Charlie Ergen on Distant Networks

[Greg Bimson]

E* (& D*) DID use PT24, until they all got their hands slapped & then E* & D* switched to the NY/LA distants.

Actually, this lawsuit is the outcropping of the former lawsuit.

Once PrimeTime 24 and DirecTV were sued by CBS and FOX, Dish Network terminated their relationship with PrimeTime 24. If Dish Network remained with PrimeTime 24, they would have had to abide by the decision that was handed down to PrimeTime 24. Instead, Dish Network switched to their own network feeds to avoid the litigation surrounding PrimeTime 24.

DirecTV did not ditch PrimeTime 24 until the last week of February, 1999. For DirecTV, removing PrimeTime 24 from the equation did nothing, as DirecTV (along with co-defendant PrimeTime 24) were enjoined from continuing to serve unqualified customers as of 28 February, 1999. That was when DirecTV entered into a settlement with CBS and FOX to start the cut-off process in stages.

 

[minnow]

Actually, the way Charlie talked about it, it came off to me be a larger percentage of the 900,000 than what is commonly bantered about. Even say 300,000(which I'm guessing is a lowball number) have no other choice for DNS and those 300,000 go back to cable or over to Directv and the average monthly bill is $45.00(which is probably low), that comes out to a minimum of 13.5 million loss per year. Not insignificant.

 

[BigFella]

300,000? Sounds a bit high to me. Don't know - just guessing, but I'm thinking the actual number is probably in the 10's of thousands (of those 900,000) that'll actually qualify for distant nets with D*.

Keep in mind, it's not just being in a white area that's a qualification (RV waivers aside)... Your local nets can't be available to you via satellite either. What's D*'s total DMA coverage of the US?

Why "defect" to Direct or cable if you can't get DNS with them either? Silly as it sounds, I suppose that there will be those that drop Dish because they're angry... even if they don't qualify for distants with Direct.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Why "defect" to Direct or cable if you can't get DNS with them either? Silly as it sounds, I suppose that there will be those that drop Dish because they're angry... even if they don't qualify for distants with Direct.

There are a lot of people (I seem to recall a few here and at different sites) that stated the only reason they were beholden to Dish Network was because of their distant networks. I'd assume once the injunction takes effect, some of these people are gone.

I don't think a full third of the distant network subscribers will leave. At least not right away.

But one clue should be the amount of people here that have very recently posted on this board (and others) because they've lost distant networks and they don't know why.

 

[dishrich]

I just checked an old form (using the way back machine) and Primestar had the following
ABC from Atlanta & LA
CBS from Washington DC & Portland, OR
Fox from Philly & SF
NBC from Boston & Sacramento
PBS from PBS HQ

I couldn't find an old guide, but that's it - it's coming back to me now.

And just another little tidbit - on the BUD, Netlink ALSO uplinked those same 3 ABC, CBS & NBC feeds as the Atlantic 3. As you probably know Netlink was owned by TCI cable, so it's no surprise they used those same feeds for P*. (they did NOT uplink a FOX station for the BUD) Netlink did this so they could offer a competing East Coast network package from PT24, since the only thing they had before was the Denver nets & so many of their customer base was on East/Central time.

 

[t00ld00d]

And again, of those 900,000, only a small number don't have local channels available now??

I don't know where this comes from. In the town I just moved from there were around 4,000 or so people. None were eligible for LIL with Dish or Direct. It wouldn't take very many small towns to add up to 900,000.

We had 1 station 75 miles away (on the other side of a fairly big mountain) and the other networks were 220+ miles away. Ironic that the Reno DMA contained the networks that could (and in some cases did) deny our waiver, yet we weren't eligible for Reno LIL because we were so far away.

Now that I've moved to Reno and had to live with the horrible horrible locals here I wish I had my distant nets back.

 

[ti_yn]

Unfortunately, it looks like you will only have locals when you are near "home" in the spotbeam.

Maybe Dish could come up with a variation of the RV/Truck waiver, give those people a "priority" phone number they could call on a daily basis (high tech version: make this part of "my account" at dishnetwork.com), tell the CSR what zipcode they are in, and get locals turned on. If they are telling the truth about where they are, the locals will be available on spotbeam.

I'd hate to see any futher decrease in CONUS offerings, but as an aside, why not just offer all of the markets (limited only by spotbeam range) for a flat rate to qualifed subscribers? Similarly, I'd like to see such a package offered to all customers, with--as long as we are subject to such freedom robbing laws--unqualified content blacked out, or preferably just impeded to a point where we would be more apt to watch the local affiliate if truly available.

