PERMANENT INJUNCTION: Florida court rules you must watch your local channels ONLY at your house and that "distant viewing" of your local channels is now illegal. You also must view all commercials, and sit no farther than 5 feet from your tv.
Distant Network Shutoff on December 1st?
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 359
- Views 59K
PERMANENT INJUNCTION: Florida court rules you must watch your local channels ONLY at your house and that "distant viewing" of your local channels is now illegal. You also must view all commercials, and sit no farther than 5 feet from your tv.
ROFLMAO!!!
I would not be surprised if that is right around the corner.
Seriously, how long until they force you to purchase local channels if you want satellite at all...
The NAB has no friends, why should you? Oh wait, their friends are in DC.....
Anyway, yeah, that "soup" reference was a really good one!
Anyway, yeah, that "soup" reference was a really good one!
My wife was home when the call came from E* about us losing our DNs on 12-1. But they were already cut off, sometime last week IIRC. De nada. I was only getting the SD versions of FOX and NBC from NY, and I only watched one FOX show each weeknight evening while on my treadmill that was on the NY channel but not on my local one. I'll miss that slightly. Otherwise I really don't care at all. It will save me $3.18 per month...
I'm with you on that... and as soon as I lose my DS (which I've had since the late 90's) I'm writing the pres of the NAB, along with my locals, to let them know that saving $6.36 per month is worth more to me than watching their stations.
NAB Holds Off On EchoStar Letter
By John Eggerton, STAFF
(Broadcasting & Cable) _ Hold the phone. NAB isn't sending a letter to Congress after expressing its opposition to any extension to EchoStar's court-ordered yanking of distant network TV signals Decembe1.
NAB had been preparing the letter http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6389682.html?display=Search+Results&text=EchoStar , but is "standing down for the time being," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.
EchoStar says it will have to cut off service to over 800,000 customers to comply with the court order.
Copyright The Associated Press 2006. All Rights Reserved
By John Eggerton, STAFF
(Broadcasting & Cable) _ Hold the phone. NAB isn't sending a letter to Congress after expressing its opposition to any extension to EchoStar's court-ordered yanking of distant network TV signals Decembe1.
NAB had been preparing the letter http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6389682.html?display=Search+Results&text=EchoStar , but is "standing down for the time being," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton.
EchoStar says it will have to cut off service to over 800,000 customers to comply with the court order.
Copyright The Associated Press 2006. All Rights Reserved
Multichannel News has the following article regarding DNS and the impact on Dish and Direct. It's particularly interesting since it is the first time that where I've seen someone has actually put a number on the illegal DNS and legal DNS E* subscribers. If these numbers are correct, this blows many of the naysayers here out of the water regarding the minimal impact this has on E*.
EchoStar vs. News Corp.
At first glance, the recent U.S. district court decision on Oct. 20 that will require EchoStar Communications to cease delivering distant network signals (DNS) -- aka, local television signals to geographic markets for which they weren’t initially aimed -- to an estimated 800,000 subscribers to its Dish Network appears to be a simple battle. It looks like EchoStar versus the broadcasters, courts and Congress.
Yet closer examination reveals the real burr in Charlie Ergen’s saddle is his longtime nemesis, the Fox-like News Corp. chairman, Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch’s 25 owned-and-operated stations were the sole holdouts among hundreds of other broadcasters with whom EchoStar was able to reach a $100 million settlement with broadcasters in August, in a nine-year-long battle over its delivery of New York and Los Angeles signals to hundreds of thousands of viewers in other parts of the country. As part of that pact, EchoStar would expand its delivery of local signals to 95% of the country. That would make it less necessary to import distant signals.
But the 25 Fox affiliates became the card that controlled the deck. Without their agreement, Ergen couldn’t proceed. Ergen never got that card.
Murdoch, the controlling owner of EchoStar rival DirecTV -- which stands to benefit handily from the DNS shutdown of about 6% of EchoStar’s 12.5 million estimated subscribers -- was instead able to use his 25 O&O stations’ denial to convince the district court that it had no other choice than to enforce the statutory remedy that required turn-off of all the distant signals, no matter the settlement reached with the other 700 or so network affiliates. This included a turn-off of what The Carmel Group estimates are less than 200,000 illegal and more than 600,000 legal subscribers to distant signals.
So just what are distant network signals?
