DISH Network Sues the FCC

[Scott Greczkowski]

DISH Network seems to like being in court leately... so what's one more lawsuit... this one against the FCC.

Dish Sues FCC Over Noncom Mandate: Report - 2010-07-02 12:13:32 | Multichannel News

 

[Mojo Jojo]

Wow! The FCC!
Who aren't they suing lately?

 

[mike123abc]

Well it is interesting. They might have to do some extra compression to squeeze in HD PBS if they do not have the satellite capacity.

 

[Scherrman]

Seems to be a good reason for Dish to make a case.

 

[isaacmorseMI]

Wow! The FCC!
Who aren't they suing lately?

Charlie will sue himself at some point. They must love the courtroom

 

[chuckster_dude]

To be a DISH Network lawyer........must be big bucks in that.

 

[lineman20109]

Charlie will sue himself at some point. They must love the courtroom

When will he try to sue his customers?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Seems to be a good reason for Dish to make a case.

They didn't seem to get upset about it when the law was being pushed through. Yet now that it is passed they have decided that they can't stick to their end of the deal. To me there is something wrong with that.

 

[RandallA]

They didn't seem to get upset about it when the law was being pushed through. Yet now that it is passed they have decided that they can't stick to their end of the deal. To me there is something wrong with that.

Exactly.

 

[DodgerKing]

The FCC should not even exist to begin with.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I'll have to re-read STELA, but if I am not mistaken the language for the non-com mandate is in THE LAW, not at the FCC. Therefore, Dish Network is trying to get a law passed by Congress and signed by the President declared unconstitutional.

 

[ramimac]

When will Ecostar sue Dish Network, or vise versa over hardware?

 

[mdonnelly]

I'll have to re-read STELA, but if I am not mistaken the language for the non-com mandate is in THE LAW, not at the FCC. Therefore, Dish Network is trying to get a law passed by Congress and signed by the President declared unconstitutional.

Not the first time that's ever happened. If that's what Charlie wants, then this is just the first courtroom. It'll have to go up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Voyager6]

Here's the main concern of E* - forced carriage of non-commercial HD channels.

DISH Network files suit in Las Vegas against FCC to block PBS law - Thursday, July 1, 2010 | 3:54 p.m. - Las Vegas Sun

DISH Network claims the law violates its constitutional rights by putting the government in the position of deciding what channels it will offer subscribers.
"The 'PBS HD Mandate' is designed to coerce DISH into giving preferential treatment to programming that the government prefers, rather than leaving DISH to decide for itself how best to serve its subscribers with the programming choices that they want," the lawsuit charges. "Until this law was enacted, DISH was largely free to decide which local stations it would offer in high-definition, or 'HD,' format, which uses triple the bandwidth of a standard-definition format.
"DISH has traditionally exercised that editorial discretion to determine how to use its limited satellite bandwidth based upon its assessment of consumer demand. Congress has now stepped in to override DISH's editorial choice with a mandate to carry local Public Broadcasting Service ("PBS") stations in HD format, because Congress believes that this government-sponsored speech is more valuable to DISH's subscribers than other programs that DISH might offer in HD or other uses to which DISH might put its scarce bandwidth," the suit says.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Not the first time that's ever happened. If that's what Charlie wants, then this is just the first courtroom. It'll have to go up to the Supreme Court.

I remember well. Back in 2000 Dish Network sued to have must-carry found unconstitutional, and lost badly. Basically, Dish Network wanted to, "determine how to use its limited satellite bandwidth based upon its assessment of consumer demand." They wanted no part of must-carry in SD, and basically they want no part of must-carry in HD for non-coms as well.

It is rather odd that if you look at the arguments from 10 years ago, they look quite familiar.

And remember that the first step in the process in at the District Court level. Once Dish Network loses their argument there, they can then appeal to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court hoping someone will step in and find the law unconstitutonal.

 

[Darrell S]

I wonder how many channels Charlie will drop to pay for this lawsuit?

 

[RandallA]

I wonder how many channels Charlie will drop to pay for this lawsuit?

He'll probably drop the HD version of the channels and leave the SD version. Hey according to them, at least you're getting the channel.

 

[db2]

Nice to see the money from our monthly bills going to good use.

 

[whatchel1]

Don't think so

I'll have to re-read STELA, but if I am not mistaken the language for the non-com mandate is in THE LAW, not at the FCC. Therefore, Dish Network is trying to get a law passed by Congress and signed by the President declared unconstitutional.

What it looks like to me is they are just trying to get the date of implementation delayed from end of 2011 to end of 2012. In directly this may also be the date that they will try to get all converted over to MPEG4 (this is just a conjecture on my part).

 

[smitty23]

smh it seems to me that dish is really sensitive about everything.. i have never seen, or known a company to take so many other companies , and corporations to court over things that are so petty. dish..................... come on son!!!!!!!!! get out of here with all of that b.s