Dish ordered to stop transmitting DNS

Post by Bob Hatch
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=67857
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, effective December 1, 2006, Defendants
Echostar Communications Corporation (d/b/a DISH Network), EchoStar Satellite
Corporation, Satellite Communications Operating Corporation and DirectSat
Corporation (collectively "Echostar"), their officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
participation with Echostar are hereby PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED
from the secondary transmission, pursuant to the statutory license set forth
in Section 119, Title 17, United States Code, of a performance or display of
a word embodied in a primary transmission of any network station affiliated
with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or
National Broadcasting Co. For the purposes of this permanent injunction, the
terms "secondary transmission," "primary transmission," "primary network
station," and "network station" shall have the meanings given those terms in
Section 119, Title 17, United States Code.

We got a heads up from Escapees last week. When they contacted Dish,
Dish told them they were still fighting it. If I have to switch, I'll
switch, but I know Direct will make me keep 2 accounts one for the house
and one for the RV. Then I'll have to turn one off and the other one
on. Pain in rear. Friends of ours just bought a mobile and that's what
Direct made them do. Two accounts. Motorhome and stationary home.

Now that I have a *real* residential address, DTV might let us have MLB
Extra Innings in the RV if we have it in the house. I'm gonna miss PBS
and all the great music on Dish. Gonna miss my Dish DVR that works on 2
TVs, too. If we stay with Dish local networks in the house won't be too
terrible, right now we have Houston as local networks (no idea why)
which is better than the real locals. At least Houston's PBS is mostly
English. No networks in the motorhome would be a problem for us.

Hopefully Dish will pull themselves out of this as they told Escapees
they hoped to do. It seems unfair to punish the subscribers with legit
waivers or no local networks. The government should just fine Dish
heavily and slap the corporate F-ups around a bit. I'm sure that Direct
has some heavily paid lobbyists involved in the whole deal. It would
give them a monopoly in many parts of the country and for the mobile
market. I can just see DTV denying mobile accounts more and more
programming options and feeling cocky about it because there is no
competition for the consumer to go to if they want networks.

JMHO

The consumer without a choice is the real loser here.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Cliff

2006-10-29 14:38:49 UTC

Janet Wilder wrote:
If I have to switch, I'll

Post by Janet Wilder
switch, but I know Direct will make me keep 2 accounts one for the
house and one for the RV. Then I'll have to turn one off and the
other one on. Pain in rear. Friends of ours just bought a mobile and
that's what Direct made them do. Two accounts. Motorhome and
stationary home.
Now that I have a *real* residential address, DTV might let us have
MLB Extra Innings in the RV if we have it in the house. I'm gonna
miss PBS and all the great music on Dish. Gonna miss my Dish DVR that
works on 2 TVs, too. If we stay with Dish local networks in the
house won't be too terrible, right now we have Houston as local
networks (no idea why) which is better than the real locals. At least
Houston's PBS is mostly English. No networks in the motorhome would
be a problem for us.
The consumer without a choice is the real loser here.

Janet, an alternative is just get ONE receiver and move it between your
coach and house. They will work for a while "off" the grid, and catch up
when you do plug them into a phone.
Or, just get one for the MH with the "mobile" option of no phone plug for
service. Don't know what these options would do to your MLB package.
There's always a hook!
Cliff in TN

--
If You're Gonna be DUMB, You've Gotta be TOUGH !!!

Our Web Side www.cj-and-m.com
Come Visit

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 22:43:01 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
If I have to switch, I'll

Cliff,

Direct has written to Good Sam, I have a copy of the letter, stating
that they would not turn off a major league sports subscription for an
RVer if the RVer had a residential (non-mobile) account and just wanted
to be able to watch some games when "camping". I would have to keep the
receiver plugged in to the house phone jack when we weren't "camping"
There would't be anything stopping Direct from looking for a dial-down
while we were RVing for 4 months in the summer, not finding it and
shutting me down. Even if I could get baseball from them, I would not be
able to have my RV considered as a mobile account for distant networks.
Three years ago they said they would give me baseball if I could prove
to them that my address was a permanent residential address (which I now
can)but that would negate distant networks. It's a catch 22.

With DTV and Dish, networks are spotbeamed. Once you travel out of the
spot, they are gone. The distant network service requires that the
customer either be a mobile account with executed waivers and proof of
mobility such as current vehicle registration for RVs, or a residential
account in an area that a)can't be reached by the spot beams of the
local networks designated for that area or b)lives in an area where
there is no provision for the satellite company to broadcast the local
networks.

Even if I had one receiver, I would still need two accounts with Direct
TV. One for when we are in the house (where they would only provide
Harlingen locals) and one for when we are in the RV where I would get
distant networks but would have to fight for baseball if I could get it
at all. I would have to call Direct and turn off the house account and
turn on the RV account when we wanted to travel. If I have to lose
distant networks, I'll stay with Dish because I like their service
better, they have much better music and they cost less and their is no
problem with baseball. They don't have the same contracts that Direct
does to provide demographics to marketers, so Dish doesn't require a
land-line connection for Major League sports packages.

I lived with this stuff for a year three years ago. I still have a file
of correspondence on letterheads from Good Sam, Escapees, PBS, the FCC
and the office of the commissioner of Major League Baseball.

When we hooked up Dish in the house we told them it was our winter spot
and we intented to be traveling in our RV most of the rest of the year.
That was really our intention until we had the wreck, then I got sick
this year and we couldn't travel. They left our Distant Networks and
still consider us a mobile account. We did not subscribe to the local
stations as that would have been in conflict with the ruling.

As I read the FCC ruling (where this whole thing arose)you can't be
eligible to get local networks and distant networks at the same time.

Interestingly, even if Dish shuts off my Distant network feeds, I'll
still be able to get the 2 New York independant stations. They are not
considered networks. More like "superstations"

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Peter Pan

2006-10-30 02:39:00 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Even if I had one receiver, I would still need two accounts with
Direct TV. One for when we are in the house (where they would only
provide Harlingen locals) and one for when we are in the RV where I
would get distant networks but would have to fight for baseball if I
could get it at all. I would have to call Direct and turn off the
house account and turn on the RV account when we wanted to travel. If
I have to lose distant networks, I'll stay with Dish because I like
their service better, they have much better music and they cost less
and their is no problem with baseball. They don't have the same
contracts that Direct does to provide demographics to marketers, so
Dish doesn't require a land-line connection for Major League sports
packages.

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at any of the cell-dock devices
available to allow you to use cell phones with wired phones? Had one in my
rv that not only let me use the cell phone with regular phones (and an
answering machine), but also with the tivo (for the guide), and gave a
number for my nfl sunday ticket thing (not sure how dish works, but for DTV
they (football/baseball/hockey/etc were like a PPV that had to be checked
oce a week... A signal was sent to the receiver, and if it was connected to
a phone line, it would call an 800 number, using caller id, if it was the
same number as you got the package with, it would authorize it for that
weeks games.. Let me have an RV account with DNS, but also allowed me to
have the sports stuff that required a phone line)....

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 03:28:13 UTC

Post by Peter Pan

Never heard of that device. Quite a way to do an end-run around Direct
TV <g>

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Peter Pan

2006-10-30 13:33:45 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Never heard of that device. Quite a way to do an end-run around Direct
TV <g>

Not just for a direct or dish, but a way of using any type of regular device
with a cell phone to have a single number when you are traveling(in my case
when I was full timing) answering machine, fax, cordless phones, tivo,
directv football NFL sunday package, dish dial-up (never tried it with a
dish sports package, but used it with the dish guide to eliminate the $5
charge per month for no phone line), as far as I know works with both to
allow PPV charges to be offloaded... Sort of works with modems too, but the
max speed is 14.4 for data... fine for fax but a bit slow for surfing)...The
price for them are around $129-$138... also keeps the cell phone fully
charged while connected to the phone line... going out for the day? Just
take it out and put it in your pocket....

There where two I knew of, cellsocket and dock n talk, now cellsocket is
out of biz but there is a new second device called "dial cell"
http://www.fselectronics.net/CellSocket.htm instead...

Marsha and Chuck

2006-10-30 21:03:20 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
If I have to switch, I'll

Janet, an alternative is just get ONE receiver and move it between
your coach and house. They will work for a while "off" the grid, and
catch up when you do plug them into a phone.
Or, just get one for the MH with the "mobile" option of no phone
plug for service. Don't know what these options would do to your MLB
package. There's always a hook!
Cliff in TN

Cliff,
Direct has written to Good Sam, I have a copy of the letter, stating
that they would not turn off a major league sports subscription for an
RVer if the RVer had a residential (non-mobile) account and just wanted
to be able to watch some games when "camping". I would have to keep the
receiver plugged in to the house phone jack when we weren't "camping"
There would't be anything stopping Direct from looking for a dial-down
while we were RVing for 4 months in the summer, not finding it and
shutting me down. Even if I could get baseball from them, I would not be
able to have my RV considered as a mobile account for distant networks.
Three years ago they said they would give me baseball if I could prove
to them that my address was a permanent residential address (which I now
can)but that would negate distant networks. It's a catch 22.
With DTV and Dish, networks are spotbeamed. Once you travel out of the
spot, they are gone. The distant network service requires that the
customer either be a mobile account with executed waivers and proof of
mobility such as current vehicle registration for RVs, or a residential
account in an area that a)can't be reached by the spot beams of the
local networks designated for that area or b)lives in an area where
there is no provision for the satellite company to broadcast the local
networks.
Even if I had one receiver, I would still need two accounts with Direct
TV. One for when we are in the house (where they would only provide
Harlingen locals) and one for when we are in the RV where I would get
distant networks but would have to fight for baseball if I could get it
at all. I would have to call Direct and turn off the house account and
turn on the RV account when we wanted to travel. If I have to lose
distant networks, I'll stay with Dish because I like their service
better, they have much better music and they cost less and their is no
problem with baseball. They don't have the same contracts that Direct
does to provide demographics to marketers, so Dish doesn't require a
land-line connection for Major League sports packages.
I lived with this stuff for a year three years ago. I still have a file
of correspondence on letterheads from Good Sam, Escapees, PBS, the FCC
and the office of the commissioner of Major League Baseball.
When we hooked up Dish in the house we told them it was our winter spot
and we intented to be traveling in our RV most of the rest of the year.
That was really our intention until we had the wreck, then I got sick
this year and we couldn't travel. They left our Distant Networks and
still consider us a mobile account. We did not subscribe to the local
stations as that would have been in conflict with the ruling.
As I read the FCC ruling (where this whole thing arose)you can't be
eligible to get local networks and distant networks at the same time.
Interestingly, even if Dish shuts off my Distant network feeds, I'll
still be able to get the 2 New York independant stations. They are not
considered networks. More like "superstations"

