srbond said:
Not without a big fight from the local network station owners, who are the main ones fighting against keeping them on satellite, now.
Dish Network: Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 644
- Views 91K
Not without a big fight from the local network station owners, who are the main ones fighting against keeping them on satellite, now.
Then it won't be on the system until the system can prove retransmission boundries.BigFella said:
Look, IPTV has the same issue as satellite does from ten years ago: there aren't any laws that can be used to clear the copyrights to enable carriage.
So, any single instance of a network popping up on IPTV will have already cleared their copyrights. And with the network's giving their affiliates first run rights exclusively, the network will not negotiate same-day feeds with IPTV providers. Some networks are already distributing through iTunes one day after premiere, so there is no sense killing the proverbial golden goose there.
Greg Bimson said:
We're in agreement then... I contend that proving retransmission boundaries will never happen due to the inherent nature of the internet (time zone and DMA free). I don't forsee IPTV being anything like the current distribution model for OTA, satellite or cable. Individual shows may be made available for download (for a fee or free with ads), but only after they are broadcast via the current distribution model.
With the networks and their local affiliates fighting tooth and nail to limit or eliminate broadcast feeds to distant network subs, why on earth do you think they will turn around and broadcast their content on the net? The current affiliate system maximizes their revenue, and as said multiple times they are not going to butcher their golden goose. If they can increase revenue by allowing delayed TV episodes on iTunes *without adversely affecting affiliates*, they will cautiously do so.srbond said:
Just posted by "Broadcasting & Cable"
Don't Sink Our Subs, EchoStar Tells Court
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/13/2006 4:36:00 PM
EchoStar has told a Florida district court that it should not have to pull the distant network signals of 800,000 subscribers because circumstance have changed dramatically since a court ordered it to, and consumers would be unduly and unfairly hurt by the move. Also, they say, competitor DirectTV would directly benefit from the move.
The Florida court had given the company until Sept. 12 to explain why the court should not immediately impose a permanent injunction against delivery of those signals as ordered by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Fox has argued that even though Echostar recently settled complaints over distant-signal delivery with 95% of the affected stations, the injunction should still apply.
EchoStar says that that Aug. 25, $100 million, settlement--with all but Fox affiliates--is a "substantial" change in circumstance since the injunction was ordered. It also says that in light of the settlement, a permanent injunction would be "unjust, particularly to consumers."
It would also vitiate the 100 million settlement," EchoStar pointed out.
Fox, which did not settle with Echostar, on Aug. 31 asked the court to issue the injunction.
The networks and station affiliate associations sued EchoStar back in 1998 for delivering distant networkTV signals to ineligible households.
While the $100 million covered 95% of the complaining stations, which included the affiliate associations of ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox, the Fox-owned stations did not settle, and Fox Broadcasting argues that the payout does not change the federal appeals court directive based on its finding that EchoStar repeatedly violated the act. Fox is owned by News Corp., which controls competing DBS service DirecTV.
Echostar Wednesday argued that Fox's refusal to join the $100 million settlement was so that DireTV could then grab the customers whose distant signals EchoStar was forced to yank.
Fox argued in its court filing Aug. 31 that the injunction was based on the Eleventh Circuit's finding of a "willful and repeated pattern of delivering copyrighted programs to ineligible households," and that "even the parties to the litigation themselves cannot alter this Court's obligation to comply with the injunction mandate."
Echostar counters that the changed circumstance empowers the Florida court not to impose the injunction.
Fox points to a harshly-worded opinion of the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit back in May, in which it declared: "We have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with laws regulating how satellite TV companies deliver broadcast stations to their customers."
The case is part of a long-running copyright dispute between broadcasters and satellite companies over homes located in the fringes of TV markets. TV stations want to reach every home in their areas. But subscribers in fringe areas often prefer their satellite companies to deliver stations from, say, New York City rather than Hartford, Conn.
According to law, EchoStar--and DirecTV--are permitted to deliver so-called "distant" network signals only to homes that cannot receive a sufficiently clear signal from their local affiliate of that network. But EchoStar’s method of determining which customers were eligible for the distant signals has been a bone of contention-- and litigation-- for years.
Broadcasters complained that EchoStar abuses the rules and violates the Satellite Home Viewer Act by regularly delivering out of market stations in competition to local stations in the market that carry the same network programming. The Eleventh Circuit court agreed.
Don't Sink Our Subs, EchoStar Tells Court
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/13/2006 4:36:00 PM
EchoStar has told a Florida district court that it should not have to pull the distant network signals of 800,000 subscribers because circumstance have changed dramatically since a court ordered it to, and consumers would be unduly and unfairly hurt by the move. Also, they say, competitor DirectTV would directly benefit from the move.
