WE DID IT! Distant Networks May Be Saved By Senate!

[ThomasRz]

The Constitution established the Supreme Court. Federal judgeships are a creation of Congress

Which the power to establish is granted by the Constitution! (are we going in a circle?)

 

[Greg Bimson]

I know this will be considered "piling on", if we were playing by NFL rules. I've stopped caring about rules (more on that later)...

While I don't think that a single federal Judge impacted everyone, I do believe that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the penalty that would be imposed on consumers when they denied the full review.

The bench at the Appeals Court, "failed to appreciate the penalty that would be imposed on consumers when the denied the full review"?

I am getting to the point where I am tired of explaining this. I am tired of finding statements that prove others wrong. However, here I go again...

Dish Network flagrantly violated the law, for which there was only one remedy: a permanent injunction on the license. If Dish Network cared, they would have settled three years ago, before this case ever went through the appeals process.

However, just by doing some cursory research, there is a reason why the Eleventh Circuit would not hear the case en banc: if the Court agrees to the en banc request, the original decision by the Appeals Court will rule be tossed out, until the new decision is made by all the judges.

One of two nationwide satellite TV providers will be permanently barred from providing DNS to "qualified" viewers.

And it was Dish Network's responsibility to ensure what a "qualified" viewer is. Unfortunately, it turns out with the information given by Dish Network that just over half of their distant network subscriptions were invalid, and a large chunk of that is because Dish Network couldn't (or wouldn't) produce their proof of grandfathered or waivered subscribers.

This is a national issue with widespread implications.

No, only to the RV, Trucker, and subscribers where local channel service isn't available. It is very far from national. Dish Network had even issued a release saying this won't affect too many people, as they can get local channel service.

It should have been given a full review by the Court. I also believe that the Supreme Court should have ordered a review by the full Eleventh Circuit Court. Neither Court decided to act, so now we need a political solution to repair the law that got us in this mess in the first place.

Semantics.

The full bench (en banc) review is only if the rest of the Eleventh Court judges felt there was a massive error in the review of the case by the three deciding judges.

The Supreme Court does not force a lower court to order a review. The Supreme Court just is the last of the "catch-alls" to make sure laws are interpreted correctly.

The law isn't what created the mess: Dish Network couldn't follow the rules required by the law and made this process an entire mess. They didn't care what rules they played by, so they will pay. Unless of course a political solution is crafted to fix the mess.

As we have seen so far from the Leahy bill, most of the people that will lose their networks will not get them back.

 

[Voyager6]

Dish Network has not been trying to settle anything for years.

In case it has slipped anyone's recent memory, Dish Network went to the appeals court in 2003 so they didn't have to requalify everyone. The district court ruled that everyone must be requalified, and Dish Network felt that was too extreme.

The network affiliate boards (but not FOX Network) cross-appealed and asked for a permanent injunction.

Fast forward to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in May of this year. The court decided that a permanent injunction must be issued, which was done once the case was remanded to the District Court.

You don't see the possibilty of a "massive error" by the three judge panel by granting the cross-appeal rather than just denying Dish's appeal? I don't want to create another round of rehash but I use this as an explanation of my statement about the full review by the Court of Appeals. The three judges added the permanent injuction and threw out the requalification.

 

[Greg Bimson]

You don't see the possibilty of a "massive error" by the three judge panel by granting the cross-appeal rather than just denying Dish's appeal?

Let's go back to 2003.

Judge Dimitrouleas issued an injunction that would have forced Dish Network to requalify all of their distant network subscribers. Add to the fact that Dish Network while required to do so did not provide any documentation for waivered or grandfathered subscribers. Therefore, all those subscribers also get lumped into the qualification scheme.

Dish Network did not like the judge's decision, so they appealed. In Dish Network's appeal, they stated seventeen claims of error on the case. Maybe Dish Network was so happy because last time they appealed, they won and forced a retrial. However, the network affiliate boards did not like the fact that Dish Network appealed, and cross-appealed to the Appeals Court asking for a permanent injunction on only one claim of error.

At this time the case was FIVE years old.

I don't want to create another round of rehash but I use this as an explanation of my statement about the full review by the Court of Appeals. The three judges added the permanent injuction and threw out the requalification.

