Consumer Reports backing E* on DNS Situation

[Chris Walker]

Sure. But then you get the people that say...

I rely on DNS because the picture quality is so much better on the distants.
I rely on DNS because I like to timeshift.
I rely on DNS because I get different sports programming than my locals.

None of which are the most plausible excuses.

Why not Greg? My local channels give me waivers to be able to recieve these channels. What difference does it make what reasons I have for wanting the DNS?

 

[Chris Walker]

I am in the 4% that can't get locals via Dish and in the 32,000 or so that has missing OTA big 4 networks (I get just one) so I am.....

Well.....

Bitter =)

I have given in today and the DirecTV installer will be at my house next Tuesday.

DirecTV not settling is the reason why the distants are facing the axe. By switching you are supporting the enemy on this issue.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Yes, but my points are still valid even though distant network service is not a construct of the free market. In a "free market", the owners and licensees of the content would have had a carriage agreement with Dish Network to deliever timeshifting and alternate sports programming; the picture quality issue probably rests more with Dish Network (just as mine does with DirecTV).I am trying to figure this out. What monopoly situation?

Take your pick,.... DirecTV who gets to be the sole satellite provider in white areas or the broadcast networks who get to own viewers who wish to view network programming in that area.

The Justice Dept. decided that one satellite provider constituted a monopoly when they shot down the E* takeover of D*. I'm assuming that attitude hasn't changed.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Hopefully the court of appeals will do something this week. Glad to see E* getting support on this, it'll make the court take a closer look.

Unfortunately nothing will happen until at least January when Congress gets back in session. Even then I think it will be February or March before anything happens. By then the really screwed folks will have switched to D*.

Then again, I'm hoping for a massive case of civil disobedience as people "move" to other cities. It won't help those of us using distants for convenience, but then again most of us aren't going anywhere if we have locals available. It is just to help those poor souls caught in the crossfire here. I'm guessing though that 90% of the lemmings won't know about this workaround.

 

[BobMurdoch]

DirecTV not settling is the reason why the distants are facing the axe. By switching you are supporting the enemy on this issue.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I ever reward them for this. I'd switch back to cable first. Hopefully Fios will get here soon and they come up with a decent PVR.

 

[bacchus101]

DirecTV not settling is the reason why the distants are facing the axe. By switching you are supporting the enemy on this issue.

I have no choice. I would rather dine with the enemy then starve.

Besides, the real enemy is my wife if she can't watch Grey's Anatomy next Thursday!


God forbid what will happen if the D* installer cancels on me Tuesday! *shaking*

Me - "Baby, its not my fault! He canceled because of the weather!"

Her - "You have failed me for the last time"

Me - "Honey, Please, I can explain ......"

*crushing sound*

*whimper*

*gasp*

Her - "Apology accepted, my dear husband."

 

[BobMurdoch]

Dang collaborators.

I understand... When Mama ain't happy,.... ain't NOBODY happy.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Hopefully the court of appeals will do something this week. Glad to see E* getting support on this, it'll make the court take a closer look.

No, this will not make the court take a closer look. The Court of Appeals only deals with affirming or reversing the decisions from the District Courts. The Court of Appeals is not a party to public opinion.

My local channels give me waivers to be able to recieve these channels. What difference does it make what reasons I have for wanting the DNS?

But that is different. You are technically legal if you have waivers and they are presented in a court of law if your provider is ever challenged. It appears your provider did not provide the information about your waiver.

DirecTV not settling is the reason why the distants are facing the axe. By switching you are supporting the enemy on this issue.

Try again. Take a look at the last order issued by Judge Dimitrouleas. There will be no time extended on the impending injunction because Dish Network has had time to prepare for the shutdown that was handed down by the Appeals Court.

In other words, if FOX settled, the injunction would have still been issued.

Then again, I'm hoping for a massive case of civil disobedience as people "move" to other cities. It won't help those of us using distants for convenience, but then again most of us aren't going anywhere if we have locals available. It is just to help those poor souls caught in the crossfire here. I'm guessing though that 90% of the lemmings won't know about this workaround.

You do realize that Dish Network is forced to give a list of their distant network subscribers to the networks? You also realize that Dish Network also gives lists to the local channels for people that have been added to a market's local channel package?

Do you think FOX and the rest of the networks might be taking a look at all of the people that have "moved" this month and next? All it would take is a simple correlation of the lists.

Oh, and I almost forgot. The same groups that would have settled for $100 million are the same groups that also asked for the injunction to take place on 1 December. Is anyone going to reward the networks by watching them?

 

[ThomasRz]

Another media idiot.

(Multichannel News) _ Washington
A leading consumer group is urging Congress to protect hundreds of thousands of EchoStar Communications subscribers who, by judicial fiat, are nearing the loss of out-of-market feeds of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox programming.

False! Either writer doesn't know what a "fiat" is or is deliberately misleading the reader.

Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports and other publications with a combined subscribership of 7 million, raised its concerns in a Nov. 17 letter to all U.S. senators. Among other things, the letter said legislation should protect not just programming choice but also competition between EchoStar's Dish Network and its main rival, DirecTV, controlled by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
RURAL HARM

Programming choice? I thought the concern was for those who would have no network programming? Is CU behind the any signal to anybody anywhere for any reason movement? I find it amusing that the E* lackeys trot out the unusual case of an old lady in rural Montana who simply wants to watch "The Young and the Restless," but ignores the vanity DNS subscriber and "movers." I guess it's always best to lead with the most sympathetic figure even if she's the exception.

"We are concerned that with only one other satellite-television provider available, rural consumers will be left without meaningful marketplace choice and that competition may be irreparably harmed," wrote CU senior policy analyst Jeannie Kenney.

This issue is a relatively small piece of the pie. Burger King has onion rings, McDonalds (by choice) doesn't - yet nobody claims that this eviscerates competition in burgerland.

Without judicial intervention, about 850,000 EchoStar subscribers will lose access to distant signals on Dec. 1. Distant signals are feeds from ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox affiliates in New York and Los Angeles, beamed by EchoStar to rural customers who can't get the same programming locally with an off-air antenna.

Judicial intervention? Wouldn't that be by the same court system that is on the payroll of the evil NAB?

EchoStar does not need permission to retransmit distant signals.

Thanks to the statutory license which E* abused mercilessly. The same law mandated the injunction. Live by the sword.....

Just before the Senate broke for Thanksgiving, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a bill (S. 4067) designed to soften the impact of the pending cutoff, ordered in October by a federal judge who found that EchoStar had broken the law by selling distant signals to hundreds of thousands of legally ineligible customers.

No, this was the decision of the Court of Appeals, Judge D. was merely issuing the injunction as he was ordered to do.

By the terms of the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas said he was required to impose a nationwide injunction, which ends up punishing not just EchoStar's illegal customers, but also hundreds of thousands of legal ones.

Ditto.

BIG SENATE BACKERS

(a k a Opportunistic Demagogues)

Leahy, who takes over as Judiciary Committee chairman in the new Congress in January, introduced his bill with support from some key people, including Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a likely presidential candidate; Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the incoming chairman of the Commerce Committee; and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), expected to take the reins at the Appropriations Committee.

If the Leahy bill became law, it would not ensure that legally eligible customers those who live in so-called white areas where broadcast TV signals are weak could continue to buy distant signals from EchoStar.

And what happens when E* violates the law again?<insert crickets chirping>

"Customers who live in 'white areas' and who were legally receiving distant broadcast networks from EchoStar should not be penalized for the company's wrongful acts," CU's Kenney wrote.

What about stockholders in corporations which are fined by the government and thus lose dividends or stock value? Sorry, chum that's life. Too many subscribers knew or should have known that the were getting illegal service. Heck, people still argue here that the law is merely a technicality and whatever you need to do to get the signals you want is ok.

The Senate is expected to return to work on Dec. 4, just a few days into the injunction. Some on Capitol Hill expect a flood of complaints, forcing Congress to pass legislation to quell the rebellion.

Which is just peachy as long as it does not, on balance, reward E* for its bad behavior. The law will simply enable E* to provide DNS to a very limited group. Therefore it won't satisfy the "ifIpayforitIshouldbeabletogetwhateverIwant" crowd. Look for continued carping in a thread near you.

"It's going to be a big stink and it is going to be a political problem," said Jimmy Schaeffler, senior financial and consulting analyst with The Carmel Group, who has been involved with EchoStar on legal matters over the past decade. "Are they [EchoStar] going to be able get enough hoopla going to get Congress to say, 'Hey, we've got to do something about this?' I don't think so."

The won't get what they want which is a free pass or "all is forgiven" legislation. The customer will be protected but E* will take several hits. Its subsequent caterwauling will be further evidence that Charlie's concern for subscribers is only as deep as the monthy payment check is thick.

Leahy's bill would be the likely starting point for Senate action. In its most helpful provision, the bill would allow EchoStar to resume delivering network signals to markets where it does not offer a package of local TV signals. That's about 40 markets in all and they include less than 5% of all TV households.

Not a chance. This removes all incentive to get all DMA's up and running.

Because the bill provided a modicum of relief in the most rural-TV markets, CU endorsed the Leahy bill's "approach," but nothing more specific than that.

In so-called short markets areas missing at least one major network affiliate EchoStar could fill the gap by importing a distant signal, according to Leahy's nine-page bill.

The bill, however, would ban EchoStar from the resumption of distant signals in the 170 markets where it offers local TV stations, something CU opposed. But those customers can replace distant signals with local ones, Kenney said.

CU doesn't understand the underlying concepts either.

Customers who lose distant signals from EchoStar can't purchase a similar package from DirecTV if they live in a market where DirecTV offers local TV signals. Only the local package may be purchased by new customers, under provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Reauthorization Act of 2004.

Poor babies. Waah, waah. But even this is not quite true. The CoA has clearly indicated that such a status was transferable. But grandfather is going to be buried under new legislation.

Under Leahy's bill, EchoStar customers would lose the right to seek waivers from local affiliates to buy distant signals. Owners of recreational vehicles and commercial trucks, exempt from white area restrictions in current law, would lose the exemption under the bill.

This last sentence is not only wrong, it doesn't make any sense.

In August, EchoStar reached a $100 million settlement ultimately rejected by Dimitrouleas with all TV stations involved except those owned by News Corp., which pressed the judge to hand down the sweeping injunction.

Hey idiot! The settlement was dead from inception. It played no role and could not have played any role in the injunction process. I can't believe a professional journalist can be this ignorant.

Leahy's bill took a middle position: It's less severe than the injunction and less accommodating than the settlement.

Just like a robber takes a middle position when he takes $50 instead of the $100 he wanted and the $0 you had hoped for. But what do you expect from "Leaky" Leahy?

CHEER FROM ECHOSTAR

EchoStar applauded the "bipartisan effort to enable innocent consumers to continue to receive distant network channels, particularly subscribers who live in rural areas and markets where there is no local broadcaster."

This, in and of itself, should tell you something is wrong.

Even though the vast majority of TV stations settled, they have stopped supporting EchoStar's campaign to modify the injunction, both in court and in Congress.

Settled? What is he talking about?

National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton said his group "opposes a bailout by Congress of a habitual copyright infringer."

This is the most sensible thing said in the article. I guess that makes me an NAB stooge.

Copyright The Associated Press 2006. All Rights Reserved

 

[ThomasRz]

DirecTV not settling is the reason why the distants are facing the axe. By switching you are supporting the enemy on this issue.

Word of advice. If you want to be taken seriously, don't make obviously false or disprovable claims. Whose Kool-Aid (r) are you drinking? What makes you think this is the case when the evidence is otherwise?

 

[ThomasRz]

Why not Greg? My local channels give me waivers to be able to recieve these channels. What difference does it make what reasons I have for wanting the DNS?

In the case of a local affiliate waiver - not much. If they want to cut their own throats, I'll step aside. However the problem is not with waiver holders or the unserved (both of which were authorized to receive DNS). The problem was with those who were not. Incidentally what channels gave you waivers? I am surprised that any local would do so unless you were in Grade B but really at the margin.

 

[ThomasRz]

This article says what I have been trying to say.

I'd keep that to myself if I were you.

 

[ThomasRz]

Take your pick,.... DirecTV who gets to be the sole satellite provider in white areas or the broadcast networks who get to own viewers who wish to view network programming in that area.

All E* has to do is get LIL up in that area and voila! it has a chance to win that customer (even more so if D* doesn't provide LIL).

The Justice Dept. decided that one satellite provider constituted a monopoly when they shot down the E* takeover of D*. I'm assuming that attitude hasn't changed.

This does not answer Greg's question. Nobody is shutting down E* and leaving D* as the only DBS provider. That's what would have happened (in reverse) if the acquistion had occurred. Here E* is being barred from one market segment - not as a result of "judicial fiat," not as the result of an unfair government taking but as the result of their own, repeated, long-term illegal behavior! Got it? Understand? Savvy? Comprende?

 

[ThomasRz]

Truer words were never spoken about this issue.

Or 100% of those who believe the law should be followed.

 

[ThomasRz]

Unfortunately nothing will happen until at least January when Congress gets back in session. Even then I think it will be February or March before anything happens. By then the really screwed folks will have switched to D*.

So, there is a solution to the problem! What's the crisis?

Then again, I'm hoping for a massive case of civil disobedience as people "move" to other cities. It won't help those of us using distants for convenience, but then again most of us aren't going anywhere if we have locals available. It is just to help those poor souls caught in the crossfire here. I'm guessing though that 90% of the lemmings won't know about this workaround.

Workaround? Hmmm, I guess that's a new term that means "method of cheating." I wonder if there are any new "workarounds" in the tax code this year?

And please stop using the phrase "civil disobedience." It demeans the memory of many who took serious personal risks for a worthy cause. "Movers" risk nothing except loss of their ill-gotten gain.

 

[bacchus101]

Or 100% of those who believe the law should be followed.

.....and 100% of forum trolls.

 

[Greg Bimson]

And let's not forget that this could have all been swept under the rug with a settlement years ago. Dish Network fought and fought and fought to keep distant networks. However, the way that Dish Network fought they painted themselves into a corner, and left the courts no other reasonable alternative than to issue the permanent injunction.

 

[ThomasRz]

.....and 100% of forum trolls.

Sorry, I forgot.

Troll = Any poster who disagrees with bacchus101.

 

[bacchus101]

Sorry, I forgot.

Troll = Any poster who disagrees with bacchus101.

You are forgiven this time.

Good boy Thomas. Run along now.......

 

[Chris Walker]

In the case of a local affiliate waiver - not much. If they want to cut their own throats, I'll step aside. However the problem is not with waiver holders or the unserved (both of which were authorized to receive DNS). The problem was with those who were not. Incidentally what channels gave you waivers? I am surprised that any local would do so unless you were in Grade B but really at the margin.

All 4 of my locals gave me waivers either the 1st or 2nd time I asked them. I am in grade A for NBC and ABC and grade B for CBS and FOX. I had to harass NBC though, but in the end they gave me one.