Charlie Ergen on Distant Networks

[Tampa8]

Some of you here are very selfish. Why not call or write congress even if you feel Dish is wrong. (Which they most certainly are at least not innocent in this) There are other Dish subscribers who rely only on distant channels either because there are no locals up, or are RV'ers. Why not help them. If you see it as just helping Dish keep subscribers that is a very narrow outlook.

 

[Bob Haller]

Remember as yopu knock charlie HE SINGLEHANDIDLY by playing fast loose and ignoring the rules got us LIL

without him it probably would of never occured. certinally direct tv was against it.

I liked my distants and miss them already but the way this fell out is anti competive to dish and thats not right either.......

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I do thank all of you who have called, I know I have spoke to one senators office and they admitted this was a hot topic and they are receiving a lot of calls.

If this does not affect you still call.

We are a Satellite Community here to help out other members of our community. You all know my feelings on the issue, I am not encouraging people to call to make Charlie happy, I am encouraging them to call to help out the other members of our community.

Please put your political differences aside for this and make the call to support the members of our community.

Thank you.

 

[BobMurdoch]

This is akin to seizing someone's car because they were speeding.

Yeah, well, it's not that inconvenient, you can always buy another car.

WHAT?

It was a bad law, and I'm shocked that the Supremes aren't fighting for the right of a viewer to purchase programming that both a distributor and a consumer want to buy. At the very least it fails the stink test, as the only party to refuse the settlement OWNS THE COMPETITION WHO WILL BE POACHING THE CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY THIS.

This violates both the letter and the spirit of the decision authorizing the acquisition of D* by News Corp. with conditions. Those conditions were to not withhold network programming they control in an attempt to compel customers to switch to their service. WHY isn't anyone screaming this to high heaven? With the networks and the independent affiliates losing out on $100 million over this, I'm surprised they haven't been mentioning this on their news broadcasts trying to make more people aware of this egregious practice.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

as the only party to refuse the settlement OWNS THE COMPETITION WHO WILL BE POACHING THE CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY THIS.

I have been talking with a lot of the members of the press and this is something I have been telling them, but no one has published anything regarding this.

DirecTV is getting ready to pounce on the Distant Network customers with $150 - $250 bounties for Dish Network customers. I hear that they are even getting ready with full page adds to take advantage of the situation that they helped to create.

I do wish that the press would pick up on this.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It was a bad law, and I'm shocked that the Supremes aren't fighting for the right of a viewer to purchase programming that both a distributor and a consumer want to buy. At the very least it fails the stink test, as the only party to refuse the settlement OWNS THE COMPETITION WHO WILL BE POACHING THE CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY THIS.

This violates both the letter and the spirit of the decision authorizing the acquisition of D* by News Corp. with conditions.

I keep seeing this, so I'll make an easy analogy...

If you are driving 55 in a 45 MPH zone, then you are speeding. When you get a ticket and go to court, you can throw yourself at the mercy of a judge to get the points reduced. There is no mandatory penalty which you must receive.

However, if you are driving 120 in a 45 MPH zone, then you are doing something different. There are more likely some mandatory penalties that the judge must follow.

So, when I hear this both violates the letter and the spirit of the decision authorizing News Corp to buy DirecTV, I must laugh. There is no contract for this programming. The cut-offs are happening as a result of a lawsuit.

Instead, everyone is forgetting that Dish Network blatantly violated the law. God forbid anyone come to that reality.

With the networks and the independent affiliates losing out on $100 million over this, I'm surprised they haven't been mentioning this on their news broadcasts trying to make more people aware of this egregious practice.

By the time the suit hit the Appeals Court, there were five defendants: the network affilate boards of the big four networks, and Fox network. The $100 million "settlement" only applied to the network affiliate boards.

You do realize that the network affiliate boards cross-appealed and asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to place a permanent injunction on Dish Network's delivery of distant networks?

You know, the parties that asked for the permanent injunction were the same ones willing to settle for $100 million? You'd think maybe when the affiliate boards asked the Appeals Court for a permanent injunction, maybe Dish Network could have reached a settlement then?

Nah, Dish Network decided to wait until there was no other option. Dish Network could have chosen to reach a settlement anytime in the prior eight years, but only did so when there was no way to stop an injunction.

Yet it is always someone else's fault.

 

[Hall]

DirecTV is getting ready to pounce on the Distant Network customers with $150 - $250 bounties for Dish Network customers.

