Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!

The key here isn't necessarily the underlying facts but rather the interpretation of those facts. Just as the 11th Circuit saw the case differently than did Judge D., Judge D. could likewise look at a "thoroughly researched" issue and come to a different conclusion. "New evidence" is not required. I rather suspect that this was fobbed off onto the magistrate because Judge D. thought (correctly so) that his time was too valuable to spend on a relatively straightforward effort, especially after the amount of time he consumed preparing the injunction pursuant to the 11th Circuit's mandate. Very few dentists clean teeth anymore. The hygienist does the grunt work and then the DDS/DMD comes in and pokes around for a few minutes before giving a thumbs up/down. That will be $95, please.;)


I am sure that based your frequent comments on this subject that you hold out hope for just such an reconsideration. My feeling is that you will be disappointed.
 
does anyone know how NPS is doing nowadays with the qualification of e* customers that are not in their database? can they instantly check their dns eligibility? can they setup NPS dns account and get the customers channels right away yet? a friend called them who gets all eligible in the direct dns page, also has no locals offered by e*, also just started account with e* in late october, and they said to call back in a month (this was a week ago). i am exactly the same except i started with e* a long time ago and was turned on by NPS right away. anyone know the deal now? thanks.
 
The problem was that DecisionMark refused to qualify NPS customers. Judge ordered them to do so. And I hear quality is beginning to improve. Call now.
 
It's rather too bad, because the Magistrate actually based his decision on the overall situation, rather than some legal technicality. For example, he stated that the intent of the Injunction was not to cause E* to lose customers, otherwise the Injunction would have closed E* altogether. Thus, the point of the Injunction was simply to prevent E* from having a Distant Network Business - which, btw, provided far more revenue than the Transponder 15 income.

This reading of the actual situation is in direct contrast to the "in concert with" technical legalities, which NPS and E* may have been in technical violation of - despite the fact that nothing they are doing violates the actual intent of the injunction - as the Magistrate stated.

I do think that had this Magistrate made the ruling on the injunction, he would have applied the same logic and would have approved the Settlement.

As a result of the Injunction, everyone is worth off - other than lawyers - which is the usual point of law...
 
No, I just wanted to emphasize that all of the celebration was a tad premature. And silly when you think about it. I guess it is now considered a victory every time Charlie doesn't lose. I have no dog in this fight. If the judge feels that there was no contempt, who am I to tell him otherwise? I would like to see every DMA serviced by E* and D* (and any other legitimate DBS) in digital (what some people call "HD") including LIL tomorrow with SV DNS (first choice) or non-SV DNS filling in any gaps. I also do not want bad behavior rewarded. It is somewhat difficult to fashion a remedy to meet these objectives but it can be done.

I am sure that based your frequent comments on this subject that you hold out hope for just such an reconsideration. My feeling is that you will be disappointed.
 
It's rather too bad, because the Magistrate actually based his decision on the overall situation, rather than some legal technicality. For example, he stated that the intent of the Injunction was not to cause E* to lose customers, otherwise the Injunction would have closed E* altogether. Thus, the point of the Injunction was simply to prevent E* from having a Distant Network Business - which, btw, provided far more revenue than the Transponder 15 income.

There are the facts and there is the law. A judge (or magistrate) applies the law to the facts. Judge D. did this but was told by the CoA that his interpretation of the law was incorrect. There isn't much factual dispute. In the injunction phase, he did the same thing but had little room to maneuver because of the clear and precise mandate of the superior court. I see no inconsistency here.

This reading of the actual situation is in direct contrast to the "in concert with" technical legalities, which NPS and E* may have been in technical violation of - despite the fact that nothing they are doing violates the actual intent of the injunction - as the Magistrate stated.

I do think that had this Magistrate made the ruling on the injunction, he would have applied the same logic and would have approved the Settlement.

Great idea. Defy the Court of Appeals in your circuit! What a way to advance your career. Leaving aside the fact that a magistrate could not have been involved, he has substantially less authority than a district judge and does not have the protection of Article III. In other words, he would have been history. It would have been like Private Snuffy Smith telling the JCS to *&^%$ off.

As a result of the Injunction, everyone is worth off - other than lawyers - which is the usual point of law...

