Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks

[Chris Walker]

Read the ruling here...

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf

The rulings have nothing to do with "movers" or the RV exemption or waivers. It all boils down to Dish's methods of determining who was eligible based on the service address given. During a two year period (2000-2002) they used two different systems. If one said yes and the other said no, Dish used the company that qualified the sub.

And those people were shut off last year weren't they? I know Dish went through a huge requalifying in October-November because I had to talk to my local NBC to reapprove my waiver which was "misplaced"

 

[mikew]

Read the ruling. It doesn't matter that Dish has remedied some of the violations. Remember, this has been in court for years. Even if they were currently 100% compliant now, there was a "pattern" and "practice" and SHIVA requires the permanent injunction that this ruling calls for.

From the ruling:

"As if the magnitued of its ineligble subcriber base were insufficiently disconcerting, we have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act. Indeed, based on the district court's findings, we seem to have discerned a 'pattern' and 'practice' of violating the Act in every way imaginable. Whether it be overriding compliance determinations of ineligibility, making pledges under oath to terminate ineligible subscribers and then failing to present any evidence that this corrective action was taken, blatantly disregarding FCC alterations to the ILLR model after it was specifically put on notice of such changes, or failing to disconnect subscribers it initially recognized to be ineligible for grandfather status based on an atextual "reinterpretation" of the statutory provision, EchoStar has disregarded the limitations of its statutory license and sought to avoid its obligations under the Act at every turn."

 

[alexdw]

I suggest that those of us who enjoy distant network programming petition AGAINST the renewal of broadcast licenses for the stations involved in this suit. Slum-lord locals can't claim you in their Grade B service area if they can't legally provide a signal, now can they?

 

[Mike0616]

Nope. Completely separate issue.

This has been sitting in front of the Appeals court for well over a year. The Court had to address each of the appeals in Echostar's complaint, and found them woefully weak.If your distant networks go away, time to go back to the LiLs. It was part of the law, just as the part about a permanent injunction is part of the law for willful neglect of the terms.As soon as the injunction is granted by the Circuit Court, unless another court steps in to stay the injunction. It will be hard to stay this injunction, as there was a "stayed injunction" from the end of the last court case before this went to the Appeals Court.Because DirecTV was not found to have a pattern of willful abuse. Their court case was wrapped up in February, 1999. Because Dish Network appealed and appealed and dragged out this action, the courts and the plaintiffs were able to figure out how badly Dish Network flouted the law.

BINGO!!!!! Chuckie's antics with regard to the FCC finally caught up with him.

 

[Bruno]

What i think is kind of funny is that with DTV all you have to do is enter a zipcode to see what locals you can get . No address is needed. How can this be any better than Dish system? At least with dish you have to have a half way valid address to see what you get.

 

[cablewithaview]

I say open up the gates and let television stations from where ever compete. We want compentition, why not the network affialites as well? If Verizon can service the area better then Joe's Cable TV, then why not apply the same for television stations. I don't have no sympathy for television stations. I have nothing for DMA's, cash for carriage, must carries among other things. I think this could actually open the door for reform in the telecommunications act.

 

[mikew]

What i think is kind of funny is that with DTV all you have to do is enter a zipcode to see what locals you can get . No address is needed. How can this be any better than Dish system? At least with dish you have to have a half way valid address to see what you get.

DTV does not show you what distants you may be eligible for unless you type in an address at a different site. Again, this has nothing to do with the way things are today...it's about a history of abuse by EchoStar, a failure to act when Charlie swore under oath to fix the problem and disconnect ineligible subscribers. It also has alot to do with E* trying to skirt the law and bring forth unacceptable arguments.

Again...read the ruling...it'll only take a few minutes.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Good lord.

CAN SOMEONE READ THE LAW? THE SUBSCRIBER DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF RIGHTS UNDER THE SHVIA.

Dish Network had those rights. And if Dish Network was found to be in willful violation of the law, then an injunction can be put in place to terminate ALL DISTANT NETWORK FEEDS.

Good lord, IT'S IN THE LAW!

As mikew said, read the ruling.

 

[Greg Bimson]

What i think is kind of funny is that with DTV all you have to do is enter a zipcode to see what locals you can get . No address is needed. How can this be any better than Dish system? At least with dish you have to have a half way valid address to see what you get.

Because the qualfication tool is useless unless you talk to a CSR. You cannot simply add a distant network without talking to a CSR. That CSR will use the correct database in order to qualify you.

Look, DirecTV won't even take waiver requests in markets they already cover. They are playing as safe as they can to this law. The last thing they want is to kill the golden goose, AGAIN. DirecTV had to shut-off almost 1 million subscribers in 1999 because of this. They've had their hand slapped, and complied.

 

[mikew]

Because the qualfication tool is useless unless you talk to a CSR. You cannot simply add a distant network without talking to a CSR. That CSR will use the correct database in order to qualify you.

And...according to the ruling, E* CSRs even circumvented the database and allowed subs who weren't eligible to receive distants...

 

[mike123abc]

Because the NAB has essentially bribed, er, lobbied Congress to believe that the sky is purple, and Congress passed a law basically stating that the sky really is purple and not blue like we all see it....

I like the Freedom of the Press argument. I want to acquire my news info from the LA TV affiliate, even though I am in NJ. Have they established law that restricts my freedom to exercise this right?

The law is what premits the reception of distants over the objections of the local stations/networks. If the NAB had its way there woudl be no distants at all.

There is no freedom of the press argument here. The press is not being hampered in any way. They just choose not to sell their product in your area.

A station could be set up that broadcasts all shows owned by that station in LA, and contract with any provider in any other area that wants to carry the station. There is no restriction on it. This would just be like any other cable channel...

If you make a TV show you have the right to sell it in different areas of the country as you choose. And you have to right to prohibit the importation of it into non authorised areas. Except that if your show is carried on a national network and a viewer is in a white area for that network they get to view your show for free. The station itself is given a token sum a month for the distant viewer that they have no way to control (the satellite provider gets to pick the station that they import to the viewer).

Think about that, if everyone was able to view your show for free since they all just got the distant channel you would not be able to make as much money by selling your show over and over again around the country.

 

[Tower Guy]

I work for a newspaper, a small town newspaper, and we choose to only put in news for this local area. We don't stop people from getting the Atlanta Journal Constitution or the Augusta Chronicle, or if they want to pay enough the New York Times. This could be turned into a Constitutional issue, if they can get grounds for it, Freedom of the press, it would be a long shot and would need language from the Supreme Court, but I feel that this is infringing upon our rights to read, listen to or view information from another area of the country.

There's a legal copyright distinction between TV and newspapers that is relevant.

The Constitution, Chronicle, and Times are delivered as the original work printed by the publisher. It has not been copied by a third party. There are no copyright implications.

DNS is a copy of the original signal delivered by E*. Because DNS is a copy of the TV signal, it cannot be distributed except for the laws passed by Congress to limit the distribution to "unserved households". Yet, E* distributed the signal beyond Congress's intent.

 

[riffjim4069]

This paragraph pretty much sums up EchoStar's continued pattern of willful violation of the law:

"The analysis revealed that of the 331,586 total subscribers signed up for distant network programming with EchoStar pursuant to the agreement with PrimeTime 24, the percentages of Grade A subscribers were 61% (ABC), 60% (CBS), 58% (Fox), and 60% (NBC). These totals amount to more than 258,000 former PrimeTime 24 subscribers (approximately 78% of the total) who were predicted to receive a Grade A signal from at least one of the four networks. Contrary to Ergen's promise, the district court found no evidence that EchoStar terminated service to any of these subscribers for compliance-related purposes."

People are free to disagree with the law (hell, I don't agree with some of our traffic and zoning laws), but this doesn't give someone (Ergen) the right to disobey them.

 

[Jamey K]

I say open up the gates and let television stations from where ever compete. We want compentition, why not the network affialites as well? If Verizon can service the area better then Joe's Cable TV, then why not apply the same for television stations. I don't have no sympathy for television stations. I have nothing for DMA's, cash for carriage, must carries among other things. I think this could actually open the door for reform in the telecommunications act.

I do too and I think this is a very good idea. If the locals want viewers in their DMA to watch them, then provide compelling programing and step up to HD with full power digital signals.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Because the qualfication tool is useless unless you talk to a CSR. You cannot simply add a distant network without talking to a CSR. That CSR will use the correct database in order to qualify you.

Look, DirecTV won't even take waiver requests in markets they already cover. They are playing as safe as they can to this law. The last thing they want is to kill the golden goose, AGAIN. DirecTV had to shut-off almost 1 million subscribers in 1999 because of this. They've had their hand slapped, and complied.

This is incorrect. I added some distants my just adding them from the address checker. A few years ago I added the Philly locals this way. 6 months later they went away (just prior to them moving the secondary locals to that other wing slot), then I requested waivers for the LA channels over the phone and got them.

Sometimes you can just add the distants with the website...

 

[NightRyder]

There is an error in the ruling as I see it. E* argues that removing distant networks from rightfully Grandfathered subscribers constitutes a taking of "value" and is a violation of the Constitution. The judge's rebuttal to that is that Grandfathered subscribers can take or qualify their Granfathered status to one of E* competitors, so there is no loss of value. This is wrong, there is no provision in the law that allows grandfathered DNS subscribers to move or take that status with them, in fact the way I read the law, it is prohibited. IMHO


NightRyder

 

[Greg Bimson]

Bob, my reference was to DirecTV. You cannot add distants via the DirecTV website.

 

[dfergie]

I had my D* HD west distants shut off last month due to an audit(and no they did not call me like the E* audits, they checked for HD waivers) they submitted waivers for HD for me to regain them but I was told by advanced D*HD tech If I accept them they will shut off my SD distants... the only distant I would lose with E* would be Cbs, but that is what I watch the most of...(I have had the D* distants since 96)

 

[BobMurdoch]

Bob, my reference was to DirecTV. You cannot add distants via the DirecTV website.

My apologies. I thought you were discussing E*.

 

[NightRyder]

how can i get the new pin to reactivate my pansat 3500 ???

Don't worry someone will be along to help you in a minute. Hey Ice, someone needs your special attention!!


NightRyder