Attachment Joint Reply of EchoS

Joint Reply of EchoS

REPLY submitted by EchoStar; DIRECTSAT

joint reply

1996-08-28

This document pretains to SAT-STA-19960627-00088 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Space Stations filing.

IBFS_SATSTA1996062700088_1158015

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 AuG 2 3 1996 l mm en o lt wresei unsl In the Matter of ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION File No. 139—SAT—STA—96 Application for Extension of Special Temporary Authority to Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite In the Matter of DIRECTSAT CORPORATION File No. 138—SAT—STA—96 Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate a Direct Broadcast Satellite JOINT REPLY OF ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORPORATION AND DIRECTSAT CORPORATION In this proceeding, EchoStar Satellite Corporation and Directsat Corporation request temporary use of frequencies that would otherwise lie fallow in order to provide the public with an expanded range of video programming that is not currently being provided either on these frequencies or any other DBS frequencies. Tempo Satellite, Inc., the licensee who is currently failing to make any use of these frequencies, opposes these requests, thereby seeking to ensure that no one else uses them either

In its Consolidated Opposition, Tempo raises three distinct arguments: that the requested special temporary authorizations ("STAs") are legally barred; that they would not serve the public interest; and that they would confuse consumers and seriously prejudice Tempo‘s own use of the frequencies, if and when that ever occurs. These argumentsare flawed as a matter of both law and policy, and the Commission should grant the requested STAs without delay.! A. The Communications Act Does Not Prevent the Commission From Granting the Requested Authorizations. Earlier this year, the Commission granted EchoStar an STA to operate on five of the channels assigned to Tempo at the 119° orbital location. Tempo did not object to the grant of that STA, so long as that authorization contained an explicit condition requiring EchoStar to discontinue use of those extra channels if and when Tempo launched its satellite to make use of them. EchoStar willingly accepted that condition, and in fact both EchoStar anc'i— Directsat have proposed to include such a condition in the STAs they currently seek.3 Tempo now argues that section 309(f) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 309(f), only permits the Commission to grant STAs to persons that have applied "for a construction permit for the facilities covered by the request for special temporary authorization."* However, this restrictive interpretation glosses over the actual language of section 309(f) and is not ! Of course. in any event the Commission should extend the existing STA granted to EchoStar until such time as Directsat has launched and tested its first satellite at 119° and is ready to begin operations. 2 EchoStar Satellite Corp., 11 F.C.C.R. 5351 (Int‘l Bur. 1996)("STA Order"). EchoStar Application at 5; Directsat Application at 6—7. Consolidated Opposition at 4.

supported by the case law. Moreover, Tempo ignores the fact that EchoStar and Directsat have in fact applied for permanent authority to use additional DBS channels. Tempo‘s statutory argument is based on the dependent clause that begins section 309(f): "When an application subject to subsection (b) has been fi—led” (emphasis added). This language makes it clear that an STA under section 309(f) is not "free—standing" —— that is, it must be appurtenant to some other application. However, Tempo overstates the import of this language when it claims that no STA may be granted unless EchoStar and Directsat apply for exactly the same license Tempo now holds. The very case cited by Tempo suggests, on the contrary, that the policy concern implicated by section 309(f) is to "bar[] any use of the air waves by those whose public interest qualifications have not been established."" This policy interest will be fully protected by a grant of the requested authority to EchoStar and Directsat because they are already authorized to provide the very service that is at issue here.° Their public interest qualifications have thus been previously validated by the Commission and remain unchallenged even by Tempo. Furthermore, even were Tempo‘s erroneous statutory construction to be accepted and section 309(f) actually required an application for the additional channels that are at stake here, both EchoStar and Directsat have already filed such an application. Tempo asserts that "{[njeither 2 Folkways Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. 379 F.2d 447. 449 (D.C. Cir. 1967). In Folkways, the court considered temporary operation by an applicant whose application had been granted by the Commission but vacated and remanded by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that since the remand "in effect returned [the] application to a pre—grant status," 379 F.2d at 448. it was inappropriate to permit interim operation before the Commission reached a final decision in the remanded case. 6 EchoStar Satellite Corp.. 7 F.C.CR. 1765 (1992); Directsat Corp., 8 F.C.C.R. 7962 (MMB 1993). In addition. EchoStar was also granted authorizations for two Ku—band FSS satellites. Assignment of Orbital Locations to Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed—Satellite Service, DA 96—713 (Int‘l Bureau, May 7, 1996).

