Deal with NPS to "save" distants on DISH!
- Thread starter chaddux
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 1K
- Views 128K
Dang. Tried the website at home and they said no dice. Get into my office and now they want the smartcard # only and my email address. Gotta wait until tonight...
Tried using Yahoo...same result...and I also retyped "support" and "mydistantnetworks.com" as opposed to mydistannetwork.com...still didn't work....they must be getting about 900,000 emails...their system is probably thinking it's all SPAM and not business.
Here is an update for us from our friends at TransmitterNews.COM which sums things up...
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120106newsletter.cfm#H1
http://www.transmitternews.com/NewsWire/120106newsletter.cfm#H1
I knew it!! They're seeking to expand the injunction.
What they fail to mention (at least in the report) is WHY the court should expand the injunction?!? If the original injunction was to bar E* from offering or charging for DNS, and E* is currently following the injunction, then why the need for more punishment?
This will all come down to how badly the judge wants to punish E*. As it stands right now E* wants to following the injunction, suffer the penalty and have another company supply the distants. While the plantiffs basically want E* to be crushed.
Time will tell...
What they fail to mention (at least in the report) is WHY the court should expand the injunction?!? If the original injunction was to bar E* from offering or charging for DNS, and E* is currently following the injunction, then why the need for more punishment?
This will all come down to how badly the judge wants to punish E*. As it stands right now E* wants to following the injunction, suffer the penalty and have another company supply the distants. While the plantiffs basically want E* to be crushed.
Time will tell...
Last edited:
Not seeking to expand; seeking to clarify. Since NPS will require the use of Echostar assets in order to deliver distant network signals, this very likely passes the "in active concert" section of the injunction.
Considering that NPS requires the Echostar-owned smart card number in order to authorize the receiver, and because in order for NPS to authorize a receiver using Echostar's security, that should deal with "in active concert" rather easily.
The clarification would be added so that if Echostar is able to find another possible loophole, it would also have this test to pass.
Considering that NPS requires the Echostar-owned smart card number in order to authorize the receiver, and because in order for NPS to authorize a receiver using Echostar's security, that should deal with "in active concert" rather easily.
The clarification would be added so that if Echostar is able to find another possible loophole, it would also have this test to pass.
I said that yesterday and apparently Dish chose to take the bull-headed approach. They're by no means being discrete in their preference that customers choose NPS and according to the court filing, it may come back to bite them. Again, they should have listed options and even included pricing and timeframes. Something like this:
- local cable company
-- cost $10-15/month
-- installation time varies
- off-air antenna
-- cost can vary from $10 to $100
-- installation can be done by customer or by a paid contractor
-- NPS
-- cost $9/month for major networks from east and west coast
-- installation (activation) time can be 2 - 24 hours
Given those options, what would MOST people opt for ??
Also, with all the comments being thrown around here, MANY are being used AGAINST Echostar. People may want to be careful.....
Notice that you used the word, "added." In my mind they are seeking to, "add" to (or expand) the injunction.
Which makes me wonder about the level of desperation of the plaintiffs when they must resort to an internet gab and speculation thread to bolster their argument.
As I said before they are grabbing everything they can find and throwing it at the court hoping something sticks.
Echostar can take the same material which the broadcasts took from SatelliteGuys and totally spin it in their favor.
It was convient for them to say Dish was promoting All American Direct, however they failed to mention that Dish promoted Cable TV and even DirecTV for alternatives. Funny how they didn't mention that in their filings.
All this is my opinion of course.
I supppose this will all end up in the Court Room in another 9 years time. Sounds like DirecTV wants a monopoly
First post ! I noticed some post back the question about whether distants would be on only 1 receiver or all receivers you own. I sent the following to
questions@mydistantnetworks.com
"When I subscribe to the distant networks will it be available on all three of my receivers.
Thanks in advance for you reply"
Here is the reply:
"Yes they will be on all your active receivers"
questions@mydistantnetworks.com
"When I subscribe to the distant networks will it be available on all three of my receivers.
Thanks in advance for you reply"
Here is the reply:
"Yes they will be on all your active receivers"
Although I haven't lost my DNS as of yet today, I am assuming they will go any minute. I have found out that I do qualify with NPS but will wait to lose mine before signing up. Does anyone have it yet? Do you have to sign a contract with them, too? Will we use the same channels?
Ok I live in the Kirksville,Mo DMA and dish didn't have locals in this DMA. I got Kansas City Locals a couple of months ago. I went to allamericandirect to see if I qualify and it said no and I called NPS and they said no. Do I really have to thru the waiver process all over again because if so, I don't see a light at the end with me getting locals back. BTW I have still yet to lose KC channels on dish. Help me out here Scott. I can't live with my locals. lol
They are having trouble with the Atlanta stations which are offically down at the moment. I only know this as they called be back about an hour ago and told me I have been approved for ABC and that it was being added to my channel line up.
The lady told me that this happened very quickly in the last two days and now they are trying to make everything work.
Its nice I did not even request a waiver for ABC but they got one for me any way. A pity I would rather have gotten a waiver for CBS though
The lady told me that this happened very quickly in the last two days and now they are trying to make everything work.
Its nice I did not even request a waiver for ABC but they got one for me any way. A pity I would rather have gotten a waiver for CBS though
Is that why I haven't lost my DNS yet, because they come out of Atlanta?
WOW what a deal buster then if that is the case! If that is not the case then is there going to be a $4.99 additional outlet fee charged for each additional receiver/tuner? If so then they are in fact tied in with Dish Network somehow which goes against the court order I would think unless I am wrong somehow. If they do not charge this fee to Dish Network subscribers but charge the $4.99 additional access fee to those that is NOT a Dish Network subscriber then they are tied to them in some way. This means that they have to either charge for those channels per receiver or per account and if its per receiver then Dish Network subscribers will NOT want to pay $9 per receiver/tuner as it would just be cheaper to switch to Directv, or they cannot charge the additional outlet fee even if you have 6 or 8 receivers. How about that DVR fee? They cannot charge for that either unless they are tied to Dish Network because that is a Dish Network fee. Am I right or am I wrong with what I am saying? Or can Dish Network in fact charge those fees since it is their receivers that are being used?
