This isn't about viewer rights.

It's about a company that consistently violates the law, and can only be stopped by drastic action. It's like revoking the license from a habitual drunk driver....he can still get to work by taking the bus or walking, but you take away his prime means of hurting someone. DISH can still sell you your closest affiliate, but they lose their "priveledge" of providing distant service.

Exactly.

To be honest my local locals are garbage, especially the advertising. I'd love it if I could get NBC/CBS/FOX/ABC/PBS from NY and LA instead.

I get FOX E/W right now via Dish Network because our local FOX Affiliate doesn't have an actual broadcast structure, they're purely a cable based entity. DirecTV has changed their eligibility as result of this FOX station, so new customers can't get FOX on the sats.

As it goes, I'm grandfathered with Dish and my brother is with DirecTV (both NOW claim no distant locals for here at all). I'm certain we're not the only ones grandfathered. Sure, the NAB b****es about this, but I don't watch the other locals because they're not in my Dish Network guide. Too bad for them.

There's many people that put in a different physical address than their billing address so they can get distant networks. I don't blame these people, though I bring myself to do the same.

I've long argued that the Satellite TV carriers should be allowed to have one set of locals for each time zone of a major market. We would have MUCH more capacity for better quality SD as well as more diverse HD offerings. Having all of these markets on the birds is a bad use of satellite space.

The courts are obliged to interpret the law as it exists.

If the law is outdated, then the option is to change the law. Instead of blaming the various courts for doing their job within the scope of the law, why not lobby your legislators to modify the law in a constructive fashion that also anticipates current trends in technology while also being cognizant of intellectual property?

And while they are at it, reform the "must carry" provisions as well!

Oh wait...that would come dangerously close to making sense...nevermind...

And in an aside...wouldn't it be nice if the articles actually tried to explain the business interests represented in the case, and explained what the ramifications were for all of the interested/involved parties should the situation remain the same, or if it is changed. While it would remove some of the fun and the propensity for so many people to make so many wacko conspiratorial claims as well as to vent their victim mentalities, a few people might also learn something by virtue of a well written complete story!

Only thing wrong with this is... as in my situation, There is a FOX station about 15 miles from here, but I cannot get the signal good enough to watch it. But this puts me in the situation where I cannot get FOX on satellite because the station is so close. This is way wrong, there should be a better way of checking the signals of these kind of stations. So I am forced to pay for cable to be able to watch FOX.

Another sign the US Supreme Court isn't going to be friendly to new tech..

Watch out Slingbox!! (Slingmedia) The cable and networks are coming for you next!!

This is nothing but censorship on the part of the US government.

The technology is available for me to watch any channel from anywhere in the US, but the government says that I can only view certain stations.

Why is the government protecting this archaic form of broadcast television when technology has definitely passed it by?

Wait another year when streaming television shows becomes even more viable… will the broadcaster and the government try to stop that too?

Plain and simple, if I lose my distant signals, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX can go screw themselves… I’ll stay with the non-broadcast channels.

That's nonsense, the goverment is not censoring you. As far as I know the constitution does not list a "right to watch television". They are simply following a law as it has been written. Dish Network was breaking that law. End of story. Local network affiliates have to apply for a broadcast license to serve a particular area, just like radio stations. If a customer can receive an acceptable signal from a local affiliate then they cannot sign up for distant networks on their satellite. Why was this law passed? Advertisers mainly. Local affiliates carry local advertisments. Obviously they want people in that area to see their ads, not ads targetted at people living on the other side of the continent. I'm not saying I agree with this law, but until it's changed it is the law. Whining about it on a forum doesn't change that. If you want to do something about it write to your congressman.

I am being censored by tghe government... I can listen to any radio station I choose over the internet from LA to NY, why not TV?

I am a former broadcaster and have a B.S. in Radio TV and Film, so there is no need to lecture me on advertising.

Not being able to get distant signals is no different than having the government tell you that since you live in Chicago you cannot read the Ney York Times.

And isn't this a forum to comment on news?

Again, no you are not being censored. You can watch any TV station you want over the internet if they have a webcast. There is no law that says you can't watch distant stations, this isn't about you. It's specifically about Dish Network. They were breaking the law, so they are being punished for it. If you were being censored why is it you can get these stations on DirectTV? Because DirecTV didn't break the law. You can watch these stations over C-Band also if you have a big dish, or as you said over the internet. If you were being censored you could not do any of that. Besides, what would they be censoring? NBC is NBC no matter where you are. Is watching Jeopardy on a station in California different than watching it on a station in New York?

Yes this is a forum to comment on the news, but your comments are wrong and sound like crazy conspiracy theories. I'm just pointing out what this is really about, there's no censorship going on here period.

No I cannot get these distant channels of Direct TV... SHVIA does not allow my grandfather status to be portable.

And why should I have to qualify for Distant signals... if they are available, I should be able to buy them.

>>Yes this is a forum to comment on the news, but your comments are wrong and sound like crazy conspiracy theories. I'm just pointing out what this is really about, there's no censorship going on here period.

I really don't see anything wrong with this decision. As an example if you live in rural Ohio and can't pick up any networks off the air, this just means you can't get stations in New York or California, which you don't need anyway. Dish Network will still be able to give you the networks in your area, like Dayton or Cincinnati. So you still get your networks, you've lost nothing. It has been this way on DirecTV for years.

The same logic can be said that if I live in Chicago, it should be illegal for me to read the New York times.

No, that's not even remotely close. There is a law about what services a satellite provider can make available. Dish Network was breaking that law, not the customers.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/

I know what the law is and I am in complience with the grandfather clause.

Personally I think the law is retarded and am writing my Congressmen to end this unfair protection of the local stations.

Will advertisers get discounts on their ad time on local channels if their ads will be cut from the viewers? That would impact the local channels and cause them to lose money. They should have a right to weigh in on this and have continued broadcasting to as wide an audience as they do now.

If we have our local channels cut, millions of dollars worth of advertising will not be seen by local customers. Do the advertisers know that their ads are not going to be seen by their customer base? Are they going to continue to pay for ads that will not be seen? Cutting off the local channels is unfair to local business as well as customers.

They aren't cutting LOCAL channels, they are cutting off DISTANT local channels... meaning, like me, if you live in a market that doesn't have 1 network, you can get Chicago, New York, etc. locals. This ruling means those distants will be cut off.

I am confused...Is this just against Echostar or does it include DirecTV? Because if they cut off my locals then I will be switching to DirecTV unless they cut theirs off too. But I do hope that they do still alow distant locals, which I am.

The ruling is against Dish Network. DirecTV settled a few years ago.

Hopefully the Supreme Court does the right thing and allows Echostar to broadcast distant locals.

I am in a market that has no ABC, and while I agree that I hope the Supreme Court allows them to broadcast distant networks... I wouldn't bet on it. Dish Network broke the law according to the court papers. I don't think the customers (including me) should be punished for the something the company did. We may live in the greatest country in the world, but I question alot of our copyright laws.