Consumer Reports backing E* on DNS Situation

Tom Bombadil

Supporting Founder
Original poster
Supporting Founder
May 5, 2005
3,601
1
Chicago-Milwaukee Region
(Multichannel News) _ Washington
A leading consumer group is urging Congress to protect hundreds of thousands of EchoStar Communications subscribers who, by judicial fiat, are nearing the loss of out-of-market feeds of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox programming.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and other publications with a combined subscribership of 7 million, raised its concerns in a Nov. 17 letter to all U.S. senators. Among other things, the letter said legislation should protect not just programming choice but also competition between EchoStar's Dish Network and its main rival, DirecTV, controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
RURAL HARM

"We are concerned that with only one other satellite-television provider available, rural consumers will be left without meaningful marketplace choice and that competition may be irreparably harmed," wrote CU senior policy analyst Jeannie Kenney.

Without judicial intervention, about 850,000 EchoStar subscribers will lose access to distant signals on Dec. 1. Distant signals are feeds from ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, beamed by EchoStar to rural customers who can't get the same programming locally with an off-air antenna.

EchoStar does not need permission to retransmit distant signals.

Just before the Senate broke for Thanksgiving, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill (S. 4067) designed to soften the impact of the pending cutoff, ordered in October by a federal judge who found that EchoStar had broken the law by selling distant signals to hundreds of thousands of legally ineligible customers.

By the terms of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas said he was required to impose a nationwide injunction, which ends up punishing not just EchoStar's illegal customers, but also hundreds of thousands of legal ones.
BIG SENATE BACKERS

Leahy, who takes over as Judiciary Committee chairman in the new Congress in January, introduced his bill with support from some key people, including Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a likely presidential candidate; Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the incoming chairman of the Commerce Committee; and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), expected to take the reins at the Appropriations Committee.

If the Leahy bill became law, it would not ensure that legally eligible customers those who live in so-called white areas where broadcast TV signals are weak could continue to buy distant signals from EchoStar.

"Customers who live in 'white areas' and who were legally receiving distant broadcast networks from EchoStar should not be penalized for the company's wrongful acts," CU's Kenney wrote.

The Senate is expected to return to work on Dec. 4, just a few days into the injunction. Some on Capitol Hill expect a flood of complaints, forcing Congress to pass legislation to quell the rebellion.

"It's going to be a big stink and it is going to be a political problem," said Jimmy Schaeffler, senior financial and consulting analyst with The Carmel Group, who has been involved with EchoStar on legal matters over the past decade. "Are they [EchoStar] going to be able get enough hoopla going to get Congress to say, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this?' I don't think so."

Leahy's bill would be the likely starting point for Senate action. In its most helpful provision, the bill would allow EchoStar to resume delivering network signals to markets where it does not offer a package of local TV signals. That's about 40 markets in all and they include less than 5% of all TV households.

Because the bill provided a modicum of relief in the most rural-TV markets, CU endorsed the Leahy bill's "approach," but nothing more specific than that.

In so-called short markets areas missing at least one major network affiliate EchoStar could fill the gap by importing a distant signal, according to Leahy's nine-page bill.

The bill, however, would ban EchoStar from the resumption of distant signals in the 170 markets where it offers local TV stations, something CU opposed. But those customers can replace distant signals with local ones, Kenney said.

Customers who lose distant signals from EchoStar can't purchase a similar package from DirecTV if they live in a market where DirecTV offers local TV signals. Only the local package may be purchased by new customers, under provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Reauthorization Act of 2004.

Under Leahy's bill, EchoStar customers would lose the right to seek waivers from local affiliates to buy distant signals. Owners of recreational vehicles and commercial trucks, exempt from white area restrictions in current law, would lose the exemption under the bill.

In August, EchoStar reached a $100 million settlement ultimately rejected by Dimitrouleas with all TV stations involved except those owned by News Corp., which pressed the judge to hand down the sweeping injunction.

Leahy's bill took a middle position: It's less severe than the injunction and less accommodating than the settlement.
CHEER FROM ECHOSTAR

EchoStar applauded the "bipartisan effort to enable innocent consumers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster."

Even though the vast majority of TV stations settled, they have stopped supporting EchoStar's campaign to modify the injunction, both in court and in Congress.

