DISH Network Sues the FCC
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 133
- Views 19K
First of all those stations in Mexico are still regulated. And we did try not having an FCC and it did NOT work. The government does not need to regulate everything but there are some things that need regulation and the airwaves are an area that needs it.
Lokk at the reaction here. No one even thought you were serious about the suggestion.
whatchel1 said:
If I remember right the bird came from 148, or if it did come from another slot it was an inorbit spare. 2ndly there was no loss of transponders on wa and it still doesn't effect the transition to mpeg 4. For argument sake let's say there was a loss of transponders on wa. That would be an even more of a cause to do the transition as you do nothing but gain space from changing encoders from mpeg2 to mpeg 4. Allong with that change you also go from psk to 8psk, giving you even more bandwidth as you change transmission methods along with changing the fec rate depending on how the bird handles the load.
There is no reason why dish couldn't of started this months ago. The real reason is dish was once again sleeping behind the wheel!
If the FCC actually had the more relaxed schedule in place as a result of SHVERA and then Congress comes along with this new accelerated schedule, it seems there should be some grounds for complaint, especially when the time frame of the new schedule does not take into account the lead time for satellite ordering and deployment. For some time now cable has had a target date of 2012 to shut off analog cable. One wonders if they could do that by the end of 2010 in 50% of their markets.
Yes, the FCC is needed to control spectrum usage. There are international agreements for spectrum usage which need to be maintained as the USA does not "own" all of the spectrum. There have been instances where TV and Radio stations have been received thousands of miles away. A couple of instances are WFOR-TV Miami being received in PA and an infamous radio station in "Del Rio, TX"(transmitter in Mexico) being received a lot of places beyond Texas.
Yes, DiSH Network should have to pay a premium for Distant Network privileges, but I don't think unreasonable non-com HD carriage should be it.
Yes, the FCC is needed to control spectrum usage. There are international agreements for spectrum usage which need to be maintained as the USA does not "own" all of the spectrum. There have been instances where TV and Radio stations have been received thousands of miles away. A couple of instances are WFOR-TV Miami being received in PA and an infamous radio station in "Del Rio, TX"(transmitter in Mexico) being received a lot of places beyond Texas.
Yes, DiSH Network should have to pay a premium for Distant Network privileges, but I don't think unreasonable non-com HD carriage should be it.
Then by all means, be my guest. Be the next Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, etc. Start a channel with PBS programming and COMPETE in the free Market. I hope you make millions.
The idea that a few people kick about this or that is irrelevant. If government gave away fee buggy rides, I am sure there would be a vocal minority that wanted them continued forever. PBS serves no purpose, because it cannot (or perhaps will not) compete in the marketplace. It is time for it to be defunded, and the money returned to those that earn it.
E6 was an in-orbit spare at 110. It went to the Canadian slot until Nimiq 5 was online and then it went to 61.5 to hold some Tps until E15 can do that.
E1 was at 148. It went to the Mexican slot. E8 went from 110 to the Mexican slot. Sure could use the Mexican bird(rumored to be a masive spotbeam thingy) there soon, but that seems to be a long way off. Something needs to go to 148 to do what? It seems those other 2 far western slots could be used with 148 to provide a true WA.
E1 was at 148. It went to the Mexican slot. E8 went from 110 to the Mexican slot. Sure could use the Mexican bird(rumored to be a masive spotbeam thingy) there soon, but that seems to be a long way off. Something needs to go to 148 to do what? It seems those other 2 far western slots could be used with 148 to provide a true WA.
Wierd how those stations with "no purpose" keep on going even with funding cuts. Most of them even survived the Digital Transition. Some even done that better than HSN, Univision and Daystar.
Some even done that better than HSN, Univision and Daystar.Good for Dish! I would hope that every television provider will join them in the fight! It's insane to think that a private company should be forced by the government to carry a channel, especially one like PBS, who we all know is a sham of a channel anyway. The only reason that Anna Eshoo is up in arms about it, is because she is mad that one of her party's mouthpieces may be shut to Dish subscribers.
Really, where is the legality in our government forcing companies to carry a publicly funded station?
Really, where is the legality in our government forcing companies to carry a publicly funded station?
There is an agreement between the US and Mexico concerning boarder blaster stations and Mexico does require licensing as well. But most of the regulation of these stations is done by the stations themselves
Of course many people on here will not think I was being serious as many on here support the FCC or believe it is a necessary tool/evil. It doesn't surprise me in the least as most people in this country now few the government as more of a necessary tool in many aspects, far more so than in the past. When in fact it is less necessary, particularly the FCC.
You can still have broadcasting laws without an FCC. You can still require licensing without an FCC
http://news.cnet.com/Why-the-FCC-should-die/2010-1028_3-5226979.html
Last edited:
Thanks JohnH for letting us know what went where. I know one thing, it got confusing at one time.
Also what I dont get is dish is trying to get into the distant network game, This lawsuit is going to piss off the fcc, and now the FCC could say no. If you cant even provide PBS in HD, why should we let you have distant networks. This may screw dish more than waht charlie has. Is this his last hand of poker?
Last edited:
Sponge14 said:
Insane? Dish is using a public good (the airways/spectrum) to turn a profit. Being allowed to do so means that there are strings attached. And since it's the government that's allowing them to use the public good it's the government that gets to dictate the strings.
Insane is to think that the government should have no say in the requirements tied to authorization.
You did a horrable photoshop job, but hey you lifited copyrighted material off of my website. Please remove it...
Well, since you were nice enough to say, "please."
It was supposed to look bad; it was a paradoy of another horrible photoshop job. Now PLEASE take down that ridiculous picture of Charlie.
SamCdbs said:
Fine. Remove the FCC. Remove funding for PBS. Let's make sure there is less government interference.DodgerKing said:
Therefore, lets repeal sections 17 USC 119 and 17 USC 122, because they only deal with interference of the free market. They are copyright exemptions passed by Congress and signed into law over the past 23 years. And when there are no more local stations or distant network stations on satellite, remind everyone that they were removed to rid us of government intereference with "the free market".
After all, it shouldn't matter if interference is good for the public or bad for the public. It's still interference, and must be removed.
And most of all, let's make sure that there is less regulation of Wall Street while we are at it. People left to their own devices devoid of any self-policing will simply do what is right and not risk bankrupting themselves and pushing the country into a recession which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression. Yes, it makes perfect sense.Dish Network is a perfect steward of the airwaves. Heck, give them rules and they make sure they break them. So let's remove regulations and let them be even more defiant.
Well, since you were nice enough to say, "please."
It was supposed to look bad; it was a paradoy of another horrible photoshop job. Now PLEASE take down that ridiculous picture of Charlie.
Read my signature.....
Unlike Charlie, I'm not in the public domain.... I'll consider removing it in a few days if charlie fixes things.... I have a better one that tops even Charlie as the Joker! If your spitting your coffie out w/ that one, wait until you see my next creation! :up Youll be screaming for joker charlie to come back.
You might want to check your copyright law on that one. What was the source of the photo?
W/website
Goaliebob Once you create a website you may have lost the privacy that you thought you had. Now fair use may be another thing entirely. But then it isn't really using it for anything that would profit him. So there could be little that can be done. Not sure what rights you really have after you have a "public" website.
Goaliebob Once you create a website you may have lost the privacy that you thought you had. Now fair use may be another thing entirely. But then it isn't really using it for anything that would profit him. So there could be little that can be done. Not sure what rights you really have after you have a "public" website.
Similar threads
