Dish Network: Distant Networks

[cj9788]

Keep fingers crossed we hopefully have DNS until Sept 11. Also notice how Members of congress are speaking out on this. We are getting their attention, let’s not let up now



From Multichannel news:

Second, in preparation of the stay denial, EchoStar and network-affiliated TV stations that sued EchoStar jointly asked the lower court Tuesday to postpone any injunction until Sept. 11. Both sides informed the court that they were attempting to reach a settlement.

The parties were urged to file for a 45-day postponement by key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas).

Lastly, if the District Court ignores the postponement request, EchoStar still has the option of asking the Supreme Court to lift the injunction while considering the merits of the appeal of the 11th Circuit's May ruling.

In that decision, the 11th Circuit found that EchoStar had flagrantly broken the law by selling out-of-market network signals to thousands of ineligible customers.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Right now, this is bubbling below the radar and only wired ones like us are ticked. There will be hundreds of thousands of ticked off constituents cut off from their favorite networks if this goes through, and it looks like now they GET the crisis, so large players are working behind the scenes to solve this.

I'm actually more hopeful now, let's see how it plays out....

 

[brada]

I got the same response from sen. Feinstein, as the other guy:
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=72096&page=3
Pretty straight forward:
".....I understand your frustration with this
situation. But networks and their local affiliates either
own or buy the license to the programming that they air,
and satellite providers cannot broadcast or retransmit
programming into a television market when it does not
have a license to do so..."

 

[GaryPen]

I also received the canned response from Sen Feinstein, which pointed to SHVERA. She oddly defends the bill, considering it's a pro-business/anti-consumer bill, which is odd for a Democrat, especially one from california, to back. My response to her was:
The point of my original email is that all Americans should be able to watch any distant broadcast network signal, for any reason, from any where, if the technology allows it. I should not be denied being able to watch news and local programming from New York City, simply because I choose to now live in California. If there is a technical means of viewing that programming, I should be allowed to receive it. The local broadcasters where I live should not be able to dictate to me what I can watch or from where I can watch it. It is quite simply a violation of my Constitutional rights.

SHVERA was crafted to protect the interests of broadcasting corporations, not America's citizens. It needs to be changed to allow Americans the freedom to choose what they want to watch, regardless of its origination. As a Democrat, you should side with the consumers on this issue, and not cave in to the broadcast industry and its powerful lobbies. Please do the right thing, in the Democratic tradition, and do what you can to restore these broadcast reception rights to your California constituents in particular, and all American citizens in general.

Sincerely,

yadda yadda

I figured I'd pander to her party loyalty as well. Couldn't hurt.

I probably should have made clear I was referring only to broadcast signals, which are already free ota to the public. Also, if the carrier is charging a fee from their subs, they should pay the original broadcaster a portion of that fee.

 

[waltinvt]

I also received the canned response from Sen Feinstein, which pointed to SHVERA. She oddly defends the bill, considering it's a pro-business/anti-consumer bill, which is odd for a Democrat, especially one from california, to back. My response to her was:
The point of my original email is that all Americans should be able to watch any distant broadcast network signal, for any reason, from any where, if the technology allows it. I should not be denied being able to watch news and local programming from New York City, simply because I choose to now live in California. If there is a technical means of viewing that programming, I should be allowed to receive it. The local broadcasters where I live should not be able to dictate to me what I can watch or from where I can watch it. It is quite simply a violation of my Constitutional rights.

SHVERA was crafted to protect the interests of broadcasting corporations, not America's citizens. It needs to be changed to allow Americans the freedom to choose what they want to watch, regardless of its origination. As a Democrat, you should side with the consumers on this issue, and not cave in to the broadcast industry and its powerful lobbies. Please do the right thing, in the Democratic tradition, and do what you can to restore these broadcast reception rights to your California constituents in particular, and all American citizens in general.

Sincerely,

yadda yadda

I figured I'd pander to her party loyalty as well. Couldn't hurt.

I probably should have made clear I was referring only to broadcast signals, which are already free ota to the public. Also, if the carrier is charging a fee from their subs, they should pay the original broadcaster a portion of that fee.

Nice response Gary

 

[boy921]

I also received the canned response from Sen Feinstein, which pointed to SHVERA. She oddly defends the bill, considering it's a pro-business/anti-consumer bill, which is odd for a Democrat, especially one from California, to back....