National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton said his group "opposes a bailout by Congress of a habitual copyright infringer."

Copyright The Associated Press 2006. All Rights Reserved
 
CU/CR just wants to level the playing field between E* and D*. Obviously a lot of people with E* DNS right now would still lose their channels.

That last statement by the NAB didn't show much love for E*.
 
Leahy's bill would be the likely starting point for Senate action. In its most helpful provision, the bill would allow EchoStar to resume delivering network signals to markets where it does not offer a package of local TV signals. That's about 40 markets in all and they include less than 5% of all TV households.

This part doesn't make sense to me. I thought Distants are only allowed if no OTA is available (or receivable). Literally, this would kill most motivation for Sat providers to do LIL.

That being said, I do believe E* should be penalized for breaking the law. But, removal of all Distants just does too much damage to the competitive landscape (ultimately hurting the consumer).

But, E* needs to be hit hard enough to for the penality to be real.

That being said, I also think the law reguarding distants is arcaic and stupid. If I'm willing to pay, I should be able to receive any channel a provider wants to supply. The Free Market should determine what channels are carried.
 
And hopefully the free market will destroy the NAB as the networks keep pushing their shows on XBox Live Marketplace, future iterations of TV over IP, and free downloads of their shows on their websites.

They want to keep us from watching their stations. I'm becoming more hopeful that I can grant their wish. Only I plan on taking it farther than they expected whenever possible. It's a joke anyway, as I skip past their commercials already with my PVR....
 
This part doesn't make sense to me. I thought Distants are only allowed if no OTA is available (or receivable). Literally, this would kill most motivation for Sat providers to do LIL.

That being said, I do believe E* should be penalized for breaking the law. But, removal of all Distants just does too much damage to the competitive landscape (ultimately hurting the consumer).

But, E* needs to be hit hard enough to for the penality to be real.

That being said, I also think the law reguarding distants is arcaic and stupid. If I'm willing to pay, I should be able to receive any channel a provider wants to supply. The Free Market should determine what channels are carried.

It is referring to SV stations in markets without four network affiliates. For instance, there is no CBS in Utica, NY.

The problem with paying all you want is that Charlie just keeps most of the money.
 
So how about congress removes digital distants from current analog license and creates separate license for retransmission of distant digital networks?
 
I think Congress should stay out of the matter.

Dish could have re-qualified customers, and there would not have been a problem today.

Dish decided not to re-qualify customers, and with that choice they also chose to take and consequences.
 
I think Congress should stay out of the matter.

Dish could have re-qualified customers, and there would not have been a problem today.

Dish decided not to re-qualify customers, and with that choice they also chose to take and consequences.

The end user is suffering the consequences.

I love it how people that are not being affected by this matter are the most vocal. It is easy to be haughty and above it all when you have no vested interest in the matter other then an ill conceived idea of justice.

I feel that all future posts on this matter should be prefaced with:


A. I rely on DNS for the big four networks and......

or

B. I don't rely on DNS for the big four networks and......


It will become obvious very quickly that those who are not losing anything are 99% of those who feel that the injunction should stand.
 
Last edited:
Sure. But then you get the people that say...

I rely on DNS because the picture quality is so much better on the distants.
I rely on DNS because I like to timeshift.
I rely on DNS because I get different sports programming than my locals.

None of which are the most plausible excuses.
 
All of them are valid points though.

In a free market, consumers pay for convenience. In a monopoly situation, they rarely get what they want.... only that which the monopolist deems necessary, in exchange for a hefty price.... either monetary or in forced trade (you want to see this? you watch MY ads).

I haven't seen a monopoly yet that was good for consumers. MAYBE AT&T in it's heyday since it was heavily regulated.

I hope the whole corrupt system gets torn down over this issue. Having a couple of hundred thousand ticked off constituents just may do it.... Assuming they move fast enough before people seek alternative methods...
 
It is referring to SV stations in markets without four network affiliates. For instance, there is no CBS in Utica, NY.

The problem with paying all you want is that Charlie just keeps most of the money.

Whoa! Don't we want Charlie (and Echostar) to keep making money? That's how they pay to provide us better equipment and channel options.
 
All of them are valid points though.

Valid points absolutely, but legally, not valid. The only reason for DNS is white area reception. Those who have distants for those points you make and can receive LIL or OTA legally cannot have DNS

In a free market, consumers pay for convenience.