Sure. Out of the seventeen claims Echostar wanted addressed, only one was worthy to be overturned. The only request made by the network affiliate boards stood, and was also overturned.

Many people here are missing the boat. The issue here is that in 2003, Dish Network didn't want to requalify their entire subscriber base. Therefore, they fought. The networks fought back and won. And when the networks won so handily, Dish Network appealed in every concieveable manner before settling with the groups that caused the Appeals Court to rule for a permanent injunction.

The remainder of the judges on the Eleventh Circuit would have had to believe there were questions in the three-judge panels' decision in order to start the process for the en banc appeal...

The three judges on the Appeals Court took Dish Network's own data from April 2002, and found that between 20 and 30 percent of the customers signed up for distant networks were ineligible to receive them. That was considering some list that Dish Network also used in order to qualify grandfathered and waivered subscribers. The bigger issue is that without that list, Dish Network was giving 50 percent of subscribers to ABC, CBS and NBC to ineligible customers, and just under 40 percent to FOX.

The Appeals Court found that Echostar had a pattern or practice of willingly infringing the license. There is only one penalty: permanent injunction.

Unless someone can find a way to spin the numbers any better, and they cannot, the injunction had to be issued.

The customer has nothing to do with this. The customer is the by-product of the remedy, as well as the proof of the infringement. This was all 100% about Dish Network. And Dish Network put their subscribers on the line to fight.

So, going back to my very first sentence, Dish Network could have agreed to requalify everyone, which is what the broadcasting parties wanted. And when Dish Network finally decided to settle, there was this "thing" with a mandate ordering the judge to issue the permanent injunction, which trumps the settlement.

Why was Dish Network in August, 2006, deciding to requalify their entire subscriber base, instead of May, 2003? Because Dish Network was too late to save their subscribers from their misguided actions.

I mean, what "massive error" could there be? The massive error here seems to be on the part of Dish Network, which could have ended this suit by requalifying their subscriber base. It was only when the District Court was mandated to issue a permanent injunction did Dish Network finally agree.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

It's amazing how many people here have shifted to support Charlie when he f*ck*d up on this issue and don't hold him to task in the same way on the other f*ck *ps that have longer implications for more people then this.

Clearly something is wrong in people's thinking.

 

[webbydude]

It's amazing how many people here have shifted to support Charlie when he f*ck*d up on this issue and don't hold him to task in the same way on the other f*ck *ps that have longer implications for more people then this.

Clearly something is wrong in people's thinking.

This thread could get ugly quick. LOL

I'm one of the biggest fans of E* and even I think they totally screwed up. They not only flaunted the law, but also charged customers for Distant Networks for it in the process. This is a bad comparison, but it's the only one that comes to mind. It's like a car dealership that continually sells lemons, even though they've been told they can't do it. Just hoping somebody will come to their defense and say, "hey...it's ok...you can sell these crappy cars because these customers don't know any better"

Like I stated earlier, I had a bad, bad feeling this thread could turn from pro-Charlie/Dish-could-do-no-wrong to...uhh...."this".

Let's face it, Dish had a chance to save face, but chose not to. Unfortunately, now you have a bunch of people who lost their distants and now may chose to "move" just to regain them. The one's I feel most sorry for are the people who didn't even have a chance at ANY locals in the 1st place and chose distants as an option.

 

[voripteth]

It seems to me that this whole qualifying mess is an ancient legacy law that needs to be reworked anyway. It isn't as if people are being forced to get distant networks. They are signing up for a product that they want.

IMHO we should be allowed to access whatever networks we're willing to pay for. The rest of the regulations are just bureaucratic BS. Hopefully this new law will clear the way for some common sense.

 

[CU2000]

Posted by Greg Bimson As we have seen so far from the Leahy bill, most of the people that will lose their networks will not get them back.

Greg I agree that most of the fault lies with Dish for not getting this settled some time ago.

I am a Dealer I know that our customer base legally qualifyed under the network qualification rules as stated in the SHERVA Law. If the Leahy bill is signed all customers that qualify should have them restored. I am not sure there is a reasonable way looking from our vantage point to have the total correct numbers of Dish's Distant subs that qualify.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I am a Dealer I know that our customer base legally qualifyed under the network qualification rules as stated in the SHERVA Law. If the Leahy bill is signed all customers that qualify should have them restored.

