Distant Network Information

[cablewithaview]

I think we need to leave SC out of this and don't get that crap started. What do you think ICE ?
Remember our troops are overseas, we don't need to be in a pissing contest with our brothers and sisters of the great north. Take their networks away and they may come across the border, then again if we send them to the NAB headquarters, it maybe a good thing.
Seriously NO fanning flames right now.

 

[Mr Tony]

I think we need to leave SC out of this and don't get that crap started.

I agree. It really has nothing to do with distants. I dont get why the thread almost died and then some people need to bring it back up

What do you think ICE ?

see the post previous yours

 

[cablewithaview]

I was typing mine while you was.

 

[johnnytuinals]

Well yes IceBerg StarChoice is different,,,,I was only saying you have people that want Locals other then the ones Dish and Directv will give them...
I think StarChoice is nice to have,But StarChoice I would think it is for only in the Canada area and people are not surposed to have it in the states and thats why you need a broker I would think??If it was legal in the states I could the order it from NYC then without a broker?

Yes I am happy getting my NYC stations from the Poconos area....
But I also enjoy watching the Westcoast stations too....
It nice that I can wakeup at 10am and start watching the News till 1pm lol
And its also nice watching David Letterman at 2:30am when I miss him at 12:30am on the denver stations with my 10 foot satellite....
Another reason,I am glad I have the Denver8 on my 10 foot dish because it was soooo interesting to watch the Snow Storms thats they were having all night in Denver this week lol...........Johnny

 

[cj9788]

What pisses me off is how SOME people still call "moving" a crime. It is not a crime. Until some lawmaker somewhere either writes a new law or amends a current law to make "moving" a crime. It is NOT illegal. The only thing the mover is guilty of is violating the service agreement.

Why anyone would admitt to moving in todays enviorment is really confusing. It has already been mentioned in one of the many court documents posted here and at DBSTALK. It is only a matter of time before the NAB pays off the lawmakers to make moving Illegal.

 

[ThomasRz]

Um, it is a crime. A crime called "fraud." And please...the fact that you send money to DPS/E*/D* for the service is wholly irrelevant...so don't bother.

What pisses me off is how SOME people still call "moving" a crime. It is not a crime. Until some lawmaker somewhere either writes a new law or amends a current law to make "moving" a crime. It is NOT illegal. The only thing the mover is guilty of is violating the service agreement.

Why anyone would admitt to moving in todays enviorment is really confusing. It has already been mentioned in one of the many court documents posted here and at DBSTALK. It is only a matter of time before the NAB pays off the lawmakers to make moving Illegal.

 

[carl033]

Whether or not you pay for X (and who is to decide what the value of X is in your case?) is not a factor in determining whether or not you committed theft. The question is did you take property without authorization with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property. If you object to being labeled a thief, how about a defrauder? You would not have (and could not have) obtained the item of value without intentional deception. Sleep well. I hope you don't have children to whom you are teaching these values.

I legally pay for Star Choice, and they don't care where I am. They like my $55/mo, and I LOVE their programming. It nicely augments my D* service (which I also pay for). I have a legit Canadian address, and live in the US. I can call them directly to change my programming. If they don't feel I'm stealing their service, you have no right to. Get a life, and enjoy satellite TV from wherever it comes from!

 

[minnow]

IF it's technically legal or not, that will probably be someday decided. And much sooner that you all would like if you keep bragging how your bending the rules for your own personal benefit.
If moving was legal then why doesn't Direct and E* just tell all their customers that call in for DNS and at first don't not qualify at their current address to just go ahead and select another address that would qualify and "we will turn them right on for you Mr. Smith."
The same goes for S.C.; if that was a legitimate way to get service, why does one need to go through a broker(who set's up your service at a bogus Canadian address and then pays your monthly bill on your behalf) ? Maybe not technically illegal but certainly not legitimate either.

 

[johnnytuinals]

I love these people that tell yea what is right and what is wrong...
And even if you have a Dish that says StarChoice on it in the states,what can anyone do?Report yeaaaa and the FCC will come over to your house and give yea a ticket or something lol....
Samething with the Distants,big freaking deal,some of us enjoy distant stations...
The ones that complain about it will RAT you out because most don't have anything better to do...
And the people that have StarChoice and wants to pay a broker for programing,big freaking deal...
You think that they should give their money to Dish or Directv instead...
I am glad that there are other options like StarChoice that we can give our money too...Jt

 

[minnow]

What flim-flam convict wouldn't give his left nut for you to be on his jury.

