WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!

[NOHDjunkie]

I'm glad this happened. Dish deserves it, but the unserved that really need DNS don't.

I was grandfathered DNS. It was one of the reasons I was tied to Dish. If I quit dish I would lose them forever. Now that's not an issue. With lil and OTA I can record network content no problem. I just can't timeshift with the west coast feeds if I miss something. I lost a convienence.

Now next year if D* really does go balls out with HD, if their HD DVR works for me and they fix their HD lite issues, With loss of DNS I will have one less reason not to drop dish

I also hope that E* is allowed to requalify and the people that really need DNS can get it. Although if they would have done it from the get go this would not be an issue.

 

[Tower Guy]

....We should be able to choose what we want to watch not have the goverment make that choice for us..

The irony is that the grumblers are actually asking the government to step and allow, not choose, their programming wishes. The proposed law would void a private contract in order to obtain programming that which would not normally be available.

 

[topcats69]

To each his own.

SO would this person like to raise it so all our bills go up to pay the fines??

20 mill is small but I'll bet it was set that way so that it would not hurt the consumer.

 

[dfergie]

Very Good news! been camping last 2 days, no net...

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Hey everybody knows that Rupert/Merck and NAB/NAPM is behind this and is controlling Congress/Congress to interfere with my freedom of choice. And Charlie/drug dealer was just providing me with what I wanted for a fair price.

Convenient scapegoat that everyone loves to use (everyone wants to be able to point at a villian), but truth be told, the networks only provide real time access to their network and license that programming in individual DMAs.

A station in Chicago cannot license D* or E* to (through a retransmission agreement) to distribute that programming to someone in San Jose for example - AS THE CHICAGO STATIONS DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE IT IN SAN JOSE.

If you want a villian, its the USA Copyright laws - which, like it or not, are a good thing, otherwise most of this stuff wouldn't be created.

If I buy a Starbucks franchise in Butte Montana for literally nothing, should I be able to move that store to Times Square in NYC?

Of course not. It's the same thing.

 

[vidmanjohn]

Freedom of choice

I hate to flog a nearly dead horse, but it is a personal choice whether I read a newspaper from Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, or from my local newspaper. The same should be available from channels that I choose to receive.
If I want an education from a school across the country or across town, then that is my choice.
If I want to buy a vehicle from my local car dealer or from a dealer that is hundreds of miles away, then that is my choice.
Why has a private organization (NAB) been allowed to determine where I am able to get my programming. Part of the county in which I live here in Western Montana is nearly 100 miles away and is physically within the Missoula sphere of influence, but they cannot receive the Missoula channels which are on satellite, because the NAB decided that Powell County is in the Butte-Bozeman DMA. So even when Butte-Bozeman is put up on satellite before the end of the year, those in the northern part of the county MUST take the distants rather than the locals that are close. DMAs were set up when television was in its infancy. It's time for the NAB to join the new century.
AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

 

[dfergie]

AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

Amen...

 

[ThomasRz]

I don't mean to pick on a 3-post junior but the newspaper analogy has been raised multiple times and debunked/proved faulty each time. Sometimes it is useful to search old posts to see if the (obvious) issue has been discussed. I never do so but I don't mind suggesting it to others. I am not going to rehash why the newspaper model doesn't migrate very well to DBS. Perhaps somebody else will.

I hate to flog a nearly dead horse, but it is a personal choice whether I read a newspaper from Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, or from my local newspaper. The same should be available from channels that I choose to receive.
If I want an education from a school across the country or across town, then that is my choice.
If I want to buy a vehicle from my local car dealer or from a dealer that is hundreds of miles away, then that is my choice.
Why has a private organization (NAB) been allowed to determine where I am able to get my programming. Part of the county in which I live here in Western Montana is nearly 100 miles away and is physically within the Missoula sphere of influence, but they cannot receive the Missoula channels which are on satellite, because the NAB decided that Powell County is in the Butte-Bozeman DMA. So even when Butte-Bozeman is put up on satellite before the end of the year, those in the northern part of the county MUST take the distants rather than the locals that are close. DMAs were set up when television was in its infancy. It's time for the NAB to join the new century.
AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

