Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks

[Jordan420]

Some of these small stubborn stations should sell waivers, chances are the sub is not watching them anyway so they will not lose viewer numbers at the station level & will gain a small revenue stream & the network may gain some viewers overall

I'm sure it would be in violation of their network agreement but I know I would be willing to pay.

Jordan

 

[Peter Parker]

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.

The providers have the right to sell you locals from your own DA---no matter how close. This is called Local In Local or LiL. However under some circumstances you can get locals from other areas. DTV sells NY and LA only DISh hasa few more choices. But either way if you qualify you can get big 4 (Fox, ABC, CBS &NBC) locals from those cities.


It is rumored that some people lie about their location to get these distant locals and this has led the NAB to try to correct the situation. BTW this is different from what is euphemistically called "Moving". that involves telling an untruth about yout location to get the full set of locals from one city---let's say Houson instead of the locals where you really live.


BTW I have a dachsund beage mix that chews remotes like they are rawhide bones. Your avatar is frighteningly familiar.

 

[Juan]

I wonder if E* can reach a settlement before the injunction...or i it toooooooooo late

 

[rdinkel]

I am afraid it is too late. The court of appeals has ruled and has directed the lower court to take action.

 

[jself1982]

How Do You Get The Csb-hd On Dish? I'm In Boone Nc, Not Appr For A Cbs Waiver--what Would I Need To Qualify?

 

[120inna55]

The providers have the right to sell you locals from your own DA---no matter how close. This is called Local In Local or LiL. However under some circumstances you can get locals from other areas. DTV sells NY and LA only DISh hasa few more choices. But either way if you qualify you can get big 4 (Fox, ABC, CBS &NBC) locals from those cities.


It is rumored that some people lie about their location to get these distant locals and this has led the NAB to try to correct the situation. BTW this is different from what is euphemistically called "Moving". that involves telling an untruth about yout location to get the full set of locals from one city---let's say Houson instead of the locals where you really live.


BTW I have a dachsund beage mix that chews remotes like they are rawhide bones. Your avatar is frighteningly familiar.

Thanks for the reply, so if I understand you correctly, I won't be effected by this ruling, as my "big four" are LIL's, and not "distant networks". My "distant networks" were stripped from me long ago.

BTW, my dachshund, "Gus", is not chewing on the remote. (He's never behaved like that). In my avatar, he's sleeping and I placed the remote on his chest as a prop for the photo. He sleeps quite soundly. The remote is from my old Dish receiver from '96, I believe.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I agree that E* broke the law, that there is a reasonable chance that E* will have to discontinue DNS, and since I don't have them, it won't make any difference to me.

That said, if someway, somehow, an appeal from E* would go to a court that would rule that these laws are arcane and in violation of some "higher" law, like restraint of trade or whatever, and said court would toss them out, I would sing the praises of King Charlie and bow toward his headquarters every night at 9 pm for 6 months.

 

[tonyp56]

before long if you can put up a 100' antenna and receive 1 station, that is what you get, period, unless you're on cable. I think we ought to have a boycott of ALL TV for 1 week, until these people figure out they can't screw us and still expect us to pay up.

 

[Chris Walker]

I wonder how much $$ the NAB wants from E* in order to not force an injunction?

 

[Chris Walker]

before long if you can put up a 100' antenna and receive 1 station, that is what you get, period, unless you're on cable. I think we ought to have a boycott of ALL TV for 1 week, until these people figure out they can't screw us and still expect us to pay up.

If they shut my distants off, I'll find a way to get them back, legal or not. Don't really care at this point, I am tired of everyone's (THE NAB) whining. I have them legally as it is, if they shut me off, I will raise hell.

 

[cablewithaview]

If they shut my distants off, I'll find a way to get them back, legal or not. Don't really care at this point, I am tired of everyone's (THE NAB) whining. I have them legally as it is, if they shut me off, I will raise hell.

I wish they would open up compentition between stations from any market.

 

[sikma]

I'd love to see this turn into a jury trial. Judging by the number of views of this post that's only a day old, the prosecution wouldn't stand a chance. The jury would take about 15 minutes to aquit!

 

[cablewithaview]

I'd love to see this turn into a jury trial. Judging by the number of views of this post that's only a day old, the prosecution wouldn't stand a chance. The jury would take about 15 minutes to aquit!

I sent them an email. They will not like what I had to say about it. I'll post if they dare to respond.
NAB email: nab@nab.org

 

[odbrv]

I have sent the following to the FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators
and the NAB.
The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who cannot get Local channels. I went through years of not getting my local stations over the air. Finally Dish offers a way to get network broadcasts and I get all the required waivers from my local stations to see these national broadcasts and the court is now taking that away from me. Where was this court in fining/punishing my local stations for not providing me with a viewable signal. Now that HD is suppose to be the national standard , where was the court in punishing the local stations for not meeting the 2006 deadline. You all simply added 3 years. Why don't you simply give Dish and us 3 more years to get our local HD.
I live 1/2 time in Texas and 1/2 time in NH . Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that. It is you who do not allow it. I can get the local Lubbock newspaper in NH and the NH newspaper in Texas. I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet. Why are you making separate rulings for television. Is it the NABs lobbying money at work.