If you mean worse off, I would say that the rule of law, at least, is better off. That is much more important that DNS.
 
No, I just wanted to emphasize that all of the celebration was a tad premature. And silly when you think about it. I guess it is now considered a victory every time Charlie doesn't lose. I have no dog in this fight.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is exactly why some of us wonder motives sometimes. The "Celebration" is not "Silly" to those who have no alternative - or expensive alternatives - or who should be able to get distants if the networks will not provide a signal to them free. Maybe it is because you say you have no dog in this fight that you just don't understand. Charlie winning is not at all the whole story.

Charlie "winning" (prevailing to me) is however somewhat rewarding because many see Dish as the only big company fighting a stupid rule about watching TV. This whole fight could not have been about money. There is nowhere near enough subscription money for Dish in offering distants to those that should not get it. This is Charlie testing the system. In the end, he now changed the rules - they never considered an outside company providing the distants. NPS certainly has to go by the qualifying rules, but now those receiving locals from Dish may also get distants if they are in a white zone. Hoping this ruling is not overturned, and just to make some of you feel good - GO CHARLIE! :)
 
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is exactly why some of us wonder motives sometimes. The "Celebration" is not "Silly" to those who have no alternative - or expensive alternatives.

Don't look at yourself for the solution, look to Charlie. He could have finished covering the country with Local into Local. He knew back in April that he was going to be required to stop DNS, but worked hard to get around the ruling instead of solving the problem for you. I won't call him names, but you can't really defend him for his "honesty".
 
Don't look at yourself for the solution, look to Charlie. He could have finished covering the country with Local into Local.
You make it sound like negotiating carriage of digital locals is easy.... I'll bet there are daily discussions with TV stations all over the country trying to get as many as possible on-board. If Dish went into these under pressure of losing distant networks, the TV stations *would* take advantage of that and in the end, ALL of us would pay for that.
 
Don't look at yourself for the solution, look to Charlie. He could have finished covering the country with Local into Local. He knew back in April that he was going to be required to stop DNS, but worked hard to get around the ruling instead of solving the problem for you. I won't call him names, but you can't really defend him for his "honesty".

Nice to look at it from your viewpoint. From mine, living in an RV where we are never local has a whole different slant. Getting LIL doesn't solve our problem like DNS does.

Those of us on RV and Truck waivers could be just as upset about those who were getting DNS without the proper qualification, because those users also caused this issue.
 
Don't look at yourself for the solution, look to Charlie. He could have finished covering the country with Local into Local. He knew back in April that he was going to be required to stop DNS, but worked hard to get around the ruling instead of solving the problem for you. I won't call him names, but you can't really defend him for his "honesty".

You still are not understanding. He went beyond fixing the problem - he made it so those that get Locals from Dish can now get distants also. (If in a white area) He actually made it better. Sometimes you have to take the hard way to get where you want to be.

Getting locals for all would not solve what he and many of us feel about this. If you cannot get locals OTA - if the network cannot provide you a free signal in your DMA then they should have no right to dictate how you get the signal. They should not be able to dictate you may not receive a distant signal if they do provide a free one - and then also be able to say they can tell you may not get a distant signal even though they don't provide one. Somewhere the fact that the airways are public has to come into play. Protecting the local channels is understandable - IF they are providing the free signal.
The fact that Dish may carry your locals should never have changed the availability of you getting distants. Once you have to pay for watching your locals, (Because you are in a white area) that is where the networks should have no right to make you pay for it if instead or in addition you want to pay for distant signals. Maybe Direct TV has no ***** but Charlie apparently does. Nothing is stopping Direct from doing exactly what Dish just did. Three may be nothing stopping Cable from selling space on their system to provide distant channels either.
 
Last edited:
Don't look at yourself for the solution, look to Charlie. He could have finished covering the country with Local into Local. He knew back in April that he was going to be required to stop DNS, but worked hard to get around the ruling instead of solving the problem for you.

THe only problem with adding the rest of the locals in the country is that many dmas have only one or two stations and they don't have a full set of networks. IF they allowed Dish to do significantly viewed channels from nearby dmas to add the other networks it would be work. As it stands now they did away with significantly viewed channels as well as distants so no one wins . Nps is the only solution for people that need distants to give them all the networks.
 
