DNS Cutoff Fees and Contratual Obligations

[Weezknight]

I must admit that I've been following this very casually as well. It sounds like this was a decision that came down from the courts, so I'm puzzled as to why E* is taking some of the blame for this. Can someone help me out?

 

[waltinvt]

Sorry, as others have pointed this was a civil suit brought by a number of local stations and networks- if they settle THEY can request dismissal of the suit as the wronged party. All must settle but all did not.

You keep stating Dish violated the law as if they murdered somebody. Communication law is complex. I guess you are aware Dish felt they had not violated the law. There position was not uphelp but these things must be litigated to clarify what is at best confusing legislation.

That said, I do hold Dish at least partly at fault for the mess. My position is the court, to punish Dish has screwed the ONLY INOCENT PARTIES- the subscribers. There had to be another way

Rick

You make good points Rick and so do Greg & Thomas.

The way I see it, this is a very complex situation (at least to me) that is the result of greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for the law by Dish, further compounded by greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for the consumer by NAB lobbyists & Congress, shamelessly exploited by the greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for ethics of DirectTV.

Because of this I'm guessing at least 100,000 innocent satellite customers will end up with no network options at all and maybe a few hundred thousand more will be forced to endure satellite locals that in many cases are worse PQ than the Grade "B" requirement that entitled them to DNS in the first place; or like in my case, have affiliates that trickle out a signals that, in most cases don't travel as far as I can spit.

There is no doubt that Dish deserves to be punished but in this case the baby is getting thrown out with the bathwater by virtue of this mandatory injunction and besides, should the only other satellite provider get to profit from this?

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this issue pending in the courts when the FCC approved the News Corp takeover of DirectTV? If so, then why wasn't it addressed by the FCC as a potential conflict down the road? What's happening today may actually have been foreseen and influential in the NewsCorp (Fox) - DirectTV deal. It may be a stretch (and you all know I do that from time to time ) but I wonder if there's enough here to warrant a congressional peek?

 

[Greg Bimson]

The way I see it, this is a very complex situation (at least to me) that is the result of greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for the law by Dish, further compounded by greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for the consumer by NAB lobbyists & Congress, shamelessly exploited by the greedy business practices and flagrant disregard for ethics of DirectTV.

And hence the issue.

Dish Network wanted to fight so hard to gain distant network channels for everyone that they disregarded the law and fought in the system until they were slapped silly. Dish Network was slapped so silly that they could not recover from it.

Think about it. If you were caught violating a law and found guilty, and as one of the conditions forced to requalify all of your subscribers, you could either:

a) try to negotiate a settlement; or;
b) appeal and only hope everything works out in the end.

With possibility b, there is a chance you lose so badly that everyone gets cut-off. After all, if you present to the courts a list of people you only qualified as should be receiving distant networks, and you have at least one out of every five as invalid, that is one problem. However, if you do not submit a list of subscribers with waivers or with grandfather status to the court and expect mercy, it is like going into court unprepared while the officer that arrests you for going 120 in a 45 MPH zone has the proof.

Dish Network's proof to the court was horrible. It was their fault they put themselves in this predicament. And the Appeals Court mandating that the District Court issue a permanent injunction had nothing to do with FOX or DirecTV. It was all the "pattern or practice of willful infringement" and violating the law in "every way imaginable" that did them in.

 

[ThomasRz]

Your last statement is correct but for the wrong reasons. Superstations DO use the 17 USC 119 license. However, the provisions for the mandatory injunction only cover "network" stations. Perhaps that's what you meant but your first sentence threw me off.

The injunction covers the use of the license granted in 17 USC 119. The injunction is only used for ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.

Therefore, the superstations are still alive and kicking.

 

[waltinvt]

And hence the issue.

Dish Network wanted to fight so hard to gain distant network channels for everyone that they disregarded the law and fought in the system until they were slapped silly. Dish Network was slapped so silly that they could not recover from it.

Think about it. If you were caught violating a law and found guilty, and as one of the conditions forced to requalify all of your subscribers, you could either:

a) try to negotiate a settlement; or;
b) appeal and only hope everything works out in the end.

With possibility b, there is a chance you lose so badly that everyone gets cut-off. After all, if you present to the courts a list of people you only qualified as should be receiving distant networks, and you have at least one out of every five as invalid, that is one problem. However, if you do not submit a list of subscribers with waivers or with grandfather status to the court and expect mercy, it is like going into court unprepared while the officer that arrests you for going 120 in a 45 MPH zone has the proof.

Dish Network's proof to the court was horrible. It was their fault they put themselves in this predicament. And the Appeals Court mandating that the District Court issue a permanent injunction had nothing to do with FOX or DirecTV. It was all the "pattern or practice of willful infringement" and violating the law in "every way imaginable" that did them in.

