Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 128K
Last time I checked DirecTv and Echostar had been cooperating on a number of initiatives. Everything from exploring sharing bandwidth to conserve transponder space for locals, and combining efforts to fight legislation (such as SHVERA) that hurt their respective businesses.
Greg, using your logic, DirecTV should then be prohibited from offering channels as well since they engage in mutually beneficial business activities.
NPS will send no monies to E* for these subscribers, only the rent they pay on the leased space, so E* is out of the distant networks channels providing business. I don't see anyone treating SkyAngel as a subsidiary of E*, even though they use E* assets to sell their services.
At the very least, this should buy a few months of further stalling until a legislative solution can be found. Rural customers are served which should please the folks affected. Charlie saves $100 million in STFU money to the affiliates who tried to settle too late when they saw their briefcase of money going poof.. That should make up for the $5 million a month he will lose over this.
Remind me to never play poker with this guy.....
I don't know whether this would necessarily "tick off" Congress. Well, maybe those on Rupert's payroll... The ones with rural constituents will love the idea that they don't have to deal with about a million infuriated people tomorrow. This solution punishes E* by taking away all current revenue from Distant Channels and the ability to retransmit them themselves. Meanwhile, consumers only have to deal with a minor inconvenience by paying another bill once a month.
The devil will be in the details, assuming it doesn't get shot down tomorrow. Who determines what is a white area? According to Antennaweb.org, they say I am a Grade B, but I defy you to get a signal in my neighborhood. There are dozens of E* and D* dishes in my town. I have not seen ONE with a TV antenna pulling in OTA channels also as terrain issues inhibit reception of a usable signal (I remember as a kid being a half mile closer to New York, and the best we could get with an attic antenna was snowy screens with a hint of movement and a lot of static).
The FCC has licensed two transponders to Sky Angel. There have almost literally been acts of God in order to keep Sky Angel running those transponders. Sky Angel is supposed to put up their own uplinks and satellite at 61.5. Instead, Dish Network had to lease space from their satellite for Sky Angel to continue to run, and this had to have been approved by the FCC.Chris Walker said:
However, I am still wondering if the leasing of the DBS band to NPS would require FCC approval. Something tells me it does, but I cannot put my finger on it.
Anyway, they may be separate entities, but both will require the use of Dish Network to offer services. This in and of itself would stop either Sky Angel or NPS from using a Dish Network asset to provide distant networks, as both companies have a business arrangement with Dish Network for support. By providing bandwidth to these companies, those companies would also be constrained by the injunction.
Trump has about that much stock in his casinos. Don't doubt for a second that he doesn't control what happens in them. Ditto for News Corp. and DirecTv. Rupert's hand is on the rudder for all strategic decisions.
Are you Rupert's nephew or something? I don't know why you are SO determined to make sure that people lose their distant networks tomorrow.
Greg,
So basically my interpretation is, "E* cannot distribute or charge for DNS signals," and your interpretation is, "E* cannot distribute or charge for DNS signals nor can any E*owned equipment be used for the transmission or reception of DNS signals."
Would you agree that this is where we disagree?
So basically my interpretation is, "E* cannot distribute or charge for DNS signals," and your interpretation is, "E* cannot distribute or charge for DNS signals nor can any E*owned equipment be used for the transmission or reception of DNS signals."
Would you agree that this is where we disagree?
Last edited:
Ok, I've read through post # 200 and I just want to say: If I bet from the head, I put my mmoney on Greg. If I bet from the heart, I go with Scott. And I ain't "on" nuttin either........well maybe a bit too much cough syrup.
http://directvdnseligibility.decisionmark.com/app/AddressForm.aspx
If you are not served by DirecTV, this site may give you info on qualifications.
db2-
I think you have the difference down pat, though I certainly cannot speak for Greg. I think it would be a stretch to have a court order for that last sentence. Of course, we've certainly seen judges paid off or biased or stupid before. He may be just following the law, but I doubt it, if he blocks this.
Congress really has to act to rein in judges. Monopoly granting, ordering basically near unlimited spending on reissuing all the U.S. paper money in the world, etc.
I think you have the difference down pat, though I certainly cannot speak for Greg. I think it would be a stretch to have a court order for that last sentence. Of course, we've certainly seen judges paid off or biased or stupid before. He may be just following the law, but I doubt it, if he blocks this.
Congress really has to act to rein in judges. Monopoly granting, ordering basically near unlimited spending on reissuing all the U.S. paper money in the world, etc.
Remember, the Dish retrans agreements do not cover this and as NPS does not have a retrans agreement with any of these stations (only Dish, Directv and the local cable companies do in most instances) and the networks own 3 of the 4 San Francisco stations, it would appear Dish and NPS has set themselves up to a very large copyright infringement lawsuit if those signals ever hit the air.
Such a suit will most likely Chapter 11 NPS, which I find sad as I use them for C Band service.
Such a suit will most likely Chapter 11 NPS, which I find sad as I use them for C Band service.
Please see the following thread which gives you all the info you need.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=83278
1. How do you know that
2. If you are in a white area can a distant could be provided without any retrans agreement?
3. NPS has been around for quite sometime. I'm sure they know what they can and cannot provide. (The court decision not withstanding)
And what company has control over DirecTV? That would be Newscorp who owns Fox News, Fox Movies etc...
Thanks for making my point Greg.
While I agree that there are bad judges and judgements, congress cannot "rein in judges". They are constitutionally equal.
The monopoly I assume you mean is DTV and DNS. The judge followed the law congress enacted. As for the money, that judge feels he is following another law enacted by congress. Perhaps higher judges will disagree and overturn.
I for one am glad that judges are separate from the other branches, even if I do not always like the outcome of cases.
Mitch
1) I do.
2) No. Furthermore, you can argue what is or is not available under the SHEVA laws, but that would only cover network programming - which means they would have to turn off programming for things other than network programming.
WSB runs local news to 7pm - and runs ABC World News at 7pm - not 6:30. And WSB doesn't run Jimmy Kimmel, fwiw. WSB's local news is not considered a Network Program - neither is their other programming such as ET, Montel or Oprah. That is syndicated programming.
3) They are playing with the future of their company which has been loosing C Banders monthly and the next big hit happens next month when many more analog C signals go digital. For them, its perhaps a last ditch effort.
Last edited:
No. Congress created the federal courts system, the Constitution only created the Supreme Court.
