tigershere said:
Your CBS HD should be fine regardless; I am pretty sure that is a separate contract E* has with CBS. The second dish you have is to pick up either the east coast or west coast feed of CBS (61.5 or 148).
Dish Network: Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 644
- Views 89K
Your CBS HD should be fine regardless; I am pretty sure that is a separate contract E* has with CBS. The second dish you have is to pick up either the east coast or west coast feed of CBS (61.5 or 148).
Good. thanks on the HD info from CBS. It was a pain in the rear to get that working as they gave the installer bad info about the dish 1000. We aimed it and after 3 calls the last high level tech said the reason you're not getting it is because it's not on that satellite. Install the side dish, DOH. We asked about that the day I ordered the 622
Ugh...
But that's long been solved but now I have a dish 1000 using two transponders and a dish 500 pointed at 61.5 for the HD.
I just don't want to lose networks. Mid Summer it would be fine as nothing really is on but now all the new stuff is about to start.
Will
Ugh...
But that's long been solved but now I have a dish 1000 using two transponders and a dish 500 pointed at 61.5 for the HD.
I just don't want to lose networks. Mid Summer it would be fine as nothing really is on but now all the new stuff is about to start.
Will
Last edited:
I wouldn't give it a nanno second's thought..DVR away..shhesh! What some people bother themselves with..long_time_DNC said:
Look, all this hand wringing on this thread about some guy in a suit wearing and earpiece busting your door down because you DVR'd and copied a movie for your friend is just plain ridiculous..
Let the boy scouts on here wag their fingers..It is they who are getting all lathered up....Let them have that job..
Nice attempt to shift the focus away from the real issue. But since you asked nicely (sort of). I am a long standing customer of E*. I have no financial or other business interest in E*, D*, NAB, CBS, NBC, FBS, ABC, CIA, KY Jelly, etc. My interest is in intellectual honesty. I always admired Mr. Ergen for his entrepreneurial capabilities. Unfortunately, his dishonesty has become apparent and I feel betrayed. The law is the law and I don't like special pleaders or people who are sorry solely because they were caught. I don't understand the basis (other than emotion or self-indulgence) for shifting the responsibility for this situation from Charlie to Rupert. Both are arrogant SOB's. The difference is that Charlie was found to have been a bad boy by multiple courts and now doesn't want to take his (Congressionally prescribed) medicine. What message would be sent to society if Charlie gets a pass? If the consequences of your misdeeds even tangentially harm a third party, you get absolution? I think not.
minnow said:
ThomasRz said:
I agree with all that.
The problem though is the extenuating circumstances that occur because of the punishment "mandated" by the law. If they could just punish Dish / Charlie that would be different but this penalty will directly hurt many thousand innocent customers that had no part in breaking the law, plus will give an immediate, substantial business advantage to the only competing satellite tv provider.
Regarding that innocent customer. Some are saying "ok, they loose distants, so drop "E" and switch to "D".
Well many of those customers are locked into "E" with commitment contracts. Some say "you shouldn't have any problem getting out of those because this was all Dish's fault". Well if Dish plays hardball on those, you'd probably need a class action law suit to win even a token amount.
What about those that have large investments in Dish equipment or those that may have pre-paid annually?
And finally, what about those that were legally grandfathered? That status is lost with a new provider if that provider offers LiLs in your area.
IMO a law is poorly written that punishes the innocent. People say if the punishment were only a fine, Dish would just pass it on and hurt innocent customers anyway. Not necessarily. Dish's pricing structure is still contingent on competition and Dish would have to exhaust other means of cutting costs and increasing revenue before just pricing themselves out of the market.
Some in Congress want this to go away because ultimately it reflects badly on them and has the potential to put an unwanted wrinkle in the upcoming elections. Others see it as a possible way to pick up attention and votes. The way I see it, the more public noise and press attention the better right now.
waltinvt said:
I think it's unlikely that they would dare force people to stay through their contracts if they can't deliver what people signed up for. I would be able to pick up one network OTA and would have no access to the other three. That is a totally unacceptable level of service.
The long and short of it is that for folks like me this would be a material change warranting a voiding of the contract. I can't even imagine how bad the word of mouth would be on this if they chose not to see it this way.
waltinvt said:
Exactly what I think. It will hurt the consumer who did nothing wrong . The suscriber should never be faulted for what the company did. Charlie is guilty of breaking the law that really is a stupid law in the first place. He erred on the side of the subscribers and gave many of them something they couldn't get other wise back when locals in to locals hadn't even started. Remember Charlie is the one that started local into local in the first place.
To me I see no real difference in what he was doing and what many others do with regards to "moving". The law protects an antiquated affiliate system that should have been replaced long ago. IF you want to buy a newspaper from New York and you live in L. A. , you can . If you want to watch channels from New York and you live in L. A. , you can't. What is the difference?
It all goes back to commercials. They want you to watch their locals in your area so you will shop their area companies. Many today no longer watch any commercials and use dvrs to escape them. Many people subscribe to Satellite radio to escape commericals too- untill recently when they were added back in on major stations. I personally do not watch my local ota ( accept hd stations for picture quality) unless I am watching the local news/weather. I could get that straight off of the website of each local channel if that is all I want to know.
Either way Charlie did break the existing law , stupid as it is, and did so in favor of the consumer/ subscribers and gave them something that they couldn't get their locals from ota or satellite. Yes he kept doing it when the locals were available and that is where he was wrong.
Rupert is only wanting to enforce the injunction because he is wanting to gain subscribers, he thinks will churn to Directv because of the cut off of distants. This will hurt many subscribers who do need distants like truckers and rv owners. So he is deliberately trying to cause harm to the rural /rv/truckers so he can benefit from it. Which is wrong because he doesn't offer any more locals than Dish , in fact less than Dish, and under the real rules they won't qualify for distants with Directv either.
So to sum it up, Charlie erred in favor of the subscribers origionaly , but then kept giving them to people that shouldn't have got them,and Rupert is trying to hurt the consumer to steal subscribers from Dish under false pretenses that they will gain distants from them. Which is a lie because if they didn't qualify with Dish they certainley won't qualify with Directv.
But who would you rather have running your company? Someone who gives customers more than they should or someone who is trying to hurt that very company in order to hurt their customers in order to steal them away ? I think that Rupert is an King Size A hole and should think of other ways to compete with Dish rather than throw a wrench in a legal settlement that will keep the customers happy and will still penalize Charlie , who is the real person who should be penalized , not the customers.
Last edited:
I qualify for all the distants except CBS (which I can get OTA) if I were to switch to MurdochDBS. As much as it would sicken me to play right into Murdoch's hands on this...leaving E* after he left the negotiating table, I can't see myself forgoing ABC, NBC, and FOX if it comes to that.
Maybe I need to get a life and get off the couch but I have already started noticing TV shows being advertised that I would like to see that I won't get after 9/11 if all goes according to plan. I can live without it but I noticed that the finale for Big Brother is on 9/12 and when all the rural customers who have been watching the entire show can't get it they are going to be crying bloody murder.
Maybe I need to get a life and get off the couch but I have already started noticing TV shows being advertised that I would like to see that I won't get after 9/11 if all goes according to plan. I can live without it but I noticed that the finale for Big Brother is on 9/12 and when all the rural customers who have been watching the entire show can't get it they are going to be crying bloody murder.
Check the uplink activity thread. I see some more DNS uplinks today. It's getting awfully close to 9/11!!!
Hey folks
Seems I might be in fair shape if they go poof.
When the locals came to this area everyone had to get that superdish but the installer in the area told me that they moved the locals to 110 so it's just a matter of calling DISH. No hardware tweaking at all. I just had waivered the locals since I just never watch news unless it's FOX or CNN and would rather have West/East networks
So, is it that simple for me ?
I lose the West networks I am guessing but the locals from the town 35 miles away should be as simple as calling DISH......or will it be, lol
Will
Seems I might be in fair shape if they go poof.
When the locals came to this area everyone had to get that superdish but the installer in the area told me that they moved the locals to 110 so it's just a matter of calling DISH. No hardware tweaking at all. I just had waivered the locals since I just never watch news unless it's FOX or CNN and would rather have West/East networks
So, is it that simple for me ?
I lose the West networks I am guessing but the locals from the town 35 miles away should be as simple as calling DISH......or will it be, lol
Will
Yo Howdy said:
Yo Howdy - On some if not all nights (8PM to 11PM)one network channel can have more viewers than all of cable combined- so don't feel bad that you want your networks!
Just be sure you really do qualify for distants with Direct. You must be in a White area - not only not served by your DMA but a white signal from any other DMA - and Direct cannot have your locals available. Their qualifier is pretty accurate.
Last edited:
AT&T launches live broadband TV service
It is only the beginning and just a matter of time:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20060912/ap_on_hi_te/at_t_broadband_tv_1
It is only the beginning and just a matter of time:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20060912/ap_on_hi_te/at_t_broadband_tv_1
*amid snickering all around*
Why would you predict that broadcast networks would be available? In case anyone has forgotten, Fox and CBS own affiliates that cover over 35 percent of the households in the United States. And, now with Les Moonves suggesting charging all MSO's for retransmission fees on the CBS owned-and-operated stations, I'd respectfully state that until the networks figure out exactly how they'll complete their HD transition, it will be business as usual for at least the next two years.
Just because AT&T have figured out their television plans AGAIN (let's not forget the TCI debacle) doesn't mean it will become the next .com explosion.
Why would you predict that broadcast networks would be available? In case anyone has forgotten, Fox and CBS own affiliates that cover over 35 percent of the households in the United States. And, now with Les Moonves suggesting charging all MSO's for retransmission fees on the CBS owned-and-operated stations, I'd respectfully state that until the networks figure out exactly how they'll complete their HD transition, it will be business as usual for at least the next two years.
Just because AT&T have figured out their television plans AGAIN (let's not forget the TCI debacle) doesn't mean it will become the next .com explosion.
Greg Bimson said:
Snickers is a good candy bar, I'll take one.
As cable companies figure out their 'phone' plans, internet companies are figuring out their tv plans. It really is just a matter of time before the internet is a viable alternative to cable and satellite... and along with that will tag along the broadcast channels.
Greg:Greg Bimson said:
I agree with your argument re: the networks reticence to "broadcast" their programming on the internet like it's currently distributed through their affiliates, but, how can they be "done" just like cable and satellite? The World Wide Web knows no time zone (prime time on east vs west coast). There are also no geographic boundaries as far as DMA's are concerned (providing no copyright protection, a la the E* court battle).
