Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks

[affox14]

Ok,

Then here is what we need to do. We need to contact our Congressmen and Senators. They can intervene. There are 2 ways. 1. Congress coul pass a bill temporarily or perminantly denying the Courts jurisdiction in this matter. 2. The Congress could pass an ammendment to the bill passed in 2004 to protect legally qualified DNS Customers. Either way just requires a simple majority. I will contact call and write to my 2 Senators and my Congressman. The time to act is now before the DNS gets cut off.

 

[waltinvt]

So if I have waivers the ruling does not affect my Distant Networks?

Your question has been asked several different times and ways in the 9 pages of this thread
The answer is still the same!
If Dish has to shutdown the distant networks they will be gone for EVERYONE no exceptions.

Chris,
I am new to this forum , and am having trouble sending replies. Anyway, I have waivers, so my DNS should be safe, correct?

I just do not understand certain things. If a person wants to watch a Distant Network feed, he should have that right. When it comes to TV Broadcasting, you would think we live in Red China.

Is this a test

As n0qcu said, your question has been asked and answered several times. In a nutshell, if Dish can't somehow get the latest ruling over-turned, they will have to turn off distant network (DNS), for everyone.

As Greg has explained many times, because of copywrite law, no one has any inheirent rights to watch network programing except from their local afilliate stations.

The various SHIVA through SHVERA laws, have given us "exceptions" to the law under certain circumstances that we wouldn't have without those laws.

These "exceptions" were only intended to give those that can't receive their local television signals options so they could receive that programming.

At first satellite could provide you a distant network signal. Then they were allowed to pick up your local station's signal and beam it down to you. In areas where they were not yet doing that, they could still offer distants to those that qualify.

Apparently Dish's interpertion of those "who qualify" was not the same as the court's interpertation, so the court is allowed (bound) to inforce certain penalities.

My guess is that by the time this ruling actually comes to pass, "E" will have LiLs in all DMAs anyway, so the whole thing becomes basically moot.

 

[affox14]

What I thought was, that if you had DNS as of 12/08/04, you could keep it even if you had Locals. This is what I thought the act oi 2004 provided.

 

[waltinvt]

What I thought was, that if you had DNS as of 12/08/04, you could keep it even if you had Locals. This is what I thought the act oi 2004 provided.

I'm going off the top of my head here but I believe the "grandfathering" you're refering to is for if you had distants prior to October of '99, you could keep both. From then through Dec '04 meant you had to choose between DNS and LiLs but couldn't have both. Both senerios being contingent on you keeping the same service provider and address. Again, this is just from memory and as my wife and kids will testify, that ain't always so hot.

 

[Bruno]

I was told another option would be for Dish to make a deal with NAB. I dont know if they would deal with Charlie.

 

[Greg Bimson]

This "grandfathering" that affox14 mentions is due to the SHVERA. The law was passed on 8 December, 2004. Therefore, if a customer received both distants and locals on that date, they continue until:

1) the waivers expire or are revoked;
2) the analog stations in area are no longer broadcasting; or
3) 31 December, 2009, when the distant network license terminates.

I forgot to mention number four: a satellite company is found to have willfully violated the copyright exemption and a permanent injunction is issued so that distant networks can no longer be broadcast.

I was told another option would be for Dish to make a deal with NAB. I dont know if they would deal with Charlie.

A couple of different options here:

1) the plaintiffs must abort or withdraw from the lawsuit. The lawsuit started with eight parties, and is now down to five: The affiliate boards of ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, and the FOX network itself. I don't think FOX network is going to settle, so that removes point one.
2) Dish Network goes and talks to the NAB. The NAB isn't a party to this suit. However, many members of the NAB are on the affiliate boards. If the affiliate boards follow the advice of the NAB to come to an agreement, there is still one sticking point: FOX network. See point 1.
3) FOX network is ran by a Rupert Murdoch company. So is DirecTV. I think DirecTV has a vested interest to see Dish Network's ability to rebroadcast distant network programming revoked. See point 1.

