Social Feed
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Cutting Edge
Here is a court ruling that I downloaded from Laws, Life, and Legal Matters - Court Cases and Legal Information at Leagle.com - All Federal and State Appeals Court Cases in One Search that was filed yesterday.
It appears that DISH Network was trying to get its attorney fees paid by NDS for its trial in which Echostar sued NDS.
If I am reading this correctly it appears that Echostar has to pay NDS for their Attorney fees instead...
Very Interesting!
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION v. NDS GROUP PLC
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
NDS GROUP PLC; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NDS GROUP PLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-55005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2010 Pasadena, California.
Filed August 4, 2010.
Before: PREGERSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM,[ 1 ] District Judge.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM [ 2 ]
I. Introduction
EchoStar and NDS appeal the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs. EchoStar challenges the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to it by the district court. Conversely, NDS challenges the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to it, and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to EchoStar. The district court awarded attorneys' fees to EchoStar in the amount of $12,972,547.91, plus reasonable costs, and awarded attorneys' fees to NDS in the amount of $8,968,118.90, and no costs. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions.
II. Standard of Review
This court reviews a district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs for an abuse of discretion. P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 474 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling on a fee motion is based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Richard S. v. Dep't of Developmental Servs. of Cal., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, any element of legal analysis and statutory interpretation underlying the district court's attorneys' fees decision is reviewed de novo, and factual findings underlying the district court's decision are reviewed for clear error. Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed'n, 277 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003).
III. Discussion
It is clear to us that this case, which involved over half a decade of litigation and a four week trial, was about the compromise of EchoStar's satellite television programming security system due to the December 2000 Internet posting and related conduct, not the P1 Test. EchoStar sought actual damages and lost profits totaling approximately $184.8 million, $823 million in disgorgement penalties, and statutory damages of $1 billion. All of EchoStar's claims were based on the allegation that NDS was responsible for the compromise of EchoStar's security system, which caused EchoStar to spend over $94 million to replace all of its access cards with new cards that used a different encryption technology. As stated by EchoStar in support of its motion for attorneys' fees and costs, "Each of EchoStar's claims was premised on the same core set of facts — that NDS engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices through conduct that compromised the integrity of EchoStar's security system." In other posttrial briefing, EchoStar characterized the P1 Test as an "inconsequential fact discussed briefly with few witnesses." In sum, this case was about the massive breach of EchoStar's security system, not the P1 Test.
The P1 Test was an incidental event, unrelated to the December 2000 posting. It was a technical violation of the Communications Act and the California Penal Code, and involved a single, unauthorized interception of EchoStar's signal in a test of a piracy method. As a result of this interception, the jury awarded to EchoStar actual damages of $45.69 (which were trebled pursuant to statute), and $1,500 in statutory damages, and the court awarded to EchoStar $284.94 in restitution and issued a permanent injunction against NDS prohibiting it from again engaging in the illegal conduct found by the jury.
The district court determined that the jury rejected EchoStar's theory that NDS was responsible for the December 2000 Internet posting, and that the violation findings were based on the evidence of the P1 Test. We agree. The jury's express findings, particularly its actual damages award of $45.69, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the jury rejected EchoStar's exclusive theory at trial that NDS was responsible for the December 2000 posting and its aftermath, but found that NDS illegally intercepted EchoStar's programming signal by conducting the P1 Test. EchoStar's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
As a matter of law, we conclude that, for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees and costs, NDS was the prevailing party in this litigation and that EchoStar fails to meet the legal definition of a prevailing party on any of its claims.
California case law provides that, in the absence of contrary legislative direction, a trial court must determine prevailing party status using a "pragmatic" approach to determine whether a party prevailed "on a practical level." See Donner Mgmt. Co. v. Schaffer, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534, 542-43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). Unless a statute provides otherwise, California courts reject a "rigid definition of prevailing party." Id.