Janet:
We've had DirectTV the whole time, while we fulltimed and since we've
moved into the house. On the three mini-trips we have taken in the
motorhome, everything is the same as in the house; only ONE account.
When we leave on Wed. I will cut off the High Definition receiver and HD
service and DVR and cut back service to Total Choice Plus including our
East/West networks. We still get Fox Sports Net in the West wherever we
go but, of course, will lose our locals when we get out of Oregon.
We have a receiver in the motorhome and I will take my bedroom receiver
for the bedroom in the motorhome. DirectTV has been very accomodating
to us. So, I don't know why you say you have to have two accounts. Of
course, it is always "who you talk to", huh?
Hugs,
Marsha

Hunter

2006-10-29 03:51:05 UTC

Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?

Is Directv next?

Hunter

--
http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/summer2006.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy shit...what a ride!"

Bob Hatch

2006-10-29 03:58:22 UTC

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?
Hunter

Dapper Dave

2006-10-29 12:17:39 UTC

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?
Hunter

As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

--
DD

Hunter

2006-10-29 13:20:11 UTC

Post by Dapper Dave
As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

Ah, that makes it much clearer.

Hunter

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 21:54:15 UTC

Post by Dapper Dave
As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

I rest my case. Talk about self-serving!

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 01:24:26 UTC

Post by Dapper Dave
As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

I rest my case. Talk about self-serving!

AS usual you only screech when your ox is gored.
*****************
Nearly five years ago, the CEO of EchoStar, Charlie Ergen, tried to
purchase DirecTV from then-owner General Motors. A full year later, the
Federal Communications Commission announced that it would not approve
the merger; the Department of Justice soon followed suit. The
EchoStar-DirecTV acquisition is probably the most visible deal blocked
by the Bush administration.

It was a profound embarrassment to GM's board. Before the 2001 failed
merger, GM had wanted to sell DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
GM's loss was ultimately the mutual gain of Messrs. Ergen and Murdoch.
While DirecTV was effectively locked up for a year, EchoStar gained on
its then much larger rival and almost surpassed it. The substantial
breakup fee paid by EchoStar to GM for the failed merger was likely
worth every penny to EchoStar.
****************
It's looks to me like Echostar took a hit in the shorts because they
tried to finagle a monopoly and while Directv was tied up, grabbed a
good share of the satellite TV business.

Now it's payback time and Echostar is crying the blues.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 01:58:17 UTC

Post by Dapper Dave
As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

I rest my case. Talk about self-serving!

AS usual you only screech when your ox is gored.
*****************
Nearly five years ago, the CEO of EchoStar, Charlie Ergen, tried to
purchase DirecTV from then-owner General Motors. A full year later, the
Federal Communications Commission announced that it would not approve
the merger; the Department of Justice soon followed suit. The
EchoStar-DirecTV acquisition is probably the most visible deal blocked
by the Bush administration.
It was a profound embarrassment to GM's board. Before the 2001 failed
merger, GM had wanted to sell DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
GM's loss was ultimately the mutual gain of Messrs. Ergen and Murdoch.
While DirecTV was effectively locked up for a year, EchoStar gained on
its then much larger rival and almost surpassed it. The substantial
breakup fee paid by EchoStar to GM for the failed merger was likely
worth every penny to EchoStar.
****************
It's looks to me like Echostar took a hit in the shorts because they
tried to finagle a monopoly and while Directv was tied up, grabbed a
good share of the satellite TV business.
Now it's payback time and Echostar is crying the blues.
LZ

That's the poorest excuse for logic you've come up with in a long time.
But very typical of you to bring in issues not in debate when you have
no defense. Sigh, you are so, so predictable

I have no answer other than I have no ox. Where's your answer for your
complicity with your DTV provider's violation of the FCC rulings.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 02:55:45 UTC

Post by Dapper Dave
As the news articles on this story have pointed out, Fox, the only
network to reject the settlement, is owned by Murdoch's News Corp.,
which also owns DirecTV.

I rest my case. Talk about self-serving!

AS usual you only screech when your ox is gored.
*****************
Nearly five years ago, the CEO of EchoStar, Charlie Ergen, tried to
purchase DirecTV from then-owner General Motors. A full year later,
the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would not
approve the merger; the Department of Justice soon followed suit. The
EchoStar-DirecTV acquisition is probably the most visible deal blocked
by the Bush administration.
It was a profound embarrassment to GM's board. Before the 2001 failed
merger, GM had wanted to sell DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
GM's loss was ultimately the mutual gain of Messrs. Ergen and Murdoch.
While DirecTV was effectively locked up for a year, EchoStar gained on
its then much larger rival and almost surpassed it. The substantial
breakup fee paid by EchoStar to GM for the failed merger was likely
worth every penny to EchoStar.
****************
It's looks to me like Echostar took a hit in the shorts because they
tried to finagle a monopoly and while Directv was tied up, grabbed a
good share of the satellite TV business.
Now it's payback time and Echostar is crying the blues.
LZ

That's the poorest excuse for logic you've come up with in a long time.
But very typical of you to bring in issues not in debate when you have
no defense. Sigh, you are so, so predictable

You whined that Murdoch has an edge when Echostar was the first to try
and get a monopoly. I don't think you even knew that.

Post by Janet Wilder
I have no answer other than I have no ox. Where's your answer for your
complicity with your DTV provider's violation of the FCC rulings.

Post the law I am violating and exactly which paragraph I am in
violation of.
LZ

bruce

2006-10-30 16:35:20 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
*****************
Nearly five years ago, the CEO of EchoStar, Charlie Ergen, tried to
purchase DirecTV from then-owner General Motors. A full year later, the
Federal Communications Commission announced that it would not approve the
merger; the Department of Justice soon followed suit. The EchoStar-DirecTV
acquisition is probably the most visible deal blocked by the Bush
administration.
It was a profound embarrassment to GM's board. Before the 2001 failed
merger, GM had wanted to sell DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. GM's
loss was ultimately the mutual gain of Messrs. Ergen and Murdoch. While
DirecTV was effectively locked up for a year, EchoStar gained on its then
much larger rival and almost surpassed it. The substantial breakup fee
paid by EchoStar to GM for the failed merger was likely worth every penny
to EchoStar.
****************
It's looks to me like Echostar took a hit in the shorts because they tried
to finagle a monopoly and while Directv was tied up, grabbed a good share
of the satellite TV business.
Now it's payback time and Echostar is crying the blues.

I remember that time well. Radio Shack switched from carrying DTV to Dish;
Sears dropped DTV and stayed with Dish exclusively; all DTV advertising on
TV stopped, Dish gained enough customers to almost kill DTV. It was worth
the attempt just for the increase in customers.

Bruce

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 20:36:56 UTC

Post by bruce

Post by Lone Haranguer
Now it's payback time and Echostar is crying the blues.

Unfortunately some people's memories are quite a bit more selective.
LZ

Hunter

2006-10-29 13:19:31 UTC

Post by Bob Hatch
Dish broke the rules, and continued to break the rules after being ordered
to stop. DNS were, by law, only to be provided where local channels were not
available, or with an RV waiver. Dish sold them to anyone that asked. A
settlement had been reached with ABC, CBS and NBC, but Fox rejected the
settlement. The posted order is the latest, and maybe the end for DNS from
Dish.>

Oh, okay thanks Bob.

I would hate to lose my DNS.

Hunter

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 21:55:31 UTC

Post by Hunter
I would hate to lose my DNS.

Right now you have them illegally if you also have the local Ocala feeds.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 01:29:28 UTC

Post by Hunter
I would hate to lose my DNS.

Right now you have them illegally if you also have the local Ocala feeds.

The traveler is supposed to cancel and start again every time they move
into or depart an area that has broadcast TV?

I don't think they have enough operators on duty to handle that load.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 02:00:20 UTC

Post by Hunter
I would hate to lose my DNS.

Right now you have them illegally if you also have the local Ocala feeds.

The traveler is supposed to cancel and start again every time they move
into or depart an area that has broadcast TV?
I don't think they have enough operators on duty to handle that load.
LZ

Under the FCC ruling, one can't have both DNS and locals. If DTV were
obeying the ruling they would turn off Hunters DSN when they give her
the locals. After the winter when she gets on the road, they have to
turn off the locals and turn on the DNS. I don't make the rules, sorry.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 02:58:58 UTC

Post by Hunter
I would hate to lose my DNS.

Right now you have them illegally if you also have the local Ocala feeds.

The traveler is supposed to cancel and start again every time they
move into or depart an area that has broadcast TV?
I don't think they have enough operators on duty to handle that load.
LZ

Then the same ruling applies for every city one stops in unless there is
a minimum number of specified days in the law.

