Distant Network Information

[waltinvt]

It can easily be argued that the law is flawed, with only the death sentence available in a case like this, and that is what the new Senate Bill is designed to change.

That's basically been my argument. No penalty, especially one of ultimatum such as this, should punish the innocent along with the guilty if there's any way to avoid it.

E* would like nothing better than to have everybody believe they are victims of a Murdoch conspiracy, but the suit itself goes back far before Murdoch had any ownership of DirecTV, and E* lost at every turn from the beginning.

Is it possible that's exactly why Murdoch bought control of "D" and also why the FCC should never have let it go through?

There was always the chance (probability) of exactly this senerio happening. I have no doubt that Murdoch saw from the beginning this could gain him a competitive edge over Charlie at some point - it was just a matter of how & when.

An aside, if you call Dish and tell them you are thinking about switching to DirecTV because of DNS, 99 out of 100 customer service agents will tell you that the court order also applies to DirecTV!

I may be wrong but I don't believe the FCC would ever have sanctioned the Fox (NewsCorp) takeover of "D" unless there was something in it for them (and / or the affiliate stations which collectively IS the NAB). I think they saw a chance to get rid of grandfather status and ultimately DNS entirely.
Thus the reasons for:
1. Why the "can't have DNS if sat provider offers LiLs" clause was added to SHVERA.
2. Why the signal testing for both analog AND digital option was removed if your sat provider offered analog LiLs.
3. Why there is still not a comprehensive set of rules and procedures for digital qualification and testing other than the antiquated analog methods and for which little or no appeal process exists.

And why haven't we ever seen or heard much resistance to this from "D"? I suspect some will chastise me with "conspiracy theory" rhetoric but that's ok, for me it's fun to speculate and my hypothesis may indeed be a stretch but I just don't believe we're getting or have ever gotten the whole picture on the '04 SHVERA legislation.

 

[pattib]

Wonering if someone could help a novice out here?

I've read through most of the thread the past several days hoping to find an answer/information to my questions. I didn't so perhaps someone here would be willing to help? Thanks in advance.

I live in Fl. Small town. I do not have access to cable in my area, however I do get ABC/Fox/NBC locally. Unfortunately CBS is gone and not viewable in any way.

I went to americandirect and naturally thought I would at least qualify for CBS. No deal. I only qualified for FOX. When you complete the qualification, it tells you that you need a waiver for the other networks. Is this something americandirect does for you?

Also, I checked the directtv website and put in my address/zip and they said I do not qualify for any distant network channels. I have read that other people are getting their dn channels through directtv now, is this true? I was surprised that directtv said I didn't qualify for any dn channels.

Pattib

 

[waltinvt]

I live in Fl. Small town. I do not have access to cable in my area, however I do get ABC/Fox/NBC locally. Unfortunately CBS is gone and not viewable in any way.

I went to americandirect and naturally thought I would at least qualify for CBS. No deal. I only qualified for FOX. When you complete the qualification, it tells you that you need a waiver for the other networks. Is this something americandirect does for you?

I think some have posted that they will.

Also, I checked the directtv website and put in my address/zip and they said I do not qualify for any distant network channels.

"D" has always been conservative (arguably to a fault) with their qualification process.

I have read that other people are getting their dn channels through directtv now, is this true? I was surprised that directtv said I didn't qualify for any dn channels.

Pattib

The qualification process is based on the Longley-Rice prediction method which is notoriously inaccurate in may locations - rural, hilly areas especially.

For example I live on a .7 acre lot in VT, 800 feet a.s.l. with views to the south and east and hills to the north and west.

The only network I get OTA is NBC, which is SW (great signal). All the other networks are north west of me and I get no signal at all because of the hill. However "D" predicts that I get Grade "B" or better for everything except Fox. Now that's using my street address where my driveway is. If I go around the corner to the other street (50 yards or so away), I qualify for Fox and NBC but still not ABC or CBS.

