Dish Network: Distant Networks

[micklewhite]

huh? don't understand the question. Considering the only distants are NY, LA, Atlanta (I think), Chicago all of those are farther that what is considered "locals"

You made an issue of the fact that your "locals" might/are very far from you. So if that is a problem (you'd have to explain why) why wouldn't DNS be worse?

finally we agree on something. If someone lives in an area that cannot pick up channels OTA, they should be entitled to distants.

I don't think that I have ever said that people in a white area should not get network programming. The only question is which provider. If you don't have LIL, DNS is fine. If you have LIL, it is the functional equivalent of OTA so I can't see why DNS should be added. You seem to be saying that if you can get locals over the air, DNS is not appropriate but if you can get locals via DBS, you ought to get DNS as well. This is illogical.

But unfortunatelly, Nielsen decided to put everybody in a DMA regardless if you can pick up a signal or not. (they must have taken the lead from baseball which did the same thing). So why should people in these areas (that cannot get a good signal OTA) not be allowed to get distants? But DBS doesn't allow that anymore if "locals" are available which is bunk.

As I said, this stance doesn't make sense. DMA's are a convenience. They are not a straitjacket.

If you couldn't see those channels ("locals") before, why do they have a right to claim you?

They don't. Only if you can see them OTA or via DBS. The law permits DNS for people in LIL areas that for some reason cannot receive LIL. I doubt that there are many people in this category (in a deep valley with triple canopy vegetation that blocks 110 but not 119?) but the option IS there.

Now I understand if you say you can't pick them up (and really didn't try). But there are legit areas that can't get any reception due to distance or terrain. So because some "local" stations claim an area, you are stuck with those stations.

It is not the stations claiming an area. It is the method Congress set up.

If you have waivers, your local stations is waiving the right to be your "exclusive" station. So they should have distants. Same with people who are too far away from the stations.

If you have a waiver none of this matters. The question is do you require a waiver. You require a waiver for DNS if you do not qualify for the statutory license either generally or one of the exceptions.

no more

 

[Mr Tony]

cleaned up the quotes so we know who said what

but a couple points

DMA's are a convenience. They are not a straitjacket

tell that to the NAB. They are making this a straghtjacket

It is not the stations claiming an area. It is the method Congress set up

Congress has nothing to do with DMA's. Its Nielsen who decided the DMA's and they felt the need to split the whole US into a DMA rgardless of what you can get

If you have a waiver none of this matters

yes it does. Remember...EVERYONE is losing distants
-even the people who qualify via being outside of Grade B and locals arent available
-even the people who have waivers

 

[micklewhite]

Then what is the problem? The originators receives their royalties. Ah yes. The problem is not with the originator. The problem is that our local distributors don't want us to receive the programming from the source.

Ok if you want to be spoonfed. I am talking about the entity - whatever called that OWNS THE RIGHTS TO THE PROGRAMMING. It may be the artist, it may be the network affiliate, it may be somebody else, it may be a combination of these BUT IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T YOU!

Just saying "copyright, copyright, copyright" over and over again is not gonna make this law's true underlying motivation suddenly be about copyright, anymore than saying WMD over and over made WMD the real reason for invading Iraq. It is all about a bunch of local broadcasters desperately trying to hang on to their little fiefdoms.

Good grief man, are you this dense? I said that the motivation doesn't matter. The law is the law.

You're wrong twice in this paragraph. 1. I can, on my own, receive these broadcasts by using a PC or a SlingBox, and the Internet.

I'm beginning to think you are stupid. We are NOT talking about sending programming THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED to yourself at another location. Slingbox/video tape/DVD is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. You cannot acquire an LA network signal, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, by yourself unless you are in OTA range.

2. The originating broadcasts are not encrypted. The satellite carraige of those braodcasts are. That is to prevent people from using the dbs company's resources with compansating them for their work in bringing the broadcasts to you.

WRONG! You do not understand the difference between the broadcast done locally and the feed provided to DBS, which is by fiber optic, microwave link, etc. Such a feed is protected against 3rd parties unless and until they subscribe to DBS service.

No different than paying an ISP for carriage of digital signals from a distant PC with tuner card, or a Slingbox.

Completely different. But I have neither the time nor inclination to explain it to you. Perhaps someone else will.

Wrong again. The movie industry didn't want to sell only one copy of a movie, then have a bunch of people rent that one copy, giving their money to the rental agent. They wanted everybody to pay $89.95 for a VHS copy of Porky's. But, they couldn't stop the new paradigm, finally learned to embrace it, and have reaped the benefits since.

Do you think Blockbuster ever rented movies without permission and paying the owner? The copyright owner may have had a change in position but it was his choice, not yours.

