Uh, go back & re-read the whole thread - that's EXACTLY what's he's talking about - NOT PHYSICALLY MOVING.
satguys tip 1: "moving" on this board (or at least in this thread) means what you just said...
don't get caught moving
- Thread starter mikedz4
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 177
- Views 29K
- Status
Uh, go back & re-read the whole thread - that's EXACTLY what's he's talking about - NOT PHYSICALLY MOVING.
satguys tip 1: "moving" on this board (or at least in this thread) means what you just said...
Do you live in the Madison(WI) DMA?....
It is my understanding FCC regulations do not allow for adjacent DMA's to use the same Channel numbers unless there is a siginificant distance between transmitters..
Speaking of moving...
Are Atlanta locals on spot beam or CONUS? Before I sign up for D TV, I wanted to make sure I was able to get Atlanta locals in HD. I live in N. Florida.
Thanks
Are Atlanta locals on spot beam or CONUS? Before I sign up for D TV, I wanted to make sure I was able to get Atlanta locals in HD. I live in N. Florida.
Thanks
Followup
So I will only get Atlanta locals if I am in Atlanta's spotbeam.... how do I know if the Atlanta spotbeam reaches to where I live? Again... I live in Tallahassee, FL.
Thanks.
So I will only get Atlanta locals if I am in Atlanta's spotbeam.... how do I know if the Atlanta spotbeam reaches to where I live? Again... I live in Tallahassee, FL.
Thanks.
not if you live in the one county in Conneticut that is part of the NYC DMA
but I think 99% of us here know what you mean
Last edited:
My take is that "moving" for some would be a form of civil disobedience.
If you feel a law is unjust and break that law, fine, but be ready and willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
I think there are two sets of movers, one set just wants everything they can get and one set just wants what they consider basic services.
Where I live I have no good reason to move, but my sister lives in one of the smallest DMA's in the Country (Allen County, Ohio) and she can't get OTA. We have tried waivers; we have tried all the popular antennas. She now has accepted the idea of moving, and feels that committing fraud in justified. She is also aware that it is her decision and responsibility.
If you feel a law is unjust and break that law, fine, but be ready and willing to accept the consequences of your actions.
I think there are two sets of movers, one set just wants everything they can get and one set just wants what they consider basic services.
Where I live I have no good reason to move, but my sister lives in one of the smallest DMA's in the Country (Allen County, Ohio) and she can't get OTA. We have tried waivers; we have tried all the popular antennas. She now has accepted the idea of moving, and feels that committing fraud in justified. She is also aware that it is her decision and responsibility.
From what I gathered, that's what they did, but the OP balked because he was being treated "unfairly." Its what is wrong with America today: the total lack of personal responsiblity and intestinal fortitude.
No, all D* did was to turn off the OP's DNS channels. He threatened to cancel service and refuse to pay the cancellation fee. D* wanted to keep him as a customer, but not at the expeense of D* breaking the law.
I guess that's what D* refers to when it talks in the earnings reports about keeping "quality" customers...
I remember reading somewhere that once you qualify for the DNS locals that they can't be shut off. Does that mean if someone had "moved" that they could "move" back home and they still would receive the DNS channels? I could be wrong on that but I could have swore I saw that somewhere.
When you "move" back home, you have to re-qualify for DNS. If your move puts you in an area already served by the satellite company with Local-into-Locals, then you are automatically disqualified.
No, that's not true at all. Any time you change your service address, even to move down the street, you have to requalify for DNS stations. However, if you have locals available in your market, then you no longer qualify for DNS-you can't even submit waivers.
I "moved", Wanted the HR20 so had to "move" back to get it installed. Still get all 4 networks.
That didn't happen to me. I moved 60 miles away from previous address. The new address didn't qualify for HD DN and they even had my HD locals, but I still kept it all. Even after I shut down my HD tivo, HD package and consequently the HD DN I was still able to get it all back after speaking to retention people. She said that, because I was reactivating it before 30 days after deactivation I could still have it all back. NOw, I've heard people here say though that they have lost their channels after moving. I don't know if it makes a difference if you move for real, like in my case (they came over to install the equipment and I got the commitment extended for another year).
REcently I "moved" to an area to get the HD DN from New York. Nice to get the HD shows 3 hours earlier! :up I may shut it down again for the winter time since it's all repeats anyway, but I'm worried I may not get it all back...
REcently I "moved" to an area to get the HD DN from New York. Nice to get the HD shows 3 hours earlier! :up I may shut it down again for the winter time since it's all repeats anyway, but I'm worried I may not get it all back...
not if you live in the one county in Conneticut that is part of the NYC DMA
but I think 99% of us here know what you mean
Don't bust on my DMA
Seriously though, if there ever were an argument for hos absurd that system is, it's my DMA.
Even if you move across the street DNS have to be removed by law it just depends on the agent on the line if you mention they will most likely be removed as if we do not follow strict guidelines we can be fired, I feel Dish after flagrantly disobeying this law for ten years or more should lose their dns as they have consistently and knowingly broke the law while dtv has followed the letter of the law, perhaps the 20 million dollar fine dish has to pay should go to dtv as a reward for follwing the law, I'm just sick of people and corporations getting away with crap!
