# New Law Passes for HD broadcast of Networks



## tweaver999 (Jul 9, 2004)

This from USPolitics Today about spending bill passed today.

"Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."

We will see.

FYI


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

tweaver999 said:


> This from USPolitics Today about spending bill passed today.
> 
> "Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."
> 
> ...


Sound like good news. I'm sure it is chuck full of stipulations.


----------



## TEN89 (Jun 27, 2003)

tweaver999 said:


> This from USPolitics Today about spending bill passed today.
> 
> "Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."
> 
> ...


Do you have the link to it?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

To "some" remote customers, sounds like those that are determined to not be able to receive the HD signal just as they do now with waivers?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A reference would be helpful. The bills in question have no updates posted.

JL


----------



## tweaver999 (Jul 9, 2004)

Here is a ABCNews link... About half way down is a small paragraph that I quoted.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=268147


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

Wait, it passed? Awesome!!!


----------



## dakeeney (Aug 30, 2004)

Well now,would this also mean that if I get the locals via *D* that I could also get
the distant HD feeds? In my market the NBC affiliate is not broadcasting in HD as is
the FOX affiliate not in HD. I have waivers from the CBS and ABC locals so I can get
those from NY/LA.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

tweaver999 said:


> "Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."


Should be interesting. DISH says I qualify for two complete sets of distant SD networks, but has no plans to provide them in HD. DirecTV says I only qualify for CBS and Fox but seems to have a plan for transmitting them. Hmmm... 

--- WCS


----------



## chewey (Jul 28, 2004)

This could be awsome for people in rural areas. For those constantly adjusting their antenna's to pick up and hd feed it won't mean much.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

So would we have to qualify for the SD distant locals in order to get the HD distant locals or will they have a different way of qualifying us to have a waiver for these stations since some/most HD stations are not full power? If that would be the case then perhaps those that would not qualify for distant SD locals before would now qualify for the HD distant locals but would have to get the HD television and HD receiver.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

There's two ways of qualifying:
-If you have analog distants you also get digital distants.
-If you subscribe to LIL Analog locals and Digital Broadcasts are not available in your area then you qualify.

Other notes: 
-People who already have digital/analog distant waivers are grandfathered.

New clauses: 
-If a person in a Analog LIL market has digital distants and their local station launches a digital signal, they will loose the digital distants within 60 days.
-If satellite carries a customers Analog LIL market, they are not eligible for Analog waivers.
-Viewers can only receive waivers for a distant station that airs primetime programming at the same time or after their "primetime"


----------



## srrobinson2 (Sep 16, 2003)

BFG said:


> There's two ways of qualifying:
> -If you have analog distants you also get digital distants.
> -If you subscribe to LIL Analog locals and Digital Broadcasts are not available in your area then you qualify.
> 
> ...


But all of this is moot if E* won't expand their HD offering. I've been sending them notes about offering the superstaion pack in HD for months...


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

This may be an improvement over past waiver policy. Reason is that it separates the signal type as "HDTV". In the past you could be denied a CBS HDTV waiver from E* if you had access to an SD only station.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

DonLandis said:


> This may be an improvement over past waiver policy. Reason is that it separates the signal type as "HDTV". In the past you could be denied a CBS HDTV waiver from E* if you had access to an SD only station.


Don, 
Does this mean that if a local OTA digital is not providing HDTV, that the satellite Co. can provided the subscriber with the respective HDTV network channel?


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

If this happens it could push many people (myself included) into making the investment in an HD receiver. Very good for the consumer and the satellite companies.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

boylehome said:


> Don,
> Does this mean that if a local OTA digital is not providing HDTV, that the satellite Co. can provided the subscriber with the respective HDTV network channel?


At first glance, that is how I read it but you know the drill... "The Devil's in the details."

For me, locally only UPN may be a candidate as we have no UPN station here.

I say where was this when I needed it 3 years ago? We do pretty good here in Jacksonville today with most stations doing HDTV as well as two nor doing DD5.1. It keeps getting better every month!


----------



## dallas_axelrod (Apr 24, 2004)

A friend on the hill has told me that the bill is available at http://www.house.gov/rules/h4818billtext.htm. Once on this page, click on the link for "Division J - Other Matters." The bill starts on page 122.

Perhaps someone can translate it for all of us...


----------



## aenea (Apr 21, 2004)

On page 192 there is a paragraph titled "Local to Local Analog Markets". The way I read that a DBS provider can provide a distant digital signal if they are providing analog LIL, but not digital LIL, to that area and the subscriber is receiving the LIL analog channels. 

There are restrictions on not providing a distant signal from an earlier time zone and something about bandwidth that I didn't quite follow, but if analog LIL is being received there don't seem to be any sort of signal test requirements to provide a distant digital signal.


----------



## Vermonter (Nov 15, 2004)

Experts; Many MANY thanks for the updates; however between the thread here and that over on Satellite guys I cannot resolve one question..what happens when one or more of your local affiliates sends the HD feed to cable but not OTA? Here in northern VT the towers are still 2 years out for NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX but WCAX (CBS) is feeding Adelphia HD...so the only way you can get any HD is cable. I think that does NOT count and I should be homefree..correct? And that is true because D* just added Burlington locals a few weeks ago off 72.5.

