don't get caught moving

[dishrich]

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)

Well, there's something wrong with your equation - there is NO procedure for denying you an RV waiver from ANY local affiliate. If you really submitted an RV waiver, you should have automatically been able to receive ALL of the networks, REGARDLESS of anything any local affiliate has to say about it.

Check this out on D* own website which confirms what I'm telling you:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=1200070

According to federal regulations, we may offer DNS without screening for address eligibility only to certain types of recreational vehicles and commercial trucks. Boats and other marine vessels do not qualify for this special consideration. For definitions of eligible vehicles, please see the FCC website (item No. 18 of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 fact sheet).

It sounds to me like you just submitted a regular home waiver & your local CBS denied THAT waiver. You need to fill out the affidavit on the link & you should be able to get ALL 4 networks, NO questions asked. (but understand D* will ONLY add all of them to ONE receiver on your account)

Or, perhaps you DID submit an RV waiver & D* did not like YOUR definition of an RV & hence submitted a regular DNS waiver to your locals & this is what you ended up with...

 

[sven_kirk]

jdcolombo,
I think that what you wrote is a fair statement.

From what I read, it is that some people are trying to be too picky in what they want, and yet not pay for it. And some are needing the new waivers because they move a half a mile down the road.

About a year ago, everyone was(still) complaining that they cut off all the ordering premier channels for a day, and started charging a fee.

To me, thats abusing the system.

And yes, I speed. When/If I get a ticket?
I fess up. I don't try to blame other drivers, or say that there are faster drivers. I pay it. And go on.

 

[dishcomm]

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

classic case of "what you don't tell them will not hurt you....
whenver I get inquires from customers that are rv owners or truckers I tell them this...Activate all receivers on ONE acount and buy an additional dish for the other use....No hassles, no inquistive inexperienced CSR "boy scouts" who will shut off your programming because it's not in the script....
You can save a bunch of $$ by simply buying another dish/lnb for your rv..You'll have to live w/o locals at your vacation destination....

 

[jdcolombo]

And yes, I speed. When/If I get a ticket?
I fess up. I don't try to blame other drivers, or say that there are faster drivers. I pay it. And go on.

I agree completely. When one violates a known legal duty, even if it is not a crime, don't whine when you get caught. You made your choice, so live with it.

John C.

 

[ADent]

Just remember if you take your dish and STB with you to Granny's house for the Holiday weekend - your service address has moved - so call in an let DirecTV know.

Don't forget to move back when you get home or 1) you will be violating something 2) you will be stuck with Granny's locals.

 

[Tower Guy]

Movers, however, are not stealing, since they are paying for their service. Ergo, moving is not a crime.

John C.

You gloss over the fact while you may have paid for the programming, the payment went to the delivery person, not the legal owner of the programming. Your lie to the third party caused you and them to create an illegal situation. Legally speaking, that is conspiracy.

The moral difference between "moving" and speeding is that moving deprives someone (the program rights holder) of something valuable, (your watching the commercials in the program) but speeding deprives nothing from anyone.

 

[jdcolombo]

You gloss over the fact while you may have paid for the programming, the payment went to the delivery person, not the legal owner of the programming. Your lie to the third party caused you and them to create an illegal situation. Legally speaking, that is conspiracy.

The moral difference between "moving" and speeding is that moving deprives someone (the program rights holder) of something valuable, (your watching the commercials in the program) but speeding deprives nothing from anyone.

Actually, you are absolutely wrong. The program rights holder gets paid by DirecTV regardless what service address you give them. As long as you are paying for service, DirecTV pays the rights holder on a per-subscription basis. Moving doesn't even deprive a local affiliate of a retransmission payment, because those are negotiated on a market basis, not a per-subscriber basis.

