# Distant Networks: STELA reauth, DNS and LiL



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting article at Multichannel, apparently some in Congress want to pressure Directv to provide locals for the 12 DMAs they current don't:

https://www.multichannel.com/news/s...rectv-for-small-market-remote-area-tv-signals

This is interesting because D14 launched with beams specifically targeted at some of these DMAs (such as Ottumwa IA) but they never added locals for them. My guess at the time it launched was that by moving beams around between D14 and D11/D12 they'd be able to cover all markets, but if not they can definitely cover most of the missing dozen markets. The rest could be covered with CONUS transponders which they will have spare capacity on by the end of the year.

So if they can cover some/all markets, why have they never added locals for them? The only reason I can think of is because it costs money for them to set up a local receive facility to deliver the locals to one of the regional uplink sites, and then they need equipment at those sites to uplink them to the satellites. These are small markets, and probably they don't see a return on investment.

If Congress wants to play hardball, they could remove Directv's ability to provide DNS to customers in those markets (or entirely by eliminating their right to provide them for customers with grandfathered DNS) so this might force them into adding locals for those markets. Or if Directv won't budge, they might be forced to drop DNS at the end of the year when the current STELA expires.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

Congress should also allow providers like Dish and DirecTV to deliver a DNS alternative when those greedy local station owners demand more money and pull their signals.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

"instead of nearby media markets "that may carry important and relevant local news and alerts." They conceded the current law allows that but didn't see why AT&T didn't try to deliver in-region news" 

This ^ is what always bugged the hell out of me.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

242424 said:


> "instead of nearby media markets "that may carry important and relevant local news and alerts." They conceded the current law allows that but didn't see why AT&T didn't try to deliver in-region news"
> 
> This ^ is what always bugged the hell out of me.


The rules are different for delivering neighboring DMAs for cable than they are for satellite, so Directv may not have a choice in such cases. Even if Congress fixed that discrepancy, the spot beams are what they are, so if they don't reach they can't do it regardless.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

another citation:

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/n...rectv-for-small-market-remote-area-tv-signals


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> The rules are different for delivering neighboring DMAs for cable than they are for satellite, so Directv may not have a choice in such cases. Even if Congress fixed that discrepancy, the spot beams are what they are, so if they don't reach they can't do it regardless.


I'm less than 5 miles away from the neighboring DMA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Interesting article at Multichannel, apparently some in Congress want to pressure Directv to provide locals for the 12 DMAs they current don't:


It is a shame that it is an issue. DIRECTV should have covered all markets years ago.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree, but Congress trying to force it today when satellite has begun an inevitably permanent decline seems pointless and futile. If they cared they should have required it a decade ago. If they make it a condition of Directv keeping DNS after this year, they'll probably choose to drop DNS rather than spend the money to add those remaining DMAs because it is pretty obvious they've already decided the investment isn't worth it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has DNS ... they also offer Local into Local in every market as a condition to having permission to have DNS service restored.
DISH will fight to keep DNS because they rely on the service to deliver major networks in markets that do not have affiliates for all four.
If Congress allows distants to drop they will need to redefine how these gaps will be filled or people will lose their stations.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

DirecTV does similar things for markets that don't have local affiliates of any of the big 5 or PBS. They either remap one of the national feeds, or import a neighboring market's affiliate if the spotbeam covers it. (i.e. Mankato where they use the Minneapolis affiliates for ABC, NBC and CW and the PBS national feed or Zanesville where they use the Columbus affiliates for ABC, CBS and Fox, and the national DNS feeds for CW and PBS)

Without DNS, or any replacement provision for markets like that, they'll be forced to drop the missing networks from those markets, or only provide them to bordering counties on the significantly viewed list.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

I have no use for "Local" channels. I get shows from the 4 main networks by other means. I do have them from DirecTV, but I never watch them, and don't record anything from them. Unfortunately, I still have to see annoying commercials that usually only play on those Local Channels, from time to time, because of the Commercial insertion that DirecTV does.

The local channels around here will have "Breaking News" anytime it rains for more than a few minutes, with "live on scene" reports. They will preempt shows to show this "news". Sorry, but Local channel "News" is so out-dated, they should get rid of it completely. Even the "local" radio stations all have syndicated shows on them, with very little local content. They are basically just a repeater with local commercials (and lots of them). They have changed with the times, TV Channels just refuse to.

Imagine how much capacity would be saved if all they had to do was provide a national feed for everyone. And they should be provided to all providers for free, since all 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox) are advertiser supported networks. And we, as customers, should not be charged for them from our provider either.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Richard said:


> I have no use for "Local" channels. I get shows from the 4 main networks by other means. I do have them from DirecTV, but I never watch them, and don't record anything from them. Unfortunately, I still have to see annoying commercials that usually only play on those Local Channels, from time to time, because of the Commercial insertion that DirecTV does.
> 
> The local channels around here will have "Breaking News" anytime it rains for more than a few minutes, with "live on scene" reports. They will preempt shows to show this "news". Sorry, but Local channel "News" is so out-dated, they should get rid of it completely. Even the "local" radio stations all have syndicated shows on them, with very little local content. They are basically just a repeater with local commercials (and lots of them). They have changed with the times, TV Channels just refuse to.
> 
> Imagine how much capacity would be saved if all they had to do was provide a national feed for everyone. And they should be provided to all providers for free, since all 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox) are advertiser supported networks. And we, as customers, should not be charged for them from our provider either.


Every provider does commercial insertion, not just Directv. If you switched to cable you'd have the same thing. The insertion replaces another commercial, so you aren't getting more commercials, just different ones.

Just because networks are advertiser supported doesn't mean they have to be free. They pay billions in rights fees for their programming (especially sports) far more than they make via advertising. Since you say you watch what you want on the networks by other means you probably don't watch sports, in which case you'd probably be better off dropping Directv and watching everything via the same "other means" you watch network programming... Pretty much everything on cable is available via streaming, and even if you have to pay for it it'll cost you a lot less than you are paying Directv each month.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Richard said:


> I have no use for "Local" channels. I get shows from the 4 main networks by other means. I do have them from DirecTV, but I never watch them, and don't record anything from them. Unfortunately, I still have to see annoying commercials that usually only play on those Local Channels, from time to time, because of the Commercial insertion that DirecTV does.


If you are seeing commercials on your LOCAL TV stations they are being put there by your local station.
From a technical aspect, if you're not watching the channels via DIRECTV there is no way DIRECTV could insert an ad (other than paying and getting placed on the OTA feed like other advertisers).
From a legal aspect, the laws that allow DIRECTV to retransmit the station do not allow DIRECTV to edit the station content. DIRECTV cannot insert ads on local station channel feeds.
(What DIRECTV can do is insert ads on national "cable channels" such as Fox News, CNN, Comedy Central, Fox Sports, ESPN, etc. Not local into local service.)

So either you are confused as to what a local channel is or you are confused as to what you're seeing. On national channels yes, you will get ads and ads inserted by your provider. Only "premium" channels are commercial free.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Richard said:


> Imagine how much capacity would be saved if all they had to do was provide a national feed for everyone. And they should be provided to all providers for free, since all 4 (ABC, CBS, NBC & Fox) are advertiser supported networks. And we, as customers, should not be charged for them from our provider either.


the NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL. college basketball / college football have local games that are not national


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Keep in mind that the only reason Dish had the DNS rights taken away was because they were abusing or defying the laws for who qualified. Wouldnt be fair if they mandated DirecTV had to add the remaining markets to keep theirs. Dish ONLY did it because that was the only way they could get DNS back after being so careless with having it the first time.

The other part of this for me is this bill needs to take care of the orphan counties and not sweep it back under the rug. I am tired of living in Oklahoma but being forced to get my locals from Kansas and Missouri. I found out several years ago about the Significantly Viewed exclusion and convinced 2 of the 3 big 4 from Tulsa (in state DMA) to add them with DirecTV so we do get 2 in state local channels from a neighboring DMA. But I want it fixed for all providers. I am working on trying to get my market changed to the Tulsa DMA. I found online where a county in Colorado petitioned the FCC a few years ago and got it approved to change from New Mexico to Denver. Its been blocked since and is still tired up but we are much shorter distances away from our in state locals than Colorado was. Devner was 335 miles from the county that won the petition. So in end I would settle for some government intervention that says every provider has to offer one in state local channel that covers weather and the local channels have to offer out of market channels at a discount but I will keep working to have my entire county changed to the in state local DMA.

I have called several Congressmen, Committee for Commerce and Energy and many others already. This is serious. We need to get this bill done the correct way this time. Not just reauthorize it for another 5 years. I will be looking to see when they finally have hearings on this. Its been frustrating as my Congressman is not on the committee that votes on this but when I call a Congressman's office that is on the committee, they dont want to talk to me cause I am not in their area. The New Mexico Congressman has the same issue with Orphan Counties and should be all about this. More to come but its time to get this figured out this time.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Unfortunately this is going to be way down the priority list for congressmen, when compared with the big issues you read about in the news. It is easier to just say "five more years of the same".

Especially now since any of them that ask their staff (mostly twenty something millennials that hope to be congressmen or lobbyists someday) they'll be told it doesn't matter since streaming is replacing cable/satellite anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> Keep in mind that the only reason Dish had the DNS rights taken away was because they were abusing or defying the laws for who qualified. Wouldnt be fair if they mandated DirecTV had to add the remaining markets to keep theirs. Dish ONLY did it because that was the only way they could get DNS back after being so careless with having it the first time.


In the process DISH proved that it was possible to deliver LIL service into every market. Do you think it is fair that DIRECTV is ignoring their customers in the remaining markets?

As noted above, this is 2019. Not carrying LIL in every market shouldn't be something DIRECTV is missing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

No one ever doubted it was possible, the only doubt is whether it makes economic sense.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> In the process DISH proved that it was possible to deliver LIL service into every market. Do you think it is fair that DIRECTV is ignoring their customers in the remaining markets?
> 
> As noted above, this is 2019. Not carrying LIL in every market shouldn't be something DIRECTV is missing.


Thats not the point here James. DISH wouldnt have done it if their hand was not forced for their bad business practices. Why should DirecTV be held to the same standard when they followed the laws that DISH did not?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> No one ever doubted it was possible, the only doubt is whether it makes economic sense.


Thats a good point to. Dish chose that it was worth the investment to get DNS back. These go hand in hand though. DISH lost the DNS rights because they did something wrong. Does anyone honestly believe Dish would of added the last ones they were missing if they were not forced to, to get DNS back?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> Thats not the point here James. DISH wouldnt have done it if their hand was not forced for their bad business practices. Why should DirecTV be held to the same standard when they followed the laws that DISH did not?


I suppose your point is you would rather turn this into a rebuke of DISH than a rebuke of DIRECTV. *DIRECTV has made the choice not to serve their customers.* It is OK if you're OK with that. No need to deflect to irrelevant statements.

LIL isn't economical. That is the reason why satellite services (including those before DBS) initially offered the same channels nationally. When that was declared a violation of copyright by the Supreme Court, Congress responded by creating LIL and Distants services. LIL provided a framework for stations to either demand carriage or demand compensation (not both) for their signals. Distants provided a framework for serving the unserved.

Perhaps it is time for Congress to remove all grandfathering ... make distants an RV and short market service only based on currently available stations in each market.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

Perhaps it's time to redraw DMA's


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

Really, they need to rewrite some of the rules but I don't see that happening this cycle.

To build on some of James's previous posts. I would want something that puts cable and satellite on equal footing. Like the significantly viewed list is only a starting point. The problem is that list isn't practical, in most cases it's just the big 4. This doesn't help independent and non-commercial stations which tend to have towers and signals that don't originate in the center of a market. Because of cable carriage and OTA presence they frequently cover local news and issues for those in between areas that straddle two or more markets, but there's nothing that currently allows them to get satellite carriage. Plus, even if they can get themselves on a significantly viewed list, there's no motive for satellite providers to carry them in those additional areas, and in non-commercial cases they can't get on the significantly viewed list at all.

i.e. here in the Poconos, there's 3 big Lehigh Valley stations who define their area as Eastern PA and Western NJ. WFMZ is an independent commercial station that frequently covers news in counties that are considered part of the Scranton and NYC DMAs, and even puts local school closings from those counties on their ticker. Since WLVT is a secondary PBS station, it doesn't conflict with the primary stations for the rights to key content and also has a small local news operation that covers news in those counties. There's also WBPH which is a religious independent that covers a local niche that none of the other stations do. But because of the significantly viewed list only rule, none of them can currently get neighboring market carriage on satellite.

They should addon to the rules so it won't only be DMA defined, but also account for OTA presence. The same rules that disqualifies people from getting DNS because of having a strong enough OTA reception with an outdoor antenna should go both ways and also allow those stations to get carriage in neighboring counties. To make it less complicated, they should just base it on counties covered by a stations service contour, and make those areas considered "in market" so any home DMA carriage deals also apply to those areas, and protect them from any syndex abuse to limit competition. (i.e. since WPIX wasn't on the list, the local Sinclair owned MyNetwork and CW stations pretty much forced them off the cable lineups by issuing syndex blackouts for shows WPIX aired during the daytime that they weren't airing until 3am, while the Sinclair owned Fox channel tried to get WFMZ off of a cable system in Luzerne county because WFMZ aired a Dr. Phil encore during primetime, even though barely anyone watches WFMZ during primetime)


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

242424 said:


> Perhaps it's time to redraw DMA's


The DMAs do get redrawn from time to time, a while back Nielsen shifted a bunch of bordering counties to different DMAs, likely related to how some OTA coverage areas changed with the digital transition.

Doing it for every "orphan" county so it will be part of a market in their home state would probably do more harm than good though, especially in bordering areas. i.e. Pike County PA is better served by the Scranton stations news wise and the local cable company carries both the NYC and Scranton stations, however moving them to Scranton will result in satellite subscribers losing a ton of independent, Spanish, ethnic, PBS stations and NYC OTA sports teams that they get by being in the NYC market, leaving them with just the Big 6 and one PBS stations that have to give priority to Philly and Pittsburgh sports. OTA wise for most of the county NYC reception is better than Scranton because of the mountain ridges blocking the Scranton stations and giving most of the county a better shot to NYC. Plus because of the easy access to NYC via 84 and 80, much of the area has a lot more economic ties to places in the NYC DMA than they do the Scranton DMA. It's the NYC stations that are giving them the traffic reports for their morning commute, the Scranton stations don't even pay attention to local commuter traffic unless it's a newsworthy multivehicle accident, or a puff piece involving people complaining about construction to address an issue that they were also previously complaining about. For "in state" issues, they and many other bordering counties already qualify for in state stations that are listed as significantly viewed, but for whatever reason DirecTV and Dish still haven't added them.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> I suppose your point is you would rather turn this into a rebuke of DISH than a rebuke of DIRECTV. *DIRECTV has made the choice not to serve their customers.* It is OK if you're OK with that. No need to deflect to irrelevant statements.
> 
> LIL isn't economical. That is the reason why satellite services (including those before DBS) initially offered the same channels nationally. When that was declared a violation of copyright by the Supreme Court, Congress responded by creating LIL and Distants services. LIL provided a framework for stations to either demand carriage or demand compensation (not both) for their signals. Distants provided a framework for serving the unserved.
> 
> Perhaps it is time for Congress to remove all grandfathering ... make distants an RV and short market service only based on currently available stations in each market.


As usual we disagree. Do I want DirecTV to cover all DMA's locals, yes. Do I think they should be forced to do it, no. Do I think Dish Network would of done it if their had was not forced from them violating the law, no. Do I think its fair to hold another business accountable for someone else's mistakes when they didnt break any of the rules, no. In the end its business decision and I am okay with not all of the DMA's not being on DirecTV. Mine was one of them for a long long time that was missing. Its also not fair to say DirecTV should have to provide them to all DMA's in my opinion because no other provider besides Dish Network has done that and they had the choice of doing it or not as well. For them they thought DNS was important enough to do it but make no mistake, they wouldnt have if they didnt have to to get DNS back.

As for removing grandfathering, not sure that really helps or hurts this cause. I mean if it helped people in some way for me to not have my DNS then I would do away with it but I do like them and plan to keep them.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

KyL416 said:


> The DMAs do get redrawn from time to time, a while back Nielsen shifted a bunch of bordering counties to different DMAs, likely related to how some OTA coverage areas changed with the digital transition.
> 
> Doing it for every "orphan" county so it will be part of a market in their home state would probably do more harm than good though, especially in bordering areas. i.e. Pike County PA is better served by the Scranton stations news wise and the local cable company carries both the NYC and Scranton stations, however moving them to Scranton will result in satellite subscribers losing a ton of independent, Spanish, ethnic, PBS stations and NYC OTA sports teams that they get by being in the NYC market, leaving them with just the Big 6 and one PBS stations that have to give priority to Philly and Pittsburgh sports. OTA wise for most of the county NYC reception is better than Scranton because of the mountain ridges blocking the Scranton stations and giving most of the county a better shot to NYC. Plus because of the easy access to NYC via 84 and 80, much of the area has a lot more economic ties to places in the NYC DMA than they do the Scranton DMA. It's the NYC stations that are giving them the traffic reports for their morning commute, the Scranton stations don't even pay attention to local commuter traffic unless it's a newsworthy multivehicle accident, or a puff piece involving people complaining about construction to address an issue that they were also previously complaining about. For "in state" issues, they and many other bordering counties already qualify for in state stations that are listed as significantly viewed, but for whatever reason DirecTV and Dish still haven't added them.


In my area, the locals that are 30 miles away but they dont cover us good for weather. We are under tornado warnings sometimes and they go back to live programming after 30 seconds cause we are the only county under it. We are the furthest south in the DMA. The DMA in state that is south of us covers the weather coming up to us so we know ahead of time. If the local DMA we are in was doing their job and what they are obligated to do since they have the exclusive rights to this area, I dont think there would be any complaints but they dont do that so there are and we want better in state locals that do cover us. I understand that every DMA and orphan county is a little different. Look at the one in Colorado that is getting locals from Albequrque NM 220+ miles away. You cant tell me that those locals adequately cover that far away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> As for removing grandfathering, not sure that really helps or hurts this cause. I mean if it helped people in some way for me to not have my DNS then I would do away with it but I do like them and plan to keep them.


It would remove one of the annoyances the broadcasters have with the distants service. Providing a distant channel when no other channel is available is a different offering than providing a distant channel that competes with a station within that market. The station in the market is paying the network affiliation fees on the basis of being the exclusive first run provider of that network's content. It is understandable that OTA signals overlap and there may be some shared exclusive areas. But (from the network/broadcaster's point of view) those areas are covered - there is no need for a distant station.

The NAB is arguing that there is no need for a distant station anywhere (short markets, RVs, etc). They would rather "find other ways" to reach the remaining distants customers. Ways that they can charge for, no doubt.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> It would remove one of the annoyances the broadcasters have with the distants service. Providing a distant channel when no other channel is available is a different offering than providing a distant channel that competes with a station within that market. The station in the market is paying the network affiliation fees on the basis of being the exclusive first run provider of that network's content. It is understandable that OTA signals overlap and there may be some shared exclusive areas. But (from the network/broadcaster's point of view) those areas are covered - there is no need for a distant station.
> 
> The NAB is arguing that there is no need for a distant station anywhere (short markets, RVs, etc). They would rather "find other ways" to reach the remaining distants customers. Ways that they can charge for, no doubt.


I have never heard the NAB come up with a solution to the problem if there wasnt distants. They also always lose the argument on blackouts because there is always more blackouts than before causing customers to be caught in the middle. This is the same group that things music artists should not compensated for their music played on the radio yet lord almighty do they want heavily compensated for any TV channels. I dont have any respect for them as a group. They seem to be a group that only looks out for their interests and not what is best for anyone but them. They can go suck an egg for all I care. That being said, I do hope they get called to a renewal hearing for it this time as well. I like watching them sound like selfish spoiled rich people at the Energy and Commerce meetings. At least DirecTV and Dish always sound practical and from a customers point of view. Its not totally about money to them or it is but they understand they need us to pay it for them to make money.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> I have never heard the NAB come up with a solution to the problem if there wasnt distants.


They have not detailed a plan - but they claim that distants are not needed.



joshjr said:


> I dont have any respect for them as a group.


That is obvious ... and also irrelevant. They don't need your respect or mine to influence the process.



joshjr said:


> At least DirecTV and Dish always sound practical and from a customers point of view. Its not totally about money to them or it is but they understand they need us to pay it for them to make money.


DISH and DIRECTV certainly seem to have a better PR approach. This will be AT&T|DIRECTV's (the evil empire's) first renewal after the merger. We'll see how well their PR game works. The apparent favoritism for their own channels on DIRECTV NOW (and from a channel perspective for DIRECTV and UVERSE) may be called into question as they push for "fair" coverage of network affiliates.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> They have not detailed a plan - but they claim that distants are not needed.
> 
> That is obvious ... and also irrelevant. They don't need your respect or mine to influence the process.
> 
> DISH and DIRECTV certainly seem to have a better PR approach. This will be AT&T|DIRECTV's (the evil empire's) first renewal after the merger. We'll see how well their PR game works. The apparent favoritism for their own channels on DIRECTV NOW (and from a channel perspective for DIRECTV and UVERSE) may be called into question as they push for "fair" coverage of network affiliates.


Any thoughts on this new article: https://www.multichannel.com/news/dish-directv-provide-hill-partial-answers-on-stelar


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

The NAB will say anything. They are such pieces of sh**. Cant stand them. They truly dont care if someone can get all 4 of the big 4 or not. Just screw everyone! So sick of this mentality. Im sure the act will get renewed. Appears that even though I had my DNS feed legitimately that they are going away in about a month. I will work with my Congressman to address the orphan county issues in this bill instead I guess and watch from a far.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

joshjr said:


> The NAB will say anything. They are such pieces of sh**. Cant stand them. They truly dont care if someone can get all 4 of the big 4 or not. Just screw everyone! So sick of this mentality. Im sure the act will get renewed. Appears that even though I had my DNS feed legitimately that they are going away in about a month. I will work with my Congressman to address the orphan county issues in this bill instead I guess and watch from a far.


How did you find out they were going away in a month? I currently have DNS too but didn't get one of these emails asking for verification.

I guess if mine goes away I'll just "move" to NYC on YouTube TV


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I didn't mean to alarm anyone. I meant they were going away for me. Not for anyone else.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

The best part about DNS and having multiple affiliates in general is you can adjust viewing habits to avoid unnecessary disruptions for weather hype and stupid tickers. I have at least 2 of all of the main networks thankfully, due to SV. 3 ABC! Those stations are quite a distance apart and are unlikely to have the same interruption for "oh no, SNOW IN NEW ENGLAND!" or tickers for the same or closures. I also have DNS NBC which I use for all my recording since I pay for it. Locals can really suck in some markets and having the option to pay for a "real" affiliate should be something we all have. 

Examples:
3 WCAX CBS Vermont: They often do not switch the DD 5.1 for anything but primetime network CBS or NFL. That is IT. 4 WBZ Boston is always DD 5.1

2 WGBH Boston/11 WENH NH PBS: These two PBS affiliates will turn on the DD 5.1 when it is available. 33 VT PBS does not ever use DD 5.1

25 WFXT Boston Fox: How is this channel allowed to be a Fox affiliate in a major city? It is pure hype news so much of the day and many commercial breaks go a little long and cut off the beginning of the show/game. 44 WFFF Vermont is better about all that. 

Many markets have examples of crappy affiliates. Most people do not have a choice. One county in any direction, and I would only have 1 set. Since so many are crappy and many markets are missing affiliates altogether, this idea that stations have to compete with real affiliates and a complete market shouldn't be thought of as a bad thing.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

My Twitter feed has had quite a few promoted tweets trying to kill STELAR when it expires at the end of this year.
















And NAB has quite a few tweets about the 12 areas that don't receive local channels via satellite.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

I hope grandfathering remains, many have had them since the 90’s and with that have grown accustom to these DNS channels.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

I have said this in the past. What DIRECTV, DISH, and any other Satellite Provider out there should be allowed to do is provide the one major market by according to what time zone a person lives in if they want to subscribe in addition to your cities local networks. In the Eastern Time Zone anyone with Satellite Service should be able to subscribe to New York Locals. Anyone in the Central Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Chicago Locals. Anyone in the Mountain Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Denver Locals & anyone in the West Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Los Angeles Locals. Use the 4 most major markets in each time zone and allow people to subscribe to them if they want to. If we are willing to pay to see the distants we should have the option to order them and watch them. I know it will probably never ever happen. But it needs to.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rob37 said:


> I have said this in the past. What DIRECTV, DISH, and any other Satellite Provider out there should be allowed to do is provide the one major market by according to what time zone a person lives in if they want to subscribe in addition to your cities local networks. In the Eastern Time Zone anyone with Satellite Service should be able to subscribe to New York Locals. Anyone in the Central Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Chicago Locals. Anyone in the Mountain Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Denver Locals & anyone in the West Time Zone should be able to subscribe to Los Angeles Locals. Use the 4 most major markets in each time zone and allow people to subscribe to them if they want to. If we are willing to pay to see the distants we should have the option to order them and watch them. I know it will probably never ever happen. But it needs to.


