POSSIBLE DISTANT NETS FROM DISH

[nrholland]

If the SHVERA acts goes thru as planned, will Dish be able to provide distant nets again? Likely, I would imagine they would be from New York and L.A. like they were before (I would prefer Buffalo or Atlanta and Seattle).

If they are able to do that again, what will become of AAD? Or will dish just let AAD do the distant nets as they have been doing it and let them take care of that portion of the programming?

 

[Peter Parker]

SHVERA expires later this month. there are currently four different bills in congress seeking to replace it.

We do not know which version (if any) will pass aor how DISH will react if it does. So I really don't think you can geta definitive answer now just speculation.

 

[wkomorow]

Everything I have read suggests that satellite companies will be required to and have agreed to carry all DMAs and in consideration they will be able to import signals for missing networks from neighboring or in-state DMAs, which would eliminate Distants as they have been traditionally defined. Distant may be channels from your state capital or a neighboring DMA if you are shy a network or if all of your networks are out-of-state or there is compelling content such as a statewode PBS system.

 

[Juan]

SHVERA expires later this month. there are currently four different bills in congress seeking to replace it.

We do not know which version (if any) will pass aor how DISH will react if it does. So I really don't think you can geta definitive answer now just speculation.

one passed i posted a link (house version)

 

[Peter Parker]

it passed one house. But all of the other versions are still alive and the bills are different in covering things like distant nets and requiring carriage in all DMAs by a certain date etc. So almost anything could happen before passage

The onr thing you can bank on is that we will know by january 1. Either that or wew aill have a lot of disgrutled distant net and superstation subs.

 

[DishSubLA]

The many versions must be consolidated, but this is how I understand it: if Dish is allowed to provide "Distant Networks" (as this part will also cover Direc TV) carriage, It could import Distant Nets, yes like LA and NY, into areas where satellite currently has no LIL at all. If, on the other hand, it is a DMA where satellite does have some networks, but not all, satellite will be allowed to import the missing networks from neighboring DMA's or those in the same state. So, this is not the Distant Networks of SHIVRA. The rules will change. Dish can begin Distant Nets and importation of same state LIL immediately when it is signed into law, but Dish must have LIL (SD, of course) in all 210 DMA's by a specific date in the legislation.

This could change. The final vote must happen before the end of the year, or Congress will have to vote to extend the current law, SHIVRA, for one more year and take up the matter again next year.

 

[DishSubLA]

I would think Charlie would have no interest in dealing with AAD once he is allowed to import Distant Nets. AAD is taking up one his precious transponders. Ouch! Chuck could use the one transponder more efficiently, I would think.

 

[Claude Greiner]

All American Direct is nothing but a tolorated annoyance for DISH Network, as its the only solution for DISH Network to provide distant networks for their customers.

As soon as Dish can figure out how to legally sell distant networks again, then will get rid of All American Direct faster than they did Skyangel.

The key right now would just to be able to provide all locals to all 210 DMA's, which I believe will open the door for the satellite companies to bring in distant networks from adjacent DMA's to fill in for the networks that are simply not offered in some markets.

Believe me they are getting there, just seeing Marquette Michigan and Lima Ohio go up are proof its happening!

 

[nrholland]

If Dish is allowed to do distant nets again, will be able to get waivers for them from our local channels so we can get them? Or will it be like Directv where if you are able to get locals on satellite, you can't get distant nets even with waivers? Is that a Directv policy or a policy of the FCC?

 

[whatchel1]

Up to station

If Dish is allowed to do distant nets again, will be able to get waivers for them from our local channels so we can get them? Or will it be like Directv where if you are able to get locals on satellite, you can't get distant nets even with waivers? Is that a Directv policy or a policy of the FCC?

Most likely that will still be in hands of the local stations. The 1 I just left wouldn't give a waiver for any reason. It was a corp policy.

 

[sam_gordon]

How many locals MARKETS is Dish missing?

How many local markets is Dish missing HD?

BTW, I'm not referring to having just some channels in the market, I'm talking about entire markets not being provided LiL.

Just curious.

 

[Mr Tony]

Dish has SD locals in 182 markets as of recently...so they are 28 short (or maybe 29 if they count Puerto Rico/USVI in their numbers)

I have a feeling most markets left are not full markets (missing one probably 2 networks). Until Dish can either put distants into those markets or do a neighboring market/sig viewed they may not add any new markets. Seems goofy to add a market with only one or two locals

 

[Marty43]

Dish has SD locals in 182 markets as of recently...so they are 28 short (or maybe 29 if they count Puerto Rico/USVI in their numbers)

I have a feeling most markets left are not full markets (missing one probably 2 networks). Until Dish can either put distants into those markets or do a neighboring market/sig viewed they may not add any new markets. Seems goofy to add a market with only one or two locals

In the summer months I live in one of those unserved markets. Watertown, NY DMA177 has PBS, CBS, ABC, Fox but no NBC. With the new legislation hopefully Dish would pickup NBC out of Syracuse or Plattsburg/Burlington. Currently with cable the northern part of the DMA gets Plattsburg and the southern part gets Syracuse. Also in NY state Utica, Binghamton, and Elmira are also unserved markets. Utica is missing CBS, Binghamton is missing none. Elmira I am not sure what they are missing. NY I think has the most unserved markets of any state.

