waltinvt said:
How can the NAB own the Congress? The oil companies own Congress!
Actually I understand your point. Our government is owned by the corporations!
Court Orders Dish to Drop ALL Distant Networks
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 428
- Views 58K
How can the NAB own the Congress? The oil companies own Congress!
Actually I understand your point. Our government is owned by the corporations!
And here is the problem: people are so misunderstanding of the laws. Take the letter from odbrv as an example:
The network's affiliate boards (you know, if you want to watch CBS, then the board that oversees all CBS affilates) filed suit in 1998, along with a few other plaintiffs. This court action has been going on for eight years.
It wasn't an FCC ruling that was overturned. The SHVIA is a law, and the law has a provision for pattern and willful violations. The remedy, as written into law, is for the court to issue a permanent injunction.
Besides, the radio stations themselves and the newspapers do pipe information to anyone, anywhere. But they do it themselves. Dish Network carrying a local television station implies that Dish Network is a third party. Once third parties are involved, terms and conditions must be met, especially when relating to copyright law.
Nope. This sentence has two errors.
The network's affiliate boards (you know, if you want to watch CBS, then the board that oversees all CBS affilates) filed suit in 1998, along with a few other plaintiffs. This court action has been going on for eight years.
It wasn't an FCC ruling that was overturned. The SHVIA is a law, and the law has a provision for pattern and willful violations. The remedy, as written into law, is for the court to issue a permanent injunction.
Not necessarily true. All Dish Network must do is put up the rest of the local markets
I am sorry about that. However, you should have seen the amount of people here that said, paraphrased, "Dish Network is less stringent than DirecTV when it comes to distant networks". Now we know why.
And where was Dish Network in offering your market local channels? The road isn't one-way.
Because the "HD standard" is not a law that has been broken. The SHVIA was broken by Dish Network.
This one is truly insane. Dish Network may have the technology to deploy local channels from everyone, but until the Lubbock stations agree to be sold to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, this is what you have.
Besides, the radio stations themselves and the newspapers do pipe information to anyone, anywhere. But they do it themselves. Dish Network carrying a local television station implies that Dish Network is a third party. Once third parties are involved, terms and conditions must be met, especially when relating to copyright law.
Anyone notice that the arguments always go to newspapers and radio stations?
So, tell me this. I can buy a paper, and read the content. The content is also posted on the website.
I can listen to a radio station, or I can visit the station on the internet, and hear the content.
However, I cannot watch the same thing on television and find that same content on a station's website.
It's all about rights. Copyrights.
So, tell me this. I can buy a paper, and read the content. The content is also posted on the website.
I can listen to a radio station, or I can visit the station on the internet, and hear the content.
However, I cannot watch the same thing on television and find that same content on a station's website.
It's all about rights. Copyrights.
clapple said:
As a broadcaster myself, I can say you're on the right track. The NAB has had it's way in congress due to ignorance. Congress will pay attention to indecency and such but I doubt you'd find 20 people in congress who are even aware this DNS crap is a problem.
In the past, I had advocated, for those of us on this forum to write the FCC, and the congress to put this on their radar.
The NAB will spend millions to lobby against this and they know it's not a priority to Charlie Ergen or Rupert Murdock....the very men who could stand to benefit the most.
But writing with language in favor of a more open DNS policy will help. Make the point that some American's aren't served by locals. Until, I became a member here, I assumed everyone had locals.
The other point, to make is, there are stations in open defiance of the spirit of the analog/digital change. If locals don't want to spend the money now, to do something they are going to be forced to do in the future, viewers should have the option of receiving stations that broadcast digitally with more than a few watts and in HD.
There are still station owners who insist that the "final" date for the analog/conversation will be postponed, as congress receives mail from "little old ladies" who think their TV is being turned off for good. I'm already getting pieces of mail indicating just that.
Let's all write....write ....write. This is THE opening that we've been looking for. We own the airwaves. Let's be good owners.
Greg,
Let me ask a quick question: when the Court does force Dish to pull the plug on offering distant locals, is there any recourse for those of us who have lease commitments with Dish? I know anyone can litigate, but had I known that Dish would not be able to offer me the distant locals that I am eligible for, I would have signed up with Directv. I realize most legal agreements give few rights to the consumer, so I am guessing my chances are poor that I could get out of the commitment w/o paying $$$.
