Dish PBS HD Appeal

[nelson61]

The Appeals Court wrote an explanation of the PBS HD must carry decision and timetable that even I can understand .

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db0815/DOC-309059A1.pdf

 

[MikeD-C05]

Someone summarize this for us and I would appreciate it. I hate reading government documents.

 

[Laddyboy]

Dish argued for a preliminary injunction to block Sec. 207 of the 2010 STELA act requiring an accelerated timetable to provide PBS HD, basing its argument on free speech rights under the First Amendment. The argument was rejected by both the district and appellate court.

 

[mike123abc]

Actually Dish was trying to obtain a preliminary injunction and it was denied by the court and now the appeals court agrees on denying the injuction.

Essentially Dish can still go to trial on it, but by the time the trial goes through it will be too late anyways.

 

[Juan]

Someone summarize this for us and I would appreciate it. I hate reading government documents.

The picture-quality condition was applied to HD programming
in 2008 through an FCC rule. See 23 F.C.C.R. 5351, ¶ 5
(2008); 47 C.F.R. § 76.66 (k). Under that rule, satellite providers
that carry any local stations in HD format in a particu-lar market must carry all local stations in HD format. The
regulation gives providers four years to meet the following
implementation timetable: they must achieve compliance in
fifteen percent of the markets in which they carry local channels
in HD by Feb. 17, 2010; thirty percent by Feb. 17, 2011;



The provision accelerates the HD timetable for “qualified
noncommercial educational television stations.” Under § 207,
satellite carriers who take advantage of the statutory compulsory
copyright license to provide local broadcasts in HD format
must also provide “qualified noncommercial educational
television stations located within that local market” in HD
format. Carriers were given until December 31, 2010, to meet
the requirement in fifty percent of the local markets in which they provide HD programming and until December 31, 2011,
to comply fully in all remaining markets.
sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012; and one-hundred percent by
Feb. 17, 2013.

 

[MikeD-C05]

The picture-quality condition was applied to HD programming
in 2008 through an FCC rule. See 23 F.C.C.R. 5351, ¶ 5
(2008); 47 C.F.R. § 76.66 (k). Under that rule, satellite providers
that carry any local stations in HD format in a particu-lar market must carry all local stations in HD format. The
regulation gives providers four years to meet the following
implementation timetable: they must achieve compliance in
fifteen percent of the markets in which they carry local channels
in HD by Feb. 17, 2010; thirty percent by Feb. 17, 2011;



The provision accelerates the HD timetable for “qualified
noncommercial educational television stations.” Under § 207,
satellite carriers who take advantage of the statutory compulsory
copyright license to provide local broadcasts in HD format
must also provide “qualified noncommercial educational
television stations located within that local market” in HD
format. Carriers were given until December 31, 2010, to meet
the requirement in fifty percent of the local markets in which they provide HD programming and until December 31, 2011,
to comply fully in all remaining markets.
sixty percent by Feb. 17, 2012; and one-hundred percent by
Feb. 17, 2013.

Thank you. So I guess DISH is about to get hosed if they don't meet the deadline .

 

[whatchel1]

Thank you. So I guess DISH is about to get hosed if they don't meet the deadline .

So what did you think the court action but stalling for as long as possible. They need to get off their A's and WA conversion done YESTERDAY.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I think this says it all..

In summarizing its conclusions, the district court

explained:

nder the case law we aren’t dealing with content. You’ve got to offer PBS and now they’re saying . . . you’ve got to offer it in HD so it’s as attractive as other local stations and I don’t think it impinges or infringes the First Amendment.

We agree.

 

[chicagonettech]

I think this says it all..


In summarizing its conclusions, the district court

explained:

nder the case law we aren’t dealing with content. You’ve got to offer PBS and now they’re saying . . . you’ve got to offer it in HD so it’s as attractive as other local stations and I don’t think it impinges or infringes the First Amendment.

We agree.


[/FONT]

WOW! Someone sitting in the Courts still has some brain cells left!