Gary I got the same boilerplate letter. I think what she really meant to say was, "We created and passed this bill, now you have to live with it."

 

[micklewhite]

You guys are still missing the point. Stick up the best antenna you can afford and whatever channels you get you can watch. You do not have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to have a third party steal somebody else's property and provide it to you just because it is "technologically possible." The only reason E* has the programming to provide to you in the first place is that Congress made an exception to the copyright law. Absent this statutory license, nobody would have ever gotten DNS. This license has conditions. If you would like to change those conditions I suggest you visit the large white building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I'm starting to think that a lot of posters are of a younger (It's all about me and what I want generation). It seems you are incapable of understanding the concept of property rights. How did you develop this attitude? I really want to understand. If you see a car you like but the owner doesn't want to sell it to you, do you think you have the right to have goons forcibly take it and throw what you think a fair price is at the owner's feet?

 

[J. Allen Head]

i can't send one - getting a under construction site when i click on the link


Under Construction


The site you are trying to view does not currently have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded and configured.

Please try this site again later. If you still experience the problem, try contacting the Web site administrator.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are the Web site administrator and feel you have received this message in error, please see "Enabling and Disabling Dynamic Content" in IIS Help.

To access IIS Help
Click Start, and then click Run.
In the Open text box, type inetmgr. IIS Manager appears.
From the Help menu, click Help Topics.
Click Internet Information Services.

 

[BobMurdoch]

How is a person in the sticks of Montana infringing on a broadcaster's "rights" (I thought WE, the citizens, owned the airwaves, anyway, but I digress)?

This boneheaded judge has smacked down rural America singlehandedly. I can't wait for the heads to roll, when channels go dark..... It will be a nuisance to me to lose my timeshifting capabilities, but I can't imagine having some judge in a federal court suddenly decide someone shouldn't be able to watch ABC anymore because a local area isn't served by that network....

 

[Juan]

You guys are still missing the point. Stick up the best antenna you can afford and whatever channels you get you can watch. You do not have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to have a third party steal somebody else's property and provide it to you just because it is "technologically possible." The only reason E* has the programming to provide to you in the first place is that Congress made an exception to the copyright law. Absent this statutory license, nobody would have ever gotten DNS. This license has conditions. If you would like to change those conditions I suggest you visit the large white building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I'm starting to think that a lot of posters are of a younger (It's all about me and what I want generation). It seems you are incapable of understanding the concept of property rights. How did you develop this attitude? I really want to understand. If you see a car you like but the owner doesn't want to sell it to you, do you think you have the right to have goons forcibly take it and throw what you think a fair price is at the owner's feet?

gee I didnt realize broadcasters "owned" bandwidth. I thought the Government "owned" the bandwidth and "licensed" broadcasters at practiacally "no cost"..so the broadcasters are stealing from all of us

 

[boy921]

You guys are still missing the point. Stick up the best antenna you can afford and whatever channels you get you can watch.

Your right, I'm a gonna go get me a deep fringe and throw-er up on my motor home and drive-er down the freeway. I'll be sure to use good guy wire and keep it low enough so I can get past the overpasses. Hopefully it will work when I'm in the woods.

It seems you are incapable of understanding the concept of property rights. How did you develop this attitude? I really want to understand. If you see a car you like but the owner doesn't want to sell it to you, do you think you have the right to have goons forcibly take it and throw what you think a fair price is at the owner's feet?

I can't argue with you here, however as I recall, I was able to legally receive all the network channels, both E and W feeds for a small fee back in the 90's. Laws were then made so I could only get feeds for my area. Then more laws were made so I could only get the distance if I qualified. Sounds more like the, "goons" forcibly took them from me. You speak of a car but really you thinking of our forefathers acquisition of the land in this county.

 

[Mr Tony]

You guys are still missing the point. Stick up the best antenna you can afford and whatever channels you get you can watch.

Buddy this ain't the 60's.

In alot of markets, what stations you "have" (and I use that in quotes because lots of areas can't get reception at all) so why should they be forced to view something 200 miles away? If this is all about advertising, if I see a Subway commercial on a Minneapolis station or a NY station, whats the difference? NOTHING

Thank god for for moving and Canadian TV

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Wouod this be a possilbe solution to the problem

It would not surprise me if the settlement that Charlie reaches with those evil broadcasters drives the up the cost of DNS to something like $15 for the east coast and $15 for the west coast with the bulk of the money going to the other broadcasters.

