FYI, forgive the formatting i just wanted to get this up quickly:
> I thought you might be interested in this.
> EchoStar Networks May Be Saved By Senate
>
> Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is leading a
> bipartisan effort to protect home
> satellite television customers in Vermont and across
> the country from losing
> access to some of the most popular television
> networks.
>
> Leahy, the ranking Democratic member of the
> Judiciary Committee - and the
> panel's incoming chairman for the 110th Congress -
> Thursday introduced the
> Satellite Consumer Protection Act, joined by
> Senators Daniel Inouye
> (D-Hawaii), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Wayne Allard
> (R-Colo.), Jay Rockefeller
> (D-W.V.), Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), Ken Salazar
> (D-Colo.), Hillary Clinton
> (D-N.Y.) Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mark Pryor (D-Minn.)
> and Michael Enzi (R-
> Nev.).
>
> Leahy over the last decade has co-authored two laws
> that have expanded home
> satellite service to millions of viewers in Vermont
> and nationwide. One of
> the earlier Leahy initiatives has fostered
> local-into-local satellite
> service, enabling Vermonters and others to receive
> local channels in their
> home satellite program packages.
>
> Leahy's new bill would preserve satellite television
> service for roughly
> 800,000 EchoStar consumers around the country, and
> in Vermont, who are
> expected to lose it December 1 as a result of a
> federal court injunction.
> EchoStar is expected to suspend service to these
> consumers following a
> ruling that it violated federal law by providing
> distant signals to areas
> that did not need satellite to receive that
> programming.
>
> The bill strikes a balance between consumer
> protection and tough enforcement
> against EchoStar for violating the law. The
> legislation requires EchoStar
> to deposit $20 million to be used to cover any
> future violations.
>
> "This is a reasonable solution that penalizes
> Echostar for violating the
> law, while protecting the people who are the real
> victims of this serious
> problem: the consumers who are paying for these
> services," said Leahy.
>
> The bipartisan bill provides a targeted solution by
> permitting the service
> to continue under specific criteria, including:
>
> Where local stations are not available from a
> satellite provider,
> EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if
> it compensates the
> local station.
> In areas that do not have affiliates of all four
> networks (ABC,
> CBS, FOX, NBC), EchoStar could bring in a distant
> signal of the missing
> network affiliate because no local station would be
> harmed.
>
> Stations from neighboring that are considered
> "significantly viewed"
> by the Federal Communications Commission, and
> generally treated as local
> stations, could be carried, such as the Albany,
> N.Y., stations which serve
> Vermont's Bennington County and the Boston-area
> stations, which serve
> Windham County.
>
> Here is the statement of Senator Patrick Leahy on
> introduction of the
> Satellite Consumer Protection Act:
>
> Today I am pleased to introduce the Satellite
> Consumer Protection Act of
> 2006, and I am proud that Senators Inouye, Snowe,
> Allard, Rockefeller, Byrd,
> Salazar, Clinton, Pryor, Roberts and Enzi are among
> those joining me in
> sponsoring this important bill. I regret the
> necessity of this legislation,
> but I am determined to protect consumers -
> especially consumers in rural
> areas such as Vermont.
>
> This is a pro-consumer, bipartisan bill that
> addresses a problem that soon
> will face millions of Americans who subscribe to
> satellite TV services. I
> realize full well that this bill may not please the
> major corporations
> affected by this remedy, but its intent is not to
> help them, but to help
> home satellite viewers.
>
> A federal court recently found that EchoStar
> willfully, flagrantly and
> repeatedly violated federal law, and I believe that
> EchoStar should be held
> to account for its decade of illegal activity. The
> situation is ultimately
> quite complicated, but the simplest version is this:
> EchoStar has been
> bringing distant network signals to areas that did
> not need satellite to
> provide access to that programming. But the penalty
> for such actions is
> harsh, and the court that heard the lawsuit had no
> choice: EchoStar will be
> required to stop retransmitting any distant signals.
> EchoStar flouted the
> law, but it is consumers who will suffer. Unless we
> pass this bill, many
> rural subscribers around the country will lose
> access to news and
> entertainment programming from the free,
> over-the-air broadcast networks.
>
> The Satellite Consumer Protection Act is a
> practical, narrow, and -- most
> importantly -- pro-consumer solution to a problem of
> EchoStar's creation.