I still have trouble believing Dish's legal team is as derelict as the evidence seems to suggest. They had to know this was the probable outcome and it almost looks like Charlie didn't really mind.

Maybe he saw it as a way to get the bigger issue of digital DNS (and whatever he wasn't happy about in the '04 legislation) revisited by congress. He was hell-bent for that bill all summer & fall and then when it passed he did an about-face on HD DNS.

Anyway, I still stand on my thoughts that although Dish is the "bad guy" here, those responsible for how the law and penalties are written are also culpable for contributing to a situation where hundreds of thousands of innocent consumers are ultimately the victim.

If the prevailing position is going to be that all people in this country are entitled to a reasonably good signal for each of the major tv networks, then that's what should be insured by any legislation.

If they want to tie some protection for "localism" into that, fine but put the burden on the local stations and the benefit of doubt with the consumer.

 

[ThomasRz]

I hope you're doing ok.

Interesting attitude here.

If you were in a white area you wouldn't have needed a waiver. So you don't really care about network programming? Exactly what did you watch?

I'm just the caring sort.

I live in the mountains. I GET NOTHING over-the-air. As far as I am concerned its a white area. There is no cable either. I am limited to sat. providers. My "local" stations are over 150 miles away. There are repeaters in an adjacent valley that put out OTA signals 20 to 50 miles away but these signals are blocked by mountains. I seem to remember I only one waiver was required at sign-up. That was granted.

I do care about some network programming. "Local" stations have poorer quality signals and do not carry eastern college sport teams that I follow.

Well you shouldn't have needed a waiver but I suppose there is no harm in getting one (except to E*'s pocket).

Well if a service isn't provided why should anyone pay for it?

Dish, if you cared to find out, has provided others without "local" stations- these stations at no charge until January 1st. I already pay for them- what will they do for me? Will I have to pay for them during same time period? Is that fair?

Matt 20:1-16 NIV: The parable of the vineyard workers

1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard.

2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.

4 He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.'

5 So they went.

6 "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

7 " 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

8 "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

9 "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius.

10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.

11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.

12 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

13 "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?

14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you.

15 Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

16 "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Didn't you agree to pay for locals?

Depends on the contract. I am fairly confident that any E* contract does not include a provision that make it conditional upon receiving DNS. If DNS was that important to a subscriber, he should have negotiated it in.

Your are probably right but it WAS an option that I have paid for for 7 years. I like having that option.

You got what you paid for.

Why? Do you want DNS or not? Rupert Murdoch didn't do anything to you. Charlie Ergen did. It would be like refusing to call the fire department because you don't like the mayor. I don't understand why you are paying E* for this "sucky" locals. You apparently fall into that rarified group that can have DNS and LIL. You didn't have to sign up for LIL.

So you think Murdoch did nothing. Why do you think Dish was unable to settle with those 20 or so FOX owned stations? You think it had something to do with his ownership of Direct---?

The settlement or lack thereof had NO, repeat NO impact on the injunction.

No I didn't have to sign up for LILs I did so for the really poor local news. But that is my decision. I would rather watch other events on stations with better quality service. Why should you or anyone else limit my access to service by geography.

It's the law.

What do you want them to do?

I don't know. My point was there was nothing in any communication to me that indicated they would credit my account for the loss of service. I have already paid for most of November. Dish knew this was going to happen and chose do to let anyone know a time frame etc. My opinion is they wanted to cause maximum about of confusion to get maximum amount of flack to the politicians.

IMHO, I think we subscribers are caught in the middle of a fight between the big boys and we will be the losers.

Rick

Well, if you don't get credit you certainly have something to complain about. Why not call and find out how much you're owed and deduct it from you next payment?

 

[walworth69]

This is what my senator sent me.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the availability of Dish
Network television channels. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, on Friday, October 20, 2006, a U.S. District
Court ruled that EchoStar Communications Corporation could no
longer transmit the broadcasting signals of NBC, CBS, ABC and
FOX channels that originate outside the community that receives
the signal. EchoStar has filed an appeal of this ruling with the 11th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Senate rules prevent me from
taking a position on pending litigation, but I will keep your
thoughts in mind should legislation addressing the provision of
distant signals come before the Senate.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please feel free to do so in the
future on this or any other issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

If you wish to contact me again, please visit
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html.

 

[ArtWIS]

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. Charlie had the settlement for DNS worked out with all the other networks, but Fox refused to go along with it. Being that Rupert Murdoch owns both Fox and D*, I think there is reason to be angry with him.

First while Rupert heads D* he doesn't own even a single share of D* stock and second Chuckie didn't settle with anyone till after the appeals court made their injunction ruling and that was TOO LATE. If your truley in a white area just go get D* and you'll have your distants.