And let's not forget that if "eligible for distants" had to do with either grandfathered or waivered status, that the evidence you were legal was not given to the court by Dish Network, which in fact makes you "illegal".
Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 128K
I am in the same situation as you, but additionally, I live in a rural part of California and was forced to take out-of-state Medford, Oregon as my locals. This makes no sense. I was getting SF in High Def and now have lost network High Def - so much for that new TV. (Not to mention, the CBS out of Medford is very poor quality).
I wrote Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Leahy and Rep Herger.
Being from California I can sy both our State Senators are pretty much a )(&)(%)*&$)*. Now at least here in West Virginia Senator Byrd and Senator Rockafeller at least took a stand for the people on the issue
One reason is to be able to keep using my DVR 508 which I paid $200 for and which is exempt from monthly charges. That and the earlier 40 hour DVR (501?) does not incur a monthly charge from DISH. No idea why. Anyone know?
Dish made a big deal of "no DVR fee" when they were selling those boxes. To avoid an uproar they left the 501, 508 and 721 fee-less. Here is a recent thread on the subject.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=83430
NightRyder
Here are the latest filings from to the court, this time coming from the networks side.
Dish should have a reply of this tonight or tommorow.
This entire thing is getting silly, in one of the exhibits its a transcript of the special Charlie Chat, and I personally dont believe that it is a complete transcript, only selective information they want the judge to see.
Dish is no longer selling Distant Networks PERIOD.
The judge should see this and rule this thing accordingly.
If they keep stretching this out father then it shows me that the court could care less about us the consumers and is more interested in keeping a bunch of lawyers employeed.
Dish should have a reply of this tonight or tommorow.
This entire thing is getting silly, in one of the exhibits its a transcript of the special Charlie Chat, and I personally dont believe that it is a complete transcript, only selective information they want the judge to see.
Dish is no longer selling Distant Networks PERIOD.
The judge should see this and rule this thing accordingly.
If they keep stretching this out father then it shows me that the court could care less about us the consumers and is more interested in keeping a bunch of lawyers employeed.
Yes I did. 
The Transmitter is my favorite daily news publication.
If you guys don't know what the Transmitter is go to http://www.transmitternews.com and sign up for the free daily news updates.
The Transmitter is my favorite daily news publication.
If you guys don't know what the Transmitter is go to http://www.transmitternews.com and sign up for the free daily news updates.
Yes, it looks like the networks and NAB want to permanently prohibit reception of DNS through any E* equipment. They "regret any inconvenience caused by Echostar's lawbreaking" yet they are insistent on shutting down all DNS service on E* equipment. They also seem to want to force customers away from E* as "punishment" for E* "lawbreaking". It seems very clear that the NAB's ultimate goal is no DNS.
Yes and the silly thing is, E* has already been punished. The are no longer providing or profiting from DNS, that's their punishment.
Punishment filled.
Done.
Over.
Sounds like FOX and friends are trying to get the Judge to force a monopoly for DirecTV.
I see DirecTV is pretty quiet on this though as Rupert seems to speak threw FOX.
Pretty sad Dish Netowrk is out my $11.99 a month for life now. Makes you wonder why the networks wnat to force those of us in white areas to do with out there product at all if we dont switch to DirecTV
Yes, but the plaintiffs feels EchoStar and Dish Network should be punished more, such as not having customers for their regular programming, even though they regret those customers are the ones who are really being punished.
I hope DirecTV doesn't come after me. Contrary to what they said, about we are using Dish's equipment -- I own all of my equipment, and sometimes I use a DirecTV dish for a wing dish.
Oh well. I hope it somehow works out alright for the 300,000 customers, whose numbers should be dropping with more Local-to-Local coming on-line. Either way, I hope they clear this soon, so that Charlie can get back to making new equipment. I'm still in need of a SuperDish 121 Repoint Kit, preferrably 2 of them.
I checked my bank account a little while ago, and I'm a little short on change right now, but I thought about just buying Dish Network from EchoStar and renaming it to Indirect-TV, complete with Distant Network Stations for those who don' have the original networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC).
And to that I'd say you are correct.Voyager6 said:
Look, in the court documents, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals even mentioned the fact that, "in 1999 Echostar knew that at least 72% of its distant network subscribers were ineligible, but did nothing to turn them off, despite a sworn promise to terminate service to many of them."
And let's not forget with the analog cut-over, there wouldn't be any DNS on Dish Network and very little on DirecTV. After all, one condition upon the offering of local-into-local HD is that once the locals are available, the distants go away.
For every market added in HD, distant HD disappears. Once the analog is gone, HD (digital) is the only thing left. DirecTV will have a very large chunk of the markets available, meaning no distants.
The SHVA and amending legislation was designed to give the satellite consumer access to networks if they were unserved. We've now come to the point where it will be full-circle, because satellite is very interested in serving local or nearby affiliates to the consumer, thus negating the need for distant service.
By the way, FOX and the other networks are easily scared by this attempt to hand out distant networks. There may have been 900,000 subscribers to distant networks, but with this deal there could technically be many more, and most of them should be legal this time.
Well if we are legal then whats FOX's problem. . .? Sounds like they just want to get more money going to DirecTV thats all. . .
We can have distant locals with DirecTV thats what FOX wants due to its ownership stake.
AAD / NPS wont even give people whose locals are available DNS. FOX and DirecTV want to launch a crusade gainst those of us that are truly legal simply to increase DirecTV's profits
We can have distant locals with DirecTV thats what FOX wants due to its ownership stake.
AAD / NPS wont even give people whose locals are available DNS. FOX and DirecTV want to launch a crusade gainst those of us that are truly legal simply to increase DirecTV's profits
It all revolves around the definition of "legal". Surely no one truly thought that Dish Network would try to "outsource" distant networks through a third party. Anyone reading these forums should be able to figure out that Dish Network has involvement in giving some of their customers distant networks, whether it is because Dish Network assets are being used, or because Dish Network possibly gave NPS a list, or because Decisionmark has not and will not qualify any distant network customers through NPS.
I'll repeat this again. None of the broadcasters trust Dish Network to do the right thing by them. Dish Network appears to have a big hand giving customers distant networks, which appears to be against the injunction.
And the question here: Is this deal even "legal"?
I'll repeat this again. None of the broadcasters trust Dish Network to do the right thing by them. Dish Network appears to have a big hand giving customers distant networks, which appears to be against the injunction.
And the question here: Is this deal even "legal"?
I truly believe Murdoch is using this injunction to get a better deal from Liberty Media before they trade stock and Direct/TV ownership. He can claim that Direct TV has a monopoly on DNS and that 900000 Dish customers are about to switch providers.
He is also doing it to piss off Charlie before he exits the sat. business.
I hope Liberty media is not fooled by his scheme.
They could have had a hundred million dollars.
Now they get ZIP.
I think the broadcasters needs better lawyers.
Now they get ZIP.
I think the broadcasters needs better lawyers.