According to EchoStar’s Oct. 23 press release, “Distant network channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast channels that originate from a market outside the community in which a subscriber lives.” The idea behind the distant network signal system is to permit satellite TV subscribers who can’t get good local off-air broadcasts from their local transmitters the right to receive network signals, even if that means they see another city’s local programs and advertisements.
And where does the distant signal issue stand today?
For one, EchoStar’s current options appear to be limited.
Notes the National Association of Broadcasters’ outside counsel, North Carolina-based Wade Hargrove, “The affiliates are comfortable with the court’s decision and are not inclined to appeal. They continue to review their options and have not ruled out an appeal. Nonetheless, this is the result they sought from the beginning.”
Positions like this make it less likely that courts will overturn the distant signal death penalty. And in part because of the power wielded by the NAB -- and Murdoch -- in Congress, it’s unlikely that EchoStar will get the legislative relief it seeks, at least before a new Congress starts up in late January (following the Nov. 7 elections). What this means is that EchoStar will have to actually turn off the legal and illegal subscriptions, because neither the courts nor Congress are likely to step in before Dec. 1. Adds longtime D.C.-based network affiliate counsel Robert Rini, “I’m not sure there’s an appetite in Congress today to deal with a single company issue vis-a-vis the other major telecom issues out there now.”
Longer term, EchoStar will try to get Congress to alter the DNS rulings and rules so that Dish Network can again supplement its bottom line with the $5-per-month revenues from hundreds of thousands of distant signal viewers.
What will become of those 800,000 distant signal subscribers? That is where Murdoch re-enters the fray. A smaller number are likely to migrate to either cable or telephone video providers. A tiny number will leave multichannel pay TV service altogether. Yet most will likely stick with EchoStar after it either switches them over to receipt of local signals by way of local-into-local subscriptions, or upon installation of a standard, old-fashioned off-air antenna. But many of the 600,000 legal subs -- even if the prior solutions are offered for free -- will turn off their EchoStar subscriptions and switch over to DirecTV. This suggests a bump in the DirecTV subscriber roles for 4Q ’06 and 1Q ’07. When that happens, DirecTV stands to gain more than $60 per month in revenues. From each 100,000 subscribers, that would equal almost $75 million per year.
At age 75, Murdoch may have become a much older fox, but as Ergen, at 53, can attest (more emphatically than ever after this latest DNS brawl), Murdoch remains a still remarkably wily old Fox (and rival).
EchoStar vs. News Corp.
At first glance, the recent U.S. district court decision on Oct. 20 that will require EchoStar Communications to cease delivering distant network signals (DNS) -- aka, local television signals to geographic markets for which they weren’t initially aimed -- to an estimated 800,000 subscribers to its Dish Network appears to be a simple battle. It looks like EchoStar versus the broadcasters, courts and Congress.
Yet closer examination reveals the real burr in Charlie Ergen’s saddle is his longtime nemesis, the Fox-like News Corp. chairman, Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch’s 25 owned-and-operated stations were the sole holdouts among hundreds of other broadcasters with whom EchoStar was able to reach a $100 million settlement with broadcasters in August, in a nine-year-long battle over its delivery of New York and Los Angeles signals to hundreds of thousands of viewers in other parts of the country. As part of that pact, EchoStar would expand its delivery of local signals to 95% of the country. That would make it less necessary to import distant signals.
But the 25 Fox affiliates became the card that controlled the deck. Without their agreement, Ergen couldn’t proceed. Ergen never got that card.
Murdoch, the controlling owner of EchoStar rival DirecTV -- which stands to benefit handily from the DNS shutdown of about 6% of EchoStar’s 12.5 million estimated subscribers -- was instead able to use his 25 O&O stations’ denial to convince the district court that it had no other choice than to enforce the statutory remedy that required turn-off of all the distant signals, no matter the settlement reached with the other 700 or so network affiliates. This included a turn-off of what The Carmel Group estimates are less than 200,000 illegal and more than 600,000 legal subscribers to distant signals.
So just what are distant network signals?
According to EchoStar’s Oct. 23 press release, “Distant network channels are ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox broadcast channels that originate from a market outside the community in which a subscriber lives.” The idea behind the distant network signal system is to permit satellite TV subscribers who can’t get good local off-air broadcasts from their local transmitters the right to receive network signals, even if that means they see another city’s local programs and advertisements.
