Dish Network: Distant Networks
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 644
- Views 92K
Jim5506 said:
I did same thing. Directv customer so worded that its a fight for all consumers and choice. I personally dont believe we should be forced to watch only our local market.
From Dish Network...
Also note that the SaveMyChannels.COM website will officially launch of Tuesday.
Also note that the SaveMyChannels.COM website will officially launch of Tuesday.
I sent my own letter a few months back when the ruling was first announced....
I'm hoping they can stall this thing for a few more years.... By then Fios or Video over IP may make it all moot.....
I'm hoping they can stall this thing for a few more years.... By then Fios or Video over IP may make it all moot.....
Uh, if the theory holds, a court of law will force Dish Network to stop delivering distants.Chris Walker said:
So, now let me make sure of your issue. If the court issues an injunction, you would still want Dish Network to break the law and deliver you distants?
Greg Bimson said:
If I legally have them via waivers-yes
If I legally have them because I live in an area that Dish doesn't have locals yet and I qualify for distants because I am outside of grade b-yes
That is because your fears are valid; they are already codified into law. Think about it:Scott Greczkowski said:
The SHVERA has two kinds of distant networks: analog and digital. Even though they use the same license, there are differences. The largest difference is that for distant digital signals, you can only get a distant from your time zone or later.
So, what happens during the analog cut-off? The analog distants go away. Leaving the digital distants.
The SHVERA also cuts off digital distants once a local market is up in digital. Many DirecTV HD subs are going through this cut-off right now. Dish Network will not have this problem on a grand scale, as only CBS is available.
So, by February, 2009, distants will cease to exist as we know them. There will only be distant digital nets, which means you must get distants from your own time zone or later. And this will do two things:
1) DirecTV's policy is to give only one time zone for distant digitals. That means unless you live in the Mountain Time Zone, timeshifting is done.
2) If the injunction is issued, Dish Network will not be allowed distant digitals, either, unless there is some intervention from Congress and the President.
Greg Bimson said:
Isn't breaking the law what put Dish Network in this situation? Yet you are now advocating it? You'd want to tank Dish Network?Iceberg said:
There are hundreds of thousands of subscribers who will be hurt by this. I hope they all light torches and storm Capitol Hill because the issue may finally get resolved. Special interest groups have been using Jedi mind tricks (ie. bags of lobbyist money) on elected officials for years. As long as constituents don't turn off the pretty corpse of the week show on CNN, they are none the wiser. However, when you yank their TV channels they will be TICKED. Here's to hoping that occurs....
Greg Bimson said:
Having valid waivers from the stations isn't breaking the law. You seem to be looking at it as Dish broke the law by not qualifying people correctly so now the remedy is an ok one. You're not taking into consideration people who can and are legally entitled to the distants.
So as Iceberg said if customers have valid and legal waivers they should not lose DNS. It's not wanting to tank Dish, it's just what's correct legally.
The way the law is written, the only remedy for the "willful infringement" is to permanently injunct use of distant networks. So are you insisting the court turns a blind eye? So are you insisting the court start legislating from the bench, becoming an activist court?pdxsam said:
The rules for the license are simple. If the rules are blatantly violated, the ONLY course of action for the courts is to cut-off distant service to everyone.
Greg
Here is a perfect (legit) example of what I mean in the 2nd idea (the 1st is pretty straight forward)
Mankato, MN is a DMA of 3 counties and one TV station (CBS) about 90 miles SW of Minneapolis. They have a Grade B in most of the DMA for ABC. However, BOTH Dish & Direct say you can get distants for NBC & FOX and PBS
Direct recently added Mankato to its locals by Sig Viewed. Customers get ABC, NBC, and Fox from Minneapolis (the SV area), CBS from Mankato and Nat’l PBS. So you can’t get distants anymore via Direct.
But the Dish customers legally subscribe to NBC & Fox distants because they are outside of Grade B for those 2 stations.
So I was a customer in Mankato or other small markets that legally qualify for distants, I’d be a little pissed. Same with people who went through the whole waiver process.
Here is a perfect (legit) example of what I mean in the 2nd idea (the 1st is pretty straight forward)
Mankato, MN is a DMA of 3 counties and one TV station (CBS) about 90 miles SW of Minneapolis. They have a Grade B in most of the DMA for ABC. However, BOTH Dish & Direct say you can get distants for NBC & FOX and PBS
Direct recently added Mankato to its locals by Sig Viewed. Customers get ABC, NBC, and Fox from Minneapolis (the SV area), CBS from Mankato and Nat’l PBS. So you can’t get distants anymore via Direct.