The recording industry ion?was dead set against MP3, as it was indeed a way to illegally distribute copyrighted content. (The same was true of cassette tape, btw) But, they have now embraced it, and are reaping the rewards through services like iTunes.

You still don't understand the difference between wholesale larceny (Kazaa/Napster) and licensed distribution.

The broadcast industry was dead set against VCR's (and later, DVR's) because they wanted to control when we had to watch their programming, and, most importantly, did not want us to skip the commercials.

You are going off on a tangent. Focus, focus....

Nobody is arguing that theft is wrong.

That's the problem. Perhaps you meant .. theft is NOT wrong...If so I say
Huh? Go back and read the numerous "DNS is my constitutional right and I will get it no matter what E*/FCC/courts/NAB say" posts and tell me that with a straight face.
You are trying to twist this argument to make it seem as if that is what this is all about. Of course, it is not. It is about control.

Control over private property. What do you call it when one person takes control of property from the rightful owner.....insert Jeopardy music here...yes the question is "What is theft?"!

Ahh your comments aren't worth any more effort...

It is looking more and more that the political makeup of our legislative branch will take a profound shift to those whose interests lie less with big business, as it has for about 12 years now, and towards a more consumer friendly environment. If that happens, we should see a new attitude at the FCC, and a revisiting of SHVERA in the senate and house.
And, yes, most viewers may prefer the local programming, if they had a choice. But, most viewers would probably say they would like that choice, which they are denied currently.
It is a smokescreen. The proponents of localism are hiding behind a valid legal protection of copyright law. They are corrupting it for their own ends. And, yes, I will do what I can to change it. I will vote, as I always do, for representatives and leaders who have the interests of their citizens in miind, and not the interests of big business, the wealthy, the shareholders, or their country club/fraternity buddies. Finally, after years of being neglected, perhaps the majority of my fellow Americans will do the same.

abc def

 

[micklewhite]

cleaned up the quotes so we know who said what

tell that to the NAB. They are making this a straghtjacket

How?

Congress has nothing to do with DMA's. Its Nielsen who decided the DMA's and they felt the need to split the whole US into a DMA rgardless of what you can get

Ok I see I need to be precise. Congress CHOSE the Nielsen/DMA model to use.

yes it does. Remember...EVERYONE is losing distants
-even the people who qualify via being outside of Grade B and locals arent available
-even the people who have waivers

Well blame Charlie. He's the one who decided to cheat.

 

[Mr Tony]

The NAB is the one who has been fighting the whole "distants" issues for years. They don't want anyone to have distants regardless of location. Even if you live somewhere like Mankato, MN that has one station in the DMA (CBS) they don't want you to have distants (even if its the ones you qualify for)

They're the ones making this a straightjacket. And since the NAB is in the pockets of congress, the public loses

 

[Tower Guy]

The NAB is the one who has been fighting the whole "distants" issues for years. They don't want anyone to have distants regardless of location.

The finding of the appeals court that E* gave illegal DNS to over 25% of their customers makes me feel that the NAB has a valid point.

 

[long_time_DNC]

And so this hurts the NAB...how? One would think stations would appreciate additional viewers regardless of location.

 

[GaryPen]

no more

You made 5 posts after you stated there would be no more. So, at this point, anything you say on this subject (or any subject for that matter) needs to be dismissed.

As for all of the twisting, turning, and spinning you attempted in your last reply to the vastly superior points of my argument...well...it's just a bunch of twisting, turning, and spinning.

I know that I am 100% correct on this issue on moral and ethical grounds. And, based on the history of these sorts of issues (yes, the film, recording, and TV industry examples I gave were incredibly relevent), the law will come around to match the ethical and moral aspect of it. I would have to say that we may see this as soon as 2007, if the 2006 election results follow current trends.

It is time that corporate gets back to competing for our business, and not relying on governement regulation (or lack thereof, in certain cases) to remove competition, consumer protection, and workers' rights. They need to work and compete for our dollars, not have government choose for us.

 

[GaryPen]

And so this hurts the NAB...how? One would think stations would appreciate additional viewers regardless of location.

The NAB is made up mostly of the owners of the non-O&O network affiliate stations. They are worried they would lose local viewers, and local ad dollars along with it, if local viewers were allowed to choose an out of market network O&O. It's a valid concern. But, they need to transform the current system to work within the 21st century technology. The film, recording, and TV inductry has succesfully adapted to deal with video rentals, DVD's, MP3's, and VCR/DVR's. They are going to have to learn to deal with the ability to watch distant stations, and adapt to this new technology.

