Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st?

[Scott Greczkowski]

A user has alerted me that another forum is reporting that Dish has been ordered to discontinue Distant Networks on December 1st.

To be honest I have heard nothing about this and there is nothing about it on any of the wires.

But if your interested in reading more about it please
click here

[Don Landis]

I haven't been following this much.
Does this loss mean that the legal FCC waiver process has been eliminated?

I have a legal waiver to receive just WCBS now from DishNetwork. It was obtained in a legal way but I have to admit, I did it using a bit of FCC insider knowledge of how Broadcasting licenses work, ie the timing in obtaining one. In otherwords, I discovered a loophole in the regulations and made that work for me. It was a very unique situation. I will probably not have that opportunity again. Anyway, I'd hate to loose that privledge because my local CBS's HDTV signal is so technically incompetent, they still often forget to flip the HD switch and don't have any plans to do Dolby 5.1. Gosh, and I even know the CE there and it doesn't help! Yes, he knows I have this Dish Network feed and has used me in the past to have a look at what they, NYC, were doing. Guess the waiver days are numbered now!

[Don Landis]

I checked out your link and was surprised you referenced dbstalks on this. In particular, it seems James Long is an authority on it. He says Dish loses the waiver process, yet D* doesn't. That seems like a court is ruling that laws apply to certain companies and not for others. That would be good grounds for an appeal and is one reason why I will be voting the way I do, No incumbents, period. That includes all sitting judges. Replace them often! Anyway, It will not be possible to transfer the E* waiver to D* because the FCC regs do not permit that. One must get a new waiver for the other provider. Dammit! I hope E* gets an appeal on this.
Frankly, I'd be happy if the entire concept of local broadcast stations protected exclusivity would just go away. In part, it is what's destroying them anyway. If they didn't have the cushy protected exclusivity in the market, they would be more competitive and broaden their business income model. Local TV is still thinking in the 1950's.

[ArtWIS]

I checked out your link and was surprised you referenced dbstalks on this. In particular, it seems James Long is an authority on it. He says Dish loses the waiver process, yet D* doesn't. That seems like a court is ruling that laws apply to certain companies and not for others. That would be good grounds for an appeal and is one reason why I will be voting the way I do, No incumbents, period. That includes all sitting judges. Replace them often! Anyway, It will not be possible to transfer the E* waiver to D* because the FCC regs do not permit that. One must get a new waiver for the other provider. Dammit! I hope E* gets an appeal on this.
Frankly, I'd be happy if the entire concept of local broadcast stations protected exclusivity would just go away. In part, it is what's destroying them anyway. If they didn't have the cushy protected exclusivity in the market, they would be more competitive and broaden their business income model. Local TV is still thinking in the 1950's.

Approx. 6-7 years ago both D* and E* were told by the courts to stop handing out illegal DNS. D* complied and E* just kept violating the law and now must face the penalty as specified in the law. There is no range of penalty in the law but a very specific penalty and that's permanent shutoff of DNS. The sad part of this is the folks that are legally qualified for DNS are being punished because of E*'s violation. As far as judges a federal judge is appointed for life and is appointed by congress not elected by the population at large. The solution for many that are by law entitled to DNS is a switch to D* or wait and hope E* gets LIL up for their area.

[Scott Greczkowski]

I checked out your link and was surprised you referenced dbstalks on this.

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. The entire point of a forum like ours is to share information, not to pretend we live in a bubble and there as no one else out there.

For the last hour I have searched and searched, I have even logged into a few E* internal websites and again no mention, I have searched all the wires and bloomberg... NOTHING.

While I dont doubt the decission (Dish had it coming to them) I find it strange that no one has picked up on it yet.

[Tampa8]

Scott your comments above are why I support this site. Satellite guys is very often first to have news, but if another site gets it first, sharing the info is the right thing to do.

Like you, I have scoured the internet, and did not find anything, but I'm sure the info is correct, unfortunatly.

[pdxsam]

The DBSTalk folks have been watching the court website for a while. Those attachments are from the court documents. Since it all came down late yesterday I would guess Monday morning it will be flying.

[Clancy]

Frankly, I'd be happy if the entire concept of local broadcast stations protected exclusivity would just go away. In part, it is what's destroying them anyway. If they didn't have the cushy protected exclusivity in the market, they would be more competitive and broaden their business income model. Local TV is still thinking in the 1950's.

I agree with you 100%.
The laws need changing for the benefit of the paying public.
The local off air reception of the networks should be their only exclusiveness.
When a customer wants to pay for more distant networks to a satellite provider, the law should provide for it.
It works in other countries. Canada is a good example.
One can see what is happening in a distant city on their newscast . Perhaps you have ties with that city. It allows for more time zone shifting. It occasionally gives you the freedom to watch different sporting events than without the option.
It is a freedom that Americans deserve.
If the station owners can not live with it, then put their licenses up for tender.
It will not be long before someone else snaps up the license.
My opinion anyway.

[Don Landis]

Approx. 6-7 years ago both D* and E* were told by the courts to stop handing out illegal DNS. D* complied and E* just kept violating the law and now must face the penalty as specified in the law. There is no range of penalty in the law but a very specific penalty and that's permanent shutoff of DNS. The sad part of this is the folks that are legally qualified for DNS are being punished because of E*'s violation. As far as judges a federal judge is appointed for life and is appointed by congress not elected by the population at large. The solution for many that are by law entitled to DNS is a switch to D* or wait and hope E* gets LIL up for their area.

Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by "handing out Illegal DNS" ? Everyone who is on the side of "let's get E*" will site it the way you did but I haven't found what exactly they did that is considered illegal. I'm ignorant on this part and would like to understand. I know that what I did was legal because it exploited a loophole in the waiver process. Now, I'll be the first to admit that a loophole often is not within the spirit of the law but, hey! that's not my fault if the lawmakers didn't see the possibility of that and didn't write around it. So, getting back to illegal activity by E*- I can assure you that when I processed my waiver from the station I was put through the gauntlet like anyone else should have been. I passed all the tests to qualify and I got it. Are you saying that E* didn't follow this procedure for everyone and some people got DNS by simply agreeing to sub to it? They certainly didn't do that with me.

[Tower Guy]

I know that what I did was legal because it exploited a loophole in the waiver process. Now, I'll be the first to admit that a loophole often is not within the spirit of the law but, hey! that's not my fault

According to the Copyright law it is the responsibility of Echostar to comply and also to prove that they were in compliance. It doesn't matter if you found a loophole, it was E*'s responsibilty to insue that there were no loopholes.

(D) Burden of proof.— In any action brought under this paragraph, the satellite carrier shall have the burden of proving that its secondary transmission of a primary transmission by a network station is to a subscriber who is eligible to receive the secondary transmission under this section.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...9----000-.html