Why do I have Dish?
- Thread starter sjhart
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 5K
-
Server Issues. We are very aware that there have been system issues the past few days. In troubleshooting the system, it has been determined that the issue is at our provider and is hardware related. The provider was going to move us to a new server, however we are now told by the provider the issue is at the data center in St. Louis. They have offered to move us to a different datacenter on the East Coast or West Coast, however at this time we have declined the move to a different data center as it would affect the speed of connecting to about half our members.
We are waiting for more information from our provider, however we are trying to ride this out to stay in the same data center, so that when the server is fixed all users in the US will get the fastest connection possible.
If after some time the issue is not resolved we will be forced to move to another data center, if this happens there will be down time, as they will need to transfer everything to the new server and we will need to update the DNS and other settings for the new IP address of the new server. If we have to do this, the time it will take to move will be out of our hands.
We are going to try our best to weather through this, so we thank you in advance if you encounter any issues.
Sorry for the issue!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Yes, it's $46 on Sling. I don't know if there are taxes added to that or not. If I ever get reliable broadband, I'll probably try it out. I've heard the DVR interface is kind of klutzy, never tried it myself though.
I was in basically the same position as you as a long-time Dish subscriber and finally decided to sign up with Comcast and go on Dish Pause. I'm coming up on the end of my 9 month pause now and don't think I can justify going back to Dish. Comcast has everything I need, plus is significantly cheaper than Dish when bundled with my home internet. There are a few things I miss about Dish, but nothing that is significant enough to entice me to spend more for less. The moral of the story is evaluate your options and don't be afraid to try something new. Dish will always be there if things don't work out.
The only thing anchoring me to Dish is 15 years of content stored on a bunch of EHDs. Losing the HBO channels didn't hurt because I can replace it all with HBOMax. The only real nuisance right now is my inability to watch SNY, my regional sports network. For some inexplicable reason, they refuse to offer a streaming only subscription, and I am not ditching Dish just because of one channel. My only option right now is pirate streams. I try and do it legit, but they are making it impossible. I would even subscribe to mlb.tv, but they black out my local channels.
I blame all of the parties. It's not one person. It's inherent greed in Americans. For years these costs went unnoticed and in the meantime we allowed powerhouses to build and mandate various channels - Disney, for example, has what - like 15 channels? Its forced. Comcast has quite a few as well. Want one, gotta buy all.
VPN's are not "illegal"... A VPN might be used to access a geo-locked service in violation of the service's TOS, but the tool used for that access is no more illegal than cars are illegal when you use one to commit an illegal offense like speeding, etc. Dish was not fined for offering out of market networks, they were fined for not following the required procedures for offering out of market networks. I'm not aware of any law that says viewers cannot view an out of market station, only FCC rules that say a provider cannot knowingly offer an out of market station except in limited circumstances.
I don't understand then, why does one need a VPN if they can access Locast legally from there current location. Locast will not work if outside your DMA. Just like networks being sold for use outside they DMA?
Also if the VPN is used to defeat the geo location for Locast to ONLY offer a set of locals to there area only and a customer has figured out a way to defeat this Locast and the local network affiliate would have great concerns about Locast's ability to deliver in the DMA only. This I feel is illegal.
It's not illegal for you to receive any of Locast's transmissions, but it could be illegal for Locast to supply their transmissions to people outside of the designated markets. Using a VPN on my part would be no different than using the completely legal OTA antenna system I had at a previous home that received stations from 5 different markets in 3 states. Locast uses industry standard geo-locking methods to restrict viewers to a given market, but viewers circumventing those methods break no laws. Even the market restrictions are simply an FCC rule not an actual "law", making any requirement for them on the Internet something of a grey area. Dish for instance, and I believe DTV has something similar, makes it very easy for me to receive my "home" locals anywhere I have Internet service using the DishAnywhere app. And no VPN needed. I don't see anyone claiming that's "illegal".
Unless there's a law out there that states it is unlawful to use a VPN to access Locast, then it's not illegal. Is setting up a larger antenna on your roof to pick up OTA channels out of your home DMA illegal?
Dish and other providers are often FORCED to provide those worthless channels if they want the high value channels that same media company owns. That's the business model and has been for a long time.
