Dish Network: Distant Networks

[Greg Bimson]

It wasn't the intent to allow distant signals so that you could "live" where ever you wished and watch network programming out of any city. A nice concept, but it would completely destroy the economics of local television.

To this point, when the Supreme Court ruled that CATV operators weren't subject to copyright infringment, SCOTUS still deferred to the FCC for network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity to make sure a station could be viewed a considerable distance from where the signal originates. So, when GaryPen states:

That's why they need to change the law to allow recption of ANY local station in ANY DMA.

Changing copyright law to allow a third party to retransmit any station, to anyone, anywhere, without any type of carriage contract is about as likely to happen as me winning the Pick 3 and Pick 4 in every state on the same day.

 

[ThomasRz]

Important to note that this decision was really technical (what constitutes a performance) and since then the law (as well as the court) have changed considerably. To add to what Greg said there is no way a cable company would be permitted to deliver WCBS to Chicago even if there were no concerns oabout non-duplication/syndication even thought the 1974 case could be argued to allow it. The courts will defer to Congress in these matters...

To this point, when the Supreme Court ruled that CATV operators weren't subject to copyright infringment, SCOTUS still deferred to the FCC for network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity to make sure a station could be viewed a considerable distance from where the signal originates. So, when GaryPen states:Changing copyright law to allow a third party to retransmit any station, to anyone, anywhere, without any type of carriage contract is about as likely to happen as me winning the Pick 3 and Pick 4 in every state on the same day.

 

[tracyt]

Got this reply...

"Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:

Thank you for contacting me regarding recent court proceedings in which the broadcast community and the satellite industry have engaged. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter.

A variety of issues will be considered during the 109th Congress, and it is important that I remain abreast of the concerns of Texans. As you know, the judicial system has primary jurisdiction over the court proceedings between the local broadcasters and EchoStar. Because both broadcasters and EchoStar are committed to ensuring that all constituents have uninterrupted access to television signals, it is my hope that this matter can be settled between the two parties without diminishing any level of service to Texans. I will keep your views in mind should this or relevant matters come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov

 

[BobMurdoch]

It wasn't the intent to allow distant signals so that you could "live" where ever you wished and watch network programming out of any city. A nice concept, but it would completely destroy the economics of local television. Many folks talk about how crappy their local affiliates are - insert rant - During monsoon season, Tucson locals break into every primetime show to let us know that there is a thunderstorm happening...the sound of thunder isn't enough for us to know, nor the fact that monsoons occur every year between June and August - end insert rant- Everybody has a similar story as to why their locals suck and how they enjoy timeshifting...None of those complaints are covered by SHIVERA

It would only destroy the economics IF everyone did it. We are talking about the 5% of those hardcore users who want to spend extra to get extra variety. The solution is to PAY a portion of the revenues made from distant nets to the affected affiliates based on your zip code. They get a few dollars to compensate for any perceived harm to their ad revenues.

I agree, the law doesn't address the issue.

SO CHANGE THE LAW!

The "solution" the judge came up with here is to shoot the patient instead of slapping the wrist of the doctor who screwed up.

 

[Greg Bimson]

It would only destroy the economics IF everyone did it. We are talking about the 5% of those hardcore users who want to spend extra to get extra variety. The solution is to PAY a portion of the revenues made from distant nets to the affected affiliates based on your zip code. They get a few dollars to compensate for any perceived harm to their ad revenues.

I agree, the law doesn't address the issue.

SO CHANGE THE LAW!

So here I go into my weekly rant...

rant/

There is no contract between Dish Network and WCBS to deliver WCBS nationally. If you wish to talk about free markets or creating a market for distant networks, you'd need to get the networks and the syndicators to agree to allow the affiliates to resell programming outside of their broadcast area or market area.

Instead, we get the "CHANGE THE LAW" call. And like I pointed out earlier, there was no true change in copyright law to exempt cablers from copyrights. The cablers won that issue in a court case, but they were also subjected to network duplication and syndex requirements by the FCC.

No one will ever be able to receive any station they want anywhere. If there ever were a free market initiative, you can bet there would be all kinds of blackouts, and the price for each would be much more than a couple of dollars a month for one network channel.

