Well, I thought it was a bit silly from the start and it seems that a Federal Judge may be in agreement.

The lawsuit filed by DirecTV against DISH Network was a result of DirecTV’s reported belief that the ads were misleading. U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty denied DirecTV’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have halted the advertisements that DirecTV did not like.

Apparently, the judge left the door open for DirecTV to renew their request and better explain what exactly it is about the “Why Pay More?” ads that has DirecTV execs crying foul.

I would think that instead of running to court like a little kid running to mommy after skinning his knee, DirecTV would just come up with some ads of their own that even the score with DISH Network. That seems to be the way it usually goes. My earlier example of how Verizon and AT&T have been ripping each other to shreds is something that I think consumers are accustomed to.

As you might expect, company lawyers presented their cases in court and for now at least, DirecTV was told to pick up all their toys and go home. Perhaps they’ll prepare a better case, or if they smarten up, hire an advertising agency to come up with some ads that target DISH Network.

It’s nice to see a little common sense come from a case like this. It would be nice to see more silly lawsuits get thrown out like this, even if it is just for the time being.

This is one of those stories that makes you say: “Huh?”

It’s being reported that DirecTV, the largest satellite TV provider in the country, is suing DISH Network for “false advertising.”

It’s all due to some commercial advertisements that DISH Network has been using that claim they are offering the same programming that DirecTV does for $24 less per month. At least that’s what the suit claims. The DISH ads feature a slogan that asks, “Why pay more?”

I’m a little surprised by this news, since I constantly see competing advertisements on TV for various products and services that tell completely different stories. An excellent example would be the latest Verizon Wireless vs.. AT&T commercials.

If I am not mistaken, Verizon started the battle by featuring a map of their wireless coverage compared to AT&T’s, which, if the Verizon ads were to be believed, looked pretty pathetic compared to how they depicted their own network.

It didn’t take AT&T too long to fire back, claiming that their wireless network was much better than Verizon was claiming, and if course, while they were at it, they declared that AT&T’s wireless network was better.

Well, obviously someone is not telling the truth. These two companies are tearing each other up with claims that are completely contradictory, yet I am not hearing any reports of AT&T suing Verizon or vice versa.

As far back as I can remember, competing companies have used advertising that oftentimes shed a rather unflattering light on on another, but I don’t think they spent a lot of time suing each other. It seemed that was just the way the advertising game was played.

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

In an ever-expanding effort to stuff their coffers with more taxpayer money, the state of Massachusetts approved a new “satellite tax” last summer. As a refugee who was born and raised in Massachusetts, I am very familiar with the state government’s appetite for taxpayer dollars.

It appears that the top satellite TV providers are not about to take this move lying down. In a rare spirit of cooperation, DISH Network and DirecTV have joined to file suit against Massachusetts, calling the new 5% tax “discriminatory.”

The state does impose a tax on cable TV companies and probably other utilities as well, since their lines have to be routed along streets and roads that are considered public property. The satellite companies believe ” and I agree ” that since they are not making use of public property, there are no grounds for the state to impose such a tax.

If the state of Massachusetts is going to start taxing the electromagnetic spectrum, they better figure out a way to start taxing people who watch or listen to any broadcast that is not carried by wires. Perhaps that can add a little bit onto their “excise tax” that all owners of motor vehicles have to pay (at least when I lived there) if the vehicle in question is equipped with a radio!

Apparently, greedy politicians in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have imposed similar taxes on their residents. Legal action against those states is pending.

Hopefully, the courts will see the flawed logic behind these taxes and abolish them.

I suppose this is what we should expect from politicians when the economy tanks. People are losing their jobs and their homes and they decide to raise taxes. That will be a big help for a lot of struggling families, I’m sure.

There are some mighty unhappy DirecTV customers in Adams County, Wisconsin, and it’s not even DirecTV’s fault! The satellite provider is being forced to discontinue local programming from the Madison area in favor of local programming from the Wausau/Rhinelander  area.

Who would do such a thing? Not surprisingly, it’s the feds. Sticking their noses in where they don’t belong as usual. Seems that Congress  passed a law back in 2004 which mandated the local programming that satellite broadcasters could provide to all of the counties in the country and left it up to Nielsen Media Research to figure out which local channels each county should be allowed to receive.

For whatever reason, now is the time that DirecTV is being forced to act in Adams County and a lot of the residents do not agree with Nielsen’s conclusion. It appears that Adams County lies pretty close to being in between Madison and Wausau, but I don’t live in Wisconsin and don’t pretend to know what’s best for viewers in Adams County.

It’s not as if these subscribers are asking to receive local channels from Los Angeles or something, so why should they not be able to choose which market they want to receive local channels from? It appears that they are local to both market.

I presume the government, in their infinite wisdom, had the answer. I just don’t expect it to make much sense.

For more details, see WiscNews.

Black and yellow are the traditional colors of the Boston Bruins NHL hockey team, but some fans may be seeing red if they are accustomed to watching their beloved B’s on DirecTV.

Some Bruins games are set to be broadcast on the Versus channel instead of NESN, where fans are used to seeing their team play. Versus, owned by cable television giant Comcast, is embroiled in a dispute with DirecTV over the satellite broadcaster’s right to carry the channel as part of their programming line-up.

DirecTV is well-known as a favorite among satellite customers who are sports fans. Their “Sunday Ticket” football offering is very popular with the Sunday afternoon football crowd. DISH Network recently inked a deal to begin carrying the NFL RedZone channel which has upped the ante a bit in DISH’s bid to rival DirecTV’s sports programming. Many football fans who subscribe to DISH Network seem to be very happy about the new addition.