Plus, you obviously don't know the legal definition of conspiracy, which requires at least two people acting in concert. No one is acting in concert with a "mover". You cannot be an "unwitting" part of a conspiracy. If the DBS provider doesn't know what you are doing, they cannot be acting in concert with you. Plus, "conspiracy" is a criminal law term; as I've explained above, there is no crime committed with respect to moving. "Conspiracy" has no meaning in the civil law sense (there CAN be "joint liability" for contract damages or tort damages, but we don't refer to these cases as "conspiracies").

Don't hold forth on legal matters when you are ignorant of them. If you object on moral terms to "moving," fine. But on the legal side you are obviously uninformed.

John C.

 

[Tower Guy]

Actually, you are absolutely wrong. The program rights holder gets paid by DirecTV regardless what service address you give them. As long as you are paying for service, DirecTV pays the rights holder on a per-subscription basis. Moving doesn't even deprive a local affiliate of a retransmission payment, because those are negotiated on a market basis, not a per-subscriber basis.

Plus, you obviously don't know the legal definition of conspiracy, which requires at least two people acting in concert. No one is acting in concert with a "mover". You cannot be an "unwitting" part of a conspiracy. If the DBS provider doesn't know what you are doing, they cannot be acting in concert with you. Plus, "conspiracy" is a criminal law term; as I've explained above, there is no crime committed with respect to moving. "Conspiracy" has no meaning in the civil law sense (there CAN be "joint liability" for contract damages or tort damages, but we don't refer to these cases as "conspiracies").

Don't hold forth on legal matters when you are ignorant of them. If you object on moral terms to "moving," fine. But on the legal side you are obviously uninformed.

John C.

I'd rather be ignorant about criminal law than uninformed about the flow of cash.

Yes, the creater of the copyright is paid, but the person who contracts for the local distribution rights gets nothing. In fact, if you "move" to a market where the local station gets paid, that station gets your money instead of the proper local station.

In the case of "moving", Copyright law mandates that the burden of proof that the correct station is delivered to your home falls in the hands of the satellite company. If they do not verify the information that you provide to them, and do so intentionally, which is the current situation with their customer service database software, then the satellite company and the "mover" are working together to defraud your local station of their fair and just rewards.

If you would like to read more about Conspiracy this is the definition on Wikipedia.org.

Although most frauds are crimes, it is irrelevant for these purposes whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. This gives the prosecution a choice whether to charge statutory or common law conspiracy where the agreement would amount to the commission of an offence if carried out. If the victim has suffered any financial or other prejudice, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. But, following Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3 All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim was dishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties to the agreement into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (per Lord Diplock in Scott). For the test of dishonesty, see R v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.

It sounds like "moving" to me.

 

[jdcolombo]

If you would like to read more about Conspiracy this is the definition on Wikipedia.org.

Although most frauds are crimes, it is irrelevant for these purposes whether the agreement would amount to a crime if carried out. This gives the prosecution a choice whether to charge statutory or common law conspiracy where the agreement would amount to the commission of an offence if carried out. If the victim has suffered any financial or other prejudice, there is no need to establish that the defendant deceived him or her. But, following Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 3 All ER 1032, it is necessary to prove that the victim was dishonestly deceived by one or more of the parties to the agreement into running an economic risk that he or she would not otherwise have run, if the victim has not suffered any loss. For the mens rea, it is necessary to prove that "the purpose of the conspirators (was) to cause the victim economic loss" (per Lord Diplock in Scott). For the test of dishonesty, see R v Ghosh (1982) 2 All ER 689.

It sounds like "moving" to me.

You did a very nice job of copying the common law definition of conspiracy in ENGLAND (under English common law) from Wikipedia even down to the English case cites. Perhaps you would like to scroll down to the next paragraph in that same section of Wikipedia, which talks about conspiracy in the United States (as opposed to England; I don't know about you, but I live in the U.S.):

"Conspiracy has been defined in America as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions." In the U.S., crimes are defined by statute, not by the common law of England. Every state and the federal government has a criminal code (federal law defines crimes in Title 18 of the United States Code). As I said, in modern US law, conspiracy requires two people acting in concert (an "agreement"). Such an agreement does not exist in "moving."

