E & W - Direct Yes Dish No?

[justlost]

Help out a slow poke. I thought I understood why Dish can not offer distant locals except through a third party. Why then can Direct subscribers have them? My neighbor still has East Coast Networks (We are on the West) and is not paying a third party?

Thank You for the help!

 

[Mr Tony]

because Dish broke the law by selling distants to people who technically didnt qualify for them. So as of 12/1/06 Dish cannot sell distants. The 3rd party (All American Direct) can sell them

 

[Buzzdar]

Help out a slow poke. I thought I understood why Dish can not offer distant locals except through a third party. Why then can Direct subscribers have them? My neighbor still has East Coast Networks (We are on the West) and is not paying a third party?

Thank You for the help!

Why does it really matter if you buy distants directly from dish or not? If you qualify you still are getting a E & W coast feed of the networks.
Hope This Helps.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=86187&highlight=distant+networks

US Supreme Court Rejects EchoStar Appeal On TV Broadcasts



January 08, 2007: 10:27 AM EST


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH), which has been trying to overturn a national court order barring it from providing broadcast network TV programming to its subscribers.

Echostar has since 1998 been involved in litigation with broadcast networks over whether it was illegally providing some households with broadcast programs. Federal law allows satellite companies to provide rural subscribers with broadcast networks if they can't otherwise obtain a broadcast television signal. But Echostar has been accused of providing programming to ineligible customers, leading to a federal court order barring the broadcasts to all of its subscribers.

"That holding has had profound ramifications," Echostar said in its Supreme Court appeal. "It has deprived hundreds of thousands of individuals across the country of access to network television."

Since the filing of the appeal, however, Echostar has turned over transmission of the contested signals to a third party company, a company spokeswoman said. Under that arrangement, National Programming Service, or All American Direct, is providing the signal. Appropriate Echostar subscribers can, after contacting the company, receive the signals on their current satellite equipment. Echostar is also, in some instances, providing broadcast antennas for households that can receive the signals.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued an injunction last year that covered all of Echostar's subscribers rather than just the subscribers who were wrongly receiving the signals. Prior to the December 2006 deadline, Echostar and broadcast networks tried to reach a settlement.

The case is Echostar Communications v. Fox Broadcasting, 06-545.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Late last year, Dish Network lost a nine-year running lawsuit over the transmission of distant networks. The remedy, as prescribed by law, was an injunction to prevent Dish Network from retransmission of distant network channels.

DirecTV also had the same lawsuit placed against them during the late 1990's. DirecTV however, did not appeal their lawsuit and simply settled with the networks. This was part of the impetus for legislation to allow the satellite companies to carry local channels. And, more importantly, setlling the lawsuit allowed DirecTV to continue rebroadcasting distant networks.

 

[JimK2]

DirecTV also had the same lawsuit placed against them during the late 1990's. DirecTV however, did not appeal their lawsuit and simply settled with the networks. This was part of the impetus for legislation to allow the satellite companies to carry local channels. And, more importantly, setlling the lawsuit allowed DirecTV to continue rebroadcasting distant networks.

Charlie did make a deal with ABC, NBC, CBS but FOX / Murdoch said no and the judge had no choice but to issue the injunction.

The holdout move Murdoch (owner of DirecTV) made to block DISH from offering DNS to qualified customers stinks to me, but Murdoch attempt to damage DISH failed.

What's sweet about the situation is that Charlie out smarted Murdoch and found a (legal) way to offer DNS to qualified customers through a 3rd party company called NPS, saving Charlie $100 million or more.

 

[JimK2]

Help out a slow poke. I thought I understood why Dish can not offer distant locals except through a third party. Why then can Direct subscribers have them? My neighbor still has East Coast Networks (We are on the West) and is not paying a third party?

Thank You for the help!

I'm pretty sure (now) you can't get east and west feeds from DTV if its available in your DMA.

 

[ekilgus]

Soon after the DNS feeds were discontinued a local D* dealer called me and guaranteed me I could get the NY DNS locals (in HD no less) if I signed up with him. I don't really know how he can offer that (legally anyway) but he is. I have a contract with E* so I told him maybe later. If E* would offer the locals in HD all would be resolved, but from all I read in this forum, new HD locals are a very long time away.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Since you quoted me...

Charlie did make a deal with ABC, NBC, CBS but FOX / Murdoch said no and the judge had no choice but to issue the injunction.

DirecTV made their deal less than two years after the trial started. DirecTV did not drag this through the Court of Appeals; DirecTV simply settled.

An injunction by the District court in 2004 would have forced Dish Network to requalify all of their distant network subscribers. This injunction was stayed pending an appeal. This was already SIX years into the lawsuit. In 2006, the Appeals Court then found that Dish Network violated the law in every way or shape imaginable, and also stated that Dish Network's infringement had shown a "pattern or practice". This is the piece of the law that states an injunction must be issued.

It was only then, when it was too late, did Dish Network try to settle.

The holdout move Murdoch (owner of DirecTV) made to block DISH from offering DNS to qualified customers stinks to me, but Murdoch attempt to damage DISH failed.

If you read the judge's ruling, it doesn't matter what FOX did. Because the law states a pattern or practice of willful infringement requires an injunction to be issued, and because the Court of Appeals told the District Court judge to issue an injunction, the injunction had to be issued. The settlement was never an issue, as it had to be ignored.

What's sweet about the situation is that Charlie out smarted Murdoch and found a (legal) way to offer DNS to qualified customers through a 3rd party company called NPS, saving Charlie $100 million or more.

That is how it appears, so far.

However, NPS/AAD will not pay for fiber feeds for their distant network service. NPS/AAD would have to give a two year commitment and $1 million in order to provide the distant network feeds. However, NPS/AAD is scared that the injunction, which is now at the Appeals Court, could apply to them as well, thus forcing NPS/AAD to stop providing distant network service.