Dish Network: Distant Networks

[minnow]

It seems to me that Dish has settled with the litigants except FObig surprise there). However the Court still needs to approve the settlement to stop the 9/11/06 turn off of DNS to E* subscribers. It would also appear that since FOX has not settled, the court could reject the entire agreement as all of the litigants have not settled or could allow everyone eligble for DNS to keep what they have except FOX.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

Just read the press release. Interesting. Somewhat vague on those that will be losing their distants... the "small number of subscribers..."

 

[waltinvt]

I still maintain my position and I think it's about to prove out. What's happened here is that the veil has been removed and the real issue is now visible for the world to see - Direct TV is using the power of it's connection with Fox to "regain" the upper hand it it's on-going competition with Dish Network.

Now although Dish did break the law and Fox deserves compensation just like everyone else, it doesn't deserve more or inappropriate compensation and Direct TV certainly doesn't deserve any.

While Murdoch may not technically be breaking the terms he agreed to when he took over "D", I believe he's close enough to it that "E" may be able to convince the powers that be that something needs to be done.

Murdoch probably knew this ace was in the hold cards even before he took over "D" and then he padded his hand by renewing his connection with TiVo.

Charlie's no dummy. This is what he meant when he (and I'm paraphrasing) allured to "E" "not always being on top".

There's no doubt that "E" got itself (and us) into this mess but the way "D" is taking advantage of it is exactly the kind of thing that anti trust laws are supposed to prevent.

The FCC certainly isn't going to step in here but maybe congress will and that's about the only hope Dish (and any subs that support Dish) has. That's where our efforts need to be directed now and I wouldn't be surprised if that is mentioned in the chat today.

 

[BobMurdoch]

It's time for SOMEONE to petition the courts to invoke the anticompetitive clause of Fox's buyout of D*. EVERYONE, except D*, um, Fox has signed on to the deal. They have even began to start teaching their retailers how to take advantage of the situation to poach E*'s customers.

THIS is what the antitrust laws were created to prevent. WHY isn't anyone banging a large drum about this?

 

[waltinvt]

It's time for SOMEONE to petition the courts to invoke the anticompetitive clause of Fox's buyout of D*. EVERYONE, except D*, um, Fox has signed on to the deal. They have even began to start teaching their retailers how to take advantage of the situation to poach E*'s customers.

THIS is what the antitrust laws were created to prevent. WHY isn't anyone banging a large drum about this?

We must have been having similar thoughts at the same time except you said it better.

 

[rockymtnhigh]

It's time for SOMEONE to petition the courts to invoke the anticompetitive clause of Fox's buyout of D*. EVERYONE, except D*, um, Fox has signed on to the deal. They have even began to start teaching their retailers how to take advantage of the situation to poach E*'s customers.

THIS is what the antitrust laws were created to prevent. WHY isn't anyone banging a large drum about this?

Courts aren't petitioned. The Department of Justice can be though - and should be. As well as Congress. The courts simply respond to litigation before them. Pressure should be put on the DOJ to invoke the anti-trust laws. They would be the official party. I suspect private individuals could also file a legal suit against D*/Fox, demanding they follow the law. But that cost $$$

The DOJ taking action is - sadly - probably unlikely with the current admin... Its not like FNC isn't the official news organ of the admin.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

So, I wonder how many E* DNS customers are going to end up losing those channels as a result of the settlement.

Wasn't a number of 25% tossed around as those who were illegally authorized by E* to receive DNS? So that would be around 200,000 subs?

 

[voyagerbob]

So, I wonder how many E* DNS customers are going to end up losing those channels as a result of the settlement.

Wasn't a number of 25% tossed around as those who were illegally authorized by E* to receive DNS? So that would be around 200,000 subs?

Questions I have are:

1. Will they require qualificaitons like D* now? As in if they have your local DMA up you can't get distants.

2. Will we now be able to qualify for HD distants besides CBS?

3. Will legit Grandfather status stand? As in they look to see if you were a legit grandfather case back when you received it or will they only go on what the rules are now?

4. Will waivers stand or will new ones be required?

My thoughts are.

1. From the wording of the press release I think E* will be able to qualify as they usually do, just that everyone will have to be treated the same as a new customer would.

2. I would think and hope so. I know I could handle any SD losses if I received HD distants.

3. I doubt this will happen but one can hope.

4. I think they will stand as long as dish has the records in the system noting a waiver is present.



Thanks

Voyagerbob

 

[Greg Bimson]

How is it a "government handout?"

And two paragraphs later, you answer your own question:

In this case the government created regulations which allowed for a very limited distribution of national channels. I don't consider these to be a handout, but rather an inadequate set of protectionist regulations, which are not in the public's best interest.

