US Supreme Court Rejects EchoStar Appeal On TV Broadcasts

[Poke]

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200701081027DOWJONESDJONLINE000315_FORTUNE5.htm


January 08, 2007: 10:27 AM EST


WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH), which has been trying to overturn a national court order barring it from providing broadcast network TV programming to its subscribers.

Echostar has since 1998 been involved in litigation with broadcast networks over whether it was illegally providing some households with broadcast programs. Federal law allows satellite companies to provide rural subscribers with broadcast networks if they can't otherwise obtain a broadcast television signal. But Echostar has been accused of providing programming to ineligible customers, leading to a federal court order barring the broadcasts to all of its subscribers.

"That holding has had profound ramifications," Echostar said in its Supreme Court appeal. "It has deprived hundreds of thousands of individuals across the country of access to network television."

Since the filing of the appeal, however, Echostar has turned over transmission of the contested signals to a third party company, a company spokeswoman said. Under that arrangement, National Programming Service, or All American Direct, is providing the signal. Appropriate Echostar subscribers can, after contacting the company, receive the signals on their current satellite equipment. Echostar is also, in some instances, providing broadcast antennas for households that can receive the signals.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta issued an injunction last year that covered all of Echostar's subscribers rather than just the subscribers who were wrongly receiving the signals. Prior to the December 2006 deadline, Echostar and broadcast networks tried to reach a settlement.

The case is Echostar Communications v. Fox Broadcasting, 06-545.

 

[navychop]

Cue Congress.

 

[Stargazer]

Dish is paying the price for not obeying the law and now the customers suffer the consequences. I feel for those that were grandfathered.

 

[pdxsam]

I don't know how much Congress will get involved now that NPS is providing distants. People who for the most part legally and legitimately can't get networks are still being provided a signal through NPS.

I think they'll look at that and call it a day on doing anything about the situation.

 

[JohnH]

EchoStar Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court on Network Programming

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_J_rB6iYcpQ

 

[Greg Bimson]

With a new Congress, they'll probably worry about the significantly-viewed provisions, and that is all.

 

[dfergie]

Merged duplicate threads...

 

[oschaper]

Court Denies EchoStar Appeal

Breaking News

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/8/2007 3:04:00 PM


The Supreme Court Monday denied EchoStar's appeal of a lower court decision preventing the company from offering distant network TV station signals to its subscribers.

That December 1 cut-off came after a years-long legal tussle with broadcasters over EchoStar's ability to determine with subs were and weren't eligible to recieve the signals.

The decision does not affect the ability of EchoStar subs to receive distant signals via outside company National Programming Service .

After a federal appeals court mandated the cut-off and NPS was recruited to provide EchoStar subs with distant signals, broadcasters went to court to try to block the move, but were rebuffed.

 

[alebowgm]

I think Dish still wants to provide distants, or at least SV, so I dont expect this to be the last word...

 

[Tampa8]

To me the end result is exactly right. Dish is and should be punished if they did disregard a court order. So now they cannot offer nor charge for distants, and in areas where they do not offer locals, it will be more of hassle to get networks than with Direct TV since Direct TV can offer the distants.

But, the subscriber is not totally punished as they now have NPS so if they want to stay with Dish, they can. While grandfathered people still lose, those in white areas gain, because they can get the locals if offered AND the distants with NPS.

 

[Stargazer]

With Dish Network still trying to provide distant networks again it shows them at a disadvantage to make NPS carrying the content more acceptable since they are still getting punished.

 

[Zero327]

Ya know, technically speaking, and I don't know, consider me uninformed... if Echostar were to be... "acquired" by another company, however Unky Charlie and pals remain in control, the company would cease to be Echostar, which would invalidate the courts order. So would any form of merger...

Just a thought.

 

[waltinvt]

I don't know how much Congress will get involved now that NPS is providing distants. People who for the most part legally and legitimately can't get networks are still being provided a signal through NPS.

I think they'll look at that and call it a day on doing anything about the situation.

It all depends on how you define "unserved".

Congress originally wrote satellite legislation saying anyone that could not receive a grade "B" or better signal with a standard, fixed, rooftop antenna would qualify to receive the distant network signal.

Maybe you people should ask your congressperson how, when and why that changed.

Even more to the point, why is it although the FCC has publicly stated that "whether your satellite company offers analog locals or not has nothing to do with whether or not you qualify for distant digital networks", viewers that get no OTA signal for digitals still can't seem to get HD DNS?

Satellite legislation is (I believe deliberately so) still an ambiguous mess, so congress has an obligation to get in there and straighten it out. Will they? Why should they - no one is calling them to task on it and the NAB is paying them well not to change anything.

 

[JohnH]

Congress originally wrote satellite legislation saying anyone that could not receive a grade "B" or better signal with a standard, fixed, rooftop antenna would qualify to receive the distant network signal.

There was one other stipulation. You could not qualify if you had subscribed to Cable within the last 90 days. Congress dropped that requirement. Yea for them.

I doubt there will be any Digital DNS on E*. There is on D*.

 

[Voyager6]

I don't know how much Congress will get involved now that NPS is providing distants. People who for the most part legally and legitimately can't get networks are still being provided a signal through NPS.

I think they'll look at that and call it a day on doing anything about the situation.

Are you forgetting that the networks and NAB are appealling the Judge's decision regarding E* and NPS? This will go before the same appeals court that ordered the shutoff. These judges seem to have a different social/political agenda than Judge D in Florida. If the Court of Appeals finds that E* and NPS are working "in concert", DNS will disappear again for E* subscribers. Congress needs to act to clarify and redefine the DNS and SV rules for satellite. It would also be nice if Congress would address the digital TV mess. Congress needs to force the FCC to define the rules for DTV reception.

 

[minnow]

That appeal is going no-where's. The Magistrate and the Federal Judge have ruled that there is no violation of the previous ruling involving E* and NPS new venture in offering DNS. For the Appeal's Court to overturn, there is going to have to substantially more evidence presented to prove a collusion or conspiracy to violate the injunction. DNS on NPS is safe.

 

[Greg Bimson]

For the Appeal's Court to overturn, there is going to have to substantially more evidence presented to prove a collusion or conspiracy to violate the injunction.

There is also the question whether the judge has applied the laws correctly.

It is the misapplication of the law by Judge Dimitrouleas that forced the Appeals Court to have the Judge issue the injunction in the first place. If the Appeals Court feels that Judge Dimitrouleas again misapplied the law (in this case the injunction and all case law associated with it), then we'll be back at square one again.

 

[Stargazer]

Ya know, technically speaking, and I don't know, consider me uninformed... if Echostar were to be... "acquired" by another company, however Unky Charlie and pals remain in control, the company would cease to be Echostar, which would invalidate the courts order. So would any form of merger...

Just a thought.

Maybe Echostar is saving this for something more serious.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Under most circumstances, when a merger occurs, the acquired company still exists for quite some time. So, the acquiring company would then be subject to the injunction as long as "Echostar Satellite Corporation" continues to exist, even if it is a shell that has no functionality.

Think about Macy's take-over of Federated. I know for a fact that in the DC/Baltimore area, the POS systems still have not been converted over from the Federated systems (the local Federated in the area was called Hecht's). Therefore, someone probably holds a service type contract with "Federated", not "Macy's". It takes time for the merged company to go away; normally at least a couple of years.