Absolutely. I get DNS with my motorhome. I use DNS more at home than on the road. I use FoxNY during the baseball season for the Mets games. So legally I'm entitled, however, in the true sense I shouldn't be getting DNS as I'm not full time on the road with the motorhome.

I hope the whole corrupt system gets torn down over this issue.

I also hope the issue gets ripped apart and re-examined. I agree with others who say I should be able to buy whatever channel I that is on the bird and receivable in my area. I also think that some fair and equitable monetary renumeration should be given to the stations I purchase. Not knowing the costs of doing business, I doubt it costs Dish 6 bucks a month per sub to uplink the distant nets.
 
Sure. But then you get the people that say...

I rely on DNS because the picture quality is so much better on the distants.
I rely on DNS because I like to timeshift.
I rely on DNS because I get different sports programming than my locals.

None of which are the most plausible excuses.

No matter why you, you still rely.

There are three types of people posting on these DNS discussion threads:

1. Those affected (18.4%)
2. Objective rationalists (34.9%)
3. Haters (53.7%)

*source dilbert27


If you rely on DNS in any manifestation you are type 1 and do not fall into the "injunction junkies" holier then thou 99% grouping which spend their time speaking of the righteous ways of man and the striking down of the evil devil Dish and his followers.......
 
I'm all three....

I'm affected by the channels going away (I lose a bunch of channels)
I like to think I'm rational in that I try to argue for changes based on constitutional freedoms.
I'm a hater, because I hate the NAB, Rupert Murdoch, and anyone who tries to say that a monopolist should be protected at the expense of the consumer.
 
BobMurdoch said:
All of them are valid points though.

In a free market, consumers pay for convenience.
Yes, but my points are still valid even though distant network service is not a construct of the free market. In a "free market", the owners and licensees of the content would have had a carriage agreement with Dish Network to deliever timeshifting and alternate sports programming; the picture quality issue probably rests more with Dish Network (just as mine does with DirecTV).
BobMurdoch said:
In a monopoly situation, they rarely get what they want.... only that which the monopolist deems necessary, in exchange for a hefty price.... either monetary or in forced trade (you want to see this? you watch MY ads).
I am trying to figure this out. What monopoly situation?
 
bacchus101 said:
No matter why you, you still rely.

There are three types of people posting on these DNS discussion threads:

1. Those affected (18.4%)
2. Objective rationalists (34.9%)
3. Haters (53.7%)

*source dilbert27


If you rely on DNS in any manifestation you are type 1 and do not fall into the "injunction junkies" holier then thou 99% grouping which spend their time speaking of the righteous ways of man and the striking down of the evil devil Dish and his followers.......
I am one of two or three people on the boards that said within two days the settlement wasn't going to stop the injunction. I am a realist, and I am trying to be informative. If people do not like what I have to say, they don't have to read it. But, if people want information, I'd suggest they read what I am saying.

I truly feel bad for the people that require the use of the 17 USC 119 license in order to get any network service, whether because the customer is too far from local channels in order to receive networks or because they are truckers and RVers that can only really receive DNS in order to keep network programming.

Of course, there are terms to using the distant network license contained in 17 USC 119. So when a provider hands out 3.6 million distant network feeds and then has no record keeping so that it appears 1.8 million of those feeds are given illegally, maybe the fact that anyone relied on their provider to do the right thing and settle this nonsense years ago should be brought up.

Realize that in the proposed $100 million settlement, Dish Network would have agreed to throw most of their distant network subscribers under the bus. Think about that last statement for a few minutes.

So no matter why anyone still relies on distant nets is no longer the issue. Dish Network has local channels available to 96 percent of the households in the US. So most reliance regarding network programming only applies to the four percent that are unserved by Dish Network, as well has the handful of markets that would be missing a network affiliate.
 
I am in the 4% that can't get locals via Dish and in the 32,000 or so that has missing OTA big 4 networks (I get just one) so I am.....

Well.....

Bitter =)

I have given in today and the DirecTV installer will be at my house next Tuesday.
 
Hopefully the court of appeals will do something this week. Glad to see E* getting support on this, it'll make the court take a closer look.
 

Extra Reciever

Dish Installer took my stuff

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)