DISH Statement Regarding FCC Draft Order on Designated Entity Credits in Auction 97
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 2K
Claude, why do you even post in the Dish forum? All you do is complain and bitch about Dish. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in the past, but you keep on and on. If they wronged you that bad, and you have documentation, records, and contracts,,etc... to back up any claims, why don't you sue them? I am convinced Charlie Ergen could find a cure for cancer and give it to the world, and you'd still bitch and find something to fuss about Ergen and Dish. I think once AT&T takes over DirecTV, you'll probably not be singing their praises as much and downing them and AT&T all the time. You don't have to prove your point that Dish has wronged you and you hate them with every post you make in this section regarding them. To hate them, you still like to hang out in this section of the forum and keep up with them a lot.
Saying "they got caught" implies they were trying to hide something to begin with. From what I understand that's not the case. It was all laid out to begin with.
Since AT&T and Verizon also used other companies to bid for them like DISH did. If AT&T or Verizon would have won and saved billions because of it, would people be making a stink over it? Or would it just have passed under the radar.
Verizon and AT&T DO NOT want another major competitor, thus I feel is the reason for the stink.
Verizon and AT&T DO NOT want another major competitor, thus I feel is the reason for the stink.
I bet they have "friends" in the FCC, hence the reason for all the fuss. Charlie has not put enough grease in the pockets for his deal to slide through like an AT&T or Verizon deal would have.
I am unsure how ownership is defined under these regualtions---and whether AT&T and verizon used the same tactics.
I don't know what att and Verizon did exactly, but they shouldn't have gotten it either if they did the same thing.
And just because you follow the letter of the law it doesn't mean that you followed the intent of the law, and in this country you can be denied for not following the intent as well as the letter of the law.
And just because you follow the letter of the law it doesn't mean that you followed the intent of the law, and in this country you can be denied for not following the intent as well as the letter of the law.
What exactly is the intent? Small companies having an opportunity to compete against larger companies? Isn't that exactly what happened? Just with the backing of a bigger company. Dish wasn't the sole owner of the other companies. They were shared with a couple hedge funds, IIRC. So they followed the intent, just not in the way the FCC expected. If there is anyone to blame, it is they who approved the auction rules first
Well regardless, DISH is being denied the deal that they tried to pull off. So it really doesn't matter what we think. Now if Charlie wants to ,dare I say , SUE over it , that's his call.
That's idiotic. Find me one "small" company that can pony up around 10 billion dollars without any backing. Anyone that won this auction wouldn't be "small" by any definition in my book. They'd all need to have backing of someone with ready cash or collateral sufficient to cover a MASSIVE loan. That implies not small in my book.
Regardless, the rules were followed (in the same manner as in past auctions), changing them after the fact is pathetic and not how things should work.
Not complaining but pointing out the obvious here.
I have all my documentation. Anyone want to loan me a few hundred thousand to sue them so we can drag it out for the next 7 years?
It's not a guaranteed win going to court either, even though I believe I have enough documentation to prove my case.
Not trying to bash Dish again, but they are now a muliti billion dollar company run by a man who most would consider a penny pincher.
I don't blame charlie by bending the rules to save a billion dollars. I would too if I was in their shoes.
But obviously the spectrum was intended for Dish, not this little start up small business charlie has an invested interest in.
As far as me on the dish board, I'm a satellite guy. I got to keep up with the industry.
Dish has been known to thumb their nose at the FCC for a long time (i.e. distants) so obviously there is a anti dish agenda bat the FCC
I'll point out Claude does contribute with helpful posts between the jabs at DISH........
Forgot about that one.
I see a nice lengthy court battle brewing over this which will just further sour relations.
Charlie would be best to suck it in and pay, as whatever money he may save will cost him in future dealings.
Wait and see what happens in a few years when these licenses begin to expire due to non use. The FCC is going to not grant an exception to extend them, and since its industry know Dish is a pain to deal with, they may have issues
Similar threads