The problem is no one has seen the text of the bill that the Senate might pass. From the accounts we have seen, if a subscriber has access to local channels, they will not be able to get distant networks.

So, assuming the "CU" in CU2000 is for Colorado University, here is one for you: the way the Leahy bill has been reported, Dish Network will no longer have a single distant network subscriber in Colorado. Because Dish Network has local channels available in all three markets in Colorado, the distant network feeds will not be available.

To me, it sounds like the Senate is creating a new copyright license. 17 USC 119 is for distant networks (including RV and trucker exemptions), as well as significantly-viewed stations. 17 USC 122 is the license for local-into-local service. It is the 119 license that will have an injunction come 1 December.

As a matter of practicality, one could assume that a new section will be drawn up. Of course, Dish Network would be the only company which would use a new license. And since a new section would be written, the qualification method will change.

We really need a copy of the Leahy bill.

 

[odbrv]

Because Dish Network has local channels available in all three markets in Colorado, the distant network feeds will not be available.

To me, it sounds like the Senate is creating a new copyright license. 17 USC 119 is for distant networks (including RV and trucker exemptions), as well as significantly-viewed stations. 17 USC 122 is the license for local-into-local service. It is the 119 license that will have an injunction come 1 December.

As a matter of practicality, one could assume that a new section will be drawn up. Of course, Dish Network would be the only company which would use a new license. And since a new section would be written, the qualification method will change.

We really need a copy of the Leahy bill.

I called my congressman again to ask a couple of questions about the Leahy bill. Assuming the staff member I talked to is knowledgable here is what happened.
Q1. Will the bill cover SD and HD? Answer: his office has sent the writers of the bill a request to expand the bill to include HD . Therefore, if a market does not have an OTA HD signal and no Satellite provider has an HD channel for the network , then E* and D* will be allowed to give customers distant network HD. Many other Congressmen and Senators requested the same improvement. They see it as a means to get HD out sooner and stop the local affiliates from asking for further extensions.
Q2. When will a copy of the bill be available? Answer: As soon as he has a final one.

Given the above , there might be people in Colorado and elsewhere who are denied SD locals who will be able to get HD distants. I see this HD add on as a means to spur affiliates and satelite providers to roll out HD in markets. Once there is an HD presense in the market the competition loses the rights to that market. Forcing all to get HD up.

 

[waltinvt]

If what he told you is true, This is friggen huge ! (for some of us anyway)

I can't imagine this having a prayer of getting by the NAB without a big fight but as I've been saying, this whole thing could be used by congress to speed up digital conversion. I've even written my congress people (of which Leahy is one) about this but never knew if they even read it.

My point was (is), if they don't get the majority of this country switched to digital before the '08 campaigning gets into full swing, they stand to face a lot of voter grief as the '09 shutoff approaches. They'll also be more beholding to the affiliates (NAB) then because air time will be worth more than gold. If they're not careful, they could be caught right in the middle.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Tv choice and freedom is back Give it a rest guy

Freedom isn't back. I can get the New York Locals and my legally obtained waivers are about to be nullified. Sunday Timers on FOX during football season will be useless, the ability to bypass hideous Jets football for another market feed will go away (on most Sundays you get Giants and Jets games only as neither time gets to participate in most doubleheader days on either network), and most importantly my ability to follow the news on the west coast where I have family and like to discover other shows live later at night will go away. When E*'s equipment burps and doesn't record properly, I'm toast. If there is a conflict with too many good shows on at the same time, I'll be forced to give up watching it on the main TV and delegate to the 20" TV in my bedroom.

I'm glad that the REALLY screwed over individuals will be able to get their networks back if this goes through in the white areas, but I don't mind paying the extra $5 a month for convenience and variety and wish that the law expanded free choice instead of curtailing it.

Hopefully TV over IP gets here sooner than later and the NAB will be condemned to the technology trashcan of history. (and please,... Greg Bimson, for the love of Pete, don't use this as an invitation to recite to me the law. I agree it is the law. But the law sucks. Slavery used to be legal too,.... doesn't make it right.)

 

[ThomasRz]

You are confusing the issue. The distinction you are talking about is between a network station's analog and digital signals. There is no such thing as a "HD channel" in the context of networks. The digital signal includes both SD and HD programming. Most of E*'s network retransmission are of the analog signal. Several major markets also have the digital signal available. The Leahy bill (as I understand) only restores the status quo (i.e. analog signals).