Why does it "need to"? Cable doesn't, why should satellite?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

For the most part it is cheaper for cable to pick up local channels in market and deliver them to in market customers. It is certainly cheaper for cable than satellite. DISH and DIRECTV must maintain a network of local receive points serving every market and backhauls to get those signals to the correct uplink center. The backhauls are shorter or non-existent for cable systems.

It is a competitive advantage to have local channels. While it would be cheaper to provide one set of network channels per time zone (and pointless to carry Chicago locals at the same network time as New York locals) it would provide less service to satellite customers. Distants are a fall back - a "safety net" for subscribers who cannot get those network channels any other way. They are not a replacement for local into local service. Having only distant channels instead of local into local would mean losing content.

Strict time zone based distants would be troublesome. I live within 100 miles of Chicago but I am in New York time. Given that Eastern and Central programming is on at the same time Chicago would be a closer market if only four were available via satellite. But the reality is Indianapolis would be a better market to get in state news and South Bend (the market I am in) is the best market to receive local and state news (and I still get news from Chicago that is important to people in my market). I would not get that from a New York distant. TV is more than network programming.

No, satellite does not "need" to provide distants nationwide. What satellite (and cable) needs is a better deal for delivering in market locals.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

slice1900 said:


> Why does it "need to"? Cable doesn't, why should satellite?


 If any customer is willing to pay for distants we should be able to subscribe to them plain & simple. It's about choice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The networks and stations would like the choice to sell their content per the affiliation contracts that they have agreed to follow.
The networks have sold each affiliate market exclusive "first run" contracts where each affiliate has the right of first airing of the content on the network.
If an affiliate decides not to air the content the network can find another station or outlet. But it would be a violation of that contract for the network to deliver that content through another station during the first run period. Stations are also limited from delivering the content outside of their defined market (generally their OTA signal coverage area - allowing for overlaps between affiliate stations).
With those restrictions in place, neither network nor station could agree to have their signals transmitted outside of the contract.

Now enter Congress ... they have written laws that (in a sense) violate that contract. For local stations they have extended the market to a defined "designated market area". A low power station with a 20 mile OTA signal can be delivered via cable or satellite anywhere within the DMA ... even if another affiliate's OTA signal overlaps. No permission from the network or station is needed for this extension to fill the DMA - so neither side is violating the contract. The law also defines "significantly viewed" stations that can be outside of the DMA but are received by a significant number of viewers OTA. The laws covering local into local and significantly viewed stations do not expire.

As for distants, they have a specific legal definition (the four networks defined decades ago) and an affiliate of one of those four networks can be delivered anywhere outside of their own market under specific restrictions. Those restrictions are designed to protect in market delivery by the affiliates that have purchased the rights to deliver the content and have become more strict since they were first written. The distants law violates the contract between network and affiliates. Neither the network nor station can agree to carriage as a distant and (as defined by law) distants are carried without the permission of the network or station.

The compromise is that the delivery of distants should not do harm to networks or their affiliates. Strictly following the law, the channels should not be delivered where they would conflict with a local station with an affiliation agreement. Payment to the copyright holders of the content delivered (normally paid by a local affiliate through the network) is covered by a statutory rate set by the copyright office.

"Any station, any where" doesn't fit within the affiliation contract.

I do not know what you do for a living or what industry pays your paycheck. Perhaps it is an industry that has heavier government interference than the distants laws. If it does, there is probably a good reason for that government interference (such as the safety of the public and/or workers). For the government to interfere further with the network affiliation contracts there would need to be a compelling reason. And while "any station, any where" or an extra station per time zone would be a nice choice for some consumers ... businesses should also have the choice to run without unnecessary government interference.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I have a more basic question. 

NAB is lobbying Congress to let STELA expire at the end of this year. They are using as their main argument that SAT TV, specifically DIRECTV, isn't providing local stations to all their viewers (yes, I know, only in 12 markets).

What does NAB get if STELA expires? I'm assuming there is another reason other than 12 markets not getting covered with local stations.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

There needs to be a way for consumers to get more than just 1 Television Market. There are instances where sometimes you cannot receive programs because local networks do idiotic things like pre-empt network programming and there needs to be a new rule that says if you are a CBS, NBC, FOX, or ABC Affiliate. No Matter What is going on, those affiliates cannot cut away from network programs under any circumstances period. Unless that market is experiencing bad weather. The consumer should have a choice if they want to subscribe to distant network television service.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Get congress to interfere by changing the law ... or get the networks to relax their affiliation agreements. I expect neither to happen.

"Affiliates cannot cut away from network programs under any circumstances period?" No thank you.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I think he means when the local channel airs a local show and preempts a network show. Happens quite often with my locals but they usually put the network show on around 1:00 or 2:00 am the next morning.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

b4pjoe said:


> I think he means when the local channel airs a local show and preempts a network show. Happens quite often with my locals but they usually put the network show on around 1:00 or 2:00 am the next morning.


The affiliation agreement says the local channel gets exclusivity for the first airing. That airing does not have to be at the same time the network airs the programming. If the affiliate has programming that better serves their market (such as sports, politics or a community fund raiser) it makes sense to put that on during prime time or on the main channel carried by satellite/cable, moving the network programming to an OTA sub channel.

In the past affiliates have decided not to air certain network programming due to content. (Remember that it is the AFFILIATES that receive FCC fines for violating community standards for the content that is aired. Community standards in a small rural market may not allow the same content as community standards in an urban market.) In any case, it is up to the affiliate when to air network programming or whether to air specific programs at all - regardless of reason. That is the agreement the network has made.

If a station preempts too much programming they may lose their affiliation during the next renewal ... assuming the network can find another station to air their content.

Even weather interruptions are a hot topic. Some stations seem to break in for "non-life threatening" weather events. They also post "school closings" on screen for pre-schools and day cares that would be better served by calling all ten of their parents. A million people do not need to know that Itsy Bity Daycare - serving 10 children - is closed tomorrow. But the far end of that argument is the tornado warning in the clip above. Absolutely a "life threatening" event and yet people still complained. People are still complaining and saying nasty things about the weatherman and station.

At what point does the rights of the stations and networks end and the desires of the consumer override those rights? The last I checked, the stations and networks have the rights. They are protected under copyright law and they have supreme court rulings supporting their right to distribute their content via the network/affiliate agreements I have described in this thread. The stations also have the right (supported by the supreme court) to deny rebroadcast of their signals via satellite and cable - even if there is no other channel carrying that content - and with their exclusivity they can also block other channels from carrying the content they deny carriage. All of this is within their rights as supported by the supreme court.

Consumer rights are limited. As part of their licenses, OTA stations are required to have one feed of some content available to the public OTA without requiring a subscription. That feed does not have to be their network programming. There is nothing guaranteeing consumers any right to view sub-channels or to receive rebroadcasts via cable or satellite. (Cable and satellite are required to offer rebroadcast to local stations, but cable and satellite are not required to pay whatever demands are made by the station nor are stations restricted in the demands that are made.) Consumer rights are far behind the rights of the businesses.

I don't agree with all of the rights that networks and stations have nor do I support the current scheme. But I am "telling it as it is". If you want the situation to change you'll be fighting a battle with people much more powerful than the average consumer and pushing to change laws that are not expiring at the end of the year. Good luck.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I was not arguing against any of the points you made. I just mentioned I didn't think the OP was talking about weather interruptions during network programming.

People are crazy though. I remember the viral facebook post made by a woman who was enraged the networks preempted her soap opera and put news on of the Sandy Hook killings when that happened.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

trh said:


> I have a more basic question.
> 
> NAB is lobbying Congress to let STELA expire at the end of this year. They are using as their main argument that SAT TV, specifically DIRECTV, isn't providing local stations to all their viewers (yes, I know, only in 12 markets).
> 
> What does NAB get if STELA expires? I'm assuming there is another reason other than 12 markets not getting covered with local stations.


What the NAB gets out of this is they strong arm DirecTV into building what is needed for the locals instead of the DNS feeds they provide. Based on that hearing it sounded like it was not practical at all. The NAB is a piece of **** organization that does not care about anyone but themselves. The Energy and Commerce Committee asked their rep several times what would happen if the DNS signals went away. He said it would give DirecTV inventive to come to the negotiating table, also said that local channels were 12 cents (bold face lie). He made a big deal out of being the only person at the table that offers their product for free (via antenna). They were asked about their 2 business models for revenue and that is from advertising which Mr. Smith from the NAB admitting is dying and the retransmission fees they extract from the Satellite providers.

They asked him if they should be coming up with a new way to make money and he just reinterated they were the only ones giving away their product for free. I would of asked what he would plan to do if everyone just put up and antenna then and no one paid them for their channels. Also someone mentioned that over the last 10 years their fees have increased by 2000% and that was not sustainable. He mentioned that it was very low when it started so 2000% wasnt much. What a load of crap. So basically his business model is broken and they plan to ride it out till the market decides to slap them in the face.

One of the ladies pointed out that CBS competes with itself by having the online streaming service and that isnt fair to the MVPDs either. Also mentioned that she paid like $12.13 for her 4 locals channels combined and she does not even make $1 off of that. The guy from the NAB said that all the other channels make a up a lot more of the bill than the local channels do. Well not **** Sherlock. Only an idiot would be surprised that hundreds of channels cost more than 4. The fact that 4 can take up so much of TV budget is what we are talking about. If you only have 100 channels and 4 of them take up 20% of your TV budget, thats a lot. I am for the NAB to make money but we all know this is not sustainable.

I do not like that they just dont care about short markets where there is no local NBC,ABC,CBS or FOX. Point blank, they just dont care. They only care about their high rates and making more money and getting all markets on as many systems at top dollar as they can.

DirecTV was put on the spot for not having the last 12 markets. He said customers can put up antennas in some and get them. Mr. Smith from the NAB said that isnt an option so DirecTV said why is it our responsibility to get your weak signal to more eyes and we have to take on the cost burden to make that happen. Its a great point. The NAB just keeps saying they both need each other but its clear the playing field is not level here. If it was, we wouldnt have so many blackouts.

Also orphan counties came up. I live in one. I live in Oklahoma but my DMA is from Kansas and Missouri. At one point Mr. Smith pointed out greatly why DNS can be an issue. He talked about some town that had DNS instead of their locals and they were learning about a fire in LA instead of ca crop issue in their area. I say this to you Mr. Smith, I get my locals from my DMA and they consistantly ignore our tornoado warnings because we are the furthest south in their area. So instead they air crap like Wheel of Fortune live. The severe weather 95% of the time comes from the south up so we get it first. The in state locals air the weather well before it gets to us but we are forced to get locals from Kansas and Missouri and they just dont cover us good at all. Its a big deal when it gets to them but not us. So I have the same example he had. We have sirens going off in town and the best weather local weather channel cant be bothered to cover us instead wheel of fortune is more important. We need the DNS feeds or something to offer instate locals. DirecTV fortunately does use the significantly viewed laws to give us in state locals (couple channels) but the other providers need the same thing and Significantly Viewed is not something that will work for all other orphan counties. End rant!


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

On my program guide, 360-1 now shows a placecard advising me to go to notvblackouts.com to fill out a form which will then be sent to my local congressperson encouraging STELA reauthorization. Otherwise, the placecard warns me I am “at risk of losing” my distants.

Ooh. S**t’s getting real.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> On my program guide, 360-1 now shows a placecard advising me to go to notvblackouts.com to fill out a form which will then be sent to my local congressperson encouraging STELA reauthorization. Otherwise, the placecard warns me I am "at risk of losing" my distants.
> 
> Ooh. S**t's getting real.


It does not use the word "distants", uses "programming" and the website it directs you to has this:

If Congress allows the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) to expire at the end of 2019, some satellite TV customers - many in rural areas - will no longer have access to network TV programming.

Customers could also face increasing prices and TV blackouts, taking away your ability to view your favorite content.

Does anyone have any idea how Congress will act on this issue?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Does anyone have any idea how Congress will act on this issue?


Pontificate until the end of December, pass a few short term extensions while they pontificate more. Then kick the can to 2024.
That was the pattern followed in 2009/2010. The reauthorization in 2014 went smoother, kicking the can to 2019.

The DIRECTV website linked is promoting kicking the can with no improvements. The NAB is wanting the law to expire, ending out of market channel carriage (in market channels are carried under non-expiring laws).

I do not see either side getting major changes completed (such as the fantasies posted here). Not even my fantasy changes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ATT|DIRECTV Learn more about STELAR


> Without the distant signal license provision, more than 870,000 customers can not watch network TV programming, including:
> * Rural customers in areas where an over-the-air antenna does not work.
> * TV markets with no "local" TV satellite provider.
> * Tailgaters at sporting events.
> ...


Note that three of the five categories are not helped by STELAR.
"Rural customers in areas where an over-the-air antenna does not work." Only grandfathered subscribers would receive distants if there is a network affiliate in their market. If there is an in market affiliate new subscribers would receive the in market station (subject to the station allowing retransmission) under the non-expiring local into local laws.
"Tailgaters at sporting events." There is no provision to provide distants to tailgaters. Distants are provided to "RV and camper enthusiasts" and "Long-haul truckers", provided that they can prove their status based on vehicle registration. (if a customer is tailgating in an RV that is covered under the law they would need to apply for distants using their vehicle registration.)

The most odd category in their list is "TV markets with no "local" TV satellite provider". I believe they meant "TV markets with no "local" TV station for a network". These are commonly called "short markets" and exist where the Designated Market Areas used by the FCC do not include a network station (such as a market with no ABC affiliate). These markets are covered under the current distants laws and satellite carriers are allowed to import a distant channel to complete the channel lineup. Expiry of the current law would remove the imported network stations in most cases. (If a network station qualifies as significantly viewed in a short market it could still be carried in the defined areas where it is significantly viewed. Significantly viewed falls under a non-expiring part of the law.)

I believe the biggest number of subscribers impacted are those in short markets or the full time RV/commercial vehicle categories. While there are grandfathered customers, they should not be the bulk of subscribers receiving distants.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

The last hearing on this was in June I believe and it was before the big Nexstar blackout. If I remember reading right we are at a record high on blackouts. The NAB dont care about the short markets and every time we have one of these hearings they not only prove that they dont care about those customers but they also prove they dont care about the blackouts or the customers. Then the committee just kicks the can down the road again. Until they actually dig in and address the orphan counties and other things that go with this, nothing will change. They will not let this sunset. Mark my words. It wont happen. I doubt they make much changes but rather kick the can for 4 more years.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

I think the big thing here aside from DNS is the "good faith" clause and NAB wants to be free from that shackle. The NAB wants to keep the status quo they currently enjoy but get rid of that "good faith clause" which they don't like.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Has the "good faith" clause been enforced by the FCC?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> Has the "good faith" clause been enforced by the FCC?


Umm.. good question I'm not sure


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

There was a hearing today in the Senate over the STELAR renewal. Below is a link to the hearing should you want to hear it. Also below is my summary I wrote.

The Reauthorization of STELAR

In a Senate hearing today it came out that there is a TV market that one of the big 4 (ABC,NBC,CBS or FOX) only provides their signal to 14% of their designated market area. When asked why the NAB does not use repeaters to get that signal to the customers, the rep replied that AT&T simply chooses not to do so. So as I understand her, she thinks it should be AT&T (DirecTV's) responsibility to extend the signal of a big 4 channel to all of a designated market area. Why is the channel owners itself not responsible for their own signal again? So its okay that they dont fix the issue because they think someone else should do it for them?

Also for counties like Ottawa in Oklahoma, we want in state locals or at least the ability to have access to some in state local channels. For some reason it seems to always be brought up in these hearings but swept under the rug. I dont live in Kansas or Missouri. Its a proven fact that Tulsa covers us better for the emergency information we need and I believe they cover us better for in state sports, politics and other concerns as well.

Some may say that DirecTV offers Tulsa local channels in Miami or Ottawa County and that is correct. I personally worked with the GMs of the 2 Tulsa channels and DirecTV to make that happen a few years ago. While I do have DirecTV and enjoy having a couple Tulsa channels, I would like to see other providers in the area offer them as well. While they have do have the ability to (not necessarily cost effectively) DirecTV is the only one that has chosen to do so.

Todays hearing was to discuss markets that are missing all local channels or a specific one like NBC,ABC,CBS or FOX. There is a bill that if it is not renewed this year, 870,000 customers will lose what they are currently getting which is either a neighboring channel from a nearby market or a channel from NY or LA as the case may be. While we want locals yes, its not always available or not in state. I cant see it being helpful for this bill not getting passed and 870K customers being left without a local channel or any local channels in some cases.

Only the NAB would think that is a good idea. They are the same people that do not think there is an issuer with blackouts when stations are negiiating with MVPD's like DirecTV and Dish Network. Besides reauthirizing this bill, lets fix the problems with short markets missing a local channel and orphan counties that are forced to get local channels from states they dont live in!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

joshjr said:


> There was a hearing today in the Senate over the STELAR renewal. Below is a link to the hearing should you want to hear it. Also below is my summary I wrote.
> 
> The Reauthorization of STELAR
> 
> ...


Bottom line, what is the current politics, will we still have our DNS or not?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

GordonGekko said:


> Bottom line, what is the current politics, will we still have our DNS or not?


This was just a hearing. They have until the end of the year to make up their mind but the usual MO is they sign it for 5 more years without addressing any of the problems with it and then review it in 5 years again, acknowledge there are issues, ignore them, sign it again and kick the can down the road. I'd say there is zero % chance they shut off locals for 870K people to satisfy the NAB who proves time and time again they could care less what's good for the customer.

In the absence of a network station in any market the NAB thinks you should go without. If there is no NBC where you live, you shouldn't get it per them till someone decides to put in an NBC in that market. Seems like crap to me just to keep it local. A distant NBC is better than no NBC or any of the other big 4 for that matter. It'll get approved. Wait and see. My guess is no changes either just like usual.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Where is the right to receive all four major networks enshrined in Federal law?

I would like to see changes to the law to get rid of conflicting rules for satellite vs cable and prohibitions that prevent satellite from carrying the same local stations that cable is required to offer carriage to in narrow cases. And I'd like to see the entire compensation structure revamped. But there is a limit to how far the government should interfere in business.

I place some responsibility on the stations that have been granted licenses to use the public airwaves. If a station is licensed to cover an area they should fulfill their license to cover that area. However, the license requires the station to broadcast their signal - there is no requirement that it be provided via other means (except, thanks to government interference, non-commercial stations). Current law gives commercial stations the choice of whether they want to compel carriage of their signal (on a per system basis) or be compensated for the carriage of their signal. Note that I am referring to stations, not networks.

Other than Owned and Operated stations (which are under the same rules as network affiliates and independent stations), networks are under no obligation to allow their content be retransmitted - let alone cover the entire nation. Current law does not require AT&T|DIRECTV or DISH (or any other carrier) to deliver any network to their subscribers. (Carriage of "must carry" stations is required, but that is a per station requirement - not a network requirement, and the network stations generally do not choose "must carry".)

The only obligation for a network to be carried is DNS ... which is a narrowly defined service. The carriers are not obligated to provide DNS, but if they choose to do so the networks are obligated to allow their signal to be retransmitted without permission. Compensation is not negotiated - it is set by the Copyright Office. DNS is an interference in the way networks and affiliates distribute TV content. It is the closest we have to a law that requires the four major networks be available to everyone - but without compelling carriers to deliver the channels I cannot say that DNS requires all networks be delivered to every home.

What makes the four networks so special? It seems unfair to have laws for four networks and ignore other networks such as CW, Telemundo, etc.

What I believe needs to happen is a complete rewrite of the system to make it fair for broadcasters (regardless of network) as well as carriers. I support the "right" for consumers to receive their OTA local channels within the licensed coverage area of the OTA station (regardless of DMA) and would like to see the laws changed to include retransmission consent in the station's license. I am less supportive of granting a "right" to consumers outside of the station's licensed area ... but as long as it is done on an equal basis (Telemundo and independents get the same benefits as the big four) I can accept expanding distribution to cover entire DMAs. It is the places with no OTA coverage and no OTA affiliate in the DMA that cause a problem - is there a compelling reason (other than consumers saying "I want it") to require certain networks be delivered to every consumer? And if so, why only those four?

What I expect to happen is "kick the can" for five years ... which is better than DNS ending at the end of the year. I know that my plan will never be put in to place ... at least "kick the can" doesn't cut people off.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Where is the right to receive all four major networks enshrined in Federal law?
> 
> I would like to see changes to the law to get rid of conflicting rules for satellite vs cable and prohibitions that prevent satellite from carrying the same local stations that cable is required to offer carriage to in narrow cases. And I'd like to see the entire compensation structure revamped. But there is a limit to how far the government should interfere in business.
> 
> ...


I can understand an argument for the other stations you speak of. There are more problems though. Short markets and orphan counties need to be dealt with once and for all. There not going away and need help to get taken care of. The NAB proves time and time again that they dont care about the customer. They only care about themselves. They really took the cake at both hearings this year. The first hearing their rep was clueless on what local stations actually charge for their channels and had never sat in on negotiations before and this hearing their rep worked for stations that had supposedly never had a blackout before. They also avoided directly answering why the 12 markets they are so concerned about dont offer repearters to better cover their DMA they paid for the right and demand their signal be used. Their weak signal they expect DirecTV to pay to extend for them. They make me sick! Just like every time there is a blackout of a local channel and they say get an antenna. What are they gonna do if millions and millions of people started getting their signals over the air for free? They gonna then raise their advertising rates?

This hearing did such a good job of exposing the issues. They talked about the rate rates been going up and that if gas had went up at the same rate it would be over $140 a gallon right now. That was mind blowing and as clear a message about the greediness of the locals as I could ever imagine. If they really are that desperate for money, they need to come up with a better revenue model as times are changing and people will not continue to pay these absurd rates. Its time to really fix all this crap. Quit kicking the can down the road and really fix it!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I agree with joshjr, they are most likely to kick the can down the road for five years by renewing it as is. Trying to fix the problems in it means taking time out for committee hearings, having to talk to lobbyists on all sides, etc. It is very time consuming, and I can't imagine STELAR is very high up the priority list and they probably don't think it is worth the effort because STELAR isn't going to swing any votes to/from them next November. There are only so many congressmen in rural districts who have constituents who might care about that stuff, and they can get a lot more bang for their buck fixing issues with farm policy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

120.6 million US Television households ... 850k or less subscribers who need the government to at least kick the can. We are talking about less than a percent of US TV households that are affected and most of them probably don't know what STELAR does. Trying to get serious reform beyond kicking the can is a different problem. There is no reason to wait for the every five year cycle of renewing distants to address the problems with carrying locals. The hard part is finding anyone to push for changes.

Distant carriage was designed to expire ... the last major change was to move the laws concerning significantly viewed stations (out of market stations who can prove a significant number of OTA viewers) out of the expiring distants law and in to the non-expiring portion of the laws. The biggest change was restoring DISH's ability to have distant stations (lost due to violating the law and delivering distants in situations that were not legal). The cost of restoring DISH's ability to have distants was for DISH to offer locals in EVERY market. DISH was then able to use the distants law to fill in the gaps (short markets, etc).

Perhaps the next big change could come at the cost of DIRECTV offering locals in every market (since they seem opposed to providing in market locals to all of their subscribers). How about a deal where DIRECTV adds the final markets to satellite delivery in exchange for having distants not expire? Instead of changing the expiration date by five years every five years offer to allow carriage for any carrier offering distants in all local markets. DISH would immediately be able to continue to fill short markets while DIRECTV would be encouraged to add the final markets. Kick the can one year to give DIRECTV time to add the channels and make carrying distants contingent on offering locals in all local markets.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

How is Directv supposed to add the missing locals? They have a few inactive spot beams that could be used for missing markets, but not all of them. They'd have to build/launch another satellite with spot beams that fill in the missing markets. Even if they ordered it today it wouldn't be launched for at least four more years - and it would cost them tens of millions per market. Obviously they'd never consider that.

There isn't really a choice for Directv to add the missing 12 markets now, so given a choice they'd have to drop DNS which would leave the customers in those 12 markets even worse off than they are now since Directv would no longer be an option for them. Meanwhile it wouldn't really hurt Directv all that much, they can't have very many customers in those 12 markets. I suppose they'd lose some RV customers who make use of DNS, but they are likely to lose many of them anyway when they drop MPEG2 and a Ku only dish is no longer sufficient.

If they were going to force Directv to carry those markets they needed to do it a decade ago when Directv was still actively building and launching satellites. It is too late to do anything now other than take DNS away from them, which probably hurts their customers a lot more than it does Directv.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> How is Directv supposed to add the missing locals? They have a few inactive spot beams that could be used for missing markets, but not all of them.


