[La Push Commercial Codman]

With the Roberts' Court hearing fewer cases than any SCOTUS ever has, I'd be very surprised if they granted writ in this case. I can't see them bothering with this, for it does not, IMHO, raise any "substantive federal issue."

The problem is broadcasters want to bother it. I feel it's big corperation all, and there little local radio/tv suffering. Like this if Big Corp. wants my money, because I am watching a commercial free show of 24, or Criminal Minds, This will be there next start. I see one problem, they can't slap VIDEO ON DEMAND. Charlie Did not have enough and judge applied injunction. If they find the conflict of interest over Rupert Murdochs his Fox/News Corp/ DirecTV negiotation to Dish Network, then NPS can dig Dish out of trouble, fallow the laws. I agree, Satellite Home Viewers act, every 2 years confused many at Dish Network and it was differcult to pick up FOX with Bunny Rabbit Ears.. Broadcasters want to bother the NPS concert of contempt to U.S. Supreme Court. I believe this will go out the door fast. NPS didn't do wrong, dish did, can't do anything else. I FALLOW GOVERNMENT THING TO SATELLITE TV AND SATELLITE RADIO, WITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME. VERY LITTLE TOMORROW. Congress passed some legislation atleast DISH WILL BE LEFT ALONE. Bishop, Calif. or Forks,Washington folk can't pick there locals up off hd/sd outdoor antennae.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

OK, last chance. Let's keep this focused on E* and the courts NOT general rants against the NAB and SHVERA/distants. We have an entirely different forum for those messages.

It will be interesting to know, what the u.s. supreme court judge Clarene Thomas will do do. The last time he didn't want to hear from E*.. Ofcourse what about the other supreme court judges. Will they want to hear.. I bet you Clarence Thomas will be one, who will vote in favor of FOX, knowing they were unfair in negiotating.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

It isn't just Justice Thomas this time, but based on his decision not to stay the injunction I'd say that he doesn't believe E* has a case.

E* has to convince all of them that judge dimitrouleas, That Dish violated suppling Dish Distants to illegal people, and begin to wonder if this negiotation was affected by Fox/NewsCorp/DirecTV affected his judgement, knowing or not knowing DirecTV wanted all the people who were unserved, had R.V. to goto DirecTV. I BELIEVE THAT HAD TO BE WHAT IT IS. Rupert Murdoch sold DirecTV to Liberty, so he can say meeting wasn't the fact, But E* believes it is.

Number 2- NPS-Dish was it comtempt of court or concert? I am sure the judges reviewed the court minutes, because court were on James page. All court minutes, same minutes for U.S.Supreme court to hear.. Will see, rather it's unfair or not.. Believe Fox was unfair to E*

 

[cj9788]

It will be interesting to know, what the u.s. supreme court judge Clarene Thomas will do do. The last time he didn't want to hear from E*.. Ofcourse what about the other supreme court judges. Will they want to hear.. I bet you Clarence Thomas will be one, who will vote in favor of FOX, knowing they were unfair in negiotating.

It does not matter if FOX was fair or unfair in the settlement negotations. Once the lower court was ordred to issue the injuntion that was it end of story. Even if FOX had agreed to the settlement the judges hands were tied he HAD to issue the injunction. The reason being is that SHVIA and the later SHVERA does not have a remedy for a settlement written into the law. The law calls for the permanent injuntion and nothing else.

I frankly do not see how E* can win if the SCOTUS hears the case. E* was found in violation of SHVERA. E* let this happen by not keeping records and presenting them to the courts. E* made alot of changes after the inital 2003 ruling. They cut people off they changed the maps they use to qualify subs. But that was too little too late. The actions of E* were enough to show they willfully disregarded the courts. Now they want relief from the SCOTUS just what can the court do for E*? Not much under the law as written.

IMO the court case is over and done with. Even if by some miracle E* wins DNS as we Knew on E* will never be the same.

 

[Greg Bimson]

E* has to convince all of them that judge dimitrouleas, That Dish violated suppling Dish Distants to illegal people, and begin to wonder if this negiotation was affected by Fox/NewsCorp/DirecTV affected his judgement, knowing or not knowing DirecTV wanted all the people who were unserved, had R.V. to goto DirecTV.

You will have to go back through years and years of court documents to find that your answer is incorrect.

Judge Dimitrouleas did what the higher court told him to do: issue the injunction. It is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that forced Judge Dimitrouleas to issue the injunction.