/rant

The "solution" the judge came up with here is to shoot the patient instead of slapping the wrist of the doctor who screwed up.

Alright. Let me restate this:

This original court action fell into the hands of Judge Lenore Nesbitt, of the Southern District Court. Judge Nesbitt originally issued the cut-off injunction, but to only against those that were in violation.

These past three months, we learn that the Circuit Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit ruled on the appeal. The three judges all re-read the law, and said the only remedy Judge Nesbitt could issue was a permanent injunction. Because the remedy for repeated and willful violations was in the law, and the judges are supposed to follow that law, the only course of action is the permanent injunction. The judges do not have the prerogative to issue whatever remedy they feel is appropriate when the remedy is spelled out.

And let's not forget who screwed up.

 

[mdonnelly]

...Because the remedy for repeated and willful violations was in the law, and the judges are supposed to follow that law, the only course of action is the permanent injunction. The judges do not have the prerogative to issue whatever remedy they feel is appropriate when the remedy is spelled out.

And let's not forget who screwed up.

There's the answer then. Congress should change the law and pull it's teeth. i.e. Make for some other remedy besides the "death penalty".

 

[BobMurdoch]

Greg, rightfully so, is arguing as to what "is" the law.

I keep hammering home as to what "should" be.

Greg will never convince me, and I will never convince him that our respective positions will ever line up. Greg, I apologize if I don't seem to "get" it. I understand fully what the rules are as they are currently written. I just refuse to accept that they are set in stone.

Once again, the "truth" doesn't exist. It's only what you can get a judge or a legislator to agree to that counts. We've given up on the former and are now moving on to the latter.

Once again, bottom line. The judge has put Rural America in their crosshairs with this ruling. Regardless of the fact that Charlie created the mess with his "creative approvals", several hundred thousand legal and illegal waivered and white area households will be extremely ticked off when they lose the distants. This is a bad thing in an election year.

This will be only a minor inconvenience to me as I have legally waivered distants (some that took me 4 years of constant requests and letters to get - fyi I'm in a Grade "B" area officially, but due to terrain issues there is no antenna that I can get according to antennaweb.org that can get me the New York or Philly stations), but the New York locals via E*.

They'll hear a whine, but not a yell from guys like me. The ones that will scream will be those that lose their ability to see several networks. They will be forced to either switch to D* (I'm sure that D* will bend over backwards to give good prices with their newfound monopoly status in these areas), switch to cable, or do without. As many are locked into long term contracts with E*, there will be a LOT of angry taxpayers over this issue (who could care less about syndex rules and only want to watch "60 Minutes" on Sunday, but all of a sudden can't because of a law they don't understand...)

Here's a novel idea.... If a broadcaster wants to arbitrarily CLAIM a zip code, he should be responsible to set up repeater towers so that everyone they claim can receive their signal CLEARLY with a set-top antenna. Otherwise, if they can't be bothered to create a decent signal in an area, then they shouldn't expect to OWN the eyeballs in that area either. Yeah, I know,... unrealistic, but I feel better after suggesting it....

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Got this reply...

.... A variety of issues will be considered during the 109th Congress, and it is important that I remain abreast of the concerns of Texans. As you know, the judicial system has primary jurisdiction over the court proceedings between the local broadcasters and EchoStar. Because both broadcasters and EchoStar are committed to ensuring that all constituents have uninterrupted access to television signals, it is my hope that this matter can be settled between the two parties without diminishing any level of service to Texans. I will keep your views in mind should this or relevant matters come under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Cornyn's response really ticks me off. Oh, just let it work itself out in the courts. None of the party's want to diminish any service. Sure they do, that what the lawsuit is about.

But the Senator basically said nothing, and promised to do nothing.

Oh well....

 

[Tower Guy]

It would only destroy the economics IF everyone did it. We are talking about the 5% of those hardcore users who want to spend extra to get extra variety.

The problem with your proposal is that some stations need all 5% of those viewers to turn a profit. Their cost is the same with our without that 5%. 100% of that viewing credit for those 5% of viewers is profit.

Let's say that a small market TV station grosses 10 million per year. Now assume that their profit is 1 million a year. With the extra 5% of viewers their gross would be $10,500,000 and the profit would be 1.5 mil a year, a 50% increase.

