Satellite Code Companies Is Cheating on Cable Television Subpoenas
The dispute over RCh networks and lawsuits is a familiar one for those who follow media. For some time, the two sides have been in a tug of war over who is to benefit from the programming. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have alleged that RCh is guilty of withholding material that it broadcasts; it also has claimed that it has failed to make reasonable accommodations for plaintiffs and their representatives. In its defense, RCh has cited the First Amendment. In this article I will examine whether or not RCh’s argument about the First Amendment applies in this case and what the First Amendment means when it comes to cable television.
RCH Cable Lawsuit
It seems that RCh would not have any problem with this lawsuit if the plaintiffs actually had a case. However, it appears that they do not. They make all sorts of excuses for not providing the plaintiffs’ attorneys with the evidence they want in their case. It is no wonder that RCh lost this lawsuit.
As you may have guessed, RCh was sued by several different groups because of their practices when it comes to providing video programming.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys filed suit after they say that they were denied access to digital satellite programming from their satellite providers. According to the complaint, a supervisor at RCh told plaintiffs’ attorneys that they could not bring their claims against the network. This supervisor then allegedly told them that they could file a complaint with RCh via an attorney.
As is usually the case with such high-profile lawsuits, the plaintiff’s attorneys quickly learned that they had a problem.
They asked for permission from RCh to view the video feed from their clients’ satellite systems. RCh declined. So, what was the problem? Apparently, their supervisor had told them that RCh was not a cable television company and therefore they were not obligated under any rules to provide access to video from RCh’s system. This contention was not even true, as a cable television manager told plaintiffs’ attorneys that RCh’s system had been compromised in the past.
It is important to remember that there are differences between satellite television and cable television. There is also a difference between cable companies and local cable companies. Additionally, there are differences between legal satellite providers and even between satellite systems. So, a lawsuit that was brought against RCh because their system was compromised was really brought against all satellite providers, not just RCh.
As you can see, there is no difference between RCh and any other cable television provider.
It is simply a lie that the plaintiffs’ attorneys used to shut down their lawsuit. The fact is that plaintiffs’ attorneys should have been more careful in their presentation of their case to the judge. Instead of relying on their “he said, she said” testimonies, plaintiffs’ attorneys should have taken the time to explain how exactly the cable television system worked.
Why did RCh get so bad press?
Because their system was so much different from the cable systems of the opponents. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would put two competing high-speed Internet services next to each other in the same sentence. Moreover, the fact that satellite companies are undercutting cable television companies with lower prices is hardly newsworthy. It simply confirms the point that there are vast differences between satellite television and cable television.
The lesson? It’s important for plaintiffs’ attorneys to understand the difference between the company named in their complaint and the company actually sending traffic to their site. plaintiffs’ attorneys also need to learn that they should never blindly trust their lawyer, no matter how trustworthy he may appear to be.