I called my congressman again to ask a couple of questions about the Leahy bill. Assuming the staff member I talked to is knowledgable here is what happened.
Q1. Will the bill cover SD and HD? Answer: his office has sent the writers of the bill a request to expand the bill to include HD . Therefore, if a market does not have an OTA HD signal and no Satellite provider has an HD channel for the network , then E* and D* will be allowed to give customers distant network HD. Many other Congressmen and Senators requested the same improvement. They see it as a means to get HD out sooner and stop the local affiliates from asking for further extensions.
Q2. When will a copy of the bill be available? Answer: As soon as he has a final one.

Given the above , there might be people in Colorado and elsewhere who are denied SD locals who will be able to get HD distants. I see this HD add on as a means to spur affiliates and satelite providers to roll out HD in markets. Once there is an HD presense in the market the competition loses the rights to that market. Forcing all to get HD up.

 

[ac3750]

It's about choice and the freedom to choose!

If I live in one city, but would like to view programming from accross the country, I should have the right to do it because the technology is here to do it. By not letting me choose, I feel it is now a restraint of trade or monopolistic behavior, both of which are not acceptable in my book!

I don't really care what has happened in the past...what is the right thing to do today. Don't take away or restrict the freedom of the consumer to choose his or hers programming.

simply put...Don't Restrict...let me choose what I want to see and pay for it accordingly...weather or not I have the ability to recive local programming or not.

 

[odbrv]

You are confusing the issue. The distinction you are talking about is between a network station's analog and digital signals. There is no such thing as a "HD channel" in the context of networks. The digital signal includes both SD and HD programming. Most of E*'s network retransmission are of the analog signal. Several major markets also have the digital signal available. The Leahy bill (as I understand) only restores the status quo (i.e. analog signals).

Thank you for the clarification. I just reported what the conversation was between me and the staff member. I am now sorry I did not get a name. I will call back and ask what they exacxtly sent the bill writers. They told me they sent a request to expand the bill. Maybe , it was to cover digital which then would open up HD networks and maybe some SD stations. If I get anyone tommorrow , I'll let you know.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

If I live in one city, but would like to view programming from accross the country, I should have the right to do it because the technology is here to do it. By not letting me choose, I feel it is now a restraint of trade or monopolistic behavior, both of which are not acceptable in my book!

I don't really care what has happened in the past...what is the right thing to do today. Don't take away or restrict the freedom of the consumer to choose his or hers programming.

simply put...Don't Restrict...let me choose what I want to see and pay for it accordingly...weather or not I have the ability to recive local programming or not.

BS

The technology exists to download music from the internet bypassing the wishes of the copyright holder. It's illegal as well.

Just because technology exists doesn't mean its your god given right to get something that doesnt belong to you or you have no right to.

Why this site claims to ban hackers who do the same thing theft of copyrighted material - yet allows for this non-sense is comical.

 

[waltinvt]

You are confusing the issue. The distinction you are talking about is between a network station's analog and digital signals. There is no such thing as a "HD channel" in the context of networks. The digital signal includes both SD and HD programming. Most of E*'s network retransmission are of the analog signal. Several major markets also have the digital signal available. The Leahy bill (as I understand) only restores the status quo (i.e. analog signals).

You're absolutely right that it's a digital and not an "HD" signal, of which I am fully aware (in case you were including me in that "you're confusing the issue" statment). You're also absolutely correct about the bill, as currently proposed, saying nothing about digital signals. However in your effort to be completely right (as you so often are ), you appeared to miss the main point of ovbrd's post, which was that that some members of congress are apparently trying to amend the Leahy bill to include wording that would enable HD DNS in cases where people can't get a digital signal OTA (even if they can get analog signals by satellite).

No this has been the FCCs position but I believe SHVERA is so ambiguous and as yet, no specific rules exist for digital, that Dish hasn't been inclined to pursue HD DNS other than their current CBS HD deal.

What needs to happen now is to get digital completely separate from analog in terms of qualification, signal testing, retransmission rights and must carry.