Under federal law, a "prevailing party" is one that succeeds "`on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.'" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir. 1978)). A litigant qualifies as a prevailing party if it has obtained a "court-ordered `change [in] the legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant.'" Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (alterations in original) (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989)). "`Where the plaintiff's success on a legal claim can be characterized as purely technical or de minimis,' " the plaintiff cannot recover fees as a prevailing party. Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489, 1498 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass'n, 489 U.S. at 792). But "[t]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute. Where such a change has occurred, the degree of the plaintiff's overall success goes to the reasonableness of the award under Hensley, not to the availability of a fee award vel non" Tex. State Teachers Ass'n, 489 U.S. at 792-93. That is, "the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992).
Simply stated, EchoStar did not prevail "on a practical level" on the claims under the California Penal Code because those claims were based on the December 2000 Internet posting and were rejected by the jury. Likewise, for similar reasons, EchoStar did not succeed "on any significant issue" or "achieve any of the benefit it sought in bringing suit" under the Communications Act.
Even if we were to hold that EchoStar was a prevailing party on claims under these statutes based upon the P1 Test, we note that, in the four week trial, only two witnesses briefly testified about the P1 Test, and that EchoStar has not even attempted to identify the specific amount of attorneys' fees or costs attributable to proving these violations, which, in any event, would surely be a de minimis amount. Although EchoStar did obtain injunctive relief under the California Business and Professions Code, we agree with the district court's determination that, as a matter of law, attorneys' fees are not available under the California Unfair Competition Law.
By the same reasoning, we find that NDS was the prevailing party on EchoStar's claims under the California Penal Code and the Communications Act, which award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. There is no question that NDS successfully defended against all of EchoStar's claims based on or related to its theory that NDS was responsible for the compromise of EchoStar's satellite television programming security system, including its Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and Lanham Act claims.[ 3 ] Furthermore, insofar as EchoStar obtained a jury finding that NDS violated the Communications Act and the California Penal Code on the basis of the P1 Test, the overwhelming success of NDS in its defense of EchoStar's lawsuit was trivially mitigated. If found liable for the December 2000 Internet posting and its aftermath, NDS faced the possibility of paying nearly $2 billion in damages. Instead, NDS was held liable for less than $2,000 in damages, and was prohibited from again engaging in conduct whose occurrence it never challenged.
EchoStar requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $15,945,095.81, and NDS requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $23,914,983.74. In its decision awarding attorneys' fees and costs, the district court implicitly found that the rates charged by the attorneys on both sides of the litigation were reasonable and that both parties "presented work of a similar quality." But the district court found that NDS had not shown why it was necessary for it to spend "significantly more hours on this litigation than EchoStar did[.]" The district court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorneys' fees reasonably required to accomplish a result. Judge Carter is a well-seasoned trial judge who presided throughout this lengthy and complicated litigation. His decision to reduce NDS's attorneys' fees by 25% was well within his discretion. A 25% reduction from NDS's requested $23,914,983.74 in attorneys' fees equals $17,936,237.80.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to enter judgment denying EchoStar's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and awarding attorneys' fees to NDS in the amount of $17,936,237.80, and reasonable costs. The costs of this appeal are awarded against EchoStar.
It appears that DISH Network was trying to get its attorney fees paid by NDS for its trial in which Echostar sued NDS.
If I am reading this correctly it appears that Echostar has to pay NDS for their Attorney fees instead...
Very Interesting!
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION v. NDS GROUP PLC
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
NDS GROUP PLC; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NDS GROUP PLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-55005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 6, 2010 Pasadena, California.
Filed August 4, 2010.
Before: PREGERSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM,[ 1 ] District Judge.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM [ 2 ]
I. Introduction
EchoStar and NDS appeal the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs. EchoStar challenges the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to it by the district court. Conversely, NDS challenges the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to it, and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs awarded to EchoStar. The district court awarded attorneys' fees to EchoStar in the amount of $12,972,547.91, plus reasonable costs, and awarded attorneys' fees to NDS in the amount of $8,968,118.90, and no costs. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions.
II. Standard of Review
This court reviews a district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs for an abuse of discretion. P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 474 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). A district court abuses its discretion if its ruling on a fee motion is based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Richard S. v. Dep't of Developmental Servs. of Cal., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, any element of legal analysis and statutory interpretation underlying the district court's attorneys' fees decision is reviewed de novo, and factual findings underlying the district court's decision are reviewed for clear error. Barrios v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed'n, 277 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003).