EchoStar nor Directsat has filed (nor could they file) any application for authority to use in the aggregate more than 21 channels at the 119° W.L. orbital position."" However, the truth is that both EchoStar and Directsat have filed such applications. Both companies originally sought authorization to operate on 16 paired east/west channels, but each was granted only 11 paired channels with the right to "receive reservations for additional channels, up to the total number of half—CONUS channels necessary to fulfill the proposal in its application, if DBS allocation are surrendered by other permittees or canceled by the Commission."8 Moreover, EchoStar also has an application for assignment of eleven additional channels that has been pending for over seven years.? Thus, both EchoStar and Directsat have applications on file for additional DBS channels, although the status of some of those applications is currently clouded by litigation.‘© These applications are particularly relevant in light of the serious questions that have been raised about whether Tempo‘s channels should be revoked for lack of due diligence.! Nonetheless, in spite of Consolidated Opposition at 4. Continental Satellite Corp.,. 4 F.C.C.R. 6292, 6300 (1989). 9 See EchoStar Satellite Corp.. 7 F.C.C.R. 1765, 1770—72 (1992)(deferring assignment of channels pending submission of additional contracting and technical information). In addition, the Commission recently removed its requirement that channels be issued in matching east/west pairs. Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 95—507 at 124 (Dec. 15, 1995). 10 Although the Commission subsequently canceled a DBS permit, neither EchoStar nor Directsat received any further channel assignments. a decision both companies have appealed. See DIRECTV, Inc., et a/., Docket Nos. 96—1001, 96—1005, 96—1010, and 96—1011 (D.C. Cir.). 11 See Supplemental Petition to Deny of MCI Telecommunications Corporation and the News Corporation Limited. filed May 10, 1996, in File No. 844—DSE—P/L—96 (outlining the many uses Tempo has proposed for its satellites over the years. including its current stated intention to launch them into Canadian—licensed orbital locations, and the resulting warehousing of valuable U.S. DBS resources).

the fact that these applications were clearly referenced in EchoStar‘s and Directsat‘s applications, 2 Tempo totally ignores them. The uncontradicted fact of their pendency should, without more, dispose of any argument that the Commission lacks legal authority to grant the requested relief. As noted above, Tempo acquiesced to the grant of EchoStar‘s initial STA just five months ago. Having failed to raise any objection at that time, it should not now be heard to complain that extending that STA or granting Directsat an identical authorization would violate the Communications Act. The timing of Tempo‘s change of heart is telling. As both EchoStar and Directsat argued in their requests, grant of the STAs will enable them to offer a more comprehensive and competitive DBS service to the public, furthering the Commission‘s goals by bringing much—needed competition throughout the multichannel video programming distribution ("MVPD") market, which is currently dominated by cable television.!3 Operating with its STA, EchoStar has begun to make substantial inroads into cable subscribership, especially that of Tele— Communications, Inc. ("TCI"), the largest cable multiple system operator in the country and Tempo‘s corporate parent. TCI has recently embarked on a national campaign against satellite direct—to—home systems in general, and EchoStar in particular.!4 It is not surprising that TCI, through its subsidiary Tempo, would extend this campaign to the Commission and attempt to thwart competition by opposing STAs that would render its competitors‘ system more robust. 12 EchoStar Application at 2 n.5; Directsat Application at 2 n.3. 13 See EchoStar Application at 4—5: Directsat Application at 4. 14 See materials attached hereto which are illustrative of TCI‘s campaign.

The Commission should look through this transparent attempt by an entrenched incumbent MVPD to forestall or weaken competition by any means possible, and recognize Tempo‘s sudden opposition for what it really is —— a desperate attempt to protect a former monopolist‘s market share. In summary, the plain language of section 309(f) poses no legal bar to the authorizations requested by EchoStar and Directsat; the policy behind the clause in question does not reach the instant case; and in any event EchoStar and Directsat currently have applications pending before the Commission which satisfy the erroneously restrictive interpretation urged by Tempo. There is therefore no doubt about the Commission‘s legal authority to grant the requested STAs, and Tempo‘s anticompetitive gambit to resist competition in the MVPD market must fail. B. The Requested Authorizations Will Serve the Public Interest. As a fallback to its legal argument, Tempo contends that EchoStar and Directsat have failed to establish an appropriate public interest justification for the requested relief. Tempo belittles the "expanded range of programming options" which both EchoStar and Directsat intend to provide on the channels in question, urging the Commission to treat the potential for such programming as "business reasons," or mere "[clonvenience to the applicant, such as marketing considerations." 5 15 Consolidated Opposition at 5—6.

