Emergency Retailer Chat Recap - Aug 28th

[jrbdmb]

Jim said that Dish Network is paying $100,000,000 to settle this suit with the broadcasters, and they have reached agreement with 800 stations except for 25 fox stations which he said walked away from negoations last week.

Do they really need an agreement with the Fox O&Os? Seeing as they are probably in 25 of the larger TV markets that are almost certainly being carried by Dish already, there would be no DNS subs anyhow after the requalification. The only sticky point would be finding a non-O&O station to use as the Fox East and West feeds for those few who qualify for it.

Or am I missing something here?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Because there are five plaintiffs left in the suit and four of them have settled, the judge cannot agree to the settlement unless the four affiliate boards remove themselves from the lawsuit and the judge approves the settlement. Because FOX network is a party to the suit, their settlement is somewhat required as well.

If the suit moves forward with only FOX network, then the injunction can be issued against the distant network delivery of FOX only.

 

[waltinvt]

Because there are five plaintiffs left in the suit and four of them have settled, the judge cannot agree to the settlement unless the four affiliate boards remove themselves from the lawsuit and the judge approves the settlement. Because FOX network is a party to the suit, their settlement is somewhat required as well.

If the suit moves forward with only FOX network, then the injunction can be issued against the distant network delivery of FOX only.

I would expect the settlement requires them to immediately remove themselves, so the suit should be able to move forward (with just Fox) fairly soon.

Then the real battle begins. Maybe that will be entertaining enough to lessen the loss of the Fox fall lineup. Anyone figure out how to make "24" from ITunes look good on a full size TV?

 

[BobMurdoch]

We got hosed over so many times by E* turning on distant stations to customers of ours that in some cases you could actually SEE the CBS local tower. Or guys switching distant network packages every weekend to watch a particular football game without buying the NFL package. NO sympathy for poor ole Charlie here. Playing by the rules should not be considered an unfair advantage!
Fishnuts2

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll go out right now and buy the NFL football package.

Oh wait, I CAN'T. D* has a monopoly there.

In New York I am stuck watching either the Giants (who I like) or the Jets (who I detest). Most other double headers are pre-empted (unless either of the teams is on Sunday or Monday night) to protect the Jets' God-given right to force themselves into my eyeballs in NJ. I got distant waivers to time shift AND give me other games to watch, andas PVR insurance, since at least 1 or 2 times a month fails to work properly.

As for switching every weekend, HOW is this possible? Most of us have waivers we had to wait months or years to get. The others are in white areas and only get the big markets to choose from....

Actually, I'm looking forward to watching the networks deal with 800,000 waiver requests hitting all at the same time. Get your popcorn, this should be good.

Oh, and according to antennaweb.org, I can't get the NY or Philly stations with any size antenna, but they claim me as Grade "B" anyway, so the system stinks to begin with....

 

[BobMurdoch]

I would expect the settlement requires them to immediately remove themselves, so the suit should be able to move forward (with just Fox) fairly soon.

Then the real battle begins. Maybe that will be entertaining enough to lessen the loss of the Fox fall lineup. Anyone figure out how to make "24" from ITunes look good on a full size TV?

According to SkyReport they are hinting that the judge will strongarm FOX into accepting the deal since they are the lone holdouts.... All they have to do is hint that the judge will drop a dime to the FTC and invoke the anticompetitive clause they agreed to in order to acquire D* and they should cave quickly...

 

[ThomasRz]

Suit? What suit? The suit is OVER. E* lost. Barring a grant of cert by SCOTUS, there is nothing left to be done except issue the injunction. I don't know what the parties are doing but it ain't settling "the suit."

Because there are five plaintiffs left in the suit and four of them have settled, the judge cannot agree to the settlement unless the four affiliate boards remove themselves from the lawsuit and the judge approves the settlement. Because FOX network is a party to the suit, their settlement is somewhat required as well.

