I don't think E* providing LiL to E*'s customers disqualifies a D* customer from getting DNS. If you are a D* customer you are qualified on what is available to you.

Assuming this is correct, NPS should not care if you can get LiL via E*. Since NPS does not provide LiL, their only criteria in qualifying you should be OTA reception or lack thereof.

Mitch

 

Unless NPS is offering locals to the customer they do not have to worry what satellite/cable LILs that customer can get. Their only concern, as spelled out in 17 USC 119, is OTA reception of Grade B or higher and waivers for customers where reception is at least Grade B.

The E* provided "list" apparently didn't include customers in markets with full LIL coverage - but that should not stop NPS from selling to those customers. Those unlisted customers are just not "pre-approved" by Decisionmark.

 

NPS made a couple of filings ...
A Motion to Intervene in the case between E* and the Plantiffs (1111)
NPS feels that they are under attack and have a right to defend themselves.
(No new details in this filing.)

A Resonse to the Plantiff's Motion to Clarify (1112)
NPS feels that the clarification requested is a revison that is not permitted by law.
(Again, no new details in this filing.)

The Plantiffs replied to NPS' Friday response (1113) focusing on two points - that E* provided NPS with a highly proprietary list of customers most likely to sign up for NPS services and then they get odd, they claim that NPS offering distants would 'vitiate' the "if local, no distant" provision of SHVERA. The Plantiffs claim that NPS doesn't understand the provision. (Personally, it appears that the Plantiffs are misunderstanding SHVERA - unless DirecTV is willing to turn off distants in all markets where E* offers locals. The "if local, no distant" provision does not apply between carriers.)

NPS also filed for another Indianapolis (their hometown) lawyer to be allowed in the Florida Court --- with fee so it will likely be approved!

 

Since the purpose of DNS is to provide networks to those who otherwise would not have them, it makes sense to interpret the law as saying that once you get locals then you cannot get DNS (whether from the same or a different company). This does not mean that the customer must choose the company (if there is only one) that offers locals instead of obtaining DNS from a second company. So if you subscribe to company A for some package and your locals are available from that company you must subscribe to them (if you want networks) and cannot obtain DNS (from anybody) even if you are otherwise eligible. If you choose to subscribe only to company B (and/or C...) that do not offer locals and you are otherwise eligible, DNS can be obtained unless and until one of your companies get LIL. Are P saying that NPS and E* are for our purposes one company?

NPS made a couple of filings ...
A Motion to Intervene in the case between E* and the Plantiffs (1111)
NPS feels that they are under attack and have a right to defend themselves.
(No new details in this filing.)

A Resonse to the Plantiff's Motion to Clarify (1112)
NPS feels that the clarification requested is a revison that is not permitted by law.
(Again, no new details in this filing.)

The Plantiffs replied to NPS' Friday response (1113) focusing on two points - that E* provided NPS with a highly proprietary list of customers most likely to sign up for NPS services and then they get odd, they claim that NPS offering distants would 'vitiate' the "if local, no distant" provision of SHVERA. The Plantiffs claim that NPS doesn't understand the provision. (Personally, it appears that the Plantiffs are misunderstanding SHVERA - unless DirecTV is willing to turn off distants in all markets where E* offers locals. The "if local, no distant" provision does not apply between carriers.)
NPS also filed for another Indianapolis (their hometown) lawyer to be allowed in the Florida Court --- with fee so it will likely be approved!

 

Since the purpose of DNS is to provide networks to those who otherwise would not have them, it makes sense to interpret the law as saying that once you get locals then you cannot get DNS (whether from the same or a different company).

Only if you are a broadcast station or network that would like to expand SHVERA beyond what they managed to get written into law.

The way to change the law is to have congress rewrite it. Congress wrote a set of laws that relate to a satellite carrier and how THEY offer distants. They didn't write a law that relates to the customer and what channels they can receive. As a carrier based law there is NO language that requires the carrier to change their channel offerings to a customer based on what other carriers provide or could provide - they only have to deal with what THEY provide (and the Grade B/waivers portions of the law that apply to every individual carrier).