The only way out of this is if the appeals court rehears the case, and a better ruling comes down from the bench. Otherwise, unless Dish Network sweetens the pot something crazy, FOX network will not budge from this lawsuit.

 

[affox14]

This "grandfathering" that affox14 mentions is due to the SHVERA. The law was passed on 8 December, 2004. Therefore, if a customer received both distants and locals on that date, they continue until:

1) the waivers expire or are revoked;
2) the analog stations in area are no longer broadcasting; or
3) 31 December, 2009, when the distant network license terminates.

I forgot to mention number four: a satellite company is found to have willfully violated the copyright exemption and a permanent injunction is issued so that distant networks can no longer be broadcast.A couple of different options here:

1) the plaintiffs must abort or withdraw from the lawsuit. The lawsuit started with eight parties, and is now down to five: The affiliate boards of ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, and the FOX network itself. I don't think FOX network is going to settle, so that removes point one.
2) Dish Network goes and talks to the NAB. The NAB isn't a party to this suit. However, many members of the NAB are on the affiliate boards. If the affiliate boards follow the advice of the NAB to come to an agreement, there is still one sticking point: FOX network. See point 1.
3) FOX network is ran by a Rupert Murdoch company. So is DirecTV. I think DirecTV has a vested interest to see Dish Network's ability to rebroadcast distant network programming revoked. See point 1.

The only way out of this is if the appeals court rehears the case, and a better ruling comes down from the bench. Otherwise, unless Dish Network sweetens the pot something crazy, FOX network will not budge from this lawsuit.

So let me ask this. Can a person that now has DNS through one provider and that has waivers, get another provider to allow DNS at the same address? In other words, I have DNS and the Birmingham locals, Is there any part of the legislation that would allow Directv to give the same DNS package?I have prettymuch had this same package since 2001. I had it prior to 1999 at a different address.

 

[mikew]

Your waivers are not transferrable between companies. If you switch, you must reapply.

Also, if you switch you will not be able to get both DNS and Birmingham. In fact, if DirecTV has your locals (look up your zip code on their website) you cannot get DNS regardless of waivers (SHIVERA)

 

[Bruno]

Your waivers are not transferrable between companies. If you switch, you must reapply.

Also, if you switch you will not be able to get both DNS and Birmingham. In fact, if DirecTV has your locals (look up your zip code on their website) you cannot get DNS regardless of waivers (SHIVERA)

What about getting DTV locals and HD distant locals with DTV??

 

[jayn_j]

The only way out of this is if the appeals court rehears the case, and a better ruling comes down from the bench. Otherwise, unless Dish Network sweetens the pot something crazy, FOX network will not budge from this lawsuit.

If (and its a big IF) E* could settle with the other networks' affiliate boards, then the situation might change. If Fox and affiliates were the only holdouts, I could see E* potentially countersuing FOX under RICO for unfair restraint of trade.

 

[waltinvt]

A couple of different options here:

1) the plaintiffs must abort or withdraw from the lawsuit. The lawsuit started with eight parties, and is now down to five: The affiliate boards of ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, and the FOX network itself. I don't think FOX network is going to settle, so that removes point one.
2) Dish Network goes and talks to the NAB. The NAB isn't a party to this suit. However, many members of the NAB are on the affiliate boards. If the affiliate boards follow the advice of the NAB to come to an agreement, there is still one sticking point: FOX network. See point 1.
3) FOX network is ran by a Rupert Murdoch company. So is DirecTV. I think DirecTV has a vested interest to see Dish Network's ability to rebroadcast distant network programming revoked. See point 1.

The only way out of this is if the appeals court rehears the case, and a better ruling comes down from the bench. Otherwise, unless Dish Network sweetens the pot something crazy, FOX network will not budge from this lawsuit.

What were the particulars when all the networks (except Fox) settled?

Looks more and more like this is really a "E" vs "D" issue and "jayn_j" may have a point. Even if the contingencies to Murdoch's purchase of "D" don't specificlly apply to this issue, it seems that if they (Fox network) were basically the only party that hadn't settled, the court might take this into consideration.