III. Discussion
It is clear to us that this case, which involved over half a decade of litigation and a four week trial, was about the compromise of EchoStar's satellite television programming security system due to the December 2000 Internet posting and related conduct, not the P1 Test. EchoStar sought actual damages and lost profits totaling approximately $184.8 million, $823 million in disgorgement penalties, and statutory damages of $1 billion. All of EchoStar's claims were based on the allegation that NDS was responsible for the compromise of EchoStar's security system, which caused EchoStar to spend over $94 million to replace all of its access cards with new cards that used a different encryption technology. As stated by EchoStar in support of its motion for attorneys' fees and costs, "Each of EchoStar's claims was premised on the same core set of facts — that NDS engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices through conduct that compromised the integrity of EchoStar's security system." In other posttrial briefing, EchoStar characterized the P1 Test as an "inconsequential fact discussed briefly with few witnesses." In sum, this case was about the massive breach of EchoStar's security system, not the P1 Test.
The P1 Test was an incidental event, unrelated to the December 2000 posting. It was a technical violation of the Communications Act and the California Penal Code, and involved a single, unauthorized interception of EchoStar's signal in a test of a piracy method. As a result of this interception, the jury awarded to EchoStar actual damages of $45.69 (which were trebled pursuant to statute), and $1,500 in statutory damages, and the court awarded to EchoStar $284.94 in restitution and issued a permanent injunction against NDS prohibiting it from again engaging in the illegal conduct found by the jury.
The district court determined that the jury rejected EchoStar's theory that NDS was responsible for the December 2000 Internet posting, and that the violation findings were based on the evidence of the P1 Test. We agree. The jury's express findings, particularly its actual damages award of $45.69, necessarily lead to the conclusion that the jury rejected EchoStar's exclusive theory at trial that NDS was responsible for the December 2000 posting and its aftermath, but found that NDS illegally intercepted EchoStar's programming signal by conducting the P1 Test. EchoStar's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
As a matter of law, we conclude that, for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees and costs, NDS was the prevailing party in this litigation and that EchoStar fails to meet the legal definition of a prevailing party on any of its claims.
California case law provides that, in the absence of contrary legislative direction, a trial court must determine prevailing party status using a "pragmatic" approach to determine whether a party prevailed "on a practical level." See Donner Mgmt. Co. v. Schaffer, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534, 542-43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). Unless a statute provides otherwise, California courts reject a "rigid definition of prevailing party." Id.
Under federal law, a "prevailing party" is one that succeeds "`on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.'" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir. 1978)). A litigant qualifies as a prevailing party if it has obtained a "court-ordered `change [in] the legal relationship between [the plaintiff] and the defendant.'" Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (alterations in original) (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989)). "`Where the plaintiff's success on a legal claim can be characterized as purely technical or de minimis,' " the plaintiff cannot recover fees as a prevailing party. Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489, 1498 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass'n, 489 U.S. at 792). But "[t]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute. Where such a change has occurred, the degree of the plaintiff's overall success goes to the reasonableness of the award under Hensley, not to the availability of a fee award vel non" Tex. State Teachers Ass'n, 489 U.S. at 792-93. That is, "the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained." Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992).
Simply stated, EchoStar did not prevail "on a practical level" on the claims under the California Penal Code because those claims were based on the December 2000 Internet posting and were rejected by the jury. Likewise, for similar reasons, EchoStar did not succeed "on any significant issue" or "achieve any of the benefit it sought in bringing suit" under the Communications Act.
Even if we were to hold that EchoStar was a prevailing party on claims under these statutes based upon the P1 Test, we note that, in the four week trial, only two witnesses briefly testified about the P1 Test, and that EchoStar has not even attempted to identify the specific amount of attorneys' fees or costs attributable to proving these violations, which, in any event, would surely be a de minimis amount. Although EchoStar did obtain injunctive relief under the California Business and Professions Code, we agree with the district court's determination that, as a matter of law, attorneys' fees are not available under the California Unfair Competition Law.