This is good 'cause ALL the locals strictly deny waivers as policy.


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

aenea said:


> The way I read that a DBS provider can provide a distant digital signal if they are providing analog LIL, but not digital LIL, to that area and the subscriber is receiving the LIL analog channels.


Yeah that's what someone else pointed out as well and it doesn't make anysense at all... Is this saying that as long as satellite carries a stations Analog LIL they can give the customer digital distants? If that's the case i can't see where the stations would like that. How does that motivate satellite to carry local DTV stations?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

tweaver999 said:


> This from USPolitics Today about spending bill passed today.
> 
> "Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."
> 
> ...


The bill also says Congressional staff can look at anybody's IRS records. Someone slipped it in. They better take it out, like they say! :mad2: :mad2:


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

I could be mistaken, but the way I read it to mean is that if your satellite provider is providing your analog LIL and you sub too them, and 1 or more of your local major network channels are not broadcasting a local digital signal yet, then you can receive 1 or more out of market HD channel(s) from your satellite provider as long as it is the same or latter time zone. I suspect that if a local channel(s) is passing on an HD signal to your local cable company directly, but not broadcasting the signals then you should still be eligible for the out of market HD channel(s). It does not seam clear however what happens if your local broadcater(s) are broadcasting in HD, but at low power where few people can actually receive the signal. It appears like in these digital low power situations many will be out of luck until the FCC can establish separate digital receive qualification standards because in many cases the locals are broadcasting in HD, but low power.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Paul Secic said:


> The bill also says Congressional staff can look at anybody's IRS records. Someone slipped it in. They better take it out, like they say! :mad2: :mad2:


Sen. McCain talked about this on a Sunday AM talk show today - some 2-bit staffer stuck it in. It's now gone, and I'll guess the staffer might get nailed, too (or not). McCain used this a an example of the flaws in the system, and he wants to fix it.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Did anyone actually see the word HD anywhere? It is a really confusing piece of legislation, but I keep reading digital signals, I did not not see HD specifically mentioned, or is this simply implied?

Walter


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

wkomorow said:


> Did anyone actually see the word HD anywhere? It is a really confusing piece of legislation, but it I keep reading digital signals, I did not not see HD specifically mentioned, or is this simply implied?
> 
> Walter


I'm sure glad you asked. I didn't see HD or HDTV anywhere. I did a word search and came up with zip.


----------



## SPENCER (Dec 19, 2003)

Over the next several years, the bill will allow satellite TV carriers to begin offering distant high definition TV network channels to many consumers if the local broadcasters lapse on their promises to Congress to begin broadcasting full-power HDTV to their viewers. 

The bill would allow EchoStar to provide the HDTV networks to subscribers who currently qualify as unserved by analog local-TV signals -- a much smaller universe than 40 million households, a Senate source said.

In a few years, the bill includes a provision that makes subscribers eligible for distant HDTV feeds if tests show that they can’t get the programming locally, a Senate source said


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

-Viewers can only receive waivers for a distant station that airs primetime programming at the same time or after their "primetime"

This means those on the west coast would have to count on Alaska/Hawaii feeds to get a different feed, those in Hawaii are just out of luck on getting a different time zone.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

I've been trying to figure out the reason for the timezone restriction, and all I can come up with is that it's a bone thrown to the locals - they now get 'first chance' to snag the viewers of any given show.

Of course, it screws the left coasters - but that's just a bonus.  :lol: :rolling:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dallas_axelrod said:


> A friend on the hill has told me that the bill is available at http://www.house.gov/rules/h4818billtext.htm. Once on this page, click on the link for "Division J - Other Matters." The bill starts on page 122.
> 
> Perhaps someone can translate it for all of us...


There is a special forum for the interpretation ... it is the *SHVIRA Discussion* forum.

And yes, HD <> Digital TV. Digital TV includes HDTV, but can also be digital at less than HD.

JL


----------



## awp (Jun 1, 2004)

Now that shrill voice for lousy local broadcasters everywhere is calling this a win for them on all accounts at: http://www.nab.org/Newsroom/PressRel/statements/112204SHVIAbill.htm

Here in Rochester NY, the local content is SO horrible and under funded that I point my rooftop antenna at Toronto and get their national early news on Global


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

A couple of thoughts after reviewing the bill. 

Pages 132 and 141 (of the PDF version) appear to revoke some waivers, while page 142 preserves other waivers. Can anyone tell what waivers survive the act

Pages 168-169 speak in terms of bandwidth. Is this where HD comes into play?

Pages 191-192 seem to say if you had the legal right to receive a distant digital station, that right survives enactment of the new law.

I now have a waiver from my local CBS station. I get both analog feeds from NYC and LA and digital from NY. It looks like I may lose the analog feeds (which I seldom watch) but keep the digital distant.

Does that sound right?

MIKE


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2004)

tweaver999 said:


> This from USPolitics Today about spending bill passed today.
> 
> "Satellite television companies will be allowed to beam high definition network signals to some remote customers."
> 
> ...


Hope Charlie and company devote appropriate time to this on the next chat... and explain the bill in as much detail as they as it impacts customers.

I've seen so many different articles on this already, and everyone has a different "spin."


----------

