Charlie/Echostar has responded to the News.
Linked here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061116/20061116006199.html?.v=1
Linked here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061116/20061116006199.html?.v=1
WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 178
- Views 27K
The House is in adjournment until Dec. 5. and the Senate is moving for an adjournment until Dec. 4th - but why should we let the facts get in the way of a good rumor
I agree. the jubilation isa bit premature. Unless the bill has already been introduced in the House it is unlikely to make it to the floor of both chambers in time. That would mean starting all over again with the new congress.
First, there may be some of you that don't really follow politics, or at least how bills are introduced and how it gets voted on. To get a bill proposed, apparently being backed by members of both parties, at this time after an election is quite a feat. Two things - we do still have a voice as citizens, and don't under estimate Charlie.
Second, while we all love to speculate, most bills when finally passed are not the same bill that was introduced. Wording and intent will be changed.
Third, of course getting it passed is another issue, but Congress doesn't mind trumping the Court when it can. If members feel it is a winning issue with little or no downside, they will be more inclined to vote on it quickly. And again, don't under estimate Charlie.
In a post above is a good overview of the very different philosophy of Direct TV and Dish concering networks/superstations/WB/UPN etc. I would add, it was Dish who took the plunge in providing locals not Direct TV. In fact, there were many posters back then that argued it was a mistake to have locals, that if you wanted locals, get an antenna or cable. Charlie knew without locals, satelllite for the masses was doomed. So while Charlie plays fast and loose with the rules, I prefer to look at it as he is standing up for us, and he is somewhat of a maverick, trying to make a point. If some people were getting it illegally - and I remind you it appears that was mostly fixed when the requalifying was done, but the lawsuit covered the period of time before that - I don't see there being enough money being made selling Distants to be the factor.
For those that are into TV, I think we have to Thank Charlie for being a maverick.
Second, while we all love to speculate, most bills when finally passed are not the same bill that was introduced. Wording and intent will be changed.
Third, of course getting it passed is another issue, but Congress doesn't mind trumping the Court when it can. If members feel it is a winning issue with little or no downside, they will be more inclined to vote on it quickly. And again, don't under estimate Charlie.
In a post above is a good overview of the very different philosophy of Direct TV and Dish concering networks/superstations/WB/UPN etc. I would add, it was Dish who took the plunge in providing locals not Direct TV. In fact, there were many posters back then that argued it was a mistake to have locals, that if you wanted locals, get an antenna or cable. Charlie knew without locals, satelllite for the masses was doomed. So while Charlie plays fast and loose with the rules, I prefer to look at it as he is standing up for us, and he is somewhat of a maverick, trying to make a point. If some people were getting it illegally - and I remind you it appears that was mostly fixed when the requalifying was done, but the lawsuit covered the period of time before that - I don't see there being enough money being made selling Distants to be the factor.
For those that are into TV, I think we have to Thank Charlie for being a maverick.
Last edited:
If anyone wants to see the text of the bill as it becomes available or activity on the proposed bill, check out the following link from Thomas:
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Last edited:
I think with a Democratic controlled congress , you will see a more consumer friendly actions taking place. Rather than with the Big Business/corporate Republicans who back their rich business constituents. The Nab may have money and influence but the Democrats traditionaly are there to even things out for the comman man or consumers. Once congress reconvenes with the Dems in control you will see this bill pass and a new start for Dish and their customers. I never knew there were so many dmas that had one or two networks and no others. This bill will address this situation and allow significantly viewed channels to be added or distants if no other are available to complete the missing networks. This is a good thing. Dish should still finish the rest of the locals in the country and if they had already done so, the loss of the temporary distants would have been less severe. I hope they do so and this new bill will be the foundation for distant hd networks too.
Go ahead and oppose it... its your constitutional right to do so... but dont come back here and complain when some liberal/conservitive court takes something away from you. This is the right way to handle this, and should have been in SHERVA to begin with. by losing the dns, the only people that would have been hurt was the consumers. They are protecting the consumers and putting the punishment back on E*, where it belongs. They should pay the price for breaking the law, both in the past, and in the future.
Say, Exxon broke the law... should you never be able to buy gasoline again??? I think not... hold the people responsible, and protect consumers
Also with the democrats gaining the upperhand, dont be surprised if you see the broadcast flag added to this before it gets passed
Dish Network has not been trying to settle anything for years.BrianMis said:
In case it has slipped anyone's recent memory, Dish Network went to the appeals court in 2003 so they didn't have to requalify everyone. The district court ruled that everyone must be requalified, and Dish Network felt that was too extreme.
The network affiliate boards (but not FOX Network) cross-appealed and asked for a permanent injunction.
Fast forward to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in May of this year. The court decided that a permanent injunction must be issued, which was done once the case was remanded to the District Court.
However, the "settle this for years" Dish Network turned around and:
1) asked for the entire bench of the Circuit Court to review the permanent injunction decision, which was denied;
2) asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay in the injunction, which was Denied
3) THEN TRIED TO SETTLE WHEN NO OTHER OPTION WAS LEFT.
So don't paint Dish Network as trying to "settle this for years".
And let's not forget that the same people that would have settled for $100 million have also filed with the judge the injunction should commence on 1 Decmeber. They are fully against extending the start of the injunction.
This would qualify for today's chuckle if it weren't for the fact that you appear to be serious. At least of the following must be true:
1. You have been living on a deserted island for the last eight years.
2. Your command of English is not what it should be. Phrases such as "shall issue a permanent injunction" and "engaged in a pattern and practice of violations" seem to be beyond your ken.
3. You think the law is only for those you don't like.
4. You are Charlie Ergen.
If you can provide some other reason for such an uninformed and tendentious comment please provide.
At least your local stations have built HD facilites. E* could do HD LiL in Lubbock, but haven't. That makes your local stations better than E*.
I feels good being from Maine that the Senator I "harassed" is part of the group proposing the bill.
The Denver Business Journal - November 17, 2006
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/11/13/daily56.html
EchoStar lauds legislation
The Denver Business Journal - 9:36 AM MST Friday
by Bob Mook
Denver Business Journal
Some prominent U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would allow Dish Network subscribers to continue to receive distant network channels.
But many customers still will lose their signals temporarily, because the bill won't be enacted before the adjournment of Congress.
Called the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, the legislation would restore out-of-market network affiliate service for subscribers of EchoStar Communications Corp.
In late October, a U.S. District Court judge in Fort Lauderdale issued an injunction that barred Englewood-based EchoStar (NASDAQ: DISH) from selling satellite feeds outside of markets where subscribers live.
At issue is EchoStar carrying ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX channels that originate outside communities where subscribers live. The litigation doesn't involve subscribers receiving channels in their own towns via satellite.
The lawsuit was filed in Miami in 1998, and EchoStar argued carrying distant network programming didn't violate the networks' copyrights.
An estimated 800,000 subscribers of EchoStar's Dish Network are affected by the ruling -- costing EchoStar as much as $50 million in revenue a year.
If approved by Congress, the act would reverse the injunction, but not soon enough because the court ruling requires EchoStar to stop transmitting out-of-market signals by Dec. 1.
Colorado Senators Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, co-sponsored the act, along with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., and Robert Byrd, D-W. Va.
Regardless of the timing, EchoStar lauded the legislation in a released statement:
"EchoStar commends this tremendous bipartisan effort to enable innocent customers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster."
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2006/11/13/daily56.html
EchoStar lauds legislation
The Denver Business Journal - 9:36 AM MST Friday
by Bob Mook
Denver Business Journal
Some prominent U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would allow Dish Network subscribers to continue to receive distant network channels.
But many customers still will lose their signals temporarily, because the bill won't be enacted before the adjournment of Congress.
Called the Satellite Consumer Protection Act of 2006, the legislation would restore out-of-market network affiliate service for subscribers of EchoStar Communications Corp.
In late October, a U.S. District Court judge in Fort Lauderdale issued an injunction that barred Englewood-based EchoStar (NASDAQ: DISH) from selling satellite feeds outside of markets where subscribers live.
At issue is EchoStar carrying ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX channels that originate outside communities where subscribers live. The litigation doesn't involve subscribers receiving channels in their own towns via satellite.
The lawsuit was filed in Miami in 1998, and EchoStar argued carrying distant network programming didn't violate the networks' copyrights.
An estimated 800,000 subscribers of EchoStar's Dish Network are affected by the ruling -- costing EchoStar as much as $50 million in revenue a year.
If approved by Congress, the act would reverse the injunction, but not soon enough because the court ruling requires EchoStar to stop transmitting out-of-market signals by Dec. 1.
Colorado Senators Wayne Allard, a Republican, and Ken Salazar, a Democrat, co-sponsored the act, along with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., and Robert Byrd, D-W. Va.
Regardless of the timing, EchoStar lauded the legislation in a released statement:
"EchoStar commends this tremendous bipartisan effort to enable innocent customers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster."
Obviously You must be a retailer for Directv. They are the only one who stand to win if this legislation fails
While I've been criticizing Charlie for getting himself, and his subs, into this pickle, I've also been saying that he is a very wiley guy. His work to get 900,000 DNS subs, plus their sympathizers, to call their Senator was brilliant. Even if only 100,000 people called, some senators may have gotten 3000+ calls. That's a huge deluge.
And since all they were asking for was for E* to be allowed to continue to provide TV channels, of course a number of Senators will be receptive to this. There are no hands out for money, no sticky political situation to place yourself into. No crowds of opponents. So with an eye toward your next election, why not let them have their channels?
I've always said that I would never want to play Charlie in a high-stakes poker game. The guy just doesn't blink.
And since all they were asking for was for E* to be allowed to continue to provide TV channels, of course a number of Senators will be receptive to this. There are no hands out for money, no sticky political situation to place yourself into. No crowds of opponents. So with an eye toward your next election, why not let them have their channels?
I've always said that I would never want to play Charlie in a high-stakes poker game. The guy just doesn't blink.
I for one have already contacted my members of congress asking for support of this bill. Everyone wanting their DNS should do so.
I called the Junior Senator from Maine (Collins) and told her you are either for us or against us!