CONUS on Reverse Band? Where there is a will, there is a way. The issue with DIRECTV is that they don't have the will. Over 20 years in the satellite business - they shouldn't be rewarded for not making the effort. Get it done!

BTW: The stations do not have to be in HD as long as no station in that market is carried in HD.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> How is Directv supposed to add the missing locals? They have a few inactive spot beams that could be used for missing markets, but not all of them. They'd have to build/launch another satellite with spot beams that fill in the missing markets. Even if they ordered it today it wouldn't be launched for at least four more years - and it would cost them tens of millions per market. Obviously they'd never consider that.
> 
> There isn't really a choice for Directv to add the missing 12 markets now, so given a choice they'd have to drop DNS which would leave the customers in those 12 markets even worse off than they are now since Directv would no longer be an option for them. Meanwhile it wouldn't really hurt Directv all that much, they can't have very many customers in those 12 markets. I suppose they'd lose some RV customers who make use of DNS, but they are likely to lose many of them anyway when they drop MPEG2 and a Ku only dish is no longer sufficient.
> 
> If they were going to force Directv to carry those markets they needed to do it a decade ago when Directv was still actively building and launching satellites. It is too late to do anything now other than take DNS away from them, which probably hurts their customers a lot more than it does Directv.


Don't they NEED DNS for air force one? and US military has some pull to make them get an account with no blackouts.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> CONUS on Reverse Band? Where there is a will, there is a way. The issue with DIRECTV is that they don't have the will. Over 20 years in the satellite business - they shouldn't be rewarded for not making the effort. Get it done!
> 
> BTW: The stations do not have to be in HD as long as no station in that market is carried in HD.


While I would like to see DirecTV get it done to, they should not be required to do so. Dish only did it as punishment for their crimes to get DNS back. DirecTV never violated the law for that. I doubt Dish would of ever done it either if they were not forced into it. Make the station owners of those markets share in the cost to get those channels to their market and the expense to keep them there and maybe it happens. Why is this DirecTVs burden when the locals stations in those areas wont invest in repeaters to cover their own area? Its not cost effective for the locals to do it so kick the can to another provider to do it for them? That hardly seems fair. The channel owners should bare some of the cost if they want someone else to do it for them. Am I wrong in that way of thinking?

If XM needed Chevy to help make sure their signal got to all areas around the US is that Chevys burden to make sure that signal reaches the vehicles? Dont seem so to me. Whats the upside to Chevy for spending that money? Would they get it back? Probably not cause the cost of doing it would outweigh the cars they would sell from spending that money.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Don't they NEED DNS for air force one? and US military has some pull to make them get an account with no blackouts.


Trump can "move" the AF1 account to NYC


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> While I would like to see DirecTV get it done to, they should not be required to do so.


DNS was not intended to be a forever offering. That is why there is a sunset date on the channels.
At this point, the only thing stopping DIRECTV from adding the additional markets is the will to complete the task.



> Why is this DirecTVs burden when the locals stations in those areas wont invest in repeaters to cover their own area?


DIRECTV's obligation is to their subscribers. They are leaving subscribers in most of those 12 markets without the major networks. Their subscribers would benefit from having their in market locals, with local news and weather and including non-big four channels. Being able to rely on DNS, including grandfathered DNS, makes DIRECTV lazy and unwilling to finish the task at hand. Cover all markets.

Perhaps that is the "encouragement" DIRECTV needs ... kill grandfathering. If the customer would not currently qualify for distants take the distants away.



> If XM needed Chevy to help make sure their signal got to all areas around the US is that Chevys burden to make sure that signal reaches the vehicles? Dont seem so to me. Whats the upside to Chevy for spending that money? Would they get it back? Probably not cause the cost of doing it would outweigh the cars they would sell from spending that money.


Huh? How does that apply to local stations and DIRECTV carriage?

Are you expecting local stations to pay DIRECTV to rebroadcast their signals, enabling DIRECTV to make more money by selling locals and not be at a competitive disadvantage to other carriers? That would be nice.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> DNS was not intended to be a forever offering. That is why there is a sunset date on the channels.
> At this point, the only thing stopping DIRECTV from adding the additional markets is the will to complete the task.
> 
> DIRECTV's obligation is to their subscribers. They are leaving subscribers in most of those 12 markets without the major networks. Their subscribers would benefit from having their in market locals, with local news and weather and including non-big four channels. Being able to rely on DNS, including grandfathered DNS, makes DIRECTV lazy and unwilling to finish the task at hand. Cover all markets.
> ...


James, James, James. As usual we dont see eye to eye. If you watched the Senate hearing they talked about the fact that cable has the same issues years ago and had their bill wrote in to law permanently. Why should satellite not have the same thing? So they eventually got tired of reauthorizing it for Cable but in your expert opinion they should not do so for DirecTV? You sound biased to me.

As for DirecTV offering those 12 markets their locals, your missing the point. The locals that serve those markets dont even find the people they serve important enough to make sure they can get their own signal OTA. The NAB basically said those local stations dont care enough to invest in repeaters so those customers can use an antenna to get their signal. What I was saying was that if those stations dont want to pay for those repeaters, they can share in what ever costs DirecTV incurs in getting that stations locals to DirecTV customers. So in the end DirecTV would still pay them a set wage per customer but the local channel would share the cost of getting the channel to DirecTV to offer it to anyone. How is that unfair?

As for the XM analagy, in both cases (XM and the missing 12 markets locals) they would be expecting someone else to fix their signal issues for them free of charge. I get you dont grasp that but I cant make it any clearer. I understand that there are more things to consider and its not a straight apple to apple comparison but as far as one company expecting another to extend their signal for them or resolve their problem for them its pretty close.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cable carriage rules are different. Required inclusion of local channels in every market. They are already paying the "price" that I suggested DIRECTV should pay for carrying distants. Except cable's obligation is higher, since cable cannot make locals optional for their subscribers and they cannot import distants from any city that they please (for example, carrying NY network stations in Oklahoma).

When "significantly viewed" stations were added to satellite they were initially added under the distants law, with the five year expiration cycle. With the next renewal SV stations were moved to the non-expiring part of the laws for satellite ... which means when DNS expires "significantly viewed" on satellite can continue. But as an illustration of the continued uneven playing field, note that a "significantly viewed" station is required to be offered carriage by a cable company while satellite companies are under NO obligation to carry any SV station (even in locations where a satellite company carries one SV station - they don't have to carry all SV stations).

If carriage was equalized between cable and satellite I expect you would be unhappy as DNS would be removed and local channel carriage would be required.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Cable carriage rules are different. Required inclusion of local channels in every market. They are already paying the "price" that I suggested DIRECTV should pay for carrying distants. Except cable's obligation is higher, since cable cannot make locals optional for their subscribers and they cannot import distants from any city that they please (for example, carrying NY network stations in Oklahoma).
> 
> When "significantly viewed" stations were added to satellite they were initially added under the distants law, with the five year expiration cycle. With the next renewal SV stations were moved to the non-expiring part of the laws for satellite ... which means when DNS expires "significantly viewed" on satellite can continue. But as an illustration of the continued uneven playing field, note that a "significantly viewed" station is required to be offered carriage by a cable company while satellite companies are under NO obligation to carry any SV station (even in locations where a satellite company carries one SV station - they don't have to carry all SV stations).
> 
> If carriage was equalized between cable and satellite I expect you would be unhappy as DNS would be removed and local channel carriage would be required.


Cable companies are not required to offer SV channels. Also, what do cable companies do in short markets? That must be the part that they were saying was already permanently in place already. Im not opposed to DirecTV offering the final 12 markets. Just dont think forcing out others who need Distant Signals (short markets, RVers and tailgaters) is the way to go.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> Cable companies are not required to offer SV channels.


Incorrect. That is the entire point of significantly viewed before the status was applied to satellite carriage was for stations to be able to gain carriage from cable systems in areas where the station could prove they had a significant number of viewers.

Cable carriage is different than satellite. Instead of offering carriage to all full power stations within a defined market, cable is required to carry a number of channels based on the number of channels on their system. Once the quota is met cable does not need to add more locals but most cable systems have enough channels that the percentage is never met. In those cases where the quota isn't met and a station claiming to be local isn't carried, the station can claim significantly viewed status. If they can prove significant viewership, they get carried as a local.



joshjr said:


> Im not opposed to DirecTV offering the final 12 markets. Just dont think forcing out others who need Distant Signals (short markets, RVers and tailgaters) is the way to go.


The "others" would not be "forced out" unless DIRECTV chose not to cover the final 12 markets. Consider it a win win ... customers in those 12 markets get all of their channels (not just the big four) and DIRECTV can continue to serve the short market and RV/commercial vehicle markets. Or AT&T|DIRECTV can make the business decision that having distants is not worth the trouble of adding the 12 markets. And Congress can stop kicking the can.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Incorrect. That is the entire point of significantly viewed before the status was applied to satellite carriage was for stations to be able to gain carriage from cable systems in areas where the station could prove they had a significant number of viewers.
> 
> Cable carriage is different than satellite. Instead of offering carriage to all full power stations within a defined market, cable is required to carry a number of channels based on the number of channels on their system. Once the quota is met cable does not need to add more locals but most cable systems have enough channels that the percentage is never met. In those cases where the quota isn't met and a station claiming to be local isn't carried, the station can claim significantly viewed status. If they can prove significant viewership, they get carried as a local.
> 
> The "others" would not be "forced out" unless DIRECTV chose not to cover the final 12 markets. Consider it a win win ... customers in those 12 markets get all of their channels (not just the big four) and DIRECTV can continue to serve the short market and RV/commercial vehicle markets. Or AT&T|DIRECTV can make the business decision that having distants is not worth the trouble of adding the 12 markets. And Congress can stop kicking the can.


Cable Companies are not forced to carry SV. The local cable co here used to carry 2 channels from that list and dropped them both so its definitely not a requirement!

As for the 12 markets your still missing the point. You talk about the short markets and still covering them. How are the short markets gonna be covered if DNS isnt allowed? The bill is what allows the short markets to be served with DNS. Not to mention the tailgaters and RVers. So your answer is to do away with DNS and still offer it to the ones that need it without a legal way to do so? The whole emphasis for keeping DNS has been for the short markets. It would be nice if DirecTV offered the last 12 markets but DNS will still be needed even if they do so dont make out like DNS wont still be needed and then say it is needed for certain people. If they can change STELAR to still be there for the grandfathered people and for the short markets, so be it. I would support that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> As for the 12 markets your still missing the point. You talk about the short markets and still covering them. How are the short markets gonna be covered if DNS isnt allowed?


You are missing what I wrote. DNS would continue to be allowed - so the short markets would be safe. What I was suggesting is that instead of kicking the can every five years that Congress makes delivery of distants contingent on a provider offering locals in every market. The only reason why DNS would not be allowed is if DIRECTV chose not to finish the job of covering all markets.

Perhaps providing local into local in all markets is not important to you. Perhaps if you lived in one of the twelve markets it would be more important. Especially if you were missing a major network due to the local station not offering a waiver for their network.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

There are several factors at play here for those 12 markets and why DirecTV isn't able to carry their locals aside from the obvis money. 

If they can't do spot beams for all 12 under-served markets then they can use the 900s as a workaround and place the locals there on the national satellites. If their software is capable or sophisticated enough they could hide them from out of market subscribers and do a virtual remap in-market so the locals would show in the 2-69 range like every other market. 

I know people like to use Dish Network as the golden child since they are able to provide locals for all DMAs and while I don't know much about Dish I bet their Eastern/Western arc setup helps them achieve this. I highly doubt that both the Eastern & Western arcs carry all the locals from all 212 DMAs (but I could be wrong.)

However getting rid of STELA right now is not the answer until Congress actually gets off their arses and does a complete evaluation and overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Without the "good faith" aspect (as weak as it is) it would just give broadcasters more power in negotiations.

However the guy AT&T had at that committee was laughable at times. Instead of trying to make the LCC sound good he should have provided technical reasons for why DirecTV can't provide satellite delivered locals to those markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> I highly doubt that both the Eastern & Western arcs carry all the locals from all 212 DMAs (but I could be wrong.)


DISH has bandwidth set aside for every local station on either eastern or western arc. Some markets are carried on both arcs. Some markets have HD on both arcs.

As it is with DIRECTV, there are stations that refuse to be carried - but DISH still has the bandwidth set aside for their carriage. It is a requirement of the law that allows DISH to carry distants. 



techguy88 said:


> However getting rid of STELA right now is not the answer until Congress actually gets off their arses and does a complete evaluation and overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Without the "good faith" aspect (as weak as it is) it would just give broadcasters more power in negotiations.
> 
> However the guy AT&T had at that committee was laughable at times. Instead of trying to make the LCC sound good he should have provided technical reasons for why DirecTV can't provide satellite delivered locals to those markets.


The LCC is a poor excuse for not providing local stations, especially since the newest model receiver does not currently work with the LCC.

I agree that a complete overhaul of the carriage laws is needed. But I also understand that it is more likely that DISH, DIRECTV and Comcast would merge their operations into one system by the end of the year than there be a serious overhaul this year or within the next five year cycle. Kick the can. It is too easy.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> There are several factors at play here for those 12 markets and why DirecTV isn't able to carry their locals aside from the obvis money.
> 
> If they can't do spot beams for all 12 under-served markets then they can use the 900s as a workaround and place the locals there on the national satellites. If their software is capable or sophisticated enough they could hide them from out of market subscribers and do a virtual remap in-market so the locals would show in the 2-69 range like every other market.
> 
> ...


Watch the hearing from June. He explained it better then. Same guy. I think this time was about exposing that the locals themselves dont even try to get their signal to their own market that they are claiming should have access to their channels. If they arnt dedicated enough to covering their own market, I think its a far cry to ask someone else to do it for you at a large rate to. Without STELAR, those 12 locals would say take it or leave it for huge rates as well as there would be no options. Let me know if you need a link to the hearing from June.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Under the current law people in those twelve markets should not be receiving any big four network affiliates unless they are outside of the in market station's coverage, have a waiver or (very rare) are grandfathered. Those customers would not receive any out of market stations from non big four affiliates. If locals are added to a market, customers can continue to receive any distants they qualify for plus any in market stations (regardless of affiliation) that allow carriage. (There is a limit on grandfathering when locals are added that may affect distants.)


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

I see valid points in all of the arguments made here, but I do hope the law gets renewed. In South Carolina we have a lot of "orphaned" counties. The area next to me is part of the Charlotte, NC market. Other counties fall into Augusta, GA and Savannah, GA as well. So SC is really split among three different states. If those people in those markets remain in the "orphaned" markets they should at least allow the closest SC stations to be "Significantly Viewed" and carried along with them. Another avenue might to designate a "primary" central station and offer it. In our case for example WIS in Columbia would be the ideal candidate. Their signal reaches parts of all but a handful of counties in SC. Personally, I think satellite viewers should be able to receive/purchase any stations that they have access to over the air in their market- not just the "designated" stations but I know that will never happen. I am grateful for DNS service though, and hope it continues. In our area the weather warnings go crazy. It's nice to have the DNS channels to fall back to during disputes too. 

The ONLY other thing that annoys me is how the satellite carriers interpret the DNS statutes. One of the previous revisions of the law included a provision that said you couldn't receive HD programming from an earlier time zone. So, DirecTV restricts those in the East/Central time zones to the NYC channels now and those in the Mountain/West to LA channels. Dish just played it safe and they only make the LA channels available to everyone regardless of location. Technically nothing in the statute prevents those of us in the East from choosing the LA channels (or receiving both), but neither carrier allows it unless you were one of the early grandfathered customers. 

I do think AT&T should step up and find a way to carry the 12 additional markets that aren't available, but I can see why they don't. With satellite declining they aren't likely to pick up many customers from it vs the expense involved. I applaud Google & YouTube TV for stepping up to the plate and doing the right thing with their service by carrying every market though.


----------



## n2radio (Oct 1, 2007)

Maybe they aren't going to kick the can down the road this time around. However, it looks like the broadcasters will mostly get what they want.

*Sen. Graham Proposes STELAR Sunset Transition Plan*
Seeks one-year of carriage at compulsory license rate before move to 'free market'


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

n2radio said:


> Maybe they aren't going to kick the can down the road this time around. However, it looks like the broadcasters will mostly get what they want.
> 
> *Sen. Graham Proposes STELAR Sunset Transition Plan*
> Seeks one-year of carriage at compulsory license rate before move to 'free market'


"Graham's offer sounds like one broadcasters would craft themselves, and likely jump at.
In fact, the National Association of Broadcasters was already jumping."

Kick the can five years might be the best deal DIRECTV and DISH can get. The one year plan isn't one the satellite companies want.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

n2radio said:


> Maybe they aren't going to kick the can down the road this time around. However, it looks like the broadcasters will mostly get what they want.
> 
> *Sen. Graham Proposes STELAR Sunset Transition Plan*
> Seeks one-year of carriage at compulsory license rate before move to 'free market'


This is a crock. It basically just says they want each provider to negotiate for the channels after the year. How is that going to narrow down the blackouts we see? Come up with a plan that fixes all of the issues including orphan counties and short markets. Not just negotiate. We all already see how those negotiations already go. Its a record year each year on blackouts. Why just saying everyone should negotiate will fix the issue is beyond me. Of course this is something the NAB would agree with.

Id agree to this if I could pay what ever the realistic wage was for other markets locals. Id pay $5 a channel for my neighboring markets local channels. As long as they were not subject to blackout restrictions. Id pay for my markets locals to. Do that and I would support this bill. Till then, fix the real problems.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It is funny how he talks about moving to "free markets" when networks have a monopoly in each DMA. Why is the people pushing free markets the hardest as the solution to everything rarely understand basic economics?

Graham's proposal doesn't fix most of the things STELA is intended to address, nor does it do anything for the increasing number of blackouts of local channels. Like the article says, this proposal is NAB's wet dream. I'm sure if you looked up Graham's contributions you'd see a yearly donation from NAB, they obviously own him.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> It is funny how he talks about moving to "free markets" when networks have a monopoly in each DMA. Why is the people pushing free markets the hardest as the solution to everything rarely understand basic economics?
> 
> Graham's proposal doesn't fix most of the things STELA is intended to address, nor does it do anything for the increasing number of blackouts of local channels. Like the article says, this proposal is NAB's wet dream. I'm sure if you looked up Graham's contributions you'd see a yearly donation from NAB, they obviously own him.


100% agree. So he does mention making sure that RVers and tailgaters are taken care of but the lack of what making sure they are taken care of really means and leaving that up to the broadcasters to determine is NOT going to fix anything. As soon as DNS is taken away not only will the short markets be screwed but the 12 markets will be as well.

I keep saying it, why is it okay that the locals that serve those 12 markets do such a poor job that an antenna wont service them but they want a provider to take that burden on for them. If they need DirecTV to do that for them, then DirecTV should get a reduced rate (& Dish Network too for that matter). If they dont want those things to happen to them then fix their signal in their own market. How can you claim its so damn important that the people in those markets get your signal when you dont care enough to make sure they can get it. We all know how this works in the other markets. When there is a blackout the affiliate and its ownership make a huge deal out of the free OTA signal. They cant do that in these 12 markets. Instead they want to complain that its important that people get their signal but they want someone else to make it happen for them.

Im sure Chevy would love it if Bose paid to build the entire dash of every car Bose is in but that isnt really Bose's responsibility is it? If you have a product and you are demanding people have it, you should at least be responsible for making sure it works and they have a way to have it. This last hearing proved that the 12 markets could put up repeaters but choose not to. So that to me says its not that important to them unless someone else does the heavy lifting. NOT FAIR AND BS!! The NAB and the local broadcasters need to wake up. They should be focusing on a new revenue model. Every time these price hikes happen it kicks the can to the next one but one day, there wont be a next one as people wont pay it. They already admitted that ad revenue is down and not able to make the money they need. Now they rely on retransmission and they are just screwing that over and over too. The day is coming. I read today that Playstation Vue is closing as they cant make money. Thats not a good sign. Could be a matter of time for Sling and DirecTV Now as well. Cord cutting does not solve the problem. In the end the broadcasters and the TV/internet providers will find a way to get their money. Its no wonder so many are going to jailbroken devices to steam TV. I am happy to pay a provider to get what I need but geeze its getting crazy.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Senator Wicker scheduled the 'markup' of the STELA bill for Nov. 13, so it will probably be voted on in committee next week. Currently the bill is just a simple five year extension, unless someone successfully attaches an amendment to change it.

So it appears the "kick the can" scenario is most likely at this time.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Senator Wicker scheduled the 'markup' of the STELA bill for Nov. 13, so it will probably be voted on in committee next week. Currently the bill is just a simple five year extension, unless someone successfully attaches an amendment to change it.
> 
> So it appears the "kick the can" scenario is most likely at this time.


Happens every time. They wait till later in the year to really work on it when they know its super complex then run out of time and renew it. At least it will get renewed but jesus christ. Lets fix the darn thing already. The bill needs and over hall.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

joshjr said:


> Happens every time. They wait till later in the year to really work on it when they know its super complex then run out of time and renew it. At least it will get renewed but jesus christ. Lets fix the darn thing already. The bill needs and over hall.


At this point they're probably just hoping one more renewal and satellite (or at least satellite delivered locals, if ATSC 3.0 & SFNs take off) will be obsolete in 2029


----------



## DavidLyle (Jul 5, 2005)

Saw this tidbit this morning:

*Sources: STELAR Reauthorization Pulled From Markup*
According to multiple sources, the STAR Act stellar reauthorization bill is being pulled from today's (Nov. 13) markup in the Senate Commerce Committee. The House is scheduled to markup its version today (11-14)

You can read the full article here


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

DavidLyle said:


> Saw this tidbit this morning:
> 
> *Sources: STELAR Reauthorization Pulled From Markup*
> According to multiple sources, the STAR Act stellar reauthorization bill is being pulled from today's (Nov. 13) markup in the Senate Commerce Committee. The House is scheduled to markup its version today (11-14)
> ...


Yeah that Senator is wanting it to go away after 1 year and has no plan on working out the details. He thought asking each player in the game (local channel owners, DTV , ETC) as good enough. Obviously we cant get this down without government assistance. Its a joke. Extend it another 5 years or get serious about fixing the short markets, orphan counties and the good faith provisions. Fix it or extend it. Dont have ass it though.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Here is the latest I can find. This this is going to get more interesting as we get closer to the end of the year. Some want to sunset and others trying to add provisions into the bill to make it a little better. Its interesting for sure.

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/n...ably-reports-stelar-renewal-to-full-committee


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There was some talk in the house about fixing the orphan counties problem, something I know you were looking for @joshjr


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Now the House looks to be pushing a bill that ignores the orphan counties, but would require Directv to cover those 12 markets in 180 days (with "automatic 90 day extensions if they're making good faith efforts to do so") or lose their DNS license. DNS would be made permanent for short markets, RVs and truckers. Things seem to be changing on this front almost daily, so who knows what we will actually end up with.

It would be interesting to see what happens if they do end up forcing this issue with Directv. They have unused spotbeams dedicated to some of the unserved markets. For example, D14 has a beam dedicated to the Ottumwa Iowa/Kirksville Missouri DMA. They probably determined they wouldn't get payback from the cost of setting up an LRF in that market, and add the necessary equipment (encoders/muxes/etc.) in the broadcast centers, when measured against the incremental revenue they might get from winning a few additional customers in that market.

There are other unused beams dedicated to markets, as well as some unused beams that probably could be used for some markets, so I think they could cover most of the markets that way. Those they couldn't they could cover with national beams - that would be a perfect use of reverse band since customers with DNS always get grandfathered they could leave it up to the customer to decide if they want to upgrade, and request an LNB swap to get their own locals (and lose DNS) if they prefer their own.

Or they could claim "we're working on it" and see how many automatic 90 day extensions they get until the FCC says "this is your last one" and only then actually do anything. I could easily see them using the looming MPEG2 SD shutdown as an excuse for delay and the FCC buying it...


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Time is running out. Interesting to see what they are going to do. I would be shocked if they address the orphan county issue. It will take time and they wont address it. Ill be shocked if its addressed in the next 5 years and probably wont in the next 10 years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Time is running out, but not really. Several articles I've seen have mentioned the possibility of a short term extension to the current law to allow them to deal with it early next year instead of trying to fit it in before the holidays.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Time is running out, but not really. Several articles I've seen have mentioned the possibility of a short term extension to the current law to allow them to deal with it early next year instead of trying to fit it in before the holidays.