And where does the distant signal issue stand today?
For one, EchoStar’s current options appear to be limited.
Notes the National Association of Broadcasters’ outside counsel, North Carolina-based Wade Hargrove, “The affiliates are comfortable with the court’s decision and are not inclined to appeal. They continue to review their options and have not ruled out an appeal. Nonetheless, this is the result they sought from the beginning.”
Positions like this make it less likely that courts will overturn the distant signal death penalty. And in part because of the power wielded by the NAB -- and Murdoch -- in Congress, it’s unlikely that EchoStar will get the legislative relief it seeks, at least before a new Congress starts up in late January (following the Nov. 7 elections). What this means is that EchoStar will have to actually turn off the legal and illegal subscriptions, because neither the courts nor Congress are likely to step in before Dec. 1. Adds longtime D.C.-based network affiliate counsel Robert Rini, “I’m not sure there’s an appetite in Congress today to deal with a single company issue vis-a-vis the other major telecom issues out there now.”
Longer term, EchoStar will try to get Congress to alter the DNS rulings and rules so that Dish Network can again supplement its bottom line with the $5-per-month revenues from hundreds of thousands of distant signal viewers.
What will become of those 800,000 distant signal subscribers? That is where Murdoch re-enters the fray. A smaller number are likely to migrate to either cable or telephone video providers. A tiny number will leave multichannel pay TV service altogether. Yet most will likely stick with EchoStar after it either switches them over to receipt of local signals by way of local-into-local subscriptions, or upon installation of a standard, old-fashioned off-air antenna. But many of the 600,000 legal subs -- even if the prior solutions are offered for free -- will turn off their EchoStar subscriptions and switch over to DirecTV. This suggests a bump in the DirecTV subscriber roles for 4Q ’06 and 1Q ’07. When that happens, DirecTV stands to gain more than $60 per month in revenues. From each 100,000 subscribers, that would equal almost $75 million per year.
At age 75, Murdoch may have become a much older fox, but as Ergen, at 53, can attest (more emphatically than ever after this latest DNS brawl), Murdoch remains a still remarkably wily old Fox (and rival).
Another reporter that doesn't read the explanation from the judge. BTW, minnow you should have probably provided a link.
Nothing new here, but I though I would share this e-mail I got about an hour ago from Dish:
Dear [TNGTony],
Based upon a recent court ruling, there may be some small changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be able to continue to receive your local networks and other great programming that DISH Network currently provides.
So, you are NOT in danger of losing any of your local network channels, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX, from your community, and you can still enjoy all of the other great programming we provide, like ESPN, USA, Discovery and Showtime, without interruption.
But unfortunately, as a result of a recent court ruling, no later than December 1st, 2006, we may no longer be able to provide distant networks to customers regardless of past qualifications. Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast channels that you receive that originate from a market outside your community.
In addition, DISH Network continues to do everything possible to prevent you from losing your distant network channels before December 1st. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels – or learn more about what is happening in Washington about this issue – you can go to www.savemychannels.com which will walk you through how you can contact and email your representatives in Congress to ask them to protect your channels. Because we are running out of time, we ask you to call and email today.
Please visit channel 240 for additional information.
We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH Network customer.
Dear [TNGTony],
Based upon a recent court ruling, there may be some small changes to your DISH Network programming. Rest assured, you will be able to continue to receive your local networks and other great programming that DISH Network currently provides.
So, you are NOT in danger of losing any of your local network channels, such as ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX, from your community, and you can still enjoy all of the other great programming we provide, like ESPN, USA, Discovery and Showtime, without interruption.
But unfortunately, as a result of a recent court ruling, no later than December 1st, 2006, we may no longer be able to provide distant networks to customers regardless of past qualifications. Distant networks are the ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX broadcast channels that you receive that originate from a market outside your community.
In addition, DISH Network continues to do everything possible to prevent you from losing your distant network channels before December 1st. If you want to help our efforts and preserve your distant network channels – or learn more about what is happening in Washington about this issue – you can go to www.savemychannels.com which will walk you through how you can contact and email your representatives in Congress to ask them to protect your channels. Because we are running out of time, we ask you to call and email today.
Please visit channel 240 for additional information.
We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for being a loyal DISH Network customer.
