Everyone can laugh about this all they want. Dish Network signed the agreement with NPS to provide distant networks. That is totally against the order of injunction. That is far from NPS doing this separately, which they have done for years.
Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 124K
yes they could.
And what time does this concert start that Greg Bimson keeps speaking of.
9PM tonight on Channel 101??
No Greg, no they didn't. E* LEASED a transponder to NPS. AFTER the deal was finalized, NPS then decided to provide distant networks to satellite customers using this leased transponder. If NPS wanted to use this transponder for Al-Jazeera HD East and West, they are certainly entitled to. Distant networks just happens to be what NPS has decided to use the space for.
I know this has been asked several times already but do we know yet what you would need to do to qualify for nps dns.
I doubt Dish is "giving" transponder space. A reasonable fee is probably involved.
"In active concert or participation with Echostar" is subject to interpretation. Surely it will not be construed to prohibit normal conduct of business. If I buy a product or service, I am not "in active concert or participation" with the vendor. With someone leasing space from Dish and collecting the money, they can provide a legal service. Dish does not violate any prohibition to provide the service. The judge would have to "punish" someone who was not a party to any wrongdoing. I doubt the legality of that. Using Dish transponders is reasonable. D* would be unlikely in the course of normal business to lease to a competitor. Dish is no longer in competition and has the space available. Millions of potential customers have the equipment already, making a decision to offer the service from some other satellite location and requiring new equipment a non-starter from a business plan point of view. They can sneak into the business now, during this window of opportunity. No one wants to repeat the Voom fiasco. And Dish should be able to do the billing for them, for a small administrative fee, of course.
"In active concert or participation with Echostar" is subject to interpretation. Surely it will not be construed to prohibit normal conduct of business. If I buy a product or service, I am not "in active concert or participation" with the vendor. With someone leasing space from Dish and collecting the money, they can provide a legal service. Dish does not violate any prohibition to provide the service. The judge would have to "punish" someone who was not a party to any wrongdoing. I doubt the legality of that. Using Dish transponders is reasonable. D* would be unlikely in the course of normal business to lease to a competitor. Dish is no longer in competition and has the space available. Millions of potential customers have the equipment already, making a decision to offer the service from some other satellite location and requiring new equipment a non-starter from a business plan point of view. They can sneak into the business now, during this window of opportunity. No one wants to repeat the Voom fiasco. And Dish should be able to do the billing for them, for a small administrative fee, of course.
But because this deal was setup with the help of Echostar, the injunction forbids NPS from using the space for the 17 USC 119 license, otherwise known as distant networks.Chris Walker said:
I know this has been asked several times already but do we know yet what you would need to do to qualify for nps dns.
I would hope they would recognize E*'s customers that have lost their distants today as being legit customers. Hopefully this will be in a database.
Perhaps some of the people here should representing Dish in Court! I think it is a valid point that now that Dish can no longer provide the service, why can't a competitor do it. From a business point, what better place to slide into than the vacancy left by the Court Decision. Rather than seeing it as working with or in concert with Dish, see it as a good business move by NPS. It would require the Court to say no one may lease space on Dish equipment to provide distants. Perhaps the court will do that, but that sounds like a Supreme Court decision if it does deny NPS from doing that business.
We will find out this information tommorow, I was supposed to get this info from NPS today but they are making sure everything is 100% correct with the i's dotted and t's crossed before making it publiclly available.I know this has been asked several times already but do we know yet what you would need to do to qualify for nps dns.
That is the entire point.Scott Greczkowski said:
There is only once license, and anyone as of today can use it. Tomorrow, Dish Network and anyone they work with cannot. NPS doesn't have its own license. It is the exact same license that DirecTV and Dish Network use today.
This isn't like a driver's license where everyone that passes the test receives a document. There is no document nor test.
That is why Echostar has lost the ability to use the 17 USC 119 license, while DirecTV and NPS still can use it. The problem is if the court sees NPS as acting in active concert (queue violins and cellos here) with Echostar then NPS may lose the ability to use the license.
I agree with Bimson on this one.
Nothing is prohibiting NPS from offering distant networks, they just cannot do it in relation with Echostar - and that means not using Echostars satellites, transponder licenses, and no money going to Echostar.
Once there is a monetary relationship, the endeavor is de facto "in concert". Paying to lease the transponder space and licence is more than enough. Any law student could tell you this, but most of you can't see past your "Go Ergen" pom-poms. Its almost embarrassing to read some of these posts.
If NPS wants to lease transponder space from anyone else - including DirecTV - they can do it. They can set up their own system and satellite. But they cannot do it with ANY type of relationship with Echostar. Period.
I think EVERYONE here on both sides of the argument can agree that this arrangement is an end-run around the ruling, and that is something the judge is NOT going to take lightly. It mocks the legal system and its Order. Plenty of precedent that you can't use a straw-man to acheive essentially the same ends.
Nothing is prohibiting NPS from offering distant networks, they just cannot do it in relation with Echostar - and that means not using Echostars satellites, transponder licenses, and no money going to Echostar.
Once there is a monetary relationship, the endeavor is de facto "in concert". Paying to lease the transponder space and licence is more than enough. Any law student could tell you this, but most of you can't see past your "Go Ergen" pom-poms. Its almost embarrassing to read some of these posts.
If NPS wants to lease transponder space from anyone else - including DirecTV - they can do it. They can set up their own system and satellite. But they cannot do it with ANY type of relationship with Echostar. Period.
I think EVERYONE here on both sides of the argument can agree that this arrangement is an end-run around the ruling, and that is something the judge is NOT going to take lightly. It mocks the legal system and its Order. Plenty of precedent that you can't use a straw-man to acheive essentially the same ends.
And if you think this is fun, just wait until Congress hears about this. The NAB already placed an ad in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers asking Congress Critters if they really wish to reward a habitual lawbreaker.
Well as long as we are not paying Dish Network for the feeds it should not matter look at all the phone companys and long distance companys that share each others phone lines.
I think that this is the same thing to a certain extend. Dish cant provide DNS but there is a federal law that allows a 3rd party biller to add there charges to yuor phone billl.
Sort of like some long distance carriers that bill directly to the Verizon or AT&T bill because they use there land lines
Bob
I think that this is the same thing to a certain extend. Dish cant provide DNS but there is a federal law that allows a 3rd party biller to add there charges to yuor phone billl.
Sort of like some long distance carriers that bill directly to the Verizon or AT&T bill because they use there land lines
Bob
Greg you don't get it do you?
NPS can uplink whatever they want to the tranponder. They have decided that they will uplink Distant Networks, which they can do. And also Dish can sub lease transponders under the license they have from the FCC.
Again if SkyAngel wanted to do distant networks they could as well.
NPS can uplink whatever they want to the tranponder. They have decided that they will uplink Distant Networks, which they can do. And also Dish can sub lease transponders under the license they have from the FCC.
Again if SkyAngel wanted to do distant networks they could as well.
This is where your argument breaks down. E* is not transmitting the DNS nor is it receivng revenue from the transmission of DNS. The straw-man argument would be used if a shell company controlled by E* had been set up. E* is leasing transponder space to a third-party. That third-party without any connection to E* except for the transponder lease will be transmitting the DNS to their subscribers. These subscribers may or may not be E* subscribers. This is a legitimate business transaction and should be viewed by the Court as totally separate from the E* DNS injunction.