I would be fine with that to. Not sure I am a fan of them forcing DirecTV to get the last 12 markets. Dish didnt have to. They had the option to and chose to. Why force DirecTV? Is it the right thing to do (offer them) sure but maybe not if it will end up costing them money and not really pay for itself for a long time if ever. Dish was not forced to. They wanted the DNS Feeds back and that was the out they were given. Just seems to me that some people are forgetting that. Before Dish was given an incentive, they didnt wanna do it either. Some might say that well give DirecTV the same incentive. That isnt fair either as Dish was breaking the law. That is why their rights to DNS were removed. DirecTV never did that so why put them in the same boat? Also, I still say DirecTV should not have to pay what ever it costs to bail out these locals. They refuse to pay for repeaters to cover their own areas even OTA so its not fair to claim a market you actually really dont even cover but force someone else to do it for you! Thats just wrong!!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Selective memory? DIRECTV broke the law as well and the major networks and major network affiliate groups sued both DISH and DIRECTV. Both DISH and DIRECTV lost. The issue was that DISH was not careful enough in how they qualified customers for distants. When the courts determined that DISH was continuing to break the law (in the court's opinion) the sanction was imposed. Please don't pretend that DIRECTV's hands are 100% clean.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Selective memory? DIRECTV broke the law as well and the major networks and major network affiliate groups sued both DISH and DIRECTV. Both DISH and DIRECTV lost. The issue was that DISH was not careful enough in how they qualified customers for distants. When the courts determined that DISH was continuing to break the law (in the court's opinion) the sanction was imposed. Please don't pretend that DIRECTV's hands are 100% clean.


Fine, they both broke the law and one didnt give a crap if they continued to break it and the other did. There is a reason that Dish had to add the last 12 markets and DirecTV didnt. Lets not act like they should both be held to the same standard. Dish was punished because they wouldnt go by the same standard DirecTV was.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH was not required to add the final markets. They could have chosen the status quo ... no distants (including short markets). It wasn't the best situation, but it wasn't fatal.

It won't be fatal if AT&T|DIRECTV chooses not to add the final 12 markets - even if the changes are made to the law and they lose distants due to their non-compliance. It will be their choice. Satellite services are not required to offer locals or distants. They just have to follow the rules in place if they choose to offer those channels.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> DISH was not required to add the final markets. They could have chosen the status quo ... no distants (including short markets). It wasn't the best situation, but it wasn't fatal.
> 
> It won't be fatal if AT&T|DIRECTV chooses not to add the final 12 markets - even if the changes are made to the law and they lose distants due to their non-compliance. It will be their choice. Satellite services are not required to offer locals or distants. They just have to follow the rules in place if they choose to offer those channels.


Not sure why your making this so complicated. Dish was required to add the final 12 markets if they wanted to offer DNS. It was punishment for not following the rules for DNS. DirecTV did follow them and was therefor not punished. Just because time passed does not mean that DirecTV should now be forced to do the same thing for DNS when they did comply.

The reason I am for DirecTV not having to add them is that I have a feeling its not cost effective which is what they have said a few times and it gives those channels in the 12 markets a pass on them not making their own signals strong enough for OTA like they should be. I would feel differently if those 12 markets had solid signal in their markets via OTA and this was just something DirecTV should do. Looking for DirecTV to do their job for them and not sharing in the costs to do it is not what I call fair. Since DirecTV would be forced to do this to keep the distants and they did comply before, the stations should share that cost or lower the cost per sub for DirecTV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tell the truth. DISH was not required to add the markets. Adding the markets was not a punishment for any crime.
Once you accept those true statements we can talk. Until then, further discussion is useless.

(You are wrong about the stations in the 12 markets. They are under no obligation to cover their entire Nielsen DMA. No station is under any such obligation to cover their market.)

And now back to DC, where the future of distants is awaiting congressional action.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Tell the truth. DISH was not required to add the markets. Adding the markets was not a punishment for any crime.
> Once you accept those true statements we can talk. Until then, further discussion is useless.
> 
> (You are wrong about the stations in the 12 markets. They are under no obligation to cover their entire Nielsen DMA. No station is under any such obligation to cover their market.)
> ...


I dont care if we agree or not James. We rarely do. Whats new. Adding the markets was the stipulation that Dish had to comply with to get the DNS feeds back. Thats not disputable. Call it punishment or what ever you want, it was a requirement IF they wanted to offer DNS feeds.

As for locals not covering their markets, we been talking about whats right. I am shocked to hear you talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You want DirecTV to add the final 12 markets because its the right thing to do yet you dont think that stations that claim a market should cover the majority of it at least OTA? How can you claim to be a DMA's affiliate if you dont even cover 50% of the said market? If were really talking about whats right, those 12 markets should do more to make it right and DirecTV should to. But in no way, should DirecTV just fix those 12 markets issues without them helping in some way. To me it says the local channels in those 12 markets dont care about their own markets people that live there because the only responsibility they feel to those people to get them their channels signal is to point the finger at DirecTV.

What happens every time a local channel goes dark in a dispute? They say two things, you can get our channel from another provider or OTA for free. I guess in those 12 markets, your just screwed. Its not wrong to want DirecTV to carry their channel but it is wrong to not offer even 50% of your market your signal and expect someone else to do just that. Since you seem to want to be correct, let me know when you acknowledge that these locals are not doing their part to really be able to claim localism in their own markets. There should be standards for any station that wants to be in a DMA as to what % of the DMA should be able to get the signal at least OTA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The "help" that DIRECTV gets from covering those markets is money. Not just the extra that DIRECTV charges for delivering locals, but the additional subscribers that DIRECTV gets by being competitive in the marketplace. When other MVPDs provide locals DIRECTV is at a competitive disadvantage. A good business would want to remove said disadvantage. Who do customers blame when their provider doesn't provide their channels? I'd blame the provider. They are the ones that get my payments.

At the end of the day it is another business choice. DISH consented to a deal that restored their ability to deliver distants nationwide and it has helped their business. DIRECTV made a promise they have not kept. If Congress feels the need to encourage DIRECTV to add the final 12 markets it won't change how any other MVPD does business - it will simply give DIRECTV a choice. How important are locals?

Perhaps DIRECTV is doing fine with staggering net subscriber losses. Adding the final 12 markets won't stem that tide. The discussion becomes moot.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> The "help" that DIRECTV gets from covering those markets is money. Not just the extra that DIRECTV charges for delivering locals, but the additional subscribers that DIRECTV gets by being competitive in the marketplace. When other MVPDs provide locals DIRECTV is at a competitive disadvantage. A good business would want to remove said disadvantage. Who do customers blame when their provider doesn't provide their channels? I'd blame the provider. They are the ones that get my payments.
> 
> At the end of the day it is another business choice. DISH consented to a deal that restored their ability to deliver distants nationwide and it has helped their business. DIRECTV made a promise they have not kept. If Congress feels the need to encourage DIRECTV to add the final 12 markets it won't change how any other MVPD does business - it will simply give DIRECTV a choice. How important are locals?
> 
> Perhaps DIRECTV is doing fine with staggering net subscriber losses. Adding the final 12 markets won't stem that tide. The discussion becomes moot.


Can you provide a link to said promise from DirecTV? I noticed you completely ignored the part about the locals being responsible for covering at least 50% of their own market. So your all about whats right for DirecTV to do but not the stations themselves? You sound like one of those people from the NAB!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There is no proof YOU would accept. 

I looked it up earlier this year to verify the NAB claim. I'm sure you can do the same.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> There is no proof YOU would accept.
> 
> I looked it up earlier this year to verify the NAB claim. I'm sure you can do the same.


If you trust the NAB then there is your problem right there. They didnt care of the short markets were served or not as long as the final 12 got covered. Also dont care about how many blackouts there are. You showed some true colors there James. Might as well work for the NAB James. Thats the same group that feels so strong about all the fees TV channels are due but feels that radio stations should not have to pay artists for their songs. They talk out of both sides of their mouth constantly as it suits their need. Its rather gross! Pretty clear they care about making a buck and not people. Id love to see everyone go OTA and see what these stations say when they are making NO MONEY from us!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

As stated, I verified the NAB claim - so no, I didn't just take them at their word. I have already stated what I'd like to see - and it wouldn't make the NAB happy. Anyways, enough of your personal attacks. That isn't why we have this thread.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Running out of time. I keep looking but dont see anything else scheduled on this. I am guessing that is a sign that this will just get renewed and kick the can down the road. The impeachment seems to be taking over just about everything.


----------



## n2radio (Oct 1, 2007)

Looks like the NAB is getting what they have wanted:

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/source-deal-struck-on-stelar-successor-bills

This is wrapped up in the spending bill which congress has to pass to avoid a government shutdown next week (12/20). It will pass.

Does this mean DirecTV customers in the 12 markets without locals will lose complete access to the Big 4 networks after May 31 if they cannot pick them up with an antenna?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

I'm glad to see they're making the exemptions for RVers, Truckers, etc. permanent so we don't have to play this game every five years. I just hope adding the additional 12 markets doesn't make DirecTV just say screw it and walk away leaving all of us with DNS out in the cold. It'll also be interesting to see if Dish steps up and starts offering East & West Coast DNS service again. Right now everybody who signs up with them gets West Coast.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

n2radio said:


> Does this mean DirecTV customers in the 12 markets without locals will lose complete access to the Big 4 networks after May 31 if they cannot pick them up with an antenna?


100% in the hands of AT&T/DIRECTV. I believe they will choose wisely.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

so what does this mean for us who still have our distant networks..?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bjlc said:


> so what does this mean for us who still have our distant networks..?


We will need to see the final bill. But the preliminary proposal appears to limit distants to RV/Truckers and short markets, so if you have distants due to grandfathering it appears they would be lost. (The text of HR 5140 removes waivers, grandfathering and signal strength qualifications.)

"IN GENERAL.-A subscriber of a satellite carrier who receives the secondary transmission of a network station under the statutory license in section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and to whom subsection (a)(2)(B) of such section, as amended by subsection (a), does not apply, shall continue to be eligible to receive that secondary transmission from such carrier under such license, and at the royalty rate established for such license by the Copyright Royalty Board or voluntary agreement, as applicable, until the date that is the earlier of-

(A) 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; or

(B) the date on which such carrier provides local-into-local service to all DMAs."


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

if that's the case its another reason not to stay with Directv..


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bjlc said:


> if that's the case its another reason not to stay with Directv..


I'd wait to see what happens first. They have unused spotbeams into some of the unserved markets, and may have the ability to serve all of them. If there are markets they can't cover with spot beams they could cover them with national beams - they would probably deliver MPEG4 SD locals to those customers as there is no requirement that they provide the channels in HD.

As far as I can tell the reason why they never served those markets where they have unused/usable spotbeams is that they decided the cost of doing so would outweigh the money they'd make. How many additional customers will providing locals win them in a market that serves a population of less than 100K? They have set up a local receive facility, and probably incur monthly rent costs for it, and set up equipment in their uplink centers, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum per market. They'd never reach payback in such small markets.

The math changes if they lose the ability to deliver DNS though, and risk losing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers because of it. I don't know what they'll do, but I really doubt they will sit on their hands and lose their DNS license. Since this bill is tied to "must pass" legislation they are probably already planning what they'll do and figuring out a schedule to have it done by the deadline.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> We will need to see the final bill. But the preliminary proposal appears to limit distants to RV/Truckers and short markets, so if you have distants due to grandfathering it appears they would be lost. (The text of HR 5140 removes waivers, grandfathering and signal strength qualifications.)
> 
> "IN GENERAL.-A subscriber of a satellite carrier who receives the secondary transmission of a network station under the statutory license in section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and to whom subsection (a)(2)(B) of such section, as amended by subsection (a), does not apply, shall continue to be eligible to receive that secondary transmission from such carrier under such license, and at the royalty rate established for such license by the Copyright Royalty Board or voluntary agreement, as applicable, until the date that is the earlier of-
> 
> ...


I hope DirecTV has a good way of figuring out who is "grandfathered" and who falls into each category (RV, Trucker, etc) so that everybody doesn't have to go through the approval process again. Since AT&T took over that has become a nightmare from what I understand. I'm on an RV waiver, and my bill does say "Mobile Network Package- East". I wonder what bills say for those who are grandfathered? It also will be interesting to see what restrictions are put on RVs, Truckers, etc. One of the previous bills had put in place the restriction that you couldn't view HD programming from an "earlier" Time Zone which led DirecTV to start enforcing the East/West only for DNS. Dish interpreted that differently though and just gives everybody West Coast DNS. I wonder if the new law will change any of that?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The math changes if they lose the ability to deliver DNS though, and risk losing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers because of it. I don't know what they'll do, but I really doubt they will sit on their hands and lose their DNS license. Since this bill is tied to "must pass" legislation they are probably already planning what they'll do and figuring out a schedule to have it done by the deadline.


I believe the math of losing short market DNS would be sufficient to encourage AT&T to cover the 12 markets (even if all are just SD). They could throw away the 12 markets with no locals, but this affects short markets outside of the 12.

I wonder if we will ever get an account of the number of DNS subscribers lost due to the end of grandfathering and waivers.



cpalmer2k said:


> I hope DirecTV has a good way of figuring out who is "grandfathered" and who falls into each category (RV, Trucker, etc) so that everybody doesn't have to go through the approval process again. Since AT&T took over that has become a nightmare from what I understand. I'm on an RV waiver, and my bill does say "Mobile Network Package- East". I wonder what bills say for those who are grandfathered? It also will be interesting to see what restrictions are put on RVs, Truckers, etc. One of the previous bills had put in place the restriction that you couldn't view HD programming from an "earlier" Time Zone which led DirecTV to start enforcing the East/West only for DNS. Dish interpreted that differently though and just gives everybody West Coast DNS. I wonder if the new law will change any of that?


DISH's "DNS package" is hard to track down. In general, DISH uses the law for short markets (not trucks/RVs) and they provide channels of their choosing from neighboring markets. It isn't the same channels nationwide. I see some reference to DNS for truckers available but have not been able to confirm an active offering. "Change your address or use an antenna" seems to be the current offering.

As for DIRECTV, your billing looks like they did keep track of who had an RV waiver. Since there is no grandfathering there is no legal issue if DIRECTV accidentally turns off service (as in, no "sorry - we cannot legally restore service").

Legal issues:
"For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms ''recreational vehicle'' and ''commercial truck'' shall not include any fixed dwelling, whether a mobile home or otherwise."
"A signed declaration by the operator of the recreational vehicle or commercial truck that the satellite dish is permanently attached to the recreational vehicle or commercial truck, and will not be used to receive satellite programming at any fixed dwelling."

Registration papers for the RV or truck registration and a valid commercial driver's license is required. These must be verified every two years (current law).

The practice of having your "RV" distants added to your fixed dwelling home account would be a problem. I can see why DISH is not actively selling nationwide DNS packages.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH's "DNS package" is hard to track down. In general, DISH uses the law for short markets (not trucks/RVs) and they provide channels of their choosing from neighboring markets. It isn't the same channels nationwide. I see some reference to DNS for truckers available but have not been able to confirm an active offering. "Change your address or use an antenna" seems to be the current offering.
> 
> Registration papers for the RV or truck registration and a valid commercial driver's license is required. These must be verified every two years (current law).
> 
> The practice of having your "RV" distants added to your fixed dwelling home account would be a problem. I can see why DISH is not actively selling nationwide DNS packages.


Dish has DNS, they just quit publicizing it as openly as they did a few months ago. You have to ask for it but if you do they provide the forms. It is LA only though regardless of where you live.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

What will air force one fall under?? RV?, commercial truck? get EAST and WEST?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> What will air force one fall under?? RV?, commercial truck? get EAST and WEST?


I'd say that is the ultimate Recreational Vehicle lol


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Directv apparently has pricing plans/contracts specific to aircraft - that's one of the reasons why the plan to shut down MPEG2 SD at the end of this year had to be pushed back. There were contracts for aircraft and oil rigs that went beyond that date that didn't permit them to shut down that service yet.

The government may have some sort of special deal with Directv that covers a lot of ground. Stuff like government buildings in cities can easily get cable, but military bases aren't necessarily located where that's feasible (think remote airfields, missile silos etc.) so satellite would be pretty attractive for those markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The law does not mention boats and aircraft but service has been provided and DIRECTV still refers to boats and aircraft on their website. I assume their lawyers know what they are doing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I'd wait to see what happens first. They have unused spotbeams into some of the unserved markets, and may have the ability to serve all of them. If there are markets they can't cover with spot beams they could cover them with national beams - they would probably deliver MPEG4 SD locals to those customers as there is no requirement that they provide the channels in HD.
> 
> As far as I can tell the reason why they never served those markets where they have unused/usable spotbeams is that they decided the cost of doing so would outweigh the money they'd make. How many additional customers will providing locals win them in a market that serves a population of less than 100K? They have set up a local receive facility, and probably incur monthly rent costs for it, and set up equipment in their uplink centers, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum per market. They'd never reach payback in such small markets.
> 
> The math changes if they lose the ability to deliver DNS though, and risk losing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers because of it. I don't know what they'll do, but I really doubt they will sit on their hands and lose their DNS license. Since this bill is tied to "must pass" legislation they are probably already planning what they'll do and figuring out a schedule to have it done by the deadline.


I believe DIRECTV could easily cover every market. It's if they want to spend the money too... I don't believe the space way sat is dying anytime soon... so there are definitely ways even if they don't have space on d11-d14...


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Directv apparently has pricing plans/contracts specific to aircraft - that's one of the reasons why the plan to shut down MPEG2 SD at the end of this year had to be pushed back. There were contracts for aircraft and oil rigs that went beyond that date that didn't permit them to shut down that service yet.
> 
> The government may have some sort of special deal with Directv that covers a lot of ground. Stuff like government buildings in cities can easily get cable, but military bases aren't necessarily located where that's feasible (think remote airfields, missile silos etc.) so satellite would be pretty attractive for those markets.


NFL SUNDAY TICKET IN CUBA military bases with no locals channel black outs?

White house tv with all sports packs with NO BLACK OUTS?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

JoeTheDragon said:


> NFL SUNDAY TICKET IN CUBA military bases with no locals channel black outs?
> 
> White house tv with all sports packs with NO BLACK OUTS?


I can remember back when the 2000 election occurred DirecTV caught some flack because they opened up all the local channels (this was before spot beams- boy those were the days!) for the Gore Campaign headquarters so they could watch the local channels from various states around the country.

EDIT: Here is the story...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I believe DIRECTV could easily cover every market. It's if they want to spend the money too... I don't believe the space way sat is dying anytime soon... so there are definitely ways even if they don't have space on d11-d14...


Using the Spaceway is problematic because of its wide "transponders" that step on multiple standard frequencies so I'm not sure it will really be an option for them. And while it may have some life left it won't last as long as the rest of their fleet so it would only be a short term solution.

Maybe they could make it work as a bridge until they drop MPEG2 SD and have tons of extra bandwidth when dedicating a few national transponders to those markets won't be a big deal - though I really don't think it would be a big deal even today. I think they could get by with two national transponders doing MPEG4 SD for the markets that D14 doesn't have unused dedicated beams for. They are using more than two transponders for 4K right now, so if they need room they can begin moving 4K to reverse band...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cpalmer2k said:


> I can remember back when the 2000 election occurred DirecTV caught some flack because they opened up all the local channels (this was before spot beams- boy those were the days!) for the Gore Campaign headquarters so they could watch the local channels from various states around the country.


Sometimes the truth can be inconvenient. The limit of two affiliates of each network per day would have been a problem for a legal residential customer. But the campaign wasn't a household, let alone an "unserved household". It would have been considered commercial viewing. Which is "outside of the law". I won't make the jump to "illegal" ... but DIRECTV would have needed to rely on other permission to deliver the signals than the distants legislation. If anyone complained.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> We will need to see the final bill. But the preliminary proposal appears to limit distants to RV/Truckers and short markets, so if you have distants due to grandfathering it appears they would be lost. (The text of HR 5140 removes waivers, grandfathering and signal strength qualifications.)
> 
> "IN GENERAL.-A subscriber of a satellite carrier who receives the secondary transmission of a network station under the statutory license in section 119 of title 17, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, and to whom subsection (a)(2)(B) of such section, as amended by subsection (a), does not apply, shall continue to be eligible to receive that secondary transmission from such carrier under such license, and at the royalty rate established for such license by the Copyright Royalty Board or voluntary agreement, as applicable, until the date that is the earlier of-
> 
> ...


Can others chime in if you get information that would clear this up, is it possible that unless there is a deadline in the bill for Directv/Dish to cease offering DNS to grandfathered accounts, Directv will not bother with shutting those down?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> I'd wait to see what happens first. They have unused spotbeams into some of the unserved markets, and may have the ability to serve all of them. If there are markets they can't cover with spot beams they could cover them with national beams - they would probably deliver MPEG4 SD locals to those customers as there is no requirement that they provide the channels in HD.
> 
> As far as I can tell the reason why they never served those markets where they have unused/usable spotbeams is that they decided the cost of doing so would outweigh the money they'd make. How many additional customers will providing locals win them in a market that serves a population of less than 100K? They have set up a local receive facility, and probably incur monthly rent costs for it, and set up equipment in their uplink centers, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum per market. They'd never reach payback in such small markets.
> 
> The math changes if they lose the ability to deliver DNS though, and risk losing tens or hundreds of thousands of customers because of it. I don't know what they'll do, but I really doubt they will sit on their hands and lose their DNS license. Since this bill is tied to "must pass" legislation they are probably already planning what they'll do and figuring out a schedule to have it done by the deadline.


I think he was referring to the grandfathered DNS accounts, to be honest I don't even know why they offered the Los Angeles stations to east coast people who lived too far away from their local stations, for example in the 90's if you lived on eastern Long Island, you would qualify for DNS but why LA and NYC, why was it not just NYC national feeds?

Well if I they shut them down it will be one less thing tying me to Directv, they are valuable in getting out of market NFL games.

Update: Also is it possible that unless this new bill actually declares that people receiving DNS under the old rules can no longer receive them, would it not just be assumed that if you signed up under the old law, you will still get them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The wording of the proposed bill removes the text that allows waivers and grandfathering from the law. If the final bill is worded the same, grandfathering and waivers will be gone. People who continue to get distants will only be people who remain qualified due to remaining an unserved household.

The final bill may be worded differently. But at this point, grandfathering and waivers die within 120 days of enactment.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The wording of the proposed bill removes the text that allows waivers and grandfathering from the law. If the final bill is worded the same, grandfathering and waivers will be gone. People who continue to get distants will only be people who remain qualified due to remaining an unserved household.
> 
> The final bill may be worded differently. But at this point, grandfathering and waivers die within 120 days of enactment.


OK that is bad news but can you comment on this angle, if it is removed from the final bill, could you see Directv ignoring it and deciding not to turn off DNS for the grandfathered accounts? Maybe it is false hope but since there is no language addressing the issue directly, why couldn't Directv just leave the grandfathered DNS accounts alone?

Also do you know when the final bill will be available to read?

And is it possible that a senator could add in an amendment that would deal with the non-RV accounts or would that require the bill to go back to the House for another vote?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

GordonGekko said:


> OK that is bad news but can you comment on this angle, if it is removed from the final bill, could you see Directv ignoring it and deciding not to turn off DNS for the grandfathered accounts? Maybe it is false hope but since there is no language addressing the issue directly, why couldn't Directv just leave the grandfathered DNS accounts alone?
> 
> Also do you know when the final bill will be available to read?
> 
> And is it possible that a senator could add in an amendment that would deal with the non-RV accounts or would that require the bill to go back to the House for another vote?


DirecTV can't, and isn't going to violate federal law. In the past as I understand it the law allowed those customers who had grandfathered DNS to keep it, or choose to take their assigned local channels if they were carried by DirecTV/Dish in their area. This provision of the new law essentially takes away the grandfathering because it requires both Dish & DirecTV to carry locals in all markets. Instead of giving those subscribers a choice they're saying now "your local channels are available, you have to watch them". I'm sure this is a concession to the NAB who wants everyone watching their "local" channels as much as possible. There is zero chance of any changes at this point in time. This bill has to be passed & signed by the deadline on the 20th, so both houses of Congress are going to pass it and send it to the White House without most members even reading it...


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> Directv apparently has pricing plans/contracts specific to aircraft - that's one of the reasons why the plan to shut down MPEG2 SD at the end of this year had to be pushed back. There were contracts for aircraft and oil rigs that went beyond that date that didn't permit them to shut down that service yet.
> 
> The government may have some sort of special deal with Directv that covers a lot of ground. Stuff like government buildings in cities can easily get cable, but military bases aren't necessarily located where that's feasible (think remote airfields, missile silos etc.) so satellite would be pretty attractive for those markets.


Do you know what date the SD shutdown was pushed to?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> DirecTV can't, and isn't going to violate federal law. In the past as I understand it the law allowed those customers who had grandfathered DNS to keep it, or choose to take their assigned local channels if they were carried by DirecTV/Dish in their area. This provision of the new law essentially takes away the grandfathering because it requires both Dish & DirecTV to carry locals in all markets. Instead of giving those subscribers a choice they're saying now "your local channels are available, you have to watch them". I'm sure this is a concession to the NAB who wants everyone watching their "local" channels as much as possible. There is zero chance of any changes at this point in time. This bill has to be passed & signed by the deadline on the 20th, so both houses of Congress are going to pass it and send it to the White House without most members even reading it...


