Letter from Congressman

[Malamute]

December 4, 2006


Dear Mr Malamute <----- :

Thank you for writing me about access to distant broadcast signals
on your satellite system. I appreciate hearing from you.

Federal laws clearly state when satellite companies are allowed to
provide viewers with a distant network signal (i.e. the NBC
Chicago affiliate) instead of the local network signal (i.e. the NBC
Marquette affiliate). These laws are in place to protect the viewer
base of local broadcasters. Without a strong viewer base, local
broadcasters cannot afford to create the local news and other
programming that communities count on.

For the last eight years, EchoStar, which operates the Dish
Network, and broadcasters have been embroiled in litigation over
whether the Dish Network violated the distant network signals law.
Last year a federal court found that the Dish Network had been
sending distant network signals to hundreds of thousands of its
customers illegally. Because the Dish Network engaged in what
the court called a "pattern or practice" of illegal behavior across
many parts of the country, the court ordered the Dish Network to
stop providing distant network signals to any of its subscribers.
December 1, 2006 is the date the order became effective. The
order does not affect cable or subscribers with other satellite
service.

Congress must not reward companies that violate the law. I
recognize that the court order will affect hundreds of thousands of
subscribers who are receiving distant network signals. Distant
network signals are particularly important in rural areas, such as
Northern Michigan, where there is no local broadcaster or where
the satellite company has not yet made the technology upgrades
necessary to offer the local network signal in that area.

I am working with my colleagues in Congress to encourage all
parties to come to an agreement that will allow Dish Network to
continue to provide distant network signals to those households. I
understand your frustration and will continue to urge these private
corporations to resolve this situation. Simply put, the Courts and
Congress can no longer ignore Dish Network's repeated violations
of federal law.

Constituents affected by the loss of distant network signals on the
Dish Network may have several alternative options to view
broadcast television, including cable, another satellite service, or
over-the-air, with an antenna.

Thank you again for contacting me about this issue. Please
continue to contact me with issues of concern to you.
Sincerely,

BART STUPAK
Member of Congress


BTW... we dont get chicago NBC here.... We have to file for waivers... all others we do qualify for.

 

[riffjim4069]

Mr. Stupak summarized it quite well. Dish Network is a repeated lawbreaker when it comes to DNS..."Congress must not reward companies that violate the law."

 

[cj9788]

It is funny how he mentions the partys reaching an agreement. The was an agreement but the court (which had no choice under the law) rejected the settlement. Why is that not being addressed? The law needs to be changed to allow a settlement or the partys can never come to an agreement!

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

It is funny how he mentions the partys reaching an agreement. The was an agreement but the court (which had no choice under the law) rejected the settlement. Why is that not being addressed? The law needs to be changed to allow a settlement or the partys can never come to an agreement!

You can't come to a settlement after the verdict where you were found guilty of violating the law.

That's like a murderer trying to plea bargain with the DA after the jury found him guilty.

You could negotiate on the damages before they are court imposed in a civil case, but that doesn't change the verdict - and the sentence is spelled out if convicted.

And is every single person who gets an email from their Representative in DC going to start a separate thread?

Geez..

 

[Greg Bimson]

HDTVFanAtic:

You are very close. Dependent upon the case, you can almost always come to a settlement after a verdict. However, if the law has provisions for mandatory remedies, like the "death penalty" for first-degree murder (the old special circumstances issue), or in this case, a permanent injunction for a pattern or practice of willful infringement, the mandatory remedy must be followed.

I have a feeling if this NPS distant network agreement ends up being shot-down rather quickly as contempt, that Congress will NOT help Dish Network one bit. Congress doesn't want to be seen helping out a company that consistently breaks the law.

 

[jmnelms]

Will somone explain to me how we managed to get our Dallas/Ft. Worth stations taken away when we live within that market area? We did not have to sign a waiver, we have not ever received any so-called distant network stations, nor do we want to. But we do now, just to get the Fox and ABC stations that were taken away. We have to go through All American Direct and now get San Francisco and Atlanta. We don't want news and weather from those areas, they aren't even in our time zone! Why did we lose our DFW stations when we live less than an hour away and we are still considered their serviceable market area? And just for the record, we can not put up an aerial antenna, that would do us no good based on several different factors. I checked. This is ridiculous.

 

[waltinvt]

I have a feeling if this NPS distant network agreement ends up being shot-down rather quickly as contempt, that Congress will NOT help Dish Network one bit. Congress doesn't want to be seen helping out a company that consistently breaks the law.

Ah but do they want to be seen as failing to intercede on behalf of hundreds of thousands of satellite customers that have been forced to give up what the various flavors of satellite viewer legislations were hyped to provide?

Under the penalty and even assuming the NPS deal holds (which it won't), all Dish customers that (should have been) legitimately grand-fathered under the original SHVERA for DNS are gone forever. This was (and is) a protected status under the law.

At the very least, congress must submit legislation to:
1. Re-instate grandfather status for analog dns and make it "portable" until such time as all areas of the country have access to digital LiLs. As long as they insist on using analog reception to determine digital qualification, then this is only fair.
2. Put the burden of proof for signal reception where it belongs - on the station. They could also include reasonable means of remedy for cases where it can be determined the viewer is "frauding" the system.

Before you say it , I know the loss of grand-fathered status is entirely Dish's fault (still don't know if it was arrogance or stupidity) but none the less, "relief" needs to be considered for consumers by congress since they were responsible for it not being an option for the courts.

 

[Malamute]

And is every single person who gets an email from their Representative in DC going to start a separate thread?

Geez..

Well i didnt find a thread that this should go into... maybe make a sticky thread that says "Letters from Congressmen" so we have a place to stick em,besides up...

ANy board mods?

 

[tomdkat]

i got the same letter from rep. Mary Bono

 

[cj9788]

You can't come to a settlement after the verdict where you were found guilty of violating the law.

That's like a murderer trying to plea bargain with the DA after the jury found him guilty.

Tell that to all the Seantors and Congressmen who in every single responce allways say:


"I am working with my colleagues in Congress to encourage all
parties to come to an agreement that will allow Dish Network to
continue to provide distant network signals to those households. I
understand your frustration and will continue to urge these private
corporations to resolve this situation. Simply put, the Courts and
Congress can no longer ignore Dish Network's repeated violations
of federal law."

Look at any response from any elected offical and they all say that this needs to be agreed upon between the parties.

Well hello Congressman McFly there was a settlemnt reached and the law as written did not allow it. So how in the hell are the parties supposed to reach an agreement?

 

[jordan000]

Received this today ...

December 5, 2006


***************
***************
*********************

Dear Mr. Andrews:

Thank you for contacting me about the loss of distant
satellite signals by EchoStar Communications. I appreciate
hearing from my constituents on matters that affect them. I
understand that this is frustrating and will be very inconvenient for
you, especially since you have had access to these distant network
signals until now.

The issues involved here can be very confusing. In
essence, both satellite and cable television providers require a
license to broadcast network signals, i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC and
FOX. These networks and their local affiliates either own or buy
the license to the programming that they air. Satellite and cable
providers cannot broadcast or retransmit programming into a
television market when it does not have a license to do so. It is a
violation of Federal copyright law.

In the late 1990s, some satellite television providers were
broadcasting distant network signals to subscribers who were
ineligible to receive them. The satellite television providers were
only given a license to broadcast distant network signals to
subscribers if they were unable to receive over-the-air access to
local network programming. However, some satellite television
providers continued to sell distant network signals to all of their
customers in violation of the law, and the broadcasters filed a
lawsuit.

EchoStar Communications, also known as DISH Network,
chose to continue to broadcast distant network signals and defend
its actions. This issue has been litigated over the past eight years
and, during the litigation, the company's distant network signals
were unaffected. Earlier this year, a court found that EchoStar
engaged in willful and repeated violation of the law. An injunction
was ordered on EchoStar's carriage of all distant network signals,
including those provided to eligible consumers. EchoStar
undertook negotiations with the broadcast networks so that it could
at least continue to carry those signals to its eligible customers. A
negotiated settlement was reached with three networks, but not
with FOX.

On October 20, 2006, a Federal district court upheld the
injunction and voided the proposed settlement reached by ABC,
CBS, NBC, and EchoStar. The court set December 1, 2006, as the
effective date of signal cutoff.

It is my understanding that virtually every EchoStar
customer who will lose distant signals can retain access to network
programming by viewing their local affiliates over the air, over
cable or via EchoStar's and DirecTV's local-signal packages.
However, I do not want to see anyone lose distant network signals
if they are eligible to receive them and cannot view network
broadcasts otherwise. I am hopeful that a compromise will be
worked out by the parties involved and the courts. Senator Patrick
Leahy has also introduced a bill in the Senate, the Satellite
Consumer Protection Act, which would lessen the impact of the
court injunction and allow eligible consumers to keep their distant
network signals.

Once again, thank you for writing. I intend to keep a close
eye on this issue and how it will affect my constituents. If you
should have any additional concerns or questions, please do not
hesitate to contact my Washington, DC staff at (202) 224-3841.





Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

 

[cj9788]

I am hopeful that a compromise will be worked out by the parties involved and the courts.

Again how can there be an agreement if the law does not allow one??

 

[Greg Bimson]

There could be a different agreement. Specifically, the one Scott mentions when he thought that CBS HD would not be affected by the injunction:

Specifically, if Dish Network can contract with the networks for a "network feed", like a PAX, then that is an agreement that can be used. The injunction only prevents the use of the distant network copyright license; an agreement with CBS could allow for a copyright license. However, Dish Network will never be able to agree with certain networks.

 

[WiCkeDuDe]

It is my understanding that virtually every EchoStar
customer who will lose distant signals can retain access to network
programming by viewing their local affiliates over the air, over
cable or via EchoStar's and DirecTV's local-signal packages.

Clearly then you do not understand at all. If you could get locals via OTA then there would be no need for distant networks would there? Do they really expect people to believe this? And the court isnt biased toward D*. Right...........

 

[cj9788]

However, Dish Network will never be able to agree with certain networks.

One could say that [a] certian network would never agree with Dish Network.

 

[mdonnelly]

One could say that [a] certian network would never agree with Dish Network.

That may have changed: http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=83836

 

[dishcomm]

Will somone explain to me how we managed to get our Dallas/Ft. Worth stations taken away when we live within that market area? We did not have to sign a waiver, we have not ever received any so-called distant network stations, nor do we want to. But we do now, just to get the Fox and ABC stations that were taken away. We have to go through All American Direct and now get San Francisco and Atlanta. We don't want news and weather from those areas, they aren't even in our time zone! Why did we lose our DFW stations when we live less than an hour away and we are still considered their serviceable market area? And just for the record, we can not put up an aerial antenna, that would do us no good based on several different factors. I checked. This is ridiculous.

Got some bad news for you..Sherman,TX is in it's OWN market.. officially it is the Sherman,TX/Ada,OK DMA...Look at the is map...Sorry....The thing is, the counties both East and West of Grayson County are in the Dallas/Ft Worth DMA...
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Sherman.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Dallas.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/Maps/texas.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/Maps/oklahoma.gif

 

[Neutron]

I've always found it odd why Sherman, TX needs it's own DMA with those counties in Oklahoma. Sherman isn't that large of a city. Surely it could be in the DFW market.

Heck, Grayson county is the county north of where I live!

 

[dishcomm]

I've always found it odd why Sherman, TX needs it's own DMA with those counties in Oklahoma. Sherman isn't that large of a city. Surely it could be in the DFW market.

Heck, Grayson county is the county north of where I live!

Want to see some quirky sh*t?..
Take a gander at these DMA's.
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Lafayette_IN.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Lima.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/City Maps/Zanesville.gif
http://ekb.dbstalk.com/TVMarkets/Maps/wyoming.gif

 

[scottmoore234]

Rep. Dennis Moore 3rd Congression Dist of KS

I got the same letter that everyone else got. Can't the congress people be more original? They must have some heat on them from all of the phone calls. They have to say something even though it's not what we want to hear.