 

[ThomasRz]

... AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

Oh, and some advice - when you make uninformed statements like this -- you look silly and will be immediately discounted by the veterans (Bimson, Long, Walker, Tower Guy, etc.) although they (unlike me) are very polite and might not say anything.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

I hate to flog a nearly dead horse, but it is a personal choice whether I read a newspaper from Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, or from my local newspaper. The same should be available from channels that I choose to receive.
If I want an education from a school across the country or across town, then that is my choice.
If I want to buy a vehicle from my local car dealer or from a dealer that is hundreds of miles away, then that is my choice.
Why has a private organization (NAB) been allowed to determine where I am able to get my programming. Part of the county in which I live here in Western Montana is nearly 100 miles away and is physically within the Missoula sphere of influence, but they cannot receive the Missoula channels which are on satellite, because the NAB decided that Powell County is in the Butte-Bozeman DMA. So even when Butte-Bozeman is put up on satellite before the end of the year, those in the northern part of the county MUST take the distants rather than the locals that are close. DMAs were set up when television was in its infancy. It's time for the NAB to join the new century.
AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

As has been stated, this has been debunked many times.

The newspapers own their content or use wire content which was never sold on a market exclusive basis.

The stations do not - they receive programming from a network and are licensed to sell them in certain areas.

Your argument is just as weak as my example of buying a Starbucks Franchise in Butte and moving it to New York City.

You NAB argument is blatantly false and has no facts behind it.

As a matter of fact, you can look in the #12 Television market in America and ABC has 2 affiliates - yes 2 in the same DMA. ABC made the decision to not give market exclusivity to one station in that market - something they could do all over if they so desired.

If the networks wanted to license their content country wide, they could. However, they know that the affiliates will bail - but then again - they can still do it if they so desire.

In fact using your other example, car dealerships will loose incentives and Inventory Allocation from the factory if they sale to an owner outside of their area - so while they can do it, they won't make as much money or get the hot models they were allocated - and thus seldom do it - or you can have a deal under less favorable terms.

And by the way, they are called Federal Judges for a reason - try reading the constitution and understand the way the founders set up the Republic about 230 years ago.

Finally, DMA were set up and DO change - as they are dependent on a number of factors as to which area has the influence on that particular County. It was simply not a "land grab". If indeed a County belongs in another DMA, there are procedures that the stations that believe it should be in their DMA can go through, Nielsen checks information, and if the new DMA has more relevance, it will be changed.

The fact that you have not been changed means either 1) The other DMA doesn't want you or 2) it was set up properly in the first place.

So please, come up with something new that has some type of relevancy to it and as you say, please quit flogging an old dead INCORRECT horse.

At least get the facts correct.

 

[jself1982]

AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
HALLALEUJAH!
AND AMEN AGAIN!

 

[Greg Bimson]

... AND maybe it's time that this country reduced the power of a single federal judge to impact millions of people.

ThomasRz was right. I have to say something...

It wasn't that a single federal judge had to impace millions of people. As a matter of fact, this single judge issued an injunction in 2003 which was stayed. The injunction would have forced Dish Network to requalify their entire customer base.

The problem at that point was Dish Network felt the injunction went too far, so they appealed. Then in May, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel, told the district court judge to issue a permanent injunction.

Dish Network appealed to the entire sitting bench of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The entire bench denied to hear the case. So that is about eleven or so judges that didn't want to hear it.

Then Dish Network appealed to have the injunction stayed by the Supreme Court. None of the judges wanted to pick up on it, so there are another nine judges that didn't want anything to do with the case.

So don't think for a second that a single judge impacted everyone.

 

[ti_yn]

Yeah, my thoughts are disorganized. I just get worked up...