 

[cablewithaview]

Enough StarChoice stuff. Getting well off topic at this point. Take it to the Canadian section or not at all.

 

[carl033]

IF it's technically legal or not, that will probably be someday decided. And much sooner that you all would like if you keep bragging how your bending the rules for your own personal benefit.
If moving was legal then why doesn't Direct and E* just tell all their customers that call in for DNS and at first don't not qualify at their current address to just go ahead and select another address that would qualify and "we will turn them right on for you Mr. Smith."
The same goes for S.C.; if that was a legitimate way to get service, why does one need to go through a broker(who set's up your service at a bogus Canadian address and then pays your monthly bill on your behalf) ? Maybe not technically illegal but certainly not legitimate either.

I have a real Canadian address, and pay directly. Don't make suppositions that you can't back up. If you don't want to take advantage of additional programming at a fair price, then don't.

 

[Citizen Eric]

I just hate that my freedom of choice was taken away.

Yes, I get the locals on DISH, and Yes, I filled out the RV waiver to get distants from L.A. (I got the Distants before local Anchorage channels were available to me)

I enjoyed the L.A. feeds because picture quality was better, audio was clean (Anchorage stations don't broadcast in stereo so the surround sound/home theater was worthless) and they didn't add additional local commercials so the shows end later and later at the prime time shows run. Really, how many times should I have to watch the lady from Sadler's furniture telling me this is the "last time I'll see prices like this till next spring"?

Now I watch CSI on the local channel 11 (KTVA Anchorage) and the audio SUCKS! Every time something loud happens, my surround sound decoder just emits a loud buzz out the left & right speakers as it tries to interpret some sort of "stereo" sound out of the bad mono audio signal coming from the broadcaster.

I'd happily watch locals if they'd provide a quality product. In my mind, the Distant Network Channels provided by DISH was capitalism at it's finest. Give the public a better product (good picture and audio) and the people will buy it. If the competitor wants you to buy his/her product over another (listening Anchorage??) provide a better quality and I'll be glad to buy from you. In the meantime, technology allows me to "buy" from Los Angeles instead. Or at least it did before the FCC and broadcaster lobbyists got involved.


I'm not buying the SFO or ATL channels. I'll wait this out for a while and try to find another option. THis may get me off broadcast TV altogether. I'm sick of all the network programming "reminders" they all constantly splash onto the screen now anyway in the middle of my show. Network TV has waned in quality and popularity for some time now. Same as Clear Channel ruined FM radio for me, the current crop of network shows and production techniques may just have me heading straight for DIY and the History channel.

But I digress.

Thanks for the great forum. I tend to ramble, but hopefully my posts will be on topic and relevant before I get on my soapbox. :

 

[Greg Bimson]

In my mind, the Distant Network Channels provided by DISH was capitalism at it's finest.

How can the taking of any network channel and rebroadcasting it without a contract be considered "capitalism"?

Remember, the only reason a distant network exists is because of a government handout passed in 1988. This does not require Dish Network nor DirecTV to have a contract with any of the stations, so the "capitalism" function here just doesn't work.

And Dish Network and DirecTV could certainly pay each local station for a fibre feed, which should in turn get you all network programming from each local station in surround sound, as a fibre feed isn't necessarily based upon transmission equipment.

 

[johnnytuinals]

Yep Citizen Eric
The L.A. Locals was nice to watch and many times it would be nice to watch the long car chases that they have out there...Geee I miss them car chases,maybe I should move lol..
I am just learning what San Francisco is all about now since I have those stations.From NPS....Atlanta stations don't do much for me but at $9 amonth yeaaa cannot beat it with a stick...JT

 

[Citizen Eric]

How can the taking of any network channel and rebroadcasting it without a contract be considered "capitalism"?

Remember, the only reason a distant network exists is because of a government handout passed in 1988. This does not require Dish Network nor DirecTV to have a contract with any of the stations, so the "capitalism" function here just doesn't work.

And Dish Network and DirecTV could certainly pay each local station for a fibre feed, which should in turn get you all network programming from each local station in surround sound, as a fibre feed isn't necessarily based upon transmission equipment.

