This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

EchoStar Statement in Response to Florida Court Ruling

Just goes to show you why E* is on its last legs. I found it funny the OTA attenna part, have you even seen pictures on what they advertise as their hd lil solution for markets where they arnt carying hd lil's a windgard squareshooter with a dish hd logo painted on it. While i'll give e* credit for having "more" hd by having the voom channels, but with e*'s track record of breaking or bending the law, there on their last life with the fcc if u ask me. yes d* did the same, but they saw the light and complied quickly, but oh no not charlie.
 

WRONG! The settlement came after the ruling judge's hands were tied by a higher court. The injunction would still have happened if everyone including Fox had settled. Blame Rupert if you must but this whole deal started 6-7 years ago before he had anything to do with D*.
 
If nobody complained judge could have ruled differently there are cases where that has happened In other words if all parties had agreed to the settlement..the judge could have accepted the settlement and nobody would have appealed the case to a higher court
 
Last edited:
A lot of the people receiving Dish's distants probably are not qualified to receive them anyways (hence they lost the case). They will have to get LiL or use an antenna. And yes the antenna works for all those that were in range but getting a distant anyways.

Dish can probably cover most of the people losing the distants with locals, and it is likely that most would not be able to qualify for distants with DIRECTV since they are more strict about who can get them.

8% of the Dish customers may lose distants, key question is how many could actually qualify under DIRECTV to get them back.
 
juan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some do "move" to get the DN's. But the subs are the ones that are that should be punished or penalized then because they aren't being truthful. In this case E* knew a whole lot of people didn't qualify but kept handing out DN's anyway. What the heck it was bringing in lots of bucks!
 
ya but D* is just as bad... but nobody is going to go after them, because of their being in bed with the NAB....

Example: Person I work with used to live in Cumberland, MD (she still owns the home but rents it now)... She built a new home here in Bethany Beach, DE. She had D* service put here... not knowing anything about it, she called them and asked if she could still get the Baltimore stations like she did in Cumberland... they said "no blah blah blah..." then as soon as she thought about cancelling because they really wanted the baltimore stations, the csr says "well since you "Still" own the home in Cumberland, why dont we just set up the billing to go there so you will qualify.. so they did and they have Baltimore locals... She didnt know anything about SHERVA or DNS or any of that... just a customer....

DONT tell me that E* is the only crook that bends the laws as they see fit... BOTH of them do it, including the cable companies...

This is all a poker game and charlie's bluff got called this time...
 


But in this case she was still within the law, since the cumberland md was her service address, the delaware address could of been considered her "winter" home or whathaveyou and would be treated just the same as someones rv or log cabbin that is only used for a short period of time. now if ever she stoped renting the outher place and stayed in de, then shewould of had to lose the balt locals.
 
juan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because the burden of proof falls on the customer, its the customer who is illegally changing the address.

By illegally qualifying customers for distants, the burden of proof is on DISH Network.
 
One other thing to consider is that I would probably figure 10% or less of all the people who have distants, really need them.

Most people are just too lazy to put up or pay for a good OTA antenna, or think they are too good to watch their local news and think they are sticking up their nose to their local stations by watching the news from NY and LA.

There is a small percentage that do it for time shifting, which is becoming less of an issue with a DVR and some do it for sports to get around paying for packages like Sunday Ticket.

You wait and see, Dish will put the remaining markets up on satellite at 105, and when they have 100% of the Local stations up the people left with no networks will not even be worth worrying about!

The only problem is FREE OTA antenna to Dish means Sensor Antennas, some customers will need a $300 solution with a big rotating antenna.
 
What about markets that don't have all 4 of the big nets? Will this pressure Dish to get the ball rolling on significantly viewed? I know that Salinas/Monterey, CA does not have an ABC but the cable companies all use KGO out of San Francisco.
 
Last edited:
I knew the "free antenna" reponse would come up eventually, took them longer than I thought. People out in the sticks should laugh at E* if this is offered. Keep appealing Charlie!
 
mikew said:
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.
Click to expand...

People shouldn't have to depend on an ancient technology to recieve network signals.
 

I disagree, I think if everyone settled, I don't see an injunction happening. I wondered what the judge would do in this case when there's a settlement that doesn't cover everyone. I figured the logical thing would be to shut FOX distants off, but maybe that the whole thing is getting shut down it will cause congress to step in for more drastic action than if just one network was pulled.
 
Claude Greiner said:
Most people are just too lazy to put up or pay for a good OTA antenna, or think they are too good to watch their local news and think they are sticking up their nose to their local stations by watching the news from NY and LA.
Click to expand...



Claude Greiner said:
There is a small percentage that do it for time shifting, which is becoming less of an issue with a DVR and some do it for sports to get around paying for packages like Sunday Ticket.
Click to expand...

 


Wrong again. E* never attempted to settle until after the Appelete Court ordered the nationwide injunction. By then it was too late.
 
I posted this in another thread so here goes. What is stopping all the distant network customers from "moving " to keep their distant networks? All Dish has to do is keep all the distants on counus beam for NewYork and L. A.. Then all the customer has to do is google search say movie theaters for the above cites and then add an apartment number and you get to keep NewYork and L. A distants. You wouldn't get the sub channels but you would keep main 4 networks. YOu would of course keep your billing address what it really is but change your service address. This would keep all truckers and rv owners with their networks. Dish would have to use the web boards members to get the message out but it could work.

There I just did Dish a favor and helped all distant network customers keep their distants after Dec. 1, 2006.
 
I doubt Dish will keep NY and LA on Conus beams after December 1st. They could do other more profitable things with those transponders even offer more HD on a Dish 500.
 
Dish is adding all this HD content. Why dont they just add the few remain local SD channels for all DMAs.

They could even put them in at a very high compression rate. Eeveryone would be happy then and there would be no need for distants anymore. Case closed, move along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dish approved to merge with EchoStar.
Replies
22
Views
2K
Juan
Dish/Echostar Q4 2023 Report
Replies
20
Views
2K
HipKat
F
Response to Test Switch resulted in loss of satellites on Hopper 3
Replies
1
Views
2K
tjboston5676
EchoStar announces termination of exchange.
Replies
9
Views
2K
Bruce
M
  • Locked
EchoStar/Dish raises doubts about 'ability to continue as a going concern'
Replies
0
Views
689
MitchDeerfield
M
Menu
Log in
Register