Thought this was was a done deal long ago, guess not:
EchoStar Wins $214M Judgment In Piracy Suit - Law360
EchoStar Wins $214M Judgment In Piracy Suit - Law360
EchoStar Wins $214M Judgment against Viewtech
- Thread starter toucan-man
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 3K
- Status
in a related story, Charlie Ergen has invented a needle capable of extracting plasma from granite
Can't say Viewtech doesn't deserve it. They never built a legit box that I'm aware of, but I'm just as happy that Echostar probably won't get any great amount of money. I'm not in favor of the subscription service model as practiced by the US providers. I think they're crooks, too ! 
no mean spirited is charging money to rebroadcast channels that are free. pbs, ion, this, all those internationals etc...but hey, shopping channels are free
freezy said:
Who pays for the signals to get from the local station to the uplink? Who pays to uplink the signal to the satellite? Who pays for the satellite?
I have no problem with the satellite subscription model.
Some will say how come locals are free on cable... They are not it's built into the basic cable price.
Btw satellite and cable companies must pay the local stations to rebroadcast their signal too...
Sent from my iPad using The SatelliteGuys app!
If you were to look at the TV channels that my wife and I watch on DirectV, you could stop counting at about 10 . Currently that costs me about $160 a month, with my MLB package. I know it's my choice, but I also know that the particular system is rotten.
Both Satcos would benifit from Alacart, and are in favor for it but the result for many of the small and public broadcasting would be devistating and would force many out of business.
If Al Gore's Current TV has no viewers, why shouldn't he go out of business?
Beauty of it is, the subscription tv industry is not holding a gun to anyone's head to sign up. I've never had a subscription, on principle -- because I don't like the structure of it, nor the regulatory mechanisms that permit it -- but I too pay a price...for my obstinance. I'm with Scott, and the detractors both. How's that for a cop out?
Beauty of it is, the subscription tv industry is not holding a gun to anyone's head to sign up. I've never had a subscription, on principle -- because I don't like the structure of it, nor the regulatory mechanisms that permit it -- but I too pay a price...for my obstinance. I'm with Scott, and the detractors both. How's that for a cop out?
DIRECTV has been relatively silent on the subject of a la carte (let's face it, they would shrivel without Disney's ESPN), but DISH Network's Charlie Ergen has made repeated pleas to Congress and the FCC. His only help seems to be coming from Charles Dolan and a very few independent advocates like Kevin Friedman (who blames Comcast).
Bundling didn't come from the carriers. It is a provider initiated methodology. Blaming the carriers is asinine. Railing against the only people who are truly stepping up to promote a la carte is double dumbass asinine.
I couldn't agree more. I've read all the argument for and against ala carte programming and I'm still in favor of letting the consumer make the decision.
If you count the TV stations we watch out here at our place, there are MAYBE 15 +/- and ALL on G-19. Long live FTA
POP and MOM
POP and MOM
- Status