Are P saying that NPS and E* are for our purposes one company?

That certainly is the direction that they are going - since one uses the same dish and receiver to receive the services from the two companies they are tying them together as one service.

 

Such interpretations happen all the time. After all, what is the common law that forms the basis of our legal system? Here we have an assumption that a subscriber would be dealing with only one company. Therefore the statute is clear - if your company provides locals - no DNS for you (whether or not you subscribe to LIL). Now the case where there is at least one DBS that does not provide LIL (but does have DNS) is the point of contention. The statute does not really deal with this situation because of the assumption mentioned before. Thus a judge would have to deal with the issue using techniques of statutory construction. Now some may be literalist (such as yourself, Mr. Long) and say that the law says "the" and not "a." Possible. But a canon of statutory construction says that an interpretation should not lead to absurd results. You are saying that if you subscribe to DBS Company A's super-mega-ultra-platinum-titanium package ($499.99/month) that includes everything except locals (available for $5 extra) but you choose not to subscribe to them, you are free to stroll over to DBS Company B (who does not carry LIL) and subscribe to network DNS (if otherwise qualified). Actually you are saying even if you do subscribe to LIL with A, you can still get DNS from B. This is nonsense and cleary undercuts the reason for the statutory license. I would think this would be true even if you had to go to Company C for locals but am willing to allow that if you choose a company (or companies) without locals, you might have a (slightly) better argument for allowing DNS but obtaining DNS in addition to LIL by strategically choosing multiple companies is not going to fly (for very long). I do not think that this is what Congress was attempting to accomplish and it is quite within the realm of permissible interpretation.

(C)
Future applicability. The statutory license under paragraph (2) shall not apply to the secondary transmission by a satellite carrier of a primary analog transmission of a network station to a person who--
(i)
is not a subscriber lawfully receiving such secondary transmission as of the date of the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 [enacted Dec. 8, 2004]; and
(ii)
at the time such person seeks to subscribe to receive such secondary transmission, resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person the secondary transmission of the primary analog transmission of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 [17 USC 122], and such secondary transmission of such primary transmission can reach such person.

Only if you are a broadcast station or network that would like to expand SHVERA beyond what they managed to get written into law.

The way to change the law is to have congress rewrite it. Congress wrote a set of laws that relate to a satellite carrier and how THEY offer distants. They didn't write a law that relates to the customer and what channels they can receive. As a carrier based law there is NO language that requires the carrier to change their channel offerings to a customer based on what other carriers provide or could provide - they only have to deal with what THEY provide (and the Grade B/waivers portions of the law that apply to every individual carrier).That certainly is the direction that they are going - since one uses the same dish and receiver to receive the services from the two companies they are tying them together as one service.

 

Now some may be literalist (such as yourself, Mr. Long) and say that the law says "the" and not "a."

(C)
(ii)
at the time such person seeks to subscribe to receive such secondary transmission, resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person the secondary transmission of the primary analog transmission of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 [17 USC 122], and such secondary transmission of such primary transmission can reach such person.

I disagree. I do not think there is any ambiguity. If one were to assume that the word "the" could be interpreted as "a", then neither satellite proveder could have provided DNS in a market where they did not have LiL but the competing satellite provider did have LiL.

Mitch

 

I do not think that this is what Congress was attempting to accomplish and it is quite within the realm of permissible interpretation.

Echostar does not believe that it was the "intent of Congress" to punish distant subscribers (who would be otherwise qualified) by limiting their choice of distants providers just because their satellite carrier violated the rules in such a persistant matter. Congress didn't write their intent into 17 USC 119 - they wrote a set of rules. Read the 'intent' in the laws they passed to create and modify 17 USC 119 and see if you can match 'intent' to the laws. Plenty of unsatisfied 'intent' to go around.

