Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 128K
NH, VT... and ME
Try living in Northern Aroostook County, Maine- or any other remote location. We have ONE local CBS affilate, located an hour away. Off air signal totaly stinks, when you can get it. Local cable carries it, and other stations from Bangor and Portland.
But, local cable doesn't reach my house. DBS is our only option. We want it- we are willing to pay for it- now we can't get it. E* and Charlie screwed their "cheating customers" by flaunting the law (flawed as it is) for years. Now he has screwed me- I am elligible for distants, now the court and Rupert M. say i can't have it.
We get more CANADIAN staions off air, than US. Our loacl cable carries about 3 or 4 CAN stations. We can't get cable though. I would actually prefer the CAN stations to the crappy local yocal junk from that one nearby station.
Too many people got shafted with this shut off.
DE
Try living in Northern Aroostook County, Maine- or any other remote location. We have ONE local CBS affilate, located an hour away. Off air signal totaly stinks, when you can get it. Local cable carries it, and other stations from Bangor and Portland.
But, local cable doesn't reach my house. DBS is our only option. We want it- we are willing to pay for it- now we can't get it. E* and Charlie screwed their "cheating customers" by flaunting the law (flawed as it is) for years. Now he has screwed me- I am elligible for distants, now the court and Rupert M. say i can't have it.
We get more CANADIAN staions off air, than US. Our loacl cable carries about 3 or 4 CAN stations. We can't get cable though. I would actually prefer the CAN stations to the crappy local yocal junk from that one nearby station.
Too many people got shafted with this shut off.
DE
Here is a note I just emailed to Sen. Leahy's office...maybe some of you could do the same. Gotta say I'm extremely frustrated over this situation.
RE: S. 4067
I lost my NY & LA nets on Nov.30. Stations I have had for the past 10 years before DISH offered Seattle affiliates.
I live 100 miles away from the Seattle DMA and don't consider it local.
Please amend S4067 to recognize both grand-fathered subscribers and "white" reception areas.
Thank you
RE: S. 4067
I lost my NY & LA nets on Nov.30. Stations I have had for the past 10 years before DISH offered Seattle affiliates.
I live 100 miles away from the Seattle DMA and don't consider it local.
Please amend S4067 to recognize both grand-fathered subscribers and "white" reception areas.
Thank you
levibluewa said:
No offense to levibluewa, but he wants the law changed so he can see what he wants. This isn't about everyone else. Which does sound remarkably like all parties that have been in this fight for the past nine years.whatchel1 said:
The problem is that S.4067 will never give "grandfathered" and "white area" subs their distants back. This is Echostar's punishment. The SHVERA of 2004 is still alive and well, and if a customer is offered their local channels, the satellite carrier is prohibited from selling distants, even if the subscriber lives in a "white area".
A word about "grandfathered" subscribers. Dish Network doesn't have any. Dish Network did not show any proof to the courts, so Dish Network has ZERO grandfathered subscribers.
A 'white area' is such that no broadcast signals reach the area, right ?? If no signals reach the area, how is it part of some DMA, therefore eligible to receive some city's 'local' channels ??
I'm confused on the distinction of these 'areas'.
As far as i understand... DMA is basically niellson media that decided what areas have the largest amount of consumers specified to a central location. In otherwords... where you spend your money. Niellson says they never made their map to be used by satellite companies and they are NOT interested in changing their map in the least bit. I almost lost some skin when i mentioned it to them. I guess it also has to do with the FCC and NAB possibly. I am just a n00bie with this stuff. But thats basically how i figure the map was made.
I guess it also has to do with the FCC and NAB possibly. I am just a n00bie with this stuff. But thats basically how i figure the map was made. 
From todays TransmitterNews.COM Update
EchoStar Doesn’t Mince Words In Filing
In response to the Networks asking the Florida Federal Judge for clarification of his order and possibly an order preventing NPS from broadcasting distant network stations using space leased on an EchoStar satellite, it was basically pointed out that enough is enough.
The EchoStar response said, in part: “EchoStar accepts the decision of the this Court. It has complied, and will continue to comply, with the Permanent Injunction. EchoStar shut off distant network channels to all of its approximately 900,000 subscribers. It is out of the distant network signal business. Plaintiffs do not and cannot contest these facts.
EchoStar’s lease agreement with National Programming Service LLC (“NPS”) does not alter these facts. That Agreement is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Permanent Injunction and the statutory remedy embodied in the injunction.. Under the agreement’s terms, EchoStar will not qualify consumers for access to distant network programming, will not activate or de-activate subscribers, and will not earn any revenue from that business. NPS has the right to use the leased transponder to transmit any video programming it desires.
While use of a portion of the transponder to transmit distant network channels was not unexpected, the fact remains that that decision was made by NPS, which may use all or a portion of the transponder capacity for other purposes in its discretion.”
The EchoStar filing continues: “While the statute was intended to protect the broadcasters’ copyrights, it also limited those rights, allowing consumers to watch distant network channels in areas where broadcasters fail to invest in the facilities necessary to provide local network channels off air.” Continuing, “Plaintiffs are also not entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”); plaintiffs have not identified any harm they will suffer if NPS—instead of DirecTV, which is the only other distant network provider—provides distant network programming to eligible subscribers. If plaintiffs’ requests are granted, only consumers and NPS will be harmed—as consumers will be left with fewer choices and NPS will be denied the opportunity to grow its business as a result of the opportunity created by the injunction.”