Local broadcast stations are trying to survive. If everyone got distants, the locals would die off. The few remaining "super duper" stations in the country might not be enough to sustain the networks and programming.

While survival of the networks and affiliates needs to be provided for, the above point in itself goes to show the public demand and need for distants. Though I would like to ultimately see limitless station access for all, E*'s current qualification methods have obviously not brought the affiliates to their demise, and in turn, do not warrant being infringed upon. Never have I heard of broadcasters citing distants as a cause of their financial problems. What I have heard affiliates compain of is networks using airtime, which has tradtionally been reserved for promoting the network's programs, to instead push stuff like MSNBC, which of course amounts to a competitor of the affiliate.

There's a certain network affiliate in Florida, which, any time a hurricane warning is in effect, will, in primetime, entirely replace all of the network's paid commercials with weather updates, while still airing the network's shows, and not touching their own station breaks. Would someone care to assure me that this station is sufficiently compensating the network's advertisers for not only failing to show their commercials but also denying the majority of their DMA's occupants the option of viewing them elsewhere?

Another affiliate comes to mind which had a policy of only clearing certain network programs at their normal times when executives of their network's parent company happened to be in town.

As far as I'm concerned, the moment a station overruns their station break to rejoin network programming already in progress (and demonstrates a pattern of practice of doing so), they've lost any right they had to exclusivity. I realize they may be merely doing what they must to survive, but it stinks.

Just last night, I happened to be viewing a rerun of Seinfeld in syndication on a network affiliate. Several times during the program, the syndicator ran advertisements announcing the series' availability on DVD. If I were the owner of that station, having invested big bucks in the rights to air the series, I would be far more outraged by such promotion than I would be by someone who watches the station's newscast most every night, while also enjoying the ability to do so on a variety of stations around the country. Not to mention that such a DVD release may not have even been in occurance at the time the station purchased the program.

While I realize that this particular series is now in it's third or fourth syndication contract, at the time the show first entered syndication, video releases of television series were far from common. This should demonstrate how copyright restrictions should provide little of the revenue for television programming, which, at least until recently, was typically supported primarily by it's intitial broadcast presentation. Though I'm no big fan of copyright law, I can appreciate that, for instance, if someone writes a book with the intention of making a living selling copies of it, their work deserves protection from me going out and buying a copy, printing up duplicates, and selling them myself. However, that which is distributed for free, only ad-supported, over the public airwaves, should be considered nothing other than public domain.

Broadcasters are required to serve the public interest. You are the public. Many of you are interested in having the privilege to choose what stations you watch. Probably the majority of citizens would not oppose having this choice. The affiliates work to deprive you of such a choice. The networks and affiliates are clearly serving little interest besides their own. EchoStar fights to offer you the choice, while, I believe, making the effort to obey current law the majority of the time. Otherwise, probably the majority of subcribers would have distants. Now, who is serving the public?

How about if we (well, the FCC) took away the licenses of all the FOX-owned stations, and ruled that those markets must instead be served by replicas of affiliates from other markets. Maybe some LPTV ones, or digital-only, or ones that have notoriously poor audio/video quality, or like to pre-empt a lot of programming? Any viewer with a desire to reliably view the networks' programs requires a wide array of affiliates to choose from. I know of few, if any, that get the job done acceptably 100% of the time. This includes the network-operated stations, and those available as distants. I'd choose the local almost anywhere over KABC's washed out, blurred picture. If locals run unopposed, what incentive will they ever have to operate reputably?

If E* were to implement the technology I previously proposed for delivering the local's commercials to the distant's viewers, the same technology could likely be used to generate a weath of revenue for E* by selling local advertising on all of the cable networks, where, last I checked, they run nothing but DiSH promos. Although, it's been years since I spent any amount of time watching cable networks, and I likely watch the locals, if available wherever I happen to be, far more than most people without distants. It doesn't prove anything, but it happens to be the case.