The government created the distant network license to give the truly unserved some network television without the need to go through the free market and obtain copyright clearances.

Dish Network doesn't even need to have a contract with WABC to deliver the station to the unserved.

Would you prefer another separate handout, to have the government meddle in the business of TV by removing copyright law completely from the equation?

The protections are based on existing copyright law, not the SHVA nor SHVIA.

 

[Greg Bimson]

So, I wonder how many E* DNS customers are going to end up losing those channels as a result of the settlement.

As part of the settlement, EchoStar agreed to re-qualify its distant network subscribers and terminate those channels later this year to the small percentage of customers who are not eligible to receive them today.

This statement by Echostar is ugly. Currently, less than one million Echostar customers receive distant networks on a subscriber base of 12 million. Which means less than about 8 percent of the subscriber base has distant networks.

Eight percent is a small percentage of customers.

Notice Dish Network didn't say "small percentage of distant network customers". Just "small percentage of customers".

 

[Greg Bimson]

Will they require qualificaitons like D* now? As in if they have your local DMA up you can't get distants.

Which is part of the SHVERA. It would not surprise me to see all customers requalified.

Will we now be able to qualify for HD distants besides CBS?

CBS HD is provided by contract with CBS. Sure, Dish Network could throw NBC in HD up, but guess what? It cannot be offered to those subs with an owned-and-operated NBC HD station, unless a blanket waiver is agreed. After all, DirecTV is now looking at dropping the distant HD feeds in favor of the local versions. I am guessing it is because the networks don't want the out of market feeds available anymore now that local HD feeds are available.

Will legit Grandfather status stand? As in they look to see if you were a legit grandfather case back when you received it or will they only go on what the rules are now?

Will waivers stand or will new ones be required?

Well, these two are interesting. Dish Network never presented any proof to the courts they had any "waivered" or "grandfathered" subscribers. So these questions pose an interesting dilemma.

 

[voyagerbob]

Which is part of the SHVERA. It would not surprise me to see all customers requalified.QUOTE]


So are the only ways to receive digital distants through directv the following?

1. White area but only until your locals are put up in HD and must be subscribed to analog locals
2. Waiver from the local station
3. Signal test that shows an insufficent signal
4. Had digital distants prior to SHVIA

Voyagerbob

 

[Greg Bimson]

Without going into semantics, yes, that appears right, Voyagerbob.

Just need the additional piece where the subscriber is able to only receive a signal from a network owned-and-operated. That currently qualifies, but we shall see for how long.

 

[waltinvt]

<snip>.....Well, these two are interesting. Dish Network never presented any proof to the courts they had any "waivered" or "grandfathered" subscribers. So these questions pose an interesting dilemma.

That one still baffles me. I'm going to stretch a little (lot) and guess this was deliberate on Dish's part. I think Dish knew it would (eventually) bring about exactly the ruling it did.

Maybe Dish speculated a settlement with all but Fox (+ Fox O&O) was imminent and figured the gamble was worth it if the spectre of "anti-trust" could be linked to "D" (even if only symbolically). Who knows, maybe even ultimately open the door to legislation & rules more favorable to HD DNS qualification and thus not have to peruse every single DMA for HD LiLs.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

As they said on todays chat everyone getting DNS today will need to RE QUALIFY.

 

[waltinvt]

Which is part of the SHVERA. It would not surprise me to see all customers requalified.

So are the only ways to receive digital distants through directv the following?

1. White area but only until your locals are put up in HD and must be subscribed to analog locals
2. Waiver from the local station
3. Signal test that shows an insufficent signal
4. Had digital distants prior to SHVIA

Voyagerbob

1. White area as determined for analogs.
2. This is what they prefer you have because everything else is so ambiguous and the courts always rule in favor of the affiliate.
3. Trouble is we still don't have a "digitally" specific qualification method. The FCC in all it's wisdom has reported to congress that the existing Longley-Rice method currently used for analog is plenty adequate for digital signals too.
4. Not sure that really means squat. I don't think "D" recognizes it and after all this, "E" probably won't either.

 

[Chris Walker]

Rupert holding out shouldn't cause problems should it? I can't imagine the judge seeing everyone has settled but one group and still saying "shut them off". E* has made the vast majority of the plantiffs happy. E* has clear proof of D* abusing it's connection with FOX, especially with the switch promotion.

 

[Chris Walker]

As they said on todays chat everyone getting DNS today will need to RE QUALIFY.

Ugghh surely not for people with waivers?

 

[voyagerbob]

I wonder does this also mean PBS will also be requalified as well?

 

[waltinvt]

Ugghh surely not for people with waivers?

As far as the court is concerned there were no Dish subs with waivers or grandfathered satus.