Let me ask a quick question: when the Court does force Dish to pull the plug on offering distant locals, is there any recourse for those of us who have lease commitments with Dish? I know anyone can litigate, but had I known that Dish would not be able to offer me the distant locals that I am eligible for, I would have signed up with Directv. I realize most legal agreements give few rights to the consumer, so I am guessing my chances are poor that I could get out of the commitment w/o paying $$$.
Greg Bimson said:
It doesn't change the fact, that WE own the airwaves. Radio has to deal with copyrights and musicians & composers. Most of us had to stop streaming our signals until we could figure out how to cover announcements from SAG members or pay them.
How many Z-100's are there in the country? How many Powers? Mixes? I can't tell you how many times a station comes up with something original, only to hear it later on another station 100 miles away.
Local TV stations need to do a better job, of performance and content, instead of hiding behind this 1930's way of doing business.
Last edited:
what is different between Canada and here on "copyright"?
you can time shift up there with NO SyndEX rules, DMA's, must carries, or cash for carriage but here, it's about copyright and these Bullsh!t rules. For those that don't know, in Canada they carry the major four from the U.S. using east and west coast feeds along with A Channel, Global, CTV, City TV and CBC and other Canadian broadcasters broadcasting the same programming just at different times in some cases. Copyright is actually held with the network itself, they just distibute a product to there affiliates to air. So again where does copyright come into play when we should have a choice? It's not about copyright, it's about advertisers, they don't want something outside of the market competeing against them, so they pushed to remove the competition is what it boiled down too. If we lined NAB's pockets with enough cash, they would probably swing our way.
you can time shift up there with NO SyndEX rules, DMA's, must carries, or cash for carriage but here, it's about copyright and these Bullsh!t rules. For those that don't know, in Canada they carry the major four from the U.S. using east and west coast feeds along with A Channel, Global, CTV, City TV and CBC and other Canadian broadcasters broadcasting the same programming just at different times in some cases. Copyright is actually held with the network itself, they just distibute a product to there affiliates to air. So again where does copyright come into play when we should have a choice? It's not about copyright, it's about advertisers, they don't want something outside of the market competeing against them, so they pushed to remove the competition is what it boiled down too. If we lined NAB's pockets with enough cash, they would probably swing our way.
There should be some kind of recourse. I realize that in the contract "pricing and programming may change", but a material reason that a service for which you subscribe is no longer available to you could make the contract null and void. I'd check with your state's Attorney General office.oswald said:
Most had to stop streaming signals until the business could figure out how to pay SAG members? So, even though that WE own the airwaves, stations couldn't broadcast on the internet until the business end is wrapped up, so that everyone's contractual rights are enforced. This sounds vaguely familiar.JameyK said:
Ever heard of sim-sub, which is a protectionist regulation? If ER on NBC is on the same time as ER on Global, the NBC feed is changed to the Global feed in Canada? No, the Canadians aren't protectionist at all.cablewithaview said:
I don't know enough about copyright law in Canada to tell you the effects of it on television rebroadcasting. I can tell you that CBC doesn't care, as they clear all programming for redistribution for their affiliates. That would be like the CBS affiliate board giving a blanket waiver for the importation of any CBS signal. That is because CBC is owned by the Canadian government.cablewithaview said:
I'm just having a problem believing the we should have a choice of 200+ NBC stations. You'd think that the choice, with the free market in the United States and all, would lie with how NBC wants to do business.
Of course, part of the problem here in the states is that cablers are exempt from the same copyright law that satellite must deal with. It just so happens that a court case went all the way to the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. So, when the Supreme Court dealt with the United Artists v. Fortnightly case in 1968, the majority opinion had ruled as an activist court, and said that cablers are exempt from copyright. However, the FCC was still allowed to protect the local channels using network non-duplication and syndex restrictions on cablers.
However, if you look at the dissenting opinion written by Judge Fortas, you find that there were cases as far back as the early 1900's where retransmissions of radio signals by a cable were subject to copyright law. A hotel had to pay large amounts of dollars because they were piping radio through wires to the hotel rooms without express written consent of the radio stations.
Big business and the huge cable business will try and hurt the satellite business as much as they can as they loose too much business to dish and direct tv.
We need to get legislators who and not owned by big business companies so satellite can compete with cable on an equal basis.
We need to get legislators who and not owned by big business companies so satellite can compete with cable on an equal basis.
Ok, going to back to newspapers again. The copyright is held by the original publisher, either the newspaper itself or the source, hence the used by permission line. And again advertisers in newspapers want the most penetration of their ad for the dollar. Now most of these are the same people who are advertising on local tv stations. So it's not just the advertisers, it is the local broadcasters and NAB that are the problem.
