Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 428
- Views 57K
If you own a McDonalds franchise on the south side of A street, someone else is not allowed to own one across the street, on the North side of A street. If they did, you would not like it.
This is no different. It is franchise ownership and is in the legal contracts between networks and the affiliates.
This is no different. It is franchise ownership and is in the legal contracts between networks and the affiliates.
What do we think the ruling means for the special CBS-HD contract Dish has? Will the courts consider that to be a "distant network?"
Barry Erick said:
so if a cable operator had a franchise for an area, then should the telco's or another cable operator be allowed to offer tv in the same area?
Barry Erick said:
Uh uh. There a re a BUNCH of McDonald's in Manhattan, many on the same street.
The vast majority of the lemmings will go to the local source (ie. buying the New York Times), but I have a real problem in outright banning the importation of another signal should I wish to pay for it. Once again, if my Mom lives in LA, and I want to watch the local LA news when an earthquake hits to make sure she is OK, why is that illegal?
Have Dish Network sign a nationwide retransmission agreement for the Los Angeles local channels, and it isn't illegal.BobMurdoch said:
Which I thought they have since ABC has granted waivers to several people. It isn't the widespread blanket waiver that CBS has for people in O & O markets, but they aren't refusing to grant them either.
This whole system is like how cable used to run things. They have a lock on an area and customer service is severely lacking. You bring in competition and lo and behold, they get their act together. Allow the distant nets and give people in those markets that refuse to get with the program an option. Or leave them in Podunk with someone who isn't supporting the HD transition like they should, or is using their monopoly power to censor network programming they don't agree with, or fail to provide a proper signal to their viewers who, through the collective ownership of the American airwaves, actually owns the spectrum they enjoy for free..
This whole system is like how cable used to run things. They have a lock on an area and customer service is severely lacking. You bring in competition and lo and behold, they get their act together. Allow the distant nets and give people in those markets that refuse to get with the program an option. Or leave them in Podunk with someone who isn't supporting the HD transition like they should, or is using their monopoly power to censor network programming they don't agree with, or fail to provide a proper signal to their viewers who, through the collective ownership of the American airwaves, actually owns the spectrum they enjoy for free..
Greg Bimson said:
ok, we want VoIP, cable, phone, power (in some places), satellite and everything else to compete against each other but when it comes to television stations competeing for a market outside of there DMA, why that's a copyright issue, we can't do that, blah, blah, blah. I feel as long as cash for carriage option is in play, then a provider should be able to offer alternatives. I want compentition between television stations without a DMA. help weed out those stations that ain't cutting it. Should we be forced to carry a station that is nothing but infomercials and take up space for that crap? A provider should be able to offer "time shifting" to it's customers. It's like having a TivO and recording it to watch it later in a sense. I could go with having your local DMA channels and being able to pay extra for other channels that maybe local but not in the DMA and/or have an option to buy a feed out of Denver or LA for time shifting purposes. The ABC, CBS, NBC's have these shows and they send them out to the television stations affiliates for viewing. Now CBS, NBC, ABC among other networks have the rights to the show and another network don't. So copyright is controlled there, why is it a copyright issue out somewhere else? CBS affiliates from two markets are showing what CBS sent to them for airing to one group, what's the difference? the difference is advertisers, not the shows. advertisers got this sh*t started because they didn't want for an example, a car dealership advertising in there market and competing against them. question? what about radio? you can hear some stations well over two or three different market areas in some cases. what if your local market doesn't offer you a rock station and it's nothing but polka. should you be forced to listen to it and not have a choice? I want a choice across the FM dial.
Canada had this right, it resolved any issue for one channel or another. If a local eastern feed of CBC is on and they offered CBC west then must carry, dma, etc. didn't apply. In other words, it's not about copyright, the main CBC (Global, CTV, etc.) has the programming and copyrights, not the affiliate stations. They broadcast out to the local affiliates for airing. Many cable operators and the satellite providers in Canada offers east and west coast U.S. affiliates along with Canadian own television affiliates, which shows a lot of our shows on there as well, without all the Bullsh!t we have here. Can I not just turn on the tv and watch whatever, wherever without someone telling me what I can watch? For those that support a la carte, maybe television stations should be a part of that as well?
Last edited:
OK, I have read all 13 pages of this but I still do not know the answer to my situation. I live 100 miles from the Topeka, KS stations. I had my locals from Kansas City before Topeka's were offered. I have kept Kansas City and never changed, or even been asked to switch. Then when Kansas City locals were switched in April to HD I upgraded to a 622. My billing address is the same as my Service address. Do I have to worry about losing the KC HD locals? I also receive the LA ABC channel, for an extra 1.50/month. Will I lose it?
MikeF, you should be fine with your KC locals, both SD and HD.
However, if an injunction should come to pass, you'll lose the LA ABC channel.
However, if an injunction should come to pass, you'll lose the LA ABC channel.
