Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!

[scottmoore234]

It's interesting how you can see the people who are D* subs & just can't stand us E* subs. I'm new to this message board & I see it so clearly. To all of you D* subs......Why do you not want to see us E* keep our DNS? You keep giving your $ to Rupert & we'll keep giving our $ to Charlie. Leave us alone as we do you fine folks.

 

[rickaren]

It's interesting how you can see the people who are D* subs & just can't stand us E* subs. I'm new to this message board & I see it so clearly. To all of you D* subs......Why do you not want to see us E* keep our DNS? You keep giving your $ to Rupert & we'll keep giving our $ to Charlie. Leave us alone as we do you fine folks.

Good Observation!

I don't understand why D* customers want E* to fail or why they won't add E* to their present service (as I did) to enjoy great HD now. It really can't be to extra expense (so it cost me $75 extra a month). Investment in enjoyment. They don't want anyone to know they don't have the best at present or anyone else to have the same and are content to wait a year for improvements to be made? Reminds me of the old Ford/Chev thing. My service is better than yours (now)!

 

[Tower Guy]

They could have had a hundred million dollars.

Now they get ZIP.

I think the broadcasters needs better lawyers.

What prevents them from suing for damages? How does the injunction that was issued limit any damages?

 

[DISH_NC]

And let's not forget with the analog cut-over, there wouldn't be any DNS on Dish Network and very little on DirecTV. After all, one condition upon the offering of local-into-local HD is that once the locals are available, the distants go away.

For every market added in HD, distant HD disappears. Once the analog is gone, HD (digital) is the only thing left. DirecTV will have a very large chunk of the markets available, meaning no distants.

The SHVA and amending legislation was designed to give the satellite consumer access to networks if they were unserved. We've now come to the point where it will be full-circle, because satellite is very interested in serving local or nearby affiliates to the consumer, thus negating the need for distant service.

You keep forgetting about the RVer and other mobile customer. I have a digital TV in our RV and I can tell you that most of the places that we go to, I can get a snowy Analog picture but NO digital picture.

Even here at home, a channel's Analog picture will come in quite clear but their digital picture has a signal strength of 68-75 and drops out quite often.

The RVer has no choice but distant networks for two reasons. One is that the dishes on rooftops point to one, sometimes two satellites (DISH300/DISH500) and unless ALL the locals were provided on those two satellites, they would not be accessible to the RVer and secondly, either the RVer would have access to ALL local channels nationwide (not likely) or would have to call DISH everytime they entered a new DMA to have the nearest local channel enabled. That would be quite costly from a CSR point of view.

There have to be exceptions in certain cases. What's going to happen when Airlines, Trains, etc want to start offering Network programming to their customers? I don't see any difference there either...

I understand the need to support the local channels with Advertising revenue and I personally do subscribe to the local channels as well. But when I leave my state, my locals go away and I have no other choice....

 

[Greg Bimson]

They could have had a hundred million dollars.

Now they get ZIP.

I think the broadcasters needs better lawyers.

What prevents them from suing for damages? How does the injunction that was issued limit any damages?

Oh, the monetary phase of this is far from over.

Besides, no one could have had $100 million from the proposed settlement by Dish Network, but in order to understand one would have to read the explanation of the court.

And, by stating the broadcasters need better lawyers, one only needs to read the filings once the court issued their decision, from both the Appeals Court back in May, 2006, and the decision on the Order of Injunction in October, 2006. If there was any bad lawyering, it came from Dish Network. Whether or not the legal team had their hands tied by Dish Network is another problem, because...

[Greg Bimson] keep forgetting about the RVer and other mobile customer.

No, Dish Network did. They could have settled this years ago, and the injunction would have never been issued to stop the RV and trucker waivers.

The "death penalty" was there to be a deterrent from illegally qualifying customers. It didn't deter Dish Network from illegally qualifying customers.

Of course, there are so many newbies here that I will have to jar people's memories. I joined DBSDish years ago, and had the exact same stance on the injunction DirecTV received in 1999 for illegally qualifying customers.

 

[KingofKaty]

They could have had a hundred million dollars.

Now they get ZIP.

