Dish Network spent $240,000 in 1Q on lobbying

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,487
521
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
How did we miss this one? Not much spent on lobbying as in the past.

The Associated Press: Dish Network spent $240,000 in 1Q on lobbying

(AP) – 6 days ago

PHILADELPHIA — Satellite TV company Dish Network Corp. spent $240,000 in the first quarter lobbying the federal government, according to a recent disclosure report.
That's less than the $320,000 it spent in the fourth quarter and the $330,000 it spent in the first quarter of 2009.
The company did not disclose details of the lobbying issues it was involved in during the January-to-March period. Dish said it was undergoing personnel changes at its Washington, D.C. office and didn't have any in-house lobbyists at the time, so it wasn't required to disclose lobbying details.
The report was filed on April 20 with the House Clerk's office.
In the past, Dish has lobbied on issues ranging from the transmission of local TV signals to a requirement to carry public television stations in high-definition and state video taxes.
 
Just think about that for 240,000 I would take all the flak here in the dish forum.... I been pushing dtv for a raise but if charlie would give me 240k I sure i could get dtv to come up a little.
 
That is not a very large amount, less than a million dollars a year, many companies spend 100's of times more on lobbying.

Congress quietly encourages it with their own actions, if you want to get anything through, you have ot fork over the $$ under the table.

Don't blame Dish for playing congress' game.

FYI - that's less than 2 cents per sub.
 
That is not a very large amount, less than a million dollars a year, many companies spend 100's of times more on lobbying.

Congress quietly encourages it with their own actions, if you want to get anything through, you have ot fork over the $$ under the table.

Don't blame Dish for playing congress' game.

FYI - that's less than 2 cents per sub.
Agreed! 240K is a drop-in-the-bucket when it comes to influence peddling. My two former employers (Defense Contractors) would routinely burn through 240K in lobying expenses in a blink of the eye.
 
Remember several years ago Charlie went before congress to get the local channel legislation to pass and did a huge grass roots campaign.

Although I agree with his principals, he would have been much better off spending several million dollars lobbying.
 
Remember several years ago Charlie went before congress to get the local channel legislation to pass and did a huge grass roots campaign.

Although I agree with his principals, he would have been much better off spending several million dollars lobbying.

Actually, in a print interview, Charlie made it clear that Dish was getting almost nowhere, had hit a wall, if you will (as NAB is all powerful of the dark side), with legislation to allow LIL, until DirecTV, at the near end, decided to support the legislation. Not only did Charlie say that once DirecTV joined Dish in the fight it got a whole lot easier to pass, but that DirecTV was the reason it got passed. This is, and always confirmed by Charlie, because Dish/Echsotar, has nowhere near the deep pockets of its competitors (nor the long alliances of the old Hughes Corporation--a defense contractor--had with member of Congress) and, therefore, lacks the influence of his much larger communication conglomerate competitors: all the cable companies from mega-beast Comcast (soon to get a hold of NBC Universal) to sickly Charter; DirecTV owned by GIANT Liberty Media, who can easily afford the $3 billion for NFLST and + too much more money for MLBIE and its supremely expensive MLB Network; AT&T; and Verizon. You don't get don't come across much larger conglomerates than they and not bankrupting his small company by making serious multi-billion dollar bids for NFLST (you would all bemoan the immediate increase in ALL packages and bills to even attempt to pay for it, nor put it at further risk by unwisely paying for MLBIE and the required MLB Network. That's what I like about Charlie, if he has to take out too big a loan for such services, he aint a gonna do it. That is why Dish is so financial healthy and continues to grow.

Dish is still the small fish, but Charlie has done wonders over the years and is still kicking the much larger and deep pocketed competition's butt, at times, often by being a whole lot smarter than they.
 
Last edited:
How did we miss this one? Not much spent on lobbying as in the past.

