Foreigners don't count!
Tom in TX
how bout we are all foreigners except the Real Native Americans!!!
Charlie Ergen on Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 151
- Views 23K
how bout we are all foreigners except the Real Native Americans!!!
Can't agree with you more and until corps are forced to stop passing fines along to customers they'll be meaningless as a punishment.
There is no doubt that this is a ploy to smoke out the legislature. The idea that they cannot turn off everybody at once is simply rediculous... He is doing this now to try to force congress to do something due to the elections and their short session on the 13th
Lets use for example: Lifetime, Viacom Channels, need I say any more???
When Charlie has a spat with carriage agreements, he shuts them off in the blink of an eye to EVERYONE... Dont tell me that it takes months to shut these people off
Lets use for example: Lifetime, Viacom Channels, need I say any more???
When Charlie has a spat with carriage agreements, he shuts them off in the blink of an eye to EVERYONE... Dont tell me that it takes months to shut these people off
I found your link to Kentucky Took me a little while but its a pretty slick one- Senator Bunning
He was one of the co-sponsors and big supporters of the "Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000" - "A bill to authorize loan guarantees in order to facilitate access to local television broadcast signals in unserved and underserved areas, and for other purposes. "
A paragraph from the legislation:
"the loan is made to finance the acquisition, improvement, enhancement, construction, deployment, launch, or rehabilitation of the means by which local television broadcast signals, and related signals (including high-speed Internet access and National Weather Service warnings), will be delivered to an unserved area or underserved area;"
Interestingly enough: The law sunsets on Dec 31, 2006... Looks like that may be another "in" for Charlie to get to Congress
They could share the satellites transponder space between the two companies. Still keeping their separate companies to sell the programing.
Not having to duplicate every station would free up a lot of bandwidth and maybe they could transmit better quality HD signals.
I guess that would make to much sense.
A couple of problems there... D* uses DSS modulation, E* uses QPSK for the SD locals. But since the 6000 8PSK module can tune DSS, I bet the others can. E* uses Nagravision as their encryption, and D* uses DSS Videoguard(or whatever you want to call it). Not to mention the legalities...who uplinks it...who's bird...etc. Who controls the subs? Lots of issues unless the companies were merged
I don't get your point. As was stated, SV's (that are not also LIL) are DNS. There will be no SV from E* as of next month, you well-written letter notwithstanding.
Interesting that the early shutoffs seem to be coming from the states that Charlie mentioned as being affected the most and having high ranking commerce Congress reps. Smart move by E*
umm despite what the forum expert thinks..I'm quite sure a second series of lawsuits will be required for that to happen or court cases clarifying the injunction
The Shreiva extension, or how ever you spell it, means there WILL BE SV (Significantly Viewed) stations even after DEC 1st.
Show me where the Congress approved law gets over written by this law suit of a lower court authority than Congress and the president.
I believe (dish) Charlie can put ALL the DMAs up by Dec 1st AND add the SVs if Cable has it, everyone will have all 4 networks.
But NOoooooo, Charlie would rather put more local HD up so he can make money.
This is why many of the congressemen are NOT getting involved in this Charlie spat with the networks.
Think about it, Congressmen would be all over it, if they thought there was no way the smaller markets could not get locals. Also look at direct TV they will be OK. Cable will be OK, Dish is just money hungry.
Just an other side to this debate . . . dont get mad , talk about it do someting
call your congressman see what they think.
Show me where the Congress approved law gets over written by this law suit of a lower court authority than Congress and the president.
I believe (dish) Charlie can put ALL the DMAs up by Dec 1st AND add the SVs if Cable has it, everyone will have all 4 networks.
But NOoooooo, Charlie would rather put more local HD up so he can make money.
This is why many of the congressemen are NOT getting involved in this Charlie spat with the networks.
Think about it, Congressmen would be all over it, if they thought there was no way the smaller markets could not get locals. Also look at direct TV they will be OK. Cable will be OK, Dish is just money hungry.
Just an other side to this debate . . . dont get mad , talk about it do someting
call your congressman see what they think.
Losing our local channels while traveling!!