Now we know that no one really wants to watch 200+ channels of the same network programming, but someone may prefer the programming on another affiliate, not the one that they are being forced to watch.
In this area, most people prefer the news and programming out of Atlanta instead of Augusta, but the customer has no choice. Wasn't it the FCC that wanted more competition, they are the ones that also delegate who can put out x amount of signal strength.
Maybe the real answer is, broadcasters need to do away with the Big 4 or 5 or 6, give us feeds for the programming. If a person is willing to pay for it, then let the people have it.
Now we know that no one really wants to watch 200+ channels of the same network programming, but someone may prefer the programming on another affiliate, not the one that they are being forced to watch.
In this area, most people prefer the news and programming out of Atlanta instead of Augusta, but the customer has no choice. Wasn't it the FCC that wanted more competition, they are the ones that also delegate who can put out x amount of signal strength.
Maybe the real answer is, broadcasters need to do away with the Big 4 or 5 or 6, give us feeds for the programming. If a person is willing to pay for it, then let the people have it.
bcope9 said:
Yes, but the AP does not grant franchise exclusivity. In other words, AP will sell you an article to print, but will not give you exclusive rights to print that story in your town.
McDonalds, on the other hand, does grant territory exclusivity. So do most franchises. If you want to open that McDonalds, you will need to go through the person who owns the rights in your community. Same for broadcast rights.
Here is my question...
Why do the Local stations care anyway? If I have an antenna on my roof, with a strong amp, I can get more local channels then I know what to do with. So what?? The only 'real' difference between local and distant is the commercials. The local station sells ad time to local business people. If we aren't watching the local station, then they don't get as much from the advertisers. Guess what?
I DON'T SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS!!!
I do this on purpose. It might seem silly but it's true. If I happen to watch a program on my roof antenna that is from a local that would not give me a waiver; I make sure to NEVER go to that business. I have even made a point of going to a competitor of that business.
Plus, the local ads are so silly looking that I wouldn’t buy from them anyway.
Maybe if more of us did this, and told the stations and advertisers about it, then the argument would just go away. Why even have local stations in the first place? We, as a nation, aren’t really local people anyway. How often do you go the Bill’s Hardware store? I bet its Walmart or Lowes. Why not just turn off the local stations. Have 12-18 national stations. (3 time zones, 4 to 6 networks) and get this over with?
Why do the Local stations care anyway? If I have an antenna on my roof, with a strong amp, I can get more local channels then I know what to do with. So what?? The only 'real' difference between local and distant is the commercials. The local station sells ad time to local business people. If we aren't watching the local station, then they don't get as much from the advertisers. Guess what?
I DON'T SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS!!!
I do this on purpose. It might seem silly but it's true. If I happen to watch a program on my roof antenna that is from a local that would not give me a waiver; I make sure to NEVER go to that business. I have even made a point of going to a competitor of that business.
Plus, the local ads are so silly looking that I wouldn’t buy from them anyway.
Maybe if more of us did this, and told the stations and advertisers about it, then the argument would just go away. Why even have local stations in the first place? We, as a nation, aren’t really local people anyway. How often do you go the Bill’s Hardware store? I bet its Walmart or Lowes. Why not just turn off the local stations. Have 12-18 national stations. (3 time zones, 4 to 6 networks) and get this over with?
The funny thing is, most of the advertisers don't care, they will advertise on stations 100 miles away (in another DMA). How can they do this? Free enterprise. Why can't the broadcasters see this, because if I go to an Atlanta broadcaster, they will take my ad to run on their station. I can run the same ad on an Augusta station. It's about much you want to spend for airtime. Now if my store is in small town A and I advertise in Large City C, I may get some business from them, but more than likly they will go to the local store, but they may have seen my ad.
Because most people are the opposite of you! They'd rather get local information and news. The stations are licensed to serve the community, not the entire United States.pabeader said:
It is truly amazing how many people want this government-mandated welfare program to continue.
"government-mandated welfare program "
I'm confused. I thought we were debating Local vs Distant stations. Not your food stamps.
Personally, if I want local news/info I read the local paper. I sometimes even walk around the neighborhood. That's about as local as it gets.
I'm confused. I thought we were debating Local vs Distant stations. Not your food stamps.
Personally, if I want local news/info I read the local paper. I sometimes even walk around the neighborhood. That's about as local as it gets.