By the same reasoning, we find that NDS was the prevailing party on EchoStar's claims under the California Penal Code and the Communications Act, which award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party. There is no question that NDS successfully defended against all of EchoStar's claims based on or related to its theory that NDS was responsible for the compromise of EchoStar's satellite television programming security system, including its Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and Lanham Act claims.[ 3 ] Furthermore, insofar as EchoStar obtained a jury finding that NDS violated the Communications Act and the California Penal Code on the basis of the P1 Test, the overwhelming success of NDS in its defense of EchoStar's lawsuit was trivially mitigated. If found liable for the December 2000 Internet posting and its aftermath, NDS faced the possibility of paying nearly $2 billion in damages. Instead, NDS was held liable for less than $2,000 in damages, and was prohibited from again engaging in conduct whose occurrence it never challenged.
EchoStar requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $15,945,095.81, and NDS requested attorneys' fees in the amount of $23,914,983.74. In its decision awarding attorneys' fees and costs, the district court implicitly found that the rates charged by the attorneys on both sides of the litigation were reasonable and that both parties "presented work of a similar quality." But the district court found that NDS had not shown why it was necessary for it to spend "significantly more hours on this litigation than EchoStar did[.]" The district court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorneys' fees reasonably required to accomplish a result. Judge Carter is a well-seasoned trial judge who presided throughout this lengthy and complicated litigation. His decision to reduce NDS's attorneys' fees by 25% was well within his discretion. A 25% reduction from NDS's requested $23,914,983.74 in attorneys' fees equals $17,936,237.80.
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to enter judgment denying EchoStar's request for attorneys' fees and costs, and awarding attorneys' fees to NDS in the amount of $17,936,237.80, and reasonable costs. The costs of this appeal are awarded against EchoStar.
8 Replies
·
2506 views
Does this mean further price increases? Duh!!!!!!!!!!
4 U
Just for you, they just did and search and found out who you are. Look at next months bill, it's now doubled.
Who knows really.
Does this mean further price increases? Duh!!!!!!!!!!
Just for you, they just did and search and found out who you are. Look at next months bill, it's now doubled.
Who knows really.
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
No idea what improvements might be involved.
13 Replies
·
603 views
Staff member
Pub Member / Supporter
Please post your remote make/model here and any details of your issue. We are looking to collect as many examples as possible. I may reach out to you for your receiver number, but please do not post it here.
If you've already reported this to me, please repost it here so I can track all instances in one thread.
Thanks!
Brittany
If you've already reported this to me, please repost it here so I can track all instances in one thread.
Thanks!
Brittany
24 Replies
·
732 views
I was having similar issues last night while watching and recording the NLCS game on 148. When I tried resuming the game at one point the screen went blank and I couldn't get my H3 to respond to any remote commands. Eventually the Hopper went to a HD channel but still no remote response. After a while the Hopper went into a re-boot cycle. This happened at least 3 times. I was using an IR universal remote only.
A little frustrating to have the game broken up like that but at least the Brewers won
Yea, I've only been a CIO for the last 30 years!
Trust me, when something important breaks, they get to own it!
Staff member
HERE TO HELP YOU!
Cutting Edge
Sometimes a thread gets so many posts in it that is can cause issues for the server so that why today we introduce The Song Name Game Part 3!
So let the game continue!
The last song was added by Bobby who posted...
One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters
CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!
Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game
Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.
Example:
Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow
Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio
Another example:
Ride the Lightning -- Metallica
Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne
Get it?
An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
So let the game continue!
The last song was added by Bobby who posted...
One Meat Ball - Andrews Sisters
CONTINUE ON AND HAVE FUN! WELCOME HOME TO SATELLITEGUYS.US!
Here are the original rules for the game as posted by WebbyDude back in 2006. http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads/68645-Song-Name-Game
Just name a song title and the band who performed it. The next person does the same thing, but needs to list a song title or band name which includes a word from the previous entry. Pick songs from any genre.
Example:
Long Live Rock and Roll -- Rainbow
Rainbow in the Dark -- Dio
Another example:
Ride the Lightning -- Metallica
Lightning Strikes -- Ozzy Osbourne
Get it?
An additional note: we all know that song titles, sometimes, use profane words. Because this is a family friendly website it is advised that you clean up that title up a bit. This is accomplished by using something like sh!t instead of the real word. Thanks....
