Everyone please visit savemychannels.com ASAP

[Tom Bombadil]

Even if you don't recieve distant networks, this injunction affects distant HD and significantly viewed as well so most everyone will be impacted one way or the other.

I don't doubt that a lot of SatGuys will be impacted, but out of the total E* subscriber base, I'd be surprised if 10% were impacted.

The numbers I've heard are that about 6-7% of E*'s subs get distant networks. Less than 1% get distant HD. Some of these two would overlap. Don't know the signicantly viewed numbers.

This is a tough situation. On one hand we have hundreds of thousands of E* subs who want to keep their channels. On the other, we have a company that blatantly violated the law for several years.

Perhaps the ruling should have been that E* cannot grant DN to any more customers and must continue to provide them to existing DN customers for no charge. In this way E* is hurt in the marketplace by not being able to match what D* is offering to new subs, and is hurt in their pocketbook by losing revenue from existing subs. This feels more like justice to me.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I talked to someone at Dish about an hour and a half ago.

NO ONE IS BEING SHUT OFF at this moment. They are going to try riding this out and seeing where it goes.

This is what E* always does. They never willingly agree to anything they don't like.

Charlie is a good poker player. He doesn't win all of the hands, but he never blinks.

 

[Chris Walker]

I don't doubt that a lot of SatGuys will be impacted, but out of the total E* subscriber base, I'd be surprised if 10% were impacted.

The numbers I've heard are that about 6-7% of E*'s subs get distant networks. Less than 1% get distant HD. Some of these two would overlap. Don't know the signicantly viewed numbers.

This is a tough situation. On one hand we have hundreds of thousands of E* subs who want to keep their channels. On the other, we have a company that blatantly violated the law for several years.

Perhaps the ruling should have been that E* cannot grant DN to any more customers and must continue to provide them to existing DN customers for no charge. In this way E* is hurt in the marketplace by not being able to match what D* is offering to new subs, and is hurt in their pocketbook by losing revenue from existing subs. This feels more like justice to me.

How has Dish "blatantly violated the law" for several years? Do you have any proof of such or are you just repeating what the NAB accuses them of doing?

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

From where I sit Dish DID violate the law, however I don't believe that this is the proper punishment.

When I wrote in I made mention how all the networks agreed to settle with Dish EXCEPT for FOX which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns DirecTV. I asked my reps to consider investigating DirecTV's involvement in this matter.

 

[Chris Walker]

From where I sit Dish DID violate the law, however I don't believe that this is the proper punishment.

When I wrote in I made mention how all the networks agreed to settle with Dish EXCEPT for FOX which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns DirecTV. I asked my reps to consider investigating DirecTV's involvement in this matter.

Good point Scott, there were so many things I wanted to mention in my note to my reps, but I knew I would end up rambling if I covered everything I wanted to talk about. I think I will write another note to them here shortly and mention this same point.

 

[Foxbat]

Where do you have to be in order to see channel 240? I'm in a Dish-served LiL market so I couldn't get Distant Locals (even though I had New York networks when Dish started offereing them, but I dropped them when my locals started ATSC operations.)

 

[Chris Walker]

Where do you have to be in order to see channel 240? I'm in a Dish-served LiL market so I couldn't get Distant Locals (even though I had New York networks when Dish started offereing them, but I dropped them when my locals started ATSC operations.)

You probably have to be getting distants currently to be seeing channel 240. Regardless, still visit the website and fill out the form letter. Takes 60 seconds probably and the more that Congress hears about this the better.

 

[Foxbat]

I had to do a total re-write on the website's canned letter, but I sent it. Too bad I couldn't have said, "If you want my vote next week, you'll take care of this!" since one of the senators isn't up for re-election this year. (Not that I'd vote for them, anyway...)

 

[Tom Bombadil]

How has Dish "blatantly violated the law" for several years? Do you have any proof of such or are you just repeating what the NAB accuses them of doing?

They have been found guilty in what, three courts now?

Lost original decision.

Lost in appellate court.

Lost in federal district court.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_4539050

 

[TNGTony]

How has Dish "blatantly violated the law" for several years? Do you have any proof of such or are you just repeating what the NAB accuses them of doing?

