CONUS HD New York Locals on 72.7?

The service address on his account is within the NYC DMA, but his physical location is not. He can receive the NYC locals in SD on the 110 and 119 CONUS beams. There are other DMA's available in HD on CONUS beams.

That would be considered fraud. A DMA being transmitted over a CONUS beam does not entitle every customer to watch it.

I'm not really on this forum to argue with people about business rules and legalities so this will be my last post in this thread. Thanks!
 
That would be considered fraud. A DMA being transmitted over a CONUS beam does not entitle every customer to watch it.

I'm not really on this forum to argue with people about business rules and legalities so this will be my last post in this thread. Thanks!

There is no fraud. It at most would be against terms of the user agreement with DISH. There is no criminal activity involved in the U.S. or Mexico.
 
I might remind you that Josh M is a Dish employee on the technical side. He is simply stating Dish rules.

And I appreciate that. That is his opinion that I disagree with and this has been discussed many times in the past. It is against the DISH user agreement, that does not make it Fraud. You will not be criminally charged with anything. Whatever the agreement calls for could be applied.
 
And I appreciate that. That is his opinion that I disagree with and this has been discussed many times in the past. It is against the DISH user agreement, that does not make it Fraud. You will not be criminally charged with anything. Whatever the agreement calls for could be applied.
Do not continue to rile the Dish people, they can make it harder for all movers. An argument simply not worth the effort...
 
I will continue to disagree when I see false information and give my opinion in a reasonable way. Why should someone here think they are committing fraud?
We had DISH reps here, along with giving great information also say several things over the years not true and I or others posted and were right about.

He may have meant to say against the user agreement, which is 100% correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
I will continue to disagree when I see false information and give my opinion in a reasonable way. Why should someone here think they are committing fraud?
We had DISH reps here, along with giving great information also say several things over the years not true and I or others posted and were right about.
Fraud does not just mean criminal. It also can be defined as willfully deceiving. I think his use of the word, in that sense, is correct.

Screen Shot 2022-10-06 at 8.57.50 AM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
I might remind you that Josh M is a Dish employee on the technical side. He is simply stating Dish rules.
I haven't found anything yet in the terms of service about having to be physically located where your service address is. I often watch TV using my Dish service from locations hundreds of miles away from my current service address. And I do it using equipment and software supplied by Dish for exactly that purpose. That tells me that Dish really doesn't care if I'm watching locals from one DMA while located in another DMA.
 
I heard long ago that it was technically not illegal for the consumer to use locals that are not from his designated area, but it was a severe violation to some FCC rule or to the contract Dish holds with local channel providers for them to willfully provide someone with locals to somewhere else. So us users have nothing to lose, while Dish has it all to lose. This also explains/prevents Dish from providing you with locals from your neighbor DMA during a dispute for example.

Do not continue to rile the Dish people, they can make it harder for all movers. An argument simply not worth the effort...
Wholeheartedly agree here, don't make it harder for them. They probably know a few people do this, and know its not worth the trouble, but if we start attacking people without knowing the full picture then we end up with no Dish employees to help us out on the forum when we need it.
 
I heard long ago that it was technically not illegal for the consumer to use locals that are not from his designated area, but it was a severe violation to some FCC rule or to the contract Dish holds with local channel providers for them to willfully provide someone with locals to somewhere else. So us users have nothing to lose, while Dish has it all to lose. This also explains/prevents Dish from providing you with locals from your neighbor DMA during a dispute for example.
Yet Dish freely provides us with the means to watch the DMA assigned to our service address from literally anywhere in the world.
 
Yet Dish freely provides us with the means to watch the DMA assigned to our service address from literally anywhere in the world.
I think there is a rule on that as long as your home address does not change, you are allowed to use DANY or other services while away. But you have to check-in at your home address once in a while to verify you live there. For Hulu LiveTV its once every 30 days, and for YTTV once every 90. No idea what rules Dish follows, if they follow that rule at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charlesrshell
I think there is a rule on that as long as your home address does not change, you are allowed to use DANY or other services while away. But you have to check-in at your home address once in a while to verify you live there. For Hulu LiveTV its once every 30 days, and for YTTV once every 90. No idea what rules Dish follows, if they follow that rule at all.
Since we're never at our billing address and never have been, I know Dish doesn't use that for any verification. And our service address changes quite often, so I'm not sure what Dish would consider our "home" address. I don't have Hulu Live or YTTV, but I wonder what they , or Dish, use to verify where you are?
 
When DISH had the big decision against them many years ago and lost the right to have Distants it was because they were giving them out without proper verification. People could tell them anything about their location and got them. For a time more than one set. Oh, to have those days back....

Anyway, DISH and only DISH was responsible for that, not the subscriber that gave wrong information. What did DISH do before the that decision they could no longer offer them?** Terminated the Distants to those who should not have them. As the user agreement says.
And the difference here is, there is no financial gain. Is it fraud for paying for entertainment you are not supposed to get a mistake by the company giving it to you in how they give them?
Do people here think DISH is not fully aware, just as they were all the years ago, that some people are getting locals they are really not supposed to?

**Charlie out did himself at that juncture. He got a company that offered Distants onto DISH and THEY gave you Distants. At that time a service that was not your provider, did not carry your locals, could give you Distants. Courts upheld he could do that.
One of the great FU's of all time to the FCC.
 
Last edited:

Joey 4

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 10)