Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 124K
Yea I can see advantages to using the website, but I can also see problems with slow activations that way.
True - THAT'S the CBS I could not remember.
I think that' true as well.
Nope, always was KOMO Seattle
Not to mention the fact the C-band business in general was dying off pretty fast once DBS hit the sceen. Those analog C-band x-ponders are PRETTY costly & with the oncoming restrictions being enforced against PT24, if you DON'T have paying customers for these channels, it's pretty hard to pay for rising x-ponder costs.
Yep, they still are a separate company - there is another C-band prog co that sells their service as well. It's probably a safe bet they're hanging on by a shoestring...
When I had C-Band and PT24, I always hated that the networks were from different cities. I would have liked all 4 (well 3 since they didn't offer FOX) to have been from just New York or just Atlanta. And the Eerie,PA CBS was one of the worst channels I have ever seen, how that got picked to be a nationwide distant is beyond me.
Yes but DirecTV was not activily attempting to get local channels on Dish they used to refer you to an antenna for local stations.
its only because Charlie starting doing local into local that DirecTV followed suit. DirecTV seems to be preoccupied with keeping its strangle hold on NFL Sunday ticket. OK they kept it but Charlie kept growing in other areas and one that Dish took the lead with waslocal into locals and DNS.
Never could figure out why DirecTV never offered superstations though
its only because Charlie starting doing local into local that DirecTV followed suit. DirecTV seems to be preoccupied with keeping its strangle hold on NFL Sunday ticket. OK they kept it but Charlie kept growing in other areas and one that Dish took the lead with waslocal into locals and DNS.
Never could figure out why DirecTV never offered superstations though
I'm sure the smart card bit will be handled the same way it is with Sky Angel.
And I believe there IS a court order or settlement limiting E* on the religious programming front, as regards Sky Angel.
The judge stated the law gave him no choice but to turn them off, there was no other remedy under that law. The intent then, appears to be to prevent E* from profiting from continuing a course of action that they have improperly followed in the past. Putting E* out of the DNS business does that. E* is free to lease transponder space. E* will no longer profit from DNS, they will make about the same amount of money leasing to NPS as to anyone else. To go further, and stop this lease, is to in effect grant D* a monopoly, and deprive a third party of a course of action which is its right, as it was not a wrongdoer. This is clearly not the intent of the law. Should the judge pass a quickie stop to this, I'm sure a less involved appeals court will intervene.
Google "acting in concert" and you'll find it is not a precise term. However, it appears to imply more of a joint effort than exists here. Opinions will differ.
A lawyer's opinion at first seems almost definitive. Until you find out other lawyers have other opinions. The law is not what it seems to say. It's whatever a court says it means. Look at the Miranda ruling. Basically an admission that there was never any constitutional or legal basis for requiring such, but it has become so much a part of our society we'll keep it going. Reminds me of the legal gymnastics following the "civil war" to justify federal actions, and to say in this case actions taken under duress, such as the fourteenth amendment, are still in fact valid.
I drifted too far off topic. We will know soon. I doubt very much that this judge will successfully grant DirecTV a monopoly.
And I believe there IS a court order or settlement limiting E* on the religious programming front, as regards Sky Angel.
The judge stated the law gave him no choice but to turn them off, there was no other remedy under that law. The intent then, appears to be to prevent E* from profiting from continuing a course of action that they have improperly followed in the past. Putting E* out of the DNS business does that. E* is free to lease transponder space. E* will no longer profit from DNS, they will make about the same amount of money leasing to NPS as to anyone else. To go further, and stop this lease, is to in effect grant D* a monopoly, and deprive a third party of a course of action which is its right, as it was not a wrongdoer. This is clearly not the intent of the law. Should the judge pass a quickie stop to this, I'm sure a less involved appeals court will intervene.
Google "acting in concert" and you'll find it is not a precise term. However, it appears to imply more of a joint effort than exists here. Opinions will differ.
A lawyer's opinion at first seems almost definitive. Until you find out other lawyers have other opinions. The law is not what it seems to say. It's whatever a court says it means. Look at the Miranda ruling. Basically an admission that there was never any constitutional or legal basis for requiring such, but it has become so much a part of our society we'll keep it going. Reminds me of the legal gymnastics following the "civil war" to justify federal actions, and to say in this case actions taken under duress, such as the fourteenth amendment, are still in fact valid.
I drifted too far off topic. We will know soon. I doubt very much that this judge will successfully grant DirecTV a monopoly.
It was picked because it very, very rarely prempted CBS network programming. It was replacing WRAL & WRAL had the Jefferson Pilot contract for the ACC for its area and preempted CBS programming. So, when they searched out for a replacement, the fact that network programming would always be available was the key component.
If that is true it is even more a reason NPS should be allowed to provide distant programming.