I've seen them technically violate federal law, relative lost grandfathered DNS because Retentions rep cancelled service and started a new account, email to Directv VP and the DNS were restored, old account status with 1999 sign up date was not, technically that was not allowed under the law.

Pure speculation but unless Directv was forced to prove it, why risk losing 500,000 to 800,000 grandfathered subscribers by pulling their DNS, maybe that was the reason they would not provide Congress with a definitive grandfathered subscriber count when asked in the spring of 2019.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> OK that is bad news but can you comment on this angle, if it is removed from the final bill, could you see Directv ignoring it and deciding not to turn off DNS for the grandfathered accounts? Maybe it is false hope but since there is no language addressing the issue directly, why couldn't Directv just leave the grandfathered DNS accounts alone?


They can't, even if the FCC decided to ignore them they'd be sued for copyright violations by the networks (who own the NYC/LA channels they distribute via DNS)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> Do you know what date the SD shutdown was pushed to?


No, the (well connected) person who told me about the deadline being pushed back and the reason why didn't have a definite date. Sounded like it will be sometime in H2 2021, but I wouldn't treat that as fact. I'll probably try to check back with him in a few months and see if there are any updates, or at least a solid planned date.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> No, the (well connected) person who told me about the deadline being pushed back and the reason why didn't have a definite date. Sounded like it will be sometime in H2 2021, but I wouldn't treat that as fact. I'll probably try to check back with him in a few months and see if there are any updates, or at least a solid planned date.


Thank you, appreciate it if you can keep us updated on this thread.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> I've seen them technically violate federal law, relative lost grandfathered DNS because Retentions rep cancelled service and started a new account, email to Directv VP and the DNS were restored, old account status with 1999 sign up date was not, technically that was not allowed under the law.


One of those cases when restoring the service was the right thing to do. The law doesn't say that the customer needs to have a "1999 sign up date" on their account.

Here is one of the paragraphs relating to the oldest grandfathered customers (proposed to be stricken by the new law):
"(e) MORATORIUM ON COPYRIGHT LIABILITY.-Until December 31, 2019, a subscriber who does not receive a signal of Grade A intensity (as defined in the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission under section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999, or predicted by the Federal Communications Commission using the Individual Location Longley-Rice methodology described by the Federal Communications Commission in Docket No. 98-201) of a local network television broadcast station shall remain eligible to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber had satellite service of such network signal terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999, as required by this section, or received such service on October 31, 1999."



GordonGekko said:


> Pure speculation but unless Directv was forced to prove it, why risk losing 500,000 to 800,000 grandfathered subscribers by pulling their DNS, maybe that was the reason they would not provide Congress with a definitive grandfathered subscriber count when asked in the spring of 2019.


Not complying with the law would put ALL of the distant subscribers (including short market subscribers and RV/truck subscribers) at risk. I thought the estimated number of people receiving distants (not just grandfathered) was 500-800k? That number includes DISH's short market subscribers.

I'm not sure why DISH and DIRECTV refuse to give numbers. They are required to give an accounting to the Copyright Office of how many customers are receiving service when they pay the statutory rate for the carriage. § 119 (2)(C)
"(ii)	MONTHLY LISTS.-After the submission of the initial lists under clause (i), the satellite carrier shall, not later than the 15th of each month, submit to the network a list, aggregated by designated market area, identifying (by name and address, including street or rural route number, city, State, and 9-digit zip code) any persons who have been added or dropped as subscribers under clause (i) since the last sub-mission under this subparagraph.
(iii)	USE OF SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION.-Subscriber information submitted by a satellite carrier under this sub paragraph may be used only for purposes of monitoring compliance by the satellite carrier with this subsection."

Paragraph (3) of § 119 covers markets where customers had distants and locals were added. Subscribers as of October 2004 were allowed to keep distants until they subscribed to locals. The 2010 law allowed customers to add locals and not lose distants "until such time as the subscriber elects to terminate such secondary transmissions".

I expect that there are few 1999 grandfathered customers and more 2010 grandfathered customers (including 2004 granfathered customers who did not add locals until 2010). All of DISH's customers would be non-grandfathered. The secret they are keeping (other than the required monthly report to the copyright office) is how many subscribers are short market and how many subscribers are RV/truck.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

STELAR Lapses, Local Broadcaster Monopoly Pricing Doesn't - AT&T Public Policy


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> STELAR Lapses, Local Broadcaster Monopoly Pricing Doesn't - AT&T Public Policy


"In recent years, one of the biggest cost issues affecting the escalating TV bills of American consumers has been the massive increases they've been forced to pay in order to receive local broadcast television, television that is available over-the-air for free. Since 2006, retransmission fees charged by local broadcasters have skyrocketed from $200 million to $11.7 billion in 2019 - an increase of more than 5,000%, nearly all of which has been passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills. Rather than address this problem, Congress has instead bowed to further demands from broadcasters to eliminate a law called STELAR, *removing hundreds of thousands of consumers' access to broadcast channels they receive today*. Make no mistake, when the screens of those consumers go dark, the sole reason will be that Congress did not act to protect them." (Emphasis added)

No exact numbers from AT&T, but I assume they are referring to grandfathered customers. Customers in the twelve markets will get their own network channels (and non-network stations) that they currently do not receive. The biggest impact would be felt if AT&T|DIRECTV decides not to cover the 12 markets and all distant service is cut off. That is a decision for AT&T|DIRECTV to make.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BTW: The bill as it stands is the same as the proposal except DIRECTV is given until May 31, 2020, to cover all markets and qualify to continue to deliver distants.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> "In recent years, one of the biggest cost issues affecting the escalating TV bills of American consumers has been the massive increases they've been forced to pay in order to receive local broadcast television, television that is available over-the-air for free. Since 2006, retransmission fees charged by local broadcasters have skyrocketed from $200 million to $11.7 billion in 2019 - an increase of more than 5,000%, nearly all of which has been passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills. Rather than address this problem, Congress has instead bowed to further demands from broadcasters to eliminate a law called STELAR, *removing hundreds of thousands of consumers' access to broadcast channels they receive today*. Make no mistake, when the screens of those consumers go dark, the sole reason will be that Congress did not act to protect them." (Emphasis added)
> 
> No exact numbers from AT&T, but I assume they are referring to grandfathered customers. Customers in the twelve markets will get their own network channels (and non-network stations) that they currently do not receive. The biggest impact would be felt if AT&T|DIRECTV decides not to cover the 12 markets and all distant service is cut off. That is a decision for AT&T|DIRECTV to make.


https://www.multichannel.com/news/stelar-to-sunset-dec-31

Question, will the grandfathered accounts know if the plug is pulled on January 1st, or will we have to wait the 120 days past 1/1/20 to determine if we are losing them? (Or June 1st)

I emailed the author of the above article, he believes you are probably correct that the grandfathered accounts are toast but he can't be certain and some of the experts he relies on in the industry are not sure either.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The date granfathered distants will end is "May 31, 2020; or the date on which such carrier provides local-into-local service to all DMAs." (The previous proposal said 120 days after enactment or on the date LIL is available in all DMAs.)

When AT&T|DIRECTV will notify their subscribers is up to AT&T|DIRECTV. Theoretically DIRECTV could turn up all but one market and light the final DMA May 31st without anyone who will continue to receive distants losing distants. That would give the grandfathered subscribers the most number of days. But I doubt AT&T|DIRECTV will wait that long. I don't see them rushing to light up the remaining markets in January, but I don't see them waiting until May.

I expect that once the bill is signed into law there will be an announcement.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The date granfathered distants will end is "May 31, 2020; or the date on which such carrier provides local-into-local service to all DMAs." (The previous proposal said 120 days after enactment or on the date LIL is available in all DMAs.)
> 
> When AT&T|DIRECTV will notify their subscribers is up to AT&T|DIRECTV. Theoretically DIRECTV could turn up all but one market and light the final DMA May 31st without anyone who will continue to receive distants losing distants. That would give the grandfathered subscribers the most number of days. But I doubt AT&T|DIRECTV will wait that long. I don't see them rushing to light up the remaining markets in January, but I don't see them waiting until May.
> 
> I expect that once the bill is signed into law there will be an announcement.


Any idea why they sent some subscribers emails over the summer asking why they needed the distant networks, well actually I don't remember what their question was but somewhere, maybe in this thread, someone claimed they got an email asking questions about their DNS.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> Any idea why they sent some subscribers emails over the summer asking why they needed the distant networks, well actually I don't remember what their question was but somewhere, maybe in this thread, someone claimed they got an email asking questions about their DNS.


Probably they wanted to gather information to be used for lobbying congress when the STELA reauth was discussed.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

James Long said:


> One of those cases when restoring the service was the right thing to do. The law doesn't say that the customer needs to have a "1999 sign up date" on their account.
> 
> Here is one of the paragraphs relating to the oldest grandfathered customers (proposed to be stricken by the new law):
> "(e) MORATORIUM ON COPYRIGHT LIABILITY.-Until December 31, 2019, a subscriber who does not receive a signal of Grade A intensity (as defined in the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission under section 73.683(a) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 1999, or predicted by the Federal Communications Commission using the Individual Location Longley-Rice methodology described by the Federal Communications Commission in Docket No. 98-201) of a local network television broadcast station shall remain eligible to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber had satellite service of such network signal terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999, as required by this section, or received such service on October 31, 1999." ...
> ...


I am one of those continuous DNS subscribers that pre-dates 1999, though I am almost certain that there is no way to substantiate that.
My original service inception date was 1994, through Pegasus, who managed the rural accounts for DirecTV / USSB up until DirecTV acquired Pegasus and all of their rural subscribers in 2005. Since I have been officially under the DirecTV banner, their records [and my DirecTV assigned account number] reflect a 'thanks for being a DirecTV customer since 2005..." The DirecTV CSR's knew nothing about Pegasus in 2006, I'm certain no-one there today would know anything about them.

I had both E & W SD DNS [channel '80's] from 1994. When the 110° slot Ku-band HD H10 model was introduced, I retained the E & W SD [channel '80's] but was initially only provided the E HD [even numbered channel '90's]. The eventual interpretation and wording adopted by DirecTV was "... not to receive *HD* DNS broadcasts any earlier than their...", so PST / MST could not receive E HD, but CST / EST could receive W HD in addition to E HD, and a couple of months later I ended up with E & W SD [channel '80's] and E & W HD [channel '90's], Ku-band and still have all E & W SD & HD [channels 389-399] Ka-band to this day.
[edit: All CONUS, LIL & spotbeams came into existence when DTV7S (as I recall) came online]

The origins of the satellite out-of-market broadcast provision dates back to [*C*_ro-Magnon_] *C*-band transmission. Legislation creating the license was originally enacted for 6 years, effective January 1, 1989. One year before expiration, specifically to include DBS, the satellite carrier license was extended for 5 years by the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 ("SHVA of 1994"), Public Law 103-369. That §119 license expired December 31, 1999, and variants of it, with slightly altered acronyms and text, have been renewed every 5 years since then. I have been covered by some version of SHVA since 1994, so the next act will be (SOS) ACT VI for me. I've always viewed these as a stay of execution, always expecting my last meal and to "walk the mile", so if it finally happens, it happens.

For me, DNS had already been compromised. During the NFL hiatus (no team) in Los Angeles, there was no televised restriction of 10AM PST games due to a 1PM PST home game, and no restriction of 1PM PST because there was no 75-mile radius home team. There were two games on each NFL W DNS network, four broadcasts, in addition to the four broadcasts on the NFL E DNS network (included the Jets & Giants), and accounting for the SUN / MON / THU broadcasts, I would receive 11 of the 15 NFL contests every week. I had no reason to subscribe to NFL ticket. I grew up in southern CA, but still preferred not having the Oakland Davis' and LA Frontiere's in town.

I'm a UCLA alum, and the whole PAC12 Larry Scott drama did not disrupt my 25 year DirecTV subscription, but if my DNS disappears, then I do as well...


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Michael H.. said:


> I am one of those continuous DNS subscribers that pre-dates 1999, though I am almost certain that there is no way to substantiate that.
> My original service inception date was 1994, through Pegasus, who managed the rural accounts for DirecTV / USSB up until DirecTV acquired Pegasus and all of their rural subscribers in 2005. Since I have been officially under the DirecTV banner, their records [and my DirecTV assigned account number] reflect a 'thanks for being a DirecTV customer since 2005..." The DirecTV CSR's knew nothing about Pegasus in 2006, I'm certain no-one there today would know anything about them.
> 
> I had both E & W SD DNS [channel '80's] from 1994. When the 110° slot Ku-band HD H10 model was introduced, I retained the E & W SD [channel '80's] but was initially only provided the E HD [even numbered channel '90's]. The eventual interpretation and wording adopted by DirecTV was "... not to receive *HD* DNS broadcasts any earlier than their...", so PST / MST could not receive E HD, but CST / EST could receive W HD in addition to E HD, and a couple of months later I ended up with E & W SD [channel '80's] and E & W HD [channel '90's], Ku-band and still have all E & W SD & HD [channels 389-399] Ka-band to this day.
> ...


Yes, although as you wrote the amount of games is not as high as years ago, it is always cool to set the DVR to record those extra games, it is a shame the rules don't allow everyone in America to pay extra for NY/LA, make it a rule that in order to get NY/LA you must also pay for your local stations, I get it, ratings etc. but the in town locals have the advantage of providing hyper local news coverage, people will always watch that, just give us some extra choice.

Although I imagine the NFL is not too happy about the people who get DNS but I'm fairly certain the amount of people who watch NFL games on illegal streams dwarfs the amount of people watching those extra games on DNS.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Yes, although as you wrote the amount of games is not as high as years ago, it is always cool to set the DVR to record those extra games, it is a shame the rules don't allow everyone in America to pay extra for NY/LA, make it a rule that in order to get NY/LA you must also pay for your local stations, I get it, ratings etc. but the in town locals have the advantage of providing hyper local news coverage, people will always watch that, just give us some extra choice.
> 
> Although I imagine the NFL is not too happy about the people who get DNS but I'm fairly certain the amount of people who watch NFL games on illegal streams dwarfs the amount of people watching those extra games on DNS.


Not sure how many people, not in an RV, would be willing to pay $20 extra for DNS. I believe each network would still cost $3.50, even if you got only the E or W feed. In 1994, these cost $1.50, before increasing to $2.50, then eventually to $3.50. The grandfathered "no locals" programming packages are discounted $3 from the local inclusive, and both will go up next month with the scheduled increase. I get all the OTA locals & subchannels integrated into the DVR's with the AM21's. I don't watch the news, on distant or local broadcast. I get the news and weather online. Because I don't live in NY or LA, one or both of the OTA out of market NFL broadcasts in addition to the designated local NFL team are usually different from the DNS. Before STL and SD moved to LA, I might not receive only one or two of the entire NFL ticket games each week. In the '90's, When I was young, single, and a renter, I could watch four or five games per week. This millennium, as an ancient, married, owner, I haven't been able to find the time to watch more than one game per week.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Richard said:


> I have no use for "Local" channels. I get shows from the 4 main networks by other means.


 The NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL ALL still have games that will continue to be aired on Local Channels for MANY years to come. And as in my case my "Local" channels are 80 Miles away yes that is correct. My local area served by Memphis Tennessee & from where I live in a very rural area, an over the air antenna does me no good. I have one & Cannot pick up Memphis locals with it. The only way I get them is through DIRECTV. So local stations better not go away. And as for you in your case, YOU might not have Any use for your Local Channels, but I do for my local channels and there are certainly many others that have a use for Local Channels.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

Rob37 said:


> The NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL ALL still have games that will continue to be aired on Local Channels for MANY years to come. And as in my case my "Local" channels are 80 Miles away yes that is correct. My local area served by Memphis Tennessee & from where I live in a very rural area, an over the air antenna does me no good. I have one & Cannot pick up Memphis locals with it. The only way I get them is through DIRECTV. So local stations better not go away. And as for you in your case, YOU might not have Any use for your Local Channels, but I do for my local channels and there are certainly many others that have a use for Local Channels.


These games can be watch by other means. NFL games are replayed on NFL Network throughout the week, and are even condensed to remove most of the irrelevant content.

What I meant is that the local channels should be required to make sure EVERYONE in their market can receive their channel, either by over the air antenna, or by land based cable or via DBS. And, the local channel should be required to cover the costs for that. Meaning, DirecTV/DISH should not have to pay to rebroadcast those channels. That should be required or these "local" channels should be made to pay for the use of the airwaves they get to use for free today.

The channels considered "local" for me are over 75 miles away, and I don't consider them "local" either.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Richard said:


> These games can be watch by other means. NFL games are replayed on NFL Network throughout the week, and are even condensed to remove most of the irrelevant content.
> 
> What I meant is that the local channels should be required to make sure EVERYONE in their market can receive their channel, either by over the air antenna, or by land based cable or via DBS. And, the local channel should be required to cover the costs for that. Meaning, DirecTV/DISH should not have to pay to rebroadcast those channels. That should be required or these "local" channels should be made to pay for the use of the airwaves they get to use for free today.
> 
> The channels considered "local" for me are over 75 miles away, and I don't consider them "local" either.


Why should local stations be required to do this? If you're a plumber, should you be required to fix anyone's toilet that breaks, and pay all costs in doing so? Your argument is ludicrous.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Richard said:


> What I meant is that the local channels should be required to make sure EVERYONE in their market can receive their channel, either by over the air antenna, or by land based cable or via DBS. And, the local channel should be required to cover the costs for that.


Expecting the local stations to pay for carriage is too much to ask. Are you going to require every cable system to wire every home in the market that has trouble with OTA?

A better system (which will also never come to pass) is for all stations to be paid a statutory rate for rebroadcast. Instead of the "less popular" stations (and non-profit stations) choosing "must carry" to get carriage on cable and satellite - with zero financial compensation - and the "more popular" stations choosing "consent to carry" and holding rebroadcasters hostage with high rates take care of the copyright issues the same way that satellite providers pay for distant stations: a statutory rate. All stations must carry on satellite and cable with statutory rates paid to all copyright holders. Much fairer than the current system. But, as noted, it won't happen.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

please just kick the can down the road 5 years.. Directv could be on life support by then..


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> please just kick the can down the road 5 years.. Directv could be on life support by then..


Sadly that is impossible now, it is a done deal, just a matter of reading the fine print, barring a low percentage surprise, the grandfathered DNS era is over.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Text - H.R.1865 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020
Bill status shows that the budget, including the satellite language discussed in this thread, was signed into law last Friday.
(The Senate passed the House changed bill 71-23.)


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> Probably they wanted to gather information to be used for lobbying congress when the STELA reauth was discussed.


Anyone get any inside information on what will happen for those non RV distant network subscribers? I agree with the speculation that there is little chance they will survive but has anyone been able to dig any info out of Directv? I tried a few calls but got nowhere.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> Anyone get any inside information on what will happen for those non RV distant network subscribers? I agree with the speculation that there is little chance they will survive but has anyone been able to dig any info out of Directv? I tried a few calls but got nowhere.


Well it sounded like the ones who are grandfathered will lose that status, however I'm just going off what I read about this and haven't actually read the text of the bill (and have no desire/intention to do so) Perhaps someone who is affected by this and concerned will take that step, and will be able to point to text in the bill that says one way or another. But as I understand it the "grandfathering" was supported by previous bills and has expired, so unless the new bill explicitly extends it it should be cut off already (unless the new bill gives a grace period to notify customers or something)

The ones who actually need DNS because they have markets that lack one or more affiliates will keep them - so long as Directv covers those 12 DMAs by the end of May. We probably won't know whether/when that's happening until we start seeing them appear in the weekly spreadsheet.

If Directv fails to cover those 12 markets then ALL DNS for every Directv customer will go away on June 1st. I don't see any way they fail to do so, that would cost them hundreds of thousands of customers and so whatever they've saved in the past by not covering those markets is no longer worth it under the new law.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The date granfathered distants will end is "May 31, 2020; or the date on which such carrier provides local-into-local service to all DMAs."

Distants will be provided to RV customers who have completed the correct forms and keep them up to date and to customers in short markets where an affiliate of that network is not available from an in market broadcaster. DIRECTV has until the end of May to sort out what they are doing and notify customers (if they choose to do so). The law says they need to comply by May 31st or turn off all distants (including short markets and RVs) until they are compliant.

The text of the law is attached in a post above. Bottom line: If you have an affiliate in your market do not expect to receive a distant of that affiliate unless you are in an RV or commercial vehicle.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

So, It appears that the distant networks in the 390s will remain up then?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

For qualified customers, yes.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Copyright Act and Communications Act Changes in 2019 Related to Television


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Michael H.. said:


> Copyright Act and Communications Act Changes in 2019 Related to Television


Did you find anything interesting, not certain who wants to read all of those pages.

Update: After reading the important parts, it confirms what already has been written, the non RV DNS subscribers will lose the channels at the end of May at the latest. I was hoping that underserved markets would include those towns that were too far to pick up a local's HD antenna signal but that is not the case.

One less thing tying me to Directv and it opens up the freedom to allow a full disconnect cancellation and a possible new subscription with a deal, without worrying about losing the distant channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I found the fee information in the document to be interesting. The statutory fee paid to copyright holders has dropped 90%. That means that the number of subscribers relying on distants has also dropped, probably by the same percentage (more if the statutory rate per subscriber increased).

While distant subscribers, RV and grandfathered, are well represented on DBS Talk and other satellite forums - their numbers are certainly waning.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> I found the fee information in the document to be interesting. The statutory fee paid to copyright holders has dropped 90%. That means that the number of subscribers relying on distants has also dropped, probably by the same percentage (more if the statutory rate per subscriber increased).
> 
> While distant subscribers, RV and grandfathered, are well represented on DBS Talk and other satellite forums - their numbers are certainly waning.


It would be interesting to learn the real number, I really only use them for the NFL but even without the NFL, I would still pay for them, why, I don't know, I just like having a channel that is impossible to have on any other service, even if I watch one Los Angeles news broadcast per year. I remember the old days with the rigged satellite card and the spot beams, you could watch news broadcasts all across the country. And I know you can do that now on the internet but whatever, sadly Directv is slowly dying.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> I found the fee information in the document to be interesting. The statutory fee paid to copyright holders has dropped 90%. That means that the number of subscribers relying on distants has also dropped, probably by the same percentage (more if the statutory rate per subscriber increased).
> 
> While distant subscribers, RV and grandfathered, are well represented on DBS Talk and other satellite forums - their numbers are certainly waning.


The document did say another reason for the drop in revenue was the decline of Superstations too though. TBS/WGN used to be included in that as did the Superstations on Dish. It's hard to know how much of the revenue was for DNS vs. those too


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The comparison was between six months in 2014 and the same six months in 2019. Long after TBS and WGN stopped being superstations (their local station feeds were not carried nationally and they charged subscription rates instead of relying on the statutory rate). DISH ceased allowing customers to add superstations in 2013, but did not turn off existing customer's feeds.

The marketing and distribution of distants by DIRECTV would have outpaced DISH's superstations. I believe the primary loss came from DIRECTV adding in market locals and customers who either lost eligibility by changing providers or gave up distants to get all of their locals. The legal changes in 2014 made it harder to keep both and eliminated east coast locals for west coast viewers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> I remember the old days with the rigged satellite card and the spot beams, ...


The illegal reception of signals didn't change under STELA.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The illegal reception of signals didn't change under STELA.


Ha, yes I know that, it was not me, only a friend, I just remember when I would watch TV over there, Seattle, OKC, multiple locals, but one thing, the rigged cards are a thing of the past.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

what consists of an RV ? and what are the rules.. I have three Suburbans all for camping.. does this quailify?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> BTW: The bill as it stands is the same as the proposal except DIRECTV is given until May 31, 2020, to cover all markets and qualify to continue to deliver distants.


Anyone get any communications from Directv regarding their grandfathered DNS channels?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

GordonGekko said:


> Anyone get any communications from Directv regarding their grandfathered DNS channels?


Nothing here, have you?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Has DIRECTV added any of the missing markets? Per the law, grandfathering ends when the last market is added and no later than May 31st. If they don't add the final market by May 31st it will be more than the grandfathered customers losing their distants.

I don't keep track of DIRECTV market additions - have there been any this year? How many markets are left to add?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> Has DIRECTV added any of the missing markets? Per the law, grandfathering ends when the last market is added and no later than May 31st. If they don't add the final market by May 31st it will be more than the grandfathered customers losing their distants.
> 
> I don't keep track of DIRECTV market additions - have there been any this year? How many markets are left to add?


