Dear Nab, Directv and The Florda District Court

[goaliebob99]

Get this Back on topic!

WOW, I LEAVE.. AND NOW THIS..

OK for those of you all who dont belive im in Iraq or the millitary.. ref the pic below..

Taken 5 min ago..

THe whole point of the post was not because I was having a bad day. (i was having a very good day that day actually) It was to make the point to the Florda District Judge that your free to pick up a new york times but you cant watch news from new york. It wasnt to disslove the nab.. wait yea it was. You know why I yes to disolving the nab its about POWER. They have too much of it. We are a democratic socity so there for if the people say the nab should be gone.. then they should be gone... Now That the whole point of my post has been picked at mangled at.. and what ever you want to call it... lets get back to solving real issues..

Now get this back on topic!!!!!

 

[ThomasRz]

Maybe we need two separate threads: one, for those persistent nay-sayers who feel compelled to argue over and over and over again the same points and the other for the those the see cup as half full. Because it's really getting old.
Possibly the nay-sayers will be proved right again but at this point, who cares.
Ad-nauseum.

Putting competing arguments in separate threads defeats the purpose of the exchange of ideas. It would be like North Korea where the populace hears one side, over and over again. I have learned a lot from people on the other side and have changed my position more than once. Could you please clarify who the sides are (nay-sayers and half-full cuppers) and what you believe this issue is?

 

[ThomasRz]

Bob - let me apologize again for the doubt. I also wish you a safe return. Of course the pictures you provided don't prove you are in Iraq but were nice to see. Since you have so many ardent protectors here I won't get into a controversial discussion but would ask you to think (in your spare time) about what you are saying. Now, if you are joking, blowing off steam or yanking my chain - that's ok. However, if you are serious you need to reflect on what this type of policy would mean. If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, let me know and I will lay it out in detail, privately if you prefer. All the best.

WOW, I LEAVE.. AND NOW THIS..

OK for those of you all who dont belive im in Iraq or the millitary.. ref the pic below..

Taken 5 min ago..

THe whole point of the post was not because I was having a bad day. (i was having a very good day that day actually) It was to make the point to the Florda District Judge that your free to pick up a new york times but you cant watch news from new york. It wasnt to disslove the nab.. wait yea it was. You know why I yes to disolving the nab its about POWER. They have too much of it. We are a democratic socity so there for if the people say the nab should be gone.. then they should be gone... Now That the whole point of my post has been picked at mangled at.. and what ever you want to call it... lets get back to solving real issues..

Now get this back on topic!!!!!

 

[Greg Bimson]

your choice, just like the same choice in which network affiliates we want to watch.

C'mon cable. You have the freedom of choice for something that is available to you. I don't have the ability to purchase a 5-liter bottle of Coke. I don't have the ability to purchase a Papa John's pizza from Buffalo and have it delivered to me.

This is a simple case where you have the freedom of choice, but only amongst the choices offered.

 

[Foxbat]

Thomas, remember that GoalieBob doesn't have the luxury or the rest of us to sit on our butts and follow the Dish DNS fiasco step by step. The first he may have heard of losing his distant networks might very well have been when they disappeared off of his slingbox connection. If you were receiving programming that you enjoyed and which gave you a lifeline to home, and *poof* those channels disappeared without warning, wouldn't you be upset?

I won't say more because I feel this thread is headed for The Pit.

p.s., Bob, maybe you needed today's paper to make it more convincing...

 

[Greg Bimson]

It was to make the point to the Florda District Judge that your free to pick up a new york times but you cant watch news from new york.

Sure you can. Many of the NY stations have their news on the internet, but I digress...

The "free to pick up a new york times" statement: If you have bought the New York Times paper, you've paid for the copyright. No one is taking copies and reselling them without permission.

In order to get the "news from new york", someone is copying the local stations and retransmitting them. That requires some kind of contract or license. No local network station will knowingly resell their signal into another area, so any contract will be for carriage around the station's local coverage area. And Dish Network so abused the free, statutory license given by Congress that they can no longer be trusted to work in "the public interest" and keep use of the license.