The court that found agaist Dish in 2003 and reviewed all the evidence made available to it by Dish and the other parties did not use the word "blatantly". They used the words "willfully and repeatedly". Close enough to "blatant" "brazen" "obvious" or "flagrant" for me.

Here is the official explanation of the court's latest ruling.

 

[gary s]

I have gone to savemychannels twice this AM, Wednesday after midnight, and it would not send my message. I even added to the message and I am not happy about it not being sent. It said there was some kind of error.

 

[tigershere]

hehe, should i record it and put it on youtube

doubt DISH would care about the copyrite as long as the word was spread

 

[Clancy]

Open up the flood gates boys. We want more cities to choose from and willing to pay for it.
Anyone who doesn't want more choices can simply not subscribe.
Let the nay sayers go to Direct TV. We'll take the people from Direct TV that want more choices.

 

[Lucky]

I sent mine. I hope it helps. However, I am not too optimistic on any help from Congress.

 

[minnow]

Between here and dbstalk, more and more are reporting that indeed their DNS are history so I question the credibility of the Dish source that Scott spoke with. I would imagine that it would take Dish a few days to start to turn everyone off, but I wouldn't of thought that it would take a whole month before the actual shut off date.

 

[Voyager6]

I don't have distants but I did my part to help. I pointed out that DirecTv will directly benefit from the actions of FOX and that this will violate the agreement Murdoch made when he aquired controlling interest in DirecTv.

 

[BoisePaul]

CBS HD is not going anywhere.

I asked this tonight. Again it is not classified as a Distant Network.

Scott - How would this apply for those of us in non O&O markets that get CBSHD via waiver. In order for me to get CBSHD, I had to first qualify for the SD distant CBS. For me, this meant a waiver, which I received after a fairly difficult battle. Since, as of 12/1/06, I no longer qualify for the SD distant CBS, would that not take away the qualification method which granted me the ability to receive CBSHD?

 

[riffjim4069]

...and tell your legislators to support the Courts rulings

I did my part and once asked that my legislators not impede nor interfere with the Court ordered shutdown of DNS. E* willfully and repeatedly violated the law and, as multiple Courts have already ruled, they should be held accoutable for their misconduct. The only legal remedy is to pull the plug on DNS. E* has nobody to blame but themselves for this situation. It's a shame they are attempting to portray themselves as a "victim" in this matter; and it's an even bigger shame they are attempting to incite some uninformed customers into action by releasing misleading and inaccurate information.

Last month all three of my legislators (2 Senators and 1 Congressman) replied to my letters stating they will not impede with the court ordered shutdown. We can only hope they don't fall prey to the savemychannels scam/sham.

 

[minnow]

I sent mine. I hope it helps. However, I am not too optimistic on any help from Congress.

It would be an absolute miracle for Congress and the President to act before 12/1/06. Especially since they don't even re-convene until 11/13. That's just three weeks to change the current law. And I wonder how the NAB will fall on this issue. They initially filed the lawsuit, but many of the litigants were very happy to share the 100 million dollar settlement that was coughed up at the last minute by Dish(which was about 10 minutes too late, I might add). So I wonder if the NAB would still lobby Congress to NOT change the law or now that there is a considerable dollars laying in the trough to be slurped up by the broadcast pigs,
if the NAB would change their tune. If the NAB still opposes DNS, then in my opinion, this thing is dead, dead, dead. Even with NAB support, I just can't see Congress acting quickly.

 

[minnow]

I did my part and once asked that my legislators not impede nor interfere with the Court ordered shutdown of DNS. E* willfully and repeatedly violated the law and, as multiple Courts have already ruled, they should be held accoutable for their misconduct. The only legal remedy is to pull the plug on DNS. E* has nobody to blame but themselves for this situation. It's a shame they are attempting to portray themselves as a "victim" in this matter; and it's an even bigger shame they are attempting to incite some uninformed customers into action by releasing misleading and inaccurate information.

Last month all three of my legislators (2 Senators and 1 Congressman) replied to my letters stating they will not impede with the court ordered shutdown. We can only hope they don't fall prey to the savemychannels scam/sham.

I find it a little odd that your moniker states "TV freedom/TV Choice" and you make these comments. And by the way, it's not so much E* being punished here but rather the innocent subscribers who are in rural America whom now have limited if no option to recieve network programming. So where I ask you is the
"TV freedom/TV Choice" in that ??