Given the massive coverage E* has with locals, how many people truly qualify for distant networks nowadays ?? I suspect that the number is rather small...

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Still 800,000 is not a number to sneeze at.

 

[Hall]

What is that number ?? That's the total number who get distant networks, isn't it ?? NOT ALL OF THOSE QUALIFY and therefore Directv can't offer them distants either !

 

[minnow]

I have been talking with a lot of the members of the press and this is something I have been telling them, but no one has published anything regarding this.

DirecTV is getting ready to pounce on the Distant Network customers with $150 - $250 bounties for Dish Network customers. I hear that they are even getting ready with full page adds to take advantage of the situation that they helped to create.

I do wish that the press would pick up on this.

Any time frame when Direct plans this program rollout ?

 

[jessshaun]

Just because Dish Network has locals (I have locals with Dish), doesn't mean some of us won't qualify for distants. For instance, I have no ABC anywhere around here. I live in Crawford County, IL, and the closest ABC affiliate is either in Indianapolis or Champaign/Springfield. Oh, switch to cable, you say. HAHAHA! yea right! Guess what? The ABC affiliate that Mediacom carries is owned by Sinclair. That might be cut from the lineup is mediacom doesn't settle with Sinclair. So, I qualify for distants, want nothing to do with Directv since they don't offer my locals, and I can't switch to cable thanks to Mediacom's fiasco with Sinclair.

So long story short, I hate Directv (even if I liked it, I want my locals which they don't offer), and don't get me started on cable. I don't feel I should have to subscribe to cable just for ABC, so the only way to recieve ABC for me would be to "move" to an area in the Champaign IL DMA. But guess what... Then I'd have the opposite problem and would not get MY locals on Satellite.

The only way for "justice" to be served is to get a law passed to keep my ABC. Dish Network may have broke the law, but I still blame the networks, especially Fox.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Any time frame when Direct plans this program rollout ?

Probably when the cut-offs start (or started).

What is that number ?? That's the total number who get distant networks, isn't it ?? NOT ALL OF THOSE QUALIFY and therefore Directv can't offer them distants either !

Correct. It is estimated that Dish Network will have to cut-off between 800K and 1 million subscribers. Most of those (considering that Dish Network offers local channels to over 95 percent of US households) should simply be able to switch to their local channels.

DirecTV is still 68 markets shy of covering the entire US. So those people can qualify for distants if they are out of broadcast range and do not have locals available.

Other considerations are that people in places such as Lafayette, LA, will not be able to get NBC anymore, or that people in the Portland and Burlington markets in New Hampshire will not be able to get the only New Hampshire network affiliate (WMUR, the Hearst-Argyle owned ABC) through significantly-viewed means.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

The only way for "justice" to be served is to get a law passed to keep my ABC. Dish Network may have broke the law, but I still blame the networks, especially Fox.

Exactly. Please make the call. Call more then once. Tell them your not happy.

Also remind them tommorow is election day.

You have the power. Please use it.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The only way for "justice" to be served is to get a law passed to keep my ABC. Dish Network may have broke the law, but I still blame the networks, especially Fox.

Why don't you blame your local channels? They are the ones that pressed for this injunction to the Appeals Court.

 

[Hall]

It is estimated that Dish Network will have to cut-off between 800K and 1 million subscribers. Most of those (considering that Dish Network offers local channels to over 95 percent of US households) should simply be able to switch to their local channels.

So, using your 95% number (that sounds higher than I've heard before) and using the higher # of subscribers, this will legally affect only 50,000 customers. Okay, 50,000 customers is a lot or $50,000 is a lot, but in the grand scheme of Dish subscribers (12 million), this affects a fraction of 1% of their customers. The other 950,000 likely do not qualify for distants and were receiving them on less then legitimate terms, i.e. so-called "moving" option.

I now think Charlie's motivation is approx $5 x 1,000,000 or $5 million per month that they bring in. That is noticeable. The 50,000 who qualify will re-qualify when this is all said and done. Oh wait, a bunch will b*tch and complain, a few will threaten to jump ship to D*, but in the end, almost all will remain with E*.

 

[odbrv]

The law was signed by the President, as bill passed by both houses of Congress.

President Reagan is dead. The Democrats were in control of both houses. So, most of the members that were around in 1988 are long gone.

.

