Dish Network: Distant Networks

Looks like old Rupert's tactic isn't going to work, about time Congress did something worthwhile. News Corp really is a low class company, I hope Rupert is forced to sell off controlling interest in D* due to their illegal attempts to harm their competition.
 
IMO D* badly messed up with the "Switch from Dish and don't lose your channels!" campaign. Congress would have less of a case against them without this.
 
What a coincidence that this comes for COLORADO Senators. Couldn't have anything to do with Echostar being based in Colorado. I'm sure Charlie doesn't have any words with these guys. This is politics at its worst. Only MONEY speaks...How does the ruling effect Colorado? Isn't the entire state covered by LIL? To say this issue threatens the "viability of the satellite market" is LUDICROUS. Personally...I have no vested interest in this debate, but I truly despise the "system".
 
mikew said:
What a coincidence that this comes for COLORADO Senators. Couldn't have anything to do with Echostar being based in Colorado. I'm sure Charlie doesn't have any words with these guys. This is politics at its worst. Only MONEY speaks...How does the ruling effect Colorado? Isn't the entire state covered by LIL? To say this issue threatens the "viability of the satellite market" is LUDICROUS. Personally...I have no vested interest in this debate, but I truly despise the "system".

Maybe you should reread the initial post on this thread.

And ... why shouldn't the lead come from Colorado? Those two Senators are acting in a bipartisan way (one from each party). The demise of Dish would have a negative impact on their state. I commend the Senators from Colorado for showing backbone in the face of a bully.
 
This proves what I have been saying all along. That Rupert and Directv are trying to use this legal stalling tactic to steal customers from Dish, rather than provide a better satellite service on picture quality , low pricing , hd channels, cheaper lease deal on mpeg4 hd dvrs etc. It is sad that this Aussie thinks this is the only way to compete. Rupert is in a monoply situation when he owns the content provider- Fox network, the content distributer- Directv , as well as the parent company too- Newscorp. They should have never allowed one person to own so many media outlets and distributers . He is abusing his power and should be slapped hard by Congress . He should be forced by Congress to settle the dispute just like the other major networks did. The customers should not be hurt in this legal dispute as they did nothing wrong. If he provided a better satellite service he wouldn't have to jump to such cheap , petty tactics to gain subscribers . I will never sub to Directv again as long as he is running it - into the ground.
 
If there was ever a time to make phone calls and send emails, it's now. These 2 senators (and others) need to hear support from voters LOUD & CLEAR.

This could be a chance for the whole issue of distant networks to get some public attention and maybe, just maybe some long awaited action on the issue of digital DNS.
 
cebbigh said:
Maybe you should reread the initial post on this thread.

And ... why shouldn't the lead come from Colorado? Those two Senators are acting in a bipartisan way (one from each party). The demise of Dish would have a negative impact on their state. I commend the Senators from Colorado for showing backbone in the face of a bully.

I second what cebbigh says.

Of course it makes sense that it is my senators; e* is a huge part of the state's technology economy.

And I am pleased to see Allard do anything; beyond his perennial quest to ban cock fighting, this is a senator who stays under the radar screen.

I also agree with WaltinVt; now is the time for a coordinated campaign to contact US Senators.
 
rockymtnhigh said:
I second what cebbigh says.

Of course it makes sense that it is my senators; e* is a huge part of the state's technology economy.

And I am pleased to see Allard do anything; beyond his perennial quest to ban cock fighting, this is a senator who stays under the radar screen.

I also agree with WaltinVt; now is the time for a coordinated campaign to contact US Senators.

Ban cockfighting? Not only am I going to lose my networks but I won't be able to do that either! I need to find some new hobbies.
 
Yo Howdy said:
Ban cockfighting? Not only am I going to lose my networks but I won't be able to do that either! I need to find some new hobbies.

Allard is a veternarian, and he has pretty much introduced a bill about cock fighting every year; it never goes anywhere - so your hobby is probably safe. :)

Seriously, I was pleased Allard spoke out on this issue (Distants, not cock-fighting). Its a rare occasion. I might even write him a note thanking him.
 
Is Charlie your uncle? Geez, who is the real villain here? The key part of the press release is:

Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.

"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.


That's the simple truth. There is nothing wrong with seeking assistance from your elected representatives but E*'s chutzpah is beyond belief.



MikeD-C05 said:
This proves what I have been saying all along. That Rupert and Directv are trying to use this legal stalling tactic to steal customers from Dish, rather than provide a better satellite service on picture quality , low pricing , hd channels, cheaper lease deal on mpeg4 hd dvrs etc. It is sad that this Aussie thinks this is the only way to compete. Rupert is in a monoply situation when he owns the content provider- Fox network, the content distributer- Directv , as well as the parent company too- Newscorp. They should have never allowed one person to own so many media outlets and distributers . He is abusing his power and should be slapped hard by Congress . He should be forced by Congress to settle the dispute just like the other major networks did. The customers should not be hurt in this legal dispute as they did nothing wrong. If he provided a better satellite service he wouldn't have to jump to such cheap , petty tactics to gain subscribers . I will never sub to Directv again as long as he is running it - into the ground.
 