Now given this, you would think there would be a way to "appeal" these determinations. My point is, there are millions of people throughout the country that for one legitimate reason or another can't get one or more networks but fall through the cracks for qualification.

The whole system needs a major overhaul and that can only happen if we make enough noise to congress and hold them accountable.

 

[jmnelms]

I am not sure of situations in other market areas, but after we lost our DFW area stations, not distant networks that we never had....I checked DirecTV website to see if we could switch to them and still maintain our local DFW stations. Based on their website check of our zipcode, the DFW stations were not available to us at all. So switching to DirecTV is not an option for us, getting an aerial is not an option for us, going the local cable company is a costly option, but one I am beginning to suspect may not work either. So again, we have All American Direct with distant network stations out of Atlanta and San Francisco. Something we never had was "taken away" only to be replaced by the very thing that was supposed to be taken away. Confused? I certainly am!

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

I am not sure of situations in other market areas, but after we lost our DFW area stations, not distant networks that we never had....I checked DirecTV website to see if we could switch to them and still maintain our local DFW stations. Based on their website check of our zipcode, the DFW stations were not available to us at all. So switching to DirecTV is not an option for us, getting an aerial is not an option for us, going the local cable company is a costly option, but one I am beginning to suspect may not work either. So again, we have All American Direct with distant network stations out of Atlanta and San Francisco. Something we never had was "taken away" only to be replaced by the very thing that was supposed to be taken away. Confused? I certainly am!

If you live in the local DFW DMA, you should not loose the DFW locals. Locals are not part of the DNS ruling.

If you do not live in the DFW DMA, you were getting DNS service.

Either you live in the DFW DMA or you don't.

 

[Greg Bimson]

jmnelms,
Give us the name of the county in which you live, and we'll give you the complete story.

 

[fz5j2r]

Distant Networks - CBS New York HD

Dish recently disconnected our CBSHD. I had a legitimate waiver granted by the chief engineer at the local CBS affiliate because I cannot get CBS digital/HD over the air with an outside antenna. They are not transmitting their at a high enough power for me to receive even though the tower is only 15 miles distant.

Will high definition programming be available through NPS?

 

[Rlanham]

Will high definition programming be available through NPS?

No

 

[ltahoe7195]

I wanted to just post this letter I received from my senator today, she states in the letter that an agreement did get reached regarding E* and the networks, except for FOX, just as I had thought.

Here's the letter,

Thank you for contacting me about the loss of distant
satellite signals by EchoStar Communications. I appreciate
hearing from my constituents on matters that affect them. I
understand that this is frustrating and will be very inconvenient for
you, especially since you have had access to these distant network
signals until now.

The issues involved here can be very confusing. In
essence, both satellite and cable television providers require a
license to broadcast network signals, i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX. These networks and their local affiliates either own or buy
the license to the programming that they air. Satellite and cable
providers cannot broadcast or retransmit programming into a
television market when it does not have a license to do so. It is a
violation of Federal copyright law.

In the late 1990s, some satellite television providers were
broadcasting distant network signals to subscribers who were
ineligible to receive them. The satellite television providers were
only given a license to broadcast distant network signals to
subscribers if they were unable to receive over-the-air access to
local network programming. However, some satellite television
providers continued to sell distant network signals to all of their
customers in violation of the law, and the broadcasters filed a
lawsuit.

EchoStar Communications, also known as DISH Network,
chose to continue to broadcast distant network signals and defend
its actions. This issue has been litigated over the past eight years
and, during the litigation, the company's distant network signals
were unaffected. Earlier this year, a court found that EchoStar
engaged in willful and repeated violation of the law. An injunction
was ordered on EchoStar's carriage of all distant network signals,
including those provided to eligible consumers. EchoStar
undertook negotiations with the broadcast networks so that it could
at least continue to carry those signals to its eligible customers. A
negotiated settlement was reached with three networks, but not
with FOX.