AFAIK, the "law" only goes so far and addresses MVPD's and what they can and can't do. As for any private citizen using ANY means to obtain ANY OTA channel in any DMA for PRIVATE use, I do not believe the "law" addresses that at all. The Areo SCOTUS ruling applies to money making entities who do not get the permission of the broadcasters, which usually involves payments to broadcasters. Although Areo met all the tests from every single Court along the way. Even SCOTUS had to go to great pains to make it clear that the Areo ruling should NOT be applied to any other form of such service because the SCOTUS ruling was WRONG--and they majority knew that--because it went against EVERYTHING already deemed legal, and the decision cause great confusion and consternation for a few days until it was clear that SCOTUS said a "don't read more into this ruling other than Areo itself" sort of message. SCOTUS just didn't like that Areo was able to find the loop-hole in the law--if you will. Loopholes are to be plugged by Congress, not SCOTUS, and even those justices who voted for Areo being legal, did NOT like at all what Areo was doing, but had to conceed that it was legal, and it was up to Congress to fix the matter. And, IMHO, Congress would have put Areo out of business weeks after a favorable SCOTUS ruling for Areo, but that would have been the PROPER way to do it. Sorry for the rant, but that ruling was so stupid and contrary to even Fair Use.
Um, that is truly impossible. The whole business model for the media companies is that they will ONLY allow Dish or other MVPD's to retransmit their high value channels ONLY if those MVPD's also pay for and retransmit their USELESS, STUPID, filler channels that are often created ONLY for that reason of making money with low-cost junk content channels. Viacom has been most guilty of this practice, but ALL the media companies have these "no real content" channels that are designed to be sold ONLY in concert with their high value channels.
Because a VPN has nothing to do with pirating TV feeds on it's own. I use VPN's on all my devices and have for several years as a VPN, to be basic about it, "scrambles" the path that a device connects to a Server so that tracking and exploiting that device's IP is much more difficult. In today's climate of online hackers, phishers and scammers, I don't see why anyone wouldn't protect their devices with a VPN, especially as affordable as they are. I use Surfshark which has the least amount of slowing my connections, even making it almost unnoticeable when I'm gaming on my PC
Scalia wrote an excoriating dissent. He was really pissed off. (and correct, IMO)
Yes, it was Scalia who made it clear he thought it was a "Rubes Goldberg Machine" set-up (I think all the Justices felt that way) to get "around" the law, but to Scalia's credit, his dissent was that it was not for SCOTUS to invalidate a "legal," but an ethically questionable, business that was the Areo model because it was the role Congress to address if the business met every test applied from every other Court and also passed the tests in the minds of ALL the Justices.
FWIW, While I LOVED the idea of Aero, and I LOVED the idea because it was truly LEGAL, I did believe that it was unethical--not illegal--for Areo to charge any amount of money for the "Basic" service of streaming the OTA of your choice within your DMA because Areo would be making money when they were not paying anything to the broadcasters. The basic stream should have been--for ethics and even better legal footing--of NO CHARGE. Of course, Areo had its DVR trade-up plan, which has costs and Areo would be providing DVR as a service that would be designed to make a profit, which would be OK by my standards because such DVR services are LEGAL to provide at a cost to the consumer that is NEVER shared with the broadcasters and content owners such as a cable company offering its DVR services using its servers and providing SEPERATE and PRIVATE access only to the home subscriber while making some money with such a service, and all courts have found this arrangement to be legal.
Yes, I know there are arguments to be made that the DVR service of Areo would only have value because it access OTA broadcasters as the content, but I personally feel that it would be fine for Areo to provide the DVR services for a fee ONLY if Areo provided the NON-DVR basic level stream FREE of any charge. That would be the only ethical way of providing the Areo service in my view.
The Areo case is good example of technology outpacing the law, but it is up to the law--in this case the US Congress--to catch up to the tech and business model and legislate it. But the idea that Areo was making money with broadcasters' signals while Areo was not paying the broadcasters for it, just left a sour taste in the mouth of the majority of SCOTUS who thought they would just "fix it" with a decision that makes big leaps in assumptions. After all, there was no classification as to WHAT Areo was under the law. It wasn't an MVPD under the law, but SCOTUS majority seemed to think that if it is kind of like and MVPD and had attribute here and there, well that is close enough to leap to the conclusion that Areo was an MVPD, and therefore, should pay the broadcasters because it just doesn't seem right. But a court shouldn't rule on what doesn't "seem" right, but on the law that is CLEAR even if the law CLEARLY lacks a definition for what sort of service Areo is, exactly. Areo was unprecedented, so how can SCOTUS call it an MVPD, when it is NOT an MVPD? This unprecedented Areo business requires Congress to define it, not for SCOTUS to define and legislate.
