Well, I wouldn't say they are using the posts for evidentary value. Reading the other document that was filed, it looks like they are just using it to show that "a fishing trip may be warranted" to show that Charlie and Concert are in contempt, if the judge confirms that his order does indeed prevent Charlie from leasing his facilities to someone else for certain uses.
SatelliteGuys Makes The Court Case
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 251
- Views 26K
What E* should do is sell that satellite to NPS and write a contract that says the satellite altho owned by NPS will be operated and maintained by E* and NPS will be allowed to use one transponder for their own means. Then when this fiasco is all over they can buy it back.
Yes and people are enjoying distant networks again.
Probably more people now will enjoy distant networks then when Dish sold them, since NPS is not under an injunction to not sell distants. Which means that this entire 8 or 9 year lawsuit has been for nothing. Yes he made a lot of money and sold distants to just about anyone who wanted them, but he also helped a lot of customers out there who would have never known all 4 networks without Satellite tv from DISH. The one thing Charlie has done from the begining and continues to do so: He is providing the customers choice in what they want to watch even when he isn't benefiting from it that much finacially.
My question is what happens in two years when the analog signals go off in February of 2009? Will there be new rules about the delivery of DIGITAL or HD signals from distant networks? I 'm curious about this one. OF course the congress may pass into law rules that will allow Dish to continue to do distants , this month or next ,which will make all this not matter .
THis whole mess started and continues because of what I like to call Nutt dragging . Charlie flaunted the rules and continued to do so and so the networks and the NAB went to court to force him to do so or face the consequences. He continued to manuver legally for years and so the court forced the injunction to stop all distants, and significantly viewed channels. Now Charlie has manuvered again with the NPS deal to provide distants anyway. It is about who gets to drag their nuts on their opponents face . Right now Charlie is in the lead with the ballsiest moves yet, but I'm sure the court will step in and slap him down again.
I wonder if in 10 years the networks will even be relevant with video on demand and internet tv providing the shows you watch for free after they first aired. I do hope that the NAB has gone under in 10 years, since they have stood in the way of the consumers freedom of choice for years while Canadians have and still continue to watch , all the networks they want from America. While Americans who are supposed to be in the most free country in the world, can not watch them. What is wrong with this picture?
I think that Charlie has tried to deliver more choices while keeping cost as low as possible. When dealing with channel providers he has gone head-to-head with them to keep the cost low. I think that cable providers and Direct have been too buddy-buddy with them, and who knows whose coffers are getting bigger with those deals. Certainly not the customers. Looks too much like politicians and lobbyists to me.
In regards to this case, technology has changed and the Big Networks should take pause and look at how other media industries had to "catch-up" with it all. Remember Napster? Unlike legitimate businesses as Dish, that was a service provider whose sole purpose was to provide an illegal service. People were actually stealing copyrighted material. The record companies put all their legal resources to stop and shut this service down. They shut Napster down, only to have another service immediately surface and they went after that group, and so on, until the record companies decided to change, accept and join this new technology. Now, for a very reasonable price you can purchase and download any song you like, anytime and legally. As a result those companies have become more profitable.
I can't wait for that change to take place in this industry. Thanks Charlie for rolling this train out of the station.
In regards to this case, technology has changed and the Big Networks should take pause and look at how other media industries had to "catch-up" with it all. Remember Napster? Unlike legitimate businesses as Dish, that was a service provider whose sole purpose was to provide an illegal service. People were actually stealing copyrighted material. The record companies put all their legal resources to stop and shut this service down. They shut Napster down, only to have another service immediately surface and they went after that group, and so on, until the record companies decided to change, accept and join this new technology. Now, for a very reasonable price you can purchase and download any song you like, anytime and legally. As a result those companies have become more profitable.
I can't wait for that change to take place in this industry. Thanks Charlie for rolling this train out of the station.
I must say, even with the choices I've been given with Dish Network I am extremely happy with the service I have. The customer service reps are extremely friendly and there is no long waiting times. DirecTV made me speak to a machine... I hate that crap. Give me a real person, because that's what I am... I think... Over all the $260 cancellation fee was worth it. Just gotta pay that off so I can upgrade to a 622.
Sorry, but thats laughable.
Dish was doing even worse than Napster - they were selling an illegal copyrighted profit AND making a profit selling illegal copyrighted product.
So, as Napster didn't charge, Dish is an even worse offender.
Dish was no different than they guy selling bootleg DVDs on the sidewalk corner.
If they were, you would not have the situation that they find themselves in today.
Any thought of suing CBS for copyright infringement??? After all rights are reserved and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't give them to someone suing Dish...