On October 20, 2006, a Federal district court upheld the
injunction and voided the proposed settlement reached by ABC,
CBS, NBC, and EchoStar. The court set December 1, 2006, as the
effective date of signal cutoff.

It is my understanding that virtually every EchoStar
customer who will lose distant signals can retain access to network
programming by viewing their local affiliates over the air, over
cable or via EchoStar's and DirecTV's local-signal packages.
However, I do not want to see anyone lose distant network signals
if they are eligible to receive them and cannot view network
broadcasts otherwise. I am hopeful that a compromise will be
worked out by the parties involved and the courts. Senator Patrick
Leahy has also introduced a bill in the Senate, the Satellite
Consumer Protection Act, which would lessen the impact of the
court injunction and allow eligible consumers to keep their distant
network signals.

Once again, thank you for writing. I intend to keep a close
eye on this issue and how it will affect my constituents. If you
should have any additional concerns or questions, please do not
hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

 

[dbirdman]

I wanted to just post this letter I received from my senator today, she states in the letter that an agreement did get reached regarding E* and the networks, except for FOX, just as I had thought.

I don't think anyone said you thought wrong. It was what you concluded in a previous message that was wrong, when you said "It was a few holdouts that eventually caused the shut-off to occur."

Thoughts right, conclusions wrong.

Senator Feinstein's message is the first I've seen so far that, correctly, does not try to say that the FOX holdout was the reason the judge voided the agreement. A lot of other legislators, bombarded with E* press releases, have thought that was true. It wasn't, Feinstein doesn't say it was, and I applaud her for not getting it wrong. From the way you worded your paragraph above, it sounds like you still think there was a connection. There wasn't, and the judge was explicit in saying so.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

I don't think anyone said you thought wrong. It was what you concluded in a previous message that was wrong, when you said "It was a few holdouts that eventually caused the shut-off to occur."

Thoughts right, conclusions wrong.

Senator Feinstein's message is the first I've seen so far that, correctly, does not try to say that the FOX holdout was the reason the judge voided the agreement. A lot of other legislators, bombarded with E* press releases, have thought that was true. It wasn't, Feinstein doesn't say it was, and I applaud her for not getting it wrong. From the way you worded your paragraph above, it sounds like you still think there was a connection. There wasn't, and the judge was explicit in saying so.

I agree. It would be a way for a high ranking Democrat to take a shot at Fox, but she got her facts straight.

I also applaud her for getting it correct.

 

[larryob]

new to site

What are the realities of the politics? Senate 4067 by Leahey with bipartisan sponsorship is very narrow only to exempt those of us who can't get cable or networks without dst access. Not intended victims of the judge's decision.

 

[Greg Bimson]

What are the realities of the politics? Senate 4067 by Leahey with bipartisan sponsorship is very narrow only to exempt those of us who can't get cable or networks without dst access. Not intended victims of the judge's decision.

I may be misreading what you wrote...

The realities of the politics? This bill has been introduced to:

1) allow distant networks for those who qualify into areas where Dish Network does not serve local channels.
2) allow significantly-viewed channels

This bill will NOT give Dish Network the ability to restore all 900,000 distant networks subscribers. If locals are available to the customer, it is expected that any needs for network programming will be watched on those channels.

The politics on this are simple: Dish Network broke the law, Dish Network could have settled this anytime during the past nine years to avoid a threat of massive cut-offs. Congress does not wish to be seen helping a lawbreaker by reinstating every single subscriber that was cut-off, thus rendering the entire lawsuit moot.

 

[ThomasRz]

That's basically been my argument. No penalty, especially one of ultimatum such as this, should punish the innocent along with the guilty if there's any way to avoid it.

There generally are more than one, D*, cable, DTV, OTA. Certainly D* is available in the vast majority of cases. Now perhaps E* should pay the cost of the switch but if the goal is to obtain network access for the unserved, this solves the problem. Of course, if there is another agenda.....


Is it possible that's exactly why Murdoch bought control of "D" and also why the FCC should never have let it go through?