We are a democratic socity so there for if the people say the nab should be gone.. then they should be gone...

So if "the people" believe you should no longer be living in your neighborhood and give you one penny for your land and home, then you'd comply? After all, we are a democratic society...

 

[Foxbat]

I don't have the ability to purchase a 5-liter bottle of Coke. I don't have the ability to purchase a Papa John's pizza from Buffalo and have it delivered to me.

Greg, I bet if you called a Papa John's in Buffalo and offered to pay for it, they would take you up on your desire to deliver a pizza. Of course, it may not be edible by the time it gets to you...

 

[Greg Bimson]

Greg, I bet if you called a Papa John's in Buffalo and offered to pay for it, they would take you up on your desire to deliver a pizza. Of course, it may not be edible by the time it gets to you...

'Tis the point, though. Now make it even better. I cannot get the Papa John's that is eight minutes away from me to deliver me a pizza, but the one that is five minutes away can deliver it.

The Papa John's franchises have "exclusive delivery areas". Just like network TV.

Do we really need a law prohibiting "exclusive delivery areas"? Television is not the only industry that does this.

 

[ThomasRz]

Perhaps but GoalieBob has clearly indicated that his comments were not the result of pique.

Thomas, remember that GoalieBob doesn't have the luxury or the rest of us to sit on our butts and follow the Dish DNS fiasco step by step. The first he may have heard of losing his distant networks might very well have been when they disappeared off of his slingbox connection. If you were receiving programming that you enjoyed and which gave you a lifeline to home, and *poof* those channels disappeared without warning, wouldn't you be upset?

I won't say more because I feel this thread is headed for The Pit.

p.s., Bob, maybe you needed today's paper to make it more convincing...

 

[Voyager6]

Sure you can. Many of the NY stations have their news on the internet, but I digress...

The "free to pick up a new york times" statement: If you have bought the New York Times paper, you've paid for the copyright. No one is taking copies and reselling them without permission.

In order to get the "news from new york", someone is copying the local stations and retransmitting them. That requires some kind of contract or license. No local network station will knowingly resell their signal into another area, so any contract will be for carriage around the station's local coverage area. And Dish Network so abused the free, statutory license given by Congress that they can no longer be trusted to work in "the public interest" and keep use of the license.

But now there is a third party, PNS or AAD, to provide DNS and will adhere to the rules. "So abused" is probably too severe. Even the NAB expert agreed that the majority (>60%) of E* DNS subscribers were legal and of the remaining about 20% should have been receiving at least one network feed from DNS. It was that last 15 - 20% that caused all the problems. The networks and NAB seem intent on shutting down DNS to all areas.

So if "the people" believe you should no longer be living in your neighborhood and give you one penny for your land and home, then you'd comply? After all, we are a democratic society...

We just lost this battle at the Supreme Court. Unless your state restores your property rights by restricting the unlimited eminent domain powers just granted by the SC, you are SOL.

 

[Greg Bimson]

"So abused" is probably too severe. Even the NAB expert agreed that the majority (>60%) of E* DNS subscribers were legal and of the remaining about 20% should have been receiving at least one network feed from DNS. It was that last 15 - 20% that caused all the problems. The networks and NAB seem intent on shutting down DNS to all areas.

I reread the decision handed down by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I am trying to understand your math, when this is the math presented to the court:

Of the 3.6 million distant network feeds given by Dish Network to customers, 1.8 million were within at least a Grade B area, and 1.0 million of those were within Grade A. This includes all distant network subscribers, even if they had waivers or grandfathering status, for which Dish Network presented no evidence. It is Dish Network's responsibility to have that on file and give it to the courts in cases like this.

The Court of Appeals actually did the math to assume the sections of the list that Dish Network provided regarding grandfathered and waivered subs. Of the 3.6 million distant network feeds, 900K were qualified incorrectly. For every three feeds that were valid, the next one wasn't.

Abuse.

Because Dish Network still has involvement, the networks and the NAB do not want distant networks available.

 

[Neutron]

Sorry, this thread has gotten way off topic, closing.