None that I'm aware of and I haven't seen anything over at Edge Cutters about the missing markets having any locals added. Although AT&T could wait until the last possible minute to activate the remaining 12 markets in order to avoid paying the local channels of those DMAs until they have to. So we may not know until May 31, 2020 hits about the fate of DirecTV DNS.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

There has been no change in my market in regards to adding any local network channels.
Not surprisingly, the results of the DTV app to determine DNS eligibility hasn't changed from when I ran the first version of this back in '94 when the DNS channels (which only comprised of ABC, CBS, and NBC [Edit: From a mix of local affiliates, NYC, DC, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle rather than currently all from NYC & LA]) cost $1.50 each.
I was actually a carry-over from DNS from C-band service, and the STELA (different acronym back then and with every 5-year extension except the present), which was revised to include DBS to the C-band legislation.
Back then, when Pegasus contracted DTV / USSB service for rural communities on behalf of DTV, most of the Pegasus customers that I knew, and a significant percentage of urban DTV customers opted for DNS, before the advent of DTV 7S and later (spotbeams) enabled LIL.
Now, all of the neighbors that had DNS, have long since relinquished it, even though local channels were never added to DTV, but have been available via OTA. (Edit: Network affiliate OTA available in the sense that a neighbor has OTA affixed atop a 60' tower in order to get 60% 'ish pre-amplified signal strength from broadcast towers 85 miles away through mountainess terrain. I receive three non-network OTA stations from a local mountaintop broadcast locale.)
I am grandfathered, and would have still received DNS even if LIL was available in my market, and if grandfathering were to be eliminated, I should still be eligible for DNS based upon no LIL or qualified OTA signal.
One neighbor, who had relinquished DNS, re-applied (10 years ago?) and although received local station waivers based upon no qualified OTA signal, was denied by DTV.
The paraphrased answer they received from DTV was that although eligible, DTV was only permitted, not obligated, to provide the service, and elected not to.
There are estimates that there are 800K (at the end of 2019) DNS customers.
Would be hard to believe that ATT doesn't care if they lose that revenue, and lose those customers that will cancel DTV if they lose DNS... but ATT has demonstrated that this is consistent with their current vision...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Consider the revenue gone. In six weeks DIRECTV will not be able to provide a distant network affiliate in any market where that network has a local affiliate. Even if the network affiliate is a subchannel or does not cover the entire market OTA. Only missing networks in short markets will be allowed (for example, an ABC affiliate in a market with no local ABC). Only RV/commercial vehicles will be able to get a out of market distants package.

It gets worse if DIRECTV does not offer carriage in every market by May 31st. I hope someone at AT&T|DIRECTV is paying attention to the deadline. (Offer as in contacting every local station in those markets and asking if they want to be carried. If a station refuses carriage it cannot be carried. Nor can a distant be carried in its place.)


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Do you think it got put on hold due to the virus?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Has DIRECTV added any of the missing markets? Per the law, grandfathering ends when the last market is added and no later than May 31st. If they don't add the final market by May 31st it will be more than the grandfathered customers losing their distants.
> 
> I don't keep track of DIRECTV market additions - have there been any this year? How many markets are left to add?


They haven't added any, but like I said before I would expect if they do add them they'd be done in the second half of May. It takes time to set up the LRFs and the equipment in the RUFs, plus it will cost Directv more since they'd be delivering BOTH the locals and DNS to those markets assuming those customers are grandfathered with the DNS channels.

If they are working to add the markets I imagine the pandemic has set back their plans since they aren't going to want employees to travel to set up the LRFs. So they could probably ask the FCC and/or Congress for a delay in the deadline.

If they aren't planning on doing this, it is bizarre that they wouldn't communicate to the affected customers. Unless they were planning on just cutting them off on June 1st, and telling upset customers to complain to their congressmen


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> Has DIRECTV added any of the missing markets? Per the law, grandfathering ends when the last market is added and no later than May 31st. If they don't add the final market by May 31st it will be more than the grandfathered customers losing their distants.
> 
> I don't keep track of DIRECTV market additions - have there been any this year? How many markets are left to add?


Directv does not provide local service to 12 DMAs at this time. The last DMA addition was Charlottesville, VA, on 9/ 17/2014. There is no indication of any work being done to add any of those DMAs. There also has been no request for a delay.

For those interested, here-is-the-link to the DMA data (in post #1).


----------



## tomspeer46 (Nov 17, 2011)

On the other hand, they have adequate free spot beam bandwidth to serve all 12 unserved DMAs, if they are doing the preparation for getting the signals in the background. They wouldn't have to leave any indications that we can see.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i just think that they shouldn't have to complete this task at this time and to kick this can down hte road another 5 years... because by then Directv and dish may be gone and the situation moot..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bjlc said:


> i just think that they shouldn't have to complete this task at this time and to kick this can down hte road another 5 years... because by then Directv and dish may be gone and the situation moot..


The only way to kick the can is to get Congress to rewrite the laws in the next five weeks. They are a little busy with something else at the moment.

If DIRECTV does not comply by adding the remaining markets before May 31st, their option is to end ALL distant service or be in violation of the law. Intentionally being in violation of the law would not end well.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

James Long said:


> They are a little busy with something else at the moment.


Which is why I asked earlier, did this get postponed because of COVID-19?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Update: Well here is an update seems AT&T is requesting an extension of the sunset until January 1, 2021 due to COVID-19 in the meantime they will begin notifications that customers could lose DNS on June 1, 2020. Seems they have been trying to negotiate with the locals.

AT&T Seeks Delay of Carriage License Sunset, Citing Pandemic


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> In the letter, AT&T pointed out it fought the sunset, and said it has been negotiating carriage with the networks, but have yet to reach definitive agreements that "would preserve all subscribers' current programming."


The law does not allow AT&T|DIRECTV to preserve "all" current programming. The law ends grandfathering. If a market has an affiliate there can be no imported affiliate. Yes, the networks could agree to have their signals carried outside of the law but that would be a violation of their affiliation agreements in markets where they have an affiliate.

I can see getting an extension for RV and commercial vehicle subscribers. People who would get distants if AT&T|DIRECTV complies with the law by May 31st. But I don't agree with rewarding AT&T|DIRECTV for dragging their feet and failing to negotiate agreements that fit within the law. And I do not agree with a seven month extension. Any extension should come with proof that they are negotiating in good faith and should only be for as long as they can demonstrate that their negotiations are being hampered by COVID-19. Otherwise it seems that they are just using the pandemic as an excuse to not do what they didn't want to do - like a petulant child.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

techguy88 said:


> Update: Well here is an update seems AT&T is requesting an extension of the sunset until January 1, 2021 due to COVID-19 in the meantime they will begin notifications that customers could lose DNS on June 1, 2020. Seems they have been trying to negotiate with the locals.
> 
> AT&T Seeks Delay of Carriage License Sunset, Citing Pandemic


and when trump loses DNS on AIR FORCE ONE how fast will it come back?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> The law does not allow AT&T|DIRECTV to preserve "all" current programming. The law ends grandfathering. If a market has an affiliate there can be no imported affiliate. Yes, the networks could agree to have their signals carried outside of the law but that would be a violation of their affiliation agreements in markets where they have an affiliate.
> 
> I can see getting an extension for RV and commercial vehicle subscribers. People who would get distants if AT&T|DIRECTV complies with the law by May 31st. But I don't agree with rewarding AT&T|DIRECTV for dragging their feet and failing to negotiate agreements that fit within the law. And I do not agree with a seven month extension. Any extension should come with proof that they are negotiating in good faith and should only be for as long as they can demonstrate that their negotiations are being hampered by COVID-19. Otherwise it seems that they are just using the pandemic as an excuse to not do what they didn't want to do - like a petulant child.


I hate to do this to you but I must play devil's advocate here because it is highly possible AT&T isn't referring to the existing DMAs where they carry all Big 5 affiliations but in instances of the 12 under-served DMAs where they have to reach out to a neighboring DMA to pull in an affiliation not carried locally.

For example Alpena, Michigan lacks an NBC affiliate and the CW affiliation is controlled by Charter Spectrum in the DMA.

Dish Network currently imports WEYI-TV 25 from Flint, MI which is owned by Sinclair sidecar Howard Stirk Holdings. Logic would tell us this would be the affiliate AT&T/DirecTV would need to import as well and as we know from last year HSH and AT&T do not play well with each other. Situations like this could be holding AT&T up.

Also Charter Spectrum controls the CW affiliation for this market via its cable channel 5 and Dish doesn't even carry CW at all for this market (according to its website). AT&T actually owns 50% of the CW network proper so AT&T probably wants to ensure any DMA that is receiving a CW DNS signal that lacks a proper CW affiliate can still get CW programming. So for this DMA specifically AT&T would need to reach an agreement with Spectrum to carry their cable version of CW or get permission from Spectrum to import the adjacent CW local (which again is controlled by HSH via WEYI's second digital subchannel going back to point one.)


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

The only option AT&T has right now is to use this to pressure the networks into giving them an extension, or con Congress into writing an extension into the next stimulus package. Their timing is actually pretty good. I can easily see them sneaking this into some piece of legislation between now and the end of May.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

techguy88 said:


> I hate to do this to you but I must play devil's advocate here because it is highly possible AT&T isn't referring to the existing DMAs where they carry all Big 5 affiliations but in instances of the 12 under-served DMAs where they have to reach out to a neighboring DMA to pull in an affiliation not carried locally.
> 
> For example Alpena, Michigan lacks an NBC affiliate and the CW affiliation is controlled by Charter Spectrum in the DMA.
> 
> ...


And the sub stations for ABC and Fox are SD and really suck. (Yes I know HD is not required)


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

A Cable only CW is a station that falls into never-never land with regard to DBS retransmission. I suppose they COULD work out a retrans deal.

And 242424 - that is absolutely correct. HD is NOT required, only SD. AND, since ABC and FOX are not primary channels - they can't fall under the must carry rule either (but a retrans agreement could get them).


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and when trump loses DNS on AIR FORCE ONE how fast will it come back?


I strongly suspect they're going to keep the "DNS" channels available nationally via satellite, even if they no longer have any terrestrial customers receiving them -- commercial airlines that offer DirecTV service will still be making use of them, for example.

_I also strongly suspect Trump wouldn't notice anything was wrong with the Air Force One TV lineup unless Channel 360 disappeared._


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

trainman said:


> I also strongly suspect Trump wouldn't notice anything was wrong with the Air Force One TV lineup unless Channel 360 disappeared.


Or channel 347 (his latest favorite). I'm sure the Air Force would provide a way if DIRECTV didn't have the channels. DISH has channels on CONUS that can be provided as distants. They simply choose to provide neighboring/regional distants and ask the RV community to change their locals as they travel to the local market that they are in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> I hate to do this to you but I must play devil's advocate here because it is highly possible AT&T isn't referring to the existing DMAs where they carry all Big 5 affiliations but in instances of the 12 under-served DMAs where they have to reach out to a neighboring DMA to pull in an affiliation not carried locally.


I am reading "all" current programming as "all" - including coverage not allowed under the latest law.

There is no requirement that DIRECTV choose a neighbor or regional affiliate as their distant. They can continue to provide NY distants to cities such as Alpena. What they can't do is provide a distant where an affiliate exists within the market. The current distant programming will need to be replaced by in market stations or removed if an in market agreement cannot be reached. Just like cable and DISH.

And DIRECTV will not be able to get away with providing just the "big 5" and ignoring other stations in the market. The same rules followed by cable and DISH.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't think AT&T is negotiating with the locals in the 12 markets at all. They are negotiating with the networks to continue to offer NYC & LA channels to short markets and RVs.

All that is expiring is the compulsory license that allows Directv & Dish to carry those channels without a contract, at a statutory price. Nothing in the law prevents Directv from signing a contract that allows them to carry those stations where the law allows. And the law "allows" it for customers like RVs, as well as short markets. Where the law would not allow carrying them is the 12 'missing' markets, as well as legacy customers who are grandfathered (I'm not 100% sure, but I think the new law drops the grandfathering so those people were going to lose their DNS channels on June 1st regardless)

I hadn't considered this angle before but it makes perfect sense. The 11,000 customers in those 12 markets would lose the DNS locals, which sucks for them, and the grandfathered customers would lose their DNS channels (which I think was going to happen anyway) but all the rest of their customers with accounts for RVs, trucks, boats and so forth keep them, as well as all the customers in short markets who depend on DNS for one or more networks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I hadn't considered this angle before but it makes perfect sense. The 11,000 customers in those 12 markets would lose the DNS locals, which sucks for them, and the grandfathered customers would lose their DNS channels (which I think was going to happen anyway) but all the rest of their customers with accounts for RVs, trucks, boats and so forth keep them, as well as all the customers in short markets who depend on DNS for one or more networks.


It is a big gamble. Are they expecting the major networks to violate their contracts with the affiliates in those 12 markets? I agree with the concept - there is nothing stopping a network from going around their affiliates to offer their content. Except the affiliation agreements where they promise first run exclusivity to the local channel.

The easier path is to "offer carriage" to stations in those markets - and if the price is too rich, don't carry the channels. DIRECTV is not required to carry every local channel in every local market. They are only required to offer carriage. Offer carriage and DNS can continue to RVs, commercial vehicles and short markets.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> It is a big gamble. Are they expecting the major networks to violate their contracts with the affiliates in those 12 markets? I agree with the concept - there is nothing stopping a network from going around their affiliates to offer their content. Except the affiliation agreements where they promise first run exclusivity to the local channel.
> 
> The easier path is to "offer carriage" to stations in those markets - and if the price is too rich, don't carry the channels. DIRECTV is not required to carry every local channel in every local market. They are only required to offer carriage. Offer carriage and DNS can continue to RVs, commercial vehicles and short markets.


Where does what I suggest violate contracts with affiliates in those 12 markets? I specifically said this would only affect stuff like RVs getting DNS, and short markets (i.e. markets OTHER than those 12 that don't have all four networks represented) and said customers in those markets would lose their DNS locals if AT&T pursued this strategy.

AT&T's making the offer I suggest to the networks wouldn't impact affiliate contracts in any DMA.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You are going to need to be more clear as to what you are proposing AT&T should do.

Under the law there are two options:
1) Offer carriage to all channels in selected markets but not all markets. Lose the ability to deliver distants to anyone after May 31st.
2) Offer carriage to all channels in all markets. Lose the ability to deliver distants except RV/commercial vehicles and short markets.

Status Quo: Offer carriage to all channels in selected markets and deliver distants to RV/commercial vehicles, short markets and various grandfathered customers in markets where they will not be legally able to deliver such distants after May 31st.

"All current programming" would be the status quo and the only way to continue deliver to grandfathered customers would be to either violate the law or work out a deal that is outside of the law. The networks cannot agree to a deal to deliver their channels to grandfathered subscribers without violating their affiliation agreements. (That is the beauty of the old law - no permission is required - for example, a local affiliate can't complain that ABC or a carried distant ABC affiliate is violating the affiliation contract since their signal is not carried by their choice. ABC can't stop grandfathered carriage.)

So assuming all the grandfathered carriage goes away - customers who chose to keep their distants when locals came to their market lose their distants - customers who were able to keep distants and get locals lose their distants - what is left?
* Markets with carriage offered to every local and all networks represented get their market's locals (no distants)
* Markets with carriage offered to every local and a missing network (short market) get only the distants needed to fill in the gaps

Are you suggesting that AT&T be able to opt out of select markets and carry no locals or distants in those markets but be able to carry distants in markets where they offer locals?
Or are you suggesting that AT&T be able to opt out of carrying locals but still be able to carry distants in short markets?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> You are going to need to be more clear as to what you are proposing AT&T should do.
> 
> Under the law there are two options:
> 1) Offer carriage to all channels in selected markets but not all markets. Lose the ability to deliver distants to anyone after May 31st.
> 2) Offer carriage to all channels in all markets. Lose the ability to deliver distants except RV/commercial vehicles and short markets.


"Under the law" is the key phrase here. What I'm saying I think AT&T will do is not affected by that law at all. That law permits satellite companies to offer DNS channels without any agreement with the networks - there is a statutory rate. There is nothing in the law that says AT&T can't carry DNS channels if they have a contract with the networks that allow them to do so, they have just never had to negotiate this before because the law gave them the right to do it without asking the networks.

What I'm saying I think they're doing is that they'll negotiate with CBS, NBC, etc. for the right to carry the NYC and/or LA locals for "mobile" customers (i.e. RVs, trucks, boats, airplanes and the like) as well as filling in for short markets where they carry locals but those markets don't have affiliates for all the major networks.

What they will lose is 1) the right to broadcast DNS channels to those 12 missing markets - those 11,000 customers will be screwed so probably most of them will drop Directv and 2) the right to broadcast DNS channels to "grandfathered" customers who have their own locals (which I'm pretty sure they lose under that law regardless)


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> "Under the law" is the key phrase here. What I'm saying I think AT&T will do is not affected by that law at all. That law permits satellite companies to offer DNS channels without any agreement with the networks - there is a statutory rate. There is nothing in the law that says AT&T can't carry DNS channels if they have a contract with the networks that allow them to do so, they have just never had to negotiate this before because the law gave them the right to do it without asking the networks.
> 
> What I'm saying I think they're doing is that they'll negotiate with CBS, NBC, etc. for the right to carry the NYC and/or LA locals for "mobile" customers (i.e. RVs, trucks, boats, airplanes and the like) as well as filling in for short markets where they carry locals but those markets don't have affiliates for all the major networks.
> 
> What they will lose is 1) the right to broadcast DNS channels to those 12 missing markets - those 11,000 customers will be screwed so probably most of them will drop Directv and 2) the right to broadcast DNS channels to "grandfathered" customers who have their own locals (which I'm pretty sure they lose under that law regardless)


The grandfathered are out according to the law but here is the thing, let's say that they cut this side deal you write about, could they also cut a side deal with the networks to allow the grandfathered east and west feeds or further, could they negotiate a side deal with the networks that would allow anyone to buy the NY/LA locals, how binding is the law to a side deal?

Now from what I have read, I don't think the networks or the local affiliates would permit the ability for anyone to buy the NY/LA channels, but is there a number that could buy them off, probably not, again, for the consumer they should be available, make a rule that if you buy the NY/LA channels, you also must pay for your own locals in your town but there should be more choice, not less choice.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

All the law does is say that AT&T can't continue to offer DNS under the "statutory waiver" at the "flat rate" they've been paying unless they serve all the DMA markets with local channels. The networks completely control the DMA/Affiliation game. If they want to continue to allow AT&T to offer DNS services to RV users and truckers they can do that today- the two sides just have to agree on a price per customer and AT&T would have to pay it vs. the statutory lower fees they had under STELAR. In theory they could allow anyone to have DNS service if the networks and AT&T could agree on a price, and their affiliates were on board with it (but most likely wouldn't be). All the sunset provision does is eliminate the statutory obligation that the networks have to allow DNS and accept what is for certain a much lower rate per customer for it than they traditionally are paid for in market customers. The networks and AT&T can choose to reach whatever deal the two parties can agree on to give them to anyone they wish. It is all between the networks, AT&T and what their affiliates are willing to accept.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> The grandfathered are out according to the law but here is the thing, let's say that they cut this side deal you write about, could they also cut a side deal with the networks to allow the grandfathered east and west feeds or further, could they negotiate a side deal with the networks that would allow anyone to buy the NY/LA locals, how binding is the law to a side deal?
> 
> Now from what I have read, I don't think the networks or the local affiliates would permit the ability for anyone to buy the NY/LA channels, but is there a number that could buy them off, probably not, again, for the consumer they should be available, make a rule that if you buy the NY/LA channels, you also must pay for your own locals in your town but there should be more choice, not less choice.


They can't cut a "side deal" for grandfathered feeds, or allow anyone to buy NY/LA feeds, because the FCC doesn't allow importing out of market channels to residents of a market (other than exceptions they've carved out like significantly viewed stations or whatever) and I'm sure the affiliate contracts wouldn't allow it either. This doesn't apply for vehicles since they don't have a street address so they don't reside in a particular market.

If there was a way to allow customers to buy NY/LA feeds I'm sure they would have done it long ago. I'd love to be able to get those feeds as a backup for when severe weather takes out all the programming for hours while they track storms.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> The grandfathered are out according to the law but here is the thing, let's say that they cut this side deal you write about, could they also cut a side deal with the networks to allow the grandfathered east and west feeds or further, could they negotiate a side deal with the networks that would allow anyone to buy the NY/LA locals, how binding is the law to a side deal?


That is where one has to consider how the side deal cuts in to the affiliation agreement. The major networks being forced to allow their signals to be carried under the terms of the law isn't the network choosing to reduce the exclusive value of the agreement. Creating a national "Network TV" channel and offering it via cable and satellite is certainly legal - but it would also be a violation of their affiliation contracts that promise in market exclusivity for the content. I would be very surprised if any of the big networks would create such a channel (or willing allow AT&T|DIRECTV to create a channel by rebroadcasting a network station nationwide). Getting all the big networks to agree is insurmountable.

The networks spent a lot of time and money trying to get distants shut down completely. The compromise was to allow distants IF all markets were offered their own locals. I don't see the networks making a side deal unless there is a ton of money involved.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> That is where one has to consider how the side deal cuts in to the affiliation agreement. The major networks being forced to allow their signals to be carried under the terms of the law isn't the network choosing to reduce the exclusive value of the agreement. Creating a national "Network TV" channel and offering it via cable and satellite is certainly legal - but it would also be a violation of their affiliation contracts that promise in market exclusivity for the content. I would be very surprised if any of the big networks would create such a channel (or willing allow AT&T|DIRECTV to create a channel by rebroadcasting a network station nationwide). Getting all the big networks to agree is insurmountable.
> 
> The networks spent a lot of time and money trying to get distants shut down completely. The compromise was to allow distants IF all markets were offered their own locals. I don't see the networks making a side deal unless there is a ton of money involved.


Clearly you and the others who have responded know more about this issue than I do, in your opinion is there any financial incentive for Directv to offer more (or a ton of) money to the networks and or the affiliates or is the demand for these national feeds too low to make it worthwhile?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The age old battle is for the carrier (AT&T|DIRECTV) to pay as little as they can for content while the channel (major network in this case) charges as much as they can. The current fee is set by statutory rate. The copyright office sets the fee, collects the fee then anyone who feels that they need compensation for the rebroadcast of their material (not just the stations) can file a claim with the copyright office for compensation. For local into local and other cable/satellite channels the retransmission fees are set by negotiation between the carrier and channel. The channel pays the content owners a negotiated fee for use of their content.

I do not see a negotiated rate being lower than the statutory rate - so it would not be an issue where AT&T|DIRECTV would save money by working around the law. There would need to be some other benefit, such as losing the requirement to deliver locals to all markets or gaining the ability to deliver channels to more customers than the new distants law allows. The bean counters at AT&T|DIRECTV would need to find a way to either spend less money on channels (not carrying the 12 markets and perhaps dropping other markets from satellite) or make more money from customers (charging for a service people are willing to pay extra for or retaining high value customers who would leave if they lost distants).

Meanwhile the networks want more money than the statutory rate but need to honor their agreements with their affiliates. The networks have made it very clear that they support the network to affiliate distribution model. Throw enough money their way and perhaps they will reconsider the model - but I don't believe AT&T|DIRECTV has enough money.

So at the end of the day (in my opinion) the math doesn't work out for a side deal. The statutory license is the best deal and the benefit of being able to deliver short market network channels and RV/commercial channels is worth the cost of adding the 12 remaining markets and maintaining carriage of the rest of the markets. If AT&T|DIRECTV can find a better way for the company, good luck.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Memory lane for those who have experienced the evolution of DNS from DBS launch and now facing extinction on 06/01/2020:

DNS SD Ku-band: Channels: 80-89 / ABCE ABCW CBSE CBSW NBCE NBCW (Affiliates from across the country, not just NYC LA) (1)HBO (1)SHO (1)ESPN A couple of the Superstations
DNS HD Ku-band: Channels: 90-99 (Same as above in HD with H10 receiver)
DNS SD Ka-band: Channels: 389-399 / ABCE ABCW CBSE CBSW NBCE NBCW FOXE FOXW (Affiliates NYC LA) + CWE CWW (Affiliates DC LA) + PBS (National feed) (Leased Rx / H2x)
DNS HD Ka-band: Channels: 389-399 (Same as above in HD excluding SD CWE CWW PBS) (What I currently receive)
DNS SD Ka-band: Channels: 9530-9534 / ABCE CBSE NBCE FOXE CWE (Airline programming that I have also received the past half-year or so)

The first two Ku-band double-digit station era was serviced by Pegasus. (edit: referring just to my service). 
After that, DTV acquired the Pegasus accounts.
I'm still on the DTV ledger and haven't been transitioned over to ATT.
I'm in one of those rare DMA markets not served by ANY local affiliates, with no LIL, no cable, no OTA with the exception of minimal OTA atop a 60' tower (which I don't have).
I only pick up (3) low-power non-affiliate local stations... the ones where the local gas station mechanic serves as the VP of operations, head of programming, primary news anchor, and selfie camera-person.
The DNS Channels: 9530-9534 showed up in my guide in the past year, identified as the airline in-air stations, are SD, which looks fine on a 7" seat-back screen, but looks like garbage on my home sets.
I don't know if the airlines directly acquire these signals, or if these are rebroadcasts of the signals onto the Ka-band DNS transmission to home.
I haven't seen anyone mention these channels, and whether anyone else receives them.
Do those of you that receive at least DNS E feeds get these?
I surmised that they were segregated to allow for continuation on airliners after 06/01/2020 DNS post-apocalypse events, so D. J. Drumpf will still be able to watch FOXE onboard AFONE.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

I assume short market means markets don't get all the networks? Do the crappy sub channels count? I'm afraid I don't want to hear the answer lol


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

242424 said:


> I assume short market means markets don't get all the networks? Do the crappy sub channels count? I'm afraid I don't want to hear the answer lol


Correct on all points. If the network has sold an affiliation contract to a station in your market the station owns you (and you won't be able to get distants after May 31st). In the rare cases where a network is missing the market is "short".


