[opendtv] Re: Barriers eroding to LCD TV adoption
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:06:59 +0100
For there to be a Federal Court injunction, there would have to be a lawsuit
in which the plaintiffs had a reasonable chance of prevailing on the merits,
and there would have to be a situation where a judge found that an
injunction would not unfairly affect any party.
And, there would have to be a violation of Federal law or a constitutional
violation alleged.
Lacking the above elements, I would not venture a guess as to whether an
injunction would be granted. I can say that any lawsuit by stations,
networks or their suppliers or advertisers would have essentially ZERO
chance of getting to the injunction stage. I'd have to think a bit before I
could handicap a viewer lawsuit getting there.
To avoid even that possibility, Congress is talking about paying for DTV
receivers for those who cannot afford them. If that is effective, there
would be ZERO grounds for any federal lawsuit. (That doesn't mean that a
case won't be filed.) Once the Senate has given up on trying to pass a
constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of Americans to marry, the
markup on DTV receivers might even make it out of committee (markup hearings
were held more than 6 weeks ago.)
Before this is all over, I suspect that the receiver "obligation" will be
put upon analog broadcasters rather than the government. No to mention the
significant increases in "spectrum utilization fees" for commercial analog
TV stations.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of John Shutt
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:28 PM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Barriers eroding to LCD TV adoption
John,
The only thing I was "sure" about was that your assertion to Bert that the
cutoff date was not codified in law, and your subsequent assertion to me
that actual FCC practice did not follow that law, were both incorrect.
I do not dispute that the actual cutoff date may be many years after January
1, 2007. However I will assert that in order for the actual cutoff date to
be extended beyond January 1, 2007, in those markets that do not meet any of
the criteria set forth in 47USC309(j)(14)(B), it will take another act of
Congress, or a Federal Court injunction.
My money is on the latter.
John Shutt
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Well, then I stand at least partially corrected, and this was for a
renewal
> that would terminate before Dec 31, 2005.
>
> When applied against the law, it means that the analog cutoff date is
> December 31, 2006 or later. My "point" was that it would be later.
>
> So, it sounds like you were SURE. It's always nice to get real data
points.
>
> John Willkie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
