I work for a newspaper, a small town newspaper, and we choose to only put in news for this local area. We don't stop people from getting the Atlanta Journal Constitution or the Augusta Chronicle, or if they want to pay enough the New York Times. This could be turned into a Constitutional issue, if they can get grounds for it, Freedom of the press, it would be a long shot and would need language from the Supreme Court, but I feel that this is infringing upon our rights to read, listen to or view information from another area of the country.
Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 428
- Views 58K
C-A-B-L-Enitstalker said:WHat about those of us who CAN NOT recieve a broadcast network? SCREWED!!! (Looks like I may have to move
By the way, Greg, thanks for jumping in here. Your insights are always enlightning.
Since copywrite law is the driving force here and the national networks have control over who gets retransmission rights, why don't those rights trump the affiliate's rights? Is that strickly because of contractual aggrements between the stations and the network?
The reason I ask, is because it seems all the networks are jumping into VOD of some sort and making their hit programs available to viewers directly via the internet - essentially by passing the networks. If they can do that, then why can't / don't they give satellite companies broader rights than just O&O.
It makes sense that the national networks might not want to disinfrancise affiliates that are doing a good job of passing on their product but at the same time they want as many viewers to see their programing and as close as possible to the way it was broadcast. Why would they have any qualms about overriding affiliates that are not passing on a decent signal.
Since copywrite law is the driving force here and the national networks have control over who gets retransmission rights, why don't those rights trump the affiliate's rights? Is that strickly because of contractual aggrements between the stations and the network?
The reason I ask, is because it seems all the networks are jumping into VOD of some sort and making their hit programs available to viewers directly via the internet - essentially by passing the networks. If they can do that, then why can't / don't they give satellite companies broader rights than just O&O.
It makes sense that the national networks might not want to disinfrancise affiliates that are doing a good job of passing on their product but at the same time they want as many viewers to see their programing and as close as possible to the way it was broadcast. Why would they have any qualms about overriding affiliates that are not passing on a decent signal.
Good. Then you can figure this one out...bcope9 said:
All newspapers don't care if they sell the newspaper nationwide. When it comes to television programming, NO newtork station wants to be sold outside of its viewing area. And no station has ever signed an agreement with anyone to be sold outside of its viewing area.
Besides, Dish Network brought this exact argument to the Supreme Court sometime in 2000 or 2001. They unanimously rejected to hear any arguments.
this must be why all of my waivers got denied..
I'm reading everywhere that Directv and Dish are only different in pricing. Directv, however, has local channels for my area. Why can't Dish get the same locals as Directv? Would going to Directv be worth the switch or should i just wait until my locals are available through Dish?
I'm reading everywhere that Directv and Dish are only different in pricing. Directv, however, has local channels for my area. Why can't Dish get the same locals as Directv? Would going to Directv be worth the switch or should i just wait until my locals are available through Dish?
Because the network and the affiliate boards have "first run" rights. The networks have been obtaining internet redistribution rights for most of their programming. This is upsetting the affiliates to no end, but they have no true rights in this deal.waltinvt said:
Copyright law is the driving force here. The only reason that distant networks survive is because of an exemption in copyright law to deliver network programming to the truly unserved.waltinvt said:
Most people have the issue in error. It isn't like WABC has signed a contract with Dish Network to carry WABC nationally, only to have a law stop the delivery to people within another affiliates viewing area. Instead, Dish Network can take WABC without consent and retransmit it, but only to those that are outside coverage areas of other ABC stations. It is a government-granted copyright exemption license.
There is not a contract between a single network station for nationwide delivery of the station. Echostar had free reign to redistribute any network channel they wanted, provided they followed the terms of the law. They did not.
A subscription to Dish ought to come with a lawyer. We need one to file a stay on our behalf. The judges ruling effects our legal rights under SHEVRA and leaves us no recourse.
NightRyder
We need one to file a stay on our behalf. The judges ruling effects our legal rights under SHEVRA and leaves us no recourse.NightRyder
The thing is, people, corporations or groups are trying to tell people what they can and cannot watch. The Supreme Court heard Larry Flynt's case back in the 80's. This is not Huslter, but it is the same thing (people trying to determine what others should or should not watch). Local newspapers survive on one of two things Advertisers or Subscribers. There are some towns that have FREE newspapers that are solely supported by Ads. A local broadcaster is supported by Advertisers, now how many people are going to drive many hundreds of miles to buy a car that they may see on New York tv, not many. In the end, the local economy still exists. We the people are the ones that are hurt in this, we should be able to legally purchase any channel that is offered on ConUS Transponder.