How did this make Charlie violate the law?

There was always the chance (probability) of exactly this senerio happening. I have no doubt that Murdoch saw from the beginning this could gain him a competitive edge over Charlie at some point - it was just a matter of how & when.

So, he hypnotized Mr. Ergen or.....?

I may be wrong but I don't believe the FCC would ever have sanctioned the Fox (NewsCorp) takeover of "D" unless there was something in it for them (and / or the affiliate stations which collectively IS the NAB). I think they saw a chance to get rid of grandfather status and ultimately DNS entirely.

Thus the reasons for:
1. Why the "can't have DNS if sat provider offers LiLs" clause was added to SHVERA.
2. Why the signal testing for both analog AND digital option was removed if your sat provider offered analog LiLs.
3. Why there is still not a comprehensive set of rules and procedures for digital qualification and testing other than the antiquated analog methods and for which little or no appeal process exists.

You really have no idea how the system works. E* violated a statute, a law enacted by Congress. It was not some arbitrary FCC ruling that forced the injunction. It was E*'s behavior. Why can't you accept this?

And why haven't we ever seen or heard much resistance to this from "D"? I suspect some will chastise me with "conspiracy theory" rhetoric but that's ok, for me it's fun to speculate and my hypothesis may indeed be a stretch but I just don't believe we're getting or have ever gotten the whole picture on the '04 SHVERA legislation.

Tell us what you think about the Kennedy assassination. And I haven't seen such stretching since Reed Richards. I was going to insert an anecdote about an ex-girlfriend but that would have been just rude.

 

[cablewithaview]

Thinking Out Loud: EchoStar Sure Can Pick ‘Em - Part I

If you could pick your opponent in an upcoming fight, the natural thing to do would be to pick the weakest, out of shape, clumsiest adversary you could find. But if you are Charlie Ergen and EchoStar, you end up doing battle with the strongest opponent that exists. In the case of the distant network battle, EchoStar is dancing in the ring with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).

Full Story

 

[jmnelms]

jmnelms,
Give us the name of the county in which you live, and we'll give you the complete story.

Sorry, I logged off before I saw your message. This is all Greek to me, really. We live in Grayson County. I saw some of the other postings about how someone could be cut off and the person across the street or right next door not be. This really is screwed up.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Sorry, I logged off before I saw your message. This is all Greek to me, really. We live in Grayson County. I saw some of the other postings about how someone could be cut off and the person across the street or right next door not be. This really is screwed up.

Grayson is in the Sherman-Ada DMA #161.

http://research.backchannelmedia.com/dma/show/Sherman-Ada

And as thus the Dallas-Ft. Worth stations were not home to your market.

 

[jmnelms]

Grayson is in the Sherman-Ada DMA #161.

http://research.backchannelmedia.com/dma/show/Sherman-Ada

And as thus the Dallas-Ft. Worth stations were not home to your market.

Thanks for the reply. I have already sent the appropriate contacts to my legislators regarding this issue. I do not believe that corporations who break the law should be allowed to get away with it, but I do not think that consumers should be punished for it, especially when consumers aren't trying to do anything other than access freedom of choice. We tried to make the best possible choice based on what was available to us in the area we lived in, a semi-rural, small community with only one cable provider to choose from. Many other people find themselves in the same situation. We were not trying to get stations from New York, LA. or any where else outside our area. We also get the Sherman/Ada stations (only 2-CBS & NBC) and paid the extra every month to receive all four network stations out of Dallas. This was not just for network programming but also for local news, weather, traffic, etc. We live less than an hour away from the DFW metroplex. I went and checked a link provided on another thread regarding Dish's channels and transponders, etc. According to there own list the DFW Fox and ABC stations are part of the local Dallas/Ada package, which we fall under the Ada part, as you have mentioned. Ok, so if that is the case, how do we go about getting Dish to at least restore the Dallas Fox and ABC stations to our lineup? We have already talked to them twice, can anybody say clueless?