68516 Replies
·
2671880 views
This started a couple months ago. I have 2 H3s on one network, both with 2 EHD identical 3 TB seperately powered so all recordings are accessible by all 4k & J4s (8 of them).
On one H3 (not the main one that controls the MOCA network), after it reboots, it doesn't recognize it has two EHDs plugged into it. Rebooting the EHD by their power source doesn't fix it. Resetting the network doesn't. Software h3 reset doesn't fix it. Rebooting MOCA h3 doesn't fix it but so far, after 3+ cold boots (unplug pwr to H3 with unrecognized EHDs), it finally it figures out they are plugged into it. BUT.... Then when you open a program it only partially shows series and episodes, but instead of showing recordings, it only shows upcoming airings. HELP!!!!
On one H3 (not the main one that controls the MOCA network), after it reboots, it doesn't recognize it has two EHDs plugged into it. Rebooting the EHD by their power source doesn't fix it. Resetting the network doesn't. Software h3 reset doesn't fix it. Rebooting MOCA h3 doesn't fix it but so far, after 3+ cold boots (unplug pwr to H3 with unrecognized EHDs), it finally it figures out they are plugged into it. BUT.... Then when you open a program it only partially shows series and episodes, but instead of showing recordings, it only shows upcoming airings. HELP!!!!
23 Replies
·
326 views
Thanks JohnGalt1234 - That's interesting. I wonder are the Boot Strap versions different between a Hopper 3 only and a Hopper 3 with Hopper Plus setup as I have the later. I guess when charlesrshell is able to since he has both setups, he can do the test. Unless the bootstrap version is tied to when the specific Hopper 3 is manufactured, in my case, mines is from February 2016 when it was installed.
At least Google Search AI is saying the bootstrap version will never change and unique to each Hopper 3.
This is probably why different people seem to either have the issue or they don't because the bootstrap code could also be tied to the hardware revision and
components other than the internal HD.
At least Google Search AI is saying the bootstrap version will never change and unique to each Hopper 3.
This is probably why different people seem to either have the issue or they don't because the bootstrap code could also be tied to the hardware revision and
components other than the internal HD.
JohnGalt1234 - So you basically have 2 Hopper 3's. The CasinoH3 is the one that is Hopper 3 only while Master Bedroom is a Hopper 3 with Hopper Plus setup.
Master Bedroom uses Android TV (ATV) software so the DISH part is actually a app and will behave differently as you can probably tell the Guide's are different on the Master Bedroom which will resemble the same guide used on other ATV devices such as the Joey 4 and Wireless Joey 4. If I am correct, the CasinoH3 is the one with the problem since you did say the one dated 09/05/2026 is the naughty one while 08/15/2026 named Master Bedroom is the nice one. Usually I would expect the CasinoH3 to be the one without the problem because it's Hopper 3 only and Master Bedroom would be the one with problems because it has the Hopper Plus involved. That is why they behave differently because CasinoH3 is running the native Hopper 3 software while Master Bedroom is running the Android TV software and also it runs a app called DISH known as package com.dish.atv.launcher, the version for mines is P15403 2026100917 so it's probably the same version as the Hopper Plus software version with the date of October 9, 2026, not sure what the 17 means except maybe revision 17?
This explains it better than I can. Sorry, had to take all the ads out.
Master Bedroom uses Android TV (ATV) software so the DISH part is actually a app and will behave differently as you can probably tell the Guide's are different on the Master Bedroom which will resemble the same guide used on other ATV devices such as the Joey 4 and Wireless Joey 4. If I am correct, the CasinoH3 is the one with the problem since you did say the one dated 09/05/2026 is the naughty one while 08/15/2026 named Master Bedroom is the nice one. Usually I would expect the CasinoH3 to be the one without the problem because it's Hopper 3 only and Master Bedroom would be the one with problems because it has the Hopper Plus involved. That is why they behave differently because CasinoH3 is running the native Hopper 3 software while Master Bedroom is running the Android TV software and also it runs a app called DISH known as package com.dish.atv.launcher, the version for mines is P15403 2026100917 so it's probably the same version as the Hopper Plus software version with the date of October 9, 2026, not sure what the 17 means except maybe revision 17?