ThomasRz, maybe you could enlightened us as to what your ax to grind with E* is. Are you affiliated with the NAB or perhaps Direct ? You sure seem more than a little anxious for those of us with distants to be turned off. What's your motivation ?
 
Yes I would like to know that myself Thomas Rz? Why would you want to screw all the customers out of their distant networks? Is Rupert your uncle ? GEEZ!
 
ThomasRz said:
Is Charlie your uncle? Geez, who is the real villain here? The key part of the press release is:

Fox spokesman Andrew Butcher said his company proved its case in court and has done nothing wrong.

"We've had to fight this company's egregious misbehavior for eight years and now that we've won, they've gone crying to Congress," he said.


That's the simple truth. There is nothing wrong with seeking assistance from your elected representatives but E*'s chutzpah is beyond belief.

If a paid spokesman for FOX said it then it must be true.

Thanks for the encouragement. I just sent emails to both of my Senators and my Congressman.
 
Last edited:
Greg Bimson said:
Now let's get to the heart of the matter...

The protections aren't in the form of a law. If ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX owned your local affiliates, do you believe they'd throw infomercials up? I believe they'd show the network programming if your stations are O&O...

But CBS and FOX couldn't buy your stations. They don't have room under the FCC's ownership cap rule, which is to promote localism. As a matter of fact, decades ago, the FCC setup ways to try and stop networks from becoming so powerful. So, in any network-affiliate contract, the affiliate has the right to pre-empt quite a few shows.

So, now we are back to square one. The FCC wants to promote localism and keep local network affiliates from becoming a chain of network repeaters. However, most of the people that want distant networks are those that either want timeshifting abilities, access to different sports broadcasts or to have an alternate to crappy affiliates; these all being points against localism.

It is the agents of the NAB, which is mainly comprised of the non-O&O network affiliates, that are willing to settle for $100 million and a requalification of everyone. It is this party that keeps the station ownership caps in check, by reminding those in Congress that they exemplify the localism mandate.

They exemplify the localism mandate by having three of the four network stations show infomercials during the network schedule.

You nailed it!!!!

Again, what would the harm be to let people decide for themselves which affilates (distant or local) they want to watch. If the locals have so much value, what are they worried about?
 
Hi
I didn't know any of this was going on until I called to check on my bill today.
I have been on distants for 4 years at least, maybe 5 and I did the waiver to keep them.
Will they just go poof or will I have time to get a installer here to fix it ?
I have the HD Gold package and get CBS HD using a second DISH so I assume that would be of no use.
The thread is huge and I am sure it's already been answered so sorry for asking
I just was not sure if some still will get the distants or it's 'dead' for all if they don't reach some agreement.

Thanks for the time
Will
 
tigershere said:
Hi
I didn't know any of this was going on until I called to check on my bill today.
I have been on distants for 4 years at least, maybe 5 and I did the waiver to keep them.
Will they just go poof or will I have time to get a installer here to fix it ?
I have the HD Gold package and get CBS HD using a second DISH so I assume that would be of no use.
The thread is huge and I am sure it's already been answered so sorry for asking
I just was not sure if some still will get the distants or it's 'dead' for all if they don't reach some agreement.

Thanks for the time
Will

What did Dish tell you?
 
The Court must agree to the settlement that was proposed between E* and some of the plaintiffs. Fox Owned affiliates have not agreed to the settlement and in fact have petitioned the court to impose the injunction immediately. If that happens, then ALL distants go poof. It make NO difference how long you've had them, if you have waivers or if you live in a "white" area. The court of appeals has ordered the lower trial court to impose the injunction. The only thing that can possibly save them is if the trial judge accepts the proposed settlement. If Fox continues to play hard ass, the judge could order E* to stop delivering FOX distants or could do as Fox wants and impose the injunction on the entire distant offerings. 9/12/06 is the day of reckoning one way or the other.
 
I could not understand the woman actually. India, Mexico call center ?
When I called it said press one to hear about the distant networks
I skipped it as I didn't pay attention until thinking about why there was a press 1 in the first place.
Part of the message though is that the billing people can't give you anymore information. Call back for updates, etc, blah, puke
So this was the first I had heard about it as i had not been here since I got my HD receiver months ago.

So I have 5 days from tomorrow and it goes dead ?

I would have to get a superdish but I DO have a DISH 1000. Can it get the Locals like the superdish does ? I want to think it does. I know it seems to suffer worse from rain fade than my 500 did.

If it's going for sure I want to get the guy to go ahead and start the swap but I signed that waiver that said you can't get the locals once you sign it.
I assume that might mean you can't have both at the same time.

But who the heck wants to lose their networks right when all the new shows adn football is starting, not me, lol

Thanks
Will
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 3)

Latest posts

Top