Thanks, but since Fox was the only hold-out on the settlement from E, and since Direct and Fox are both owned by the same guy... it will be a cold day in hell before Direct gets my business.
Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 359
- Views 58K
Thanks, but since Fox was the only hold-out on the settlement from E, and since Direct and Fox are both owned by the same guy... it will be a cold day in hell before Direct gets my business.
Well if you live in the boonies and don't have cable and want to watch the net's, one doesn't have much a choice now, does one ? I for one will go with the provider that can offer me the programming I need. The botton line is that E* could of settled this back in 1999 just like Direct did and now the die has been cast.
"Well if you live in the boonies" - nope
"and don't have cable" - it's an option, but I don't want it
" and want to watch the net's" - nope... what programming I want to watch from ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX, I can stream on-line, totally by-passing the locals. Ha ha ha ha.
And since none of those cases apply to me... I will not go to Direct.
But if you need to, that's none of my business.
I can't get cable and live just north of the middle of no-where. I watch my network shows on the distant networks channels now but used to just download everything commercial free. I will go back to doing that if need be but I will not rule out changing to a provider that offers me the big 4 channels at some point in the future.....
Side note: It was such a surprise to watch Lost for the first time this season live. I had no idea how many commercial interruptions there were! Totally changed the flow of the show.
Side note: It was such a surprise to watch Lost for the first time this season live. I had no idea how many commercial interruptions there were! Totally changed the flow of the show.
Last edited:
Reminder- Bombard your representative and senators on Monday. It is the last day they can do anything before recess for Dec 1 deadline according to Dish Network.
When you say "downloading everything commercual free", what does that mean? Are you talking about on your computer?
Sorry, I am a noob, can ya tell?
I just go to say torrentspy or thepiratebay, type "lost" then select and download the latest episode via bit torrent using the azureus client. It plays on my computer which is patched to my TV via S-Video cable (and cabled to my stereo) and I watch the show in 42 minutes free of commercials.
All true. Too true one wonders what Charlie was thinking. Why did he not produce the waivers. Why did he not produce the proof of grandfathered customers. Was he that confident that he would win. I know proof for me would be my bills. I lived (moved to a ) in a true white area befor SHEVERA. I am grandfathered to keep my DNS and LiL. My bill prior to and after the date of enactment could easily have been provided to the courts.
Also why did E* not take the settlement to the 11th circut. They are the ones who ordered the FLorida court to issue the injunction. The florida court had no choice. Even if FOX had agreed the florida court was ordered to issue the injuction. Maybe Charlie should go back to the 11th circut ASAP.
Has anyone lost distants in the NYC DMA? I have the all LA feeds (ABC, CBS, NBC) with the exception of FOX. They have yet to be turned off. Are they turning off people in rurual areas first then O&O or is it just totally random? I am trying to prepare myself for the inevitable. At least I'll get to keep the supers so it isnt such a tough loss. Besides with a PVR, the distants dont really give you too much. You can timeshift on your own. The only advantage to the distants is for people in rural areas who will lose network channels entirely.
Call me crazy but I consider distants a luxury not a necessity. When you live 10 miles from NYC, distant networks are small potatoes.
Call me crazy but I consider distants a luxury not a necessity. When you live 10 miles from NYC, distant networks are small potatoes.
RVer
We are one of a group of customers that are fulltime RVers. We hold waivers that allow us to receieve distant networks as we travel; at least we did. Still have DNS as of 9PM CST 11/12. Do not know if I can handle changing locals everytime I move. Been from Seattle, WA to Orange, TX in the last month
We are one of a group of customers that are fulltime RVers. We hold waivers that allow us to receieve distant networks as we travel; at least we did. Still have DNS as of 9PM CST 11/12. Do not know if I can handle changing locals everytime I move. Been from Seattle, WA to Orange, TX in the last month
But some clarification is needed here. Remember that Dish was oroginally sued because they were using different qualification models that allowed more addresses to qualify for distant networks than they should have. Is that what the "200,000 illegal subscribers" refers to? Of the "600,000 legal" subscribers, how many of these are grandfathered subs that would not qualify for distants with DirecTV? And how many of the "legal" subs are using a bogus physical address to qualify for distants?
Methinks that though there will be churn (from legitimate white area subs and "movers" that will supply a false address to DirecTV), the amount will be significantly less than 600,000.
You bet.jrbdmb said:
This is about as clear as mud.
So, as we walk through this, let's keep in mind that Dish Network only supplied a list of customers they "qualified". The courts then analyzed the data to find if the customers were inside Grade A or Grade B, or outside Grade B (which qualified). However, Dish Network did not supply a list of those subscribers with waivers or grandfather status.jrbdmb said:
Technically, during the courtroom arguments and processes, Dish Network never provided a list of grandfathered subscribers. How in the world can someone then call those subscribers "legal" when there is no proof they ever were?
DirecTV may pick up a total of about 100-150K of these subscribers. That's about it.jrbdmb said:
DirecTV is trying to turn their rural equation upside-down. Dish Network has a large chunk of rural subscribers. Dish Network's loss of networks to the rural subscriber base may in fact be the only way DirecTV starts to make inroads.
Last edited:
And let us not forget new customers to be had in the future either. When a new customer is comparing program offerings and Dish cannot offer DNS to anyone, anymore, that certainly is going to be a boost for Direct. Dish has lost a competitive edge here.
Which will also be compounded more by the rules for digital (HD) distant network service.minnow said:
DirecTV supposedly has room for about 1500 HD local channels when DirecTV 10 and 11 are placed online next year. Almost 1500 HD local channels translates to practically the entire nation.
So DirecTV will have most markets' locals in digital (HD) by the end of next year, while Dish Network will still have bandwidth problems to cover that much territory.
This makes me sick....
Has anyone read this?
"Affected customers do have options," DirecTV said. "As usual, the free market is providing a strong solution to this challenge."
Free market?
Death row inmates in Utah have options too. Firing squad or Death by hanging.
This is not free market forces in action! A conglomerate has used litigation to remove a competitor from the market space thus creating a monopoly in the distribution of network television to rural areas without local network access. How can there be a free market when the options are One?
Has anyone read this?
"Affected customers do have options," DirecTV said. "As usual, the free market is providing a strong solution to this challenge."
Free market?
Death row inmates in Utah have options too. Firing squad or Death by hanging.
This is not free market forces in action! A conglomerate has used litigation to remove a competitor from the market space thus creating a monopoly in the distribution of network television to rural areas without local network access. How can there be a free market when the options are One?
Last edited:
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I will leave it to others because I am pinched for time. Remember the saying that goes: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool......?
@ThomasRz
1. Yes I know what a free market is. I am quite concerned however that you do not unless of course you are referring to the definition as would be provided by a Microsoft approved dictionary.
2. People will not die without DNS. People can live without many things. You obviously did not get the point so I will restate: With the loss of DNS from Dish users like myself will have only two bad options....either switch to DirecTV or go without the big 4 networks. Sorry that my previous statement was over your head.
I was alluding to the fact that death row inmates in Utah had two bad choices.
3. I think you are pinched for coherent thought rather then time. You skirted defining a free market or offering anything relevant then you moved on missing the point of my next statement only to finish with a quote from the 16th president that you were not following because you posted a reply in the first place!
I think you need to go back to Troll school Buddy.
1. Yes I know what a free market is. I am quite concerned however that you do not unless of course you are referring to the definition as would be provided by a Microsoft approved dictionary.
2. People will not die without DNS. People can live without many things. You obviously did not get the point so I will restate: With the loss of DNS from Dish users like myself will have only two bad options....either switch to DirecTV or go without the big 4 networks. Sorry that my previous statement was over your head.
I was alluding to the fact that death row inmates in Utah had two bad choices.
3. I think you are pinched for coherent thought rather then time. You skirted defining a free market or offering anything relevant then you moved on missing the point of my next statement only to finish with a quote from the 16th president that you were not following because you posted a reply in the first place!
I think you need to go back to Troll school Buddy.
Perhaps I can be "The Great Uniter" (sorry President Bush)...
From DirecTV, in the article:
Free market implies the ability of businesses and customers to do business with each other, but without the need to involve the government.
By definition, the ability to deliver distant networks is not "free market", as the government created a license to allow satellite companies to deliver distant networks to those that are unserved. This license is available to anyone, provided it isn't violated.
Therefore, the choices are a little different because of the injunction. A "free market" solution is that customers have the choice to remain with Dish Network and pick up their local channels (where available), or switch to another provider for network programming, where available.
Here is the one statement I have issue with:
From DirecTV, in the article:
From bacchus101:
From ThomasRz:
Of course, I am one of those people that can help out...
Free market implies the ability of businesses and customers to do business with each other, but without the need to involve the government.
By definition, the ability to deliver distant networks is not "free market", as the government created a license to allow satellite companies to deliver distant networks to those that are unserved. This license is available to anyone, provided it isn't violated.
Therefore, the choices are a little different because of the injunction. A "free market" solution is that customers have the choice to remain with Dish Network and pick up their local channels (where available), or switch to another provider for network programming, where available.
Here is the one statement I have issue with:
A company? The network affiliate boards of ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC asked the appeals court to issue a permanent injunction for willful and repeated violations of the law. That motion was granted, irrespective of what Fox Network did. And even if all parties, including Fox Network, came to a settlement, the injunction would have still been issued.bacchus101 said:
A company has used litigation to remove a competitor from the market space thus creating a monopoly in the distribution of network television to rural areas without local network access.
What I should have said was conglomerate rather then company.
Actually, Evil conglomerate
What I should have said was conglomerate rather then company.
Actually, Evil conglomerate