This argument betrays Tempo‘s insensitivity to the public interest in putting DBS spectrum to use. Tempo, which received its authorization for these channels in 1992, has yet to provide the first hour of programming to the public on these frequencies. EchoStar and Directsat stand ready to do so on a temporary basis, for only as long as Tempo declines to do so. Tempo asks for evidence that the additional programming cited by EchoStar and Directsat could not be provided over the 21 channels they already may use at 119°, but this misses the point. It is true that EchoStar and Directsat can offer more educational, public interest, and entertainment programming with 32 channels than they can with 21, as demonstrated in their applications for the STAs. However, the most salient point is that EchoStar and Directsat will use the eleven channels at issue here until Tempo launches —— and Tempo will not. Surely the public interest is served where otherwise wasted valuable public spectrum resources are put to productive use. The Commission has been so emphatic about promoting the delivery of actual DBS service to the public that Tempo‘s attack on this public interest justification is mystifying. The Commission recognized eight years ago that it is "imperative that inefficient use of DBS assignments, whether intentional or inadvertent, be prevented, particularly if it becomes evident that incumbent permittees are unjustifiably preventing additional promising parties from attempting to deliver DBS services."!© It also recently reaffirmed its three primary policy goals for the DBS service, namely (1) efficient use of a valuable public resource (DBS channels); (2) promotion of DBS as a competitor to cable; and (3) prompt delivery of DBS service to the 16 United States Satellite Broadcasting Co.. 3 F.C.C.R. 6858, 6861 (1988).

public.‘? Granting the requested STAs would serve all three of these objectives by putting unused channels to productive use, making EchoStar and Directsat more robust competitors to cable systems, and achieving these results almost immediately. The desire to expedite the development of the DBS service is so strong that it even lédthe Commission to revise its methods of assigning DBS resources and requirements for due diligence in order to ensure the fastest possible implementation of service.!8 Given the Commission‘s obvious conclusion that ensuring the productive use of DBS resources as soon as possible serves the public interest, Tempo‘s opposition on this point cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, grant of the requested STAs will serve the public interest by enabling EchoStar and Directsat to transmit educational and culturally diverse programming that could not otherwise be accommodated by their own channel assignments alone. Although Tempo challenges this fact, it is a matter of cofimon sense that a coordinated system with 32 channels can offer much more programming than can one with only 21 channels. Each addition of capacity beyond that necessary for "core" programming allows greater flexibility for niche and public interest program offerings as well as for testing of new and innovative technologies, such as High Definition Television, data transmission, and other services that can expand the choices available to the public. 17 Aadvanced Communications Corp.. 1 Comm. Rep. (P&F) 276 at 4| 67 (Oct. 18, 1995). 18 Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 95—507 (Dec. 15, 1995). Neither EchoStar nor Directsat agrees with the Commission‘s conclusion that the newly implemented system for assigning DBS channels by auction will result in accelerated development of the service.

By offering to provide service over otherwise wasted capacity, EchoStar and Directsat propose to further all three of the important public policy goals the Commission has enunciated for this service. Moreover, that additional capacity will enable transmission of additional public interest programming not currently available from any DBSprovider. Tempo‘s argument that the provision of service to the public is a mere matter of the service providers‘ convenience is frivolous. C. Tempo Fails to Demonstrate That It Will Be Prejudiced By the Requested STAs. Tempo‘s last argument against the requested relief is that the eventual termination of service pursuant to the requested STAs will cause customer confusion and prejudice Tempo‘s operations on these frequencies, if and when Tempo begins to operate at 119°. However, the Consolidated Opposition fails to specify a single instance of prejudice to Tempofia Perhaps Tempo is hinting at possible prejudice when it states that a launch by Tempo "would be the putative ‘cause‘ of [service] termination," but the reasoning behind this suggestion is obscure. None of the consumer notifications suggested by EchoStar and Directsat mention Tempo by name, and it is difficult to see how anyone other than a sophisticated industry insider would know of any connection between a Tempo launch and a concomitant alteration in EchoStar‘s or Directsat‘s offerings. That being the case, it is even harder to understand why anyone who understood the connection would be confused. In other words, most consumers will be unaware of the connection, and the rest will understand well enough not to hold Tempo responsible. Furthermore, the Commission should be very skeptical of Tempo‘s ostensible solicitude for the well—being of EchoStar‘s and Directsat‘s customers. As we have seen, Tempo‘s second