When LIL first began, it was possible to choose any market you wanted, though I believe it was limited to three or four markets in total. I'm sure this is a stupid question to most, but can someone tell me the purpose of the advent of spotbeams? Is it to prevent viewing outside the intended area, or does it increase the satellites' capacity by not requring everything to cover such a large footprint?

 

[TNGTony]

I'd hate to see any futher decrease in CONUS offerings, but as an aside, why not just offer all of the markets (limited only by spotbeam range) for a flat rate to qualifed subscribers?

A little thing called the law! Only two of each network is the max one can have legally now. And for Dish, starting December 1, the number is closer to zero.

Similarly, I'd like to see such a package offered to all customers, with--as long as we are subject to such freedom robbing laws--unqualified content blacked out, or preferably just impeded to a point where we would be more apt to watch the local affiliate if truly available.

This is my cue to remind everyone that without laws like the SHVREA, no distant network channels from anywhere would be available to anyone ever. The "evil" laws in question are permissive. They ALLOW satellite companies to do things AGAINST the will of the stations, program providers, syndicators and copyright owners they are carrying.

When LIL first began, it was possible to choose any market you wanted, though I believe it was limited to three or four markets in total. I'm sure this is a stupid question to most, but can someone tell me the purpose of the advent of spotbeams? Is it to prevent viewing outside the intended area, or does it increase the satellites' capacity by not requring everything to cover such a large footprint?

That would be a capacity issue. If you take a look at www.dishchannelchart.com take a look at how many times several transponders are re-used!

See ya
Tony

 

[Hall]

I don't know where this comes from. In the town I just moved from there were around 4,000 or so people. None were eligible for LIL with Dish or Direct. It wouldn't take very many small towns to add up to 900,000.

First off, are you suggesting that everyone in that town is/was a Dish customer ?? I suspect not..... If the average household has what 2.x people, and everyone in town was a customer, that's approx 1600 customers to Dish. Dish and Directv have similar number of customers, so let's divide that in half again to 800 for Dish, 800 for Directv. This all assumes again that everyone is a customer of one or the other.

Second, when Dish throws out numbers, they mean "accounts", if you will, not viewers. I am (1) customer to them, not (5) (wife and kids).

 

[Tom Bombadil]

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

Well, if you want to use this as an analogy, it would be more like a person who was caught speeding and found guilty in court. Then they went out and were caught a couple more times, and found guilty in court again. But they continued to speed, driving even faster, were caught a few more times and found guilty in court.

Then after the last conviction, they attempted to pay everyone off in order to be able to keep on driving.

Such a person would lose their license and not be allowed to drive any car.

If Charlie had really wanted to keep DNS, he would have cleaned up E*'s act after the first court loss, keeping existing grandfathered DNS subs on while strictly applying the rules to all new subs, just as D* did. But instead he decided to go on breaking the law and now must pay the piper.

A lot of the current anger and frustration should be directed at Charlie, for having taken the actions that endangered and eventually lost you the opportunity to receive DNS from E*.

 

[Greg Bimson]

If Charlie had really wanted to keep DNS, he would have cleaned up E*'s act after the first court loss, keeping existing grandfathered DNS subs on while strictly applying the rules to all new subs, just as D* did. But instead he decided to go on breaking the law and now must pay the piper.

Close.

There was only "one" court case. There was an early decision against Dish Network, then appealed and remanded for retrial. Then again, another decision which was handed down early 2003.

The difference is during the retrial, Dish Network's practices were questioned using their April, 2002 data. Also submitted into evidence was everything from the original suit back in 1999. So, over a three year period, the amount of invalid subscribers were skyrocketing. Dish Network may have won the first appeal for the retrial, but the retrial did them no good.

Dish Network received the benefit of the doubt in the courts. The problem was that they thought there was no way they would lose, and they certainly wouldn't settle. Until it was too late, that is.

 

[t00ld00d]

First off, are you suggesting that everyone in that town is/was a Dish customer ?? I suspect not..... If the average household has what 2.x people, and everyone in town was a customer, that's approx 1600 customers to Dish. Dish and Directv have similar number of customers, so let's divide that in half again to 800 for Dish, 800 for Directv. This all assumes again that everyone is a customer of one or the other.

Second, when Dish throws out numbers, they mean "accounts", if you will, not viewers. I am (1) customer to them, not (5) (wife and kids).

Good points. I was thinking in terms of viewers, not accounts. And though 70% of the town has a Dish on the roof or the front trailer hitch odds are half those are D*.