AAD Channels Quality?
- Thread starter Buzzdar
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 2K
Weren't they supposed to have fiber feeds up by February? Completely unnacceptable and unprofessional. I am turning all mine off when I have to renew in June. AND they want a price increase for this lousy service LOL
Last I knew they were holding off on the fiber install until after the courts rule on if they can continue to provide the service.
Channel PQ was getting good. but for the past few nights i was getting alot of static on the west coast feeds after 10pm cst but now its during the day too maybe they are working on something but i know for one it is not worth the monthly charge they want us to pay.
What court rule??? I have not read anything regarding this, where can I find any info? thanks,
i think he is refering to this.
Knowing of your interest in receiving distant network signals via Dish Network, I am writing with this update. I appreciate hearing from you.
A federal appeals court in Atlanta is expected to hear arguments soon on whether a distant network signal provider, National Programming Service (NPS), will be permitted to continue offering network affiliate signals to Dish Network customers. A lower federal court ruled in mid-December 2006 that NPS may do so, but a group of television network affiliated stations has appealed that decision.
Under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, creators of content such as books, movies, and television shows have the exclusive right to distribute, copy, display, and perform their works ("copyright"). A broadcast television network typically owns the copyright to its programs or buys the right to air the programs from the company that created the show, and no other company or person may distribute those programs without permission of the network.
Several changes were made to these provisions of federal law in recent years to accommodate cable and satellite television. Without violating the copyright of television networks, satellite television providers can now, for a set price, take programming from the broadcast networks and deliver the programs to the satellite provider's own customers - a practice known as redistributing. Under measures known as the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA) and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1998 (SHVIA), satellite providers may deliver local station signals to viewers in the station's own local market (for example, Springfield stations to viewers in the Springfield area).
Satellite providers can also redistribute the signal of any network-affiliated television station in the country to one of the satellite provider's customers, if the customer is "unserved" by an affiliate of the same network. A customer is considered unserved if he does not receive an over-the-air signal from one of the network's affiliate stations at a certain, defined signal strength, as determined by a government formula or through actual testing by a technician.
I understand the concerns some Illinois residents have expressed about not being able to access the content they would prefer, especially sports and local news programming, from other regions. When Congress was considering SHVIA and reconciling the slightly different Senate and House versions of the legislation, I asked the conference committee to include language that effectively would have made it easier for rural Illinoisans to be classified as "unserved" and receive distant signals.
This situation arises because there is no right under federal law for an individual to choose which of a network's affiliated stations he would like to receive. Congress protected the local network affiliate model, which works well because local viewers receive local content that is funded by local advertisers who are trying to entice local consumers.
A satellite provider may not offer distant network affiliate programming to a customer who is already served by a local network affiliate, as determined by the government formula or technician testing. If the satellite provider does so willfully or repeatedly, a federal court is required to order the satellite provider to stop redistributing distant network signals to all of its customers, even customers that are unserved.
In mid-2006, a federal court in Florida found that EchoStar, the owner of Dish Network, had engaged in a "'pattern' and 'practice' of violating [this provision] in every way imaginable," and ordered EchoStar to no longer redistribute distant network signals. A federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to overturn that ruling. That decision stands apart from the NPS litigation that is still pending.
I will continue to closely monitor the status of the NPS/EchoStar litigation with your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for writing. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Knowing of your interest in receiving distant network signals via Dish Network, I am writing with this update. I appreciate hearing from you.
A federal appeals court in Atlanta is expected to hear arguments soon on whether a distant network signal provider, National Programming Service (NPS), will be permitted to continue offering network affiliate signals to Dish Network customers. A lower federal court ruled in mid-December 2006 that NPS may do so, but a group of television network affiliated stations has appealed that decision.
Under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, creators of content such as books, movies, and television shows have the exclusive right to distribute, copy, display, and perform their works ("copyright"). A broadcast television network typically owns the copyright to its programs or buys the right to air the programs from the company that created the show, and no other company or person may distribute those programs without permission of the network.
Several changes were made to these provisions of federal law in recent years to accommodate cable and satellite television. Without violating the copyright of television networks, satellite television providers can now, for a set price, take programming from the broadcast networks and deliver the programs to the satellite provider's own customers - a practice known as redistributing. Under measures known as the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA) and the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1998 (SHVIA), satellite providers may deliver local station signals to viewers in the station's own local market (for example, Springfield stations to viewers in the Springfield area).
Satellite providers can also redistribute the signal of any network-affiliated television station in the country to one of the satellite provider's customers, if the customer is "unserved" by an affiliate of the same network. A customer is considered unserved if he does not receive an over-the-air signal from one of the network's affiliate stations at a certain, defined signal strength, as determined by a government formula or through actual testing by a technician.
I understand the concerns some Illinois residents have expressed about not being able to access the content they would prefer, especially sports and local news programming, from other regions. When Congress was considering SHVIA and reconciling the slightly different Senate and House versions of the legislation, I asked the conference committee to include language that effectively would have made it easier for rural Illinoisans to be classified as "unserved" and receive distant signals.
This situation arises because there is no right under federal law for an individual to choose which of a network's affiliated stations he would like to receive. Congress protected the local network affiliate model, which works well because local viewers receive local content that is funded by local advertisers who are trying to entice local consumers.
A satellite provider may not offer distant network affiliate programming to a customer who is already served by a local network affiliate, as determined by the government formula or technician testing. If the satellite provider does so willfully or repeatedly, a federal court is required to order the satellite provider to stop redistributing distant network signals to all of its customers, even customers that are unserved.
In mid-2006, a federal court in Florida found that EchoStar, the owner of Dish Network, had engaged in a "'pattern' and 'practice' of violating [this provision] in every way imaginable," and ordered EchoStar to no longer redistribute distant network signals. A federal appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to overturn that ruling. That decision stands apart from the NPS litigation that is still pending.
I will continue to closely monitor the status of the NPS/EchoStar litigation with your thoughts in mind. Thank you again for writing. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Let's give them more time to improve the signals. I have been assured that once the Court of Appeals rules in their favor (hopefully!!!), they will be able to invest in improving the signals. I for one am glad to have their service.