And, you're still wrong about the cash flow. The "distributor of the local rights" is the local station, which is paid by DirecTV under its retransmission agreements. I'll admit that I am familiar only with my own local stations, but those stations do not get paid on a per subscriber basis; the retransmission agreement pays the local a flat fee for retransmission consent. Therefore, whether a person "moves" or not does not cause any direct economic loss to the local station, since the retransmission fee is not based upon # of subscribers. And even if it were, I have already pointed out that a "mover" could theoretically be liable for damages for lost revenues to the local station, IF the local station could prove such damages.

But, it's obvious I'm not going to convince you. There are some folks who insist on looking at a blue wall and calling it green. So be it. You insist "moving" is a crime. Fine. Let me know when you find the first prosecution for that crime. It will certainly make legal history.

John C.

 

[dishcomm]

You gloss over the fact while you may have paid for the programming, the payment went to the delivery person, not the legal owner of the programming. Your lie to the third party caused you and them to create an illegal situation. Legally speaking, that is conspiracy.

The moral difference between "moving" and speeding is that moving deprives someone (the program rights holder) of something valuable, (your watching the commercials in the program) but speeding deprives nothing from anyone.

there seems to be alot of cionfusion over the term "illegal"..To my knowlegde it is not a :crime" to reciver networks from outside your DMA...Therefore the activity is not "illegal"..You are in violation of FCC rules regarding tv reception but no one is going to prosecute you....So all this panic over "illegal is moot...again..This is to the best of my knowledge.....The worst thing that can happen is a user will lose those channels if found to be receiving them....

 

[Tower Guy]

And, you're still wrong about the cash flow. The "distributor of the local rights" is the local station, which is paid by DirecTV under its retransmission agreements. I'll admit that I am familiar only with my own local stations, but those stations do not get paid on a per subscriber basis; the retransmission agreement pays the local a flat fee for retransmission consent. Therefore, whether a person "moves" or not does not cause any direct economic loss to the local station, since the retransmission fee is not based upon # of subscribers. And even if it were, I have already pointed out that a "mover" could theoretically be liable for damages for lost revenues to the local station, IF the local station could prove such damages.

John C.

When you "move" your local station gets nothing from DirecTV because as far as DirecTV is concerned, you do not reside in your local station's market. Local stations are paid on a per subscriber basis, not a fixed monthly fee. The local station is deprived of both the monthly payments from DirecTV if any, and the benefit of your viewing of the local commercials.

According to the law, DirecTV has the burden of proof that the transmission is to subscriber's located within their local market, not the local affiliate. The damages are clearly spelled out in Copyright law part 122 at $5 per month per subscriber. DirecTV would be liable for such payment, not the subscriber.

You may wish that the law was written as you claim, but it's not.

 

[Tower Guy]

there seems to be alot of cionfusion over the term "illegal"..To my knowlegde it is not a :crime" to reciver networks from outside your DMA...Therefore the activity is not "illegal"..You are in violation of FCC rules regarding tv reception but no one is going to prosecute you....So all this panic over "illegal is moot...again..This is to the best of my knowledge.....The worst thing that can happen is a user will lose those channels if found to be receiving them....

I'm not confused. It has nothing to do with the FCC. It's Copyright law that governs TV delivery. Please read it.

