Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!

[mdonnelly]

I honestly don't believe it is "over", yet.

Now that a loophole has been found, someone will go marching into Congress to have the loophole closed, to an extent.
...

Unless the intent of Congress is to provide a windfall to the violator's competitor, then that's not a loophole. As I see it, the intent of the law is to get the offender out of the business of selling DNS. Dish is out of that business, and has lost the millions of dollars per month worth of revenue that DNS provided them. That's enough punishment.

As I've said, and others have said, unless there are some under the table kickbacks from NPS to Dish, then this is an arms-length transponder lease agreement, with NPS free to do whatever they want to with those transponders, is within the scope of the law, and abides by the intent of the law, as well as the judge's ruling.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Thanks for a GOOD debate, one of true SatelliteGuys caliber! No name calling just honest opinions and observations. You did good and I believe the debate was the best one in a long long time and you were the one running with the ball.

Thanks Greg!

I agree what is the point with all these silly law suits. All it did was deprive people who wanted to watch TV stations from another market the chance.

For the rest of us out in legitmate white areas we still have the TV stations that we cant get for the most part.

In short a good debate with no name callings from any side. Cant help wondering how many affilitates though are now wishing that they took the $100 million settlement.

 

[kstuart]

Otherwise D* will have to find its own "DNS only" partner to play the same game and then the purpose of this portion of the law is clearly undermined.

You are missing the point that there would be no $ profit to D* by doing this.

Before that plan - D* sells Distants for around $10 for East & West

After that plan - D* sells LILs for around $5 and some other company sells the Distants for $10 and D* gets $150,000 for a transponder that it can use to generate far more than $150,000 of revenue.

There is no overall benefit to D*.

And, the whole area of " people who now can get both LIL and Distants " is a tiny segment of the population. You have to legitimately qualify for Distants (which is a figure much less than the 900,000 who were receiving it from E* - many of those were grandfathered). More importantly, you have to WANT to pay $15 for networks.

Lastly, those who qualify for distants live in areas where the LIL channels SUCK. For example, in my area, the 4 LIL network channels are received by E* using OTA signals, and are delivered to the customer in MONO. One of the major reasons that I left my local crappy cable system 10 years ago was that most of the channels were mono...

I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit could be to paying $5 for LIL at the same time you are paying $10 for Distants, so I doubt there is any real loophole here.

PS When your post is missing something, go to it and click "EDIT" rather than continuing in a second message...

 

[Greg Bimson]

Unless the intent of Congress is to provide a windfall to the violator's competitor, then that's not a loophole.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear about which loophold I was discussing:

The loophole is that if your provider offers local channels, then you cannot receive distants. This deal with NPS circumvents that scenario. And I can bet anyone that the networks nor their affiliates are very happy about that.

Mark my words. If significantly-viewed is going to be addressed by Congress to correct the issue that Dish Network cannot offer SV anymore, this will also be addressed.

 

[johnnytuinals]

When I had my L.A. Calif Stations from the Poconos with DishTv,I gave them a address from a BestWestern in L.A..I told them that I only had a Cellular phone and NO landline phone and a PO Box in the Poconos,it was for my Vacation house...
I would never get a Bill because each month DishTv would charge my credit card...
DishTv was happy to give me the L.A. stations with only that info.....
Now I feel why we all cannot do the same thing???
Give a address somewhere 200 mile north or Reno at an off of the highway motel.Pay NPS by the year with credit card and give them a Cell Number ONLY and PO box??????
With that info will we be able to get the station from NPS???
I cannot believe NPS is going to make it that hard for us to get the programing?
They want to make money sooooo I feel we all need to do it in a round about way....JT

 

[mdonnelly]

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear about which loophold I was discussing:

The loophole is that if your provider offers local channels, then you cannot receive distants. This deal with NPS circumvents that scenario. And I can bet anyone that the networks nor their affiliates are very happy about that.

Mark my words. If significantly-viewed is going to be addressed by Congress to correct the issue that Dish Network cannot offer SV anymore, this will also be addressed.

Okay, we can agree on that.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I agree too.

Mark this date down!

 

[JohnH]

It cannot be addressed in any way which would not punish NPS(a separate provider which has not been found at fault).

 

[ThomasRz]

It cannot be addressed in any way which would not punish NPS(a separate provider which has not been found at fault).

How so? It has the gig only for two years. They would be history at that point no matter what (unless E* finds it advantageous to keep them). Ask yourself - why wasn't NPS providing this service six months ago? They were provided a business opportunity because of E*'s bad behavior not because of any inherent added value. Just think of the possibilites. Finally we can get BimsonStar, using E* facilities like NPS to provide its own set of DNS (say Chicago and Seattle), then ThomasStar which will do Las Vegas and Miami. You reprogram for CONUS and voila, finally anybody can get any distant he wants - and all legal!

 

[Peter Parker]

well waita minute. One qualifier is whether your provider carries the locals. But another is whether you are ina white area. Not everyone will be eligible because of this---but more than were before.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

How so? It has the gig only for two years. They would be history at that point no matter what (unless E* finds it advantageous to keep them).

In two years from now, why would you need to get your distants via satellite, they should be available with a broadband connection via Video over IP.