 

[ThomasRz]

Even if Congress was of a mind to remove copyright protection to achieve want you want it (and they're not) such an action would probably run afoul of the 5th Amendment and thus be a dead letter. Even the Kelo decision wouldn't support so sweeping an action.

There's the answer then. Congress should change the law and pull it's teeth. i.e. Make for some other remedy besides the "death penalty".

 

[Greg Bimson]

Understand that I am trying to clear up a discrepancy or two:

Once again, bottom line. The judge has put Rural America in their crosshairs with this ruling. Regardless of the fact that Charlie created the mess with his "creative approvals", several hundred thousand legal and illegal waivered and white area households will be extremely ticked off when they lose the distants. This is a bad thing in an election year.

Understand that it wasn't one judge, it was THREE. The appeals court did this, and a panel of three judges determined the lower court should have issued a permanent injunction.

And speaking of an election year, one needs to look no further than the response John Cornyn gave. His job isn't in question, as his term doesn't end until 2008. So his "wait and see" approach is the standard party line. And that standard party is in control of the House, the Senate, the Executive Office, and the Supreme Court.

So if no one likes the way things are being run, I'd suggest you boot them out. They also helped to create this mess. And this is coming from a card-carrying member of the "standard party".

 

[waltinvt]

Understand that I am trying to clear up a discrepancy or two:Understand that it wasn't one judge, it was THREE. The appeals court did this, and a panel of three judges determined the lower court should have issued a permanent injunction.

And speaking of an election year, one needs to look no further than the response John Cornyn gave. His job isn't in question, as his term doesn't end until 2008. So his "wait and see" approach is the standard party line. And that standard party is in control of the House, the Senate, the Executive Office, and the Supreme Court.

So if no one likes the way things are being run, I'd suggest you boot them out. They also helped to create this mess. And this is coming from a card-carrying member of the "standard party".

Where's this Greg been hiding all these years?

 

[ThomasRz]

And that standard party is in control of the House, the Senate, the Executive Office, and the Supreme Court.

Let's not overstate this. No party "controls" the Supreme Court. History is replete with examples of surprises in this regard.

 

[Derwin0]

August 15th has come and gone, and I still have Distants.
Any new news about the possible injunction?

 

[MikeD-C05]

I heard it was delayed till 9/11 to try to work out a compromise deal between Dish and the networks effected.

 

[Greg Bimson]

The only blurbs I've seen came from satbiznews.com's headlines, published today:

COURT TAKES NEXT STEP IN WHITE-AREA SAGA

ECHOSTAR PUSHES SIGNAL TEST CHANGES

I'll assume since no one was cut-off that the injunction has either been delayed or stayed.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Still recieving a full set of Los Angeles and New York stations this eveing including the ones I legaly get and the one or two that are questionable. . . .


Perhaps the fact that no one has apparently been cut off is a good thing. And on my basic cable package the cable comapny continues to bring in distant locals for ABC, NBC and FOX while also carrying local stations for ABC and NBC. . .

Bob

 

[jrbdmb]

Still recieving a full set of Los Angeles and New York stations this eveing including the ones I legaly get and the one or two that are questionable. . . .


Perhaps the fact that no one has apparently been cut off is a good thing. And on my basic cable package the cable comapny continues to bring in distant locals for ABC, NBC and FOX while also carrying local stations for ABC and NBC. . .

Bob

Are they really "distants" like NYC or LA, or actually Significantly Viewed stations from a neighboring DMA?

 

[freakedout]

I have had KDVR from Denver and KWGN from chicago appear in my program guide in the last two days. They are listed on the Dish site as fox distant nets. Although KWGN appears to have WB programming. If I try to go to them the receiver looses the sat signal and reboots. Everyone else is worried about loosing channels and I am getting new oness. GO figure.

 

[linkinpark244]

i had a bizzare incident when i was growing up, one day our cable system flipped out and we recieved every channel, ppv was unlocked, hbo, encore, tmc, cinemax, showtime, etc. it lasted for about 3 days, we never called anyone, and we were the only ones with this "problem". hopefully E* messes up and we get every channel, the channel i want is KCAL-9 from LA, i have KTLA superstation, but they dont cover the high speed chases like kcal does.