If the suit moves forward with only FOX network, then the injunction can be issued against the distant network delivery of FOX only.

 

[BobMurdoch]

Because if the channels go dark, there is a real chance that legislators could step in and rewrite the rules to a system the NAB doesn't like AND they walk away from a big briefcase of cash from E* in STFU money to boot.

 

[noremac]

...When all local markets will be available - eventually DNS will probably be outlawed...

The reverse is going to happen when Local analog goes dark in 2-1/2 years. Neither D* or E* will have the bandwidth to carry very many Local digitals (in HD mode - which most will be capable of). The pressure to create some type of bandwidth-saving distant networks will become tremendous. It might be really entertaining to see DBS's five year business strategy.

 

[waltinvt]

Because if the channels go dark, there is a real chance that legislators could step in and rewrite the rules to a system the NAB doesn't like AND they walk away from a big briefcase of cash from E* in STFU money to boot.

Which may be what Dish has been planning on. The more the issue of "lost distants" gets national attention the more attention the '04 SHVERA gets.

I believe the final Dec-04 legislation could embarrass congress and the FCC if how it was written and how it's been implemented (or lack thereof) is looked at too closly.

There was a lot going on that Fall and maybe they didn't cross all their "t"s, etc. or maybe there were concessions to the NAB that could be constrewed to hinder the digital transition in terms of better emergency communications. Maybe it's a Pandora's box that congress would just as soon re-write. Who knows but I believe there's something there that Charlie thinks might work to his advantage.

 

[Greg Bimson]

...When all local markets will be available - eventually DNS will probably be outlawed...

The reverse is going to happen when Local analog goes dark in 2-1/2 years. Neither D* or E* will have the bandwidth to carry very many Local digitals (in HD mode - which most will be capable of). The pressure to create some type of bandwidth-saving distant networks will become tremendous. It might be really entertaining to see DBS's five year business strategy.

Actually, we know quite a bit that is happening.

First, the distant network license is divided into two camps: analog and digital. Keep in mind that the current hard cut-off date is 17 February, 2009 for analog transmissions. That means the analog distant networks are done at that time, too.

The digital transmissions force a completely different issue. Digital distants are available. However, if your market ends up on your DBS provider in HD, then the HD distants are pulled and your market's HD feeds replace them.

So, DirecTV is planning to do 1500+ HD stations in MPEG4 by the end of next year. We know what is going to happen there: distant networks will go away because almost every market will be covered.

It is Dish Network where we don't know what is happening.

Suit? What suit? The suit is OVER. E* lost. Barring a grant of cert by SCOTUS, there is nothing left to be done except issue the injunction. I don't know what the parties are doing but it ain't settling "the suit."

You know, I was having this discussion at another board.

I think you are right. There cannot be settlement as a verdict has been rendered. Because the verdict was guilty, and the defendant was found to willfully infringe, the injunction must be issued. I don't know how the affiliate boards can "settle" when the verdict has already been issued...

...Because the judge can only do what is outlined by the law, and that is to terminate the use of the distant network license by injunction. There is a possiblity the judge could issue the injunction and then stay the injunction due to settlement, but then all parties would have to agree to settlement.

Boy does Fox have it over on Dish Network this time. Dish Network should have bit the bullet four years ago and accepted the District Court's verdict. Instead, they continued to fight this and it went to the Appeals Court. This is very ugly.

 

[waltinvt]

<snip>....
Boy does Fox have it over on Dish Network this time. Dish Network should have bit the bullet four years ago and accepted the District Court's verdict. Instead, they continued to fight this and it went to the Appeals Court. This is very ugly.

Yes but isn't the main (only) reason it's so "ugly" because Dish did not produce any evidence of any legal subs to the court?

This has been baffling the heck out of me because it's arguably the one thing Dish did (well did by not doing) that could insure the penalty they got and I have a hard time believing it was because they didn't have that evidence.

 

[Greg Bimson]

No, you have it backwards, Walt.