But the Dish customers legally subscribe to NBC & Fox distants because they are outside of Grade B for those 2 stations.
So I was a customer in Mankato or other small markets that legally qualify for distants, I’d be a little pissed. Same with people who went through the whole waiver process.
I understand, Iceberg. It is upsetting. I am just pointing out that the anger directed at Dish Network is a little unfounded, since it will be the courts that cut-off distant networks. However, the courts will force cut-offs of all distant subscribers because it is the only remedy the courts have for Dish Network's blatant disregard for the law, for which people should be upset.
Or everyone can direct their anger at the people that sued to get all this started: the networks. However, people don't generally like to assign blame to something they enjoy.
Or everyone can direct their anger at the people that sued to get all this started: the networks. However, people don't generally like to assign blame to something they enjoy.
I think they should come up with a Denver Boot device...and go door to door and cover all Dish dishes until this is reseolved!
Just kidding bored at work.
The question I have is how long did Dish know about this issue? If its been a long time you have to find fault with E*. If they were notified recently then they should be given time to sort things out.
Just kidding bored at work.
The question I have is how long did Dish know about this issue? If its been a long time you have to find fault with E*. If they were notified recently then they should be given time to sort things out.
here is a copy of an email i received back from my emails for the http://www.savemychannels.com
Dear Jeff:
Thank you for contacting me regarding telecommunications reform. These concerns are of central importance as Congress begins the process of debating the first major telecommunications reform in a decade.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. This was the first major rewrite to the 1934 Communications Act. This congressional policy was intended to open up telecommunications markets to competition. At the time of the 1996 Act, the telecommunications industry was dominated by service providers that generally did not compete with one another: circuit-switched networks provided telephone service, and coaxial cable networks provided cable service. The Act created separate regulatory structures for each set of providers.
Our country faces a much different telecommunications industry now and telecommunications services are more vital to our everyday lives than ever before. Digital technologies have led to a convergence in markets as telephone, cable, and even wireless network companies are increasingly able to offer voice, data, and video services over a single broadband platform.
Almost all parties agree that the current statutory and regulatory framework is inappropriate for current market environment. But there is considerable debate over how to modify this framework. I will be guided by my commitment to promote innovation and the equitable development and deployment of our nation’s communication infrastructure.
We must foster investment, innovation and competition while meeting the critical public policy objectives of universal service, homeland security, and public safety. Beyond being a purely technological issue, the expansion of broadband technology could be one of the most important social economic, and political equity issues of our time. If all Americans do not have access to digital technologies, our country will be unable to compete in this emerging Digital Age and our people will miss an opportunity to connect in a way that could greatly enhance democratic debate.
One of the central debates in telecommunications reform is over ‘network neutrality’ in physical networks, such as telephone and cable networks. Independent application and service providers, such as voice and video companies, are pressing for preservation of the Internet as a service that does not discriminate against any given website creator or provider of a service such as music, e-mail, or voice over IP. These companies claim that without network neutrality they will not be able to innovate and meet the needs of consumers. On the other hand, physical network providers argue that they have sunk huge up-front costs into the underlying structure of broadband networks – telephone lines, cable lines and the like. They say that to mandate network neutrality would discourage them from building out more networks in the future, and would be an inequitable distribution of income away from their businesses.
I look forward to playing a role in the telecommunications reform debate as it proceeds in this 109th Congress and the next. I am not on the Senate Commerce Committee that will make most of the decisions on these topics, but I have begun a dialogue with the Commerce Committee Chairman and Ranking Member on these issues, and will continue my engagement with them in the future. While it is too early in the dialogue to make final decisions about each of the issues involved, I can tell you that my overwhelming concern is to extend critical digital technology to as many people as possible, in as efficient and equitable a manner as possible. I am disinclined to support proposals that would discourage innovation and competition, and I am strongly inclined to back provisions that help working-class Americans have better, cheaper access to technology.
Again, Jeff, thank you for contacting me. I am glad you shared your concerns with me, and I will certainly remember them as this important debate continues.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
Stay up to date with Barack's work in the Senate and on issues of importance to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
Dear Jeff:
Thank you for contacting me regarding telecommunications reform. These concerns are of central importance as Congress begins the process of debating the first major telecommunications reform in a decade.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act. This was the first major rewrite to the 1934 Communications Act. This congressional policy was intended to open up telecommunications markets to competition. At the time of the 1996 Act, the telecommunications industry was dominated by service providers that generally did not compete with one another: circuit-switched networks provided telephone service, and coaxial cable networks provided cable service. The Act created separate regulatory structures for each set of providers.