What hypocrites the networks are for backing down on the settement they'd already agreed to.

 

[lou_do]

I hate to flog a nearly dead horse, but it is a personal choice whether I read a newspaper from Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or Chicago, or from my local newspaper. The same should be available from channels that I choose to receive.

Two different issues. When someone buys a say ABC Network franchise, it entitles the franchise owner to sole coverage, of ABC Network coverage for that specific area, and no one else can purchase another one for that area. Newspapers are not franchised in that way. Many cities have several newspapers that compete against each other.

 

[Voyager6]

ThomasRz was right. I have to say something...

It wasn't that a single federal judge had to impace millions of people. As a matter of fact, this single judge issued an injunction in 2003 which was stayed. The injunction would have forced Dish Network to requalify their entire customer base.

The problem at that point was Dish Network felt the injunction went too far, so they appealed. Then in May, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel, told the district court judge to issue a permanent injunction.

Dish Network appealed to the entire sitting bench of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The entire bench denied to hear the case. So that is about eleven or so judges that didn't want to hear it.

Then Dish Network appealed to have the injunction stayed by the Supreme Court. None of the judges wanted to pick up on it, so there are another nine judges that didn't want anything to do with the case.

So don't think for a second that a single judge impacted everyone.

While I don't think that a single federal Judge impacted everyone, I do believe that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the penalty that would be imposed on consumers when they denied the full review. One of two nationwide satellite TV providers will be permanently barred from providing DNS to "qualified" viewers. This is a national issue with widespread implications. It should have been given a full review by the Court. I also believe that the Supreme Court should have ordered a review by the full Eleventh Circuit Court. Neither Court decided to act, so now we need a political solution to repair the law that got us in this mess in the first place.

 

[ThomasRz]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm waiting for the coffee to finish, otherwise I wouldn't waste the time.

While I don't think that a single federal Judge impacted everyone,

That's good because the statement is false

I do believe that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the penalty that would be imposed on consumers when they denied the full review.

Yep, a full panel of federal appellate judges with a boatload of clerks (i.e. lawyers from top law schools) can't figure out what is obvious to you. Perhaps there is another answer?

One of two nationwide satellite TV providers will be permanently barred from providing DNS to "qualified" viewers.

As the law provides.

This is a national issue with widespread implications.

Like the kids say, "Well duh!"

It should have been given a full review by the Court.

They thought otherwise.

I also believe that the Supreme Court should have ordered a review by the full Eleventh Circuit Court. Neither Court decided to act,...

I don't think that power exists, at least until they themselves have decided to take a swipe at it.

...so now we need a political solution to repair the law that got us in this mess in the first place.

Well, now you're getting somewhere. Please note that the same process that produced the law will produce any changes.

 

[Dune]

Does anyone out there have an idea how many subscribers would actually be effected if this legislation were to be enacted?

Based on my reading of the proposal, it will actually be very few people. I will end up losing all my distants even though I get no OTA reception, just because Dish has my locals available.

So if I want network TV, I have to buy either cable, Dish or Direct.

Dune

 

[TNGTony]

It would allow for SV.

See ya
Tony

 

[webbydude]

Does anyone out there have an idea how many subscribers would actually be effected if this legislation were to be enacted?

Based on my reading of the proposal, it will actually be very few people. I will end up losing all my distants even though I get no OTA reception, just because Dish has my locals available.

So if I want network TV, I have to buy either cable, Dish or Direct.

Dune

I can't remember the exact source, but I *believe* it's approximately 18,000 people who, for whatever reason, will not be able to receive ANY network programming. What I'm running into in SE Ohio is that a lot of people were subscribed to distant locals and (a)didn't even know that Columbus, Ohio was an option or (b) didn't want to pay the Dish'N'It Up fee to receive said locals.

 

[navychop]

The Constitution established the Supreme Court. Federal judgeships are a creation of Congress