I have both local and distant network channels and want to keep both. By my reading of the proposed legislation, I will still lose the distance channels. It's an issue of freedom of choice. Apparently the Senators named believe that I should not be able to make that choice.
WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 178
- Views 27K
I'm free to choose lots of things, and I'd like to be able to choose distants and locals if I wanted to. But, freedom of choice isn't guaranteed anywhere in the Constitution that I know of (unless it's under "the pursuit of happiness" clause). Local stations get revenue from local advertisers, based upon local ratings.
There's a lot of history behind this business model, and upsetting the model without a great deal of due process will be very painful for local businesses that advertise on local TV and depend on that to attract customers. It will also impact local access to network broadcasts when local stations can't get enough advertising revenue to cover expenses, and will impact local exposure for political candidates via local advertising (some would say that's a good thing).
And
I am:
1. not a retailer for DirecTV
2. not a retailer of any kind
3. don't play a retailer on TV
4. don't necessarily oppose this legislation (because)
5. like everyone else in having no idea what this bill will say
6. a long term E* customer (since almost the beginning)
7. a former Charlie fan (before he showed his dishonest side)
8. a stickler for facts, which this poster was short on
9. a supporter of property rights, including intellectual property
Networks Are Not Dark...Just Yet
Here you go folks...latest EchoStar court move...Friday afternoon:
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111706newsletterupd.cfm#H1
Here you go folks...latest EchoStar court move...Friday afternoon:
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/111706newsletterupd.cfm#H1
When a person or a group buys a LOCAL network TV station, the cost is based on the LOCAL population and viewers. Their advertising is priced and sold on the number of LOCAL viewers. If the LOCAL viewers are watching say, a NYC ABC network station when they could be watching their LOCAL station, that LOCAL advertiser is not reaching LOCAL viewers. Neither are the NYC advertisers gaining anything when the LOCAL viewers see their ads.
Maybe the answer would be to get in the LOCAL stations face and let them know you are not happy with their so called "crappy" station.
This will not be an easy thing to win. You can expect major resistance from the TV Networks, advertising groups and organizations and all of the politicians that Charlie has gotten upset, by violating the laws and court rulings.
Why do you want to cause problems?? Are you a Dishnetwork customer? Where you losing channels? I have had DN for ten years and if I want to pay to receive these channels that is all that should matter. Don't we live in a free country????
I was thinking about celebrating the victory here. It strikes me that it is important NOT to become complacent. No legislation has been passed yet; all that has happened is a bill has been proposed.
Those concerned with seeing this legislation enacted should keep up the pressure, and continue to call/email/write senators and representatives. Now that a bill has been proposed, it is even more important to let your senators/representatives know that you want them to pass this legislation.
Keep the pressure on them. And on December 1, when the DNS actually goes dark for everyone, contact them again. And then at the beginning of the new Congress, contact them again.
This is the only way to fight the power of the money of the NAB and the industry.
Those concerned with seeing this legislation enacted should keep up the pressure, and continue to call/email/write senators and representatives. Now that a bill has been proposed, it is even more important to let your senators/representatives know that you want them to pass this legislation.
Keep the pressure on them. And on December 1, when the DNS actually goes dark for everyone, contact them again. And then at the beginning of the new Congress, contact them again.
This is the only way to fight the power of the money of the NAB and the industry.
Why do you want to cause problems?? Are you a Dishnetwork customer? Where you losing channels? I have had DN for ten years and if I want to pay to receive these channels that is all that should matter. Don't we live in a free country????
You are free to do as you choose and say to what you wish. You are not free to hire a third party (E*) to steal something which does not belong to either of you and sell it to you. TV programming is property; just like money and cars. Freedom does not give us the right to take that which does not belong to us.
Poor towerguy. I can see the minions piling high the wood and preparing the stake. You commit the unpardonable sin. You speak the truth. As much as we don't want to hear it.
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. Yes, dinosaurs die off. But these may not be dinosaurs yet.
Those folks that can't get locals should get distants as an option. But don't punish the subscribers for the failings of Dish. And if some Congress critters think hurting Dish big time is a "just" thing, maybe they'll be surprised to see what D* does with no satellite competition (if it came to that). Darth Murdoch is not in it for the viewers.
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. Yes, dinosaurs die off. But these may not be dinosaurs yet.
Those folks that can't get locals should get distants as an option. But don't punish the subscribers for the failings of Dish. And if some Congress critters think hurting Dish big time is a "just" thing, maybe they'll be surprised to see what D* does with no satellite competition (if it came to that). Darth Murdoch is not in it for the viewers.
Read this thread, it is what I based my response on.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=79979
I am under the impression that the permanent injunction wasn't issued until after Dish had a settlement in the works.
Very true, like Wally World putting Mom & Pop out of business. Now that mom and pop are out of business the price of the product is less there is more variety. Maybe everyone should get the networks.