This explains it better than I can. Sorry, had to take all the ads out.
Supporting Founder
Really excited for this season with Kentucky having a new coach and some really exciting recruits. Probably won't last long, but here's hoping this season is great.
146 Replies
·
1584 views
Nah, you just don't understand how ignore works, which is why you made your own NFL thread thinking there wasn't one
Was thinking same thing. It should be a good week for sec shorts and roll callThey ought to have fun with this…
Lifetime Supporter
A continuation of a thread from the pub, just general discussion of AI.
Brief 60 minute clip about next gem autonomous fighters - not remote controlled, but rather collaborating with controllers and aircraft in the theater.
View: https://youtu.be/DRm0mbp_n1k
We've literally got a movie already about this
View: https://youtu.be/a2PW7a9ViDc
Brief 60 minute clip about next gem autonomous fighters - not remote controlled, but rather collaborating with controllers and aircraft in the theater.
View: https://youtu.be/DRm0mbp_n1k
We've literally got a movie already about this
View: https://youtu.be/a2PW7a9ViDc
62 Replies
·
1057 views
Oops.
futurism.com
AI Agent Blamed for Deleting Entire Upcoming Season of TV Show
An AI agent reportedly deleted the entire final cut of the upcoming season of a Swedish reality competition show.
futurism.com
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
I was watching some of this guy's stuff and realized some of you may not be familiar. Basically his show is Candid Camera meets a magician. This is a comp of a few of his exploits. I first learned of him when I was out at a meeting in Denver about 10yrs ago. The men I was sitting at the table with started talking about this show and said it was one of the funniest things they had seen. When I got home I started watching it....yes, it is funny.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIU09F8jdwc
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIU09F8jdwc
2 Replies
·
56 views
Staff member
Pub Member / Supporter
Cutting Edge
The TPN Map Excel Presents all DIRECTV Channels:
Understanding the TPN Map
Making Sense of the TPN Map Display Conventions
National (50-States or wide/NAT+PR beams)
Local (Local-Into-Local or narrow/Spot beams)
Local (Local-Into-Local or narrow/Spot beams)
Additional tabs provide:
OTA the (Over-The-Air) Database
VOD (Video On_Demand) Records
Offline Records
Engr Records
Net Decoder a graphic presentation of all satellites and transponders
VOD (Video On_Demand) Records
Offline Records
Engr Records
Net Decoder a graphic presentation of all satellites and transponders
Domestic Satellites
@99W...... D11, D14
@101W.... D16
@103W.... D12, D15
@110W.... D5
@119W.... D8
@99W...... D11, D14
@101W.... D16
@103W.... D12, D15
@110W.... D5
@119W.... D8
Understanding the TPN Map
Making Sense of the TPN Map Display Conventions
2142 Replies
·
929865 views
Anyone else watch this show? Any guesses as to what was in the box Gibbs gave to Abby that was on her desk? It look liked it was glowing.
I also heard that someone was leaving the show at the end of this season. Any guesses as to who thats going to be?
I also heard that someone was leaving the show at the end of this season. Any guesses as to who thats going to be?
2135 Replies
·
214821 views
Tony as the director.
Would you rather have LaRoche ???Tony as the director.
No. Bring in someone new.
Tony is not serious enough for me. Parker is too close to the team and Tim is too young to take over IMO.
I don't think Tim and Tony are that far apart in Age ...No. Bring in someone new.
Remember what Tony said to Tim when they first got back together ...
Tony said: I am the New Tony, Tim .... (something to that effect)
Tony has changed, he's been running his Security Business ... I'm sure he has grown up.
Give it time ... your judging the New Tony from the old Tony.
It sounds like Tim won't be around the Team much longer either.
Lon.TV
Time for another AWESOME video from Lon Seidman of LON.TV!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnhKwMxIhs
Direct YouTube Link - Local AI Coding from Scratch: A Practical Beginner's Guide
The Official LON.TV Website
Lon on Facebook
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnhKwMxIhs
Direct YouTube Link - Local AI Coding from Scratch: A Practical Beginner's Guide
The Official LON.TV Website
Lon on Facebook
0 Replies
·
21 views