The data provided by Dish Network to the courts was a distant network subscriber list that did not contain either waivered or grandfathered subs.

So, with that data, Dish Network was found to have about 20 to 30 percent of subs illegally given the distant network service. This total did not include the waivered or grandfathered subs.

The Appeals Court was generous enough to point out that Dish Network did not provide any documentation backing up any of their claims on the subscribers that were waivered or grandfathered, so technically they are all ineligible as well. That would probably put the number somewhere over 50 percent for each network.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

This whole thing is ridiculouis anyway. As noted above, the Analog channels go away in 2/09 and thus 800,000 analog DNS subs get their DNS turned off on that date as there is no HD DNS in place with E*.

 

[Mtnmike]

Actually, I'm looking forward to watching the networks deal with 800,000 waiver requests hitting all at the same time. Get your popcorn, this should be good.

You better get a lot of popcorn to last those very many months it will take for them (at their own pace) to review and decide on 800,000 waivers. You certainly don't expect them to hire more staff or work any harder to get this done? The pile will sit there and be processed no different than today. Only it will take much longer to have your request approved or denied. They certainly have no stress over the waivers no matter how large the pile.

 

[waltinvt]

No, you have it backwards, Walt.

The data provided by Dish Network to the courts was a distant network subscriber list that did not contain either waivered or grandfathered subs.

So, with that data, Dish Network was found to have about 20 to 30 percent of subs illegally given the distant network service. This total did not include the waivered or grandfathered subs.

The Appeals Court was generous enough to point out that Dish Network did not provide any documentation backing up any of their claims on the subscribers that were waivered or grandfathered, so technically they are all ineligible as well. That would probably put the number somewhere over 50 percent for each network.

I may be confused Greg but not sure "backwards" is applicable.

I said: "Dish did not produce any evidence of any legal subs to the court" ?

You said (referring to the list of subs): "This total did not include any waivered or grandfathered subs"

My point was without that evidence, it made Dish look even worse, which may have accounted for the harsher sentence. Are you saying that the sentence given would have been the same regardless of whether Dish had provided proper documentation for their legal subs?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Correct, Walt.

The sentence was harsh because using the numbers Dish Network provided, there was a pattern or practice of willful infringement. The list Dish Network gave to the courts was only the "white area" subscribers.

However, the court pointed out the numbers were much higher than 20 to 30 percent because Dish Network did not show any waivered or grandfathered subscribers on this list, and Dish Network didn't show proof that they had any waivered or grandfathered subscribers.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Actually, I'm looking forward to watching the networks deal with 800,000 waiver requests hitting all at the same time. Get your popcorn, this should be good.

You better get a lot of popcorn to last those very many months it will take for them (at their own pace) to review and decide on 800,000 waivers.

Understand that we still don't know the waiver process.

For example, DirecTV does not process waivers if locals are available to a subscriber. If this is enforced on Dish Network, the total goes way down.

 

[voyagerbob]

Understand that we still don't know the waiver process.

For example, DirecTV does not process waivers if locals are available to a subscriber. If this is enforced on Dish Network, the total goes way down.

Greg,

Do you know what DirecTv does with signal test requests in locations they have the locals available? I would assume they just ignore them as they do wavier requests. I guess they do this because they don't legally have to sell any distant signals to anyone that they don't want to.

Thanks

Voyagerbob

 

[Greg Bimson]

That's my guess, voyagerbob. The rules that the FCC had to follow after implementation of the SHVERA stated that the DBS company and stations can ignore a request by a subscriber that had local channels available to them.

 

[Foxbat]

So I have a question: What did DirecTV do to allow them to provide Distant Networks to my Dad who resides in the Cadillac/Traverse City DMA? As far as I know, he has had them for most of the 10 years he has had DirecTV, so I guess he's "grandfathered", but I was forced to give up my ABC distant when our local LP station was put up on Dish.