For the sub channels?If they weren’t, then how come so many are cutting the cord and putting up TV antennas?
I understand the Puerto Rico Locast coverage was subsidized by a donation from a wealthy philanthropist. I have no idea who it was...And who had the money to get all the way to Puerto Rico?
Aereo was a for profit enterprise. Big difference...I'll just say Aereo had people here pretty certain that they were going to win to.
Well I notice the guide data for the Sinclair stations have dropped off on my satellite receiver. Now only ABC/NBC has guide data. I guess they are getting an early start on the August 16 deadline to drop locals. Glad I have other means to see guide data and record for my locals.
I was about to post the same. The owner of Locast is a former FCC Legal advisor and he said he would not have started the process if he thought it would be legally shut down.Aereo was a for profit enterprise. Big difference...
I wish I had the time and money to take my arguments to court. Copyrights should be curtailed for two reasons. First, using government power to protect the sanctity of something that has only a notional existence is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Second, paying someone for what is tantamount to perpetuity for a finite amount of work violates at least the spirit of fair labor standards.And lots of people thought I was nuts saying Aereo was in potential trouble too.
The law be what the people who wrote or guard it say it is. And that might mean Locast works out. Or it might not. Locast exists in a loophole of sorts. I think it should be legal. But it more matters what the courts think.
Yes, I think it's quite telling that the court refused to grant the Big Four request for an injunction preventing Locast from expanding coverage until the suit is resolved. That's often a pretty good indicator of which way the judge is leaning.I was about to post the same. The owner of Locast is a former FCC Legal advisor and he said he would not have started the process if he thought it would be legally shut down.
We don't know how a Court would rule that is true, but the current move by the Big Four is not the first, they got stopped in the last try and are using a different approach now.
This is a bunch of garbage from Sinclair. If they really cared about the viewer, they would extend the contract and continue to come to a compromise. They are just greedy and could care less. I do feel sorry for the individual stations though as they are in the middle and have nothing to say about it. They are going to be getting the flack unfortunately.While I’m not affected by this situation, I can say that the ‘channels’ are giving more reasons to abandon them. The lack of new, original and interesting things on most channels these days just makes paying for them more unacceptable.
With that in mind I quit all of them and only use on demand services these days, some with ads, some without ads.
With this occurring now, at a time of fewer good shows on live TV is a good thing for Dish and not so good for Sinclair. Add in Sinclair’s financial condition and while Charlie might not be in the catbird’s seat, but he is very close to it IMO.
Maybe a little antitrust action is needed at the federal levelMobile/Pensacola area. WEAR(ABC) WFGCW) are sister stations owned by Sinclair. WPMI(NBC) is in Mobile. Another sister station owned by Sinclair.
When I first started with Dish some 8 years ago this will be my 4th carriage dispute with all 4 networks . I heard the same thing said when I started.This is a bunch of garbage from Sinclair. If they really cared about the viewer, they would extend the contract and continue to come to a compromise. They are just greedy and could care less. I do feel sorry for the individual stations though as they are in the middle and have nothing to say about it. They are going to be getting the flack unfortunately.
You're kidding right. I would love to see the FCC put the hammer down on Sinclair but it was The FCC that let this happen.Maybe a little antitrust action is needed at the federal level
So if someone doesn't watch the ESPN channels, they shouldn't have to pay for them?Well we know for fact Charlie isnt going to budge, or cave into Sinclair, I'm sure most of his customers agree that they shouldn't pay extra for sports channels they don't watch.
So if someone doesn't watch the ESPN channels, they shouldn't have to pay for them?
I'm assuming it has something to do with the contract between Dish & Disney.They can do it on Sling so why not some similar options on Dish?
I'm assuming it has something to do with the contract between Dish & Disney.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?