EchoStar Statement in Response to Florida Court Ruling

[Jimmy Dean]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061023/20061023006303.html?.v=1

"Over the nine year course of the litigation, EchoStar was able to reach settlements with seven of the eight plaintiffs, representing approximately 90 percent of all television network stations in the United States. We are disappointed the judge concluded that given the statutory language he was required to ignore those settlements and impose the injunction.

EchoStar will continue to do everything possible to prevent consumers from losing their distant network channels. We will ask Congress to clarify the statutory language, and ask the courts to re-consider their decision. In addition, we are taking numerous steps to protect our customers from unnecessarily losing access to those channels.

EchoStar has over 12.46 million subscribers, less than one million of whom subscribe to distant network channels. Federal law prohibits all satellite and cable companies from providing these channels to consumers except in very limited circumstances. EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. These local networks are not part of the court injunction; therefore, a majority of our distant network customers will be able to watch their local network channels without interruption. In the limited areas where local channels are not available by satellite, we also intend to protect our customers by providing free off-air antennas and other alternatives.

Distant network channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast channels that originate from a market outside the community in which a subscriber lives. The ruling does not involve, and there is no danger, that DISH Network customers will lose their local ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox network channels, or any of the other great programming available from EchoStar's DISH Network."

 

[mikew]

In the limited areas where local channels are not available by satellite, we also intend to protect our customers by providing free off-air antennas and other alternatives.

Who are they quoting here? The logic of providing an antenna goes completely against why they should have distants. Subs were supposed to be eligible if they couldn't receive the channels with an antenna.

 

[waltinvt]

Who are they quoting here? The logic of providing an antenna goes completely against why they should have distants. Subs were supposed to be eligible if they couldn't receive the channels with an antenna.

I know - they're a class act company aren't they?

I suspect the Dish PR & Legal department staff aren't paid a whole lot more than their CSRs.

 

[scooby2]

That is too funny. Someone at SatGuys must know, does E* outsource PR and Legal?

If they do have their own legal/PR team, this is one mistake they should not be making!

 

[gdarwin]

Just updated the release...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68854&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=920017&highlight=

 

[riffjim4069]

Who are they quoting here? The logic of providing an antenna goes completely against why they should have distants. Subs were supposed to be eligible if they couldn't receive the channels with an antenna.

That is too funny!

 

[Hall]

EchoStar currently offers local ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox channels by satellite in 170 markets, serving over 96 percent of the U.S. population. These local networks are not part of the court injunction; therefore, a majority of our distant network customers will be able to watch their local network channels without interruption.

What does that mean ?? Why do people who get "local network channels" also get "distant network" channels ??

 

[rad]

What does that mean ?? Why do people who get "local network channels" also get "distant network" channels ??

Yea, that's got me confused also. If someone's getting their locals via E* is that's what the big stink is about, they're getting locals and DNS at the same time?

 

[Hall]

I recall reading that with D* years ago, people would do the usual "move". The CSRs would normally "forget" to turn off the old locals though.

It seems to me that neither company was very strict about this. It cost them nothing and they in turn got add'l revenue each month for it. I've yet to read a good explanation of why E* is in trouble but D* isn't though. I've read that they used different DMA maps, specifically that E*'s was out of date.

 

[Tugboat]

I guess I fall into the small group that has local L.A. network channels as well as CBS HD from NY. Now the loss for me will be losing the ability to see shows on CBS 3 hours earlier. So many family member have created times that I can't squeeze the ones I want to record into the list. So I've been lucky to have the NY feed.

Now when I got the feed years ago, it was one of the first HD channels offered by D and was told by CBS at that time that I didn't need a waiver as the L.A. and N.Y. stations are owned by them and both show national commercials (same ones, I was told) so there isn't the loss felt by locally owned station that use local as well as national commercials.

 

[Juan]

I recall reading that with D* years ago, people would do the usual "move". The CSRs would normally "forget" to turn off the old locals though.

It seems to me that neither company was very strict about this. It cost them nothing and they in turn got add'l revenue each month for it. I've yet to read a good explanation of why E* is in trouble but D* isn't though. I've read that they used different DMA maps, specifically that E*'s was out of date.