EchoStar Doesn’t Mince Words In Filing
In response to the Networks asking the Florida Federal Judge for clarification of his order and possibly an order preventing NPS from broadcasting distant network stations using space leased on an EchoStar satellite, it was basically pointed out that enough is enough.
The EchoStar response said, in part: “EchoStar accepts the decision of the this Court. It has complied, and will continue to comply, with the Permanent Injunction. EchoStar shut off distant network channels to all of its approximately 900,000 subscribers. It is out of the distant network signal business. Plaintiffs do not and cannot contest these facts.
EchoStar’s lease agreement with National Programming Service LLC (“NPS”) does not alter these facts. That Agreement is consistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Permanent Injunction and the statutory remedy embodied in the injunction.. Under the agreement’s terms, EchoStar will not qualify consumers for access to distant network programming, will not activate or de-activate subscribers, and will not earn any revenue from that business. NPS has the right to use the leased transponder to transmit any video programming it desires.
While use of a portion of the transponder to transmit distant network channels was not unexpected, the fact remains that that decision was made by NPS, which may use all or a portion of the transponder capacity for other purposes in its discretion.”
The EchoStar filing continues: “While the statute was intended to protect the broadcasters’ copyrights, it also limited those rights, allowing consumers to watch distant network channels in areas where broadcasters fail to invest in the facilities necessary to provide local network channels off air.” Continuing, “Plaintiffs are also not entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”); plaintiffs have not identified any harm they will suffer if NPS—instead of DirecTV, which is the only other distant network provider—provides distant network programming to eligible subscribers. If plaintiffs’ requests are granted, only consumers and NPS will be harmed—as consumers will be left with fewer choices and NPS will be denied the opportunity to grow its business as a result of the opportunity created by the injunction.”
I have been in contact with a very good comminications lawyer over the past few weeks about all of this and he has been examining the documents I have been sending him.
Today I sent him Dish Networks response to the NAB complaint and here is his reply which I think you might find interesting.
Today I sent him Dish Networks response to the NAB complaint and here is his reply which I think you might find interesting.
What does he have to say regarding the supposed 'list' of customers that E* provided NPS ?? There are people still being denied DNS from NPS today because NPS doesn't have their phone # on record. Dish denies (more or less) any such list exists or existed in their filing. Well, just like the networks, they pick and chose what they wanted to include in their filing.
Have you asked him:
1. Whether or not he thought the injunction was required?
2. Whether or not he believed the "settlement" would trump the 11th Cir. decision?
3. What the purpose of DNS is?
4. Does he think that any subscriber who is willing to pay should be able to get any DNS desired?
5. Subscribing to DNS is like buying the NY Times in Chicago?
It would be useful to hear the views of an attorney. Particularly a communications law attorney who is not only good, but very good. I trust that he will give honest answers about events the outcome of which is now known.
As far as i understand... DMA is basically niellson media that decided what areas have the largest amount of consumers specified to a central location. In otherwords... where you spend your money. Niellson says they never made their map to be used by satellite companies and they are NOT interested in changing their map in the least bit. I almost lost some skin when i mentioned it to them.
The DMA is where the bulk of the viewers in the area do their TV viewing.
The viewers make the choice - not the FCC, not the NAB, not Dish, not the local TV station - the viewers - and thats why DMAs change, as noted in the thread below on the DC locals.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=83621
Essentially the viewers in the DMA "choose" which DMA they want to be a part of for lack of a better term.
Copyright holders then license stations to right to broadcast that material in that DMA as result of the choice made by the consumers.
The statement by Dish is the best, possibly the first concise statement by them on the matter that makes some sense.
As I posted elsewhere, I believe they are not allowing people who get locals thru Dish to get distants (although some have been able to) because they are taking the broadest interpretation of the law to help protect them to use NPS. They are not allowing people who also get locals on the dish provided receiver to also get distants. They could have said NPS does not provide locals so NPS could give distants to anyone in a white area, but again I think Dish did not want to go down that road.
As I posted elsewhere, I believe they are not allowing people who get locals thru Dish to get distants (although some have been able to) because they are taking the broadest interpretation of the law to help protect them to use NPS. They are not allowing people who also get locals on the dish provided receiver to also get distants. They could have said NPS does not provide locals so NPS could give distants to anyone in a white area, but again I think Dish did not want to go down that road.
I don't think people move to a location just because of what stations they would get....
The thing is, regardless of who's Bullsh!t "walks" here, the real issue is that:
The reception of network signals (especially digital) needs to be re-re-visited by congress and this time in a way that really addresses the needs of consumers with "appropriate" concerns for local affiliates that is based on the reality of today's technology and the upcoming digital transition.
Well, maybe not what "stations" we would get, per se. (I would get Chicago anywhere around Spfld anyway on D*, LOL
) But I certainly DID choose where I lived so I could get:
- Insight cable (as opposed to Green County, Mediacom or Cass cable) - gotta have it for cable modem service, as Verizon does NOT offer DSL at all down here & SBC doesn't offer it to even probably 1/2 their service area here!
- SBC local phone service, as opposed to Verizon - YUCK, YUCK, YUCK!!!
- City Water Light & Power (CWLP, which is Spfld's local utility co) as opposed to Ameren or REA (rual co-op); certainly DON'T feel like paying 2-3 times MORE for my electric than I need to!
All of these companies serve within about a 5 miles radius around Springfield, so obviously I would NOT have had to move much around to get what I did NOT want, so obviously I choose carefully...
