Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st?

[Don Landis]

Sponsored Links

Tower guy- Well first of all, you don't know what the loophole was and therefore you assumed it was a violation. I can assure you it was not! The waiver process was followed to the letter of the law in my case. I find it difficult to believe that Dish Network is held responsible for the part of the law (in my case) that was not written into it that permitted me in this very unique circumstance to be legally permitted to execute a waiver. I could fill you in on the details of my case but not in this thread. I do trust that if I did not qualify under the current waiver process, the subscription would not have been granted.

Remember the basic process of a waiver is that to get one you have to have your local network affiliate approve you for the service by the DBS provider. If they refuse you have a right to challenge the decision by the local station with independent signal tests. The station has a right to challenge the independent tests with their own tests. At that time a decision by the FCC committee of arbitration will hand down it's decision. But all the challenging is unnecessary as long as the station grants the permission in the first place. In my case that was the net result of why I got the waiver. Now the specific circumstances behind the grant by the local CBS affiliate is confidential but the process was quite legal. Additionally, a waiver grant must be issued for each of the networks requested, as a CBS waiver only applies to CBS, not all networks. My DNS only covers CBS and that's all E* issued to me as that is the law!
There is another part of the process that is interesting. Once a waiver is granted and the conditions change, for example, the signal is much improved, the subscriber with the in place waiver may now legally get both the DNS and their local. There is nothing in the waiver process that allows the provider or the local broadcast station to execute a reversal of the waiver after it is issued except by specific test challenge and then the challenge must be handled on a case by case basis under the law. This makes it not practical from a cost basis to reverse the waivers in place by a station. This re-examination of the waiver is also held even if a new station management takes over. The only way a waiver may be reversed or cancelled once in place is to challenge it with test data and an FCC decision.
However, in this instance, it appears to me that a broad based cancellation of all waivers nation wide is being done by the courts. Something that was never part of the original law.

I did a bit of reading on the save my channels website and saw this bit of chronology:

"In September 2000, the Miami Federal Court entered an order requiring EchoStar to shut off distant network channels to an unspecified number of consumers. We appealed that decision, and in November a stay was granted by the Court of Appeals. In the following years, we reached settlements with some of the broadcasters - as well as many other independent stations and station groups - but we were unable to reach settlements with five of the original eight plaintiffs.

A trial took place in April 2003 and the District Court issued a final judgment a few months later stating that with one exception our current procedures for qualifying subscribers for distant network channels complied with the law. As a result of this ruling, we were told to re-qualify all of our subscribers who receive distant network channels and to turn off distant network stations for ineligible subscribers. We believed the District Court made a number of errors and appealed the decision, contending the shutoff requirements were too stringent. The Court of Appeals granted our request to stay the injunction until our appeal was decided.

The case went back to court in February 2004, and in August of that year an injunction was issued. In April 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals to vacate the stay, and we responded later that month. The District Court concluded EchoStar had been acting in compliance with its interpretation of the law since issuance of its decision in the case in 2003, and that an injunction prohibiting us from selling distant network channels should not be issued. In May of this year, the Court of Appeals disagreed and overturned the District Court's ruling, concluding that regardless of current compliance the harsh language of the statute leaves no discretion and that an order must be issued to prevent us from transmitting any distant network channels to our customers"

I'm no lawyer but it appears that the courts don't even agree and this is something that may end up for a US Supreme court decision.

What part of " The District Court concluded EchoStar had been acting in compliance with its interpretation of the law since issuance of its decision in the case in 2003, " " says that E* ignored the courts and violated the law and should be punished do you anti E* people wish to reference here?

I still don't get it. Someone tell me exactly what they did wrong that DirecTV does right WRT selling DN service? I want to know.


PS- thanks for the Cornell link. But that link just fortifies that the process I used to get and keep the waiver was completely legal.

[Scott Greczkowski]

FYI - This information has been CONFIRMED by our friends at TransmitterNews.COM.

[David_Levin]

I'm confused....
I thought E* bent-over, paid-up, and signed an agreement with the networks?

Does this effect...
People in White Areas?
People covered under the Local O&O Agreement (CBS in Denver)?

[Satellite Expo]

Dish was planning to pay $100 million, but Fox opted out of the deal and filed for an injunction to stop the deal, which is what the court just ruled on. Here is the news brief: http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsW...letterupd.html

[BobMurdoch]

Originally Posted by David_Levin

I'm confused....
I thought E* bent-over, paid-up, and signed an agreement with the networks?

Does this effect...
People in White Areas?
People covered under the Local O&O Agreement (CBS in Denver)?

They did.... but News Corp., which owns D* AND Fox, pulled their owned and operated affiliates out of the settlement talks and were the only ones not to sign on. They then argued that since the verdict had been handed down, that they had won and didn't need to settle. If this injunction happens, E* has to turn off distant network subscribers, D* will most likely gain a few hundred thousand new subscribers (they have already instructed their dealers how to capitalize on this), and the other independent affiliates never see a dime of the settlement they agreed to.

If I were THEM I'd be suing News Corp. to call attention to this anti-competitive practice.

Best case scenario, a few congresspeople get real ticked off regarding this blatant tactic and write a new law that gives E* the right to broadcast the networks to the folks in white areas and Grade B areas that can't get a good signal. That's a long shot though. The appeals process may help though, as SOMEONE should get to them and point out how much the whole situation stinks and that E* may be punished by the lack of income, but that lowly consumers stand to lose hundreds or thousands of dollars having to switch and pay early termination fees and new hardware costs...

P.s. They timed this for Dec. 1st, hoping that media outlets wouldn't announce it until after the elections. nice..... A--holes.

[Don Landis]

"After reviewing the appellate courts findings that Echostar had engaged in a “pattern or practice” of violating the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) “in every way imaginable,” Judge Dimitrouleas issued the permanent injunction to take effect December 1, 2006."

Wow! I think this judge has very little imagination or he is on someone's payroll.

[stone phillips420]

if dish played by the rules they wouldnt be in this situation, the only one it will affect is the number of estar subs
i for one hope may of you cannot live without dns and forsee many people switching to cable dtv or bunny ears
Thanks Chuck you f*ck, you ruined it for all 10 million plus of your customers

[mdonnelly]

Originally Posted by stone phillips420

if dish played by the rules they wouldnt be in this situation, the only one it will affect is the number of estar subs
i for one hope may of you cannot live without dns and forsee many people switching to cable dtv or bunny ears
Thanks Chuck you f*ck, you ruined it for all 10 million plus of your customers

Thank Rupert for throwing E* under the bus. All the other networks settled.

[stone phillips420]

Originally Posted by mdonnelly

Thank Rupert for throwing E* under the bus. All the other networks settled.

touche

[hidef2]

What about the CBS O&O deal?