Can you quote the law for us?
LZ

Peter Pan

2006-10-30 15:07:01 UTC

Post by Hunter
I would hate to lose my DNS.

Right now you have them illegally if you also have the local Ocala feeds.

The traveler is supposed to cancel and start again every time they
move into or depart an area that has broadcast TV?
I don't think they have enough operators on duty to handle that load.
LZ

Don't know where you ever got that silly and WRONG idea... They (DTV) have
packages both with and without locals (with is a few bucks more a month),
and if you are mobile (RV, trucker etc) you can ALSO get the DNS package...
see directv on the go at
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/secondaryIndex.jsp?assetId=1200066

Frank Howell

2006-10-29 13:39:02 UTC

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?
Hunter

Does DirectTV broadcast DNS? Do you think Fox's rejection of a settlement
has more to do with gaining an advantage over Dish in the satellite market,
then any monetary gain it might receive? Will congress intervene and pass a
law forbidding media content creators from owning cable or satellite
businesses?

--
Frank Howell

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Hunter

2006-10-29 13:55:48 UTC

Does DirectTV broadcast DNS?>

Yes.

Do you think Fox's rejection of a settlement
has more to do with gaining an advantage over Dish in the satellite market,
then any monetary gain it might receive?>

Seems the guy who owns Fox owns Directv.

Will congress intervene and pass a law forbidding media content

creators from owning cable or satellite businesses?>

Who knows?

Hunter

Bob Hatch

2006-10-29 14:03:28 UTC

Post by Frank Howell
Does DirectTV broadcast DNS? Do you think Fox's rejection of a
settlement has more to do with gaining an advantage over Dish in the
satellite market, then any monetary gain it might receive? Will
congress intervene and pass a law forbidding media content creators
from owning cable or satellite businesses?

DTV does broadcast DNS, and yes, IMO, the rejection by Fox was aimed at
gaining an advantage. For the non traveler, it's not a big issue, because
Dish is expanding its local networks, but for the traveler its a huge issue.

Ron Recer

2006-10-29 16:03:47 UTC

An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever they
are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals every
time you moved.

Ron

Bob Hatch

2006-10-29 16:09:41 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where
ever they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change
locals every time you moved.
Ron

Actually the best option would have been for Dish to have followed the law
and regulations to start with. :-)

In the end, it is Dish who is responsible for this, not Fox, not DTV, not
congress. Dish chose to thumb their nose at the regulation, and are now
paying a stiff price for being stubborn. Ya, Fox has dug in their heels, and
that's how business is done, but Dish put themselves in the position to be
taken advantage of.

Ron Recer

2006-10-29 20:05:07 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where
ever they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change
locals every time you moved.
Ron

Actually the best option would have been for Dish to have followed the law
and regulations to start with. :-)
In the end, it is Dish who is responsible for this, not Fox, not DTV, not
congress. Dish chose to thumb their nose at the regulation, and are now
paying a stiff price for being stubborn. Ya, Fox has dug in their heels,
and that's how business is done, but Dish put themselves in the position
to be taken advantage of.

You are right. In '02 when we first subscribed to DISH they apparently were
following the law. We were in Montana at the time and subscribed to the
Dallas-Ft Worth stations (they were available nationally at that time). We
got two of the networks right away as the zip code of our location was on
their list of no service areas. DISH requested exemptions for us from the
other two networks and after ten days or so we got service for those
networks.

Ron

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 23:57:43 UTC

Post by Ron Recer

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where
ever they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change
locals every time you moved.
Ron

Actually the best option would have been for Dish to have followed the law
and regulations to start with. :-)
In the end, it is Dish who is responsible for this, not Fox, not DTV, not
congress. Dish chose to thumb their nose at the regulation, and are now
paying a stiff price for being stubborn. Ya, Fox has dug in their heels,
and that's how business is done, but Dish put themselves in the position
to be taken advantage of.

I had to send my waivers and copy of vehicle registration to Dish before
I got netwoks in 2004. I had DNS for 4 years with no waivers on Direct
TV. Dish has just contacted all of their RV waivered customers to
provide them with a new waiver and a current registration. That seems to
be a lot more in accordance with the FCC ruling (there was never a "Law"
it's closer to administrative code) than Direct who has, never, to my
knowledge asked anyone for an updated waiver and current proof of mobile
account status. Any idea how many people who have stopped RVing are
still getting DNS with Direct TV? Thousands and thousands and most of
them live where there are local networks available.

Gimme a break. Both companies are equally evil. One has the power and
the money to become a monoply and the other doesn't.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 02:10:11 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
I had to send my waivers and copy of vehicle registration to Dish before
I got netwoks in 2004. I had DNS for 4 years with no waivers on Direct
TV.

Then none of the stations beaming to your mailing address complained.
They are the ones who pressured Congress to pass that law.
They are also the ones who complained to Directv if they thought they
were losing a customer.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 03:26:36 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
I had to send my waivers and copy of vehicle registration to Dish
before I got netwoks in 2004. I had DNS for 4 years with no waivers on
Direct TV.

There were hundreds of people at my mailing address in Livingston, TX
during those 4 years Direct was in violation on our account. People with
new accounts had to get waivers. The provider went through accounts and
asked customers for waivers. It took them 4 years to get to us.

Before the FCC ruling, the provider in Livingston, obtained blanket
waivers from the area stations for all Polk County residents because
their broadcast beams didn't reach Polk County. After the ruling the
blanket waivers didn't apply for the mobile accounts.

The more you post on this the more your ignorance of the subject shows.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 04:34:39 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
I had to send my waivers and copy of vehicle registration to Dish
before I got netwoks in 2004. I had DNS for 4 years with no waivers
on Direct TV.

That is because Pegasus was a screwed up entity. You weren't dealing
with Directv; I was.

Post by Janet Wilder
Before the FCC ruling, the provider in Livingston, obtained blanket
waivers from the area stations for all Polk County residents because
their broadcast beams didn't reach Polk County. After the ruling the
blanket waivers didn't apply for the mobile accounts.
The more you post on this the more your ignorance of the subject shows.

That's hilarious. You don't even have a clue why the law was passed.
What was probably illegal was blanket waivers. Mine were for me
personally because I couldn't get a local broadcast signal at my mailing
address nor my winter address. There are no local stations here either.
If I took those Directv spot beams here (assuming they have them)
they would be from Tucson and I have no reason to shop in Tucson when I
live 70 miles from there. Who is losing money because I don't get
Tucson broadcasts? No one.

Got that?
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 23:38:43 UTC

Post by Bob Hatch
Actually the best option would have been for Dish to have followed the law
and regulations to start with. :-)

Pardon me but that is utter BS. There are still just as many Direct
customers out in the boonies who got distant networks when there weren't
local networks and were never converted over to the locals when they
began to beam them. It's easy to tell when most of the newer homes have
multiple heads for local spot beaming and the older ones, a distance out
of town, still have the single LNB.

When we started fulltiming in 1996, there was no such animal as distant
networks and waivers. I wanted networks so I called our *Direct TV*
provider. The rep told me he was going to ask me some questions and I
should answer "no". The questions were: have you subscribed to cable TV
in the last x months and can you get local networks with a regular roof
antenna. According to him my RV never had cable (even though the house
I just sold did) and I didn't, according to the rep, have what he
considered to be a "regular" roof antenna. Poof! networks.

When the FCC ruling happend, it took Direct over 4 years to ask me for
waivers. Prior to that I had my East and West networks (everyone lost
PBS) and MLB extra Innings. Once the waiver was filed, no more MLB. We
had networks without waivers for over 4 years when they were required by
the same ruling Dish is being clobbered with. So much for the
"integrity" of Direct TV.

When PBS and RV organizations begged Direct to restore PBS programming
to DNS customers, (it's cleary provided for in Direct TV's contract with
PBS, I read the contract), Direct's arrogant answer was: "we can't be
bothered to do that programming for a handfull of RVers". I got that
directly from the source who had the correspondance with them.

Want more on their integrity? How many of their customers have been
given the ability to opt out of the gathering of data on the land-line
attached to their receivers? NONE. Is it an FCC law that these customers
should be notified that data is being harvested, what that data might be
and given an option to not have it harvested. You bet it is! Direct has
been ignoring the law for years. The FCC is fully aware of these
"business practices" but Direct is backed by a rich and powerful
company. Does congress know about this "business practice" they
certainly do. Will they risk the annual campain contributions and maybe
not getting their ads on TV to fuss over it?....hell no! (Think of how
many TV stations Murdoch owns)

I have, personally met many RVers who have Direct with DNS and Major
league sports because they gave Direct an address of a cabin out in the
boondocks with no phone service. It's a well-known way to get major
leage sports packages for an RV account from Direct. Not a secret in the
RV community. There are people who will "rent" an address just for that
purpose. These "cabin renters" and owners never filed RV waivers. Is
Direct in violation of the same ruling as Dish. You bet they are!

Our very own Linus Zimmerman has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

Direct's hands are just as dirty.

Post by Bob Hatch
In the end, it is Dish who is responsible for this, not Fox, not DTV, not
congress. Dish chose to thumb their nose at the regulation, and are now
paying a stiff price for being stubborn. Ya, Fox has dug in their heels, and
that's how business is done, but Dish put themselves in the position to be
taken advantage of.

Yet Direct thumbs their nose at the same regulations and invades the
privacy of their customers in blatant disregard for the law.

Direct has more money and more power. Do you know for a fact that they
didn't have all the networks, including the one they own, sign off on
*their* "crimes". No you don't and I doubt if any of us will.

Spend a year of your life looking into Direct's "business practices"
then come back and tell me they have clean hands. If Dish has dirty
hands, which I have *no* doubt they do, Direct's are just as dirty.
Direct can afford the right soap, Dish can't. It's as simple as that.