Echostar believed that it was the 'intent' of Congress to provide network signals to anyone who didn't have them. Which is why they VIOLATED the law and provided distants to people who technically didn't qualify (by not respecting Grade B outside of each station's DMA and other violations). But even though they felt they met the 'intent' of congress, the courts followed the letter of the USC as written (with a little nudging from the higher courts).

resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person the secondary transmission of the primary analog transmission of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to the statutory license under section 122 [17 USC 122], and such secondary transmission of such primary transmission can reach such person.

That THE could have easily been an A - but Congress wrote 'the' and that is what the courts must enforce.

 

I don't want to beat this to death but what E* or any party has to say is interesting and certainly listened to but does not dictate the outcome. The point that I was trying to make is that a judge could reasonably interpret the statute in the way I indicated. It is not a case where the a/the is dispositive because (again as I pointed out) there is an underlying assumption that the person is dealing with one and only one DBS company. In other words, this situation is not one that Congress addressed. Therefore in case of a controversy the court must use the law and established methods of interpretation to solve the problem. In this case a court could, repeat, could determine that in consideration of all the evidence that doing an end run around the principle of "no distants if locals" wouldn't be allowed. This is much, much different that the E* case where Congress spoke directly to the issue at hand in unambiguous terms. If the black and white print of a law were always clear and expansive enough to cover every circumstance we wouldn't need judges just flowcharts. To the other fellow....I didn't say that if any DBS provided locals then no other company could provide DNS (although in the interest of promoting LIL, it might be good policy). Rather that if your company provided LIL and more specifically if you subscribed to them then you should not be able to get DNS via another company. You are not able to get DNS from your company - even if you choose not to take LIL. To permit otherwise is illogical (although that is often a characteristic of laws). I too do not believe Congress intended to punish the end user for E* misdeeds, it is just one outcome. If you cannot get networks in any other way, switch to D* or cable. Virtually every legitimate subscriber can do one or the other or both. Inconvenient? To be sure. Irritating? No doubt. I think E* should pick up any costs incurred. The goal is to provide network programming. Not ensure that you can stay with E* without consequence or otherwise give you your heart's desire. Although that would be nice.

Echostar does not believe that it was the "intent of Congress" to punish distant subscribers (who would be otherwise qualified) by limiting their choice of distants providers just because their satellite carrier violated the rules in such a persistant matter. Congress didn't write their intent into 17 USC 119 - they wrote a set of rules. Read the 'intent' in the laws they passed to create and modify 17 USC 119 and see if you can match 'intent' to the laws. Plenty of unsatisfied 'intent' to go around.

Echostar believed that it was the 'intent' of Congress to provide network signals to anyone who didn't have them. Which is why they VIOLATED the law and provided distants to people who technically didn't qualify (by not respecting Grade B outside of each station's DMA and other violations). But even though they felt they met the 'intent' of congress, the courts followed the letter of the USC as written (with a little nudging from the higher courts).That THE could have easily been an A - but Congress wrote 'the' and that is what the courts must enforce.

 

I don't want to beat this to death but what E* or any party has to say is interesting and certainly listened to but does not dictate the outcome. The point that I was trying to make is that a judge could reasonably interpret the statute in the way I indicated.

I do not believe that interpretation is reasonable. It entirely changes the meaning of the law.

It is not a case where the a/the is dispositive because (again as I pointed out) there is an underlying assumption that the person is dealing with one and only one DBS company.

That may be your assumption. To assume that congress had the same assumption is yet another assumption I disagree with.

Therefore in case of a controversy the court must use the law and established methods of interpretation to solve the problem.

The most established method of interpretation is READING the language of the law. Congress wrote "the". And that's the law.

I didn't say that if any DBS provided locals then no other company could provide DNS (although in the interest of promoting LIL, it might be good policy). Rather that if your company provided LIL and more specifically if you subscribed to them then you should not be able to get DNS via another company.

If you want that to become law get congress to pass it. The same goes for any network or affiliate lawyer who is misreading the plain text of 17 USC 119.

 

To the other fellow....I didn't say that if any DBS provided locals then no other company could provide DNS (although in the interest of promoting LIL, it might be good policy). Rather that if your company provided LIL and more specifically if you subscribed to them then you should not be able to get DNS via another company.