argument against the STAs is that the additional services proposed by EchoStar and Directsat are really not that big a deal; but in the final section of its opposition Tempo nonetheless maintains that consumers will strongly object the instant EchoStar and Directsat stop providing those allegedly inconsequential services. In contrast to Tempo‘s inconstant concern for our subscribers, EchoStar and Directsat have proposed to offer a greater variety of programming choices using scarce DBS resources that would otherwise go unused. They have also proposed a three—step program that will repeatedly provide full disclosure as to the temporary nature of their operating authority to those who subscribe to programming made possible by that extra capacity.!° These notification arrangements fully comport with the Commission‘s normal disclosure requirements for programming made possible by an STA.2° Unlike TCI, Tempo‘s corporate parent and the nation‘s largest cable operator, EchoStar and Directsat have never had the benefit of a captive subscriber base. We are well aware that subscribers to the DISH network have other options for multichannel video programming. Our business judgment, however, is that our customers will appreciate the additional service offerings we can provide over Tempo‘s unused channels, even if those offerings are only temporary. If we are wrong, we will be harshly disciplined in the marketplace, but that is our mistake to make. The fact is that even if we are wrong, grant of the STAs will not lead to consumer confusion and will not prejudice Tempo in the least. Indeed, Tempo would benefit if its launch created a large group i9 EchoStar Application at 6—7: Directsat Application at 7—8. 20 STA Order at 6. 10

of dissatisfied DISH subscribers. The Commission should therefore ignore Tempo‘s self—serving arguments about how EchoStar and Directsat can best serve their own customers. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, EchoStar and Directsat respectfully submit that the Commission should grant the instant application for special temporary authority because the use of the requested channels will serve the public interest and will not result in either harmful interference or consumer confusion. Respectfully submitted, EchoStar Satellite Corporation and Directsat Corporation e 600\ \ By: LeccceJ[ Ilaobacimds David K. Moskowitz _ ~~Xfle Sr. Vice President and General Courisel //TCSs 90 Inverness Circle East & Englewood, CO 80112 (303) 799—8222 Mark A. Grannis Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955—8 500 Counsel for EchoStar Satellite Corporation and Directsat Corporation Dated: August 26, 1996 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 26, 1996, a copy of the foregoing Joint Reply of Echostar Satellite Corporation and Directsat Corporation was served by hand delivery on the following: —— Donald Gips, Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW. Room 830 Washington, D.C. 20554 Gizelle Gomez Satellite Engineering Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW. Room 507 Washington, D.C. 20554 Suzanne Hutchings Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20554 John Stern International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 2000 M Street, NW. Room 819A Washington, D.C. 20554 Richard E. Wiley John C. Quale Todd M. Stansbury Wiley, Rein & Fielding 1776 K Street, NW. Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for Tempo Satellite, Inc. William M. Wiltshir WL962360.047/9+ 12

Rocky Mountain News Tues., July 30. 1996 TCl ad campaign targets satellite dish competitors service owned by TCI and five Messages cniticizing petitive threat posed by the direct satellite business that has signed other cable companies. offerings, equipment up 2.5 million customers in two Primestar customers can‘t get years. local stations through their receiv— indirectly include Dish, DirecTV and other satel— ing dishes, either Primestar sus— key ally Primestar lite services have run hard—hitting tomers also must have a separate ads of their own recently attacking converter for each television but By Bill Menezes _____ . cable industry rate increases. unlike Dish and DirecTV they "There have been some fairly don‘t have to buy their own equip— RockyMountain News Staff Writer aggressive advertising campaigns ment. An aggressive ad campaign by from some of our DBS competitors "I guess we‘re making sa im— cable giant Tele—Communications that required response," said TCI pact, otherwise I doubt we‘d see Inc. takes a few slaps at the nival spokeswoman LaRae Marsik. these kinds of ads," said Echostar Dish Network satellite TV service "This is just the beginning." president Car) Vogel. — and by implication at TCI‘s Two of the ads lambaste the fact Primestar executives say they Primestar satellite venture. that to watch different channels on aren‘t targeted by the campaign. TCI ads on four pages in Sun— different TV sets. DBS users must noting their service is going after day‘s Rocky Mountain News — Duy an cdditional converter for customers not served oy cabic. part of a national anti—satellite cam— cach set. Another ad decries But they admit future competition paign —— jab at shortcomings of DBS‘s inability to show local will be more directly against TCI direct broadcast satellite services broadcast stations. and other cable companies as Pr— such as Dish, a unit of Englewood— "I mean, they beam in this signal mestar continues growing and based Echostar Communications. from outer space, but they can‘t sceking new markets. Radio ads begin later this week tell you if you‘re going to need an "Quite frankly, this is a voice in Denver and other select mar— umbrella tomorrow," laments a :rom the cable operations," Marsik kets. woman in one of the ads. <aid of the campaign. "They arc Such direct attacks are a com— What the ads don‘t mention is v~ery two distinct and different mon way of peddling cola and bur— that one of Dish Network‘s outer ‘ isinesses for TCI, although they gers but they mark an escalation of space neighbors is Primestar Part— »mplgment each other in certain cable‘s attempts to meet the com— ners, the direct broadcast satellite ‘cas. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS 7/30/96