I am all for commerce, capitalism and trade advantages, I'm not for
dirty pool that creates a monopoly at the expense of the consumer. YMMV

If you are getting networks from Direct, don't smirk too much. How long
do you think it will take for them to raise your monthy DNS subscription
fee when they become a monopoly?

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Hunter

2006-10-29 23:59:09 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:38:43 -0600, Janet Wilder

Our very own XXXXXXX has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

Janet, you're losing yours so you want to take everyone down with you?

Stop it.

Hunter

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 01:47:37 UTC

Post by Hunter
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:38:43 -0600, Janet Wilder

Our very own XXXXXXX has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

Janet, you're losing yours so you want to take everyone down with you?
Stop it.
Hunter

First, I haven't lost anything yet. I am responding with the truth to
people who have posted that Dish did something "illegal" and *deserves*
to be punished. It's not my fault that those people have Direct
accounts and appear to be gloating.

I'm merely pointing out that Direct is equally as culpable in it's
violations of the same rules and violates a s--tload of other FCC laws
to boot.

And, yes, if both companies are violating the same FCC ruling, as they
clearly are, both should be treated equally under the law. If justice
means you lose yours, than too bad. Justice should be applied equally,
not just to the party with less money and less connections. This whole
thing is a trevesty a kindergardener could see through.

If you think it's fair that Direct, through it's association with Fox
should be permitted to violate the ruling and become a monopoly with the
ability to charge you whatever they want is right just because you get
to keep "your" networks, then I'm a little disappointed in you.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Hunter

2006-10-30 02:04:45 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:47:37 -0600, Janet Wilder

Post by Janet Wilder
First, I haven't lost anything yet. I am responding with the truth to
people who have posted that Dish did something "illegal" and *deserves*
to be punished. It's not my fault that those people have Direct
accounts and appear to be gloating.>

I'm not gloating. You've mentioned me in three separate posts.

Frankly if you hadn't gone on and on ad nauseam about how bad Directv
is and how wonderful Dish is maybe no one would be gloating. It's not
about you.

Post by Janet Wilder
I'm merely pointing out that Direct is equally as culpable in it's
violations of the same rules and violates a s--tload of other FCC laws
to boot.<>

Fine point out whatever you want. Leave names out of it.

Post by Janet Wilder
And, yes, if both companies are violating the same FCC ruling, as they
clearly are, both should be treated equally under the law. If justice
means you lose yours, than too bad. Justice should be applied equally,
not just to the party with less money and less connections. This whole
thing is a trevesty a kindergardener could see through.>

Fine. leave my name and LZ's and anyone else you want out of it.

Post by Janet Wilder
If you think it's fair that Direct, through it's association with Fox
should be permitted to violate the ruling and become a monopoly with the
ability to charge you whatever they want is right just because you get
to keep "your" networks, then I'm a little disappointed in you.>

Janet, this has always been your personal crusade. Not mine.

Stay on your soapbox as long as you want but quit naming names. I'm
more than a little disappointed in you.

Hunter

Hunter

2006-10-30 02:08:52 UTC

Post by Hunter
I'm not gloating. You've mentioned me in three separate posts.

Make that 4 now.

Hunter

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 02:04:31 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Our very own Linus Zimmerman has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

You are a bitch and a liar. I do not have a Minnesota provider. I've
always dealt directly with Directv. I got my first letter about waivers
in 1995 when Ch 7 in Alexandria filed a complaint. I was in Ajo at the
time. I wrote and told them if they could beam me a signal to Ajo, I'd
cancel my distant networks. I sent a copy of that letter to all the MN
network stations and told them the same thing. Either furnish me a
signal or butt out. Any more harassment and I'm suing. Not a peep
since. I've already posted a copy of the law and showed you where I am
in total compliance with it.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct's hands are just as dirty.

Echostar was busy signing up customers when they locked up Directv with
a takeover attempt 5 years ago. To you that is an ethical business
practice.

Post by Bob Hatch
In the end, it is Dish who is responsible for this, not Fox, not DTV,
not congress. Dish chose to thumb their nose at the regulation, and
are now paying a stiff price for being stubborn. Ya, Fox has dug in
their heels, and that's how business is done, but Dish put themselves
in the position to be taken advantage of.

Yet Direct thumbs their nose at the same regulations and invades the
privacy of their customers in blatant disregard for the law.

More baloney. I go for years without even plugging my receiver into a
phone line. Directv has never bugged me about it. As long as I have
not cheated them with PPV I haven't paid for, I never hear from them.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct has more money and more power. Do you know for a fact that they
didn't have all the networks, including the one they own, sign off on
*their* "crimes". No you don't and I doubt if any of us will.
Spend a year of your life looking into Direct's "business practices"
then come back and tell me they have clean hands. If Dish has dirty
hands, which I have *no* doubt they do, Direct's are just as dirty.
Direct can afford the right soap, Dish can't. It's as simple as that.
I am all for commerce, capitalism and trade advantages, I'm not for
dirty pool that creates a monopoly at the expense of the consumer. YMMV
If you are getting networks from Direct, don't smirk too much. How long
do you think it will take for them to raise your monthy DNS subscription
fee when they become a monopoly?

Echostar did their best to have a monopoly but failed. Thanks to the
Bush administration.

upert and Hillary
By Roger Aronoff | June 6, 2006
In truth, Murdoch is an opportunist who plays both sides of the partisan
street.
Listen to the radio version
Send this page to a friend
Format this page for printing

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch's fundraising for Hillary Clinton was
treated as a man-bites-dog shocking news story. Keith Olbermann's
little-watched MSNBC program went crazy with the news. It has been
assumed that Murdoch, whose $60 billion media empire includes the Fox
News Channel (FNC), the Weekly Standard magazine and the New York Post,
is a conservative who wouldn't be caught dead supporting a left-wing
Democrat like Hillary. In truth, Murdoch is an opportunist who plays
both sides of the partisan street.

As we have noted on several occasions, Murdoch openly supported Al Gore
in his 2000 bid for the White House, including serving as a co-host of
the famous Radio City Music Hall fundraiser, and as a $50,000
contributor. He also made an in-kind contribution to the Democrats that
year worth an estimated $10 million, namely the use of the Staple Center
in Los Angeles for their presidential nominating convention.

In addition, Peter Chernin, the president and chief operating officer of
News Corporation, the parent company of FNC, was a significant
contributor to John Kerry in 2004, and even signed newspaper ads taken
out in support of Kerry. Through Murdoch's political action committee,
he has donated to Democratic Senators Boxer, Schumer and Kennedy, and
Representatives Rangel, Dingell and Pelosi, among others.

Hillary recently attended the 10th anniversary party of Fox News Sunday,
and former president Bill Clinton recruited Murdoch to participate in
Clinton's Global Initiative project. In return, Clinton will be speaking
before a gathering of News Corp. executives. The history and
relationship between the Clintons and Murdoch is there, and therefore
his relationship with Hillary is not a surprise.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 03:20:09 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Our very own Linus Zimmerman has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

You are a bitch and a liar. I do not have a Minnesota provider.

Then why did you have to get "permission" from the MN networks? You make
no sense.

Post by Lone Haranguer
I've always dealt directly with Directv. I got my first letter about waivers
in 1995 when Ch 7 in Alexandria filed a complaint. I was in Ajo at the
time. I wrote and told them if they could beam me a signal to Ajo, I'd
cancel my distant networks. I sent a copy of that letter to all the MN
network stations and told them the same thing. Either furnish me a
signal or butt out. Any more harassment and I'm suing. Not a peep
since. I've already posted a copy of the law and showed you where I am
in total compliance with it.

You are not in total compliance. All mobile accounts need to file a
mobile account waiver and a copy of the registration of theit vehicle.

Of course you haven't heard a peep since 1995, years before the current
FCC ruling. It's becaue Direct TV is NOT IN OCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FCC
RULING when it gives you distant networks without proper waivers. How
dumb can you get to believe that you are the only RVer in the United
States who doesn't have to comply with that requirement? The rules
changed after 1995. Direct TV didn't get the proper paperwork from you
to comply. You have distant networks illegally according to the FCC.

Time will not stand still just to vindicate your foolish attempt at logic.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct's hands are just as dirty.

Echostar was busy signing up customers when they locked up Directv with
a takeover attempt 5 years ago. To you that is an ethical business
practice.

They were taking advantage of a marketing situation. They didn't use
their ownership influence to creat themselves a monopoly. If we extend
your arguement, it looks like Direct is wreaking payback by using *it's*
ownership infulence to take business away from Dish. Is *that* ethical
business practice?

Post by Janet Wilder
Yet Direct thumbs their nose at the same regulations and invades the
privacy of their customers in blatant disregard for the law.

If you want certain programming packages, a phone line is required. No
phone no programming. You are living in 1995 when such programming
didn't exist. The next time the Sunday paper has an ad for the NFL
Football premium package on DTV, look at the fine print and you will see
that a phone line is required or you can't get the programming. Call
them yourself and ask them if you can get the NFL package (over $100 a
year) without plugging the receiver into a phone jack.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct has more money and more power. Do you know for a fact that they
didn't have all the networks, including the one they own, sign off on
*their* "crimes". No you don't and I doubt if any of us will.
Spend a year of your life looking into Direct's "business practices"
then come back and tell me they have clean hands. If Dish has dirty
hands, which I have *no* doubt they do, Direct's are just as dirty.
Direct can afford the right soap, Dish can't. It's as simple as that.
I am all for commerce, capitalism and trade advantages, I'm not for
dirty pool that creates a monopoly at the expense of the consumer. YMMV
If you are getting networks from Direct, don't smirk too much. How
long do you think it will take for them to raise your monthy DNS
subscription fee when they become a monopoly?