If you dig through the testimony that Congress heard in 2004 you'll find an allegation that it would be impractical to start a third competing DBS company. Hence the law was crafted with the "if locals no distant" phrase with the intent that there would never be the situation with NPS that exists today.

NPS is operational only because E* "leased" them almost everything that they need to operate.

So if NPS really does serve only white areas in non-LiL markets, the intent of Congress is fulfilled and does not hurt local stations. Yet if E* where to create more LiL markets, is there any rule that says that NPS must step back and give their subscribers in that market back to E*?

 

If you dig through the testimony that Congress heard in 2004 you'll find an allegation that it would be impractical to start a third competing DBS company. Hence the law was crafted with the "if locals no distant" phrase with the intent that there would never be the situation with NPS that exists today.

NPS is operational only because E* "leased" them almost everything that they need to operate.

So if NPS really does serve only white areas in non-LiL markets, the intent of Congress is fulfilled and does not hurt local stations. Yet if E* where to create more LiL markets, is there any rule that says that NPS must step back and give their subscribers in that market back to E*?

The law says nothing about what happens to subs from one DBS service when another is offering locals but the original one isn't. If it was truly a "if your locals are offered by any DBS company (even not your own), you can't take distance networks", there would probably be a whole lot of unhappy D* subs right now.

Granted, NPS is in business as a DBS provider because, as you said, E* leased them everything to get started. And it should be noted - this SHOULD be a rather limited market, as true "Distant Network subs" (those truly unserved by at least a grade B signal) are relatively scarce. What this arrangement would permit is an E* sub who has LIL to also get Distant networks IF they qualified by the "outside of grade B" standard - and this is what will get the broadcasting industry upset.

 

The law says nothing about what happens to subs from one DBS service when another is offering locals but the original one isn't. If it was truly a "if your locals are offered by any DBS company (even not your own), you can't take distance networks", there would probably be a whole lot of unhappy D* subs right now.

Granted, NPS is in business as a DBS provider because, as you said, E* leased them everything to get started. And it should be noted - this SHOULD be a rather limited market, as true "Distant Network subs" (those truly unserved by at least a grade B signal) are relatively scarce. What this arrangement would permit is an E* sub who has LIL to also get Distant networks IF they qualified by the "outside of grade B" standard - and this is what will get the broadcasting industry upset.

That is all exactly correct, at least in my opinion. That seems to be the situation. I will add, Dish seems to have not entered into the area of someone receiving locals and getting distants from NPS, because it seems the information given to NPS did not include those who subscribe to locals. (there may be some exceptions/mistakes, but that seems to be the overall effect)
Now that NPS appears to be qualifying people themselves based on address, it will be one step more distance from Dish as Dish did not provide that information. One could question if you are allowed to get both locals and distants from the same receiver, but I don't think the law addresses that. The Court order however may. (Though in my opinion it should not)

 

If "localism" is to be a priority public policy. I say if, I don't want to argue about whether or not is should be, then the law and judicial interpretation should support that policy (within constitutional constraints, yadda, yadda....) Thus every effort to encourage LIL should be made. This may include terminating DNS when any company can provide LIL. This is a clear incentive to the major players to get every DMA up and in digitial, err, I mean HD as quickly as possible. Part of the penance that E* might do should involve a timetable for installation. This is one area that Congress needs to address in any new legislation. NPS is a freak show that only came to town because of the injunction. It will soon wither off the vine. If at least one DBS provides local then you have a choice - do you want them or not? Another DBS should not be permitted to undercut the goal of localism by lollygagging on LIL. One day soon we will have the "utopia" of multiple DBS companies all providing LIL in HD, competing on the basis of price and customer service. With technological improvements, RV and trucker types will be able to subscribe to a network offering that automatically picks up the appropriate local station (or DNS, if none) and all this blather about waivers and the statutory license will be all but gone and forgotten. Despite the dreams of some, unlimited access to any network station (paid for or not) isn't going to happen. It is not a question of whether or not it is technically possible. It is what we as a society deem to be important to do or not do and I think the concept of localism is more widely adhered to than thought. It is just that the proponents of the other system are more vocal and techno-competent and the resulting amplification of their collective voice makes them seem more numerous than they really are. Aunt Meg wants to see the familiar face of the anchorman in Dayton not the blowdryed doofus in a big coastal city.