 

[Greg Bimson]

What were the particulars when all the networks (except Fox) settled?

As each plaintiff withdrew from the lawsuit, they extracted something from Dish Network. I can't give too many of the particulars, because I am going from memory.

CBS was settled during the big Viacom fiasco; ABC and NBC were settled during a nationwide carriage agreement for their owned-and-operated staitons. I seem to recall that ABC forced Dish Network to requalify subscribers in an owned-and-operated ABC markets. What I really remember is that once ABC withdrew from the suit, many people started to lose their distant ABC feeds if they were in an O&O.

If (and its a big IF) E* could settle with the other networks' affiliate boards, then the situation might change. If Fox and affiliates were the only holdouts, I could see E* potentially countersuing FOX under RICO for unfair restraint of trade.

it seems that if they (Fox network) were basically the only party that hadn't settled, the court might take this into consideration.

This is specifically the issue that went before the appeals court.

The original court issued a judgment against Dish Network which would force Dish Network to requalify all distant network customers. The problem was that the data pointed out a willful infringement of the copyright license. There is only one remedy for willful infringement: permanent injunction of the distant network license.

There would be no RICO statute nor "consideration" by the courts, because the courts have already found Dish Network guilty. Unless every party withdraws from the lawsuit, there is no way around the fact that Dish Network illegally provided distant networks to customers. The only remedy provided is to cut everyone off.

However, let's say that the CBS affiliate board does withdrwal. If the CBS affiliate board's withdrawl agreement states that everyone must be requalified, then many people will lose distants. If the CBS affiliate board's withdrawl agreement with Dish Network states that everyone must be requalified using the data from the lawsuit, all existing waivers and grandfathering must be thrown out. The only people that would be allowed distant networks would be those in white areas of markets unavailable on Dish Network, because Dish Network provided no evidence in court that any of their subscribers had waivers or were grandfathered. Keep in mind if the CBS affiliate board does come to an agreement with Dish Network, it would only affect CBS.

It cannot be restraint of trade when a party is being sued and has been found guilty.

 

[waltinvt]

Thanks Greg. Man I don't know how you keep track of all this

Now I realize you and TNGTony arn't entirly in aggrement on how the CBS-HD contract with Dish might be affected by this distants court ruling but is that contract something that the CBS affiliate board has any say in or is it strictly a seperate deal between Dish & the CBS network?

Where I'm trying to go with this, is couldn't Dish work out similar contracts with NBC & ABC for their digital feed and thereby offer 3 out of 4 national networks in HD to all their subs that qualify per the respective contracts and thus make the whole distants issue moot except for Fox?

In other words, by the time the analog DNS case runs it's course and they actually have to throw the switch, Dish might have all LiLs (SD & HD) launched and individule contracts in place with CBS, NBC & ABC for their digital distant feeds for O&O and true "white areas".

The fact that these networks are all turning to various forms of VOD seems to indicate a certain interest in bypassing affiliates when it comes to prime time programing anyway.

In the long run, the networks are accountable to their stock holders - even Fox and it must be starting to bug them that all this additional money is being spent to produce prime time programing and sporting events in HD but many are still only seeing them in crappy, over compressed analog.

In the long run Fox isn't going to be left out in the cold

 

[TNGTony]

The word is that Dish has been in serious talks with ABC and NBC. The lasr rumor was that Dish was "very close" to a deal with ABC. This was a month ago. Nothing new yet.

See ya
Tony

 

[JP Threw]

Originally Posted by Greg Bimson
If the CBS affiliate board's withdrawl agreement states that everyone must be requalified, then many people will lose distants. If the CBS affiliate board's withdrawl agreement with Dish Network states that everyone must be requalified using the data from the lawsuit, all existing waivers and grandfathering must be thrown out. The only people that would be allowed distant networks would be those in white areas of markets unavailable on Dish Network, because Dish Network provided no evidence in court that any of their subscribers had waivers or were grandfathered.