Echostar did their best to have a monopoly but failed. Thanks to the
Bush administration.

Oh please, Direct wanted the merger just as much as Echostar did. It was
not a hostile takeover. The govermnent saved us all from a monopoly.
Once again your memory is selective.

Your blather about Murdoch supporting Hillary should make you leave his
company ASAP. (Not that I ever saw Hillary's connection to this discussion)

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 04:26:28 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Our very own Linus Zimmerman has been bopping around the country for
years with Direct from a Minnesota provider and no waivers ever filed
for networks.

You are a bitch and a liar. I do not have a Minnesota provider.

Then why did you have to get "permission" from the MN networks? You make
no sense.

I don't think you have a clue. The MN stations are the ones who lost a
customer if the customer is getting all his feed from distant stations.

The stations get the list of subscribers from Directv and if there are
zip codes they broadcast to, they whine to Directv who in turn calls the
customer on the carpet. That is why waivers are needed. If for some
reason the customer can't get a broadcast signal, he gets a waiver.

Post by Lone Haranguer
I've always dealt directly with Directv. I got my first letter about
waivers in 1995 when Ch 7 in Alexandria filed a complaint. I was in
Ajo at the time. I wrote and told them if they could beam me a signal
to Ajo, I'd cancel my distant networks. I sent a copy of that letter
to all the MN network stations and told them the same thing. Either
furnish me a signal or butt out. Any more harassment and I'm suing.
Not a peep since. I've already posted a copy of the law and showed
you where I am in total compliance with it.

You are not in total compliance. All mobile accounts need to file a
mobile account waiver and a copy of the registration of theit vehicle.

Is that a Directv policy or is it in the federal laws? I don't recall
seeing that requirement when I posted the pertinent paragraphs some
months ago when you were on one of your frequent rants.

Post by Janet Wilder
Of course you haven't heard a peep since 1995, years before the current
FCC ruling. It's becaue Direct TV is NOT IN OCOMPLIANCE WITH THE FCC
RULING when it gives you distant networks without proper waivers.

I have proper waivers. I couldn't get their signal so the MN stations
weren't losing anything. Where's the beef? Except for the Alexandria
station I couldn't get them at my home address either. The Alexandria
station is nothing but a duplicate of WCCO in Mpls. a CBS station and
owned by WCCO.

In order for them to have a legal beef, they have to show they lost a
broadcast customer and they can't do that, either when I'm at the farm,
at the lake or on the road. Comprende?

How

Post by Janet Wilder
dumb can you get to believe that you are the only RVer in the United
States who doesn't have to comply with that requirement? The rules
changed after 1995. Direct TV didn't get the proper paperwork from you
to comply.

My waivers were already on file. I'm an early bird.

You have distant networks illegally according to the FCC.

So show me the specific paragraph I am in violation of.

Post by Janet Wilder
Time will not stand still just to vindicate your foolish attempt at logic.

You wouldn't know what logic was; you don't even know the basics of why
waivers are needed.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct's hands are just as dirty.

Echostar was busy signing up customers when they locked up Directv
with a takeover attempt 5 years ago. To you that is an ethical
business practice.

If it's fair for Echostar to seek a monopoly, it's fair for Directv.
Echostar tried it first. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
LZ

Post by Janet Wilder
Yet Direct thumbs their nose at the same regulations and invades the
privacy of their customers in blatant disregard for the law.

Post by Janet Wilder
Direct has more money and more power. Do you know for a fact that
they didn't have all the networks, including the one they own, sign
off on *their* "crimes". No you don't and I doubt if any of us will.
Spend a year of your life looking into Direct's "business practices"
then come back and tell me they have clean hands. If Dish has dirty
hands, which I have *no* doubt they do, Direct's are just as dirty.
Direct can afford the right soap, Dish can't. It's as simple as that.
I am all for commerce, capitalism and trade advantages, I'm not for
dirty pool that creates a monopoly at the expense of the consumer. YMMV
If you are getting networks from Direct, don't smirk too much. How
long do you think it will take for them to raise your monthy DNS
subscription fee when they become a monopoly?

Echostar did their best to have a monopoly but failed. Thanks to the
Bush administration.

Oh please, Direct wanted the merger just as much as Echostar did. It was
not a hostile takeover. The govermnent saved us all from a monopoly.
Once again your memory is selective.
Your blather about Murdoch supporting Hillary should make you leave his
company ASAP. (Not that I ever saw Hillary's connection to this discussion)

Peter Pan

2006-10-30 15:09:54 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
If you want certain programming packages, a phone line is required. No

phone no programming. You are living in 1995 when such programming
didn't exist. The next time the Sunday paper has an ad for the NFL
Football premium package on DTV, look at the fine print and you will
see that a phone line is required or you can't get the programming. Call
them yourself and ask them if you can get the NFL package (over $100 a
year) without plugging the receiver into a phone jack.

Jud Hardcastle

2006-10-31 14:32:14 UTC

Post by Peter Pan
Not just for a direct or dish, but a way of using any type of regular device
with a cell phone to have a single number when you are traveling(in my case
when I was full timing) answering machine, fax, cordless phones, tivo,
directv football NFL sunday package, dish dial-up (never tried it with a
dish sports package, but used it with the dish guide to eliminate the $5
charge per month for no phone line), as far as I know works with both to
allow PPV charges to be offloaded... Sort of works with modems too, but the
max speed is 14.4 for data... fine for fax but a bit slow for surfing)...The
price for them are around $129-$138... also keeps the cell phone fully
charged while connected to the phone line... going out for the day? Just
take it out and put it in your pocket....
There where two I knew of, cellsocket and dock n talk, now cellsocket is
out of biz but there is a new second device called "dial cell"
http://www.fselectronics.net/CellSocket.htm instead...

And you've actually successfully USED a modem via one of these on a
*digital* network? I thought they (modem use) were incompatible with
digital systems though they worked fine on AMPS (just slow).

Here what Dock-n-Talk says:
Q. Does the Dock-N-Talk work with modems, fax machines, security
systems, credit card readers, TiVo, DirecTV, or other satellite TV
systems?
A. Digital voice networks do not support modem or fax tones. Older
analog cellular service will allow use of modems and fax at very low
speeds but is expected to be discontinued later this year. However, the
digital voice networks do allow the passing of DTMF tones to transmit
information to such as devices as IVR systems that require touch tones.
Credit card readers, fax, TiVo ,DirecTV, or other satellite TV systems
are not supported by digital voice cellular service.

--
Jud
Dallas TX USA

Bob Hatch

2006-10-30 03:41:36 UTC

Post by Bob Hatch
Actually the best option would have been for Dish to have followed
the law and regulations to start with. :-)

Pardon me but that is utter BS.

Hey Janet, wipe the spittle from your chin and take a breath. Sorry to push
a hot button.

Rick Onanian

2006-10-29 16:38:41 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever they
are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals every
time you moved.

For that much effort, one could just use rabbit ears.

Bob Giddings

2006-10-29 18:28:39 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:38:41 -0500, Rick Onanian

Post by Rick Onanian

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever they
are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals every
time you moved.

For that much effort, one could just use rabbit ears.

That's the conclusion I came to.

I tried to use DTV for the first year. But I moved every few
days, and at least every week, and I found that setting up the
dish was just too much trouble for any use I was getting out of
it. And I didn't like the way I was picking sunny sites when I
preferred shade, just so I could get satellite line-of-sight.

So I cancelled the whole thing, gave Hunter my dish, and gave my
brother the receiver as a spare.

I found that almost anywhere I was, even in the deep woods, I
could get at least one commercial station. And most places I got
4 or 5.

And that was way more than I needed. I got out of the habit of
watching TV and into the habit of sitting outside in the evening.

When I did watch, mostly I just listened to the news and weather,
and often not even that.

Satellite radio is an entirely different matter. I won't leave
home without it. YMMV.

Bob

http://www.arcatapet.net/bobgiddings

Rick Onanian

2006-10-29 18:52:30 UTC

Post by Bob Giddings

Post by Rick Onanian
For that much effort, one could just use rabbit ears.

So I cancelled the whole thing, gave Hunter my dish, and gave my
brother the receiver as a spare.

Actually, I meant that one could just use rabbit ears for local network
channels, and keep the satellite for it's plethora of other channels.

Post by Bob Giddings
And that was way more than I needed. I got out of the habit of
watching TV and into the habit of sitting outside in the evening.

That's a better strategy anyway. :)

Post by Bob Giddings
Satellite radio is an entirely different matter. I won't leave
home without it. YMMV.

Amen to that!

Ron Recer

2006-10-29 20:14:57 UTC

Post by Bob Giddings
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:38:41 -0500, Rick Onanian

Post by Rick Onanian

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever they
are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals every
time you moved.

For that much effort, one could just use rabbit ears.

That's the conclusion I came to.

Depends on where you go. We spend considerable time most summers on the
banks of the Yellowstone River in Montana. There the regular TV antenna on
an RV gets you noting but static. You can get one AM radio station most of
the time though.

Post by Bob Giddings
I tried to use DTV for the first year. But I moved every few
days, and at least every week, and I found that setting up the
dish was just too much trouble for any use I was getting out of
it. And I didn't like the way I was picking sunny sites when I
preferred shade, just so I could get satellite line-of-sight.
So I cancelled the whole thing, gave Hunter my dish, and gave my
brother the receiver as a spare.
I found that almost anywhere I was, even in the deep woods, I
could get at least one commercial station. And most places I got
4 or 5.
And that was way more than I needed. I got out of the habit of
watching TV and into the habit of sitting outside in the evening.
When I did watch, mostly I just listened to the news and weather,
and often not even that.
Satellite radio is an entirely different matter. I won't leave
home without it. YMMV.

We have XM in our pickup and will have it in any future vehicle that we
spend much time in. One problem though with satellite radio is obstructions
to the south. As you go north this gets worse. High steep mountains and
steep canyon walls will do you in. For those emergencies we keep the CD
changer full of CDs! <g>

Ron

Bob Giddings

2006-10-29 20:32:59 UTC

Post by Ron Recer

Post by Bob Giddings
Satellite radio is an entirely different matter. I won't leave
home without it. YMMV.

I don't remember exactly where Sirius cut out, but it was nearly
to the Yukon Territory. Even after that, I could use it on the
coast in Alaska, and out of the mountains most places.

Down in pocket canyons in BC there was an intermittent problem. I
can't remember if I used it in Fairbanks or not.

Bob

http://www.arcatapet.net/bobgiddings

Dapper Dave

2006-10-29 20:43:46 UTC

Post by Bob Giddings
I don't remember exactly where Sirius cut out, but it was nearly
to the Yukon Territory. Even after that, I could use it on the
coast in Alaska, and out of the mountains most places.
Down in pocket canyons in BC there was an intermittent problem. I
can't remember if I used it in Fairbanks or not.
Bob

We have made two trips to Alaska since we have had Sirius. In both
cases, it worked until the Yukon/Alaska border. Once in Alaska, there
were mountains between us and the satellites almost all the time. It
did work for us in Fairbanks, but not on most of the Parks Highway
driving to Fairbanks.

Our Sirius antenna is glued to the roof of the Bulgemobile. We get
better reception with that one than the one in the toad, with its
antenna on the toad's roof. Maybe the extra height makes a difference.

--
Dave

Ron Recer

2006-10-30 18:23:21 UTC

Post by Bob Giddings

Post by Ron Recer

Post by Bob Giddings
Satellite radio is an entirely different matter. I won't leave
home without it. YMMV.

I don't remember exactly where Sirius cut out, but it was nearly
to the Yukon Territory. Even after that, I could use it on the
coast in Alaska, and out of the mountains most places.
Down in pocket canyons in BC there was an intermittent problem. I
can't remember if I used it in Fairbanks or not.
Bob

Places we lost XM service that come to mind are the canyon between Sedona
and Flagstaff, AZ, the north end of the grand loop road in Yellowstone NP as
well as some areas around Dunraven Pass. In passed years we have traveled
with friends that lost satellite radio coverage on I-84 in the Columbia
River Gorge area. I don't remember if they had XM or Sirius.

Ron

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 00:02:44 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
We have XM in our pickup and will have it in any future vehicle that we
spend much time in. One problem though with satellite radio is obstructions
to the south. As you go north this gets worse. High steep mountains and
steep canyon walls will do you in. For those emergencies we keep the CD
changer full of CDs! <g>

When we did the Lewis and Clark Trail in 04 we went through some areas
with pretty steep mountains on both sides. The XM Roady kept playing
just fine.

The only time it cuts out is underpasses and sometimes in cities with
tall buildings.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 23:40:49 UTC

Post by Rick Onanian

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where
ever they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change
locals every time you moved.

For that much effort, one could just use rabbit ears.

Or the Winegard batwing antenna. We thought of that. One could also
look for RV parks with free cable.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lon VanOstran

2006-10-30 04:12:52 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
Or the Winegard batwing antenna. We thought of that. One could also
look for RV parks with free cable.

We did without locals for our first 2 years of full timing. The batwing
worked great, and we stayed more in touch with what is going on locally.
IMHO, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox have a legitimate point regarding local
channels.

While I like having distant locals, it certainly won't be much of a
hardship to go back to the old way. Just so I keep getting Fox Sports
Detroit.

Lon

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 22:51:27 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever they
are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals every
time you moved.

That's a help for RVers but what about those residential customers where
there is no local programming. Direct made sure that they were SOL with
Dish. I can hear them swooping for the kill right now.

Can you spell unfair trade competition?

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

bruce

2006-10-29 23:20:11 UTC

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever
they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals
every time you moved.

I'm not sure how you would find out which cities don't spot beam, but a few
years ago I was able to get multiple cities (every time zone) with DTV. (I
was bootlegging the signal over and above what I was paying for) There must
still be some cities that are not spot beamed and could be received anywhere
in the country. If you claimed residence in any of those cities you could
still receive your locals where ever you go. Of course you would need an
address there and would have to lie to the provider, but it should get the
desired results. If you have family in New York or Los Angeles that would
be a good start. I think Indianapolis is also on the nationwide feed - at
least for DTV.

Bruce

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 00:50:01 UTC

Post by bruce

Post by Ron Recer
An option for DISH might be to let travelers have the locals where ever
they are. Would be a pain though have to contact DISH to change locals
every time you moved.

From what I know, DTV spot beams all of their locals. Dish may have one
or two still left that are not. Dish also offeres other cities besides
New York and Los Angeles that are/were available to DNS accounts and are
not spot beamed. Denver, Atlanta and Chicago, IIRC. I have family in New
Jersey and could use their address for Dish and have NYC in the RV. I
thought about that, but I don't like being dishonest. It still wouldn't
get me the networks on both coasts, which is what I'd really miss the most.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

bruce

2006-10-30 01:10:27 UTC

"Janet Wilder" <***@yahoo.com> wrote

Dish also offeres other cities besides

Post by Janet Wilder
New York and Los Angeles that are/were available to DNS accounts and are
not spot beamed. Denver, Atlanta and Chicago, IIRC. I have family in New
Jersey and could use their address for Dish and have NYC in the RV. I
thought about that, but I don't like being dishonest. It still wouldn't
get me the networks on both coasts, which is what I'd really miss the most.

I can relate - when I quit bootlegging the signal and lost locals from about
30 cities I felt the loss. It was nice having multiple choices for times of
network shows and lots of choices for local programming.

Bruce

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 22:01:15 UTC

Post by Frank Howell
Does DirectTV broadcast DNS? Do you think Fox's rejection of a settlement
has more to do with gaining an advantage over Dish in the satellite market,
then any monetary gain it might receive? Will congress intervene and pass a
law forbidding media content creators from owning cable or satellite
businesses?

From their answer to Escapees, congressional assistance is one of the
remedies Dish is looking for.

As I mentioned in other posts, Direct is just as guilty in providing DNS
to customers who should not be receiving them as Dish. The difference is
that Dish doesn't own the one network that wouldn't sign off which is
owned by the parent company of Direct.

Both companies require mobile waivers for RV, pleasure boat and over the
road truck accounts. Dish recently had all of their mobile accounts
update their waivers to be sure that their mobile accounts were still
mobile. Direct doesn't have to, they can get the government to do
whatever they want, including rid them of competition.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 01:32:41 UTC

Post by Frank Howell
Does DirectTV broadcast DNS? Do you think Fox's rejection of a settlement
has more to do with gaining an advantage over Dish in the satellite market,
then any monetary gain it might receive? Will congress intervene and pass a
law forbidding media content creators from owning cable or satellite
businesses?

From their answer to Escapees, congressional assistance is one of the
remedies Dish is looking for.

That shows desperation.

Post by Janet Wilder
As I mentioned in other posts, Direct is just as guilty in providing DNS
to customers who should not be receiving them as Dish. The difference is
that Dish doesn't own the one network that wouldn't sign off which is
owned by the parent company of Direct.
Both companies require mobile waivers for RV, pleasure boat and over the
road truck accounts. Dish recently had all of their mobile accounts
update their waivers to be sure that their mobile accounts were still
mobile. Direct doesn't have to, they can get the government to do
whatever they want, including rid them of competition.

Bull pies.
Murdoch (owner of Fox and Directv) is raising money for Hillary.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 02:01:14 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
Murdoch (owner of Fox and Directv) is raising money for Hillary.
LZ

...and his own company by insuring that it's a monopoly. He's not even
American!

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 03:00:10 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
Murdoch (owner of Fox and Directv) is raising money for Hillary.
LZ

...and his own company by insuring that it's a monopoly. He's not even
American!

Echostar tried to get a monopoly. I don't recall you screeching about it.
LZ

Don Bradner

2006-10-30 11:52:31 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
The difference is
that Dish doesn't own the one network that wouldn't sign off which is
owned by the parent company of Direct.

Janet, I'm going to pick this specific post to reply to, but there are
others by you and others here that would have been similarly
appropriate.

The use of "sign off" is not applicable in this instance. There was no
sign off allowed. After the Appellate rulings went against Dish, Dish
negotiated a $100 million settlement with various parties, including
all of the Fox affiliates but not the 25 company-owned stations.

As it turned out, none of that mattered. The appellate judges were
very unhappy with Dish. They found that Dish's violations were so
egregious a violation of the law (note: Law, not FCC ruling) that Dish
must be severely punished.

They specifically directed the trial judge to cutoff all DNS for Dish.
They said they did this because it would punish Dish, and because
Dish's past actions meant that Dish could not be trusted to properly
apply the law if allowed to retain some waivers.

The trial judge specifically noted in his ruling that placed the
cutoff of December 1 that he was following the appellate court order,
had no choice, and that the proposed settlement *did not matter*. He
voided the proposed settlement.

Yes, DirecTV was likely taking advantage, but in the end it still
would not have made any difference if they had agreed. Once it reached
the state of affairs that it did at the appellate level the wheels had
been set in motion.

Dish still has the possibility of getting a stay of the court order
pending appeal. The problem is that the stay needs to be granted by
the appeals court that issued the strongly worded decision, so it
would appear unlikely. Then they go to the Supremes, but every ruling
in this particular case has not just gone against Dish, it has
overwhelmingly gone against Dish.

In the end it wasn't just that Dish was in violation, but the scope of
their violations that has caused them so much grief.