Remember that this litigation has been ongoing for NINE YEARS now. This was before FOX and Murdoch ever entered the picture as the controlling ownership in DirecTV. As a matter of fact, FOX filed suit along with the affiliate boards and CBS back in 1997 against DirecTV. They WON, and DirecTV suffered an injunction as well.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

You will have to go back through years and years of court documents to find that your answer is incorrect.

Judge Dimitrouleas did what the higher court told him to do: issue the injunction. It is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that forced Judge Dimitrouleas to issue the injunction.

Remember that this litigation has been ongoing for NINE YEARS now. This was before FOX and Murdoch ever entered the picture as the controlling ownership in DirecTV. As a matter of fact, FOX filed suit along with the affiliate boards and CBS back in 1997 against DirecTV. They WON, and DirecTV suffered an injunction as well.

Yea, Greg your right, E* has had this on going headache for a number of years, and the failure of providing waivers on distant network, dis-proved E* and There is no chance on distants. Judge applied the injunction, but for how many year. I heard until December 15th, 2008..

The guy at Dish Direct-selling Dish Network said, ABC,CBS,NBC AND FOX will go after dish for selling spotbeam locals.. The local stations, said Dish is charging for local spotbeam stations, and saying under contest, Dish should be slap a injunction on spotbeam locals. Did you no anything on that? There was trouble in the case E* was making money from Distants. Now Dish may have trouble down the road.. I understand, it cost money to beam satellite up, If dish is told no money to be made on spotbeam, It means spotbeam locals shall be free. Some reason broadcasters think satellite and cable our charging money. MUST CARRY IS DOOMED IN 2 YEARS ANYWAY. E* is lucky, broadcasters didn't ask judge Dimitrouleas to apply a injunction on spotbeam, or Cable tv would win, since they carry local... Thanks Greg..

 

[James Long]

It isn't luck, it is authority. The law violated was in 17 USC 119. Locals are in 17 USC 122. Everything from the offended networks in 17 USC 119 was lost due to the injunction. The Plaintiffs asked for an injunction to be issued per 17 USC 119. They didn't ask for a partial injunction, they asked for the full authority of the section. They got that.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The guy at Dish Direct-selling Dish Network said, ABC,CBS,NBC AND FOX will go after dish for selling spotbeam locals.. The local stations, said Dish is charging for local spotbeam stations, and saying under contest, Dish should be slap a injunction on spotbeam locals. Did you no anything on that?

No.

No one has sued under the "local-into-local" legislation, which is a different section of law than the distants as James Long mentions. Because no one has sued yet, there is no danger of losing local network programming.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

EchoStar Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Network Programming
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_J_rB6iYcpQ

It's now been clarified, that Dish may no longer provide distants networks. But NPS may carry distant networks, and if the authority has been damaged, Then by 2009, look at NPS PROVIDING DISTANT NETWORKS.
Like satellite radio and dvr, if there's no federal law, then the broadcasters can't run to a Appeals court judge and punish sources, like they did to a good company which made a mistake. A costly mistake. There were federal laws and the judge Dimitrouleas applied injunction and U.S. Supreme did not want to affect the integurity. Federal laws gave broadcasters something for the judge Dimitrouleas to apply.. We can thank our policticians. Our polictician's want to do too much.. ACCOUNTABILITY! HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND THAT'S IT. BE SLAPPED A STIFF FINE AND HURT THE CONSUMERS. satellite radio and video on demand is untouched, No legislations.. Talk federal laws James Long or not.

 

[James Long]

Congress has only begun to handle the issue of digital local stations. Yes, they are allowed - but not currently under the same must carry rules as analog locals. I suspect that will change.

Don't expect satellite to lose permission to air locals when the digital change comes. Local broadcasters need distributors such as cable and satellite to reach their entire marketplace. As of now, the satellite programmers are in a good place as long as local stations allow carriage. The only thing missing is the "must carry" rules for stations that satellite would rather not carry. Those MUST come or many broadcasters will lose out.

You are right that it is over for E* for distants unless congress rewrites the law. But E* is NOT out of the locals business now or in 2009.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

It isn't luck, it is authority. The law violated was in 17 USC 119. Locals are in 17 USC 122. Everything from the offended networks in 17 USC 119 was lost due to the injunction. The Plaintiffs asked for an injunction to be issued per 17 USC 119. They didn't ask for a partial injunction, they asked for the full authority of the section. They got that.

James Long, broadcaster can screw satellite tv and DVR-VIDEO ON DEMAND, but they can't screw satellite radio, with 17USC 119, AND 17 USC 122.
a DUMB QUESTION CAN THEY? Thanks, I think you replied last time.

