And over here is a decidedly non-Billionaire who is 5-0 in his predictions against Charlie's position. And billionaires can and do go to jail.... I'd take all the action you want to give on this issue.....but it would be illegal and wrong - something I've learned but Charlie hasn't....
SatelliteGuys Makes The Court Case
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 251
- Views 24K
Well, the Newspapers must be purchased to be read. The local channels are available OTA for free and their license is only for the area they serve.
The typical "fanboy" of anything isn't capable of reading, understanding, and analyzing legal documents. The typical "fanboy" can do no better than spouting "they suck!".Oh....and it is fun to call out Fanboys
WMUR was using the 119 license for NH-wide distro, however it was not as a significantly-viewed station - as it is not SV for the whole state.
"graping"? I grape, he grapes, they have graped? Ok, typo I know. But please stop mixing metaphors. On the subject - CBS is not randomly making arguments. It is providing various support for its contention that E*/NPS are in contempt.
I read most of the posts by you and seems like you keep changing your stance (except all dish network customers should not get distant other then cable or Direct. Now the newest one is "Dish Network is receiving rent on the transponder". I am really surprised that your thinking just stops at this point and you can not make difference between providing channels and leasing transponder to completely different company (Now owned by Charlie). You might win the argument and judge might tell NPS to stop providing those locals (Does not mean he is right) but think who will win, does that in any way helps consumer.
The way I look everyday goes by Charlie hand will go up morally(Which is odd and he will be seen as the one who fights for consumer), win or loose.
Also more and more I see one things is clear , Judges don't interpret the law they make the law and that will be the last thing you want after other 2 branches of government are already screwed.
: : :One minor problem with your analysis. E* is not the only party enjoined. Actually these citations demonstrate that the NPS ploy would be invalid even if the injunction had mentioned ONLY E*.
Right in what ?
Greg says that the Judge will rule against NPS providing Distants on E* satellites.
I - who have the opposite viewpoint on DBS matters from Greg - also say that the Judge will rule against NPS providing Distants on E* satellites.
This will please Greg and displease me - but we will both be "right". Big Deal.
The Judge - being a human being like the rest of us - added an entirely gratuitous footnote to his decision on the E* Distants case, so that he could get his own personal emotional feelings into the record. That footnote was " E* should not be allowed to buy their way out of their problems. " This was in reference to the $100 million settlement. This wording and characterization of the situation showed many things:
- The Judge has an emotional dislike of E* and their behaviour.
- The Judge confused personal actions and business actions. If a person spent a large amount in order to get out of going to jail, that would "buying their way out". Judges allow that all the time - whenever rich people hire expensive lawyers (cf OJ and Michael J.) In contrast, the sole meaure of "good" and "bad" for a business is revenue minus expenses. $100 million in added expenses is automatically bad for a business. For a business, spending money is not avoiding anything, it is a bad consequence.
- The Judge is not considering what would hurt or benefit any of the innocent parties, whether the plaintiffs - who clearly preferred receiving $100 million - or the customers - who would prefer E* paying the big money penalty and they continuing to receive their channels.
On the basis of this, I was able to successfully predict that the Judge would deny the request for an extension until March or April of the Distants shutoff. The main parties aided by the extension would be the most innocent parties - the customers. Many customers have lost their Networks because installers are too backed up to put up additional dishes or antennas on that short notice. And now we have the snow season, making such installations more difficult, and the holidays, making more delays in receiving service. Delaying the injunction would have given the customers more opportunity to pick the best option in replacing the Distant Networks. And there was no legal reason not to agree to the delay, but the Judge said no - as I predicted.
Because of this same emotional response, the Judge will not fail to rule against NPS' Distants Service to E* customers - even thought once again, it will be the customers who suffer far more than E*.
Watch next CBS/NAB will try and somehow connect us (Satelliteguys.us) as be associated with E* simply because 75% of the news is regarding E* stuff such as "insider" new stuff comming, news, tips and tricks, charlie chat, retailer chat,ect....
While i agree they are grasping at straws with the NPS deal. You have to admit the timing is supisious. Personaly if i was in charlie's shoes with this, i would have made the deal as fast as i could once i was handed a date for cutoff. Then he woud at least of had a leg to stand on with the deal "Well i made that deal back in Sept, Oct. ect... as a solution if outher avenues of resolution failed trying to do everything in my power to assist my affected customers.")
And before i get bashed as being a e* basher, a NAB nazi, ect. I am not affilated with anyone in the industry. And actualy subscribe to D*, as E* had numerious LOS issues here.
While i agree they are grasping at straws with the NPS deal. You have to admit the timing is supisious. Personaly if i was in charlie's shoes with this, i would have made the deal as fast as i could once i was handed a date for cutoff. Then he woud at least of had a leg to stand on with the deal "Well i made that deal back in Sept, Oct. ect... as a solution if outher avenues of resolution failed trying to do everything in my power to assist my affected customers.")
And before i get bashed as being a e* basher, a NAB nazi, ect. I am not affilated with anyone in the industry. And actualy subscribe to D*, as E* had numerious LOS issues here.