I think the broadcasters needs better lawyers.

Did the distant local stations or networks get ANY compensation from subscriber fees from Dish Network prior to the shutoff?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Distant stations do not get direct compensation from subscriber fees. It is possible that either another civil suit could be filed for monetary damages, or the judge in the current case decides to award damages in conjunction with the remedy for violating the law.

 

[ThomasRz]

Distant stations do not get direct compensation from subscriber fees. It is possible that either another civil suit could be filed for monetary damages, or the judge in the current case decides to award damages in conjunction with the remedy for violating the law.

[My understanding] - Judge D. could not award damages to the broadcasters because there is no provision in the law to do so and a request for such damages was not included in original suit (as far as I know). Claims like this would probably be litigated under state law although because of diversity and the amount the case would be removed to federal court. Just a guess, other opinions are warmly solicited.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Slow day again in court, although NPS filed an interesting document and Greg Bimson is featured in this one.

 

[dfergie]

Interesting...

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Very interesting indeed

 

[wayne231]

Hmmm... It appears that if the court rules against a TRO and finds for the defendant, then Mr. Bimson becomes liable for his statments on this forum and would be subject to the libel laws. Very interesting.

 

[Hall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm positive that a filing from Dish's attorney's on Mon or Tues stated that Dish did NOT provide NPS with any "list". The filings from NPS clearly state that Dish did.

 

[minnow]

Hmmm... It appears that if the court rules against a TRO and finds for the defendant, then Mr. Bimson becomes liable for his statments on this forum and would be subject to the libel laws. Very interesting.

I guess one runs that risk when one continues ad-nauseum to spout the same argument over and over and over and over and over on every satellite internet board. Doesn't sound like Mr. Bimson is in line for any equipment discounts from E* any time soon.

To me it shows the sheer stupidity of arguments when the parties start citing internet forums and offer our collective meanderings and speculations as some sort of proof that in some mystical way, purports to have any legal standing. Talk about grasping at straws - jeesh.

 

[waltinvt]

Hmmm... It appears that if the court rules against a TRO and finds for the defendant, then Mr. Bimson becomes liable for his statments on this forum and would be subject to the libel laws. Very interesting.

Oh come on now - the chances of participants in discussion boards like this being charged with liable or anything else for their statements here is pretty far fetched.

 

[DISH_NC]

I found one of the footnotes interesting, also elaborated in the second pdf....

As of 5pm CST, Dec 5th, NPS's ability to access the Decisionmark licensed products for eligibility determinations was terminated by Decisionmark. I am informed and believe that Decisionmark stopped providing the services to NPS, despite the contract -snip- because Plaintiffs told Decisionmark that the services it was providing violated this court injunction -snip-

13. As a result, NPS currently has no ability to determine eligibility ~snip~...

I guess this essentially stops NPS from adding new subs unless they qualify via a documented method (RV or Truck Waiver)....

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Greg is not going to get sued because his comments, how silly. His opinion is just that this "opinion" and besides postings from online discussion forums are inadmissable in court.

Also I know for a fact Greg is a real person, he has been doing this for as long as I have.

 

[navychop]

I agree, he has nothing to worry about.

But wasn't there a recent case in which someone made threats in a forum, it escalated, one of the 2 fighting tracked the other down, and somebody got murdered? They allowed the forum posts in court to establish intent & pre-meditation to support "murder 1" vice "manslaughter?"

Yes, not directly applicable here, but mentioned that there are extreme cases in which online posts can be admitted to court. Or does my memory fail me?

 

[waltinvt]

Greg is not going to get sued because his comments, how silly. His opinion is just that this "opinion" and besides postings from online discussion forums are inadmissable in court.

Also I know for a fact Greg is a real person, he has been doing this for as long as I have.

Agreed - we ain't responsible fer nuttin herh.

As for Greg though, I don't know Scott - I think the guy's right too often to be real?

 

[waltinvt]

I agree, he has nothing to worry about.

But wasn't there a recent case in which someone made threats in a forum, it escalated, one of the 2 fighting tracked the other down, and somebody got murdered?

Yes, that's why we have armed guards posted at the "Pit" entrance now.