There are still many areas where, although analog signals may be available OTA or by cable or satellite, there is no digital (and thus HD) signal. Either the station has been stalling or they're at such low power it's not reaching many locations. Something needs to be done to insure satellite customers can get the network's digital feeds. HD DNS until such time as the local digital feeds are available and then retrans / must carry when they are.

 

[Greg Bimson]

(and please,... Greg Bimson, for the love of Pete, don't use this as an invitation to recite to me the law. I agree it is the law. But the law sucks. Slavery used to be legal too,.... doesn't make it right.)

I agree that owning another human being is not legal. But to compare distant networks to slavery is over the top.

I'm glad that the REALLY screwed over individuals will be able to get their networks back if this goes through in the white areas, but I don't mind paying the extra $5 a month for convenience and variety and wish that the law expanded free choice instead of curtailing it.

And that is what everyone misunderstands. The current law for distant networks exists to provide network service to the unserved. At one time, with your waivers, you were considered unserved.

But you must also keep this in mind. The freedom of choice here is for the networks to do business with their affiliates in a manner that suits them most. You would rather have the "freedom of choice" relate to you and the individual end user; the "freedom of choice" belongs to the network so they can do business as they please.

I can get the New York Locals and my legally obtained waivers are about to be nullified. Sunday Timers on FOX during football season will be useless, the ability to bypass hideous Jets football for another market feed will go away (on most Sundays you get Giants and Jets games only as neither time gets to participate in most doubleheader days on either network), and most importantly my ability to follow the news on the west coast where I have family and like to discover other shows live later at night will go away. When E*'s equipment burps and doesn't record properly, I'm toast. If there is a conflict with too many good shows on at the same time, I'll be forced to give up watching it on the main TV and delegate to the 20" TV in my bedroom.

So let's talk about choices. Dish Network could have chosen to settle this suit years ago, instead of placing their entire distant network subscriber base at risk. So it was Dish Network's choice that started the process of cutting of their entire DNS base.

If extra football is that important, you have a choice. If your equipment is buggy, you have a choice.

Bob, let's not forget that you have a choice. But they are only the choices that are given to you.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

This just in to SatelliteGuys...

District Judge Denies EchoStar request for extension.

More as we have it.

Thanks to TransmitterNews.COM for the info!

 

[odbrv]

You're absolutely right that it's a digital and not an "HD" signal, of which I am fully aware (in case you were including me in that "you're confusing the issue" statment). You're also absolutely correct about the bill, as currently proposed, saying nothing about digital signals. However in your effort to be completely right (as you so often are ), you appeared to miss the main point of ovbrd's post, which was that that some members of congress are apparently trying to amend the Leahy bill to include wording that would enable HD DNS in cases where people can't get a digital signal OTA (even if they can get analog signals by satellite).

No this has been the FCCs position but I believe SHVERA is so ambiguous and as yet, no specific rules exist for digital, that Dish hasn't been inclined to pursue HD DNS other than their current CBS HD deal.

What needs to happen now is to get digital completely separate from analog in terms of qualification, signal testing, retransmission rights and must carry.

There are still many areas where, although analog signals may be available OTA or by cable or satellite, there is no digital (and thus HD) signal. Either the station has been stalling or they're at such low power it's not reaching many locations. Something needs to be done to insure satellite customers can get the network's digital feeds. HD DNS until such time as the local digital feeds are available and then retrans / must carry when they are.

Thank you for your clarification. I have tried my Congressmen today and all offices seem closed. I will try again after the Thanksgiving break. I will ask how the current Leahy bill will integrate with Senate Bill S.2644. This bill which Was Passed In Nov 04 Said,"this Legislation Gives The Federal Communications Commission Two Years To Develop A Map Of The United States That Shows Which Households Do Not Receive A Digital Over The Air Signal". Consumers In Areas That Are Not Able To Receive A Digital Signal Will Be Eligible To Receive A National High Definition Network Feeds For Nbc, Cbs, Abc, And Fox. This Can Only Be Done, However, If The Satellite Company First Provides The Local Analog Stations. This Is Called The Digital White Area. This Bill Was Introduced By Senator John Ensign Of Nevada. This Bill Was Adopted As Part Of The Omnibus Spending Bill Approved By The U.s. Senate.
It seems there is already a Bill in place to allow consumers to get digital distants in the digital white areas. The Leahy bill would only need to allow Dish to sell those stations.