"Dear Loyal Longtime Customer;
Sucks to be you
Sincerely,
Your Friends at Dish Network"
I am in the same situation as srbond. I live in the nether reaches of Maine and there is only a CBS Channel available over the air (You have to go 3 hours south to find an NBC) and there are no locals available via dish.
I will be forced to download all of the great programming from the networks via torrent sites and watch them at my leisure commercial free
awwwww.......
I will be forced to download all of the great programming from the networks via torrent sites and watch them at my leisure commercial free
awwwww.......
You're either gullible (doubtful) or just too kind (probable). The report read the the explanation. He's read every friggin' piece of paper on this topic. You don't do this beat for "Multichannel News" and miss this central point. Time maybe. This was deliberate. Probably another member of the "I Hate Rupert" Club. This calls for feedback. Greg, you want the job? and Minnow what's with the humongo-text? I'm all for readability but sheesh....
I am in the same situation as srbond. I live in the nether reaches of Maine and there is only a CBS Channel available over the air (You have to go 3 hours south to find an NBC) and there are no locals available via dish.
I will be forced to download all of the great programming from the networks via torrent sites and watch them at my leisure commercial free
awwwww.......
lol!
actually the locals are available in my area, but my dish is too old to get them (not that I'll actually buy the locals), but it would be nice to get new, free equipment.
I'm with you on downloading the programs I want. The NAB will not win.
TNGTony, based on where you live, how do you qualify for distant networks ?? Have you been with Dish since the time that that was all they offered and have been grandfathered in ??
@srbond -- DirecTV is offering me new free equipment!
I still believe this will all pan out so I have not really though about it that much.....
I still believe this will all pan out so I have not really though about it that much.....
ThomasRz, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
That piece was made out to be a Rupert versus Charlie story. Yes, the benefactor of the Dish Network distant shut-off is DirecTV. Yes, the other company that Rupert heads filed in support of the injunction.
No, the injunction wasn't issued because Fox asked for it.
Whoever the reporter was did not do their due diligence. And if that person did, then the education system in this country is severely lacking.
That piece was made out to be a Rupert versus Charlie story. Yes, the benefactor of the Dish Network distant shut-off is DirecTV. Yes, the other company that Rupert heads filed in support of the injunction.
No, the injunction wasn't issued because Fox asked for it.
Whoever the reporter was did not do their due diligence. And if that person did, then the education system in this country is severely lacking.
The injuction would have been issued with or without the FOX motion to disregard the the settlement. The judge had no choice to issue the injuction because the appeals court ordered the judge to do so.
Fox which is owned by News Corp is the same parent company of D*. Even if there is no ulterior motive to better prop up D* just the fact that FOX's 25 owned staions were the only ones who did not agree to the settlement makes one wonder why? Could it be to harm D*'s only rival. Like I said even if it was not to harm E* just the fact that the owner of FOX owns D* is enough for articles like the one posted to be written. A couple of years ago the E* D* merger was slamed for anti trust issues. Now that D* is owned by FOX there appears to be an anit trust issue that needs to be investigated by the FTC. An investigation will either prove or disprove all the speculation that FOX and D* are activly trying to harm E*. If they are not then neither party has any thing to worry about right.
Fox which is owned by News Corp is the same parent company of D*. Even if there is no ulterior motive to better prop up D* just the fact that FOX's 25 owned staions were the only ones who did not agree to the settlement makes one wonder why? Could it be to harm D*'s only rival. Like I said even if it was not to harm E* just the fact that the owner of FOX owns D* is enough for articles like the one posted to be written. A couple of years ago the E* D* merger was slamed for anti trust issues. Now that D* is owned by FOX there appears to be an anit trust issue that needs to be investigated by the FTC. An investigation will either prove or disprove all the speculation that FOX and D* are activly trying to harm E*. If they are not then neither party has any thing to worry about right.
Oh, I agree that articles such as this one would be written because of the fact that Fox owns DirecTV. However, that still doesn't preclude the issue...cj9788 said:
Dish Network appealed the original ruling, and the four network affiliate boards (not FOX) cross-appealed asking for the permanent injunction. These would be the same network affiliate boards which tried to settle with Dish Network.
The network affilate boards won their appeals court case and received the decision that an injunction should be issued. That was the only time the network affilate boards tried to settle. And that had nothing to do with FOX.
