Search results for query: *

Hamilton Radio Shack offers free gun with new Dish Network service I wonder how long it will be before Dish has something to say about this.

The way the Audit Nazis work, I'm pretty sure it's above Charlie's pay grade too. ;)

What about making both sides provide the actual agreements when disputes like this get argued in the media and the public? If they want to negotiate in private, then they can keep the contracts private. If they want to start websites, and issue press releases about "unfair" or "excessive"...

With the lawyers being the first in line? :rant:

So they're going to charge $15 if you use the labels, and $15 if you don't use the labels?!?!

It didn't, and the city finally had to back down and canceled their plans for it.

I seem to recall Omaha trying something like that a while back. A 3 year expiring "inspection fee" for somewhere around $50, and it caused a huge problem for them.

It is still illegal for the satcos to knowingly provide service to somebody outside of their DMA. Just because the customer won't get thrown in jail for it doesn't make it legal. And in re-reading this thread, I don't see where anyone said it was illegal for the customer to "move"...just that...

As was stated earlier in this thread, by Claude and others, it is illegal for the satellite carriers to knowingly provide a customer with locals out of their market. But let me take the 10 seconds to google the actual law for you, which is 47USC Sec 339 and which states In addition, since a...

Depends upon the ISP and how they assign their IP addresses. If you've moved to somewhere close to your billing address, there probably won't be an issue. If your "physical" address is on the other side of the country, then it could be a problem. But you're correct in that it's not very easy...

I thought it had something to do with the court case they lost a couple of years ago.

I could understand the inspection fee, if the city could provide one documented case of where their inspection would have saved a life, prevented an injury, or prevented property damage...oh wait, all they want is to increase revenue. So they devised a way to collect revenue from something they...

So this mount prevents ANY part of the dish from extending past the railing? I'd love to see a link for it when you can find one. I've got some customers that would appreciate it, too. Sandwiching the rails with the foot plates will cause the dish to overhang the balcony in one way or another.

The problem with that method is that it's not covered by OTARD since it would extend out over the balcony. While this may be allowed by the landlord now, that doesn't mean it won't change in the future and the OP would have to go through this process again. The easiest way to do it is to take...

In addition to what has been mentioned above by other poster, this is correct. They're hoping that you'll buy an PPV on impulse, rather than taking a few moments and think about it while you order it via the phone or web.

Are you sure about that? So does that mean that all of the customers that require a second dish to receive their programming aren't covered by OTARD?:confused:

Maybe we should get a sticky thread with all of Dish's lawsuits, and their status.:p

And yet DirecTV has a "B" rating...

And that is the point I was making...OTARD doesn't stop landlords from not allowing somebody to drill through a wall to bring in cable.

And nothing in the OTARD rule prevents landlords from prohibiting drilling through exterior walls, or mounting dishes on non-exclusive use areas. OTARD is a useful tool when dealing with landlords, and especially useful when dealing with HOA's, but it is not the end all, be all that some people...

WalesOnline - News - Wales News - US firm apologises over use of murdered couple’s photo

Actually, I believe the equipment is the property of the person receiving the service...not the homeowner. IANAL, so you may want to check with one.

Ooops, that is the patent referenced in the lawsuit. I based my response off of Goaliebob's link earlier in the thread. But my question remains, even if Dish has been using that technology since then, now that's it's patented, are the patent protections retroactive or did Charlie get a four...

The patent was originally filed for on July 21, 2000 and the effective date of the patent is listed as December 25, 2001. Just because it takes the USPTO years to approve a patent doesn't make Charlie the "good guy" either. So the question is, are patents retroactive to the time they were...

Yeah, I fully expect to see the end results about the time I retire. :D Anyone have any idea how many Dish Pro Plus systems are out there?