That is all exactly correct, at least in my opinion. That seems to be the situation. I will add, Dish seems to have not entered into the area of someone receiving locals and getting distants from NPS, because it seems the information given to NPS did not include those who subscribe to locals. (there may be some exceptions/mistakes, but that seems to be the overall effect)
Now that NPS appears to be qualifying people themselves based on address, it will be one step more distance from Dish as Dish did not provide that information. One could question if you are allowed to get both locals and distants from the same receiver, but I don't think the law addresses that. The Court order however may. (Though in my opinion it should not)

 

If you dig through the testimony that Congress heard in 2004 you'll find an allegation that it would be impractical to start a third competing DBS company.

Who made the allegation? Markets change.

Hence the law was crafted with the "if locals no distant" phrase with the intent that there would never be the situation with NPS that exists today.

Actually the law was crafted with a different phrase - that four word phrase is a summary. "... resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person ..." was written, at a time where there were two DBS companies offering LIL and DNS services. We were already at a point where a person COULD have subscribed to both services (and some do).

If one wants to pick the words apart why not discuss what "makes available" means. E* makes LIL available in over 170 markets. If you are going to change the the to an a or any you might as well interpret those two words in their clearest sense and prohibit D* from signing up any new DNS customers in E*'s LIL areas as well as require them to drop any DNS service to customers who did not qualify under that interpretation since 2004. I don't expect that to happen soon, do you?

So if NPS really does serve only white areas in non-LiL markets, the intent of Congress is fulfilled and does not hurt local stations. Yet if E* where to create more LiL markets, is there any rule that says that NPS must step back and give their subscribers in that market back to E*?

I have yet to see "the rule" that requires NPS not to market to current LIL markets of other carriers. If NPS voluntarily decides not to offer DNS to customers in E* LIL markets it could be considered working hand in hand WITH E*. The incremental cost of providing DNS to subscribers does not change based on whether or not E* has LIL there. If they sell they sell. If they don't they don't. Why not offer DNS to everyone who can legally get them?

This may include terminating DNS when any company can provide LIL.

Get Congress to put that in the law. Anything less is just "fan fiction".

This is a clear incentive to the major players to get every DMA up and in digitial, err, I mean HD as quickly as possible.

You do know that the February 2009 conversion to digital DOES NOT require any HD signal - right?

If at least one DBS provides local then you have a choice - do you want them or not? Another DBS should not be permitted to undercut the goal of localism by lollygagging on LIL.

Again - Congress is the appropriate path, not fan fiction.

Until December 2009 (unless extended again) DNS is a service that may be offered under 17 USC 119. Live with it or get Congress to change the law.

 

When the "if local no distants" provision was added to 17 USC 119 in 2004 there were two competing DBS companies providing distants. Now at the end of 2006 there are two competing DBS companies providing distants.

Voom didn't offer LIL (except OTA) and could have legally offered distants to every customer NPS can now serve. Perhaps one could argue that a "third" DBS carrier offering distants was not a viable business in 2004, but one must admit that having two out of the then four DBS carriers offering distants was viable in 2004. Having two out of the now four DBS carriers offering distants is the same math.

 

Who made the allegation? Markets change.Actually the law was crafted with a different phrase - that four word phrase is a summary. "... resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person ..." was written, at a time where there were two DBS companies offering LIL and DNS services. We were already at a point where a person COULD have subscribed to both services (and some do).

If one wants to pick the words apart why not discuss what "makes available" means. E* makes LIL available in over 170 markets. If you are going to change the the to an a or any you might as well interpret those two words in their clearest sense and prohibit D* from signing up any new DNS customers in E*'s LIL areas as well as require them to drop any DNS service to customers who did not qualify under that interpretation since 2004. I don't expect that to happen soon, do you?

