Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!

[Scott Greczkowski]

Can we start a "Distant Network Pool" lol My money is on the Judge smacking Echo/NPS upside their heads

I am sure he wants to.

Lets hope he uses his wisdom to see if whats going on is legal, and from where I sit again its nothig different then Dish and Sky Angel, or DirecTV and USSB.

There had to be one loophole and Charlie found it.

 

[rdinkel]

Is this guy a Democrat judge(pro charlie) or a republican (pro rupert) judge?

So far, I wouldn't say he has been pro-Charlie!

 

[Kirby Baker]

Too bad not all courts can operate so quickly. Gotta love it when big business is involved and lots of money. I say abolish DMA's and local affiliates. Mine suck anyways.

Oh come on now, WWMT is awesome! And then you have the superb SD downgrade on WOOD during weather events, what more could you ask for?

 

[JohnEL]

Several years ago I also had NPS programming for a 4DTV that included networks. Again, since NPS has been providing this service for years, it appears that they should be able to do this - like Skyangel provides programming via leased transponders from Dish. Thank goodness I'm not an attorney!!!

 

[Greg Bimson]

From TransmitterNews.com:

In an email from EchoStar’s David Moskowitz to the attorneys for the networks, Mr. Moskowitz states: "Given NPS’s competencies, including but not limited to knowledge of the distant network channel qualification process, today we reached an agreement to lease a transponder to NPS. They have informed us they intend to use a portion of the capacity on that transponder to offer distant network channels to consumers, including but not limited to DISH Network customers. To attempt to minimize the mistrust broadcasters have historically had for DISH Network, I attach a copy of that agreement for your reference."

So, I now go back to the language of the injunction:

ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Circuit mandate [DE-995], remanding this case to this Court with instructions to enter a nationwide permanent injunction pursuant to the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, as amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat Corporation (collectively “Echostar”), their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the terms “secondary transmission,” “primary transmission,” “primary network station,” and “network station” shall have the meanings given those terms in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.

Or, for those having problems deconstructing a sentence...

...effective December 1, 2006,...those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED [from the distant network license].

Hmm. Moskowitz states the agreement was to provide distant networks to Dish Network subscribers. Sounds exactly like a violation of the injunction to me.

 

[DISH_NC]

I think a key item will be whether NPS saw the impending injunction as an opportunity and approached Echostar to provide the services to their clients or DISH approached NPS.

If NPS acted independently, then there may be a chance for this to survive the injunction. They saw an opportunity to grow their business and acted on it. I don't see how they could be penalized for this.

 

[dfergie]

Hmm. Moskowitz states the agreement was to provide distant networks to Dish Network subscribers. Sounds exactly like a violation of the injunction to me.

Ahh, but these would be NPS subscribers, Not Dish Network subscribers would they not?

 

[SatinKzo]

Oh come on now, WWMT is awesome! And then you have the superb SD downgrade on WOOD during weather events, what more could you ask for?

yeah, I looked at property next to the WWMT transmitter, but the guy there said even he can't pick them up OTA. As for WOOD, no HD tonight, or all winter. Every day is a weather event to that channel. I got a window, I know it's snowing, put the HD back jackholes!


Back on topic, I really am going to be following this to see how it all comes out. I can't wait to hear all the legal, paralegal, it's not fair, but I said so arguements from both sides.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Ahh, but these would be NPS subscribers, Not Dish Network subscribers would they not?

BINGO!

In fact someone could buy a Dish Network receiver point it to 119 and only subscribe to Distant Networks.

 

[Neutron]

I'd sign up just to thumb my nose at the jerks over at the NAB....

NAB is against the freedom of choice.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Ahh, but these would be NPS subscribers, Not Dish Network subscribers would they not?

And that is something the injunction already forbids, you know, working in concert to provide distant networks.

It doesn't pass the smell test. Not at all. Yes, it appears to be a way to find a loophole in the injunction. There isn't one in this case.

 

[Mr Tony]

I'd sign up just to thumb my nose at the jerks over at the NAB....

NAB is against the freedom of choice.

me too

 

[Bountykiller]

Man charlie dropped a royal flush on someone holding what seemed to be four of a kind! (the networks) hah ! ;0 Go charlie!!!! I think that people should have the right to watch the TV they want to. It is in violation of our freedom of choice to not allow this. The networks can paint it how they want to... It is simple, they want to force you to watch their content, good or bad. It was no different than the neighbors to the north saying that American Tv was illegal to subscribe to back in the day.

-B

 

[wvmike]

Well i am a long time reader never posted before,but i have to say this is so funny when i so this thread i busted lol.I already have nps as my dns provider for abc and had them for all 4 networks before i went with dish for nbc,cbs and fox,also cbs hd.Dish wouldnt let me have abc,said i could get it ota,ha,not where i live.any way i was going to go back to nps for my dns till i saw this.Hope all this works out for dish,i would hate to give my dvr fuctions on dns service.

 

[Chris Walker]

Qualification frm NPS would be different since NPS does not sell LIL services.

BRILLIANT idea from E*.

 

[Voyager6]

Why would the Networks object to a third-party providing DNS to legally qualified customers? Their whole argument against E* was about the unqualified or illegal reception of DNS by E* subscribers. This agreement between NPS and E* would seem to meet the qualification requirement of the law. NPS would be paid directly by these DNS subscribers. The Networks' objection seems to be that E* equipment is being used. This seems like a reasonable resolution to the DNS issue. To prevent qualified E* subscribers from ever receiving DNS, even through a third-party, I think would go too far. Any reasonable Judge would see that E* is trying to comply with the injunction and at the same time provide a needed service (DNS) by a third-party provider. I think the Judge will allow this, providing that the qualification process is rigorous and legit.

 

[navychop]

SCOTT-

You'll be getting a call from the White House. It seems so many people are posting in this thread instead of working, the economy is taking a hit.......

 

[SmityWhity]

Greg - I don't know what your wife or the mirrow says or doesn't say, but you do give some pretty good reasons. Judges can just about do anything they like, and do, and don't have to answer to their decisions. So any decision could go against all logic.

Here's a quote from your post above:

those persons in active concert or participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code,

Many here don't agree on who is included in this statement, however, I believe it applies to those using the license that originally permitted Dish to provide DNS, and not for another separate non-affiliated company to provide a DNS service under their own licensing, regardless of where they lease transmitter services from.

It looks like NPS and Dish may have an arm's length business arrangement. So the judge is going to have to really look at it and make sure things are what they seem to be, and then decide on if he is censoring the services that NPS is currently providing on one band and now desire to provide on another band.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

SCOTT-

You'll be getting a call from the White House. It seems so many people are posting in this thread instead of working, the economy is taking a hit.......

I am just glad we can be here and work to HELP SUPPORT THE SATELLITE COMMUNITY, as thats whats whats its all about!

 

[JohnEL]

I for one am going back to work. I'll check this later---bye!!!!