Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st?

[BobMurdoch]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If a large chunk of the public gets angry enough during an election year, things will change...... Anyone remember what happened a few years ago when CBS went dark on E*? Granny went nuts when 60 Minutes went away, and Congressmen were apologizing, giving speeches that encouraged both sides to make an agreement.

Since the courts are the source of the problem here, the only remedy is a new law that removes the obstacle.

[waltinvt]

http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articl...mktNews&rpc=44

NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - EchoStar Communications Corp. said on Monday it will ask Congress to clarify communications laws in the wake of a court ruling which prevents its subscribers from viewing distant network channels.

The No. 2 satellite television provider also said it will seek court review of a decision by a U.S. District Court in Miami on Friday which prevented it from broadcasting signals of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels that originate outside communities that receive the signal.

Englewood, Colorado-based EchoStar's dispute over distant network channels has been in litigation for nine years and affects less than one million of its 12.5 million subscribers.

EchoStar, which operates under the DISH network brand, said the ruling does not involve local ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox Network channels.

To date it said it has been able to reach settlements with seven of the eight plaintiffs, representing approximately 90 percent of all television network stations.

On Aug. 28 it said it agreed a $100 million settlement with ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliate Associations.

But on Sept. 1, Fox Broadcasting Co., a unit of News Corp., filed for an injunction against EchoStar barring from retransmissions on behalf of Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC.

Fox, which is a sister company to EchoStar's rival satellite TV provider DirecTV Group, had declined to be part of the earlier settlement.


© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Dish is still trying to play the "D" / Fox "anti-trust" card, at least in the media but I think the smartest thing they could do (and I think they are trying to) is somehow get this whole issue into the politician's hands while at the same time generate a significant amount of public interest. That's the only way anything will change.

This really amounts to a battle of power versus people. We've reached a point where the role of local affiliate channels is no longer as necessary - at least not in the same way it used to be. Other than local news & weather, there is no longer any reason for them to exist other than on their own programming merits and without protection and safeguards, many of them would not be strong enough to survive.

Collectively however (via the NAB) they represent an extremely powerful lobby with a lot of money and something even better than money - airtime. This has always been enough to insure any legislation QUIETLY went in their favor.

However the majority of public opinion (if given the option) may now favor a more "competative" and less "protected" approach.

If this entire mess gets enough public attention, it just might get changed and that's the only chance Dish has left. I'm not sticking up for Dish at all - only the thousands of rural area people that depend on satellite tv.

The laws in this country could certainly be changed to give viewers more choice and still have appropriate copywrite protection if they really wanted to - they just may have to loose the NAB cash cow and affiliates may have to survive the same way any other business in this country survives - by being b-e-t-t-e-r than the competition.

[minnow]

Here is an article from TVPredicitions.com regarding this issue:

Will EchoStar Lose Distant HDTV Signals?

A federal judge says the satcaster must stop sending the channels to 800,000 subscribers.
By Phillip Swann

Washington, D.C. (October 24, 2006) -- A federal judge has ruled that EchoStar must stop sending "distant" network signals to 800,000 subscribers.

The ruling, which becomes effective on December 1, will cover High-Definition TV signals as well as standard definition feeds.

However, EchoStar said last night that it will ask Congress to allow it to continue the service.

"EchoStar will continue to do everything possible to prevent consumers from losing their distant network channels," the company said in a statement. "We will ask Congress to clarify the statutory language, and ask the courts to re-consider their decision. In addition, we are taking numerous steps to protect our customers from unnecessarily losing access to those channels."

At issue is EchoStar's practice of providing "distant" network signals to subscribers who say they can't get their local networks by other means, such as an off-air antenna. The satellite service offers feeds from network affiliates in New York and Los Angeles to those customers.

However, local stations have objected, saying their ratings are hurt when viewers watch the "distant" signals instead of theirs. EchoStar earlier this year agreed to a $100 million settlement with affiliates of NBC, ABC and CBS, but Fox rejected the deal.

Fox is owned by News Corp., the corporate parent of DIRECTV, EchoStar's chief satellite rival.

After Fox refused to accept the settlement, EchoStar sued the network saying it was "conspiring" to put it at a competitive disadvantage.

Unless Congress -- or a higher court -- intervenes, EchoStar will be forced to shut down the "distant" signals on December 1. Wall Street analysts have estimated that the action could cost the company millions annually in subscription fees.



According to this article HD DNS signals are also illegal now as well.

[Hall]

According to this article HD DNS signals are also illegal now as well.

Says who ?? Phillip Swann ??

[JohnH]

The article fails to mention the real objection of the affiliates which was providing the signals to subscribers which were not elligible.

[MikeD-C05]

Sorry, but the analog NTSC OTA shut off has nothing to do with satellite TV.

Actually it does in regards to network tv. Both satellite companies will have to re aim their antennas in the local dmas from analog reception that won't exist after february 2009, to their digital channel counterparts. That doesn't mean that the sat companies can't down convert the digital hd signal to analog though. That is most likely what they will do, but in the end the analog ota channels will end in February of 2009.

[digiblur]

Actually it does in regards to network tv. Both satellite companies will have to re aim their antennas in the local dmas from analog reception that won't exist after february 2009, to their digital channel counterparts. That doesn't mean that the sat companies can't down convert the digital hd signal to analog though. That is most likely what they will do, but in the end the analog ota channels will end in February of 2009.

The average everyday customer would never know the difference if the uplink from their local station switched from an NTSC to ATSC or to fiber for that matter. That was the point I was making.

You can bet the same rules will apply to out of market locals on ATSC by the analog transition dates.

[Scott Greczkowski]

Says who ?? Phillip Swann ??

I dont see anythiing in the ruling which states this.

Swann must be in Denver this week,, where the air is VERY thin.

[Greg Bimson]

You can bet the same rules will apply to out of market locals on ATSC by the analog transition dates.

No, that is not the case.

The analog distant networks were simple: qualify, and you get your choice of two distant networks. For DirecTV, the choice is made for you, as you can only get NY and LA distant analog networks. For Dish Network, you have (or should I say had)your choice of networks in four cities.

Distant digital networks were different: if your digital local channels are available, you must take them and not your distant digitals. If your market is unavailable in digital through satellite and you qualify, you cannot receive locals from an earlier time zone.

The digital rules for analog are different from digital. There are more differences, but I don't recall exactly what they are.

[Chris Walker]

FOX Broadcasting's filing for the Injunction had nothing to do with it actually being filed.

.

I don't know John, I know the judge was ordered to issue an injunction, but IMO without FOX's whining and their court filings after the settlement was proposed, I think the injunction would have been a forgotten issue.