Yep, where I come from were not into all that book learning and stuff.
I based my response on on this thread: http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=79979
I've read all the linked articles, and that is what I got out of it, now I admit that my command of the english language isn't really good. So I'll go put my dunce cap on and stand in the corner.
Regardless of anything Echostar did wrong, customers who legally get DNS shouldn't be the ones who lose out in this mess.
Last edited:
In my local town today, the FDA raided a mail order drug company for fulfilling regulated drugs without a prescription. Around 675,000 pieces were seized and their license was revoked.
Should they also be able to continue to operate to those who had legal prescriptions?
No difference.
And if you want to say, you could go to other pharmacies, then the response to that is you can go to D*.
You can't spin it any other way.
Now, if you have damages (equipment etc) you can file a lawsuit against Charlie because his Company did not protect your legal position by committing illegal activities - so I am 100% confident many Dish subs will end up in a class action lawsuit against E*.
May not be the answer you want, but thats the law as it stands.
Taking the comparison a little further. - Many here say a person should be able to get any DNS/drug he wants if he's willing to pay for it.
But the law says you are not eligible for DNS/drug unless you get a waiver/prescription from an affiliate/doctor.
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.
Why don't you use your local affiliate/OTC medications?
Man, they're not nearly as good. I don't get the same picture quality/buzz.
But Charlie/drug dealer broke the law, should he/he get off without punishment?
Well, fine him a lot of $ but don't take him out of the DNS/drug business because that would hurt a lot of innocent subscribers/addicts. I know I climb the walls if I don't get my DNS/dope. I think anybody should get any and as many DNS/drugs as he wants.
Okay. Then you need a recap...BrianMis said:
The lawsuit was filed in 1998, by all four networks and all four affiliate boards. ABC and NBC dropped out over time.
When the case was heard in 2002 for the second time (because Dish Network won a retrial on the first case), the judge's decision in 2003 was to issue an injunction where Dish Network must requalify every one of their distant network subscribers.
Dish Network didn't like that they'd have to requalify all of their distant network subscribers. Therefore, they appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The four network affiliate boards cross-appealed for a permanent injunction of the distant network license, because they wanted Dish Network to settle. Instead, Dish Network felt there was no way a permanent injunction would be issued against the delivery of distant networks, so they pressed on.
The decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated the four network affiliate boards: Dish Network violated the law in every way imaginable, and the Appeals Court told the lower court (District Court) to issue a permanent injunction.
Now, here is where I pause. If your boss tells you to do something, and it is lawful, you simply do it. In this instance, the Appeals Court stated the law must be followed, and a permanent injunction must be issued, and told the District Court to issue it.
I refer back to my earlier post:
1) Dish Network felt that the Appeals Court's decision was to harsh, even though the three judges were unanimous. However, there is a process where the entire sitting bench of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals can be asked to re-rule on the case. Dish Network asked, and the request was denied.
2) So, the appeals process can continue on, by requesting help from the Supreme Court. Dish Network filed a request for an emergency stay of an injunction while Dish Network gathered their documentation for an appeal to the Supreme Court. That request was denied by Justice Thomas.
So, at this point Dish Network is left with a decision from the Appeals Court that is telling the District Court to issue an injunction. It was at this point Dish Network tries to settle.
It was too late. When a higher court mandates that a lower court perform a specific action, it must be followed.
The judge at the District Court level, Judge William Dimitrouleas, stated in his opinion that because the higher court directed him to issue an injunction, he must do so, irrespective of a possible "settlement".
So while you are correct in stating that the permanent injunction was issued after a settlement was reached, the settlement was void way before it was ever constructed.
Last edited:
In all likelihood, nothing will happen in this lame duck session.
The odds of anything meaningful happening in the 110th Congress are slim, at best, and the closer we get to 2008 and the Presidential elections the less likelihood there is that anything will happen.
I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but I do think that this is a realistic appraisal!
dssdbs,
Sour grapes? Do you really think that Charlie would pass the fines along to his customers? I already pay for the DNS & I don't expect you or anyone else to pay the fine. My wife & I are on the road in our RV & our DNS will get turned off. Thanks for the help pal. Go drink Rupert's Kool-Aid.
Sour grapes? Do you really think that Charlie would pass the fines along to his customers? I already pay for the DNS & I don't expect you or anyone else to pay the fine. My wife & I are on the road in our RV & our DNS will get turned off. Thanks for the help pal. Go drink Rupert's Kool-Aid.
Last edited:
What I read was that the cut off date will be extended to April 17 so I don't think anything will be cut off on Dec. 1. There is a link somewhere on this thread that tells about it. I will try to find it for you.
On the other point of local ads, we have newspapers, internet and most of my business comes from other customers. So as a small business owner I do not have a problem with people watching DN. It has no effect on my business at all....We should be able to choose what we want to watch not have the goverment make that choice for us..