> The court-issued injunction, set to take effect
> December 1, will prohibit
> EchoStar from providing any distant network stations
> to any of its
> customers. Under the Satellite Consumer Protection
> Act, the injunction will
> apply to the roughly 95 percent of the country where
> EchoStar provides
> residents their local, over-the-air stations. Our
> legislation would only
> permit EchoStar to bring in distant network stations
> in three situations.
>
> First, where local stations are not available from a
> satellite provider,
> EchoStar could bring in a distant network station if
> it compensates the
> local station. Second, in areas that do not have
> affiliates of all four
> networks, EchoStar could bring in a distant signal
> of the missing network
> affiliate because no local station would be harmed.
> Third, stations from
> neighboring localities that are considered
> "significantly viewed" by the
> Federal Communications Commission, and are generally
> treated as local
> stations, could be carried.
>
> This legislation would not be complete without an
> enforcement provision that
> will truly curb EchoStar's practice of illegally
> providing copyrighted
> content. The Satellite Consumer Protection Act
> therefore imposes real
> monetary penalties for violating the Act and
> requires EchoStar to put
> sufficient funds in escrow with the copyright office
> to cover any future
> violations.
>
> This bipartisan bill respects the legitimate
> interests of broadcasters who
> have been harmed by EchoStar's actions, while it
> serves the interests of the
> people who are the innocent bystanders and the real
> victims of this emerging
> problem: the consumers who are paying for these
> services.
No Congressional Saviors
MrBillM - 12-1-2006 at 10:14 AM
Distant Channels gone. No help from Congress. Luckily, we watch very few Network Broadcast Channels so we'll be using the DVD recorder and watching
on a one day-delay. The upside is that we can fast-forward through the commercials.Hook - 12-1-2006 at 10:30 AM
What utter hogwash! Why should the Big Four be protected to this degree?
Let the free market decide what people watch. I dont give a damn how much the networks have invested in their infrastructure and licensing over the
years. Technology changes. All this protectionism ultimately hurts the consumer. wornout - 12-1-2006 at 12:17 PM
We lost our distant channels on Dish yesterday afternoon. We are a registered RV user (sent in our paperwork twice now) and it didn't matter, away
they went. So it looks like all RV'ers and Truck Drivers lost distant channels.Cypress - 12-1-2006 at 12:25 PM
If Leahy is pushing this issue, beware!toneart - 12-1-2006 at 12:49 PM
Gee, I think I will match a $20 million bond against any future violations regarding political bias. You guys go first.BCSTech - 12-8-2006 at 05:32 AM
Quote:
Let the free market decide what people watch.
What free market? Out of our hands. This was the result of
some serious competitive hardball. Consumers be damned! Want to blame someone? Blame the Fox Network, DirecTV and Rupert Murdoch.
Dish Network lost this court battle because, out of the "Big Four" networks, Fox was the lone holdout and pulled out of a settlement with Dish Network
at the last minute, allowing the court action to go forward. Who owns Fox? Rupert Murdoch.
Who stands to benefit from this action and gain new subscribers? Dish Network's cheif competitor, DirecTV. Who owns DirecTV? Rupert Murdoch.
Murdoch once tried to buy Dish Network but had a falling out with Charlie Ergan, Dish Network's owner. Murdoch then bought DirecTV. Now it's payback
time.
Coinkydink? I think not...
Plenty of Blame to go Around !
MrBillM - 12-8-2006 at 11:20 AM
I'm more than happy to view Rupert as a villian and I agree that his (Fox) motivation was to enhance his DirecTV interests, BUT the
fact remains that Dish Network was blatanly in violation of the SHVA legislation. As one who had a LEGAL right to the service, I am also angry with
DISH for their position and I agree that they should have been PUNISHED. Any reasonable punitive economic penalty would have been proper.
However, for the Federal Court to dictate a penalty that also punished legal subscribers, was an unforgiveable act of Judicial arrogance. We haven't
seen this sort of Corporate punishment in any of the other major industry cases such as "Big Tobacco", etc. Whatever they've been fined or otherwise
penalized, they are still able to legally sell their product.
Blame Fox, Blame Dish Network and Blame the Courts. They're all villians.