I don't expect it to happen but that is different than saying it couldn't happen.

I have yet to see "the rule" that requires NPS not to market to current LIL markets of other carriers. If NPS voluntarily decides not to offer DNS to customers in E* LIL markets it could be considered working hand in hand WITH E*.

"Rules" can come about by many methods. Court decisions or adminstrative regulations (FCC) are two common ones. You seem to think that the role of the courts is simply to look up the law in the Roladex(r) and announce it. You could hire a temp to do that. There is a big difference between a definitive statement by Congress (say, the $3 bill shall be 7" x 10") and something that may be open to interpretation (the $3 bill shall be blue in color). In the latter we have questions about which parts of the bill, what shade of blue, what is blue? It certainly is not red but what about teal? This is the role the courts play.

The incremental cost of providing DNS to subscribers does not change based on whether or not E* has LIL there. If they sell they sell. If they don't they don't. Why not offer DNS to everyone who can legally get them?

Because it undercuts the policy that Congress has established.

Get Congress to put that in the law. Anything less is just "fan fiction".You do know that the February 2009 conversion to digital DOES NOT require any HD signal - right?Again - Congress is the appropriate path, not fan fiction.

A lot of people are working to get Congress to put different things in a new law. A ruling by a judge as to what the statute means is not fiction by any means - as Charlie has discovered. I absolutely understand the difference between HD and digital and have made the point repeatedly only to receive catcalls. I was only humoring those who can't or won't draw the distinction.

Until December 2009 (unless extended again) DNS is a service that may be offered under 17 USC 119. Live with it or get Congress to change the law.

I have been living quite nicely with DNS. However it is obvious that although the service exists - it doesn't exist without restrictions. You do understand that don't you?

 

There is a big difference between a definitive statement by Congress (say, the $3 bill shall be 7" x 10") and something that may be open to interpretation (the $3 bill shall be blue in color). In the latter we have questions about which parts of the bill, what shade of blue, what is blue? It certainly is not red but what about teal? This is the role the courts play.

If you can't tell the difference between the and a or any I can't help you. We're not talking about shades of color in law. It is a law restricting satellite carriers, not customers, written at a time where there were four satellite carriers (two offering distants) and the phrase the satellite carrier are probably the least ambiguous words in 17 USC 119.

Why not offer DNS to everyone who can legally get them?

Because it undercuts the policy that Congress has established.

If Congress wants their "policies" enforced they need to pass laws. In this case, they didn't write the law that you seem to want. Sorry.

Again - Congress is the appropriate path, not fan fiction.

A lot of people are working to get Congress to put different things in a new law. A ruling by a judge as to what the statute means is not fiction by any means - as Charlie has discovered.

I wasn't referring to what a judge has written ... I was referring to your, and the Plantiff's, desire to have this misinterpretation of the law sanctioned. You and the Plantiffs want the judge to agree with reading the as a or any - if he does he is going beyond the law. Which is why there is an appeals court ready to slap him down again.

Until December 2009 (unless extended again) DNS is a service that may be offered under 17 USC 119. Live with it or get Congress to change the law.

I have been living quite nicely with DNS. However it is obvious that although the service exists - it doesn't exist without restrictions.

Yet not with the restriction you apparently wish were there.

 

If you can't tell the difference between the and a or any I can't help you. We're not talking about shades of color in law. It is a law restricting satellite carriers, not customers, written at a time where there were four satellite carriers (two offering distants) and the phrase the satellite carrier are probably the least ambiguous words in 17 USC 119.

All I can say is that court decisions that hinge on single words and their meaning are not unknown. This is especially true when there is inconsistent reference to "a X" vs "the X." It is up to the court to harmonize the conflict. Taking a tunnel vision approach won't work. 17 USC 119 does not exist in a vacuum. While looking at the text is the first (and often last) step, it is not necessarily so. You cannot wall off one statute and contend that it is the only thing that can be considered. Even E* made arguments with this understanding. They just lost.