Would people with RV waivers be allowed distant networks? Would they have to be requalified?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Now I realize you and TNGTony arn't entirly in aggrement on how the CBS-HD contract with Dish might be affected by this distants court ruling but is that contract something that the CBS affiliate board has any say in or is it strictly a seperate deal between Dish & the CBS network?

The contract for CBS HD is between CBS and Dish Network. The affiliate board isn't a party to the contract. That is why people like me, in the Baltimore DMA but in the reception area of WUSA (the CBS in DC), cannot receive the distant CBS HD feed.

Where I'm trying to go with this, is couldn't Dish work out similar contracts with NBC & ABC for their digital feed and thereby offer 3 out of 4 national networks in HD to all their subs that qualify per the respective contracts and thus make the whole distants issue moot except for Fox?

Let's take one at a time here...

Nothing prevents Dish Network from taking any HD affiliate, and broadcasting it back to a "white area" subscriber. Dish Network has elected not to do so. Dish Network does not need a contract with ABC, NBC, or FOX, to accomplish what is being done for CBS. The difference is CBS has a contract with Dish Network to provide CBS HD to all subscribers in a transmission area only covered by a CBS-owned station.

The difference here is that CBS owns a fair chunk of stations. What I know is that CBS owns their affiliates in the top seven markets. I am waiting to see when CBS stops the use of a distant CBS HD feed into these markets.

With that said, ABC, Fox, and NBC (especially Fox) own many stations in the top 10 markets. Because Dish Network is already transmitting many network's owned-and-operated stations, I wouldn't see why a network would now agree to a distant HD feed when Dish Network should have 44 of the top 53 markets done by the end of the year. As I recall, Fox owns like 20-some affiliates, while NBC owns 13 and ABC owns 11, total. The local feeds are going to start, soon. Why bother with distants, especially with this lawsuit lingering?

The fact that these networks are all turning to various forms of VOD seems to indicate a certain interest in bypassing affiliates when it comes to prime time programing anyway.

In the long run, the networks are accountable to their stock holders - even Fox and it must be starting to bug them that all this additional money is being spent to produce prime time programing and sporting events in HD but many are still only seeing them in crappy, over compressed analog.

In the long run Fox isn't going to be left out in the cold.

Yes, but no one is making extreme amounts of money off of this timeshifting/portable device player download of shows.

For a large majority of the country, digital isn't all that it is cracked up to be. And there is supposed to be 100 percent compliance in just under three years?

 

[waltinvt]

The word is that Dish has been in serious talks with ABC and NBC. The lasr rumor was that Dish was "very close" to a deal with ABC. This was a month ago. Nothing new yet.

See ya
Tony

I had heard that from Marc Lumpkin shortly before he left Dish Network and posted it here a couple of times. Is that what you're refering to or did you hear it somewhere else which maybe adds a little more credability to it?

 

[waltinvt]

Nothing prevents Dish Network from taking any HD affiliate, and broadcasting it back to a "white area" subscriber. Dish Network has elected not to do so.

I assume by "nothing", you're not counting the impending court injunction or is "HD" not covered by that order?

Dish Network does not need a contract with ABC, NBC, or FOX, to accomplish what is being done for CBS. The difference is CBS has a contract with Dish Network to provide CBS HD to all subscribers in a transmission area only covered by a CBS-owned station.

So what Dish does with the CBS-HD feed are 2 seperate things:

The retransmission into CBS O&O only (no other CBS affiliates available) areas is by contract with CBS and has nothing to do with SHVERA; and the restransmission into "white areas" is per SHVERA and has nothing to do with the CBS-Dish contract?

With that said, ABC, Fox, and NBC (especially Fox) own many stations in the top 10 markets. Because Dish Network is already transmitting many network's owned-and-operated stations, I wouldn't see why a network would now agree to a distant HD feed when Dish Network should have 44 of the top 53 markets done by the end of the year. As I recall, Fox owns like 20-some affiliates, while NBC owns 13 and ABC owns 11, total. The local feeds are going to start, soon. Why bother with distants, especially with this lawsuit lingering?