There is, that's why E* can't (THANKFULLY!) add Church Channel or The Word or any of the other numerous religious channels that Directv can offer. Remember the Daystar situation when it got yanked? It was because of a court order.
Have a look at E*'s response:
“Through their Emergency Motion, however plaintiffs seek to expand the scope of the Permanent Injunction and further restrict consumers’ rights such that all consumers—even eligible consumers—are prohibited from receiving distant network signals. Neither this Court’s decision nor the law preclude independent entities from providing properly qualified eligible consumers with distant channels by satellite. The Permanent Injunction does not and cannot preclude everyone in the world from providing distant network programming to eligible subscribers.”
What the above points out is that if this situation with NPS gets squashed it will be a result of the court expanding the permanent injunction. They way it is written now, it is all legal. The judge certainly could expand the injunction, but only at the expense of the consumer's rights.
“Through their Emergency Motion, however plaintiffs seek to expand the scope of the Permanent Injunction and further restrict consumers’ rights such that all consumers—even eligible consumers—are prohibited from receiving distant network signals. Neither this Court’s decision nor the law preclude independent entities from providing properly qualified eligible consumers with distant channels by satellite. The Permanent Injunction does not and cannot preclude everyone in the world from providing distant network programming to eligible subscribers.”
What the above points out is that if this situation with NPS gets squashed it will be a result of the court expanding the permanent injunction. They way it is written now, it is all legal. The judge certainly could expand the injunction, but only at the expense of the consumer's rights.
Since nobody mentioned this, don't forget that prog distributor Netlink ALSO offered a competing east coast network package, so that they could offer THEIR Netlink subs an east coast option (instead of just the Denver mountain times) w/out having to pay PT24 for the service. I had it as well & as I recall, it had ABC from Miami, NBC from Boston & CBS from Washington DC. I used to watch the late night talk shows from Miami all the time, since I usually watched TV late at night. (no DVR's back then
) They ended up shutting down the pkg right around the time PT west went down...
If he does then the NPS has a legitimate argument with the Supreme Court about why can a judge tell them that they can't operate their business in the manner in which they choose. It's not like NPS is some company Charlie just set up yesterday to handle this for him, I used to deal with these guys when I had C-Band in the '90s. They are very legitimate.
Echostar just needs to lose all of it's licenses altogether. They have repeatedly been called on their track record of breaking the law, maybe this will be the last straw. Pull all of their Ka/Ku licenses, make them file for bankruptcy.
Charles Ergen needs to be committed, how else to explain this? He is putting his entire company in jeopardy by pulling stunts like this.
Charles Ergen needs to be committed, how else to explain this? He is putting his entire company in jeopardy by pulling stunts like this.
Since nobody mentioned this, don't forget that prog distributor Netlink ALSO offered a competing east coast network package, so that they could offer THEIR Netlink subs an east coast option (instead of just the Denver mountain times) w/out having to pay PT24 for the service. I had it as well & as I recall, it had ABC from Miami, NBC from Boston & CBS from Washington DC. I used to watch the late night talk shows from Miami all the time, since I usually watched TV late at night. (no DVR's back then
They ended up shutting down the pkg right around the time PT west went down...
I remember when the PT24 West got the axe, it was September 1, 1999, I was watching the late feed of Leno and the channel went to a black screen. I was already irritated at the loss of the RSNs, but this was the final straw. My Dish system was installed a week later.
How is Charlie pulling a stunt? NPS saw an opportunity to make some easy $ so they approached E* about leasing a transponder. Once the transponder was leased, NPS decided to uplink distant networks with their new space. E* doesn't have anything to do with it; NPS is uplinking the channels and they are sellin them.Missing a point here: there is NO NEED to expand the previous injunction to include NPS, the court can prohibit E* from having its transponders used to carry any DNS signal, including that leased tranponder that E* owns but is now trying to lease to NPS.
NPS isn't precluded from offering DNS via any other system, it just can't do it using E*'s equipment.
NPS isn't precluded from offering DNS via any other system, it just can't do it using E*'s equipment.
I have not read this entire thread (it is extremely long). My question, why SF and Atlanta as the 2 cities ? Any rhyme or reason as to why those 2 were picked as the Distant Networks ? Thanks for the info.
ejmcol- that's one interpretation. Many of us doubt it could properly be that severe, because it expands punishment beyond E* DNS, punishes innocent 3rd parties and gives D* a de facto monopoly.
dssdbs- why don't we shoot him, too? Sullying the pure business that Saint Murdoch is involved in.
dssdbs- why don't we shoot him, too? Sullying the pure business that Saint Murdoch is involved in.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
TBanning Weak Passwords in the UK: New Law Empowers Citizens to Secure Smart Devices
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
-
-
-