If all stations were available to everyone, those locals could indeed increase viewership in other markets. They don't see this, of course. They are dinosaurs that can only understand selling ads for local car dealers, and how those local ad dollars might diminish. Well, an ice age is coming, and they're gonna get frozen in the tundra unless they start dealing with the huge technological climate change.

 

[long_time_DNC]

Agreed, 100%.

 

[cj9788]

Mick I am not attacking you if that is the way it has come accros I apologize. For the record the way your posts read and as I interpret them it seems that you are taking some joy on the matter. Again if that is not the case I am sorry but your posts do have a little bit of an edge.

I am a strong beliver that any one who wants DNS should be able to get them. I just wish the NAB would realize this untapped revenu. Like Gary said the recording industry caught on and began making money on music down loads. And the movie studios caught on with the vidoe rentals. Why the local broadcasters have not caught on yet is something I would like to see changed.


BTW I have so far enjoyed the exchanges. I hope you keep posting. Imagine how boreing these sites would be if every one agreed wtih every one else

 

[waltinvt]

The finding of the appeals court that E* gave illegal DNS to over 25% of their customers makes me feel that the NAB has a valid point.

Well there is the mystery of why Dish didn't provide the court with records to substantiate the valid subs they do have. If they had they may have been able to avoid the "pattern of willful abuse" part of the ruling which I believe is why the court had not choice but to pull all distants. We know Dish is very slip-shod on many issues but to not have any records - no, there's got to be more to it. It's almost like Dish was trying to aggitate the court.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Then what is the problem? The originators receives their royalties. Ah yes. The problem is not with the originator. The problem is that our local distributors don't want us to receive the programming from the source.

No, the actual problem is that the source doesn't want to do business with the end users.

Think about it. Living near Baltimore and DC, why shouldn't I be able to call KABC in Los Angeles and try to subscribe? KABC will laugh me right off the phone.

Of course, KABC not only is the western flagship station owned and operated by ABC, they also carry popluar syndicated programming. They contract for shows such as Oprah!, Dr. Phil, Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune.

Did anyone contact any of the studios (the originators, the "source") to see if they'll deal directly to the end user? Guess what? The four shows I mentioned are distributed by King World, a division of CBS. And they are distributed on a per market basis. I'm very certain that King World doesn't want KABC selling Oprah to everyone and anyone by rebroadcasting it for a fee, until King World and KABC can come to an agreement how those fees are divvied up.

We can continually go round-and-round on this issue. Of course, for some reason no one likes to go toe-to-toe with me on this issue, because I am 100 percent correct.

Full Disclosure:

Greg I have read your posts for the last couple of years and the one thing I can say about you is that you have never bash E*. You never wrote with a sense of joy at the prospect of E* having to pull DNS.

No, I'll bash Dish Network. I don't like how Dish Network continually uses their customers in some sort of sick chess game. And yes, the customers are usually the pawns.

Dish Network will probably not come to any agreement with anyone to keep distant networks. Why? Well, because the company seems to be like a knight in shining armor, if you come to an agreement that cuts-off half to three-quarters of your distant network subscribers, it will appear the knight in shining armor will have done a deal with the devil. So I'd suspect no deal. Then Dish Network can walk into Congress and try to have the Congress Critters craft a law that will give back some of what was lost.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I am a strong beliver that any one who wants DNS should be able to get them. I just wish the NAB would realize this untapped revenu. Like Gary said the recording industry caught on and began making money on music down loads. And the movie studios caught on with the vidoe rentals. Why the local broadcasters have not caught on yet is something I would like to see changed.

The only problem is distant network service was intended to be a way to serve the unserved.

As such, there aren't any contracts between networks and DBS companies to provide distant network service. I could start up BimsonStar tomorrow, and retransmit any network affiliate of my choice without a contract and sell it to my subscriber base, provided I qualify that customer. The distant network provisions, along with the superstation provisions, are the only provisions where I do NOT need a contract for carriage in the entire television broadcast business. These provisions were given by the government for the unserved.

Now, maybe if there were contracts between say FOX and Dish Network for nationwide delivery of FOX, maybe there would be a way to sell nationally. But the contracts are non-existant.

 

[Clancy]

I would like to note that this thread started by Scott at this point in time has had 253 replies and 11,511 views.

Another earlier thread also started by Scott about the new Dish 500+, 1000+ and 1000.2 at this point in time has had 374 replies and 39,321 views.

If Greg continues with his 100% correct statements, we might equal the interest of Scotts other more read thread.

 

[Tower Guy]

And so this hurts the NAB...how? One would think stations would appreciate additional viewers regardless of location.