Even if Dish has 44 HD LiLs done by the end of the year (they said 50), that still leaves many DMAs that won't have them plus of those DMAs, probably a bigger % of those viewers are in rural areas that don't have digital OTA options (like Vermont). I'm betting there will still be a significant number of people, nation-wide that will have no options for getting the networks in HD other than from satellite.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I assume by "nothing", you're not counting the impending court injunction or is "HD" not covered by that order?

Well, HD would be covered by that court order. However, since the injunction is not in effect, Dish Network could literally service all analog white area subs with distant HD service today. They just don't want to.

So what Dish does with the CBS-HD feed are 2 seperate things:

The retransmission into CBS O&O only (no other CBS affiliates available) areas is by contract with CBS and has nothing to do with SHVERA; and the restransmission into "white areas" is per SHVERA and has nothing to do with the CBS-Dish contract?

This is where Tony and I have our difference of opinion.

Tony is agreeing with your statement. I am saying that the CBS HD contract is simply a SHVERA blanket waiver for HD. That was why I asked about any programming with blackouts on the HD channel. Since there isn't any, there are only two choices:

1) CBS and Dish Network have cleared all syndicated and non-CBS produced copyrights nationwide, or;
2) CBS cleared the copyrights nationally by using a blanket waiver for the programming.

Since no one could tell me that the NFL is blacked out on CBS HD, I am 99 percent certain that the contract is a blanket waiver. The NFL would not allow CBS to resell NFL games in HD out-of-market; that is what Sunday Ticket is for. The use of a blanket waiver by CBS would allow CBS to show the NFL games out of market, which would exempt CBS from having to get the NFL's permission.

Even if Dish has 44 HD LiLs done by the end of the year (they said 50), that still leaves many DMAs that won't have them plus of those DMAs, probably a bigger % of those viewers are in rural areas that don't have digital OTA options (like Vermont). I'm betting there will still be a significant number of people, nation-wide that will have no options for getting the networks in HD other than from satellite.

I think you are missing my point. This is the list of NBC owned-and-operateds:

San Diego, CA KNSD
San Jose, CA KNTV
Los Angeles, CA KNBC
New York, NY WNBC
Dallas, TX KXAS
Philadelphia, PA
Chicago, IL WMAQ
Washington, D.C. WRC
Hartford, CT WVIT
Miami, FL WTVJ

These four stations are being sold by NBC to Media General:
Birmingham, AL
Columbus, OH WCMH
Raleigh, NC WNCN
Providence, RI WJAR

The question: why would NBC provide a "distant HD" feed for owned-and-operated NBC markets when Dish Network has all but Hartford up already? NBC would be stupid at this point to do such a deal.

 

[waltinvt]

Since no one could tell me that the NFL is blacked out on CBS HD, I am 99 percent certain that the contract is a blanket waiver.

snip........

I think you are missing my point. This is the list of NBC owned-and-operateds <snip>.....
The question: why would NBC provide a "distant HD" feed for owned-and-operated NBC markets when Dish Network has all but Hartford up already? NBC would be stupid at this point to do such a deal.

This may be were I'm confused and "missing your point".

I said: "The retransmission into CBS O&O only (no other CBS affiliates available) areas is by contract with CBS and has nothing to do with SHVERA; and the restransmission into "white areas" is per SHVERA and has nothing to do with the CBS-Dish contract?"

to which you responded that Tony agreed with me but this was where you and he disagreed and you assert that it is instead a "blanket waiver for HD".

OK, then what exactly does a "blanket waiver for HD" allow?

If it even trumps NFL blackout rules, wouldn't it also superceed any retransmission rights that non-owned affilliates would normally have?

If so and Dish could manage to get similar arrangments with the other networks, wouldn't that give Dish the right to offer HD feeds into "white areas" too - or for that matter, anywhere that's not specifically restricted by the contract? Wouldn't it put the whole issue of HD DNS per those contracts beyond the reach of SHVERA?