 

[wadesworld]

We all hate it. We all know it bull but what can we do

Directv. Says and I will quote on this if you can not pick up the local station because of interference or clearly you can use the next area locals. This happen to my sister when they moved in Farmington, Mo. Cape wanted them to use their channels and she wanted Saint Louis. She was able to get Saint Louis because She could not receive Cape. Clearly. I have found in my area the locals are not a problem. I actually get more with the HD outside antenna. Some of this is pure greed on the part of local stations. I think that we should be able to get anybody Tv channels we want for locals but the laws are clear on this at this time. At one time we only had free local phone service and now we can get free long distance. But a lot of people went to congress to get this. Right now with a Free Air Satellite receive you can get almost every radio station that broadcast any where in the USA and a lot of tv stations. If we do not fight for the right to have these for free they will take them away from us. Every year the media companies take more of our rights away. Mark my words if we do not put pressure on congress by the year 2012 when all things go digital you will have to pay to listen to all the Free FM station and all TV station rather if you can pick them up out of the air or not. XM is a prime example of things to come. They can not get a signal everywhere so they are using ground station to help them out like little cells repeating the same signal. They made it illegal to decode directv even though it comes over the airwaves. I know people that built large antenna so they could get a tv station a hundred miles away. The law used to read if you can receive you could have it. But copy right laws said you could not sell now they say you can not even have it. It would be different if the media companies were not so greedy TV shows that aired twenty years ago they want 40.00 for. Pure greed. Songs that been on the Radio for Thirty years a dollar per download. I paid a dollar for the forty five years ago why should I pay again? Did I not buy the rights back then? actually by the law yes I did and that does not expire. Unless you are renting it. I will let you know I will tell Direc if I move they already know my addresses luckly mine are in the same local. Write your Congressman and make an issue of Freedom of imformation act. The right to read and see anything out there. You can buy a magizine from any where in the country why can't we get a TV station from anywhere in the nation? Fight for your rights

 

[dishcomm]

When you "move" your local station gets nothing from DirecTV because as far as DirecTV is concerned, you do not reside in your local station's market. Local stations are paid on a per subscriber basis, not a fixed monthly fee. The local station is deprived of both the monthly payments from DirecTV if any, and the benefit of your viewing of the local commercials.

According to the law, DirecTV has the burden of proof that the transmission is to subscriber's located within their local market, not the local affiliate. The damages are clearly spelled out in Copyright law part 122 at $5 per month per subscriber. DirecTV would be liable for such payment, not the subscriber.

You may wish that the law was written as you claim, but it's not.

Guys...Locals set their adverstising rates based on the number of viewers in their DMA...Lose viewers and the rates will have to be adjusted accordingly..This THE reason why DMA's are protected...

 

[dishcomm]

Directv. Says and I will quote on this if you can not pick up the local station because of interference or clearly you can use the next area locals. This happen to my sister when they moved in Farmington, Mo. Cape wanted them to use their channels and she wanted Saint Louis. She was able to get Saint Louis because She could not receive Cape. Clearly. I have found in my area the locals are not a problem. I actually get more with the HD outside antenna. Some of this is pure greed on the part of local stations. I think that we should be able to get anybody Tv channels we want for locals but the laws are clear on this at this time. At one time we only had free local phone service and now we can get free long distance. But a lot of people went to congress to get this. Right now with a Free Air Satellite receive you can get almost every radio station that broadcast any where in the USA and a lot of tv stations. If we do not fight for the right to have these for free they will take them away from us. Every year the media companies take more of our rights away. Mark my words if we do not put pressure on congress by the year 2012 when all things go digital you will have to pay to listen to all the Free FM station and all TV station rather if you can pick them up out of the air or not. XM is a prime example of things to come. They can not get a signal everywhere so they are using ground station to help them out like little cells repeating the same signal. They made it illegal to decode directv even though it comes over the airwaves. I know people that built large antenna so they could get a tv station a hundred miles away. The law used to read if you can receive you could have it. But copy right laws said you could not sell now they say you can not even have it. It would be different if the media companies were not so greedy TV shows that aired twenty years ago they want 40.00 for. Pure greed. Songs that been on the Radio for Thirty years a dollar per download. I paid a dollar for the forty five years ago why should I pay again? Did I not buy the rights back then? actually by the law yes I did and that does not expire. Unless you are renting it. I will let you know I will tell Direc if I move they already know my addresses luckly mine are in the same local. Write your Congressman and make an issue of Freedom of imformation act. The right to read and see anything out there. You can buy a magizine from any where in the country why can't we get a TV station from anywhere in the nation? Fight for your rights