If you mean worse off, I would say that the rule of law, at least, is better off. That is much more important that DNS.
The rule of law is a myth. Ironically, it is a myth necessary in the plots of seemingly 60% of the programming on E* and D*. :D

And, I think that Domain Name Servers are more important than the rule of law - after all - without Domain Name Servers, it would be very hard to look up what the law was !

PS And when I was referring to the Magistrate, I obviously meant the person. Clearly the Magistrate could not have made the Judge's ruling - because he was not given that position. Obviously I meant "had that person been in the Judge's shoes"...
 
THe only problem with adding the rest of the locals in the country is that many dmas have only one or two stations and they don't have a full set of networks. IF they allowed Dish to do significantly viewed channels from nearby dmas to add the other networks it would be work.

Still, anyone subject to that is largely out of luck when it comes to syndicated programming. For that, you need all of the stations from a large market. Realisitcally, one with at least seven full-service commercial stations such as LA or SF (a lot of shows don't clear NYC). As for alternatives, are the wild feeds of syndicated shows even still readily available on C-Band?

What Charlie should have done on December 1st is cut off LIL to all subscribers in white areas where cable is unavailable. Not that the NAB has any regard for the public interest, but at least it would clearly illustrate that DBS does far more benfit than harm to local broadcasters and will do so on their (the satellite industry's) own terms.

I don't know the figures, but it's a safe assumtion that those effected would far outnumber the allegedly illegal DNS subscribers, which seem to be merely grandfathered customers on whom paperwork was not maintained. Grandfathered, might I add, from before LIL became prominent, and DNS privledges were resultingly further restricted.

Satellite has helped local broadcasters by enabling their signals to reach where they never could before. Congress responded by restricting the choices of the consumers in play.

LIL, as it stands, exists primarily as a selling point for satellite services, whose basis for operation is to offer nationally distributed channels for a fee. The existance of LIL is of little value if the same channels are available by cable or over the air for free. The only justification for the existance of LIL is for such stations to be available to viewers in other markets, without discrimination, to the extent satellite capacity will allow, as E* offered (to "eligible" customers) when they began the service. In such context, perhaps "LIL" is not a correct expression, as such service would exist more effectively as DNS.

The only circumstance in which the burden of distributing actual LIL can be justified is in cableless white areas, but in such a case, DNS, as always, will be preferable to some, and the DMA's locals likely provide little content relevant to such viewer's particular area (generalized weather reports and commercials for car dealers hundreds of miles away, presumably).

My point is, if satellite or cable are going to be used to redistribute broadcast stations, it should be to expand the consumer's choices, not diminish them. As it stands today, with legal use of LIL, any choices a consumer is offered are scarce.
 
You still are not understanding. He went beyond fixing the problem - he made it so those that get Locals from Dish can now get distants also. (If in a white area) He actually made it better. Sometimes you have to take the hard way to get where you want to be.

It is the desire to work around the law to receive DNS when LiL is available that causes you to see things backwards.
 
It is the desire to work around the law to receive DNS when LiL is available that causes you to see things backwards.

I understand that line of thought. But the original intent on being able to get distants was all based on the viewer being able to receive a FREE signal OTA. The rules changed soley to obstruct Satellite subscribers. It is a law soley for the purpose of helping the cable industry and let the networks off the hook of providing a free signal. Charlie now (It appears) has found a legal way around it. I emphasize the free part of my statements. Everything done regarding distants is to protect the local market. As I said, fair enough, but that is when they are providing a free signal, not when you have to pay for it. Once you have to pay for it (In a white area) that should be your decision as to what signal you get. And that was indeed exactly how it was untill the industry changed the rules, again soley aimed at satellite subscribers. Charlie paid for not following the rules, but in a way beat them at their own game in the end.

I won't keep the issue going, but I really do understand your take on it, (trying to circumvent the law by getting distants if locals are on the bird) but I come at it that it became that way by changing the rules soley to hurt the satellite industry, or at the least to help the cable industry and allow the networks to stop giving a free signal, the whole basis of the distant laws.
 

HD Locals launch dates?

DHPP Pricing...

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts