Fox asks U.S. court to bar EchoStar retransmissions

[sweetbronxyankee]

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. court on Thursday barred EchoStar Communications Corp. (DISH.O: Quote, Profile, Research) from retransmitting distant TV stations, adding weight to a recent settlement between the satellite television provider and broadcast networks.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Ft. Lauderdale granted a permanent injunction that bars EchoStar's Dish network from broadcasting distant stations, the term for network channels that do not originate in a subscriber's home region.

A copy of the federal court order was obtained by Reuters.

The injunction was requested by Fox Broadcast Co. on behalf of itself, ABC, CBS and NBC days after EchoStar agreed to pay the networks $100 million and terminate transmission of those channels to customers who are not eligible to receive them.



Fox asked the court to comply with an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to enter the injunction to end the retransmission by EchoStar.

Last week, EchoStar failed to win an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court to freeze the appeals court order.

Fox is a unit of News Corp. (NWS.N: Quote, Profile, Research), which also controls EchoStar's larger satellite TV rival, DirecTV Group. (DTV.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Shares in EchoStar rose 0.2 percent to close at $31.75 on the Nasdaq. (Additional reporting by Yinka Adegoke in New York)

 

[Chris Walker]

Ummm... I thought the hearing was on September 11th? This doesn't make sense either "adding weight to a recent settlement between the satellite television provider and broadcast networks." HUH?

 

[cj9788]

Ummm... I thought the hearing was on September 11th? This doesn't make sense either "adding weight to a recent settlement between the satellite television provider and broadcast networks." HUH?

As mentioned in the murdoch thread the FOX group on thursday asked the Souther District court to issue the injunction and as stated in the artical that is what happened. I have been to the Florida courts web site but they have not posted the order on line. Any one hear of a response from dish yet?

 

[MikeD-C05]

How many courts are going to rule on this one issue? I don't see how one court can say: you have to setp 11 th to get a settlement or we will bar you from all transmissions on distants. Then another court in Florida rules stop the distant networks NOW. How can so many courts have something to say about this?

 

[Greg Bimson]

I don't see how one court can say: you have to setp 11 th to get a settlement or we will bar you from all transmissions on distants. Then another court in Florida rules stop the distant networks NOW. How can so many courts have something to say about this?

No court ever said anything about 11 September. It was an assumption made that because a Congressional representative asked for a 45-day discussion period that the courts actually followed it. Instead, the courts followed protocol, and the judge that was told to issue the injunction did so yesterday.

 

[kavula]

CORRECTED - Fox requests court to bar EchoStar retransmissions
Fri Sep 1, 2006 10:11 AM ET

Corrects headline and throughout story to show that Fox Broadcasting Co. had filed a request for an injunction against EchoStar on Thursday. The original story had incorrectly stated that a U.S. district court had granted Fox's injunction on Thursday and that it added weight to a settlement.
Adds paragraph five to make clear that Fox had not agreed to the settlement.
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 31 (Reuters) - A U.S. court on Thursday received a request from Fox Broadcasting Co. to bar EchoStar Communications Corp. <DISH.O> from retransmitting distant TV stations.
Fox requested the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Ft. Lauderdale to grant a permanent injunction that would bar EchoStar's Dish network from broadcasting distant stations, the term for network channels that do not originate in a subscriber's home region.
A copy of the injunction was obtained by Reuters.
The injunction was requested by Fox on behalf of itself, ABC, CBS and NBC days after EchoStar agreed to pay the networks $100 million and terminate transmission of those channels to customers who are not eligible to receive them.
The settlement did not include the 25 stations owned and operated by Fox Network, which declined EchoStar's offer and pulled out of the discussions.
Fox asked the court to comply with an earlier order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to enter the injunction to end the retransmission by EchoStar.
Last week, EchoStar failed to win an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court to freeze the appeals court order.
Fox is a unit of News Corp. <NWS.N>, which also controls EchoStar's larger satellite TV rival, DirecTV Group. <DTV.N>.
Shares in EchoStar rose 0.2 percent to close at $31.75 on the Nasdaq on Thursday. (Additional reporting by Yinka Adegoke in New York)

 

[kaman]

If this injunction is granted permanently, does that mean the $100M settlement with ABC/NBC/CBS is off the table? If so, I would think that ABC/NBC/CBS would not like the injunction either. They lose $100M?

 

[Greg Bimson]

Keep in mind the settlement is to the Affiliate Boards of each ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX. That would be $25M per affiliate board. And yes, the settlement would be off the table.

 

[Peter Parker]

No court ever said anything about 11 September. It was an assumption made that because a Congressional representative asked for a 45-day discussion period that the courts actually followed it. Instead, the courts followed protocol, and the judge that was told to issue the injunction did so yesterday.

Ia m not sure i follow you here. i thought that the lower court gave echostar 45 days to show why an injunction should not be isssued. the 45 days happens to end on the 12th although some news storoes state something different . Dish used that period to try to geta settlement but Fox did not go along---at least not so far.

As far as I can tell no injunction was issued yesterday---but for awhile it weas reported that one had been.

 

[waltinvt]

Distants were still on the air as of 10 minutes ago.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Ia m not sure i follow you here. i thought that the lower court gave echostar 45 days to show why an injunction should not be isssued. the 45 days happens to end on the 11th. Dish used that period to try to geta settlement but Fox did not go along---at least not so far.

As it turns out, the judge denied the request for a 45 day stay. Because the Appeals Court sent the case back, but to only issue an injunction, it is possible the judge's hands are tied.

 

[Peter Parker]

No judge has "denied the request". I am not even sure that there was one to deny. They sinply gave DISH 45 days to show cause what an injunction should not be issued. the 45 days have not expired and the injunction has not been issued---yet. Although Fox is now asking for it to be issued sooner.

My understanding is that when the case was sent back that is when Echostar was given the 45 days. in other words unless DISH settles this or comes up with a reason why an injunction should not be issued one will be issued at that time.

Does this make it clearer? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4157658.html

 

[waltinvt]

No judge has "denied the request". I am not even sure that there was one to deny. They sinply gave DISH 45 days to show cause what an injunction should not be issued. the 45 days have not expired and the injunction has not been issued---yet. Although Fox is now asking for it to be issued sooner.

My understanding is that when the case was sent back that is when Echostar was given the 45 days. in other words unless DISH settles this or comes up with a reason why an injunction should not be issued one will be issued at that time.

Does this make it clearer? http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4157658.html

I wonder what would constitute "cause" why the injunction should not be issued and how Dish could find it in the next few days?

Even though it is a stretch, if Dish could somehow get something in the works with this whole Fox / Direct TV thing - even if just a statement from the FTC that they'll at least look into it, would / could that allow the judge that issued the 45 days reason to extend that time or put the injunction on hold "pending" ?

 

[Greg Bimson]

No judge has "denied the request". I am not even sure that there was one to deny. They sinply gave DISH 45 days to show cause what an injunction should not be issued. the 45 days have not expired and the injunction has not been issued---yet.

No, the judge denied the request filed by the plaintiffs and defendant for a 45 day stay.

Denial of stay

 

[Peter Parker]

I suggest that you re read that. That is a denial of a motion to stay. The fact is that there is no injuction to stay. The injunction has not been issued yet and that is because the judge gave DISH 45 days to show cause why it should not be issued.

So yes they denied 45 day stay---but that is not relate directly to th injunction. if it did Fox would not have to file to get an injunction---would they?

If you were talking about that all along you are correct. But if you are saying that DISH was not given 45 days to show cause why an injunction should not be issued---and I really thought that was what you were saying then I think you made a mistake.

 

[Peter Parker]

That is an excellent question. I can see no waa that DISH will be able to show such a cause. What is possible is that they could settle the matter with the affected parties. However Fox dropping out and then asking for an injunction makes that somewhat less likely.

Some have speculated that DISH could come out of this with the right to broadcast the other 3 networks on a DN basis. It is my understanding though that the courts would have to bless that and I am completely unsure about whether they would.

So don't look at me for a prediction as to what will happen. I flalt out do not know.

I wonder what would constitute "cause" why the injunction should not be issued and how Dish could find it in the next few days?

Even though it is a stretch, if Dish could somehow get something in the works with this whole Fox / Direct TV thing - even if just a statement from the FTC that they'll at least look into it, would / could that allow the judge that issued the 45 days reason to extend that time or put the injunction on hold "pending" ?

 

[foghorn2]

Sorry to throw out this ridiculous question into all this, but Geronimo made me think of this.

Are any American Indians in reservations picking up distant locals and would the current foreign government still allow Dish to provide them the locals?

After thinking about it maybe the question is not so ridiculous after all.

 

[Peter Parker]

well if reservation was in a "white area" (and boy is that ironic) I suppose that they are getting distant nets. But the US Govt has some interesting ideas about how independent a reservation is. My guess is that they would not allow such broadcasts.

 

[Greg Bimson]

That is a denial of a motion to stay. The fact is that there is no injuction to stay. The injunction has not been issued yet and that is because the judge gave DISH 45 days to show cause why it should not be issued.

I suggest you re-read it.

Dish Network and the plaintiffs asked the court for a 45 day stay (a 45 day delay), in order to try and settle the suit. According to the document I posted, that 45 day stay was denied. It was presented to the court on 26 July. Guess when 45 days ends? Saturday, 9 September, which would then go to the next valid court date of 11 September.

It took until 14 August to rule that there will not be a stay.

I think you are using this reference for your argument:

U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas has given EchoStar until Sept. 12 to explain why a permanent nationwide ban should not be implemented.

Maybe there is some comment period, since Fox issued a brief. However, I don't know if the judge gave Dish Network until 12 September.

So, show me an actual filing where the judge gave Dish Network 45 days. It simply appears there wasn't one.

Now, I'll assume the case is back on the docket, only because FOX issued a brief to the court (not a request for injunction) on Thursday, 31 August, reminding the court that the Appeals Court only remanded the case to issue the injunction.

We are in the "penalty phase" of this case. The case has all along been only about the distant network license, never about money. And it appears, the way the Appeals Court order was written, that issuing an injunction is the only thing the District Court judge is allowed to do.

 

[Peter Parker]

I suggest you re-read it.

Dish Network and the plaintiffs asked the court for a 45 day stay (a 45 day delay), in order to try and settle the suit. According to the document I posted, that 45 day stay was denied. It was presented to the court on 26 July. Guess when 45 days ends? Saturday, 9 September, which would then go to the next valid court date of 11 September.

It took until 14 August to rule that there will not be a stay.

I think you are using this reference for your argument:Maybe there is some comment period, since Fox issued a brief. However, I don't know if the judge gave Dish Network until 12 September.

So, show me an actual filing where the judge gave Dish Network 45 days. It simply appears there wasn't one.

Now, I'll assume the case is back on the docket, only because FOX issued a brief to the court (not a request for injunction) on Thursday, 31 August, reminding the court that the Appeals Court only remanded the case to issue the injunction.

We are in the "penalty phase" of this case. The case has all along been only about the distant network license, never about money. And it appears, the way the Appeals Court order was written, that issuing an injunction is the only thing the District Court judge is allowed to do.

Again Greg there is no injunction in place. I am sorry but you do not understand these motions or the meaning of the terms. Nor so you understand what what has been said in response.