Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!

[Chris Walker]

Missing a point here: there is NO NEED to expand the previous injunction to include NPS, the court can prohibit E* from having its transponders used to carry any DNS signal, including that leased tranponder that E* owns but is now trying to lease to NPS.

NPS isn't precluded from offering DNS via any other system, it just can't do it using E*'s equipment.

I don't see how a judge can tell third parties that LEASE transponder space from E* to use for their own businesses what to do with said transponder space. If he does, NPS should go straight to the Supreme Court.

 

[Chris Walker]

I have not read this entire thread (it is extremely long). My question, why SF and Atlanta as the 2 cities ? Any rhyme or reason as to why those 2 were picked as the Distant Networks ? Thanks for the info.

I'm wondering the same thing. Possibly if they put NY/LA back up it would look suspicious?

 

[navychop]

People are posting almost faster than I can read. How much will I miss while I drive home?

 

[Greg Bimson]

I drifted too far off topic. We will know soon. I doubt very much that this judge will successfully grant DirecTV a monopoly.

The presiding jurist, Judge William Dimitrouleas, is the same judge that issued the injunction.

Have a look at E*'s response:

“Through their Emergency Motion, however plaintiffs seek to expand the scope of the Permanent Injunction and further restrict consumers’ rights such that all consumers—even eligible consumers—are prohibited from receiving distant network signals. Neither this Court’s decision nor the law preclude independent entities from providing properly qualified eligible consumers with distant channels by satellite. The Permanent Injunction does not and cannot preclude everyone in the world from providing distant network programming to eligible subscribers.”

Where in the world did you find this?

This is a big mistake by Dish Network. The plaintiffs are not trying to restrict, "such that all consumers—even eligible consumers—are prohibited from receiving distant network signals." One could go to DirecTV if one was truly eligible. There is no reason Dish Network should have ever mentioned distant networks, as Dish Network is restrained from offering them starting tomorrow.

The plaintiffs just want Dish Network's stamp nowhere on it. Yet Dish Network receivers and Dish Network customers will be able to continue to receive distant network programming through Dish Network satellites with this deal.

 

[Hall]

How come NPS didn't approach DirecTV about leasing transponder space ??

Dish needs to be real careful in how they "advertise" this new option for their customers. I guess one thing is to put a banner up on the channels tomorrow when they're gone that lists the options...

 

[Greg Bimson]

ejmcol- that's one interpretation. Many of us doubt it could properly be that severe, because it expands punishment beyond E* DNS, punishes innocent 3rd parties and gives D* a de facto monopoly.

You say expanding; I say already prohibited.

There are no "innocent 3rd parties". If you are in participation with Echostar, you are already precluded from distant network service, starting tomorrow.

By the way, this is going in front of the same judge that issued the injunction.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

perhaps because NPS already had contracts with the San Francisco and Atlanta stations they are offereing them. Might not be good business sense to sign a deal with New York and Los Angeles if there is a chance it might get shot down. Then again if Dish Network gets back the rights to DNS we will get New York and Los Angeles back.

At least I hope we will.

 

[Chris Walker]

How come NPS didn't approach DirecTV about leasing transponder space ??

Dish needs to be real careful in how they "advertise" this new option for their customers. I guess one thing is to put a banner up on the channels tomorrow when they're gone that lists the options...

I was wondering how Dish will get the word out about this. I mean they can't advertise this website on channel 240 can they?

 

[rdinkel]

Of come on your should be all for Charlie in this, after all you from Texas.

Scott, How about the English version!

 

[Chris Walker]

You say expanding; I say already prohibited.

There are no "innocent 3rd parties". If you are in participation with Echostar, you are already precluded from distant network service, starting tomorrow.

By the way, this is going in front of the same judge that issued the injunction.

Once again Greg, how is a company "in participation" just by leasing a transponder to use for their own business. Echostar has NOTHING to do with the uplink or sale of these channels on NPS' new transponder.