Thats easy .. Rupert "directv is a turdburd" Murdoch is the one party that REFUSED to settle..He was the driving force behind the injunction.. The other networks valued out of market viewers watching their prime time ads.. If Rupert would have never purchsed D* we would all still be enjoying our distants via E* after december 1st

 

[Hall]

Tugboat, this ruling has NOTHING to do with CBS-HD.

 

[mikew]

What does that mean ?? Why do people who get "local network channels" also get "distant network" channels ??

Way back when...satellite providers didn't have any local into local stations. The only method of viewing network TV on the dish was if you had the distant stations. When the satellite providers began providing locals into local, viewers were not required to make a choice and got to keep distants with locals. With the new version of SHIVA, if your locals are provided by the satellite company, you are not eligible for distant stations. Those that have both are grandfathered to keep both until they either move or switch providers.

 

[mikew]

I recall reading that with D* years ago, people would do the usual "move". The CSRs would normally "forget" to turn off the old locals though.

It seems to me that neither company was very strict about this. It cost them nothing and they in turn got add'l revenue each month for it. I've yet to read a good explanation of why E* is in trouble but D* isn't though. I've read that they used different DMA maps, specifically that E*'s was out of date.

Search the web for the initial ruling. E*'s qualification methods were what got them into trouble. D* and E* both came under scrutiny for their qualification requirements. D* came into compliance while E* continued bending the law. Look at the way DirecTV handled "must carry" vs. Echostar. Another example of how DirecTV knew what the law meant and followed it, while Charlie threw a bunch of "must carry" stations on wing satellites. The law had to be re-written to make Charlie comply with the spirit of the law. In the case of distants, the law was clear as to what would happen to a provider if they continued to bend the rules.

 

[Tugboat]

Hall....

Thanks for the info! If I'm able to keep my NY feed for CBS, then not only will I still get to avoid the family's prime time monopolization of all the sat boxes, my lone dish 300 aimed at 61.5 won't have to suck-it-up and gracefully make its way to the back corner of my basement that is reserved for all my unused crap. It's not pretty, but if I ever need money and decide to sell on ebay, I'll make enough to keep me in cat food for months! ) J/K....I only eat Milk-Bone's and/or Almond Roca.

 

[minnow]

Thats easy .. Rupert "directv is a turdburd" Murdoch is the one party that REFUSED to settle..He was the driving force behind the injunction.. The other networks valued out of market viewers watching their prime time ads.. If Rupert would have never purchsed D* we would all still be enjoying our distants via E* after december 1st

If you read the decision, you will see that the Judge ruled that since the Appellate Court ordered the injunction, he had to implement it. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Fox refusing to settle.

 

[ArtWIS]

I recall reading that with D* years ago, people would do the usual "move". The CSRs would normally "forget" to turn off the old locals though.

It seems to me that neither company was very strict about this. It cost them nothing and they in turn got add'l revenue each month for it. I've yet to read a good explanation of why E* is in trouble but D* isn't though. I've read that they used different DMA maps, specifically that E*'s was out of date.

In a "nutshell". Several years ago both D* and E* were in court because of giving out illegal distants. They were given court orders to cease and desist. D* complied with the court order and E* didn't, they just kept giving out DN's to subs who weren't eligible. This whole deal isn't new it's been in the courts for several years overall. The whole story can be found by searching through past threads on this subject.

 

[Juan]

If you read the decision, you will see that the Judge ruled that since the Appellate Court ordered the injunction, he had to implement it. This had nothing whatsoever to do with Fox refusing to settle.

HUH?? If fox had accepted the settlement they would not have written so many legal briefs in favor of the "injunction" The entire matter would have been swept under thr rug and forgotten about

 

[Juan]

In a "nutshell". Several years ago both D* and E* were in court because of giving out illegal distants. They were given court orders to cease and desist. D* complied with the court order and E* didn't, they just kept giving out DN's to subs who weren't eligible. This whole deal isn't new it's been in the courts for several years overall. The whole story can be found by searching through past threads on this subject.

How can D* be judged to comply with the law when they still allow people to"move" and keep the same billing address. I think what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

 

[zaxxon2000]

I hope this ends up in court again. We should have a right to get the stations we choose to buy. If I watch NY instead of my local- so what? Viacom lets me get their NY feed for HD but none of the others do. The HD's are not offered locally here.
The local stations should be free and if I choose to buy distant give the locals a cut. It's my money and the public airways.
Works in Canada.