The Florida court had given the company until Sept. 12 to explain why the court should not immediately impose a permanent injunction against delivery of those signals as ordered by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Fox has argued that even though Echostar recently settled complaints over distant-signal delivery with 95% of the affected stations, the injunction should still apply.
EchoStar says that that Aug. 25, $100 million, settlement--with all but Fox affiliates--is a "substantial" change in circumstance since the injunction was ordered. It also says that in light of the settlement, a permanent injunction would be "unjust, particularly to consumers."
It would also vitiate the 100 million settlement," EchoStar pointed out.
Fox, which did not settle with Echostar, on Aug. 31 asked the court to issue the injunction.
The networks and station affiliate associations sued EchoStar back in 1998 for delivering distant networkTV signals to ineligible households.
While the $100 million covered 95% of the complaining stations, which included the affiliate associations of ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox, the Fox-owned stations did not settle, and Fox Broadcasting argues that the payout does not change the federal appeals court directive based on its finding that EchoStar repeatedly violated the act. Fox is owned by News Corp., which controls competing DBS service DirecTV.
Echostar Wednesday argued that Fox's refusal to join the $100 million settlement was so that DireTV could then grab the customers whose distant signals EchoStar was forced to yank.
Fox argued in its court filing Aug. 31 that the injunction was based on the Eleventh Circuit's finding of a "willful and repeated pattern of delivering copyrighted programs to ineligible households," and that "even the parties to the litigation themselves cannot alter this Court's obligation to comply with the injunction mandate."
Echostar counters that the changed circumstance empowers the Florida court not to impose the injunction.
Fox points to a harshly-worded opinion of the three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit back in May, in which it declared: "We have found no indication that EchoStar was ever interested in complying with laws regulating how satellite TV companies deliver broadcast stations to their customers."
The case is part of a long-running copyright dispute between broadcasters and satellite companies over homes located in the fringes of TV markets. TV stations want to reach every home in their areas. But subscribers in fringe areas often prefer their satellite companies to deliver stations from, say, New York City rather than Hartford, Conn.
According to law, EchoStar--and DirecTV--are permitted to deliver so-called "distant" network signals only to homes that cannot receive a sufficiently clear signal from their local affiliate of that network. But EchoStar’s method of determining which customers were eligible for the distant signals has been a bone of contention-- and litigation-- for years.
Broadcasters complained that EchoStar abuses the rules and violates the Satellite Home Viewer Act by regularly delivering out of market stations in competition to local stations in the market that carry the same network programming. The Eleventh Circuit court agreed.
Last edited:
Echostar Requests 120 day Extension
In a court filing late Tuesday, EchoStar Communications asked for at least 120 business days to comply if ordered by a federal judge to terminate Big Four network programming to more than 800,000 subscribers largely located in rural areas.
EchoStar is facing a sweeping injunction from a federal judge in south Florida that would bar it from selling ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming to a class of subscribers who qualify under federal law to purchase imported network signals because local affiliates can’t be viewed with off-air antennas.
News Corp. -- which controls DirecTV, EchoStar’s main rival -- is insisting that the scope of the injunction should include all four networks. But EchoStar claimed in the court filing that because 95% of network affiliates have settled, any injunction should be narrow, applying just to the delivery of Fox programming in the 25 markets where Fox owns TV stations.
EchoStar is in legal trouble after court rulings found that the direct-broadcast satellite company sold distant network signals to hundreds of thousands of ineligible customers. The sudden cutoff of popular network programming has some on Capitol Hill worried. Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is trying to pass legislation that would avoid a massive cutoff.
EchoStar told the court it would need at least four months to help consumers find alternative means of receiving network programming, including purchase of a local-TV-signal package in the 165 markets where that option is available.
The company added that another option for cutoff subscribers was an “off-air antenna,” but that seemed a strange rationale for extra time because the distant network option was created by Congress to serve viewers for whom off-air antennas were useless.
Lastly, EchoStar said that without a reasonable transition period, it feared that 10 company-owned-and-operated call centers would become “clogged,” upsetting existing and potential customers seeking personal service.
In a court filing late Tuesday, EchoStar Communications asked for at least 120 business days to comply if ordered by a federal judge to terminate Big Four network programming to more than 800,000 subscribers largely located in rural areas.
EchoStar is facing a sweeping injunction from a federal judge in south Florida that would bar it from selling ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox programming to a class of subscribers who qualify under federal law to purchase imported network signals because local affiliates can’t be viewed with off-air antennas.