 

[Richard King]

In a conversation that I and a financial analyst had with Charlie after his press conference today he pointed out a fact that had been also pointed out here previously, but in more detail. He said that about 4% of Echostar customers (a number that sounds high to me) were eligible to receive distants through Dish in the previous arrangement and that much fewer actually took advantage of the possibility. Under the current situation that percentage is increased significantly. Those newly eligible potential customers will be on the Dish Network platform, that is, using Dish Network equipment with programming supplied by a different, totally independent company, just as is the situation with Sky Angel. I am sure that a number of Sky Angel customers became Dish customers because of the hardware tie ins, just as future NPS customers may make the move to subscribing to Dish in the future also. Of course, NPS being also a Dish dealer increases this likelihood. And, also, of course I don't see a ton of non Dish customers clammering to NPS's door to buy distant networks.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It's now been clarified, that Dish may no longer provide distants networks. But NPS may carry distant networks, and if the authority has been damaged, Then by 2009, look at NPS PROVIDING DISTANT NETWORKS.

There are two different issues that may affect NPS over the next two-plus years:

1) At this time, by February, 2009, all analog broadcasting is to cease. At that point, so would the distant network stations that are offered by NPS, unless somehow NPS is able to contract for more transponder space from Dish Network and start doing digital distants.

2) There is still an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the NPS/Echostar deal by the networks and their affiliate boards. If the Appeals Court, which is the same one that forced the injunction down both Judge Dimitrouleas' and Echostar's throat, decides that the NPS/Echosar deal is actually in violation of the injunction, then the distant networks are once again gone. [My opinion is that technically the NPS/Echostar deal is a violation of the injunction, but Judge Dimitrouleas will not order the cut-off until directed from above.]

 

[TNGTony]

There are two different issues that may affect NPS over the next two-plus years:

1) At this time, by February, 2009, all analog broadcasting is to cease. At that point, so would the distant network stations that are offered by NPS, unless somehow NPS is able to contract for more transponder space from Dish Network and start doing digital distants..

Well... not really. They could easily downconvert the digital signal. This is what DirecTV and Dish do with their local channels now. I know DirecTV uplinks the DT channels in the Cincinnati area. The channels are definitely not at full resolution. They are in SD.

See ya
Tony

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

There are two different issues that may affect NPS over the next two-plus years:

1) At this time, by February, 2009, all analog broadcasting is to cease. At that point, so would the distant network stations that are offered by NPS, unless somehow NPS is able to contract for more transponder space from Dish Network and start doing digital distants.

2) There is still an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the NPS/Echostar deal by the networks and their affiliate boards. If the Appeals Court, which is the same one that forced the injunction down both Judge Dimitrouleas' and Echostar's throat, decides that the NPS/Echosar deal is actually in violation of the injunction, then the distant networks are once again gone. [My opinion is that technically the NPS/Echostar deal is a violation of the injunction, but Judge Dimitrouleas will not order the cut-off until directed from above.]

It's damaging laws by our federal government that created the unknowns of S.H.V.A. by all means. Unless Mr. Ergen, wants to spare himself another transponder for Hi Definition, I do not think MPEG 2/4 satellite might not. It may mean all R.V. OWNERS should switch to DirecTV. Distant networks are available in HD for R.V.S with DirecTV on ch 80 to ch 89. Things are not to good for E*, and why if he's setting forth his new satellites, make room. The work language proscutes A company, instead of a stiff fine for each sub. Congress needs to clean this up promptly, before a judge consider contempt on NPS AND Echostar and may even consider suspending his business license for broadcasting. ABC owns Disney, ESPN and such. There is danger of networks pulling to little one's of Dish.. Congress sure screwed this all up for many who have R.V.S. The dis-please folks, I might say..

 

[Greg Bimson]

Well... not really. They could easily downconvert the digital signal. This is what DirecTV and Dish do with their local channels now. I know DirecTV uplinks the DT channels in the Cincinnati area. The channels are definitely not at full resolution. They are in SD.

I didn't quite think of that, but...

The distant network laws allow for an analog and a digital distant. I don't know if the law allows for the downconvert of the digital distant. I had believed that if a signal is used for distant delivery, whether analog or digital, it must be pretty much the same as the original delivery. I guess when I have a chance I'd better go read the law.

That is an interesting and plausible theory. Thanks, Tony.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It's damaging laws by our federal government that created the unknowns of S.H.V.A. by all means.

I make this next statement to point out the major problem with this thinking...