I called NPS today, tried again to get DNS based only on my address. They refused to proceed after the rep could not find my phone number. I explained that they should not be asking my phone number and that of course I am not in the system as I have never done bussiness with them (NPS). The very patient rep explained that they can only sell DNS at the current time to customers in thier system. I responded with how does soem one get in the system and he said he did not know that they just do..??? Well I am still waiting for them to respond to the e-mail I sent with my smart card numbers. And in the mean time I dug up an old 3900 that has been deactivated for ever and a day. Since the agreement that JL posted states you do not have to be a E* sub I am going to have my wife send an e-mail with her name ( our E* account is in my name) and the 3900's smart card number to see what happens.
This is exactly what happened to me. NPS did not have my phone number in the "system", although I have been an E* customer for 8 years and at the same phone number. I am an HD Platinum subscriber - "one of Dish Network's most valued customers". At least that is what they tell me when I call them up for tech support.
So I don't get it. If there is supposedly this secret agreement between Dish and NPS, why wasn't I in the "system"? .
E* may or may not have given NPS a list of their customers. So what?
I found this on the Dish Network website under "Subscriber Privacy Notice" it says:
"The Communications Act authorizes EchoStar to disclose limited personally identifiable information to others, such as charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, for satellite or non-satellite "mailing list" or other purposes. From time to time we may disclose your name and address for these purposes."
So, here is how it could have happened. NPS calls E* up and says: "Hey, we understand that your customers are losing their distant networks on Dec. 1, we'd like to be able to sell this service to them, could you please provide us a subscriber list? (Oh and by the way we'll need to lease a couple of transponders from you.)"
According to the privacy notice, selling or giving away our subscriber information is all perfectly well. In fact, I'll bet if they had asked the customers losing their distant networks if we wanted them to give our address to NPS, must of us would have said not only "yes" but "hell yes".
I'm still waiting to get my distants restored.
"The Communications Act authorizes EchoStar to disclose limited personally identifiable information to others, such as charities, marketing organizations, or other businesses, for satellite or non-satellite "mailing list" or other purposes. From time to time we may disclose your name and address for these purposes."
So, here is how it could have happened. NPS calls E* up and says: "Hey, we understand that your customers are losing their distant networks on Dec. 1, we'd like to be able to sell this service to them, could you please provide us a subscriber list? (Oh and by the way we'll need to lease a couple of transponders from you.)"
According to the privacy notice, selling or giving away our subscriber information is all perfectly well. In fact, I'll bet if they had asked the customers losing their distant networks if we wanted them to give our address to NPS, must of us would have said not only "yes" but "hell yes".
I'm still waiting to get my distants restored.
Well I am not in any do not call lists, so NPS should have my info if the above mentioned secnario happened. But it did not. Why oh why did they do it like this??????
The bottomline is any sub calling NPS should not be in the NPS database in any way shape or form. The only reason they are doing this makes sence, it is to keep people who are already receiving LiL from E* from getting DNS from NPS. And that is wrong. The no distant if local rule only applies to satellite companies that are provideing LiL. NPS is not provideing LiL to any market so they should be allowed to sell DNS to all three groups Charlie mentioned in the chat. The only people who should NOT be able to get DNS from NPS are those out side of true white areas.
The bottomline is any sub calling NPS should not be in the NPS database in any way shape or form. The only reason they are doing this makes sence, it is to keep people who are already receiving LiL from E* from getting DNS from NPS. And that is wrong. The no distant if local rule only applies to satellite companies that are provideing LiL. NPS is not provideing LiL to any market so they should be allowed to sell DNS to all three groups Charlie mentioned in the chat. The only people who should NOT be able to get DNS from NPS are those out side of true white areas.
DNS is based on the service address only.
The fact that they are denying based on telephone number should make it clear to a blind man that what is happening isn't what is supposed to be happening with DNS qualification.
The fact that they are denying based on telephone number should make it clear to a blind man that what is happening isn't what is supposed to be happening with DNS qualification.
Actually, no, the rights to the name NAPSTER was sold in Bankruptcy to Roxio - the former software side of Adaptec, who have made an attempt to tie it into their Roxio EZ Media Creator software - something that hasn't produced great results on either side.
I was reading a bit through Googling and a copy of testimony that was made back in 2004 referred to the 119 License as covering Superstations as well as the Major Networks. If the injunction is removing Dish's ability to use the 119 License to provide Distant Networks, wouldn't that mean that Dish would have to stop providing their SuperStations Package as well, and even TBS & WGN?