Our country faces a much different telecommunications industry now and telecommunications services are more vital to our everyday lives than ever before. Digital technologies have led to a convergence in markets as telephone, cable, and even wireless network companies are increasingly able to offer voice, data, and video services over a single broadband platform.
Almost all parties agree that the current statutory and regulatory framework is inappropriate for current market environment. But there is considerable debate over how to modify this framework. I will be guided by my commitment to promote innovation and the equitable development and deployment of our nation’s communication infrastructure.
We must foster investment, innovation and competition while meeting the critical public policy objectives of universal service, homeland security, and public safety. Beyond being a purely technological issue, the expansion of broadband technology could be one of the most important social economic, and political equity issues of our time. If all Americans do not have access to digital technologies, our country will be unable to compete in this emerging Digital Age and our people will miss an opportunity to connect in a way that could greatly enhance democratic debate.
One of the central debates in telecommunications reform is over ‘network neutrality’ in physical networks, such as telephone and cable networks. Independent application and service providers, such as voice and video companies, are pressing for preservation of the Internet as a service that does not discriminate against any given website creator or provider of a service such as music, e-mail, or voice over IP. These companies claim that without network neutrality they will not be able to innovate and meet the needs of consumers. On the other hand, physical network providers argue that they have sunk huge up-front costs into the underlying structure of broadband networks – telephone lines, cable lines and the like. They say that to mandate network neutrality would discourage them from building out more networks in the future, and would be an inequitable distribution of income away from their businesses.
I look forward to playing a role in the telecommunications reform debate as it proceeds in this 109th Congress and the next. I am not on the Senate Commerce Committee that will make most of the decisions on these topics, but I have begun a dialogue with the Commerce Committee Chairman and Ranking Member on these issues, and will continue my engagement with them in the future. While it is too early in the dialogue to make final decisions about each of the issues involved, I can tell you that my overwhelming concern is to extend critical digital technology to as many people as possible, in as efficient and equitable a manner as possible. I am disinclined to support proposals that would discourage innovation and competition, and I am strongly inclined to back provisions that help working-class Americans have better, cheaper access to technology.
Again, Jeff, thank you for contacting me. I am glad you shared your concerns with me, and I will certainly remember them as this important debate continues.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
Stay up to date with Barack's work in the Senate and on issues of importance to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/
Greg Bimson said:
There are many times where the court has "re-written" a ruling or law. While the law is written in such a way, a financial remedy was also in order and was not explored.
Again, I see the point you're making. I fully understand it. The bottom line is that thousands of households will be underserved by this remedy because of a lax corporation. The corporation should be the one held accountable. The subscribers should not be punished because of the corporation.
Im going to be really unpopular if I state my views on this. But DNS needs to be turned off to be fair to everyone. The poor Joe just inside the grade B contour never qualified for DNS eventhough the reception sucked yet some neighbor a few yards away did qualify? Its always been an unfair system with thousands lying about where they live inorder to get DNS. D* is turning it off and E* will have to as well. Time for those pristine NY and LA feeds to go bye bye. Time to suffer equaly like everyone else with the local affialiate's crappy multicast ridden crap. Get over it. No petition is going to change it. Soon you'll have HDLIL coverage by Sat anyway.
Last edited:
vurbano said:
So those of us who went to the effort of getting waivers/signal tests should have to be cut off because you didn't want to take the time to do so? I will NOT "get over it". If Dish takes away my distants, I will "move" or get them back legally or illegally by whatever means.
Answer I got from Pete Domenici:
Thank you very much for contacting me with regard to media diversity. I am glad you took the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.
The thoughtful input of New Mexicans has always been and continues to be of the utmost importance to me as your U.S. Senator. I have always believed that it is essential to know what is on the minds of the people it is my honor to represent in Washington, and I assure you that I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep me apprised of the issues most important to you.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici
United States Senator
PVD:LC
Thank you very much for contacting me with regard to media diversity. I am glad you took the time to share your thoughts with me on this important issue.
The thoughtful input of New Mexicans has always been and continues to be of the utmost importance to me as your U.S. Senator. I have always believed that it is essential to know what is on the minds of the people it is my honor to represent in Washington, and I assure you that I will keep your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep me apprised of the issues most important to you.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici
United States Senator
PVD:LC
Similar threads