News Corp. -- which controls DirecTV, EchoStar’s main rival -- is insisting that the scope of the injunction should include all four networks. But EchoStar claimed in the court filing that because 95% of network affiliates have settled, any injunction should be narrow, applying just to the delivery of Fox programming in the 25 markets where Fox owns TV stations.
EchoStar is in legal trouble after court rulings found that the direct-broadcast satellite company sold distant network signals to hundreds of thousands of ineligible customers. The sudden cutoff of popular network programming has some on Capitol Hill worried. Senate Commerce Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is trying to pass legislation that would avoid a massive cutoff.
EchoStar told the court it would need at least four months to help consumers find alternative means of receiving network programming, including purchase of a local-TV-signal package in the 165 markets where that option is available.
The company added that another option for cutoff subscribers was an “off-air antenna,” but that seemed a strange rationale for extra time because the distant network option was created by Congress to serve viewers for whom off-air antennas were useless.
Lastly, EchoStar said that without a reasonable transition period, it feared that 10 company-owned-and-operated call centers would become “clogged,” upsetting existing and potential customers seeking personal service.
mikew said:Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil
The company added that another option for cutoff subscribers was an “off-air antenna,” but that seemed a strange rationale for extra time because the distant network option was created by Congress to serve viewers for whom off-air antennas were useless.
That sounds like Echostar lawyering to me !!
Never go to an Echostar lawyer for an antenna installation.
srbond said:
Maybe. but the article discusses the technology of putting video entertainment on the net. This thread is more about legal issues concerning the transmission of network programming into local markets. Not really the same thing. Sometimes the technology isa limiting factor and sometimes the laws and regualtions surrounding it are.
Unless something is changed in the contracts the national networks currently have with their affiliates, it's simply that these affiliates pay the national network for the right to have the exclusive first run of all the national programming.
As long as it's done that way, there will never be any network prime time shows on the internet or VOD or anywhere else before they're broadcast by the affiliates.
By the same reasoning, neither will it be legal for those networks to allow their signal to be received by anyone from a non O&O affiliate's DMA unless that person is predicted to be "unserved" as defined by law.
As long as it's done that way, there will never be any network prime time shows on the internet or VOD or anywhere else before they're broadcast by the affiliates.
By the same reasoning, neither will it be legal for those networks to allow their signal to be received by anyone from a non O&O affiliate's DMA unless that person is predicted to be "unserved" as defined by law.
There would probably always be a 24 hr waiting period to allow for exclusive 1st run contracted affiliates.BigFella said:
Also worth mentioning, is there currently any way to even get programming off the internet that really competes with broadcast in terms of picture quality? There's a big difference between seeing "Lost" or a World Series game in HD (Lite) on a 42" plasma versus the little ITunes player on your computer.
waltinvt said:
Technology marches on, and the "pipes" will eventually get big enough to provide decent picture quality - it's the law of supply and demand. I have my doubts however re: the laws that govern DNS
.
Actually I think that the networks pay the affilaites in most cases (certainly for the Big 4).
It is now my understanding (thanks to the other forum) that it is FOX not DISH that has to make a response by the 21st. So yes the decsion is put off but that puts a somewhat different spin on it all. Let'd ee what happens.
It is now my understanding (thanks to the other forum) that it is FOX not DISH that has to make a response by the 21st. So yes the decsion is put off but that puts a somewhat different spin on it all. Let'd ee what happens.
Geronimo said:
No, what the court did was give Fox a deadline of 9/21 to respond to the response of the other plaintiffs to its motion to issue the injunction. I expect an answer fairly quickly (2-3 weeks) but remember this is not like Judge Wapner rendering justice after the last commercial. The parties had a deadline of 9/12. The judge can take his own sweet time.
Correct me if I'm worng.
The networks dont' actually own the programming. That is why there are so many production companies aroung trying to sell their programs to the networks and cable channels.
Obviously the network or channel has a contract for the rights to broadcast the programs. But they don't actually own the program.
If there was a viable way to show first run programs on the net (and make money to pay the stars), I don't think there would be anything to stop the production companies from selling to whoever they wanted to. This is why some programs are only on cable and not the broadcast networks.
All it takes is a little outside the box thinking and the networks could be history.
Dune
The networks dont' actually own the programming. That is why there are so many production companies aroung trying to sell their programs to the networks and cable channels.
Obviously the network or channel has a contract for the rights to broadcast the programs. But they don't actually own the program.
If there was a viable way to show first run programs on the net (and make money to pay the stars), I don't think there would be anything to stop the production companies from selling to whoever they wanted to. This is why some programs are only on cable and not the broadcast networks.
All it takes is a little outside the box thinking and the networks could be history.
Dune