If you drive the same stretch of road day after day, then you know everything about the road. If you are going in a 45 mph zone, you certainly can drive it 70 if you'd like. However, if you are caught, you'd better be prepared for the consequences.

The satellite laws always had the threat of a permanent injunction on the distant network license, for a pattern or practice of violations. Once the order for the injunction was issued, Mr. Ergen stated that Dish Network took the issue too far. Dish Network could have settled this suit, brought before the court in 1998, any time prior to April, 2006. Instead, Dish Network chose to fight, and it ended up costing them distant networks.

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

Well... not really. They could easily downconvert the digital signal. This is what DirecTV and Dish do with their local channels now. I know DirecTV uplinks the DT channels in the Cincinnati area. The channels are definitely not at full resolution. They are in SD.

See ya
Tony

By all Means National Programing Service is fallow instructions. By requiring yearly waivers, and preventing a injunction from happening to NPS. I put my R.V waiver into to NPS. They advised within thirty days I will see service. Call it blank process. A copy of the declaration and the R.V. license. Means one thing. NPS is doing everything by the books. There is no reason to punish NPS and put rural viewers out in the street. With the act of congress, and protective laws passed, nps will be protected. I SEE NO POINT OF ANY INJUNCTION ON NPS, SINCE WAIVER PROCESS IS BEING DONE CORRECTLY AND NPS IS DOING RIGHT.. Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Diane Feinstein said NPS is fallowing the federal laws. U.S. House Rep. Kevin McCarthy will not support this measure to protect satellite. U.S. House Rep. David Costa will support the Bills. The difference is if legislation doesn't protect the consumers. The broadcasters will take target practice at NPS. Simply, We have to save Dish Network for it superstations and save NPS for it Hi Definition distant networks. Mr. Ergen will provide a transponder for hi definition locals for NPS. In our good faith we must ask congress to protect the interest of NPS DISTANTS IN HD, Before the broadcasters go for a injunction on NPS, leasing transponders for hd programing.. Congress must slap the broadcaster in the face. Let the A.C.L.U. btch and grype with N.A.B.. I love Nascar on Fox.. Thank You Tony . I hope this is what is correct..

 

[La Push Commercial Codman]

Well... not really. They could easily downconvert the digital signal. This is what DirecTV and Dish do with their local channels now. I know DirecTV uplinks the DT channels in the Cincinnati area. The channels are definitely not at full resolution. They are in SD.

See ya
Tony

Thanks....

 

[James Long]

It is an interesting legal question about the source of the signal ... Dish is out of the 17 USC 119 business so I'll address regular LIL (17 USC 122):

Under the law E* and D* can rebroadcast the local analog signal of any TV station that agrees to carriage and must rebroadcast the local analog signals of any other TV station in that market if they elect "must carry". They do not have to broadcast analog TV stations in markets where no analog local station is carried and they do not have to broadcast any digital stations (but may).

In my market E* has chosen to carry a local digital station's -2 subcarrier. There are examples all across the US where E* and D* have chosen to carry a digital station feed. In my local station's case the station is not also broadcast in analog.

Under the law E* and D* can pick and choose which digital stations to carry, with permission of the broadcaster. So if (as they did here) E* chooses to carry WSBT-DT 22-2 feed they do not have to carry any other digital signal in the market. If there were a station that choose to have it's digital signal carried instead of it's analog signal they could easily agree to that under 17 USC 122. Just don't select "must carry" for the analog and grant permission for the digital. What E* and D* are doing with some locals is perfectly legitimate under the law.

Now to the 17 USC 119 service we call distants - offered by DirecTV and NPS.
In 2004 the laws changed to allow digital distants as well as analog distants. Distants are entirely at the option of the satellite carrier. No permission is required from the station being rebroadcast and no carrier is required to offer distants. A customer living in the whitest spot in the country with 0 dB of OTA reception and no in market affiliate cannot force a carrier to provide them a distant.

This gives distants providers the priviledge of choosing what to do. If NPS wants to carry San Fransisco and Atlanta digital or analog that is fine. As long as they don't otherwise violate the rules (selling distants to Grade B served customers without waivers or in the local market where the station originates) they can pick and choose. The only limitation on quality is that digital distants cannot be offered at a higher quality than local channels. NPS doesn't offer locals so they are off of that hook.

It looks like, as far a source goes, NPS is in the realm of doing as they please with distants (except the obvious restrictions on who they can sell to). They can pick and choose any out-of-market network station they want, analog or digital.

If the NAB or anyone else wants to complain they will need to get the law changed first.