Are you saying the LA channels (KABC, KNBC, KCBS) got nothing from Dish for re-broadcasting their content? Now if they were just "stealing" it, I'd say you have a point. But if the Congress made it legal to do so, then what's the problem? For many years the cable companies were forced to show local programming (I think it was called the "must carry" rule) at their own expense because local broadcasters were worried about losing ad revenue because of cable subscribers. Sound familiar? Now the broadcasters want the satellite companies to pay for the very content thay forced the cable companies to carry? They (broadcasters) want to have their cake and eat it too.

Now, if the fiber feed (our local FOX affiliate does that for the local cable company) is a solution for better sound and picture quality, I'll ask DISH tech support why they don't do it. I'll keep you posted.

 

[cablewithaview]

Citizen Eric, if I'm not mistaken a broadcaster requesting must carry on satellite must pay for the fibre uplink and whatever to get the carriage. Same with me if a broadcaster wants on and request a spot in the line up, they must get me the signal. I had an engineer come up from a LPTV a few years back with an antenna, amp and even climb the tower. A few years later we had to replace the amp, which they sent we climbed. And recently in the past year the antenna had to be redone as well. But those guys was great to deal with.

 

[ThomasRz]

Yep. There are no royalties paid for LIL. Congress did not make it legal to lie about your service address in order to get network channels. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Congress removed some of the copyright protection in order to provide network programming to the unserved. DNS was never designed as a vehicle to give you whatever station you want. Cable and DBS are different technologies and have different (although sometimes similiar) rules. Why do you find the idea that the owner of a valuable product would want to be paid for it so strange? It's bad enough that the law says content owners must "sell" to certain groups. Now you want freebies. Again we see the results of the stranglehold the NEA has on public education.

Are you saying the LA channels (KABC, KNBC, KCBS) got nothing from Dish for re-broadcasting their content? Now if they were just "stealing" it, I'd say you have a point. But if the Congress made it legal to do so, then what's the problem? For many years the cable companies were forced to show local programming (I think it was called the "must carry" rule) at their own expense because local broadcasters were worried about losing ad revenue because of cable subscribers. Sound familiar? Now the broadcasters want the satellite companies to pay for the very content thay forced the cable companies to carry? They (broadcasters) want to have their cake and eat it too.

Now, if the fiber feed (our local FOX affiliate does that for the local cable company) is a solution for better sound and picture quality, I'll ask DISH tech support why they don't do it. I'll keep you posted.

Why don't you ask the local FOX affiliate?

 

[minnow]

I have a real Canadian address, and pay directly. Don't make suppositions that you can't back up. If you don't want to take advantage of additional programming at a fair price, then don't.

Well if you have a "real Canadian address" and receive service at that address then what's your beef with my comments. If you are using a "real Canadian address" to receive programming in the USA and need a broker to set up the service and pay you bills for your then your skirting the law. If you don't believe me then call your Canadian service provider, tell them where you are actually receiving their sat. signal and see how long you continue to get their service. That will be the true test of your legitimacy.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Are you saying the LA channels (KABC, KNBC, KCBS) got nothing from Dish for re-broadcasting their content? Now if they were just "stealing" it, I'd say you have a point. But if the Congress made it legal to do so, then what's the problem?

That is correct. There was no direct exchange of money or a two-party contract between Dish Network and any of the affiliates mentioned for delivery. Congress approved a bill and Presidents signed those bills into law to allow for the limited use of retransmitting network programming to the unserved. It was NEVER intended to be "capitalism"; to allow Dish Network to sell distant network programming anywhere. Dish Network, just like DirecTV, failed to live up to the terms of the license that Congress and the President enacted.

For many years the cable companies were forced to show local programming (I think it was called the "must carry" rule) at their own expense because local broadcasters were worried about losing ad revenue because of cable subscribers. Sound familiar? Now the broadcasters want the satellite companies to pay for the very content thay forced the cable companies to carry? They (broadcasters) want to have their cake and eat it too.

It sounds familiar, but not quite the way you describe. Most cable operators were required to show local programming in exchange for their franchise rights. In the early 1990's, there were studies done where a majority of people would have expected their bills to be at least halved if local channels were no longer on the cable system. That was when retransmission consent (carriage contracts) and must-carry were implemented.

And that is the exact implementation that satellite uses to this day: the stations with the larger audience are asking for carriage fees, while the local PBS and smaller stations would have to declare must-carry in order to be carried.