You know if Greg is proving to be right again will it be a thread of people apologizing to him?
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*.