Distants - Emergency Retailer Chat

[MikeD-C05]

IF they do settle and pay 350 million to the broadcasters, I bet that the only people who will get distants will be Truckers and Rv owners and they will be restricted to New York and L. A. . Then Dish and Directv would be even in what they offer. Charlie might get a deal to turn off all distant customers ,who don't have the rv and trucker exemption , when they add all the rest of the locals in the country. I am sure this would be a requirement if Charlie is allowed to keep distants at all. He should have finished the rest of the locals and significant viewed channels before and this would have been a non issue for most Dish customers .

 

[srbond]

How do I sign up to get Dish or Direct for my van... is it possiblle to get the DN then?

 

[Chris Walker]

RVers, truckers, and people with waivers should be able to keep the distants. I don't understand why the NAB has a problem with customers who have distants because the locals have ok'd it.

 

[srbond]

I'm not sure how long the NAB thinks that they can protect the locals... they are dinosaurs and it is just a matter of time.

I think IPTV will be the last nail in the coffin.

To me this is no different than the government telling someone that they cannot read the New York Times if they live in LA.

 

[wkomorow]

I think people are deluding themselves regarding the portability of waivers, grandfathering, etc. If you leave Dish your gransfather status for DNs is lost. Your waivers are also lost; you will need to have Direct apply for them. Many of us were granted waivers before our channels were available as local-into-local. My understanding is that Direct will not request waivers if the local network is available to you.

 

[cj9788]

Your grandfather status CAN follow you to D*.The 11th circut ruled in 2001:

E. Transferability of Grandfathered Rights under § 119(e)


Accordingly, our first task in construing § 119(e) is to determine its plain meaning and whether its terms are ambiguous. See id. The meaning of § 119(e) is clear: It grandfathers all subscribers who do not receive at least a Grade A signal, as defined by the FCC, if that subscriber's satellite service of such network was terminated between July 11, 1998, and October, 31, 1999, as required by § 119, or if the subscriber received such service on October 31, 1999.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that § 119(e) is unambiguous and does not include a condition of nontransferability. First, its plain and clear language confers eligibility upon subscribers:


a subscriber . . . shall remain eligible to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber has satellite service of such network signal terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999, as required by this section, or received such service on October 31, 1999.


17 U.S.C. § 119(e). Eligibility belongs to the subscriber, and nothing is said in the statute about carriers. In particular, the subscribers' eligibility is not conditioned on remaining with the same carrier.

Second, the statute expressly limits the rights conferred to the "same network," stating that the subscriber "shall remain eligible to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber has satellite service of such network signal terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999, as required by this section, or received such service on October 31, 1999." Persuasively, then, the statute contains a "same network" requirement but does not contain a "same carrier" restriction.

Finally, the statutory provision is crafted with great precision. It applies only to subscribers who do not receive a signal of grade A intensity, and only to subscribers falling within certain very specific date restrictions. With such precision, we cannot assume that Congress stated one condition, i.e., the same network, but inadvertently omitted to state another condition which would prohibit a subscriber's change of carrier. The fact that the statutory provision confers a benefit upon the subscriber, and not the carrier, makes us doubt that that Congress intended to benefit then extant carriers by locking subscribers in to their carrier as of October 31, 1999.26 In any event, we need not speculate into such motives, as "[w]e are not at liberty to imply a condition which is opposed to the explicit terms of the statute . . . To [so] hold . . . is not to construe the Act but to amend it." Fodorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 513, 101 S. Ct. 737, 750 (1981) (quoting Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 38, 55 S. Ct. 31, 36 (1934)). "It is not the function of the courts to amend statutes under the guise of `statutory construction.'" Id. at 514 n.35, 101 S. Ct. at 751 n.35; United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 605, 61 S. Ct. 742, 744 (1941) ("It is not our function to engraft on a statute additions which we think the legislature logically might or should have made."). Because § 119(e) is unambiguous and fails to contain a transferability restriction, we refuse to read a "same carrier" limitation into the statute.
III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in granting the nationwide preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. In arriving at our decision, with respect to the transferability issue, we reverse the district court's interpretation of § 119(e), and we affirm the district court's rejection of Echostar's First Amendment challenge.


Now from the 2006 ruling:

EchoStar makes a related argument that, by denying subscribers their duly-earned grandfathered status, the court deprived them of their property without due process of law. EchoStar relies primarily on language in EchoStar I, that “[e]ligibility [for grandfathered status belongs to the subscriber, and nothing is said in the statute about carriers.” 265 F.3d at 1212.

Even assuming that this language vests in subscribers a property interest for which they are entitled to due process, it is certainly not a right to receive service from EchoStar. EchoStar’s current subscribers are free to seek grandfathered eligibility from another satellite carrier so long as it can be proven that they qualify.

So a sub can take their status to D* according the the courts interpretation of the law. The questions are will D* honor the status and how does a sub prove he is a grandfathered sub given the fact the the 2006 ruling states the none of E*'s subs are grandfathered?

 

[wkomorow]

That was true in 1999. But according to the FCC:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/shviafac.html

17. Does this mean that a grandfathered satellite subscriber will retain the distant network signals until the subscriber decides to terminate satellite service?

A: No. The moratorium expires on December 31, 2004. After this date, satellite subscribers who were grandfathered will have to meet the criteria for "unserved" households in order to receive distant network signals. Alternatively, these subscribers may install a rooftop antenna to receive local signals over-the-air or may receive local-into-local service, if it is being offered. Also, grandfathered status only applies to subscribers who are receiving the same distant TV networks, from the same satellite company, using the same transmission technology, at the same location as they were on October 31, 1999 or when they were terminated after July 11, 1998. If grandfathered subscribers change satellite companies, switch to a new type of satellite dish, or move to a new address, they lose their grandfathered status and their eligibility to receive distant signals.

 

[cj9788]

That was true in 1999. But according to the FCC:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/shviafac.html

17. Does this mean that a grandfathered satellite subscriber will retain the distant network signals until the subscriber decides to terminate satellite service?

A: No. The moratorium expires on December 31, 2004. After this date, satellite subscribers who were grandfathered will have to meet the criteria for "unserved" households in order to receive distant network signals. Alternatively, these subscribers may install a rooftop antenna to receive local signals over-the-air or may receive local-into-local service, if it is being offered. Also, grandfathered status only applies to subscribers who are receiving the same distant TV networks, from the same satellite company, using the same transmission technology, at the same location as they were on October 31, 1999 or when they were terminated after July 11, 1998. If grandfathered subscribers change satellite companies, switch to a new type of satellite dish, or move to a new address, they lose their grandfathered status and their eligibility to receive distant signals.

No this is true now. I highlighted the key parts of the ruling for those who did not bother to read the entire text in the links.

The fact sheet you posted is from 2000. Which was based on a previous court ruling as mentioned in the complete 2001 text which I linked. It can not be helped that the FCC has not issued a new fact sheet which covers what the 11th circut ruled on in 2001 and 2006.

I am just stating what is in the ruling by the appeals court. I honestly do not believe that D* will honor any E* sub who can prove (which is debateable) that they are grandfathered.

BTW i argued the same thing that grand fathered status is not transferable and posted the same link you posted. I believed it to be true until I actually read the entire court ruling.

 

[Stargazer]

If Dish would just find a way to add the rest of the local SD markets then the problem would no longer be there. Everyone would receive their locals.

 

[Chris Walker]

If Dish would just find a way to add the rest of the local SD markets then the problem would no longer be there. Everyone would receive their locals.

No.. no it doesn't solve the problem. Many people sub to distants because they don't want their locals. Dish offers my locals, I just don't want them and I've gone to a decent amount of trouble to keep my distants in their place.

 

[waltinvt]

No.. no it doesn't solve the problem. Many people sub to distants because they don't want their locals. Dish offers my locals, I just don't want them and I've gone to a decent amount of trouble to keep my distants in their place.

Which is one of the reasons Dish is in this mess and why those that don't have LiLs available will now loose their distants.

 

[srbond]

No.. no it doesn't solve the problem. Many people sub to distants because they don't want their locals. Dish offers my locals, I just don't want them and I've gone to a decent amount of trouble to keep my distants in their place.

I'm in the exact same situation.

 

[srbond]

Which is one of the reasons Dish is in this mess and why those that don't have LiLs available will now loose their distants.

How so, we are grandfathered by federal law... too bad if the NAB doesn't like it.

 

[ThomasRz]

How so, we are grandfathered by federal law... too bad if the NAB doesn't like it.

Easy. By federal law, E* will not be able to provide the signals. Next question....

RVers, truckers, and people with waivers should be able to keep the distants. I don't understand why the NAB has a problem with customers who have distants because the locals have ok'd it.

Waivers are not relevant unless and until E* contracts with appropriate parties for delivery of the signals. Waivers are the second piece of the puzzle. First there has to be some authorization to deliver the programming. In most cases, it is the statutory license which is a subsitute for a contract (and which is soon to be pulled). Think of it this way - the content owner (network/syndicator/etc) is the local Dominos Pizza, E* is the pimply-faced delivery driver, the local affiliate is the owner of the house to which the delivery is to take place. What has to happen for the pizza to be delivered? First Dominos must authorize the driver to deliver and second the owner must consent to open the door for the delivery. The fact that the pizza is going to be shared with all the neighbors is not relevant. By the way the signal is represented by the pizza....

Your grandfather status CAN follow you to D*.The 11th circut ruled in 2001:
//cut//
So a sub can take their status to D* according the the courts interpretation of the law. The questions are will D* honor the status and how does a sub prove he is a grandfathered sub given the fact the the 2006 ruling states the none of E*'s subs are grandfathered?

Thank you for pointing out the current state of affairs. Some people latch onto the FCC cheat sheets as if they were a sacred parchment. D* would be wise to honor grandfather status that can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. As long as it choses to provide DNS, they cannot discriminate against a subscriber who is entitled to receive it. Anybody who is in this situation would do well to start developing a case for their eligibility.


For everyone - Nobody is going to LOOSE (rhymes with "moose") their distants (unless they have them on a leash). Many will LOSE (rhymes with "ooze") their distants. Other helpful hints:

pop - multiple meanings
poop - a type of ship deck or well, you know...

cop - police officer
coop - chicken residence

tot - small child
toot - horn sound

and don't forget

rot/root; cot/coot; lot/loot;

 

[awax]

Easy. By federal law, E* will not be able to provide the signals. Next question....




Waivers are not relevant unless and until E* contracts with appropriate parties for delivery of the signals. Waivers are the second piece of the puzzle. First there has to be some authorization to deliver the programming. In most cases, it is the statutory license which is a subsitute for a contract (and which is soon to be pulled). Think of it this way - the content owner (network/syndicator/etc) is the local Dominos Pizza, E* is the pimply-faced delivery driver, the local affiliate is the owner of the house to which the delivery is to take place. What has to happen for the pizza to be delivered? First Dominos must authorize the driver to deliver and second the owner must consent to open the door for the delivery. The fact that the pizza is going to be shared with all the neighbors is not relevant. By the way the signal is represented by the pizza....



Thank you for pointing out the current state of affairs. Some people latch onto the FCC cheat sheets as if they were a sacred parchment. D* would be wise to honor grandfather status that can be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. As long as it choses to provide DNS, they cannot discriminate against a subscriber who is entitled to receive it. Anybody who is in this situation would do well to start developing a case for their eligibility.


For everyone - Nobody is going to LOOSE (rhymes with "moose") their distants (unless they have them on a leash). Many will LOSE (rhymes with "ooze") their distants. Other helpful hints:

pop - multiple meanings
poop - a type of ship deck or well, you know...

cop - police officer
coop - chicken residence

tot - small child
toot - horn sound

and don't forget

rot/root; cot/coot; lot/loot;

I see the grammar police are kicking in doors on this thread.

 

[Stargazer]

Wham bam shazaam. I can hear (see) it now.

 

[Chris Walker]

Which is one of the reasons Dish is in this mess and why those that don't have LiLs available will now loose their distants.

No mess, I asked the local stations for waivers, and they granted them, I get them perfectly legal. Dish is doing nothing wrong by selling them to me.

 

[Chris Walker]

Scott - Do you still believe there will be a settlement with a shutoff avoided or does this announcement of an emergency chat make you think otherwise?

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Interesting situation.

It's been posited that E* has 800,000 distant net subs.

Roughly 25% are "illegal."
Perhaps another 25% are grandfathered and may not have an option with D*.

So E* has maybe around 400,000 subs who could have the option of switching to D* and retaining their distant nets.

I suspect a fair number of these are people who would not want to swap their E* HD for D*'s paltry HD. And there are people who would accept the loss, not be happy, but not switch.

So maybe E* loses around 100,000-200,000 customers. Which is in the same range as their churn in a typical quarter.

I'm sure E* has estimated the losses and is comparing that to the cost of keeping distant nets.

It really is too bad that E* took this risk in order to grant distant nets to those who weren't eligible. Very bad move on E*'s part.

 

[Bob Haller]

E may reach saettlement with Nets, aftyer all much net programming is being disribuited in many ways today.

Ideally the solution FOR A PRICE would enabvle anyone to get a special feed perhaps delayed a few hours or a day late like PBS went too.

Just a matter of $$$$$

And how much the local gets..........