We were shocked to say the least when we got an e-mail from Dish Network today telling us that we would no long be able to get our local Colorado channels out of Denver while we are traveling during the winter season. This is an outrage!! Who and what are getting involved in this and why? I would think that the FEDS have more to worry about at this point in time than what tv channels we are watching, and I might add, paying for. I have a call into our state representative about this and I hope we get a chance to talk with him about this. We don't want the local channels from places that we have no ties to; we do want the local channels where we can keep up with news, etc. from our home area. What is going on here????? Please keep us informed as to what we can do to try and change this.
We were shocked to say the least when we got an e-mail from Dish Network today telling us that we would no long be able to get our local Colorado channels out of Denver while we are traveling during the winter season. This is an outrage!! Who and what are getting involved in this and why? I would think that the FEDS have more to worry about at this point in time than what tv channels we are watching, and I might add, paying for. I have a call into our state representative about this and I hope we get a chance to talk with him about this. We don't want the local channels from places that we have no ties to; we do want the local channels where we can keep up with news, etc. from our home area. What is going on here????? Please keep us informed as to what we can do to try and change this.
Grammy, your receiver (or Dish) doesn't know where you are other than your service address. Assuming your local Colorado channels are on a satellite beam that covers the continental US and not on a spotbeam, you can, and will, continue to pick them up anywhere in the country. Unless you give Dish a new service address for the winter season, they don't know.
What exactly does the e-mail say ?? Copy and paste it here.
What exactly does the e-mail say ?? Copy and paste it here.
Here is the e-mail I got today
"Based upon a recent court ruling, there may be some small changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be able to continue to receive your local networks and other great programming that DISH Network currently provides.
So, you are NOT in danger of losing any of your local network channels, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX, from your community, and you can still enjoy all of the other great programming we provide, like ESPN, USA, Discovery and Showtime, without interruption.
But unfortunately, as a result of a recent court ruling, no later than December 1st, 2006, we may no longer be able to provide distant networks to customers regardless of past qualifications. Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast channels that you receive that originate from a market outside your community.
In addition, DISH Network continues to do everything possible to prevent you from losing your distant network channels before December 1st. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels – or learn more about what is happening in Washington about this issue – you can go to www.savemychannels.com which will walk you through how you can contact and email your representatives in Congress to ask them to protect your channels. Because we are running out of time, we ask you to call and email today.
Please visit channel 240 for additional information.
We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH Network customer."
"Based upon a recent court ruling, there may be some small changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be able to continue to receive your local networks and other great programming that DISH Network currently provides.
So, you are NOT in danger of losing any of your local network channels, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX, from your community, and you can still enjoy all of the other great programming we provide, like ESPN, USA, Discovery and Showtime, without interruption.
But unfortunately, as a result of a recent court ruling, no later than December 1st, 2006, we may no longer be able to provide distant networks to customers regardless of past qualifications. Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast channels that you receive that originate from a market outside your community.
In addition, DISH Network continues to do everything possible to prevent you from losing your distant network channels before December 1st. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels – or learn more about what is happening in Washington about this issue – you can go to www.savemychannels.com which will walk you through how you can contact and email your representatives in Congress to ask them to protect your channels. Because we are running out of time, we ask you to call and email today.
Please visit channel 240 for additional information.
We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH Network customer."
The fact that SHVERA-2004 introduced the concept of SV to DBS is not the operative point. There are essentially three categories of network stations:
1. DMA locals
2. SV
3. DNS
Any given station may be one, two or all three of these. SV may be either local or distant. Let's say you live in Dodge County, WI (Milwaukee DMA). Your local stations are WTMJ (NBC), WDJT (CBS), WITI (FOX), and WISN (ABC).
SV stations are all those mentioned above (except for WDJT - founded as an independent in 1988, it became a CBS affiliate in 1994 and will be, one assumes, added to the SV list at some point) plus WKOW, WMTV, WISC and WMSN (the big four networks from Madison) and a couple of other Milwaukee stations. These stations are SV because (and only because) they are on the FCC list. It does not matter that they are also DMA locals. Remember that the SV list was developed for CATV.
If you were eligible for DNS (you're not), DNS (as offered by E*) would be out of NY/LA/CHI or whatever the current offering is.