What exactly does this Senate bill that is going through congress mean for DNS and people like me who can't get LOCALS? As I understand it, it would mean I could get locals from Pittsburgh legally IF it passes the Senate,House and is signed by the President or am I mistaken? This all because Directv and Dish Network won't provide locals to my DMA for some reason even though both local stations signed agreements with them in 2005.
Dns
I have just discovered this thread. I have my RV attatched to my house account and get locals, plus all SDTV DNS except CBS. (as the local CBS affiliate WFSB denied my RV waiver application) They say I'm "grandfathered". I recently upgraded the RV to HDTV TiVo service and was only "allowed" FOX and ABC HD DNS.
Obviously when I am at home I watch my locals, why woudn't I ? But when traveling in the RV like to have my Networks. DirecTV says I'll have no problem getting those IF I get a completely separate account for the RV, essentially DOUBLING my bill.
I am trying to make sense out of all this. Will my DNS but cut off Jan 1st?
Quite frankly, if I'm going to double my bill, I'll just switch to cable at home and DirecTV for the RV. turning it off when not using it. One would think DTV would not want the once or twice a month phone calls to turn on/off the RV service. I'd be quite happy going along as I now am, having it as an add on to the house account.
Dan
I have just discovered this thread. I have my RV attatched to my house account and get locals, plus all SDTV DNS except CBS. (as the local CBS affiliate WFSB denied my RV waiver application) They say I'm "grandfathered". I recently upgraded the RV to HDTV TiVo service and was only "allowed" FOX and ABC HD DNS.
Obviously when I am at home I watch my locals, why woudn't I ? But when traveling in the RV like to have my Networks. DirecTV says I'll have no problem getting those IF I get a completely separate account for the RV, essentially DOUBLING my bill.
I am trying to make sense out of all this. Will my DNS but cut off Jan 1st?
Quite frankly, if I'm going to double my bill, I'll just switch to cable at home and DirecTV for the RV. turning it off when not using it. One would think DTV would not want the once or twice a month phone calls to turn on/off the RV service. I'd be quite happy going along as I now am, having it as an add on to the house account.
Dan
Folks, this discussion of moving and fraud suffers from the same problem that all other threads about this suffer from: none of you know anything about the actual law.
When someone says "moving" is "breaking the law" because it is "fraud," that person is at best being unclear, and at worst doesn't know anything. There are two kinds of "illegality" in the world. When most people hear the word "illegal," they think of a crime. But in its broadest sense, something is "illegal" when one violates a known legal duty. Not all violations of legal duties are crimes. For example, breaking a contract is "illegal" in the sense that it violates a known legal duty (performing the contract). But it is certainly not a crime (if it was, every pro sports team and every pro sports coach would be in jail, since they quit and/or get fired in violation of their contract terms every day of the year). Committing a tort (e.g., negligently injuring someone or their property) is also illegal, but it is not a crime (otherwise, everyone who had ever been in an auto fender-bender would be in jail, too). Instead, most violations of legal duties result in some kind of civil liability (e.g., damages to the other party or an injunction against further violations of one's duties).
Fraud CAN be a crime, but it is not always so (actually, it is rarely so). Criminal fraud always requires an element of theft. If you defraud someone out of their money or property, that is a crime. The federal crime of mail fraud, for example, requires that you essentially steal someone's money or property through fraud. Movers, however, are not stealing, since they are paying for their service. Ergo, moving is not a crime.
Moving IS a violation of your service contract with the DBS provider. It is "illegal" in the civil sense, not in the criminal sense. In theory, a "mover" would be liable in damages to the DBS company for having violated the service contract. But since the "mover" paid for service, there are no damages to collect. A "mover" might also be liable for damages to the local affiliates who lost revenue as a result of the mover's actions. In this case, however, it would be virtually impossible for the local affiliate to prove what the damages are (exactly how would you prove the value of the loss of a single viewer? Ratings? But they aren't accurate to the single viewer level). So as a practical matter, the real legal liability that a mover faces is that the DBS company will find out, cut them off, and possibly cancel their service (though the DBS company has very little incentive to cancel a paying customer!).
So . . . is moving "illegal"? Yes. But only in the civil sense of that word. It is civil fraud, that results in a breach of contract. It is not a crime unless it is somehow coupled with stealing, which is not the case with movers (as opposed to pirates, who steal service without paying for it). No one is going to jail for "moving" because it simply does not violate any criminal laws. In theory, it could subject the mover to civil damages for breach of contract, but for the reasons laid out above, that isn't going to happen.
So, "moving" is pretty much a matter of the individual's moral compass. My own view on moving is pretty simple: let the person who never violates a speed limit (which IS a crime, by the way), never J-walks (also a crime), never has a parking ticket, etc., cast that first stone.
John C.
- Status