 

[Greg Bimson]

perhaps because NPS already had contracts with the San Francisco and Atlanta stations they are offereing them. Might not be good business sense to sign a deal with New York and Los Angeles if there is a chance it might get shot down. Then again if Dish Network gets back the rights to DNS we will get New York and Los Angeles back.

There aren't any contracts between NPS and any stations. The availability of networks is completed by the use of an exemption in copyright law.

If I wanted to, tomorrow I could approach DirecTV to lease a transponder, and then uplink all of the local network stations I wanted, and sell them to anyone that is deemed unserved under the terms of SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA, and not even have contact nor contracts with the stations I choose.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Once again Greg, how is a company "in participation" just by leasing a transponder to use for their own business.

Leasing a transponder? From whom? On whose satellite?

 

[Chris Walker]

Leasing a transponder? From whom? On whose satellite?

Is Sky Angel the same company as Echostar? Is NPS the same company? What if Sky Angel wanted to offer distant networks to its subsribers? They are a seperate entity so there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. It's like if your landlord is a registered sex offender it doesn't mean your tenants should be treated the same way.

 

[BrianMis]

Dude who owns DirecTV?
Who own Fox News?
Who own Fox Movies?

Exactly.

Guess they are in concert with each other.

I see this post which made me laugh like hell got ignored!

It also makes sense, given Greg's interpretation of the injunction.

 

[ti_yn]

It was picked because it very, very rarely prempted CBS network programming. It was replacing WRAL & WRAL had the Jefferson Pilot contract for the ACC for its area and preempted CBS programming. So, when they searched out for a replacement, the fact that network programming would always be available was the key component.

I was once told that WSEE, the NBC O&Os, and probably some others, paid to have their stations carried. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Tampa8]

How come NPS didn't approach DirecTV about leasing transponder space ??

Dish needs to be real careful in how they "advertise" this new option for their customers. I guess one thing is to put a banner up on the channels tomorrow when they're gone that lists the options...

Due to a court ruling Dishnetwork is no longer able to provide and charge for distant networks. If you live in an area that we provide your local networks, you will not lose your networks. If you do not live in an area served by Dishnetwork, or would like to receive distant networks see below.

"To continue receiving network stations or to see if you are eligable to receive distant networks you may contact any provider of your choice. Listed below are some solutions and companies who are not affiliated with Dishnetwork that may be able to provide networks. Dishnetwork cannot answer any questions you have about their services:

Lifeline account from your cable operator
NPS satellite services (http://callnps.com)
Direct TV (http://www.directtv.com)
Use a rooftop antenna. Dishnetwork can help with this, please contact us.

 

[mikew]

How is Charlie pulling a stunt? NPS saw an opportunity to make some easy $ so they approached E* about leasing a transponder. Once the transponder was leased, NPS decided to uplink distant networks with their new space. E* doesn't have anything to do with it; NPS is uplinking the channels and they are sellin them.

Why do you keep saying this. Do you seriously believe this is how it went down? I'd be willing to bet that there is an out in the contract that says if NPS is unable to deliver distants on this transponder the agreement is void.

 

[MTDoiT]

Scott,

Amazing how many post in this thread today!

Can you summarize all of this for those of us that are 30+ pages worth of posts behind and trying to get up to speed. I'm very interested in knowing more about the signup/qualifying process with NPS, equipment requirements, etc.

As always, thanks for all you do for us!

 

[Chris Walker]

Why do you keep saying this. Do you seriously believe this is how it went down? I'd be willing to bet that there is an out in the contract that says if NPS is unable to deliver distants on this transponder the agreement is void.

None of us know how it went down. The point is, how can a judge tell a competitor of E*'s how to use transponder space?

 

[Greg Bimson]

DirecTV is a publicly-traded company on the NYSE (symbol: DTV). It is 38 percent controlled by Fox Entertainment Group, which is a subsidiary of News Corporation (symbol: NWS). Fox Entertainment Group owns Fox News Channel completely. That is not the same as DirecTV.