So, E* can provide as LIL the four MKE stations. If you were eligible for (non-SV) DNS, E* could provide up to two of each eligible network. They could also provide (if you subscribe to LIL) any SV station which in this case would be only the Madison stations since all the Milwaukee stations are covered via LIL. If there were 15 SV (non-LIL) stations, E* could offer them all because even though they are also DNS, by law they do not count against the 2 per day maximum. So theoretically a subscriber in some hypothetical DMA could have five, ten, fifteen different ABC feeds.
Now to the point. All channels delivered by E* require (among other things) copyright clearance (as has been discussed ad nauseum). There are two ways to get such (which you know if you have been listening to Professor Bimson) - individual licensing agreements or use of a statutory (i.e. granted by law) license. In this context, only the statutory license is used because of practical considerations. There are two licenses - the one provided by 17 USC 119 for any distant network station (DNS) (which is at the center of E*'s current problems) and the one provided by 17 USC 122 (for Local into Local). A station may be carried using 119, 122 or both depending upon the circumstances. For instance, WKOW is carried in Madison via the 122 license (LIL) but in Dodge County via the 119 license (as it is non-LIL SV there). Since the injunction impacts the 119 license only, any SV station cannot be carried by E* (except in its own DMA as LIL). Likewise any of the NY/LA "DNS" cannot be carried as they also use the 119 license.
Now all of this is subject to the whim of E* as they are not required to carry SV stations. But for instructional purposes I am acting as if they do. Remember also that DNS, SV, LIL (or variants thereof) are defined in law and do not necessarily congrue to common sense. Once again this is not a court arbitrarily picking on E* but rather applying the law as written by.....drum roll please....Congress!
1. DMA locals
2. SV
3. DNS
Any given station may be one, two or all three of these. SV may be either local or distant. Let's say you live in Dodge County, WI (Milwaukee DMA). Your local stations are WTMJ (NBC), WDJT (CBS), WITI (FOX), and WISN (ABC).
SV stations are all those mentioned above (except for WDJT - founded as an independent in 1988, it became a CBS affiliate in 1994 and will be, one assumes, added to the SV list at some point) plus WKOW, WMTV, WISC and WMSN (the big four networks from Madison) and a couple of other Milwaukee stations. These stations are SV because (and only because) they are on the FCC list. It does not matter that they are also DMA locals. Remember that the SV list was developed for CATV.
If you were eligible for DNS (you're not), DNS (as offered by E*) would be out of NY/LA/CHI or whatever the current offering is.
So, E* can provide as LIL the four MKE stations. If you were eligible for (non-SV) DNS, E* could provide up to two of each eligible network. They could also provide (if you subscribe to LIL) any SV station which in this case would be only the Madison stations since all the Milwaukee stations are covered via LIL. If there were 15 SV (non-LIL) stations, E* could offer them all because even though they are also DNS, by law they do not count against the 2 per day maximum. So theoretically a subscriber in some hypothetical DMA could have five, ten, fifteen different ABC feeds.
Now to the point. All channels delivered by E* require (among other things) copyright clearance (as has been discussed ad nauseum). There are two ways to get such (which you know if you have been listening to Professor Bimson) - individual licensing agreements or use of a statutory (i.e. granted by law) license. In this context, only the statutory license is used because of practical considerations. There are two licenses - the one provided by 17 USC 119 for any distant network station (DNS) (which is at the center of E*'s current problems) and the one provided by 17 USC 122 (for Local into Local). A station may be carried using 119, 122 or both depending upon the circumstances. For instance, WKOW is carried in Madison via the 122 license (LIL) but in Dodge County via the 119 license (as it is non-LIL SV there). Since the injunction impacts the 119 license only, any SV station cannot be carried by E* (except in its own DMA as LIL). Likewise any of the NY/LA "DNS" cannot be carried as they also use the 119 license.
Now all of this is subject to the whim of E* as they are not required to carry SV stations. But for instructional purposes I am acting as if they do. Remember also that DNS, SV, LIL (or variants thereof) are defined in law and do not necessarily congrue to common sense. Once again this is not a court arbitrarily picking on E* but rather applying the law as written by.....drum roll please....Congress!
Charlie didn't make $7B+ by not knowing how to run a business.
That he is cleverly selecting the early DNS turn-offs by the political districts where he likely has the strongest ties to the most influencial congressmen and senators is no surprise at all. Very shrewd.
Being a billionaire who has likely donated to many political candidates over the years, and cultivated personal relationships with many too, now is the time for him to try to call in some chits.
By having tens of thousands of voters working in unison with him is likewise shrewd. Contacting people like Scott, who can in turn influence thousands on their on-line forums is all part of the strategy.
It is too bad that all of this is not for a nobler cause. If E* had been working hard to be in compliance with the laws, it would be easier to support Charlie. And I must admit that from my perspective, it is dearer to my heart to contact senators to do something about poverty or the environment than to save a couple of TV channels out of the 200+ that I receive. But I guess one can always do both.
Anyway it is fun to see Charlie working all of the angles. He and Jim may appear a little bumbling at times on Charlie Chats, but I wouldn't want to be in direct competition with them for a buck.
That he is cleverly selecting the early DNS turn-offs by the political districts where he likely has the strongest ties to the most influencial congressmen and senators is no surprise at all. Very shrewd.
Being a billionaire who has likely donated to many political candidates over the years, and cultivated personal relationships with many too, now is the time for him to try to call in some chits.
By having tens of thousands of voters working in unison with him is likewise shrewd. Contacting people like Scott, who can in turn influence thousands on their on-line forums is all part of the strategy.
It is too bad that all of this is not for a nobler cause. If E* had been working hard to be in compliance with the laws, it would be easier to support Charlie. And I must admit that from my perspective, it is dearer to my heart to contact senators to do something about poverty or the environment than to save a couple of TV channels out of the 200+ that I receive. But I guess one can always do both.
Anyway it is fun to see Charlie working all of the angles. He and Jim may appear a little bumbling at times on Charlie Chats, but I wouldn't want to be in direct competition with them for a buck.
your right he got the majority of money by nickel and diming his customers to death
Shrewd?Tom Bombadil said:
We're Dish Network, and we'll fight to the death to make sure you can get distant networks.
That is, until we find it expedient enought to shut you down and make you call Congress on our behalf.
Can you say PAWN?
Not trying to split peanuts here but as Charley writes the check, who is paying " good money" for this "mistake"? The point is not that Charley may or not have made a mistake. Its that the government/courts finds it necessary to indirectly "tax" us a little more by fining a company that by the nature of business charges costs back to the consumer.
If in fact Charley did intentionally violate some nebulas law, then put Charley away in Leavenworth where they only have OTA. There would be less likelihood of these kinds of "crimes " if the penalties befell the CEO rather than the consumer.
I know that if I have a customers unrestricted budget I get a little more fast, loose, and spendier than if if it came out of my own hide.
I was implying that in my message, referring to his usage of the on-line forums.
Usually when you are used like a pawn, someone shrewd is doing it.
Hey I don't mind being used as a pawn.
Personlly I could care less about the distant networks as I don't have them and live in an area where I can get everything OTA with an antenna.
However as the owner of a community where our members will be affected by this then I do care. And will work to make sure our members get the support they need to continue to legally enjoy distant networks.
I said it before and I will say it again, I do believe Echostar violated the law, however I believe the punishment for the crime is wrong. In the long run no matter what with distants or without distants it does not hurt Dish Network, however it does hurt innocent folks at home who were legal distant network subscribers.
Thank you to everyone who has called in, as a community we can make a difference.
Personlly I could care less about the distant networks as I don't have them and live in an area where I can get everything OTA with an antenna.
However as the owner of a community where our members will be affected by this then I do care. And will work to make sure our members get the support they need to continue to legally enjoy distant networks.
I said it before and I will say it again, I do believe Echostar violated the law, however I believe the punishment for the crime is wrong. In the long run no matter what with distants or without distants it does not hurt Dish Network, however it does hurt innocent folks at home who were legal distant network subscribers.
Thank you to everyone who has called in, as a community we can make a difference.
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
T
-
T
-
Is it legal to get TV and radio broadcasts from another country?- Latest: Scott Greczkowski
-