KABC sells commercials for a fee based on the number of viewers in LA. A car dealer in Hollywood won't pay extra for a viewer in Peoria. Meanwhile the local car dealer in Peoria doesn't get the full audience that he would otherwise pay for.

 

[Tower Guy]

Well there is the mystery of why Dish didn't provide the court with records to substantiate the valid subs they do have.

The records might have shown the huge number of subscribers who don't really live where they say they live. The problem is likely worse than the courts found.

 

[waltinvt]

The records might have shown the huge number of subscribers who don't really live where they say they live. The problem is likely worse than the courts found.

How can it be any worse? As I understand it, Dish didn't provide records to prove any subs were legal so the court assumed they were all illegal - thus the "willful abuse" citing. I don't think the court could have done any worse to them.

Dish does some stupid things sometimes but I can't believe their legal team is that stupid, so they must be up to something.

 

[tnsprin]

How can it be any worse? As I understand it, Dish didn't provide records to prove any subs were legal so the court assumed they were all illegal - thus the "willful abuse" citing. I don't think the court could have done any worse to them.

Dish does some stupid things sometimes but I can't believe their legal team is that stupid, so they must be up to something.

Worse would not just not trying to find out if the subscribers where legit but actually knowing they were legit and giving it to them anyway. Additional charges could then be raised.

Right now they just look careless.

 

[Greg Bimson]

How can it be any worse? As I understand it, Dish didn't provide records to prove any subs were legal so the court assumed they were all illegal - thus the "willful abuse" citing. I don't think the court could have done any worse to them.

I had to reread the ruling. It is much worse. Ready???

From the decision, starting at the bottom of page 38, and I will emphasize some points and comment after the the quote:

We first note the length of time over which the district court found EchoStar to be using inadequte procedures for assessing subscriber eligibility. When EchoStar first began offering its own distant network packages in July, 1998, it utilized the red-light/green-light method - a method for which the district court found "no evidence [that it would indicate that it] was reasonably calculated to prevent signups of ineligible subscribers". Id. at 1241. Even after EchoStar switched to the ILLR model, it utilized the illegitimate "DMA Rule" through October 2000, and unlawfully considered "interference from at least August 2000 through January 2002. In other words, at no point from when EchoStar began offering distant network programming through January 2002 did it use a compliance method capable of reliably assessing subscriber eligibility.

This three-and-a-half year period of unlawful eligibility screening predictably led to a sizeable number of subscribers for whom EchoStar was unable to establish eligibility. We start with the ILLR analysis of Echostar's April 2002 subscriber list. The best case scenario, which takes as valid EchoStar's claims of viewers and grandfathered status (the same ones for which district court found EchoStar failed to carry its burden of establishing), indicates that, on a nationwide basis, Echostar is presumptively providing illegal service to 26.5% of its subscribers receiving ABC distant network programming, 26.9% for CBS, 20.2% for Fox, and 28.1% for NBC. Thus, even the network with the lowest percentage of violations, factoring in claims of eligibility that the district court found not to have been established, EchoStar exceeds the 20% threshold on a nationwide basis. While we believe this may very well be sufficiently objectionable, we cull some additional inflammatory conclusions from the district court's opinion: "The Court finds that EchoStar has failed to meet its burden of proving that its subscribers are 'unserved households.'" Id. at 1248; "EchoStar has failed to present any evidence ... that any of its subscribers are unserved as defined under SHVA." Id. at 1253; "[T]he Court's [findings] support the conclusion that hundreds of thousands of EchoStar's distant network programming subscribers are not unserved households." Id. at 1249; "Plaintiff's evidence indicates that a significant percentage of Echostar's distant network programming subscribers receive a signal of Grade B intensity or better." Id. at 1253; "Echostar has not met its burden in showing any of its distant signal subscribers meet the grandfathering requirements." Id. at 1250; "EchoStar has also failed to prove that any of its subscribers are eligibile because they have obtained waivers from the relevant network stations." Id. at 1252. If these findings do not describe a "pattern or practice" of violations, we do not know what does.

It appears during the course of the case the April, 2002, distant subscriber list was compared with the ILLR model. The problem?

1) Every network had about 20 to 30 percent ineligible subscribers due to the ILLR analysis
2) This did not count any of the grandfathered or waivered subs. Because EchoStar did not present evidence to the court, all grandfathered or waivered subs were ineligible. In turn, this would raise the ineligible subscriber count much higher. It is most likely higher than half the distant network subs are ineligible in one way, shape or form.

One of the more compelling statement by the court is right at the beginning of page 41:

As if the magnitude of its ineligible subscriber base were insufficiently disconcerting, we have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act. Indeed, based on the district court's findings, we seem to have discerned a "pattern" and "practice" of violating the Act in every way imaginable.