----------



## jep8821 (Jun 24, 2007)

I am sorry if this was asked and answered already, how will this affect significantly viewed? Is directv allowed to still offer those? If so, I wonder if directv would expand the use of those.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Was emailed this today:

DTV DNS


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

Me too.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Michael H.. said:


> Was emailed this today:
> 
> DTV DNS


Were you guys grandfathered? Haven't gotten anything, but I'm on an RV waiver.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

cpalmer2k said:


> Were you guys grandfathered? Haven't gotten anything, but I'm on an RV waiver.


Yes. Grandfathered. Still in an area with no LIL and no OTA. If ATT had provided LIL into these last dozen unserved DMA's, because of the sheer size of my DMA, I would have still been outside of the beams and not had LIL.

The RV accounts are not subject to this action.
The "H" in SHREVA (though there isn't one in STELA) stands for "Home".


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jep8821 said:


> I am sorry if this was asked and answered already, how will this affect significantly viewed? Is directv allowed to still offer those? If so, I wonder if directv would expand the use of those.


Significantly viewed were originally included in the "distants" part of the law but were moved to the "local-into-local" part of the law several years ago. They are not considered distant stations and will not be affected by this change.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Michael H.. said:


> Was emailed this today:
> *DTV DNS*


Screen cap in case the link expires -








A $20 credit for two years is nice.

You mentioned you are grandfathered - do you have locals for the major networks in your market or are you in a short market?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Michael H.. said:


> Yes. Grandfathered. Still in an area with no LIL and no OTA. If ATT had provided LIL into these last dozen unserved DMA's, because of the sheer size of my DMA, I would have still been outside of the beams and not had LIL.
> 
> The RV accounts are not subject to this action.
> The "H" in SHREVA (though there isn't one in STELA) stands for "Home".


Just so everyone knows, the email states that you will receive a $20 credit per month for 24 months for this inconvenience, if anyone has a problem receiving this credit, please post the resolution here, thanks, and good luck.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Significantly viewed were originally included in the "distants" part of the law but were moved to the "local-into-local" part of the law several years ago. They are not considered distant stations and will not be affected by this change.


Can you explain what "significantly viewed" is? And if you originally received access to the L.A. NBC for example because your house (on East Coast) was located more than 50 miles from your local NBC affiliate (could not pull in signal with antenna), what was that subscriber called, what was the definition of those households?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Can you explain what "significantly viewed" is?


Significantly viewed began as a way for stations to gain carriage on cable systems. Stations were declared "significantly viewed" based on over the air reception in a defined county or city. A station that met the "significantly viewed" threshold could gain carriage from a cable company even if the station was outside of the designated market area. For example, the South Bend stations are considered "significantly viewed" in neighboring LaPorte County even though LaPorte County is in the Chicago DMA. WGN Chicago (broadcast channel) was considered "significantly viewed" in South Bend.

Congress took the "significantly viewed" station list and applied it to satellite. Satellite companies were permitted (but not required) to carry "significantly viewed" stations outside of their DMA. This provided another method for filling in markets that were short simply because of the DMA lines. For example, Lafayette Indiana had several Indianapolis stations that were considered "significantly viewed" which could be added. This also allowed out of market affiliates to compete with in market affiliates in the areas where the out of market affiliate was significantly viewed.

Since carriage is optional, the actual use of significantly viewed has been minor. Instead of providing every channel that one would normally get with an over the air antenna it simply became another way for the satellite company to add a neighboring market signal when they needed one.



GordonGekko said:


> And if you originally received access to the L.A. NBC for example because your house (on East Coast) was located more than 50 miles from your local NBC affiliate (could not pull in signal with antenna), what was that subscriber called, what was the definition of those households?


The definition was "unserved" but that method of qualifying for distants has been gone for more than a decade. Congress changed the law to state that if a local channel was carried within a market a distant would not be available within the same market - regardless of OTA footprint. Customers who had the distant before the change in the law were able to keep the distant - but that is one of the grandfathered classes being removed.

A positive change in the law was allowing distants in areas where an out of market station had OTA coverage. The OTA coverage definition was changed to end at the market line. Before the change customers were required to be outside of the footprint of all affiliates, or obtain the permission of all affiliates that covered their city. After the change only in market affiliates had to be considered.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

I guess I was grandfathered too and now I'll have no way to get NBC which is important to me for nascar races. I won't have ABC or FOX in HD either. Right now it looks like YoutubeTV is my only option. Ugh.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Wonder if they will turn off the 390's and put NY and LA on spot beams.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I WANT MORE said:


> Wonder if they will turn off the 390's and put NY and LA on spot beams.


Probably not as they need those for RV'ers and truckers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Probably not as they need those for RV'ers and truckers.


If DIRECTV does not cover the remaining markets by June 1st they will not need those feeds.
Failure to offer local-into-local in every market ends their ability to deliver distants.
(Unless AT&T|DIRECTV can work out something outside of the law.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

242424 said:


> I guess I was grandfathered too and now I'll have no way to get NBC which is important to me for nascar races. I won't have ABC or FOX in HD either. Right now it looks like YoutubeTV is my only option. Ugh.


I'd wait to see what actually happens before making any changes myself.if your local market is served now, you may not lose anything. Only people who's markets aren't served at all are definitely losing stuff, and att has asked for a delay as well...


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

inkahauts said:


> I'd wait to see what actually happens before making any changes myself.if your local market is served now, you may not lose anything. Only people who's markets aren't served at all are definitely losing stuff, and att has asked for a delay as well...


I get zero locals from DTV


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> If DIRECTV does not cover the remaining markets by June 1st they will not need those feeds.
> Failure to offer local-into-local in every market ends their ability to deliver distants.
> (Unless AT&T|DIRECTV can work out something outside of the law.)


I'm on an RV waiver and thus far haven't received anything from AT&T. A quick search of the RV forums I most often frequent don't have any accounts of anyone being notified either. I would say that is a good sign that they may be making some progress in their negotiations with the networks for RV'ers and Tailgaters, or they have some hope of an FCC extension.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

242424 said:


> I get zero locals from DTV


What market are you in? There are a few where DIRECTV does not carry locals but every market has local stations that could be carried (just not every major network represented in evey market).



cpalmer2k said:


> I'm on an RV waiver and thus far haven't received anything from AT&T. A quick search of the RV forums I most often frequent don't have any accounts of anyone being notified either. I would say that is a good sign that they may be making some progress in their negotiations with the networks for RV'ers and Tailgaters, or they have some hope of an FCC extension.


It is a bit early to declare victory simply because some have not been notified. The first notifications were sent out a couple of days ago. Is it a "good sign" that DIRECTV failed to notify any customers for over four months and is now offering $480 credits ($20 for 2 years) to those they have notified WILL be losing channels?


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

James Long said:


> What market are you in? There are a few where DIRECTV does not carry locals but every market has local stations that could be carried (just not every major network represented in evey market).


Alpena market. If I lived 4-5 miles South of here i would be golden. I might have to "move"


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

242424 said:


> Alpena market. If I lived 4-5 miles South of here i would be golden. I might have to "move"


Alpena is difficult. One local station controls three major networks - CBS in HD, Fox and ABC in SD. There is a local PBS satellite station fed out of Mount Pleasant. No in market NBC and the CW affiliate is cable only.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

242424 said:


> Alpena market. If I lived 4-5 miles South of here i would be golden. I might have to "move"


I would "move" if I was you. If you are only 5 miles away you should easily be within range of that market's spot beam. Or you could "move" to NYC and keep getting those locals.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> I would "move" if I was you. If you are only 5 miles away you should easily be within range of that market's spot beam. Or you could "move" to NYC and keep getting those locals.


I could "move" to my son's house 30 miles away and get all the networks.


----------



## DavidLyle (Jul 5, 2005)

I received my postcard today and it is identical to the email posted earlier in this thread with one exception, there is no mention of a $20 credit! I've been with DTV since 1997 (or so).


----------



## Adubya (Apr 28, 2020)

slice1900 said:


> I would "move" if I was you. If you are only 5 miles away you should easily be within range of that market's spot beam. Or you could "move" to NYC and keep getting those locals.


Is there any way to do this without them wanting to send out a service tech? Last time I tried this a few years ago I gave up because the rep was insistent that someone come to my new "address" and set up a dish


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Adubya said:


> Is there any way to do this without them wanting to send out a service tech? Last time I tried this a few years ago I gave up because the rep was insistent that someone come to my new "address" and set up a dish


That is the challenge. It will likely take a lot of convincing if the CSR is looking at a screen that says "tech required".


----------



## Visman (Feb 17, 2008)

I will miss having them, I have had them For about 26 year and before DVR’s the west cost feeds came in helpful for prime time viewing. I guess all good thinks must come to an end. Congress sucks.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> That is the challenge. It will likely take a lot of convincing if the CSR is looking at a screen that says "tech required".


With all this Social Distancing going on it might be the time to try though! They might let things slide more right now.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

I guess I don’t understand this new law. Got the email today saying we will no longer receive the DNS channels after June 1. Have had Directv since 1996 at which time we provided the necessary RV paperwork to allow receipt of the DNS channels. Since then we have gotten both the east and west coast channels and were told through all the prior regulation changes that we are grandfathered. So what has changed now that we would still not be exempt?


----------



## ronkeith (Jan 25, 2012)

I received notice form ATT today that my DNS services will be removed June 1st. I am a full time RV resident so this will be a real hardship. Certainly there will be no reason to keep ATT anymore for me since I can get a much better deal on an over the top service. This will also be a blow to over the road truck drivers who depend on DNS for news and cutting this during a pandemic is really a bad idea. It doesn't appear anything willl be worked out in the next 30 days and everyone who gets DNS will lose them June 1st.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

gandl said:


> So what has changed now that we would still not be exempt?


Grandfathering (for those who received the channels solely because the qualified in the past) has ended. There were several classes of subscriber who received distants when the law was less strict on who could get them.

You mention that you are an RV subscriber. RV and commercial vehicle distribution can continue under the new version of the law, however DIRECTV must offer carriage to locals in every market in order to qualify to continue to carry distants. It appears that DIRECTV has made the choice not to offer locals in those markets, which means they can no longer offer distants.

The law was passed in December ... AT&T|DIRECTV has had several months to work out carriage agreements for the markets where they lack locals. They have recently asked for an extension (until the end of the year!) to work out a deal. Unless some agreement is reached or locals are offered carriage in all markets the deadline stands.


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

Visman said:


> I guess all good thinks must come to an end. Congress sucks.


This issue is living proof that all good *thinks* come to an end where Congress is concerned.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

GordonGekko said:


> Just so everyone knows, the email states that you will receive a $20 credit per month for 24 months for this inconvenience, if anyone has a problem receiving this credit, please post the resolution here, thanks, and good luck.


No mention of $20 credit for 24 months in my email. Why???
I'm grandfathered in. I don't currently receive my locals, only DNS.

*Dear Robert,

Regrettably, we must inform you of a new law that affects your programming. Until recently, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act authorized DIRECTV to provide you access to your out-of-market broadcast networks-ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, and/or FOX. Unfortunately, Congress has decided to not renew key provisions of this law. As a result, on June 1, 2020, we no longer will be able to provide you access to these out-of-market channels. These are not available anywhere else. However, this change does not affect access to your existing local network stations.

If you're paying for these channels, you'll receive a credit within 1-2 billing cycles for this programming change.

If you have any questions, please call us at *866.595.9429*.

Thank you for choosing DIRECTV*.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

No credit offer in mine either.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

cpalmer2k said:


> No credit offer in mine either.


The guy who posted the $20 credit email above doesn't have any LIL, or OTA so I guess they are the ones that get the credit.
Now as for my *inconvenience* ATT should give me my locals free for 24 months.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FussyBob said:


> No mention of $20 credit for 24 months in my email. Why???





cpalmer2k said:


> No credit offer in mine either.


Do either of you have locals available in your market?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Yeah that explanation makes sense. We do get locals here.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

James Long said:


> Do either of you have locals available in your market?


Yes I have locals available. They are actually very good HD. I live in northeastern PA and like the DNS for the 4 NFL games (2 east cost, 2 west cost) at 1PM Sundays and then 4 at 4PM. Plus I enjoy the east/west network 11PM news broadcasts (very entertaining) than the locals. I can live without all this.

I really don't know how long I have been receiving the DNS with Direct TV since the beginning it was offered, it must be 20+ years, so no complaints!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So it appears that the first wave of notices (and credits) were for people who will lose distants and can't get all locals. The second wave is for the people who can be provided an alternative channel (as poor as it may be). Thanks for the data points.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

has anyone actually contacted their Congress man and asked them to extend this due to the virus and should they extend this .. Directv may be out of business by then.. making the point moot..


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

FussyBob said:


> No mention of $20 credit for 24 months in my email. Why???
> I'm grandfathered in. I don't currently receive my locals, only DNS.
> 
> *Dear Robert,
> ...


Call the Customer Loyalty line and try to get the credit, please report back here with your results.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Adubya said:


> Is there any way to do this without them wanting to send out a service tech? Last time I tried this a few years ago I gave up because the rep was insistent that someone come to my new "address" and set up a dish


I have no clue, but I would try telling them you have ALREADY moved and everything has been working perfectly at the new house for the past month so there is no need for a tech. If they want to schedule someone anyway to check it out tell them you aren't allowing anyone inside your house until after the pandemic is over because you have an elderly parent living there.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> I agree with the concept - there is nothing stopping a network from going around their affiliates to offer their content. Except the affiliation agreements where they promise first run exclusivity to the local channel.


But back when I first got DNS there were no other options for the network content. But now if I want to pay $25 or whatever I can buy an entire season of a show commercial free from iTunes. Are my local affiliates getting a cut of that $25?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> But back when I first got DNS there were no other options for the network content. But now if I want to pay $25 or whatever I can buy an entire season of a show commercial free from iTunes. Are my local affiliates getting a cut of that $25?


Every sale outside of the affiliation chain makes the network less valuable to the local station. In most cases the station is still getting first run exclusivity - but with streaming the window where they hold exclusivity has shrunk. Streaming next day on free or ad supported platforms is common.

When you consider customers who ask why they are paying DISH or DIRECTV $10-$12 per month for stations that many can receive over the air the stations are looking at the network and asking why they are paying affiliation fees for content that is not exclusive the next day. The draw of same day content must be high enough and the impact of alternate distribution must be low enough for a station to see their affiliation agreement as worth the price.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

The Multichannel News website reported on Tuesday that it believes some kind of extension will “likely” be granted by Congress to allow temporary continuance of DNS transmission. According to their sources, negotiations remain ongoing.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

BrucePadgett said:


> The Multichannel News website reported on Tuesday that it believes some kind of extension will "likely" be granted by Congress to allow temporary continuance of DNS transmission. According to their sources, negotiations remain ongoing.


Based on the emails they're sending out it appears they've thrown in the towel. I've got a VPN and streaming provider now so I'm set either way. If they do go away that is likely it for me and AT&T though.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

I hope that someone knows the answer to the following question.

I currently have the "old" CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC- no locals package, along with the Sport and Starz packages. DNS are my major network channels.
I'm very happy with my current channel lineup.

My question is - when they drop my DNS channels, can I just add the "locals" to my current CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC programming without changing anything else?

Or do I need to start all over and get something like the Ultimate package and add the Sport and Starz packages. All at an noticeable increase in cost.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

FussyBob said:


> I hope that someone knows the answer to the following question.
> 
> I currently have the "old" CHOICE XTRA CLASSIC- no locals package, along with the Sport and Starz packages. DNS are my major network channels.
> I'm very happy with my current channel lineup.
> ...


Actually the regular Xtra package has all the channels in the Choice Xtra Classic plus other channels not included in the Choice Xtra Classic IIRC. The only exception is TUDN (formally Univision Deportes Network) which can be added on with the DirecTV Deportes add-on for $5/mo.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

techguy88 said:


> Actually the regular Xtra package has all the channels in the Choice Xtra Classic plus other channels not included in the Choice Xtra Classic IIRC. The only exception is TUDN (formally Univision Deportes Network) which can be added on with the DirecTV Deportes add-on for $5/mo.


Thanks for the suggestion. It's difficult to find a side by side list of channels for the xtra classic and plain xtra, but I found it. So when I lose DNS do i just click on the upgrade to xtra button in my account, will my Sports and Starz packages remain automatically, or do I need to re-add them?

I currently pay $114 for Xtra Classic with DNS, it is only $109 for Xtra with locals.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> Based on the emails they're sending out it appears they've thrown in the towel. I've got a VPN and streaming provider now so I'm set either way. If they do go away that is likely it for me and AT&T though.


I wouldn't say those emails necessarily point to throwing in the towel. They are just hedging their bets, as sending those emails doesn't stop them from sending a later email "good news, an extension has been granted until xxx while we continue to try to negotiate a long term solution".

The timing of the emails suggests they wanted or may have even been legally required in some states to provide a full month's notice of the potential loss of the DNS channels.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> I wouldn't say those emails necessarily point to throwing in the towel. They are just hedging their bets, as sending those emails doesn't stop them from sending a later email "good news, an extension has been granted until xxx while we continue to try to negotiate a long term solution".
> 
> The timing of the emails suggests they wanted or may have even been legally required in some states to provide a full month's notice of the potential loss of the DNS channels.


On the SatelliteGuys forum, a poster wrote that Dish Network subscribers won't lose their DNS because of the Stelar sunset, is this true? And if true is it only the RV accounts that will remain untouched on Dish Network?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> On the SatelliteGuys forum, a poster wrote that Dish Network subscribers won't lose their DNS because of the Stelar sunset, is this true? And if true is it only the RV accounts that will remain untouched on Dish Network?


The "sunset" for STELAR is the grandfathered people, who have their own locals but were able to keep the DNS channels they had from before their locals were added. Dish lost their grandfathering years ago for other reasons, so AFAIK they don't lose anything with the new law.

Directv loses the grandfathering no matter what they do, even if they added those 12 markets they'd still lose it because the exception in the law that allowed for it was removed. If they don't add the 12 missing markets they lose the ability to deliver DNS to the 11,000 subscribers who live in those markets.

Directv also loses the ability to deliver DNS *at statutory rates* to RV accounts etc. if they don't add those markets which it seems pretty certain they have no intention of doing. However, nothing stops them from making a deal with the networks to allow them to continue delivering DNS to RVs and so forth at a negotiated price. This is what I think they are trying to do, but like with any negotiation they want to pay less and the networks want to get more, so it will take some time to meet in the middle.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> On the SatelliteGuys forum, a poster wrote that Dish Network subscribers won't lose their DNS because of the Stelar sunset, is this true? And if true is it only the RV accounts that will remain untouched on Dish Network?


The new rule taking effect is that for a provider to deliver distants they must offer locals in every market. DISH already offers locals in every market, so they already comply with the new law.

DNS is more than the national package of channels that most DIRECTV subscribers are familiar with. DNS allows satellite carriers to fill in missing networks in markets without an affiliate. DISH relies on the DNS law to provide missing networks in several markets, choosing to add an eligible out of market station (usually from a neighboring market) to the normal locals package instead of selling DNS channels separately at extra cost. DISH will be able to continue to serve short markets (and DIRECTV could do the same as soon as they add locals in the final 12 markets).

What is harder to find on DISH is the "RV account" distants. The only reference I see to them being available is through third party sellers - if they are available at all. DISH generally pushes the "DISH Outdoors" accounts where a customer changes their locals to their current market as they travel the country.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The new rule taking effect is that for a provider to deliver distants they must offer locals in every market. DISH already offers locals in every market, so they already comply with the new law.
> 
> DNS is more than the national package of channels that most DIRECTV subscribers are familiar with. DNS allows satellite carriers to fill in missing networks in markets without an affiliate. DISH relies on the DNS law to provide missing networks in several markets, choosing to add an eligible out of market station (usually from a neighboring market) to the normal locals package instead of selling DNS channels separately at extra cost. DISH will be able to continue to serve short markets (and DIRECTV could do the same as soon as they add locals in the final 12 markets).
> 
> What is harder to find on DISH is the "RV account" distants. The only reference I see to them being available is through third party sellers - if they are available at all. DISH generally pushes the "DISH Outdoors" accounts where a customer changes their locals to their current market as they travel the country.


https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/nebraska-legislators-push-at-t-for-local-tv-station-carriage


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/nebraska-legislators-push-at-t-for-local-tv-station-carriage


Nebraska Legislators:"It is imperative that your subscribers located in rural markets, where there is an increased reliance on satellite services, can receive local news, weather reports, and emergency alerts," the letter reads. "Given the ongoing COVID-19 national emergency, the availability of local broadcast programming is more important now than ever. All Nebraska residents, no matter their location, need to be able to stay informed on statewide and local efforts to combat the pandemic."​
AT&T|DIRECTV:"We are currently in discussions with each of the major broadcast networks to obtain access to their national programming for many for these impacted customers," said AT&T. "Local stations have exclusive control over who can offer their content within their communities. Our goal is to continue providing network content to as many homes as possible and impacted customers are eligible for a credit."​
More confirmation that A&T|DIRECTV is more interested in negotiating with the networks than offering carriage to all local stations. Which stations are providing the best information about the effects of the pandemic on people in Nebraska? Local stations in Nebraska or the network O&O stations in New York and California? The legislators have a point.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

That ship has sailed, Directv is not going to add those markets and there's nothing Nebraska legislators can do about it other than refuse to go along if a bill/amendment extending the May 31st deadline comes before them.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> That ship has sailed, Directv is not going to add those markets and there's nothing Nebraska legislators can do about it other than refuse to go along if a bill/amendment extending the May 31st deadline comes before them.


Pretty much. AT&T is going through the motions to pass the blame onto Congress. "It's their fault, they could have left the law like it was, or this deadline is unreasonable we can't do this because COVID-19 is slowing us down". Congress of course isn't going to pass anything to extend it. The House most likely won't even come back into town before May 31st. Once that passes they're off the hook on those markets forever. They're going to sacrifice the limited revenue they got from RV'ers and Truckers to avoid paying the $$ they would have to pay to set up facilities in all these markets and pull in their local channels.

What would be funny though is for Congress to call their bluff and give them the extension. Then they'd have no excuse to not meet the "new" deadline other than that they don't want to.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cpalmer2k said:


> They're going to sacrifice the limited revenue they got from RV'ers and Truckers to avoid paying the $$ they would have to pay to set up facilities in all these markets and pull in their local channels.


There are three categories of people who will lose channels. One is the RV and Commercial Vehicle subscribers, but there are also grandfathered subscribers who prefer distants to their own in market stations and more importantly short market subscribers who are missing one or more affiliate within their market, There are a lot more people who will be waking up June 1st with missing network channels than the RV/Trucker subscribers.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> There are three categories of people who will lose channels. One is the RV and Commercial Vehicle subscribers, but there are also grandfathered subscribers who prefer distants to their own in market stations and more importantly short market subscribers who are missing one or more affiliate within their market, There are a lot more people who will be waking up June 1st with missing network channels than the RV/Trucker subscribers.


Yes but there is nothing they can do to continue to provide the DNS to those customers and/or get that revenue back absent adding all the markets and providing actual locals. I'm sure that cost is more than what they were making on the DNS customers in those markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hopefully the people making the decision know the beans they are counting. Giving $480 over the next two years to subscribers who will not have networks is part of that calculation. I believe they are underestimating the value of short market distants. But it is AT&T|DIRECTV's job to count the beans.

Fortunately there is no deadline to change their mind. DIRECTV can decide to add the remaining markets later this year and restore the short market and RV/Truck distants. There is no permanent penalty for being wrong.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well AT&T's statements haven't given indication that they have attempted to negotiate with the local stations in those 12 under-served markets which does not bode well. If they haven't started negotiations with the local stations they need to start them asap.

Playing devil's advocate here they could technically get around this and launch spot beams for 8/12 markets that have a full-powered PBS member station and any other full power stations electing must-carry status (like Grand Junction). In the 4 markets lacking a PBS member station and where there are only stations that are either electing retransmission consent, low powered and/or Class-A stations as long as AT&T as negotiated in good faith they can come back and say "we tried but they are making unreasonable demands to carry their signal so its not our fault blame them!"