Like many others here, I remember your past negative postings about
DTV, which noted all of the things you could get from Dish that DTV
wouldn't give you - things that were either, at best, quasi-legal or
were contract violations. You got a few good years out of it, and
perhaps some future court or legislative action will allow you to
continue, but you can't say that you never saw it as possible, based
on the responses you got back with those old postings.

--
Don Bradner
donb (not don) at arcatapet.com
Posting today by Satellite from
Deming, New Mexico

Rtavi

2006-10-29 16:34:36 UTC

Rupert Murdoch holds a large interest in both Fox and Direct TV Fox has been
pressuring DISH for increased per subscriber payments. Fox refused the
settlement so Dish is affected but not Direct. When Murdoch bought
interests in Direct he assured the FCC that he wouldn't use his position to
be anticompetitive. This was allowed by the same FCC that forbad the DISH
Direct Mercer as anticompetitive but allows the Cable and Networks to
control what you can receive by satellite. Write your congressman and
senators to support the ability of satellite to import distant signals or
the broadcasters/networks will continue to have a stranglehold on what you
are allowed to watch in your own home.

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?
Hunter

Dish broke the rules, and continued to break the rules after being ordered
to stop. DNS were, by law, only to be provided where local channels were
not available, or with an RV waiver. Dish sold them to anyone that asked.
A settlement had been reached with ABC, CBS and NBC, but Fox rejected the
settlement. The posted order is the latest, and maybe the end for DNS from
Dish.
--
"You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog
will give you a look that says, 'My God, you're right!
I never would've thought of that!'"
--Dave Barry
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 21:31:52 UTC

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?
Hunter

The fact that Hunter gets Ocala locals at the farm and distant networks
at the same time doesn't make DTV look squeaky clean either. JMTC.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 21:30:28 UTC

Post by Hunter
Why does Dish have to stop and not Directv?
Is Directv next?

Dish got caught giving to people without proper waivers, either mobile
or local network. AFIK, Direct has not been cited by the goverment for
the same offense. Will it happen in the future, your guess is as good as
mine.

The local networks are very jealous of protecting their advertising
customers. If people who should only be getting local networks are
getting distant networks, the local people lose (so they claim) revenue.

The fact that you are getting locals in Ocala at the same time as the
distant networks, is probably a violation, too. The way I read the
rules, you should not be receiving distant networks if you can get
locals. You probably escaped getting what they gave my friends; two
accounts, one for the RV and one for the mobile home. You are not a true
"mobile" account when you winter in Ocala on the farm.

If they don't bother you. Don't worry.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

altar nospam

2006-10-29 04:16:25 UTC

Would someone explain that in English? I'd sure like to know what it
means.

Tom

Bob Hatch

2006-10-29 04:28:45 UTC

Post by altar nospam
Would someone explain that in English? I'd sure like to know what it
means.
Tom

Unless something changes, effective December 1, Dish will no longer be able
to broadcast Distant Network Service. That means that for the traveling
person, no network channels. I have DTV, and get DNS, or NBC, CBS, ABS from
New York City and LA. They will not be an option for Dish customers.

bruce

2006-10-29 15:42:08 UTC

Post by altar nospam
Would someone explain that in English? I'd sure like to know what it
means.
Tom

Unless something changes, effective December 1, Dish will no longer be
able to broadcast Distant Network Service. That means that for the
traveling person, no network channels. I have DTV, and get DNS, or NBC,
CBS, ABS from New York City and LA. They will not be an option for Dish
customers.

I just wish they would include the new CW network. A couple shows there I
would like to watch regularly.

Bruce

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 22:48:36 UTC

Post by bruce
I just wish they would include the new CW network. A couple shows there I
would like to watch regularly.

It seems that the CW network is not considered a distant network by
Dish. I have had a subscription to the NYC one since I got Dish 2 years
ago. It is not mentioned in the Rulings. $5 a month. The other
independent network is the same.

Direct would not provide them at any time unless the subscriber's
address was in the New York Metro area.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Rtavi

2006-10-29 16:39:20 UTC

Post by altar nospam
Would someone explain that in English? I'd sure like to know what it
means.
Tom

Unless something changes, effective December 1, Dish will no longer be
able to broadcast Distant Network Service. That means that for the
traveling person, no network channels. I have DTV, and get DNS, or NBC,
CBS, ABS from New York City and LA. They will not be an option for Dish
customers.

It also means that for people like me who can't recieve a Fox or ABC or CE
signal even with an antenna and DISH dosen't carry locals that we will have
to pay for basic cable to receive the networks and if you are too rural to
get cable its just tough S***

Post by Bob Hatch
--
"You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog
will give you a look that says, 'My God, you're right!
I never would've thought of that!'"
--Dave Barry
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

Bob Hatch

2006-10-29 19:11:20 UTC

Post by Rtavi
It also means that for people like me who can't recieve a Fox or ABC
or CE signal even with an antenna and DISH dosen't carry locals that we
will have to pay for basic cable to receive the networks and
if you are too rural to get cable its just tough S***

Or switch to DTV, get give them your address, and the fact that you cannot
pick up local channels with a antenna, and they will give you E/W feeds.

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 23:51:03 UTC

Or switch to DTV, get give them your address, and the fact that you cannot
pick up local channels with a antenna, and they will give you E/W feeds.

Exactly what Direct wanted out of the whole business. To be a monopoly.
Wait until your bill for DNS triples because they are the only company
who can provide them.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-29 04:41:21 UTC

Post by altar nospam

Would someone explain that in English? I'd sure like to know what it
means.
Tom

If you are a DISH subscriber, you COULD be heading for a trainwreck.

Soon. I bet Directv installers will be booked up in Nov.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-29 21:44:15 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
If you are a DISH subscriber, you COULD be heading for a trainwreck.
Soon. I bet Directv installers will be booked up in Nov.
LZ

More likely in December. I'm waiting to see what happens before I make
any moves. As I said before (and I don't care what plan you have had
grandfathered in for yours. Your situation is abnormal and no one else
is in the same position, so stow it. Your DTV account is not relevent to
the discussion)

DTV hasn't been a saint about their providing Distant Networks either.
Did they cut yours off in the new house? Didn't think so.

Dish required us to file mobile waivers just as Direct did. They were
always required for mobile accounts by both companies after the ruling
was passed.
As for residential accounts, I know just as many people with distant
networks on DTV as I do on Dish who got to keep them even when local
stations became available. The complaint against Dish was that when
there were locals available, they didn't force their customers to give
up the distant networks. That's how I heard it explained by people in
touch with the matter when it first surfaced earlier this year.

If it was such a terrible crime, how come the three major networks
signed off on Dish? Only Fox made a stink. Evidently Direct paid Fox
more money to keep quiet and sign off on them than Dish did. JMHO

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-29 23:04:16 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
If you are a DISH subscriber, you COULD be heading for a trainwreck.
Soon. I bet Directv installers will be booked up in Nov.
LZ

If you say so, Benito.

Post by Janet Wilder
DTV hasn't been a saint about their providing Distant Networks either.
Did they cut yours off in the new house? Didn't think so.

Can the government force me to sign up for cable? Only one weak UHF
station (ch 73) came in on my TV before I plugged in my DTV receiver.

It already had a dish on the roof so I just plugged in. I may go
traveling in my motorhome at any time. Then what?

Should I call and get your permission first?

Post by Janet Wilder
Dish required us to file mobile waivers just as Direct did. They were
always required for mobile accounts by both companies after the ruling
was passed.

I had the stations send in waivers in 1995. Their signal couldn't reach
me in Ajo (nor any other broadcast signal) and only one could give a
good signal on the farm. So my situation is exactly what the law covers.

Post by Janet Wilder
As for residential accounts, I know just as many people with distant
networks on DTV as I do on Dish who got to keep them even when local
stations became available. The complaint against Dish was that when
there were locals available, they didn't force their customers to give
up the distant networks. That's how I heard it explained by people in
touch with the matter when it first surfaced earlier this year.
If it was such a terrible crime, how come the three major networks
signed off on Dish? Only Fox made a stink. Evidently Direct paid Fox
more money to keep quiet and sign off on them than Dish did. JMHO

I think I smell sour grapes all the way from the Rio Grande Valley.

You made your DISH decision and burned your bridges with Directv. You
better use a false identity or they may not sell you service at all.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 00:43:23 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
DTV hasn't been a saint about their providing Distant Networks either.
Did they cut yours off in the new house? Didn't think so.

Can the government force me to sign up for cable? Only one weak UHF
station (ch 73) came in on my TV before I plugged in my DTV receiver.

If Direct TV provides a local network package over the air to where you
live, they are in violation of the FCC ruling if they are still
providing your distant networks.

Post by Lone Haranguer
It already had a dish on the roof so I just plugged in. I may go
traveling in my motorhome at any time. Then what?

oAccording to DTV, you should have two accounts. You turn off the one in
the house and turn on the one in the RV. That's what my friends who had
an RV account have to do with Direct now that they bought a mobile home.
Of course they were honest with Direct, so they aren't complicit in
violating the FCC ruling like you are.

Post by Lone Haranguer
I had the stations send in waivers in 1995. Their signal couldn't reach
me in Ajo (nor any other broadcast signal) and only one could give a
good signal on the farm. So my situation is exactly what the law covers.

In 1995 that might have been the requirement. In 1996, all I had to do
was answer no, as directed by the DTV rep, to two questions. The FCC
ruling has been in place for about 6 years now and you have never been
asked by your DTV provider to submit the mobile account waivers and a
copy of your motorhome registration. Direct TV is in clear and flagrant
violation of the FCC ruling by continuing to provide you with distant
networks. You're good at Googling. Look it up yourself.