_CABLE__.._._._ WVMVOIERLL) Augest S, 1998 A Star Wars Battle: TCI, EchoStar Clash On Several Fronts Br Kim MIiTCHELL able industry—DBS hostilities e> calated last week when Tele— Communications Inc. launched a national ad campaign slamming EchoStar Communications Corp. after the DBS service provider launched a $199 dish offer in several markets where TCI has raised rates. Adding fue) to the fire: EchoStar last week said it would extend that $199 offer throughout the U.S. until year‘s end and perhaps through 1997. The discount is a bol_d move for See Battle on page 46 More Star Wars Battles: TCI, EchoStar Clash Head—On Battle from page 1 sonably priced whole house wiring —— two goal is to outpace DirecTv, which racked issues central to cable‘s competitive mar— up 1 million subscribers about 17 months EchoStar‘s fivemonth—old service that it keting efforts against DBS. TCIs antiDBS after launching service. has dubbed the "Dish Network": Some of campaign that has print, radio and TV ele— EchoStar‘s Dish Network cracked the its DBS rivals have said the company ments is being tailored to the competitive 100,000—subscriber mark late last month. can‘t afford to promote the offer over the needs of each of the company‘s markets. thanks largely to sales generated in the long haul. the MSO said, noting that the effort will be eight TCI markets. EchoStar executives Still, EchoStar‘s offer apparently has "fairly widespread" among the MSO‘s 3,000 said their DBS brand outsold DirecTyv made an impact on its DBS competitors: or so cable systems. and Primestar combined in those eight AT&T Corp., which holds a minority While some markets‘ operators will markets, sometimes by as much as a five stake in DirecTv, Isunched its own $199 run a broad—based anti—DBS message, oth toone margin. DBS equipment offer to its most loyal ers will single out EchoStar or DirecTw But at a DBS conference in June, in long—distance customers. The offer, open Last week, a TCI spokesman said the | dustry executives were wary of to millions of AT&T "True Rewards" MSO‘s new ad campaign is a response to EchoStar‘s focus on deep discounting. members, will run through year‘s end. the beating the company is taking in DBS noting that the offer‘s economics would AT&T also has extended its $100 "in— providers‘ ads. "There‘s been some fairly ag— be impossible to sustain. What‘s more. stant rebates" on RCA DBS receivers to gressive advertising campaign from some critics said retailers would lose interest in Aug. 25 in conjunction with Thomson of qur competitors," the spokesman said. promoting DBS if their profits drop. Consumer Electronics Inc. stretching its ‘They required a response." EchoStar‘s offer could translate to a $70 $199 mail—in rebate for another month. EchoStar executives said they were million loss for the company this year and The two rebates mean that RCA‘s $599 pleased by TCI‘s reaction. "Obviously. $40 million in 1997, according to Steven DSS models now sell for $399. we‘re making an impact," an EchoStar Blum, the president of the Carmel Group, a What‘s more. distributors of MSO— spokesman said. "It‘s great publicity." Carmel, Calif—based research company. backed Primestar Partners‘ DBS pack— To qualify for EchoStar‘s $199 hard— Sull, based on estimates that EchoStar age have launched a $99 installation of ware offer, customers must purchase a would have 1.7 million subscribers in 1998 fer for customers who sign up for two $300—a—year programming package. and little churn, the company could generate a years. The offer includes a free first EchoStar also is offering its UHF Premi— $30—million profit by that time, too, he added. month of programming. um system for $299 with the purchase of EchoStar executives contend that they‘ll Denverbased TCl — the nation‘s largest the $300 programming package. That pack— break even on the $199 and $299 promo MSO with 14.2 million subscribers and a age lets customers view different satellite tions soon after the first year thanks to their Primestar investor — and newcomer channels on two TV sets and includes a re margins on programming packages. EchoStar, which counts about 100,000 cus— mote that allows operation of the satellite "Subsidizing the initial acquisition of tomers, have been locked in a particularly fir receiver through walls and other objects. subscribers is nothing new to video deliv— rious battle since June when the DBS service The marketing ploy is part of ery systems," said Larry Smith, EchoStar‘s launched its $199 offer in eight TCI markets. EchoStar‘s drive to reach 500,000 sub— VP—programming/distribution. TCI‘s ads take aim at DBS‘ inability to scribers by year‘s end and 1 million cus deliver local programming and its unres— tomers by autumn 1997. The company‘s Alan Breznick contributed to this story.