 

[cablewithaview]

advertisers push this more than anything, and I am tired of it.

 

[Clancy]

I have sent the following to the FCC, my congressman, and my two US Senators
and the NAB.
The National Association of Broadcasters and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta have overturned a FCC ruling concerning DISH Network and Distant Networks. I have thousands of dollars invested in Dish Network equipment. In punishing Dish Network the court is also punishing all their subscribers who cannot get Local channels. I went through years of not getting my local stations over the air. Finally Dish offers a way to get network broadcasts and I get all the required waivers from my local stations to see these national broadcasts and the court is now taking that away from me. Where was this court in fining/punishing my local stations for not providing me with a viewable signal. Now that HD is suppose to be the national standard , where was the court in punishing the local stations for not meeting the 2006 deadline. You all simply added 3 years. Why don't you simply give Dish and us 3 more years to get our local HD.
I live 1/2 time in Texas and 1/2 time in NH . Why am I not allowed to get the NH locals while in Texas and the Texas locals while in NH. I still need to know what is going on while I am away. Dish has the technology to do that. It is you who do not allow it. I can get the local Lubbock newspaper in NH and the NH newspaper in Texas. I can even get radio stations from both areas via the internet. Why are you making separate rulings for television. Is it the NABs lobbying money at work.

Well said. More letters like this need to be sent.
Take this protectionism from the local station owners. They can put their station on the selling block. Do you think it will take long for someone else in that town to accept distant networks in town and buy the station?
The station would be bought in a New York minute.
Give people the same rights with satellite tv as they have with radio and newspapers.
Let us pay to watch what we want. We are adults that surely can make our own decisions as Canadians do to watch stations from across the country.
Radio Free America was born years ago for the underprivileged peoples of Europe to have the ability to listen to something other than what their state ordered them to listen to.
Why is this happening now, here?
Let right be done.

 

[gludwick]

This ruling has been in effect for YEARS! C-band/big dish got hit over 10 years ago and the judge is right...Dish has simply ignored the law.
Comparison with newspapers is bogus. Newspapers don't pay a franchise fee to a network to print the news; the news in the Times is NOT different than the new in the Lubbock Free press; a newspaper doesn't pay huge $$ to develop "new" news.
Bottom line: local stations hold a franchise from their network to distribute programming in their local market and to sell advertising to help pay those fees (and make a profit and produce their own programming). They have every right to protect their investment and limit your ability to import programming (and advertising) from other markets and thereby eroding their investment.

Try opening up your own McDonald's and see what happens. The local franchise holder will raise hell and you'll be shut down in a day or two. Pretty much the same thing.
Until the networks go to a cable business model, and shut off all their local affiliates, the local guys are going to fight distant network importing with a passion...cause for them it IS a matter of life and death!

 

[bcope9]

Some newspapers are part of a larger company. They include the local news as well as regional and national news. Newspapers do pay for access to AP news and Reuters. They are paying fees. We choose at our paper to run local news, but if an advertiser in Atlanta or anywhere for that matter wants to run in our paper they pay us. If the New York Times wanted to put a paper box beside ours at the local grocery store, we don't care. People have a right to read and watch whatever they are willing to pay for.

 

[ggw2000]

I agree to a point..

This ruling has been in effect for YEARS! C-band/big dish got hit over 10 years ago and the judge is right...Dish has simply ignored the law.
Comparison with newspapers is bogus. Newspapers don't pay a franchise fee to a network to print the news; the news in the Times is NOT different than the new in the Lubbock Free press; a newspaper doesn't pay huge $$ to develop "new" news.
Bottom line: local stations hold a franchise from their network to distribute programming in their local market and to sell advertising to help pay those fees (and make a profit and produce their own programming). They have every right to protect their investment and limit your ability to import programming (and advertising) from other markets and thereby eroding their investment.

Try opening up your own McDonald's and see what happens. The local franchise holder will raise hell and you'll be shut down in a day or two. Pretty much the same thing.
Until the networks go to a cable business model, and shut off all their local affiliates, the local guys are going to fight distant network importing with a passion...cause for them it IS a matter of life and death!

I agree with you to a point. The fact that dish provided DNS to subs that could get their local networks OTA without problem is wrong. But for those of us that CANNOT get anything OTA and have waivers in place for all networks, I disagree with you. The problem now is that the "legal" subs are going to suffer as a result. In the area that I live there will probably never be LILs! So where will that leave me? Having to suck up to the cable company (that I despise) and dropping Dish as I will not pay for two providers . Gerry

 

[bcope9]

And the thing is, the airwaves DO belong to us, NOT the broadcasters.