The disagreement between DirecTV and Comcast is over money (what else?). DirecTV claims Comcast  is trying to dramatically increase the price they will have to pay for the privilege of carrying Versus, while Comcast says the price it is offering DirecTV is the same price currently being paid by DirecTV rival DISH Network as well as Cox cable.

This is beginning to sound a bit like some of the drawn-out feuds that DISH Network is well-known for.

Knowing cable companies as I do (I had cable TV for a decade or so before switching to DISH), it’s easy for me to pick sides on this one. In my experience cable companies are notorious for price increases, which leads me to doubt Comcast’s story and believe what DirecTV is saying about a big price increase. I’ve been on that side of the table when dealing with cable companies as well. Unfortunately, I did not have the clout that would afford me the opportunity to negotiate a better price.

The cry babies at the big cable companies must not be happy about the success of satellite broadcasters like DISH Network and DirecTV. They are currently pushing a measure in the California legislature to impose taxes on satellite customers.

Cable company customers in California (and many other states) are required to pay a tax as part of their service, which is due to the fact that delivering cable programming to customers involves stringing wires on telephone polls or underground, which involves the use of public property, including streets.

The satellite companies, who do not encroach on public property in order to deliver programming to their customers, say that taxing them does not make sense. They do not depend on access to public property. Seems like a pretty logical argument to me.

The big cable companies do not let logic stand in their way, however, and I’m sure the big donations they have made to various legislators has no connection to their efforts to tax their competitors. Campaign contributions of $340,000 were handed out by the “cable association” in California between January, 2008 and June 30. In addition, three of the big cable companies, Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox made nearly $1 million in campaign contributions during that time.

Kind of looks like the cable industry was trying very hard to make friends in the right places.

The cable companies claim the new tax on satellite service would help to “level the playing field.” Well, that’s a pretty bogus argument when you consider the fact that the cable companies can also offer high-speed internet and telephone service in addition to cable TV. The satellite companies cannot offer those services without partnering with other companies like AT&T, which once had a partnership with DISH Network.

It appears to me that the extra services that the cable TV companies are able to offer make for a significant advantage when compared to their satellite rivals. Still, new customers continue to sign up for satellite service.

To some of us, a tax on satellite service seems ludicrous. Still, some states have already approved these new taxes. Massachusetts, a state that never met a tax it didn’t like, has already done it. Other states are considering it as well. Hopefully, the people of California will be able to put a stop this money-grab.

See the original story on the L.A. Times for more information.

DISH Network has announced a deal that will please fans of the Versus channel. The sports/outdoors channel will be available for all DISH Network subscribers for free until December 2nd. It can be found on channel 151 and is also available in HD.

Personally, I’ve never watched the Versus channel and don’t anticipate doing so anytime soon. A quick glance at their official website makes it  appear to be more team-sports oriented than “outdoorsy” programming like hunting and fishing, although the website does include information about that kind of programming that the channel carries.

Regardless of my viewing habits, there are probably a great many DISH Network subscribers who will enjoy this opportunity to check out the Versus channel for free.

Apparently, DISH Network’s chief rival, DirecTV is not getting along too well with the folks that run the Versus channel, and it was recently dropped from their programming line-up. DISH Network has seized this opportunity to lure some DirecTV customers with a free offer. It appears to be a good move on DISH Network’s part, but it will probably be a while before they are able to gauge the effect on their subscriber numbers.

On Thursday DISH Network announced that they are now offering local high definition channels in 70 market around the country by adding addition new markets to its existing lineup.

The new markets being offered include Florence – Myrtle Beach, SC; Fort Myers – Naples, FL; Greenville – New Bern – Washington, NC; Madison, WI; and Wilkes-Barre – Scranton, PA.

DISH Network says this new development allows them to bring local HD programming to 71% of the households in the United States and is planning to offer local high definition programming in 100 markets by year’s end.

DISH competitor DirecTV says they currently offer local HD channels in 100 markets, which means they are offering the local programming to 83% of U.S. households. DirecTV plans to offer local HD channels in 121 markets by years end.

It will be interesting with the local HD offerings actually look like at year’s end and see if both companies meet their goals.

It appears that just about all the big pay-TV services will be raising prices this year. As reported in the Boston Globe, Comcast, Verizon, Dish Network and DirecTV all have price increases planned.

Comcast’s prices are reported to be going up around 4 percent while Verizon plans a 12 percent increase, by far the largest increase among all the players in this report. Verizon does report, however, that prices are locked in for two years after sign-up so current customers should not be affected by the increase.

Of the two satellite TV giants, DirecTV has the slightly larger increase planned at 4 percent while Dish Network reports that their increase will be around 3 percent.

Dish Network has plans to freeze prices for some of their most popular programming packages including the DishDVR Advantage package but I have seen some conflicting information regarding exactly which packages will be included in the freeze and the duration of the freeze.

Dish Network, to their credit, seems to be the only ones talking about freezing prices for some programming packages while increasing the price for some others.

According to this TV News Website, Consumer Reports has just published their ratings for satellite TV and cable TV companies.

Verizon’s new fiber-optic service, FiOS comes in number one for customer satisfaction with DirecTV coming in at number 3 three and Dish Network at number 4.

I’ve heard some positive things recently about DirecTV’s customer service and support and it looks like they are being rewarded for that with a nice rating from Consumer reports.

Not surprisingly, Comcast comes in at number 12. Comcast is the company that offers cable TV and high-speed Internet service in my area. In fact, where I live it is the only choice for high-speed Internet and since I am a customer, I understand why they didn’t make it into the top 10 on Consumer Reports’ ratings.