 

[Clancy]

In two years from now, why would you need to get your distants via satellite, they should be available with a broadband connection via Video over IP.

Sure hope you are right Scott.
It will be nice to be able to receive locals from across the country as the Canadians do now.
You can keep in touch with cities remote from you without all these foolish laws and protectionism afforded broadcasters.
Freedom of choice and willingness to pay for a chosen station is long overdue in America.
If present station broadcasters can't live with that, then put their license for printing money, up for sale. They will not be long waiting for a buyer.

 

[Greg Bimson]

To expand my point, look no further than the current qualification:

You can qualify for distants if you are in a white area and your satellite provider does not provide local channels to you.

Imagine changing the law so that:

You can qualify for distants if you are in a white area and any satellite provider does not provide local channels to you.

A change of one word and there is a massive elimination of eligible subscribers.

In two years from now, why would you need to get your distants via satellite, they should be available with a broadband connection via Video over IP.

They won't be available with a true BB connection over IP. That assumes that you are talking about legal feeds, however.

Local channels do not have the right to distribute contracted programming nationwide.

 

[Peter Parker]

I son't doubt that the technology might be there but the same legal and market forces that stop us from getting distant nets by sat will stop us from getting them over the net---at least if we are looking at that timeframe.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Again I say WHO CARES ABOUT THE LOCALS.

The Networks themselves are now feeding their show on the net (they are just delayed a day)

Even the networks are pushing out the local stations, in this world of 1's and 0's the local staitions are not needed except by those without broadband access.

Now we are not there yet, but it is coming faster then even I imagined.

 

[Tampa8]

To expand my point, look no further than the current qualification:

You can qualify for distants if you are in a white area and your satellite provider does not provide local channels to you.

Imagine changing the law so that:

You can qualify for distants if you are in a white area and any satellite provider does not provide local channels to you.

A change of one word and there is a massive elimination of eligible subscribers.They won't be available with a true BB connection over IP. That assumes that you are talking about legal feeds, however.

Local channels do not have the right to distribute contracted programming nationwide.

Wow, this is so off base it is hard to know where to begin. Your new wording would link the satellite companies as one. Why would it matter if Dish delivers locals if Direct is your provider and does not?? Your wording, in that case would say you must buy from Dish if you want networks. Why not go further - if any service provides your locals you may not get distants if your provider does not carry your locals? Then you would be forced to get cable if available. That wording/argument makes no sense at all and is anti competitive. (Of course assuming you are in a white area)

Further, the wording is meant the way it reads in my opinion. It is not a mistake nor a loophole. If you live in a white area you have always been able to get distants from a provider as long as the provider did not have your locals. Getting distants and locals on one receiver is the only innovation Charlie/NPS came up with. My neighbor has had Direct TV for many years. When they added our locals he got a C band dish and got his distants. Direct can do exactly what Dish is now doing if they choose for their customers if they wished to do so.

You are biased (I don't mean that in a bad way) towards no one should get distants if they can receive locals, apparently if they can receive them in any way. I am biased towards if the Network is not providing a signal (white area) then they loose the right to dictate how you get that signal. They cannot dictate that you have to buy from this or that provider because they are the only ones providing your networks. If there is a provider that will sell me distants I can under the law (as it should be) get them from any one or more provider. (Up to two distant channels per network) (And I am not even sure that the rule about two distants per network may not only apply per provider) I believe this is a big factor in Dish winning this round.

I know you feel some of us are stuck on getting around the fact we get locals and still want distants. I feel you are stuck on the fact there is a legal way for that to be done, and has been provided for in the law, not by mistake.

 

[pattib]

Now I'm confused!

O.K. The only channel not carried locally over satellite for me is CBS. I paid my $3.00 for a waiver since I should be able to get it with a OTA. Does this new ruling mean I do not need a waiver anymore? Maybe I read Greg's post wrong and it is just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[minnow]

No you still need a waiver.

 

[minnow]

I agree Scott, a few years from now and who knows what the broadcasting landscape will look like. Things are changing at a very fast pace and lawsuits and outraged lawyers with overstuffed briefcases cannot stop the winds of change. The content providers are concerned with eyeballs and ratings and my guess is whatever delivery system that provides that is A-O.K. with them. The local stations are the ones headed for the ash pile and instead of local protectionism, they should be investing in technology that delivers better content and a better picture to more homes.
With cable and satellite providers who are able to provide programming that originates from around the world, the days of needing a broadcaster in every small city to provide an OTA signal are no more. Let the marketplace rule. Get up or get out of the way. The NAB and it's minions are not so stupid as not to see too this and they are scared to death. That's why they fight these things to the death and go running to Congress to protect their financial interests. Regardless of the millions of PAC money shoved into individual congressmen's pants pockets, the current business structure is dying and technology will overcome greed and corruption.

 

[Peter Parker]

O.K. The only channel not carried locally over satellite for me is CBS. I paid my $3.00 for a waiver since I should be able to get it with a OTA. Does this new ruling mean I do not need a waiver anymore? Maybe I read Greg's post wrong and it is just wishful thinking on my part.

the only thing that is different is the fact that NPS does not have locals. But the white area part of the qualification is the same.