 

[mike123abc]

Dish can still get these channels if they get the networks to agree. Dish is free to negotiate with any of the networks to carry channels to unserved markets. Dish has lost the ability to take a channel without consent and rebroadcast it to an unserved market via statutory copyright law. Dish could for example work out a deal with NBC to have a satellite version of NBC for unserved markets. NBC of course would have to have the proper copyright clearance on its own shows.

The distants law just gives blanket ability to take a channel from anywhere in the country and retransmit it to unserved households (as specified in the law) without consent from the channel or network in exchange for a fixed fee. Otherwise the content is copyrighted and can only be retransmitted with consent.

 

[Mr Tony]

Right now DIsh cant import stations into markets that dont have the network.

If they could, places like Mankato, MN that only has CBS in the DMA Dish could import the Mpls loclas like DIrectV does

 

[TigerpounceTN]

Right now DIsh cant import stations into markets that dont have the network.

If they could, places like Mankato, MN that only has CBS in the DMA Dish could import the Mpls loclas like DIrectV does

Why can DirecTV do it but Dish can't?

 

[Mr Tony]

Dish lost a lawsuit...damn...4 years ago this December If I remember right

basically they were giving distants to folks who didnt technically qualify for them. A long time ago the rule was pretty simple...locals available? no distants allowed. But Dish still sold distants to folks who might have qualified. Technically I was one of them. I qualified for all locals but CBS but Minneapolis locals were available. SO for a long time I had both Minneapolis locals and distants except for CBS. Had Fox from Denver & LA, NBC from NY & Denver and ABC from Denver & Atlanta (If I remember right)

so they lost a lawsuit and had to take distants away to EVERYONE who had them...even folks who legit qualified for them.

 

[DishSubLA]

. . . And Dish and all the major nets were set and ready with a settlement to that suit where Dish was to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the big nets in exchange for continuing to provide Distant Nets to its subscribers--all but ONE major net, that is. Can you guess which one? Well, here is a hint: Rupert Murdoch. Yes, at that time Rupert Murdoch owned both the Fox television network and . . . Direc TV. All the other nets wanted this deal, but the settlement had to be to the agreement of all the nets. Rupert was not about to allow a settlement that would take away his Direc TV's advantage over Dish. This is exactly why the govt. should have never allowed media companies to own both content providers/channels and TV services such as cable, FiOS Uverse and satellite. Oh, and don't forget that AT&T won't let Dish Sling on its 3G network, but will on WiFi, and AT&T just happens to be a competitor to Dish and will have its own "TV to go" solution. Wanna bet AT&T let's its Uverse subs use AT&T's 3G network?

Now, if you disagree with that opinion, then consider the possible Comcast NBC/Universal merger with Comcast on top. This is a very bad deal for consumers. Comcasts leverage will be unprecedented and already has a practice of denying competitors access to content it produces in the form of sports channels. If the Dems allow this take-over to occur, then everyone in D.C. really is corrupt to the highest degree. Also, it would create a company "too big to fail." Remember Chrysler corporation? No U.S. President is going to let a troubled Comcast/NBC/Universal go out of business with the massive loss of jobs should that occur anytime in the future. More $$$ to the biggest corporations.

 

[Greg Bimson]

. . . And Dish and all the major nets were set and ready with a settlement to that suit where Dish was to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the big nets in exchange for continuing to provide Distant Nets to its subscribers--all but ONE major net, that is. Can you guess which one? Well, here is a hint: Rupert Murdoch. Yes, at that time Rupert Murdoch owned both the Fox television network and . . . Direc TV.

So far correct, but then...

All the other nets wanted this deal, but the settlement had to be to the agreement of all the nets.

A settlement was never part of the problem. One needs to go back to the timeline:

In May, the 11th Circuit ruled for the broadcasters, sending the case back to Dimitrouleas with orders to ban EchoStar’s access to the copyright license needed to distribute distant-network signals.

In August, EchoStar settled with all parties, except Fox stations owned by News Corp. Among other things, EchoStar agreed to pay the stations $100 million and ramp up local station service from 165 to 175 markets by Dec. 31.​

The 11th Circuit told Judge Dimitrouleas to enter a permanent injunction banning use of the copyright license. Judge Dimitrouleas only did what his superiors told him he must do. Just because a settlement was reached didn't alter the fact that Judge Dimitrouleas was told to enter the injunction. Judge Dimitrouleas even alluded to the fact that all parties could have settled yet he was mandated by his superiors to enter the injunction.