Perhaps if they got a settlement like that they would drop the suit and let Charlie sell all the DNS that he wants. As long as the local broadcasters are getting some extra cash from Charlie Ill bet they drop the suit.


Bob

 

[lou_do]

The Distant Networks issue is local station territorial coverage, more than an issue to the network owners. Say a local TV station in Orlando sells his local advertising based on the amount of TV homes, in their territorial coverage area. Then, if residents of Orlando are allowed to get locals from Boston, and those people elect to watch their programing on the Boston stations instead of the Orlando ones they don't get the local inserted commercials from Orlando, and get the ones from Boston instead. So the Orlando TV station owners look at it this way, the Orlando local commercials are not reaching the Orlando viewers, that are watching networks network programing on the Boston stations. Advertisers find out about this and they won't pay as much for ads as they would if they were reaching 100% of the territory.
Yes, the national commercials (Pizza Hut, McDonald's, etc) are reaching everyone, but the issue of concern is the local stations loosing viewers for the LOCAL ads.
I have had satellite TV (C-Band and/or D*) since the 70's. This issue has been going on most of that time.

 

[GaryPen]

You guys are still missing the point. Stick up the best antenna you can afford and whatever channels you get you can watch. You do not have a right (constitutional or otherwise) to have a third party steal somebody else's property and provide it to you just because it is "technologically possible." The only reason E* has the programming to provide to you in the first place is that Congress made an exception to the copyright law. Absent this statutory license, nobody would have ever gotten DNS. This license has conditions. If you would like to change those conditions I suggest you visit the large white building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I'm starting to think that a lot of posters are of a younger (It's all about me and what I want generation). It seems you are incapable of understanding the concept of property rights. How did you develop this attitude? I really want to understand. If you see a car you like but the owner doesn't want to sell it to you, do you think you have the right to have goons forcibly take it and throw what you think a fair price is at the owner's feet?

No. YOU are the one missing the point. We are not stealing anything. Those signals are already broadcast FREE via OTA. We wish to use technology to view those signals in areas other than they are originally broadcast.

These signals are not decrypted. They do not require a special subscription. You do not have to pay for these signals in any way other than for the hardware to receive them. They are FREE from the source.

I wish to view these FREE broadcast televison signals. Unfortunately, my regular TV reception hardware is not capable of receiving NY stations in CA. However, with the help of Dish Network (or DirecTV, or a SlingBox, or a PC with a TV Tuner card) I can now receive those FREE broadcast signals.

Why is there a law preventing me from doing this, which is my right as a US citizen? (I know there is no laws against the SlingBox YET. But, if things continue as they are, THERE WILL BE. That is the main reason SlingMedia did not build DVR functions into the SlingPlayer software. They are worried about lawsuits. As it is, the MLB is already trying to stop the SlingBox because it allows people to see out of market games. )

Is there a law against bigass antennas and signal boosters? Of course not. These also allow some people to receive signals outside of their DMA. Why is my cable company allowed to provide some out of market stations on my cable system? Granted, they are from nearby DMA's. But, they are still outside DMA's.

Of course, if the technology provider is charging a specific fee to retransmit these signals, then they need to share this fee with the original providers. But, otherwise, FREE broadcast television from any area in the country should be available to watch in any other area of the country.

It couldn't be any simpler than that.

The thing that's really crazy about the broadcasters being against this is that it increases viewership! You'd think they'd want MORE viewers. I guess the quality of their programming isn't the only clue that these people are morons.

 

[boy921]

...Perhaps if they got a settlement like that they would drop the suit and let Charlie sell all the DNS that he wants. As long as the local broadcasters are getting some extra cash from Charlie Ill bet they drop the suit.

This is a law violation at this point. Not a suit. The courts will rule on the violation. The court could decided to change directions but this is doubtful.

The Distant Networks issue is local station territorial coverage, more than an issue to the network owners. Say a local TV station in Orlando sells his local advertising based on the amount of TV homes, in their territorial coverage area. Then, if residents of Orlando are allowed to get locals from Boston, and those people elect to watch their programing on the Boston stations instead of the Orlando ones they don't get the local inserted commercials from Orlando, and get the ones from Boston instead. So the Orlando TV station owners look at it this way, the Orlando local commercials are not reaching the Orlando viewers, that are watching networks network programing on the Boston stations. Advertisers find out about this and they won't pay as much for ads as they would if they were reaching 100% of the territory.
Yes, the national commercials (Pizza Hut, McDonald's, etc) are reaching everyone, but the issue of concern is the local stations loosing viewers for the LOCAL ads.
I have had satellite TV (C-Band and/or D*) since the 70's. This issue has been going on most of that time.