You seem be having the emotional reaction. Remember the basics:
1. Whatever Judge D. said or did not say is not really important. He was directed to issue the injunction. End of story.
2. You keep returning to the $100M deal. It was a dead duck. Even if the judge had thought the "agreement" the greatest thing since black robes, he would have issued the injunction.
3. If repeated attempts to malign the judge makes you feel better, I suppose it has some value. However please stop suggesting that any of these irrelevancies did or could have made any difference.
1. Whatever Judge D. said or did not say is not really important. He was directed to issue the injunction. End of story.
2. You keep returning to the $100M deal. It was a dead duck. Even if the judge had thought the "agreement" the greatest thing since black robes, he would have issued the injunction.
3. If repeated attempts to malign the judge makes you feel better, I suppose it has some value. However please stop suggesting that any of these irrelevancies did or could have made any difference.
Exactly my point, these are two different areas: 1.The copyright Laws and 2. The White Areas - mapped out by the FCC.
It is under this FCC rule that I and others were entitle to receive the East Coast HD-CBS station free of charge; again based on these FCC guidelines.
I believe that I was referring to the deal with NPS. I am sure that the E* lawyers would have reviewed the deal and advised E* about the possible consequences.
The dilemma the Judge faces is how does he ensure the rights of E* subscribers who are legally qualified to receive DNS and enforcing the permanent injuction. He imposed the injuction on E* and E* is now prohibited from providing DNS to any E* subscribers. However, can he forbid qualified E* subscribers from receiving DNS just because they use E* equipment? I believe that this would expand the injuction to penalize legal DNS subscribers, who use E* equipment, and not just E* corporate. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
BTW, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet. I also do not receive DNS. I am just a long time E* customer who is interested in seeing that the rights of legal DNS subscribers (no matter where they receive that service from) are not trashed by this decision. I also believe that a subscriber should have the choice of either LIL or DNS but not both. However, Congress does not seem to want to allow this choice at this time. That is why it is so important to protect the rights of current legal DNS subscribers to receive DNS. The networks and the NAB seem intent on stopping DNS.
Not a lawyer, just play one here. I'd assume if any kind of clarification would be made, it would come in the form of a declaratory ruling first. Otherwise, this will come out as an order, either amending the injunction (unlikely) or as contempt.ThomasRz said:
But the "copyright laws" are first here. Congress created the license for distant delivery.Bulldog said:
The map isn't what got you the CBS-HD station; the license in 17 USC 119 did. That law refers to the FCC's definition of unserved, and uses the maps in order to determine unserved. Remember, there are other methods than the map to being considered unserved.
Yes, but I believe I showed that the lawyers advised Dish Network during nine-year litigation, and still received the worst possible outcome. A full review meant nothing. What is the worst possible outcome on this topic? Fines, I assume. I am unsure if the officers of Echostar might have to sit in the tank.Voyager6 said:
And that is exactly where this argument fails. The only consideration the judge must weigh is whether Dish Network's deal with NPS violates the injunction; it has nothing to do with the rights of the Dish Network subscribers.Voyager6 said:
I want you all to think of this another way. Under what pretense would Dish Network ever lease a license from one of their main slots? If DirecTV asked Dish Network for a transponder at 110, and they'll pay $150K a month for it, what do you think the answer will be?
The discussion about the content to be offered on that transponder had already taken place before the contract was signed. Imagine all of a sudden if NPS put up 10 channels of PPV adult offerings. I am fairly certain NPS would make more money off of that offering than of the distant networks offering.
There was only one reason to work with NPS, and there was only one reason the contract was given to NPS. And it just so happens that the only reason a Dish Network subscriber will be able to see distant networks: Dish Network must authorize use of their security asset in order to authorize the channels.
D* would not lease to NPS because they would be leasing to a direct competitor so it would make no sense. E* cannot provide DNS any more, so NPS is not a direct competitor and is unlikely to become one.
And I believe D* & E* have made deals with each other in the past regarding use of satellite slots and transponders.
And I believe D* & E* have made deals with each other in the past regarding use of satellite slots and transponders.
You misread it.navychop said:
I said if DirecTV walked into the offices of Dish Network and asked for a $150K month lease on some Dish Network transponders, the answer would be no. So why would Dish Network be happy to give NPS this deal? To mollify the Dish Network customer base that lost distant networks.
And, no, Dish Network and DirecTV have never worked together when it comes to renting transponder space.
whats the beef?
Scott, maybe you can enlighten me. what is the speciifc beef by cbs? they dont make enough money, on the looser commercials, use tax money to use satelites, and them pay katie whats her name too much to read their slanted news to people that dont listen.
They did this with C band, and now they start it here.
Maybe its time we start boycotting CBS, after football of course.
your take on this please,
A rural American
Scott, maybe you can enlighten me. what is the speciifc beef by cbs? they dont make enough money, on the looser commercials, use tax money to use satelites, and them pay katie whats her name too much to read their slanted news to people that dont listen.
They did this with C band, and now they start it here.
Maybe its time we start boycotting CBS, after football of course.
your take on this please,
A rural American
Similar threads
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
-
-
TThe Future of Gaming: An Adaptive Mindset for Personalized Characters
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network
-
TAstronomical Arms Race: The Battle for the Biggest Telescopes
- Latest: TWiT Tech Podcast Network