30, 2006 #51 of 203
    BobS

    BobS Legend

    233
    0
    Jun 23, 2006
    The Court of Appeals reamed the judge in this case so I think it unlikely that she will do other than instructed. The last two paragraphs of the 11th Circuit opinion are clear and instructive.

    Because, as discussed, we come to the unavoidable conclusion that EchoStar engaged in a “pattern or practice” of SHVA violations, we hold that the district court is required to issue a nationwide permanent injunction barring the provision of distant network programming pursuant to the Act’s statutory license.
    ...
    For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part, and we REMAND the case to the district court for the entry of a nationwide permanent injunction as mandated by the Act. SO ORDERED.


    Doesn't say "unless the trial judge thinks a different result would be better."

     
  12. Aug 30, 2006 #52 of 203
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Evidently the judge has some leeway or the injunction would already be issued ... The effective date (September 11th) was negotiated by the parties.
     
  13. Aug 31, 2006 #53 of 203
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Well, now I'll go back to basic law. Yes, this case has a verdict. The appeals, however, have not run out.

    So, one can assume a settlement can be reached prior to the "event horizon" of the appeals process, when the appeals have run out.

    Since it appears Fox will not settle, that this will go through the normal appeals process. However, I am not sure if plaintiff parties can sever once a verdict is given.
     
  14. Aug 31, 2006 #54 of 203
    jrbdmb

    jrbdmb Icon

    731
    0
    Sep 5, 2002
    Perhaps the settlement contains provisions for DNS outside of the compulsory lisence granted by SHVERA?
     
  15. Aug 31, 2006 #55 of 203
    BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Don't forget the legislative threat..... Look for rural area congresspeople to threaten to reopen the whole shebang, if several thousand of their consituents start ringing their phones off the hook....
     
  16. Aug 31, 2006 #56 of 203
    kstuart

    kstuart Icon

    643
    0
    Apr 25, 2002
    SHVERA has no provisions for Domain Name Servers.
     
  17. Aug 31, 2006 #57 of 203
    James Long

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

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Distant Network Stations ... :rolleyes:
     
  18. Aug 31, 2006 #58 of 203
    juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
  19. Aug 31, 2006 #59 of 203
    shamus46

    shamus46 Legend

    117
    0
    Sep 29, 2002
    Well, this has just made my decision very easy. As much as I really want locals, I will go without them before I will give Direct TV a dime. :mad: They play to dirty for my liking so I will stay with Dish.
     
  20. Aug 31, 2006 #60 of 203
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    That is my belief. The lawsuit went too far for Dish Network to settle.
    "...play too dirty"?

    DirecTV had one of these lawsuits, which I believe lasted for two years. Dish Network's lawsuit is now entering its ninth year. For all that time, Dish Network flouted the rules, by playing dirty with their qualification methods.

    I do feel sorry for those that have no other choice in receiving networks. However, it is easy to see why Dish Network was smacked down in court. Dish Network believed they were superior to the rules, and will most likely pay the piper in some fashion. Whether it be by $100 million settlement and a requalification of subscribers, or termination of the distant network license to most of their subscriber base, it will hurt. And neither of those are regarding DirecTV.

    To wrap, I simply go back to the one sentence in the Appeals Court's decision:
    There doesn't appear to be a way around this when found "GUILTY".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page