I see alot of you are discussing the point with where there is a local affiliate or LiL... Now where I still disagree with the point of the local affiliates blocking content from other cities (especially other time zones)... I can partially see their point...
What really needs to be considered is the many viewers like myself for which dns was (probablly) intended:
1. I do not have LiL, and it will probablly be 20 years before I do
2. I can not get FOX or NBC.. there are no stations in our DMA and the closest station outside our dma is like 150 miles away...
3. I will be the one getting screwed... It isnt a matter of choice for me... Its a matter of Satellite is the ONLY way to get NBC or FOX
What really needs to be considered is the many viewers like myself for which dns was (probablly) intended:
1. I do not have LiL, and it will probablly be 20 years before I do
2. I can not get FOX or NBC.. there are no stations in our DMA and the closest station outside our dma is like 150 miles away...
3. I will be the one getting screwed... It isnt a matter of choice for me... Its a matter of Satellite is the ONLY way to get NBC or FOX
nitstalker said:
For you and many thousands of others throught the country, satellite IS the only choice we have for basic network programing.
What really surprises me here is the apparent "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" ruling. I could understand heavy fines and immediate disconnect of any "served" customers but as I read the decision, it does appear that even the thousands of legally entitled customers are going to be penalized too, which will probably result in a mass exodus to Dish's biggest competitor. Although this kind of ruling has a certain "smell" to it, the timing of it all reaks.
I wonder if a Permanant Injunction is enforced, if Dish will quickly add the missing local markets?
I admit I may be grasping at straws here, but one sentence makes me think it may not be immediate.
"The NAB said the decision could prevent EchoStar's DISH Network from delivering distant network TV signals to its satellite subscribers."
That's the NAB saying that. They are going to put the best spin for them on it, as Dish would for their side. I'm not so sure Dish can't find a way to satisfy the court without turning everyone off.
"The NAB said the decision could prevent EchoStar's DISH Network from delivering distant network TV signals to its satellite subscribers."
That's the NAB saying that. They are going to put the best spin for them on it, as Dish would for their side. I'm not so sure Dish can't find a way to satisfy the court without turning everyone off.
Plus, many of D*'s DNS subs from the early years were provided their DNS by a third-party company named Primetime 24. D* was just a conduit for them. By the time the case rolled around, Primetime 24 was history and D* shut off a bunch of DNS subs as required by the court.Greg Bimson said:
With networks like ABC now beginning to air their content free on the internet, this regulation restricting DBS providers is becoming increasingly arcane.
http://dynamic.abc.go.com/streaming/landing
We need to stop protecting local stations. Before long it will be akin to protecting local radio stations by banning XM and Sirius.
http://dynamic.abc.go.com/streaming/landing
We need to stop protecting local stations. Before long it will be akin to protecting local radio stations by banning XM and Sirius.
Guess if this happens, it'll free up some TP space...
(Trying to look on the bright side). I still think it sucks though.
(Trying to look on the bright side). I still think it sucks though.
Now that I think about this with a cooler head, the less I think it will go down this way. There will be several hundred thousand p*ssed off consumers looking for government heads to yell at. Right now, the ones wired in like us are in a tizzy. Should the channels threaten to go dark, a lot of people will be making a hell of a stink.
The NAB may even have overreached here..... They risk having the concept reopened once again... especially if a few talking heads at CNN can mention that the only broadcaster who didn't settle was FOX who owns the competition........ If the Antitrust division has ANY integrity left, (I know, that may be reaching) they would quickly threaten sanctions of their own onto D*/Fox for anticompetitive behavior.
The NAB may even have overreached here..... They risk having the concept reopened once again... especially if a few talking heads at CNN can mention that the only broadcaster who didn't settle was FOX who owns the competition........ If the Antitrust division has ANY integrity left, (I know, that may be reaching) they would quickly threaten sanctions of their own onto D*/Fox for anticompetitive behavior.
long_time_DNC said:
Nope, the channels will still have to be there for the local markets..... There is no silver lining from this if it goes through.....