~—The Denver Post, July, 1996 WHAT YOU DON‘T KNOW .. ABOUT SATELLITE DISHES I1S CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. @ Why are satcllite dish owners eager to dump their f—«—ececeasce.s dish? Could be because people aren‘t happy with what they‘re finding out about satellite dish tccl\nology. Like the fact that satellite dishes don‘t carry local network chaanels. That means The Dish Network can‘t provide you with local news, sports, or the weather forccast. And if you want to watch differ— ent channels in different rooms. at the same time. they charg';e you a fortune for every additional television you want hooked up. So to avoid encling up in the classifieds. stick with TCL RRTC! WE‘RE A LITTLE MORE DOWN TO EARTH.

U U U U U ~BVY THE ieA ELCE sseen ko a L. «J @ That‘s whatI found out when I did a little _ detective work. First of all. you have to Buy the dish for 5199. Installation could run another 5200. Then there‘s the monthly programming fee. but they make vou pay for an entire year up front. Nowhero‘s the thing that really got me. You cun‘t watch different channels on different TV sets at the same time without paying an extra $350 for one additional hookup! Are vou kidding me? Listen. if you‘re lool':ing' into buying a satellite dish. think uguin. You can save yourself a lot of money by doing what I‘m doing., I‘m staying with TCI |<j)ro WE‘CRE A LITTLE MORE 10WX T0 EARTH. e weP LR 2 —.4a% noe RC,22 mours 2cL 1 . UX YY uLt *

CBVY THE mtc To tE esc e es y c> aig ——cem ctyA es If The Dish Network tries to tell you they‘ have all the television érogrammins’; you ' need, they‘re all wet. And you might be. too. Let me explain. See. The Dish Network can‘t carry local network news. sports and weather. I mean. L)’Ic_\' beam in this signal from outer space. but they can‘t tell you if you‘re going to need an umbrella tomor— row! And (orge't it if you want to find out who won the big Ln's‘;h school pluyoff game. or howthe local race for mayor is s}\aping up. Vith The Dixh iNetwork, you could {oréct what town you‘re in, So. you‘re still thinking about buyin{; a sate .e dish? Hey. I made up my mind. I ‘m staying with TCIl. JRTC! WECRE & LITTIE KORE 10WX 10 EARTH.

C"BUY THE DISH KETLWORK AKD ¥YOVOLL Bb L EOE I was thinking about buying a satellite dish. until I found out about the service policy. Quite a sweet deal. For them. See, if the dish breaks down. you‘re the one who has to climb a ladder. scramble across the roof. dismuntle the dish. pac}x it up. and send it buck. Then comes the resily hard part. You have to wauit. And wait some more. Probably the whole time vou‘d be trying to forget that if vou ever had a proMcm with TCT. lhq\"c! came riijh’c to your door, Guaranteed. So. l think it goes without saying. I‘m staving with TCI. RTC! WEORE A LITTLE KORE POWX T0 EARTH. c\ 4o mne s mS t y s e hh hR s m n uenhmb g g h Mess gp c n ~

Teb ooo ae oi Li Oe "ree a 'lt p#ys to read the fine print. believe me. .s @ Tlmt's‘w]'xere you get the real story. Like I‘m loolzing into buying The Dish Network. and I find out it only foes to one room. If you want to watch different channels in different rooms. they charge vyou. get this. 5350 for one additional hookup: 350 bucks! I couldn‘t belfeve it! We have four TVs in our house and everybody likes to watch different pro— grams. It would cost me an absolute fortune‘! I mean. that satellite isn‘t the only thing that‘s sky }'u'gh! Once [ got the real scoop. it didn‘t take long to come to a decision. I‘m staying with TCI. <Jre WERE A LITTIE HORE I9W4 10 EPirAt. r +. w © s 4 ae > 40 o — TOTAL P.08


Document Created: 2016-11-10 16:51:55
Document Modified: 2016-11-10 16:51:55
© 2025 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC