Tower guy- Well first of all, you don't know what the loophole was and therefore you assumed it was a violation. I can assure you it was not! The waiver process was followed to the letter of the law in my case. I find it difficult to believe that Dish Network is held responsible for the part of the law (in my case) that was not written into it that permitted me in this very unique circumstance to be legally permitted to execute a waiver. I could fill you in on the details of my case but not in this thread. I do trust that if I did not qualify under the current waiver process, the subscription would not have been granted.
Remember the basic process of a waiver is that to get one you have to have your local network affiliate approve you for the service by the DBS provider. If they refuse you have a right to challenge the decision by the local station with independent signal tests. The station has a right to challenge the independent tests with their own tests. At that time a decision by the FCC committee of arbitration will hand down it's decision. But all the challenging is unnecessary as long as the station grants the permission in the first place. In my case that was the net result of why I got the waiver. Now the specific circumstances behind the grant by the local CBS affiliate is confidential but the process was quite legal. Additionally, a waiver grant must be issued for each of the networks requested, as a CBS waiver only applies to CBS, not all networks. My DNS only covers CBS and that's all E* issued to me as that is the law!
There is another part of the process that is interesting. Once a waiver is granted and the conditions change, for example, the signal is much improved, the subscriber with the in place waiver may now legally get both the DNS and their local. There is nothing in the waiver process that allows the provider or the local broadcast station to execute a reversal of the waiver after it is issued except by specific test challenge and then the challenge must be handled on a case by case basis under the law. This makes it not practical from a cost basis to reverse the waivers in place by a station. This re-examination of the waiver is also held even if a new station management takes over. The only way a waiver may be reversed or cancelled once in place is to challenge it with test data and an FCC decision.
However, in this instance, it appears to me that a broad based cancellation of all waivers nation wide is being done by the courts. Something that was never part of the original law.
I did a bit of reading on the save my channels website and saw this bit of chronology:
"In September 2000, the Miami Federal Court entered an order requiring EchoStar to shut off distant network channels to an unspecified number of consumers. We appealed that decision, and in November a stay was granted by the Court of Appeals. In the following years, we reached settlements with some of the broadcasters - as well as many other independent stations and station groups - but we were unable to reach settlements with five of the original eight plaintiffs.
A trial took place in April 2003 and the District Court issued a final judgment a few months later stating that with one exception our current procedures for qualifying subscribers for distant network channels complied with the law. As a result of this ruling, we were told to re-qualify all of our subscribers who receive distant network channels and to turn off distant network stations for ineligible subscribers. We believed the District Court made a number of errors and appealed the decision, contending the shutoff requirements were too stringent. The Court of Appeals granted our request to stay the injunction until our appeal was decided.
The case went back to court in February 2004, and in August of that year an injunction was issued. In April 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court of Appeals to vacate the stay, and we responded later that month. The District Court concluded EchoStar had been acting in compliance with its interpretation of the law since issuance of its decision in the case in 2003, and that an injunction prohibiting us from selling distant network channels should not be issued. In May of this year, the Court of Appeals disagreed and overturned the District Court's ruling, concluding that regardless of current compliance the harsh language of the statute leaves no discretion and that an order must be issued to prevent us from transmitting any distant network channels to our customers"
I'm no lawyer but it appears that the courts don't even agree and this is something that may end up for a US Supreme court decision.
What part of " The District Court concluded EchoStar had been acting in compliance with its interpretation of the law since issuance of its decision in the case in 2003, " " says that E* ignored the courts and violated the law and should be punished do you anti E* people wish to reference here?
I still don't get it. Someone tell me exactly what they did wrong that DirecTV does right WRT selling DN service? I want to know.
PS- thanks for the Cornell link. But that link just fortifies that the process I used to get and keep the waiver was completely legal.
It was a very unique situation. I will probably not have that opportunity again. Anyway, I'd hate to loose that privledge because my local CBS's HDTV signal is so technically incompetent, they still often forget to flip the HD switch and don't have any plans to do Dolby 5.1. Gosh, and I even know the CE there and it doesn't help! Yes, he knows I have this Dish Network feed and has used me in the past to have a look at what they, NYC, were doing. Guess the waiver days are numbered now! :river