I think I smell sour grapes all the way from the Rio Grande Valley.

No sour grapes. Just dissapointment that a court could not recognize an
unfair trade practice stemming from the relationship of Fox and the only
other company providing what they are taking away from Dish. Both
companies are eqaully in violation of the FCC ruling. One has power and
money. The other does not. The one with the power and money gets a
monopoly. Either way, the consumer gets screwed.

Wait until the monopoly providing DNS raises your monthly fees for your
patently illegal subscription. Then see how much you smirk.

Post by Lone Haranguer
You made your DISH decision and burned your bridges with Directv. You
better use a false identity or they may not sell you service at all.

That was a stupid remark. I can switch to Direct TV any time I want to.
There are no rules that say one can't switch providers. They have called
my house and made me all kinds of free offers. They mail us stuff all
the time. I just don't think it will be worth it to lose the excellent
programming and features I've come to like on Dish. I don't really
relish paying more for less programming, as I did with Direct, and I
prefer to deal with a company who's reps understand that I'm in an RV
and know what an RV is instead of having to make up stories for the
idiots at Direct who could never comprehend the fact that I had no
land-line telephone.

When I went with Dish I did it legally. I just sent them, at their
request, a new waiver and a current registration. I'm legal with my DNS.
You aren't because DTV is violating the same FCC ruling Dish is being
clobbered with when they provide you with DNS. The FCC ruling makes
*no* provisions for old RVers from Minnisota being grandfathered under
the 1995 requirements. Under the FCC ruling *every* mobile account
(including yours) has to file the proper paper work. You didn't and DTV
is in violation of the ruling. There is no defense.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 02:43:08 UTC

Post by Janet Wilder
DTV hasn't been a saint about their providing Distant Networks
either. Did they cut yours off in the new house? Didn't think so.

Can the government force me to sign up for cable? Only one weak UHF
station (ch 73) came in on my TV before I plugged in my DTV receiver.

If Direct TV provides a local network package over the air to where you
live, they are in violation of the FCC ruling if they are still
providing your distant networks.

What if I move tomorrow and head for Big Bend? Is Directv supposed to
keep track of where I am or am I supposed to call in every time I drop
anchor?

Post by Lone Haranguer
It already had a dish on the roof so I just plugged in. I may go
traveling in my motorhome at any time. Then what?

Directv has policies. According to the law I posted for you to read
some time ago, I'm in perfect compliance with the law.

If I'm not, you point out where I'm breaking it.

Post by Lone Haranguer
I had the stations send in waivers in 1995. Their signal couldn't
reach me in Ajo (nor any other broadcast signal) and only one could
give a good signal on the farm. So my situation is exactly what the
law covers.

I already posted the law and when I pointed out where you were wrong;
you shut up and dropped the discussion.

Post by Janet Wilder
As for residential accounts, I know just as many people with distant
networks on DTV as I do on Dish who got to keep them even when local
stations became available. The complaint against Dish was that when
there were locals available, they didn't force their customers to
give up the distant networks. That's how I heard it explained by
people in touch with the matter when it first surfaced earlier this
year.
If it was such a terrible crime, how come the three major networks
signed off on Dish? Only Fox made a stink. Evidently Direct paid Fox
more money to keep quiet and sign off on them than Dish did. JMHO

I think I smell sour grapes all the way from the Rio Grande Valley.

No sour grapes. Just dissapointment that a court could not recognize an
unfair trade practice stemming from the relationship of Fox and the only
other company providing what they are taking away from Dish. Both
companies are eqaully in violation of the FCC ruling. One has power and
money. The other does not. The one with the power and money gets a
monopoly. Either way, the consumer gets screwed.
Wait until the monopoly providing DNS raises your monthly fees for your
patently illegal subscription. Then see how much you smirk.

You think DISH wouldn't have done that if they had been successful in
taking over Directv 5 years ago?

Post by Lone Haranguer
You made your DISH decision and burned your bridges with Directv. You
better use a false identity or they may not sell you service at all.

That was a stupid remark. I can switch to Direct TV any time I want to.
There are no rules that say one can't switch providers. They have called
my house and made me all kinds of free offers. They mail us stuff all
the time. I just don't think it will be worth it to lose the excellent
programming and features I've come to like on Dish. I don't really
relish paying more for less programming, as I did with Direct, and I
prefer to deal with a company who's reps understand that I'm in an RV
and know what an RV is instead of having to make up stories for the
idiots at Direct who could never comprehend the fact that I had no
land-line telephone.
When I went with Dish I did it legally. I just sent them, at their
request, a new waiver and a current registration. I'm legal with my DNS.
You aren't because DTV is violating the same FCC ruling Dish is being
clobbered with when they provide you with DNS. The FCC ruling makes
*no* provisions for old RVers from Minnisota being grandfathered under
the 1995 requirements. Under the FCC ruling *every* mobile account
(including yours) has to file the proper paper work. You didn't and DTV
is in violation of the ruling. There is no defense.

You're just jealous because my situation is legal and I proved it by
posting the law and showing why that is so.
LZ

Janet Wilder

2006-10-30 03:32:51 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
I already posted the law and when I pointed out where you were wrong;
you shut up and dropped the discussion.

Sometimes you are so off base that there is no arguing with you. Like
now. You do not have mobile account waivers. To be in compliance with
the FCC ruling, DTV must have mobile account waivers and a copy of your
motorhome registration. They don't. DTV is not in compliance.

There is no *law* it's an FCC ruling. Which is further proof of your
errors.

You are so stupid I'm not going to bother with you any more. Anyone who
believes he is the sole exception to what is required of everyone else
isn't worth arguing with. Go back to 1995 and stay there.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Hunter

2006-10-30 03:49:02 UTC

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:32:51 -0600, Janet Wilder

Post by Janet Wilder
Sometimes you are so off base that there is no arguing with you. Like
now. You do not have mobile account waivers. To be in compliance with
the FCC ruling, DTV must have mobile account waivers and a copy of your
motorhome registration. They don't. DTV is not in compliance.

Seriously Janet,

Why don't you mind your own business. What LZ has, or doesn't have, is
really none of your business.

Get over it...you're not the FCC police.

Hunter

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 04:43:31 UTC

Post by Hunter
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:32:51 -0600, Janet Wilder

Seriously Janet,
Why don't you mind your own business. What LZ has, or doesn't have, is
really none of your business.
Get over it...you're not the FCC police.
Hunter

By Gawd, I'm beginning to wonder about that.....

I'm tracing some combat boot shipments tomorrow....
LZ

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 04:40:13 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
I already posted the law and when I pointed out where you were wrong;
you shut up and dropped the discussion.

Sometimes you are so off base that there is no arguing with you. Like
now. You do not have mobile account waivers.

I have waivers from all the TV stations in MN, even though they couldn't
reach me with broadcast signals while at my mailing address.

To be in compliance with

Post by Janet Wilder
the FCC ruling, DTV must have mobile account waivers and a copy of your
motorhome registration.

What if I have waivers but camp in a tent while using my Directv?

They don't. DTV is not in compliance.

Post by Janet Wilder
There is no *law* it's an FCC ruling. Which is further proof of your
errors.

If there is no law, there is nothing requiring me to comply with anything.

Post by Janet Wilder
You are so stupid I'm not going to bother with you any more. Anyone who
believes he is the sole exception to what is required of everyone else
isn't worth arguing with. Go back to 1995 and stay there.

Show me where I am in violation of the law or die of apoplexy.
LZ

Lone Haranguer

2006-10-30 05:07:22 UTC

Post by Lone Haranguer
I already posted the law and when I pointed out where you were wrong;
you shut up and dropped the discussion.

Sometimes you are so off base that there is no arguing with you. Like
now. You do not have mobile account waivers.

I have waivers from all the TV stations in MN, even though they couldn't
reach me with broadcast signals while at my mailing address.
To be in compliance with

Post by Janet Wilder
the FCC ruling, DTV must have mobile account waivers and a copy of
your motorhome registration.

What if I have waivers but camp in a tent while using my Directv?
They don't. DTV is not in compliance.

Post by Janet Wilder
There is no *law* it's an FCC ruling. Which is further proof of your
errors.

If there is no law, there is nothing requiring me to comply with anything.

Post by Janet Wilder
You are so stupid I'm not going to bother with you any more. Anyone
who believes he is the sole exception to what is required of everyone
else isn't worth arguing with. Go back to 1995 and stay there.

Show me where I am in violation of the law or die of apoplexy.
LZ

The FCC's Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act Page

The FCC must also make recommendations on the Grade B signal standard
and improve the computer model that predicts signal intensity at a
household for the purpose of determining eligibility for receiving
distant television broadcast signals via satellite.

Distant stations provided to some subscribers
The new SHVIA also addresses the satellite retransmission of distant
television stations to subscribers. This applies to television broadcast
stations that are not from the subscriber's local market. Subscribers
who cannot receive an over-the-air signal of Grade B intensity using a
conventional, stationary rooftop antenna are eligible to receive these
distant signals.

In addition, subscribers who were receiving distant signals as of
October 31, 1999, or had distant signals terminated after July 11, 1998,
may still be eligible to receive distant signals provided they cannot
receive over-the-air signals of Grade A intensity. Both Grade A and
Grade B signal intensity are defined by FCC rules. If a consumer is
eligible to receive distant signals under these provisions, it is still
up to the satellite carrier to decide whether to provide the distant
signals to eligible subscribers.
***************
Now, Ms. Turkey, (if you can read) note that inability to receive
OVER-THE-AIR signals of Grade A or Grade B intensity, makes you
eligible to receive distant networks.

I happen to meet that criteria. At the farm, at the lake, at Ajo and
here also. BIOYA.
LZ

chuckb

2006-10-29 17:40:13 UTC