Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st? - Page 7

BobMurdoch · #61 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 01:48 PM

Sponsored Links

We've now hit the point that regardless of the "fairness" of the whole mess, the channels will go dark on 12/1. For me it will be a nuisance, but not crippling. I've been able to record west coast feeds (I'm in NJ) when too many good shows were on at once, or my PVR screwed up (which is just about every Sunday night in football season when Family Guy never starts on time due to football delaying things). I've also had a poor man's Sunday Ticket with the extra FOX and CBS channels.

I'll still have the New York locals, though, and will have to just record some shows on my bedroom DVR worst case....

However, the time is NOW to raise a stink. Congress is sensitive to issues which affect ordinary citizens right now with the balance of power in Congress hanging in the balance. The time is NOW to try and press for a legislative solution. Otherwise, Rupert's anti-competitive gambit pays off. I'm sure the Democrats in particular would love to kick Rupe in the teeth, but Charlie has just as many enemies on Capitol Hill since he didn't buy enough of the metaphorical "tickets to the PBA dance" as he is expected to do over the years....

Bottom line, start ringing up the phones and firing up the emails stating that you will consider voting for the other side if they don't do something to rectify this injustice... (and don't tell me that the affiliates were wronged.... they've got their briefcase of money and are satisfied now... the only one fighting things is Fox who owns the entity that will benefit most by this doomsday scenario coming true).

And since the Beltway Boys were SOOOO afraid of a satellite monopoly by scotching the merger a few years back, they should be equally afraid of a situation that effectively reduces a consumer's choices to one in several rural areas.

cicijay · #62 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 02:13 PM

I wish I knew dish was willfully violating "distants laws". The only way I could get a distant waiver was to apply every 6 months for over 2 years until finally the local affiliate didn't reject my waiver.

I guess there was an easier way that I wasn't aware of!

**Scott Greczkowski** · #63 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 02:17 PM

DENVER POST NEEDS OUR HELP

The Denver Post is seeing comment from SatelliteGuys Members in and around the Rocky Mountain State who will be losing their distant networks on Dish Network as a result on Fridays Court Ruling. If you are interested in helping out please CLICK HERE to send an email, and include a phone number where you can be reached at.

Greg Bimson · #64 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Murdoch

Otherwise, Rupert's anti-competitive gambit pays off. I'm sure the Democrats in particular would love to kick Rupe in the teeth, but Charlie has just as many enemies on Capitol Hill since he didn't buy enough of the metaphorical "tickets to the PBA dance" as he is expected to do over the years....

Okay. However, I would like to point out the judge's ruling basically stated that even if Fox did not object, the injunction would have been issued anyway.

The gambit that didn't pay off was the one Dish Network tried by appealing the verdict of the original suit in 2003. The moment Dish Network got word from the Appeals Court was the only reason for the settlement, and at that point it was too late.

waltinvt · #65 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by odbrv

<snip>.....I guess the law was written terribly to allow this to happen .

Depends on your point of view. I suspect the affiliates (collectively the NAB) think it was written rather well and since they're the ones that paid for it, why shouldn't it favor them?

aeris · #66 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 04:47 PM

Well, I guess the "pirates" won't be too happy with this...

BobMurdoch · #67 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Bimson

Okay. However, I would like to point out the judge's ruling basically stated that even if Fox did not object, the injunction would have been issued anyway.

The gambit that didn't pay off was the one Dish Network tried by appealing the verdict of the original suit in 2003. The moment Dish Network got word from the Appeals Court was the only reason for the settlement, and at that point it was too late.

You and I agree on that point. Charlie tried settling too late. By then both parties were highly motivated..... The affiliates saw their briefcase of money going poof, and E* was forced to look at the very real possibility that several hundred thousand customers would defect to the competition (D*, cable, or Fios).

Right now, the affiliates true intentions are exposed,... they don't care about the concept of losing their God given right to force their ads down our eyeballs if a big enough check is involved. This was their intention all along... to extort a better deal from E*. Unfortunately, everyone played chicken too long, and they rolled off a cliff before a deal could be made that the courts would accept....

BoisePaul · #68 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Landis

Greg has addressed my concern, and Tony- I heard you loud and clear, 5 by 9

but everyone is referring to the "CBS O&O" deal until now. As Greg differentiated in his post, those who obtained the CBS HD channel through waiver ( NOT in an O&O covered market) may lose it. Then you stated that since the court ruling has ONLY addressed analog channel feeds, it doesn't apply. TNGTony- I hope you are right. I'd like to keep what I have until 2008, which BTW is the shutoff date for all waivers anyway. Or at least the date when all waivers will require renewal or shut off.

I thank both of you for your posts. While I appreciate that both of you can only offer an opinion, I think the opinions here, Tony, should offer some reassurance as to what is and is not affected. At least to me, anyway!

Don, I have to believe that I'm in the same boat, and my gut is telling me that I'm going to lose CBSHD. I live in the Wilkes-Barre, PA DMA which is most definitely NOT an O&O market. In order to get CBSHD, I had to get a waiver from my local CBS (WYOU, a Mission/Nexstar station) and subscribe to WCBS as a distant. I was then shown as eligible for CBSHD because I was able to get WCBS due to the waiver. Since distants are going away, I will no longer be eligible to receive the signal from WCBS (or any other CBS O&O station), and therefore will no longer qualify for CBSHD.

It seems that those who only look at the O&O aspect of CBSHD seem to forget that there are those of us who are able to see CBSHD due to being eligible for distants via waiver.

tnsprin · #69 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltinvt

Depends on your point of view. I suspect the affiliates (collectively the NAB) think it was written rather well and since they're the ones that paid for it, why shouldn't it favor them?

I think they are all, except Fox, think it was written badly now. They all had come in to agreement with DISH, but now have that agreement nullified by the law.

Sparkman · #70 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by odbrv

I have sent the following letter to my 2 Senators and Congressman, I hope you all will do the same immediately:
A judge in Florida has put an injunction on The Dish Network. Effective Dec 1 I will loose the ability to get distant TV Networks.

I think I would have proofread my letter & used correct spelling if I was sending a letter to my elected officials. I realize that many people misuse/misspell lose/loose on internet boards, but I would think your letter would lose its effectiveness with misspellings.