If Congress wants their "policies" enforced they need to pass laws. In this case, they didn't write the law that you seem to want. Sorry.

Actually, you don't know what I personally believe. I am trying to discuss a policy issue. If this concept is so frightening to you then just say so and I won't say anymore on the subject. You ought to look into the role of the courts and administrative agencies. If you go to any law library you will see rows and rows of court and admin law decisions. If the statute were the be all and end all, those shelves would be empty. Again, it is not a question of what Congress wrote but rather what they didn't write in the context of other laws and a well-established public policy.

I wasn't referring to what a judge has written ... I was referring to your, and the Plantiff's, desire to have this misinterpretation of the law sanctioned. You and the Plantiffs want the judge to agree with reading the as a or any - if he does he is going beyond the law. Which is why there is an appeals court ready to slap him down again.

Yet not with the restriction you apparently wish were there.

Courts of Appeal often have a different view. That does not change what I am saying - that it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of (all) the law to say that an individual cannot get LIL and DNS by multiple subscription.

 

This whole discussion is quite interesting, and it really makes you think things over and consider all the aspects of it.

I'm going to frame it from the Court Order side of things. I think to some extent the the other laws do not come into play until you decipher the total impact of the Court Order. All instances assume you are in a white area for at least one network or have an RV.
Did the Court Order mean to say, if you have Dish Service, you may not have any distants from anyone? If Cable provides channels outside your area and you also have dish, you may not get those channels from Cable? Or, you have Dish and Direct TV, Direct does not have your locals, Dish does. Does the Court Order mean you may not get distants from Direct?
Can the court narrow it down, by the Court Order itself, that the Order means no one my get Distants on Dishnetwork equipment?
What if you could use a separate box for distants running off your Dish satellite? Can the court determine based on the Order, that even using a separate box, using any equipment of Dish is not allowed? It would seem to me these things are over reaching the order, but there is no way to tell how a Judge would rule. Remember, Dish is still being punished in all this, which is the intent of the Order. We have been talking about how it has punished the customer, and it has as a secondary fact. That probably was not the intent of the Order. They still do not sell nor provide distants, new customers in areas not served will be told they do not get networks by Dish. Even if Dish mentions another company, most new customers will not want to bother and just get Direct or Cable if possible.

If it were not for the Court Order, and say Dish decided to no longer carry distants, I have to believe you could get distants from a separate provider that does not carry your locals on the Dish equipment. I do not see how you can interpret the law (not the Court Order) to say you cannot get distants from a seprarate provider if they use the same equipment as your locals provider does. It was never conceived that way.
I believe it all comes down to the Florida Court determining if this arrangement does or does not violate the Court Order.

 

All I can say is that court decisions that hinge on single words and their meaning are not unknown. This is especially true when there is inconsistent reference to "a X" vs "the X."

Where is the reference IN LAW that is inconsistant with the one we've been discussing? Not what you think some politician may have meant or some comment not part of the law, but an inconsistancy you can hang this arguement on IN LAW.

Courts of Appeal often have a different view. That does not change what I am saying - that it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of (all) the law to say that an individual cannot get LIL and DNS by multiple subscription.

I disagree. It is not perfectly reasonable to define the as a or any just because it fits your arguement. Let's leave it up to the courts.

 

The posts prior to this one in this thread were made in the E* forum.
They have been moved here so we can discuss the legislative wishes separate from the reality of the Echostar/NPS/Decisionmark DNS issue.

Original Thread

 

Where is the reference IN LAW that is inconsistant with the one we've been discussing? Not what you think some politician may have meant or some comment not part of the law, but an inconsistancy you can hang this arguement on IN LAW.
I disagree. It is not perfectly reasonable to define the as a or any just because it fits your arguement. Let's leave it up to the courts.

Well, I didn't think anybody was going to act on opinions expressed here. I was cogitating on the possibilities. The LAW (your emphasis) is not simply statutes. The LAW includes court decisions and administrative regulations. I have not researched and do not intend to research this issue. The point I was making was more general - simply reading an isolated statute may or may not provide all the information needed. I would bet on the "may not."