No, there isn't a "nationwide retransmission agreement" for ABC. The "waivers" are part of the SHVA and its successors for the compulsory license.BobMurdoch said:
The CBS HD may be a problem, too. I haven't read the law in a while, but it seems to me the distant network licenses are indiscriminant of SD or HD. Therefore it is my belief that if Dish Network is injuncted, there won't be distant SD or HD on Dish Network.
Here we go again...cablewithaview said:
Does Dish Network have NATIONWIDE CARRIAGE CONTRACTS for networks? No. How can there be any alternative when KABC in Los Angeles does not have a contract with Dish Network to distribute the channel nationwide?
Greg Bimson said:
Greg,
Dish does have a carriage agreement and copyright licese with CBS for the HD channel. The agreement allows for resale of CBS HD in O&O cities and where no grade B signal can be received from another analog or digital CBS station can be received.
This is the only network channel that would be immune if the injunction comes. Not CBS sd, CBS HD *ONLY*.
See ya
Tony
mike123abc said:
But just because the stations aren't selling their product in your area, that shouldn't prevent others from re-selling it. Collusion to interfere with interstate commerce is a pretty serious federal crime, isn't it?
Follow me on this, Tony:TNGTony said:
CBSHD can be given to "white area" subs. OK, that is within the constraints of the SHVIA.
CBS granted Echostar permission to rebroacast CBS HD to customers that receive CBS-owned stations. Sounds like CBS was waiving their rights. Sounds like a contract for a blanket waiver.
WCBS and KCBS run The Insider and Entertainment Tonight in the 7PM hour. So does KRON, a station not owned by CBS. However, since the local CBS affiliate is O&O, don't you believe the producers of ET and The Insider would be highly upset at CBS for supplanting their deal with KRON without their cooperation?
Well, if CBS agrees to issue a blanket HD waiver, it doesn't matter what the producers of ET and The Insider think, because the copyright exemption is valid due to a blanket waiver. Otherwise, CBS would have to clear their syndicated programming to ALL their O&O markets if this was a private agreement without use of the SHVA/-VIA/-VERA license.
Collusion with whom?Jim S. said:
The network stations have no rights to resell their signal nationwide as the networks prohibit that in their affiliate agreements. The syndicated programmers, such as ET, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Access Hollywood, etc., need to be able to sell on a per station basis, with rates upon the amount of viewership given in each market.
EchoStar CopyRight Setback
EchoStar Copyright Setback
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/media/10288226_2.html
By Sandy Brown
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
5/25/2006 4:08 PM EDT
Satellite provider EchoStar (DISH:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) was dealt a blow when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled against them in a long-running copyright suit. The suit was brought against the company's DISH network by the affiliate associations of the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.
The ruling may result in the loss of broadcast-network programming to a portion of DISH subscribers and could result in customer defections to other services.
In 1998, broadcasters sued EchoStar, saying that it violated regulations governing homes that were not served by local broadcast signals as related to the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA). In 2003, the company was ordered to turn off ineligible subscribers.
In a unanimous ruling, the three judges of the appeals court late Tuesday hammered EchoStar for its lack of compliance and "pattern" and "practice" of "violating the Act in everyway imaginable" and says the Copyright Act instructs that when such practices are found, a court "shall order a permanent injunction" barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier. It is unclear when an injunction might be ordered.
"As if the magnitude of its ineligible subscriber base were insufficiently disconcerting, we have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act," the court said in its ruling. It later reads that "we have no trouble concluding that EchoStar has engaged in a "nationwide pattern and practice of delivering a primary transmission made by a network station...to subscribers who are not eligible to receive the transmission under this section."
EchoStar said in a statement that it "is disappointed in the Court of Appeals ruling" and also questioned the law saying "While consumers are free to choose to read the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle or any other newspaper regardless of where in the United States they live, broadcasters successfully orchestrated passage of special interest legislation which prohibits consumers from watching network channels originating in other markets, except in limited circumstances."
It also said that it has reached settlement agreements over the years with hundreds of the approximately 800 ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX stations across the country, including all ABC-, NBC- and CBS-owned and operated stations. "We were not able to reach settlement agreements with FOX Network or the station groups owning the remaining stations."
"This opinion affirms the importance of localism in television, and vindicates an eight-year effort by TV broadcasters to stop EchoStar's blatant and massive abuse of copyright law," said National Association of Broadcasters CEO David Rehr, in a statement.
EchoStar has been spending a lot of time in court lately. A Texas jury found against the company last month in a suit claiming unfair use of Tivo's (TIVO:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) digital video-recording technology. The jury awarded TiVo $73 million for lost profits and royalties, finding EchoStar violated a patent governing simultaneous operations in digital video recorders.
On Thursday EchoStar shares were down 5 cents to $30.05.
EchoStar Copyright Setback
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/media/10288226_2.html
By Sandy Brown
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
5/25/2006 4:08 PM EDT
Satellite provider EchoStar (DISH:NYSE - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) was dealt a blow when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled against them in a long-running copyright suit. The suit was brought against the company's DISH network by the affiliate associations of the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC.
The ruling may result in the loss of broadcast-network programming to a portion of DISH subscribers and could result in customer defections to other services.
In 1998, broadcasters sued EchoStar, saying that it violated regulations governing homes that were not served by local broadcast signals as related to the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA). In 2003, the company was ordered to turn off ineligible subscribers.
In a unanimous ruling, the three judges of the appeals court late Tuesday hammered EchoStar for its lack of compliance and "pattern" and "practice" of "violating the Act in everyway imaginable" and says the Copyright Act instructs that when such practices are found, a court "shall order a permanent injunction" barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier. It is unclear when an injunction might be ordered.
"As if the magnitude of its ineligible subscriber base were insufficiently disconcerting, we have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act," the court said in its ruling. It later reads that "we have no trouble concluding that EchoStar has engaged in a "nationwide pattern and practice of delivering a primary transmission made by a network station...to subscribers who are not eligible to receive the transmission under this section."
EchoStar said in a statement that it "is disappointed in the Court of Appeals ruling" and also questioned the law saying "While consumers are free to choose to read the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle or any other newspaper regardless of where in the United States they live, broadcasters successfully orchestrated passage of special interest legislation which prohibits consumers from watching network channels originating in other markets, except in limited circumstances."
It also said that it has reached settlement agreements over the years with hundreds of the approximately 800 ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX stations across the country, including all ABC-, NBC- and CBS-owned and operated stations. "We were not able to reach settlement agreements with FOX Network or the station groups owning the remaining stations."
"This opinion affirms the importance of localism in television, and vindicates an eight-year effort by TV broadcasters to stop EchoStar's blatant and massive abuse of copyright law," said National Association of Broadcasters CEO David Rehr, in a statement.
EchoStar has been spending a lot of time in court lately. A Texas jury found against the company last month in a suit claiming unfair use of Tivo's (TIVO:Nasdaq - commentary - research - Cramer's Take) digital video-recording technology. The jury awarded TiVo $73 million for lost profits and royalties, finding EchoStar violated a patent governing simultaneous operations in digital video recorders.
On Thursday EchoStar shares were down 5 cents to $30.05.
If the judges believe that a penalty is order re: this matter - then the proper penalty should be a fine to Dish and order the disconnect of Subs who should not be getting DNS in the first place.
It just seems to me that penalizing the Subs who are entitled to receive DNS (white area, waivers, grandfathering just goes too far and should be over turned.
What have people who legally get DNS done wrong? Why should they have to change services, lose money spent on boxes, installs, etc. The judges are out of control or in the pocket of someone.
It just seems to me that penalizing the Subs who are entitled to receive DNS (white area, waivers, grandfathering just goes too far and should be over turned.
What have people who legally get DNS done wrong? Why should they have to change services, lose money spent on boxes, installs, etc. The judges are out of control or in the pocket of someone.
Here's the proper punishment for E*.
1. Remove all non-qualified hoseholds.
2. Pay a $20M fine.
3. Provide DNS networks to those who qualify free for 5 years -
NightRyder
1. Remove all non-qualified hoseholds.
2. Pay a $20M fine.
3. Provide DNS networks to those who qualify free for 5 years -
NightRyder
Unfortunately, the law does not give the courts the option to come up with different punishment.
Forgive the elementary question (I've read all 14 pages), but I need help with the definition of "distant networks".
I live in Athens, TX. I'm guessing this is about 90 miles southeast of Dallas/Ft. Worth. I currently receive analog and more recently digital networks via E* from DFW. While DFW is "distant" from Athens, I suspect they're still considered local. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Tyler, which is closer to me than DFW, I know has some towers, but I've never been able to pick 'em up reliably with a rooftop antenna. So, are my DFW analogs and digitals considered "distant networks", and thus will be effected by this ruling?
In the past I was able to recieve east and west coast networks, and when DFW became available, I was grandfathered in to being able to keep the east and west coast in addition to my DFW's. However the rules changed sometime after that and I was forced to decide to keep DFW or the east or west coast. I chose DFW. My concern at the time was more related to time-shifting as others have stated, but now that I have 2 dual-tuner DVRs this is less of an issue.
I live in Athens, TX. I'm guessing this is about 90 miles southeast of Dallas/Ft. Worth. I currently receive analog and more recently digital networks via E* from DFW. While DFW is "distant" from Athens, I suspect they're still considered local. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Tyler, which is closer to me than DFW, I know has some towers, but I've never been able to pick 'em up reliably with a rooftop antenna. So, are my DFW analogs and digitals considered "distant networks", and thus will be effected by this ruling?
In the past I was able to recieve east and west coast networks, and when DFW became available, I was grandfathered in to being able to keep the east and west coast in addition to my DFW's. However the rules changed sometime after that and I was forced to decide to keep DFW or the east or west coast. I chose DFW. My concern at the time was more related to time-shifting as others have stated, but now that I have 2 dual-tuner DVRs this is less of an issue.