I have a setup like you, and get stuff from several DMA's. DUDE, we NEED to take that equipment down, and replace it with some rabbit ears, because our setup is against the law!!! I'm gonna shoot mine off the roof with a 30/30 now, because I don't have a ladder to get there! I will get arrested and sued if I leave it there!!! HELP!!! So much for a "FREE COUNTRY"!pabeader said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oswald
Let me ask a quick question: when the Court does force Dish to pull the plug on offering distant locals, is there any recourse for those of us who have lease commitments with Dish? I know anyone can litigate, but had I known that Dish would not be able to offer me the distant locals that I am eligible for, I would have signed up with Directv. I realize most legal agreements give few rights to the consumer, so I am guessing my chances are poor that I could get out of the commitment w/o paying $$$.
I'm thinking the type of class action civil suits that could come out of this and the Tivo ruling probably have the potential to bury Dish.
And Greg, I gotta tell ya, you're a patient man.
Originally Posted by oswald
Let me ask a quick question: when the Court does force Dish to pull the plug on offering distant locals, is there any recourse for those of us who have lease commitments with Dish? I know anyone can litigate, but had I known that Dish would not be able to offer me the distant locals that I am eligible for, I would have signed up with Directv. I realize most legal agreements give few rights to the consumer, so I am guessing my chances are poor that I could get out of the commitment w/o paying $$$.
I'm thinking the type of class action civil suits that could come out of this and the Tivo ruling probably have the potential to bury Dish.
And Greg, I gotta tell ya, you're a patient man.
Do you know why distant locals are even available? Because the federal government passed a copyright exemption law to allow those without access to local network affilates to get them from satellite. It was a handout to any company that followed the law.pabeader said:
Now that it has been remanded from the Appellate court that Dish Network willfully ignored the terms and conditions associated with the copyright exemption, the lower court may have to terminate the "handout".
Because most people forget that if the SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA were removed from the lawbooks, no one would get locals, distant networks, nor superstations.
If the laws everyone so hates were gone, you still couldn't get what you want.
Not True
Wow!!! What a callous attack. There are many Dish customers that are not in any local area. A customer 1/2 way between Lubbock and Amarillo is without any cable or over the air TV. The only choice is satellite. Whoever makes the rules don't say which local Dish should give them. Dish did their job and gave both cities locals, but still cannot satisfy the rules. Maybe cold people like you wrote these dumb rules.So Dish gives them distant networks. Now this new ruling takes those away. And you say it deserves them right. I find that attitude quite offensive, even heartless. I believe the judges in Atlanta made the same heartless, uninformed opinion.
You even called me insane because I wanted the oportunity to see Lubbock stations in NH and NH stations in Lubbock. How does that hurt the local stations. They get me to see them and their ads for 1/2 of a year more than they do now. I guess you always see the glass half empty as compared to half full.
With respect to HD there are many local stations that are fighting this requirement as being too expensive. Therefore the people they have an exclusive free licsence to serve are penalized. I bet if there was a law to allow those unserved customers to get network HD, the money would miracuously be found. In a Democracy all its citizens should be given equal access. If not, the Democracy has a potential for failure. With respect to TV service we are now seeing a privledged class and a repressed class. I believe I am fighting that repression and you are for the oppressors.
Greg Bimson said:
Wow!!! What a callous attack. There are many Dish customers that are not in any local area. A customer 1/2 way between Lubbock and Amarillo is without any cable or over the air TV. The only choice is satellite. Whoever makes the rules don't say which local Dish should give them. Dish did their job and gave both cities locals, but still cannot satisfy the rules. Maybe cold people like you wrote these dumb rules.So Dish gives them distant networks. Now this new ruling takes those away. And you say it deserves them right. I find that attitude quite offensive, even heartless. I believe the judges in Atlanta made the same heartless, uninformed opinion.
You even called me insane because I wanted the oportunity to see Lubbock stations in NH and NH stations in Lubbock. How does that hurt the local stations. They get me to see them and their ads for 1/2 of a year more than they do now. I guess you always see the glass half empty as compared to half full.
With respect to HD there are many local stations that are fighting this requirement as being too expensive. Therefore the people they have an exclusive free licsence to serve are penalized. I bet if there was a law to allow those unserved customers to get network HD, the money would miracuously be found. In a Democracy all its citizens should be given equal access. If not, the Democracy has a potential for failure. With respect to TV service we are now seeing a privledged class and a repressed class. I believe I am fighting that repression and you are for the oppressors.
Last edited:
