Response from my congressman (1 Viewer)

wied

Thread Starter
SatelliteGuys Pro
May 4, 2004
233
2
Wylie, Texas, United States
Dear Mr. Wied:

Thank you for contacting me. I understand that you may be losing access to some of your broadcast channels through the DISH Network. I want to explain why that may be happening and provide you with some information to ensure that you do not lose access to network programming.

For the last eight years, EchoStar (who owns DISH Network) has been embroiled in litigation with four of the major broadcast affiliate groups over the transmission of distant network signals. On May 23, 2006, a federal appellate court found that EchoStar has been violating the Satellite Home Viewer Act over many years. What the court essentially found is that EchoStar has been sending distant network signals to some customers without the authority to do so. Because EchoStar engaged in what the court called a "pattern or practice" of illegal behavior across many parts of the country, the law requires the court to issue a nationwide injunction to stop the illegal behavior. December 1st is the date the injunction will become effective.

I am told that the parties to the lawsuit are continuing to work toward finding a settlement that will prevent disruption for innocent viewers. However, in the event a settlement cannot be achieved, I want to make you aware of the other options you have so you can continue to view your favorite broadcast channels. Attached are websites you can visit to obtain more information.

1. Free Over-The-Air Television - this free option may be enhanced with an indoor or outdoor antenna

2. Cable Television - you can find information about the cable television options in your community by going to: www.ncta.com.

3. Satellite Television - there are two satellite companies that offer television service: DirecTV and DISH Network. Information on these options can be found by visiting: www.directv.com or www.dishnetwork.com. While I know you already subscribe to DISH Network, you may be able to receive "local-into-local" signals through DISH since the injunction only applies to distant network signals. You can find out if you are eligible for this by going to:

https://customersupport.dishnetwork.com/customernetqual/prepAddress.do and entering your address.

I understand that you are frustrated that you may lose access to some provided distant network signals, but I encourage you to explore the above options to receive your network broadcast channels.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me again.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall

Member of Congress

Just that I would share.
 

Friend

SatelliteGuys Guru
Dec 13, 2003
124
0
Guy sounds like an idiot.

I agree,

Out of 3 options.

1st Option, Well you can not get the station that if why you are asking for distant.
2nd Option, Let's say far for cable also.
3rd Option, Now that might work but that will leave with Direct TV monopoly what about consumers congressman?
 

rlariv

SatelliteGuys Family
Sep 18, 2006
52
0
I think that Hughes (directtv) gets special treatment from this govt. Any company that is considered competition with them is somehow shunted and knocked down through either contract failures or legal hassles. Another one is Lougheed Martin and Boeing... I wonder when the govt is going to give everyone the same treatment regardless what what govt contracts they have or whos pocket they line !
 

TheForce

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Oct 13, 2003
32,375
9,757
Jacksonville, FL, Earth
I wonder when the govt is going to give everyone the same treatment regardless what what govt contracts they have or whos pocket they line !

That's easy! When people wake up and start electing independents to Congress and the Presidency. As long as Democrats and Republicans run everything, you can bet, it will continue to be the same game.
 

ageism

SatelliteGuys Family
Dec 2, 2006
95
0
There it is. It is idiots like Hall who are the problem. Not once did he consider maybe you do not have those options. And he did not care. The one thing congress does not care about is the people who elect them. Take care of the companies who will fill their pockets with money at election time. I am telling you people if we don’t start fighting back , we will get screwed to hell and back.
 

long_time_DNC

Politically Incorrect
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Apr 24, 2004
11,897
1,317
Pacific Northwest, where it rains a lot...
Get screwed to hell and back??? It's been happening for years now...when companies began outsourcing jobs overseas for cheaper pay.

It's not only the congress members who are watching their pockets...every major corp. in the U.S. is looking to make as much money as possible, in almost every way possible. Does Enron ring a bell?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism or making a decent profit, but (in my opinion) there's a certain line you shouldn't cross (it's called screwing the consumer) and that seems to be the line that's being freely crossed with impunity anymore.
 

mikew

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
1,752
192
Las Vegas, NV
So everybody jumps on the Congressman because he isn't willing to go to bat for Charlie. It's a big conspiracy and the republicans are at fault. How about the fact that Echostar made a mistake? Even Charlie apologized for the actions of his company. It's not Rupert's fault, it's not Congress' fault, it's not the judge's fault. Dish Network illegally profited by giving subscribers distant networks. Their punishment was spelled out in the license they used to provide distants.

It's time to quit crying about this and make a decision. If you don't like the alternatives, then don't watch!
 

minnow

SatelliteGuys Pro
Nov 5, 2003
419
2
The congressman gets jumped on because it's obvious he doesn't have clue 1 about the issue. His reply is a non-reply and doesn't offer any "constructive" answer and he has no plan to even formulate a plan. That's why he was jumped on. You need a chill pill.
 

mikew

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
1,752
192
Las Vegas, NV
He does have a clue. Charlie broke the law and the prescribed penalty was applied. Now everybody wants the law changed so that they can have distants on E*. Why does this congressman need to formulate a plan? Did he do something wrong? Chill pill....that's original!
 

charper1

Bourbon Tester
Supporting Founder
May 18, 2004
18,442
6
I'm Nationwide
I think that Hughes (directtv) gets special treatment from this govt.

DirecTV is owned by News Corporation since 2003. http://www.newscorp.com/ and is under the "mini-umbrella" of The DirecTV Group; which is the surviving parts of the former Hughes parts GM sold. However Hughes Network Systems still operates under its own company/mgmt and is NOT owned by The DirecTV Group. Newscorp sold PanAmSat to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR). SkyTerra Communications, Inc. completed its purchase of 100% controlling interest in Hughes Network Systems.
 

ageism

SatelliteGuys Family
Dec 2, 2006
95
0
Hey Mikew, you just don’t get it. Sure dish broke the rules. We all know that. The problem is the law. It is what stinks. Where is free enterprise here. The government is protecting the local network markets. How about the mom and pop stores. Using that idea they the government should not allow Kroger’s to come into a town which has a mom and a pop store. The only store in town who could sell stoves, refrigerators, ect. would be the local furniture store. Sears would have to stay out. And sir who makes the laws. Congress is the one protecting the local networks. Why are not the local stores protected by congress? Simple they do not have the deep pockets to buy a congressman. One other thing. I bet you have the networks the way you want them.
 
Last edited:

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
I agree,

Out of 3 options.

1st Option, Well you can not get the station that if why you are asking for distant.

So he's an idiot for recommending an antenna - though that is what Dish is giving away to people that lost DNS service.

So what does that say about Charlie and Dish?

As Dish admits in a roundabout way on that link, over 50% had DNS illegally, so that option would work for them.
 

downriver

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 16, 2005
698
1
Horse Creek, CA
Here's the response from my congressman:

draft of letter from Peter DeFazio, US Congress, Oregon 4th District:

Thanks for your recent message concerning your inability to receive distant network channels using the Dish Network. I appreciate hearing from you.

I have been contacted by hundreds of Oregonians who stand to lose their distant network channel access as a result of an October 20, 2006 court decision against EchoStar Communications, Dish's parent company. I have also heard from constituents that EchoStar has already ceased transmission of distant network channels, angering many subscribers.

The court ruled that EchoStar was actually violating the law by providing many subscribers with distant network channels who were not eligible because they could receive local channels. The court required Dish Network to shut off distant network signals by December 1, 2006.

This whole issue could have been settled out of court. Unfortunately, while EchoStar reached an agreement with ABC, CBS and NBC, Fox refused to negotiate. Fox is owned by the same corporate conglomerate as Dish Network's main competitor, DirecTV.

Legislation was discussed in both the House and the Senate that would have codified the Dish agreement with the three networks. The bill will likely be introduced when Congress returns after Thanksgiving. The drafts that I have seen satisfy the terms that Dish reached ABC, CBS and NBC and would force Fox to accept the agreement. It is unclear what chances there are of passing this proposal into law prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

It is unfortunate that you, the Dish Network subscriber, are suffering as a result of what is basically a corporate squabble between Fox and EchoStar.

I have long supported the rights of television consumers to watch what they want when they want. You can be sure that I will keep your opinion in mind if I have an opportunity to vote on any legislation which ensures that television consumers' rights are respected.

Thanks again for writing.

Rep.Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
-------------------
 

HDTVFanAtic

SatelliteGuys Pro
May 23, 2005
1,973
0
Rupert Murdoch the owner of NewsCorp/Directv/FoX is a ver very big contributer to the republican party. Hence the reference.

Seem these rules that everyone is so upset about were put in the 90s under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress......hmmmmm.

Here's the response from my congressman:

draft of letter from Peter DeFazio, US Congress, Oregon 4th District:

It is unclear what chances there are of passing this proposal into law prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress.


Rep.Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON
-------------------

Even I can answer that.....not a snowballs chance in Hell.

What a BS artist.
 

mikew

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Sep 7, 2003
1,752
192
Las Vegas, NV
Now let's see how many of you jump on DeFazio for being so far out in left field.

1) The squabble between Fox and Dish had no bearing on the ruling.
2) There is no "right" afforded to television consumers to watch "what they want when they want".

But...of course, the majority will say that this guy is "dead on".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top