 

[SmityWhity]

What are the realities of the politics? Senate 4067 by Leahey with bipartisan sponsorship is very narrow only to exempt those of us who can't get cable or networks without dst access. Not intended victims of the judge's decision.

Unless the rules are completely changed around, Senate 4067 shouldn't do anything more than allow for those who legally qualify for DNS, to receive DNS, and it would be nice to also allow RV waivers and Significantly Viewed channels.

Too bad the law only mandated a single penalty of "No DNS", instead of maybe immediately remove non-eligible subscribers and:
(1) pay a large fine,
(2) court monitored 3rd party validation of all DNS subscribers,
(3) lost of DBS licenses

Item (3) would probably have been enough motivation to correct the situation several years ago.

Can't wait to see what Transmitter News has to say about DirecTV on the next part.

 

[waltinvt]

Originally Posted by waltinvt
That's basically been my argument. No penalty, especially one of ultimatum such as this, should punish the innocent along with the guilty if there's any way to avoid it.
Thomas: There generally are more than one, D*, cable, DTV, OTA. Certainly D* is available in the vast majority of cases. Now perhaps E* should pay the cost of the switch but if the goal is to obtain network access for the unserved, this solves the problem. Of course, if there is another agenda.....
Walt again:
That's just it, many affected by the injunction didn't have OTA and cable options, which is why they legally qualified in the first place and if that happened before LiLs, they were legally grandfathered, so that "other agenda" might be restoring that legitimate grandfather status for distants that these people were qualified for and making that qualification portable. If the intent is to get rid of grandfather status, shouldn't the law be amended to remove it for everybody and not just innocent Dish customers?


Walt:
Is it possible that's exactly why Murdoch bought control of "D" and also why the FCC should never have let it go through?
Thomas: How did this make Charlie violate the law?
Walt again: I never said it did.


Walt: There was always the chance (probability) of exactly this senerio happening. I have no doubt that Murdoch saw from the beginning this could gain him a competitive edge over Charlie at some point - it was just a matter of how & when.
Thomas: So, he hypnotized Mr. Ergen or.....?
Walt again: Of course not. Charlie doesn't need help screwing Dish up - he's pretty adept at it all by himself and besides much of this happened before Murdoch entered the picture. That doesn't mean Murdoch didn't foresee "probable" outcomes to "E"'s pending court battles (either of which could provide a competitive advantage to DirectTV in the future) and thus affect his decision to buy "D".


Walt: I may be wrong but I don't believe the FCC would ever have sanctioned the Fox (NewsCorp) takeover of "D" unless there was something in it for them (and / or the affiliate stations which collectively IS the NAB). I think they saw a chance to get rid of grandfather status and ultimately DNS entirely.

Thus the reasons for:
1. Why the "can't have DNS if sat provider offers LiLs" clause was added to SHVERA.
2. Why the signal testing for both analog AND digital option was removed if your sat provider offered analog LiLs.
3. Why there is still not a comprehensive set of rules and procedures for digital qualification and testing other than the antiquated analog methods and for which little or no appeal process exists.
Thomas: You really have no idea how the system works. E* violated a statute, a law enacted by Congress. It was not some arbitrary FCC ruling that forced the injunction. It was E*'s behavior. Why can't you accept this?
Walt again: Really? Ok:
1. Was the "no DNS allowed if LiLs available" not added to SHVERA?
2. Was "signal testing to appeal prediction model determination" not removed from SHVERA?
3. Where exactly is this "comprehensive set of rules and procedures for digital signal qualification" hiding?

I never said "E" didn't violate the law and have no problem accepting that "E" is responsible for the resulting injunction, so although I may not get it all right all of the time, I do have some understanding of "how the system works".

I submit Thomas, that it's those kind of remarks that make some turn a deaf ear to what you say - no matter how true it may be. You sometimes have a bad habit of "lumping" all of us less knowledgeable peons together.

Now if I can just get this response to at least look intelligent.