Lou_do this is very well put and most likely is the driving force that got NAB to wag the dog.

 

[GaryPen]

The Distant Networks issue is local station territorial coverage, more than an issue to the network owners. Say a local TV station in Orlando sells his local advertising based on the amount of TV homes, in their territorial coverage area. Then, if residents of Orlando are allowed to get locals from Boston, and those people elect to watch their programing on the Boston stations instead of the Orlando ones they don't get the local inserted commercials from Orlando, and get the ones from Boston instead. So the Orlando TV station owners look at it this way, the Orlando local commercials are not reaching the Orlando viewers, that are watching networks network programing on the Boston stations. Advertisers find out about this and they won't pay as much for ads as they would if they were reaching 100% of the territory.
Yes, the national commercials (Pizza Hut, McDonald's, etc) are reaching everyone, but the issue of concern is the local stations loosing viewers for the LOCAL ads.
I have had satellite TV (C-Band and/or D*) since the 70's. This issue has been going on most of that time.

That's too F-ing bad. If my local station wants me to watch THEIR programming, then make it compelling for me to watch. There are two reasons to watch an out of market network channel. One is for content that is unique to that distant channel, which cannot be duplicated by the local channel. In that case, I am not choosing the distant instead of the local. It is the only thing I want to watch at that time. It's likely I wouldn't watch the local, even if I could not receive the distant.

A good example is Saturday baseball game on Fox. If I cannot watch the Mets game from the NY Fox channel, I will not not say "Oh well, I guess I'll watch the A's on my local Fox channel." No. I'm not interested. I will simply not watch ANY Fox channel during that time period. So, Fox actually LOSES a viewer during that period.

The other reason would be for technical reasons. The distant network station may have better picture and/or sound. Well then. If the local station wants people to choose its network broadcasts, it better get it's sh*t together, and fix its picture and sound. Because if both channels were technically equal, and showing the same content, wouldn't a person normally choose their local channel? Of course. It has local content and local advertising mixed in with the network programming that makes it more compelling for that local viewer.

In that case. It would be free enterprise and compettion that would spur the local channels off their asses to provide you with what it takes to get you to watch their channel. That is the American way. Or, is with most other industries. Or, was at one time, before a few mega-corporations swallowed up and began to run everything.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

I agree about the FOX baseball games. I like to watch the Yankees and Mets on WNYY 5 and my home town LA Dodgers and California Angels on on KTTV 11. Some times they showw the Dodgers and Angels on the NY station and not the LA station but rather than switch off FOX they get me as a viewer and are no doubt happy as long as I am watching one of their FOX stations vice just switching off for the day. After all I can only take so muich of the Padres and the Mariners before I get the urgh to hurl


Bob

 

[GaryPen]

I agree about the FOX baseball games. I like to watch the Yankees and Mets on WNYY 5 and my home town LA Dodgers and California Angels on on KTTV 11. Some times they showw the Dodgers and Angels on the NY station and not the LA station but rather than switch off FOX they get me as a viewer and are no doubt happy as long as I am watching one of their FOX stations vice just switching off for the day. After all I can only take so muich of the Padres and the Mariners before I get the urgh to hurl


Bob

Unfortunately, my local Fox affiliate is independantly owned, and will not grant me a waiver for WNYY, those pr*cks. The only time I would choose WNYY over KTVU is for Saturday baseball. Otherwise, I would choose KTVU for regular Fox programming. But, they just don't get it.

 

[Robert NTSC Archivist]

Now looking at FOX's baseball schedule for tomorrow

California @ Boston
New York @ Atlanta
Washington @ Los Angeles
St. Louis @ Chicago

Well WNYY will get the Mets and the Braves, KTTV will get the Nationals and the Dodgers, FOX 11 WVAH Charleston WV (Distant DNA carried on cable only not available over the air) will either get the Cardinals and the Cubs or the Nationals and the Dodgers.


SO I guess I am going to miss the Angels and the Redsox unless its a doubleheader on FOX and I have missed that