How convenient to have a senior moment and forget Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, was amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. Many of those congressmen are around. Then we have SENATE BILL S-2644, THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND RURAL CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL TELEVISION ACT. This was approved in NOV.2004. Those folks had another chance to fix the mess they created. When it worked to your advantage you quoted them. Now you conveniently forget. Don't inpune your character to try to win an arguement.

Why not follow the request of the creater of this forum.
"We are a Satellite Community here to help out other members of our community. You all know my feelings on the issue, I am not encouraging people to call to make Charlie happy, I am encouraging them to call to help out the other members of our community.

Please put your political differences aside for this and make the call to support the members of our community.

Thank you.
__________________
Scott"

 

[Greg Bimson]

The other 950,000 likely do not qualify for distants and were receiving them on less then legitimate terms, i.e. so-called "moving" option.

Movers are not in this number. Just the people that were receiving distant networks.

I now think Charlie's motivation is approx $5 x 1,000,000 or $5 million per month that they bring in. That is noticeable. The 50,000 who qualify will re-qualify when this is all said and done. Oh wait, a bunch will b*tch and complain, a few will threaten to jump ship to D*, but in the end, almost all will remain with E*.

It not the money from the distant networks that will be lost that will cause such a problem. Some of the $5 million (your figure) was used to pay the copyright fund for use of the license.

The problem is the 50K to 100K in subs that leave, which are probably happy with Dish Network service otherwise. Losing 100K in subscribers translates to approximately a loss of $6.5 million a month from these people.

Add in the fact that as HD is becoming more and more prominent, Dish Network cannot feed rural subscribers with distant HD networks, and the point starts to become obvious. Dish Network will not be able to compete in rural markets without distant networks.

And supposedly Dish Network has a much higher share of rural subscribers than DirecTV.

 

[Greg Bimson]

How convenient to have a senior moment and forget Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, was amended by the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999. Many of those congressmen are around. Then we have SENATE BILL S-2644, THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND RURAL CONSUMER ACCESS TO DIGITAL TELEVISION ACT. This was approved in NOV.2004. Those folks had another chance to fix the mess they created. When it worked to your advantage you quoted them. Now you conveniently forget. Don't inpune your character to try to win an arguement.

So once again, just because it was amended three separate times does not mean the punishment wasn't there and that Dish Network did not know about the punishment. And they knew about the punishment from the get-go.

So what I'd like to hear is how you'd "fix the mess they created". Either if you were Congress or CEO of Echostar. It would be at this point where you will start to understand the problems.

Why not follow the request of the creater of this forum.
"We are a Satellite Community here to help out other members of our community. You all know my feelings on the issue, I am not encouraging people to call to make Charlie happy, I am encouraging them to call to help out the other members of our community.

Please put your political differences aside for this and make the call to support the members of our community.

I did. I called Senator Mikulski's office and threw my support behind an amendment to allow the truckers and RV waiver, as well as the signficantly-viewed stations. Neither of these issues were the reasons why Dish Network was sued, so these people should not suffer the collateral damage from Dish Network's ignorance.

 

[Hall]

Movers are not in this number. Just the people that were receiving distant networks.

Huh ?? Now I'm confused.... People "move" in order to receive distant networks or in some cases, to receive the local channels for a different area. I thought most moved in order to receive distants, i.e. east coast and west coast feeds.

I really don't think these numbers are adding up. If Dish covers 95% of the country with local channels, there's NO WAY that 800,000 to 1,000,000 customers live in "white areas".

 

[Mr Tony]

Huh ?? Now I'm confused.... People "move" in order to receive distant networks or in some cases, to receive the local channels for a different area. I thought most moved in order to receive distants, i.e. east coast and west coast feeds.

I really don't think these numbers are adding up. If Dish covers 95% of the country with local channels, there's NO WAY that 800,000 to 1,000,000 customers live in "white areas".

There were areas that you could get both locals from an area and distants. If you (at the time) qualified for distants due to no locals available on Dish but now locals are available, technically you don't qualify for distants. New subs couldnt get distants but existing could add locals and keep distants. Those are part of the "movers".

Example was my "local" area Duluth, MN. Until a couple years ago, Dish didnt have locals on there but about 1/2 the DMA qualified for distants. When locals became available, you couldn't get distants anymore (you had to get locals) but the people who had distants were grandfathered in and could keep them and add locals.