Dish Lawyers

[nitstalker]

Here is an interesting article I stumbled across... Its a couple weeks old, but worth looking at...

http://carmelgroup.com/publications...tv_homes_at_risk_from_legal_and_political_mo/

 

[riffjim4069]

The author hit the nail right on the head when he summed it up by saying, "In short, by choosing years ago to fight instead of settle, this time EchoStar’s brilliant risk taker appears to have painted his legal department and his company into a short-to-mid-term disadvantage. Noted one involved NAB participant, “If EchoStar had come to us some months ago, they could have settled this for a fraction of the revenue we’re talking about today.” Losing a lawsuit of this caliber, possibly affecting so many hundreds of thousands of viewers and so many hundreds of millions of company dollars, entails measures of probability, many of which will require reconsideration before a September 11 “death sentence” falls on DISH Network’s income statement. Moreover, for EchoStar’s Washington, DC lobbyists – as the DNS issue becomes less a legal and more a political one —they, too, might well wish they were judged on a basis other than their ability to turn a profit for The Dish That Charlie Built."

Excellent article!

 

[DishSubLA]

And you are really going to believe the mouthpiece for the broadcasters? This is all public relations making the broadcasters out to be the reasonalbe good guys who have been victimized and were willing to take fees far below what the broadcasters know they are worth. The more likely story is that the broadcasters wanted an outrageous sum that made the risk of losing a lawsuit well worth the scads of dough and many subscribers that Dish signed up. It allowed Ergan to not have to spend a lot of money in the really lean years of Dish--that would have ruined the company--to delay the enevitable until he can afford it. Even if all the subs who lose DNS were to leave (which not all will leave--we are talking about an extreme fraction of his total number of subscribers) they have brought him this far, and while this and other lawsuits won't make for a pretty quarter to come, he still comes out ahead because he can weather the loss now, but not then when signing up a single subscriber was life and death to Dish Network. Now do you see why Charlie is really a lot smarter than some think? But then again, all the other U.S. companies practice the same kind of ethically questionable tactics, only they don't seem to get the bad press Echostar gets.

 

[riffjim4069]

DishSubLA, nothing you said made any sense; it is complete nonsense. I take it you didn't read the article. I actually prefer to sort through various information and determine what are the credible and incredible sources. As a principal, I tend to view unethical behavior in a negative light whereas you actually condone such behavior. "But then again, all the other U.S. companies practice the same kind of ethically questionable tactics, only they don't seem to get the bad press Echostar gets."

I cannot even begin to tell you wrong and misguided....never mind, I'm sure you will believe what you wish to believe. Have a great day.:

 

[DishSubLA]

Well, riffjim4060, I shant be as openly hostile nor obvioulsy insulting as you. However, you have misunderstood what I posted, so, for clairity, allow me to elucidate by using anlogy:
Joseph Stalin was a very bad man by almost any measure, but one thing he was not was stupid. This butcher of 19 million manged to out-wit Churchill and Franklin D. to get the buffer zone he wanted, by deciet. Our most famed and greatest corporate executives all took their companies to the apex by practicing unethical behavior, at best, and down-right murder, at worst (union bombings just one example). Just because someone states that something in unethical or immoral does not mean it is condoned. Just becasue someone states that Stalin may have been smart does not mean support of his actions. Charles Ergan is smart and his actions have made Dish Network what it is today, and it is not going out of business any time soon. You are free to to issue any encyclical regarding the moral implications, for that had not been addressed in the post to which you refer.

 

[Greg Bimson]

And you are really going to believe the mouthpiece for the broadcasters? This is all public relations making the broadcasters out to be the reasonalbe good guys who have been victimized and were willing to take fees far below what the broadcasters know they are worth. The more likely story is that the broadcasters wanted an outrageous sum that made the risk of losing a lawsuit well worth the scads of dough and many subscribers that Dish signed up.

I think you've missed the point...

Right now, if the current settlement goes through, Dish Network will pay $100 million and requalify all of their distant network subscribers. So, your "more likely story" doesn't pan out. The broadcasters would have been happy in 2003 with having the injunction issued by the judge to remove all distant network subscribers but leave the distant network license intact for Dish Network, for continued use.

Instead, now it will cost Dish Network more subscribers and money.

And, if the settlement doesn't go through, and the injunction against all four networks stand, there becomes a very nasty picture down the road...

Approximately 55 percent of Dish Network's subscriber base can be defined as rural. Right around the corner will be HDTV. Without the distant network license, Dish Network will be unable to serve over 6 million of their rural subs and HD network programming.

So, I understand that breaking a few rules here and there enabled Dish Network to become a strong company rather quickly. However, if the company is then hampered in their efforts to serve a large part of their core market (the rural subscriber), then Dish Network will have a difficult time in keeping their subscribers. And I think that is the point of Fox Network, which owns 83 percent of Fox Entertainment Group (the owned and operated affiliate systems, which in turn owns and operates 34 percent of DirecTV, trying to get a permanent injunction of the distant network license. DirecTV's rural base is only 45 percent of their total subs.