I had a little trouble follwing your post...But.....The date of the required start up of digital, not hi def, digital broadcasts is Feb 17, 2009..You may be refering to the final date(2012) of analog transmissions...That's a guess...
Not from the midwest but by "Cape" are you refering to Cape Girardeau,MO....Why do you not want your locals form where you live?...Is St.Louis tv so much better?..
Look you reside in a DMA you locals affiliates are not going to let you watch another DMA's LIL if they can help it..We as a viewers are a source of revenue to the tv stations..Tv stations, while required by the FCC to "operate in the public interest", are still for profit businesses. This has nothing to do with greed.
Yes the public airwaves are supposed to be free but somewhere along the line the method of transmitting tv signals got very expensive..We as viewers demanded choice and by golly we got it..At a price....Free tv and possibly lcall may be all but eliminated.. Again, the business of running a tv station or broadcasting nationally is expensive..somebody's go to pay...Right now on the local side advertising dollars pay the cost of television...If those advertising dollars dry up, the viewers will be asked to kick in....
We as consumers do in fact have choices...If we don't want to spend the money, we may refuse to susbscribe to pay tv.....In the real world no one should ever expect something to be free of charge...

 

[Kentstater72]

Guys...Locals set their adverstising rates based on the number of viewers in their DMA...Lose viewers and the rates will have to be adjusted accordingly..This THE reason why DMA's are protected...

Then who is committing fraud when a local station knows you cannot receive their signal but refuses you a waiver to obtain the advertising dollar.

Also in areas where there are no LIL's there is no contract, so the local station looses nothing from your move. D* makes money and the DMA that you moved to makes money.

Not legal, and I'll accept my punishment for civil disobedience, but if the Local would grant the waiver as they should, then there would be no reason to "move"

 

[I WANT MORE]

how did you do this without getting caught? Move then Move back for a install then Move back again to get the locals or how did you keep your "moved" locals through it all?

I "moved" to a location that qualified for all 4 networks. I then ordered an HR20 thinking that I could do the install myself. They insisted that it be done by an installer so I "moved" back to my original address. For what ever reason I still have the 4 networks. It has been a couple of months now. I'm sure I will lose them at some point but it helps bridge the gap until HD locals are available in my area. Just lucky I guess.

 

[navychop]

Wadesworld:

The word for the day is PARAGRAPH

 

[bmer]

I live in an area where the my locals market ends 12 miles from my house exactly(mobile , Al). I can not recieve anything by antenna due to interference from local ship yards and other such facilities. My other locals come oout of Gulfport and there are only 2 of them ABC and FOX. I can not pick them up and I have tried everything but these two stations will not give me a waiver. I do not see anything wrong with moving to get my real locals where I shop and if I had local cable all of my news and weather would be on. On the other hand all cities on the other side of Gulfport recieve New Orleans locals even though they are 60 to 90 miles away. Someone explain the stupidity.

 

[dishcomm]

Then who is committing fraud when a local station knows you cannot receive their signal but refuses you a waiver to obtain the advertising dollar.

Also in areas where there are no LIL's there is no contract, so the local station looses nothing from your move. D* makes money and the DMA that you moved to makes money.

Not legal, and I'll accept my punishment for civil disobedience, but if the Local would grant the waiver as they should, then there would be no reason to "move"

IN this context I am not addressing the issue of alleged fraud or illegality..
broadcasters are under no obligation to grant waivers..Based on the commentary here, it appears waivers granted are very rare..tV stations have a vested interest in counting every tv household possible.....I agree that if we are willing to pay for programming whio cares what we watch..I think we should be able to watch what ever we are willing to pay for..