The Associated Press: Dish Network spent $240,000 in 1Q on lobbying

(AP) – 6 days ago

PHILADELPHIA — Satellite TV company Dish Network Corp. spent $240,000 in the first quarter lobbying the federal government, according to a recent disclosure report.
That's less than the $320,000 it spent in the fourth quarter and the $330,000 it spent in the first quarter of 2009.
The company did not disclose details of the lobbying issues it was involved in during the January-to-March period. Dish said it was undergoing personnel changes at its Washington, D.C. office and didn't have any in-house lobbyists at the time, so it wasn't required to disclose lobbying details.
The report was filed on April 20 with the House Clerk's office.
In the past, Dish has lobbied on issues ranging from the transmission of local TV signals to a requirement to carry public television stations in high-definition and state video taxes.


Yeah, so?
 
I think we're supposed to get upset that Dish is spending money derived from revenue from us to further their business interests.
 
Much lower than I would have expected for a company the size of Dish. Not sure what you mean by "how did we miss this one?"?
 
I think we're supposed to get upset that Dish is spending money derived from revenue from us to further their business interests.

I think that was the point with the OP.

I don't see the problem with the money DISH is spending on lobbyists either. It's the cost of doing business for a national company. In fact, I'm surprised they spent less than they previously have.
 
Hey Bob... truly not trying to flame here but if you want "Charlie" to take you seriously you should fix that typo is your signature.

Costumer is someone who wears a costume. I think you want to say Customer.

Good luck in your efforts.
 
Too late. His minimal literacy skills and choices of avatars, plus his rantings, have long ago ensured Charlie will never pay him the slightest mind, and probably has never heard of him. Might be a tad busy, no? ;)
 
Hey Bob... truly not trying to flame here but if you want "Charlie" to take you seriously you should fix that typo is your signature.

Costumer is someone who wears a costume. I think you want to say Customer.

Good luck in your efforts.

Based on his avatar, maybe he does mean "costumer" :D
 
Not nitpicking, but clarifying...
DishSubLA said:
Actually, in a print interview, Charlie made it clear that Dish was getting almost nowhere, had hit a wall, if you will (as NAB is all powerful of the dark side), with legislation to allow LIL, until DirecTV, at the near end, decided to support the legislation. Not only did Charlie say that once DirecTV joined Dish in the fight it got a whole lot easier to pass, but that DirecTV was the reason it got passed.
DirecTV just got their butt handed to them in February, 1999. The courts found that DirecTV had violated copyright law, and had to disable distant networks for a large chunk of customers. During this time period, Dish Network was trying to get local-into-local legislation passed.

In June, 1999, DirecTV hopped into bed with the NAB to build the framework of what would become the SHVIA, the law that allowed local-into-local rebroadcasts. By the time that law was published and ready for Congress to vote, Dish Network could not throw support behind the bill. DirecTV emasculated Dish Network's aggressive attempt to control local-into-local legislation.
DishSubLA said:
This is, and always confirmed by Charlie, because Dish/Echsotar, has nowhere near the deep pockets of its competitors (nor the long alliances of the old Hughes Corporation--a defense contractor--had with member of Congress) and, therefore, lacks the influence of his much larger communication conglomerate competitors: all the cable companies from mega-beast Comcast (soon to get a hold of NBC Universal) to sickly Charter; DirecTV owned by GIANT Liberty Media, who can easily afford the $3 billion for NFLST and + too much more money for MLBIE and its supremely expensive MLB Network; AT&T; and Verizon.
Well, the original local-into-local legislation proposed by Dish Network had one really major issue: the ability to rebroadcast a local channel anywhere. If a company wants to be serious about proposing a regulation that would destroy an entire industry, how in the world is that company's lobbying effort going to be taken seriously? And that is the entire reason why Dish Network's lobbying effort was ignored.

By the way, DirecTV is now, just like Dish Network, an independent company. John Malone (nor Liberty Media) does not have controlling interest nor seats on the board of DirecTV. So please do not believe DirecTV is receiving money from another company in order to pay for "exclusives". DirecTV for years has been hitting the bond market, just like Dish Network, in order to raise capital.

As a matter of fact, Dish Network took out $2 billion in bonds a year or so ago to simply pay a dividend to stock holders. That money could have been used to make a serious bid for anything.
 

What am I doing wrong?

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

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Latest posts