According to the government's own laws they _can't_ force DirecTV to carry _every_ local station when cable companies and Dish Network don't even carry all the low powered stations in these markets. (Dish isn't carrying the CW affiliate in several of these markets.) They can't also force them to carry full power stations electing retransmission consent if AT&T and the station owners can't come to terms.

What hurt AT&T is while STELAR was up for potential renewal they didn't present any technical reasons as to why DirecTV couldn't carry locals in the remaining 12 markets. (I personally think DirecTV has the ability to do so btw.) However the bumbling oof they sent to Washington didn't help them and honestly hurt their case.

*Edit*: It seems AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now are using DirecTV's local channel agreements to an extent. All 12 markets where DirecTV is not providing locals are the same markets where AT&T TV/ AT&T TV Now are not providing locals. I checked a random sample of 15 similar sized markets where DirecTV is providing locals and AT&T TV / AT&T TV Now are providing at least 1-4 locals in those markets. (Some had a CW or MyNetworkTV station available pushing them to 5)


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

What surprises me is as long as they've spend building AT&T TV they didn't go to those remaining markets to try to at least get carriage for AT&T. I guess the number of possible subscribers didn't warrant the costs involved. I give YouTube TV credit for the way they did things. They actually went out and made an effort to get every local channel they could from every market in the USA and then made it where if you travel to another market at least during your time there you can watch the local channels where you are.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> They're going to sacrifice the limited revenue they got from RV'ers and Truckers to avoid paying the $$ they would have to pay to set up facilities in all these markets and pull in their local channels.


No, they're not. Or at least they don't want to. They are trying to negotiate directly with the networks to carry the "DNS" channels for those markets. Nothing in the law prevents that, the only thing the law allows is a statutory rate (i.e. no contract required) but once the law doesn't allow them to do that nothing stops them or the networks from letting Directv offer the NY/LA channels to RVs, trucks, boats, etc.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> No, they're not. Or at least they don't want to. They are trying to negotiate directly with the networks to carry the "DNS" channels for those markets. Nothing in the law prevents that, the only thing the law allows is a statutory rate (i.e. no contract required) but once the law doesn't allow them to do that nothing stops them or the networks from letting Directv offer the NY/LA channels to RVs, trucks, boats, etc.


They sent out the email saying the channels were going away and two days ago I got my account change email saying "Network Package Mobile East" had been removed effective 5/31. I'd say that is pretty darn final.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

cpalmer2k said:


> They sent out the email saying the channels were going away and two days ago I got my account change email saying "Network Package Mobile East" had been removed effective 5/31. I'd say that is pretty darn final.


It ain't over until the fatheaded legislators sing.

There's still time for an extension...however unlikely it may be.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BrucePadgett said:


> There's still time for an extension...however unlikely it may be.


Very unlikely. The House of Representatives is staying away from DC due to COVID-19. If they do go in to session it will likely be for CARES 2 (another CARES Act to spend money on the pandemic). Perhaps extending the deadline can be slipped in to CARES 2 - if the extension isn't seen as controversial. I don't expect to see separate legislation pass that would extend the deadline.

DNS would be better than losing networks. The stations are pushing for complete local-into-local carriage and passed a law in December supporting local-into-local. That seems to be the will of the legislature (lobbyists, etc).


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

cpalmer2k said:


> They sent out the email saying the channels were going away and two days ago I got my account change email saying "Network Package Mobile East" had been removed effective 5/31. I'd say that is pretty darn final.


so will DTV lose the airplanes and oil rigs / have to pay a big contract brake fees? Will they give them free HD upgrades to keep DISH away? Give them free NFL ticket (no blackouts) so they don't cut and run


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> so will DTV lose the airplanes and oil rigs / have to pay a big contract brake fees? Will they give them free HD upgrades to keep DISH away? Give them free NFL ticket (no blackouts) so they don't cut and run


The oil rigs don't move around, so I assume they will be fine as there's no reason they should have had DNS in the first place. The airplanes could be a problem if they really do lose DNS (just because they have sent emails saying the channels will go away doesn't mean they can't get a contract with the networks done before the 31st) but really it depends on the language of the contract. Most likely losing DNS via an act of congress (if the act of congress provided them a way around it they chose not to take) won't constitute a breach of the contract.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have not seen airplanes in the law. One of those things where it must be legal or the networks would have shut it down.

It appears that AT&T|DIRECTV is delivering DNS to boats only when tied to a home account qualified for DNS. If the home account does not qualify the boat would not get DNS. An RV/commercial vehicle could qualify to get DNS, but those channels cannot be mirrored to a home that does not qualify.

The counties in Lake Michigan extend to the middle of the lake. I assume the counties and their respective DMAs along the gulf coast extend out to international waters.


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

For what it's worth, the Nielsen DMA Maps, which are extremely detailed, do not extend offshore along any coasts. Even Hawaii is a series of carefully circled areas. Here is a sample DMA Geographical Map.


----------



## John Candler (May 6, 2020)

James Long said:


> The date granfathered distants will end is "May 31, 2020; or the date on which such carrier provides local-into-local service to all DMAs."
> 
> Distants will be provided to RV customers who have completed the correct forms and keep them up to date and to customers in short markets where an affiliate of that network is not available from an in market broadcaster. DIRECTV has until the end of May to sort out what they are doing and notify customers (if they choose to do so). The law says they need to comply by May 31st or turn off all distants (including short markets and RVs) until they are compliant.
> 
> The text of the law is attached in a post above. Bottom line: If you have an affiliate in your market do not expect to receive a distant of that affiliate unless you are in an RV or commercial vehicle.


-------
I am in a Motorhome & have had DNS for about 10 years

I received an email telling me on 06-01-20 the DNS will be shut off

I was also told I can't change my location zip code for stays shorter than 30 days

This is terrible news - will no longer get - ABC - NBC - CBS - FOX

Anyone have ideas on how to get these channels


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

Well I'm not sure if anyone has seen this article from B&C but it gives some interesting tidbits into the current situation. Gray Television is essentially calling AT&T out on not service the last 12 markets. They have stations in seven of those markets. Some tidbits I found interesting:



> In a letter to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, LaPlatney said Gray, which has stations in seven of those markets, said it was ready to offer free rent for AT&T/DirecTV to receive facilities in those markets.


Seems Gray is willing to help AT&T to launch the locals



> LaPlatney told Stephenson that, at least in terms of the Gray markets, "AT&T/DirecTV and Gray Television already have in place a retransmission consent agreement that allows your company to begin delivering Gray's stations in seven of the neglected markets immediately without any need for further negotiation."


So... all this time.. AT&T/DirecTV has the rights to carry the Gray Television stations in seven out of twelve markets in their retransmission consent agreement. I wouldn't be surprised if Sinclair and Nexstar have similar arrangements in their agreements.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

James Long said:


> I have not seen airplanes in the law. One of those things where it must be legal or the networks would have shut it down.
> It appears that AT&T|DIRECTV is delivering DNS to boats only when tied to a home account qualified for DNS. If the home account does not qualify the boat would not get DNS. An RV/commercial vehicle could qualify to get DNS, but those channels cannot be mirrored to a home that does not qualify.
> The counties in Lake Michigan extend to the middle of the lake. I assume the counties and their respective DMAs along the gulf coast extend out to international waters.


Residential account: I have channels 389-399 inclusive, E & W feeds for all of the networks, continuously from Ku-band channel 80's SD and 90's HD days, then latest generation Ka-band 390's, grandfathered, but still technically eligible with no network affiliate LIL, cable, or OTA signal presently provided.

I also have channels 9530-9534, network NYC affiliates, labeled "Airline Core W----", with the exception of CW network DC affiliate, "Airline Core WDCW".
No "Airline Core K---" LA network affiliate, or any west coast affiliates are broadcast. 
These are all broadcast in SD. 
Looks acceptable on a smartphone or tablet, but looks like crap on a full-size HD display.
I've been wondering if I receive these only because I already receive DNS, and wonder if after 05/31, if these will still be broadcast, and if so, if I will still receive, or no longer receive these.

I'm curious.
I've seen no other subscribers mention receiving these, or even aware of their existence, and would like subscribers to post if they do.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

Michael H.. said:


> Residential account: I have channels 389-399 inclusive, E & W feeds for all of the networks, continuously from Ku-band channel 80's SD and 90's HD days, then latest generation Ka-band 390's, grandfathered, but still technically eligible with no network affiliate LIL, cable, or OTA signal presently provided.
> 
> I also have channels 9530-9534, network NYC affiliates, labeled "Airline Core W----", with the exception of CW network DC affiliate, "Airline Core WDCW".
> No "Airline Core K---" LA network affiliate, or any west coast affiliates are broadcast.
> ...


I get the 9530 - 9534 channels. My TV indicates that they are 720P, but look very highly compressed. Maybe they do that for phone/tablet viewing where limited bandwidth is available.

Or DTV is just preparing you for how crappy your local DNS replacement channels are going to look when you lose those great quality DNS E-W feeds. I will surely miss them.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

FussyBob said:


> I get the 9530 - 9534 channels. My TV indicates that they are 720P, but look very highly compressed. Maybe they do that for phone/tablet viewing where limited bandwidth is available.
> 
> Or DTV is just preparing you for how crappy your local DNS replacement channels are going to look when you lose those great quality DNS E-W feeds. I will surely miss them.


Is the quality any different for local New York 4 (NBC) vs. National 392 (NBC), you are probably referring to non NY locals but just curious, I never noticed a difference. I know it is the same exact broadcast but perhaps the national feed is different, anyway is there a 1 percent chance if you don't get a letter/email, Directv could mess up and leave your DNS channels activated, I know, I know, probably impossible, that is the last hope.


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> Is the quality any different for local New York 4 (NBC) vs. National 392 (NBC), you are probably referring to non NY locals but just curious, I never noticed a difference. I know it is the same exact broadcast but perhaps the national feed is different, anyway is there a 1 percent chance if you don't get a letter/email, Directv could mess up and leave your DNS channels activated, I know, I know, probably impossible, that is the last hope.


The Local WNBC signal in New York **is** the same signal that the rest (well, half) of the country can see as DNS channel 392. The National feed **is** the Local feed.

For New York and Los Angeles, there are no 'local' beams for their stations, they simply receive the National beams which are just displayed with a local channel number by their receivers.


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

FussyBob said:


> I get the 9530 - 9534 channels. My TV indicates that they are 720P, but look very highly compressed. Maybe they do that for phone/tablet viewing where limited bandwidth is available....
> .


In the data we collect, channels 9530 - 9534 are all clearly identified as MPEG2/SD.

Not sure why your setup indicates they are 720P; I need to go check my own setup


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

GordonGekko said:


> Is the quality any different for local New York 4 (NBC) vs. National 392 (NBC), you are probably referring to non NY locals but just curious, I never noticed a difference. I know it is the same exact broadcast but perhaps the national feed is different, anyway is there a 1 percent chance if you don't get a letter/email, Directv could mess up and leave your DNS channels activated, I know, I know, probably impossible, that is the last hope.


I won't get the NY channels when my DNS goes away. I will get the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, PA network channels. I also have cable (70+ channels for $20) as there are many more very local high school sports channels that DTV will never carry. This cable feed also has the SWB network HD channels which are very good HD quality. I will be able to compare the cable to DTV channel quality when I switch.

I already got the DNS email.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

FussyBob said:


> I get the 9530 - 9534 channels. My TV indicates that they are 720P, but look very highly compressed. Maybe they do that for phone/tablet viewing where limited bandwidth is available.
> 
> Or DTV is just preparing you for how crappy your local DNS replacement channels are going to look when you lose those great quality DNS E-W feeds. I will surely miss them.


Not 720p. 
At home on the HR54, all of the DTV signals are compressed, but the 9530-9534 input are SD, displayed at HD.
I put both DNS and Airline Core channels WCBS up on the set equal size, side-by-side (rather than a smaller image in a corner) PIP for comparison.
DNS is displayed in HD at 16:9.
Airline Core is displayed in letterbox in SD... and doesn't look nearly as bad displayed in only the right half of the screen, as it does in full screen, but noticeably worse than the DNS display. (and to me unwatchable).
Unlike Dish, there is no in-motion DirecTV HD antenna system... within a reasonable budget.
Intellian makes a radome-housed in-motion HD antenna system that will simultaneously track one Ku and two Ka DirecTV HD signals (101° / 99° & 103°) that lists for $12.5K, and even makes one that simultaneously tracks ANY single Ku / dual Ka broadcast globally, that lists for $25K. The in-motion DTV antennas on airplanes, are the $3K flat phased arrays that receive only Mpeg2 SD signals.
The Intellian in-motion DTV HD antennas are relatively common on boats that cost about the same as a downtown office hi-rise, for which $25K is about the cost to fill the tank, and don't fly 500 MPH.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ultimate glamping. How to take it with you while you get away from it all.


----------



## hsedsie (Jan 3, 2008)

Will NY channels 2,4,5 and 7 be transferred to spot beams?


----------



## John Candler (May 6, 2020)

Monday of this week - I received an email - direct tv is discontinuing DNS as of 05-31-20
I've had this over 10 years in my RV - options are not good


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

hsedsie said:


> Will NY channels 2,4,5 and 7 be transferred to spot beams?


That is a really good question. I was thinking no way but then wondered whether it would happen. I would say no way because having the NY and LA network stations on the national transponders rather than the spotbeams provides D* with the ability to provide network access to airplanes when they offer D*. It gives D* the ability to provide network access in the case of a station temporarily going down in a market. And what advantage would it provide D* - they are not constrained with transponder capacity on the national feeds. But who knows with ATT running things logic doesn't always drive their thinking.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

No reason to move them to spotbeams - no reason to leave the HD ones on ConUS. They will work in their local markets either way.
If aircraft sevice continues separate from DNS the SD ones will need to stay on 101.

If the HD are left on ConUS I expect a slight increase in the population of DIRECTV subscribers in the NYC market, possibly in the LA market. But only a slight increase. Preventing people far outside of those markets from receiving locals would be a reason to move the channels to spotbeams. But I doubt DIRECTV is motivated to make any change.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> No reason to move them to spotbeams - no reason to leave the HD ones on ConUS. They will work in their local markets either way.
> If aircraft sevice continues separate from DNS the SD ones will need to stay on 101.
> 
> If the HD are left on ConUS I expect a slight increase in the population of DIRECTV subscribers in the NYC market, possibly in the LA market. But only a slight increase. Preventing people far outside of those markets from receiving locals would be a reason to move the channels to spotbeams. But I doubt DIRECTV is motivated to make any change.


What do you mean by your second paragraph, if DNS is taken away, how would people outside of the NYC market get the NY locals?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lying has worked in the past. I don't encourage it, but I know it has been done.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Nebraska Legislators:
> "It is imperative that your subscribers located in rural markets, where there is an increased reliance on satellite services, can receive local news, weather reports, and emergency alerts," the letter reads. "Given the ongoing COVID-19 national emergency, the availability of local broadcast programming is more important now than ever. All Nebraska residents, no matter their location, need to be able to stay informed on statewide and local efforts to combat the pandemic."​
> AT&T|DIRECTV:
> "We are currently in discussions with each of the major broadcast networks to obtain access to their national programming for many for these impacted customers," said AT&T. "Local stations have exclusive control over who can offer their content within their communities. Our goal is to continue providing network content to as many homes as possible and impacted customers are eligible for a credit."​
> More confirmation that A&T|DIRECTV is more interested in negotiating with the networks than offering carriage to all local stations. Which stations are providing the best information about the effects of the pandemic on people in Nebraska? Local stations in Nebraska or the network O&O stations in New York and California? The legislators have a point.


This article might be more of the same: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/gray-tv-presses-at-t-to-scrap-blanket-license-delay-effort

What does this part of the article mean: But AT&T has instead been negotiating individually for continued importing of those distant network TV station signals, and at the same time seeking an extension of that May 31 blanket license sunset.

The first part, how can ATT negotiate individually to continue offering the DNS, I thought the Congressional bill was clear and did not allow for such negotiations.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> This article might be more of the same: https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/gray-tv-presses-at-t-to-scrap-blanket-license-delay-effort
> 
> What does this part of the article mean: But AT&T has instead been negotiating individually for continued importing of those distant network TV station signals, and at the same time seeking an extension of that May 31 blanket license sunset.
> 
> The first part, how can ATT negotiate individually to continue offering the DNS, I thought the Congressional bill was clear and did not allow for such negotiations.


The bill merely fails to renew an exemption to copyright law that previously existed that allowed Directv & Dish to distribute distant signals for certain customers without any contract at a price mandated by the government.

They have always been free to negotiate with the networks to distribute distant signals to customers where the law & existing contracts allow. It didn't make sense be Which in this case would be "mobile" accounts that don't have a fixed service address and thus aren't considered to be in any one DMA, such as RVs.

Gray can squawk all they want, but they have no say whether Directv negotiates such a license with CBS, ABC etc. Gray would not be a party to that contract and cannot do anything to stop it. I don't even really know why Gray cares, whatever happens Directv is not going to be able to distribute distant signals in those 12 missing markets, and I doubt Gray is that hungry for its small slice of revenue from those 11,000 customers. Gray probably only has a handful of channels total in those markets. They would only realize a few thousand dollars a month in additional revenue if Directv added those markets.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Gray can squawk all they want, but they have no say whether Directv negotiates such a license with CBS, ABC etc. Gray would not be a party to that contract and cannot do anything to stop it.


Gray is an affiliate of the networks. Depending on what city, their stations each station is an affiliate of one or more network (in my market, Gray has the NBC affiliation). As an affiliate of each network they expect the network to follow the contract that they signed with the network. Distributing network content via a satellite channel at the same time (or earlier) as their local affillate would most certainly be a breach of contract. The first air exclusivity is the core of the affiliation agreement and that exclusivity has been there for decades.

Gray and all other affiliates would need to approve each network's attempt to break that first air exclusivity. If DIRECTV negotiated a contract that covered RVs and commercial vehicles, those vehicles ARE located within television markets and most television markets have an affiliate of each network.

As stated before, the DNS laws allow the networks a way out of that conflict. Since they are not willingly allowing retransmission is not the network's choice that the affiliation agreement is being broken. This also applies to non-O&O affiliates who have their signals retransmited outside of their contracted footprint. And to syndicated (non-network owned) material that may air on the affiliates being aired outside of their contracted footprint. DNS is a gift to the networks. They are absolved of the conflicts while their content still reaches the unreachable subscribers.

Sure, NBC could negotiate for carriage of WNBC nationwide via DIRECTV. But they cannot do it in a vacuum. Every contract in place that controls the distribution of the content on WNBC comes into play. Including the contract Gray Television has with NBC Universal. The same applies to the other major networks and their stations and affiliates.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Gray and all other affiliates would need to approve each network's attempt to break that first air exclusivity. If DIRECTV negotiated a contract that covered RVs and commercial vehicles, those vehicles ARE located within television markets and most television markets have an affiliate of each network.


No they are not, they don't have a fixed address. None of the contracts with affiliates make provisions to pay different amounts depending on how many RVs or trucks are in a DMA on a given day. If the affiliate suffers no loss from a contract between a network and Directv, they have no legal standing on which to interfere.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> No they are not, they don't have a fixed address. None of the contracts with affiliates make provisions to pay different amounts depending on how many RVs or trucks are in a DMA on a given day. If the affiliate suffers no loss from a contract between a network and Directv, they have no legal standing on which to interfere.


You know FULL WELL that affiliates nor networks are compensated based on daily DNS subscribers present in a market. The satellite carriers pay in to a fund based on the number of distant subscribers they have and the copyright owners (not specifically stations or network) make claims from the fund. That is the beauty of DNS for the networks - they don't have to decide where a mobile DNS viewer is on a day by day basis.

The loss would come if the networks did get directly involved in allowing distants - in breach of their contracts with their affiliates.

It is a moot point since none of the networks seem to be interested in breaching their contracts and would rather support the affiliation model - local affiliates in every market paying the network for rights for their market. If they "work something out" it will be something that will satisfy their affiliates.


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

Been a DTV customer since 96. Ive had the Networks with East and West coast feeds since not long after i became a subscriber. When DTV went to locals, i was able to get waivers from all my local stations because we are in a very small market and terrible OTA signals. Ive stayed with DTV all these years because i was grandfathered into the networks. Since all this is happening, i may just cancel and go a different route for my TV.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

rodnig1 said:


> Been a DTV customer since 96. Ive had the Networks with East and West coast feeds since not long after i became a subscriber. When DTV went to locals, i was able to get waivers from all my local stations because we are in a very small market and terrible OTA signals. Ive stayed with DTV all these years because i was grandfathered into the networks. Since all this is happening, i may just cancel and go a different route for my TV.


I've pretty much kept DTV all these years because of DNS. Since that is going to end, I'm almost certain that I'll be cancelling DTV as well...


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

If anyone is planning on "moving" I suggest you do it while Covid19 is around or they will want to send a tech. Also it takes about four hours on chat so be patient even though it's tough to do. lol


----------



## MikeP (Mar 15, 2003)

Michael H.. said:


> I've pretty much kept DTV all these years because of DNS. Since that is going to end, I'm almost certain that I'll be cancelling DTV as well...


Same, been with them for 25 years. As soon as my DNS is officially removed, I'm out. AT&T has ruined this once great service.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MikeP said:


> Same, been with them for 25 years. As soon as my DNS is officially removed, I'm out. AT&T has ruined this once great service.


Just to be clear. Dtv isn't the one ending grandfathering in on dns feeds. That's your congressman.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Just to be clear. Dtv isn't the one ending grandfathering in on dns feeds. That's your congressman.


True. The non-grandfathered customers who will be losing out of market stations in about two weeks can blame AT&T|DIRECTV, but decades of grandfathering out of market as an option or addition to in market networks is coming to an end.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

I just signed up for a streaming provider account "moved" to NYC. It actually was a win for me. Now I get all the NY local channels vs just the Big 4. I considered "moving" DTV, but the advantage is now I get my real locals plus the DNS channels. A "Move" would eliminate the real locals. Plus there is no guarantee they won't switch to spot beams in the future, and even if they don't AT&T has made it clear satellite isn't in their long term plans so ultimately we would need a better solution anyway.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> I just signed up for a streaming provider account "moved" to NYC. It actually was a win for me. Now I get all the NY local channels vs just the Big 4. I considered "moving" DTV, but the advantage is now I get my real locals plus the DNS channels. A "Move" would eliminate the real locals. Plus there is no guarantee they won't switch to spot beams in the future, and even if they don't AT&T has made it clear satellite isn't in their long term plans so ultimately we would need a better solution anyway.


Wait, you now get all of the NY locals but you don't get the Los Angeles ones correct? Which streaming provider? Don't you need a VPN to hide your IP or switch your IP to accomplish this? Where are you located, your real locals could be had with an OTA antenna, not certain what you accomplished.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

cpalmer2k said:


> I just signed up for a streaming provider account "moved" to NYC. It actually was a win for me. Now I get all the NY local channels vs just the Big 4. I considered "moving" DTV, but the advantage is now I get my real locals plus the DNS channels. A "Move" would eliminate the real locals. Plus there is no guarantee they won't switch to spot beams in the future, and even if they don't AT&T has made it clear satellite isn't in their long term plans so ultimately we would need a better solution anyway.


Depending on the provider, your "move" will likely be undone at the first location service lookup.


----------



## tuncer (Sep 21, 2007)

Can someone PM me how this "move" is done? I'm gonna be out of locals soon.


----------



## MikeP (Mar 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Just to be clear. Dtv isn't the one ending grandfathering in on dns feeds. That's your congressman.


Oh, I understand the law completely. I've been following it here. Yeah, and my a-hole congressman got elected by voter fraud and ballot harvesting in Orange County, CA. The only reason I've stayed all these years was DNS. There's no reason to stay. DIRECTV isn't what it used to be. Their customer service is pathetic, and my bill has become ridiculously expensive.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

A few days left until those DNS are gone—any hope left?


----------



## Gary Toma (Mar 23, 2006)

It is a very sad situation but the writing has been on the wall for over four years. We are all very sorry.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

*AT&T, Fox Strike STELAR-Related Carriage Deal*


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TheRatPatrol said:


> *AT&T, Fox Strike STELAR-Related Carriage Deal*


I guess these DNS deals will be like all carriage deals and wait until the last minute (or maybe a little after) to get finished.

Those who are following this remember this Fox deal and others that may follow will only help out people with RV, boat and other "mobile" accounts. Everyone else getting DNS channels is going to lose them on June 1st and would have no matter what Directv did, because Congress changed the law.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It will be interesting to see the details. The article is a little confused - mentioning the only way AT&T could keep distants was via individual deals but acknowledging later in the article that offering distants in the final markets would also have kept distants (except grandfathered classes). The article also seems to include "tailgaters" as a protected class (it is the RV that qualifies a customer for distants). And apparently AT&T believes they are delivering distants to oil rigs (per the article). The protected class of having a local in market but not being able to receive it ended a long time ago - only grandfathered customers are hanging on.

Hopefully there will be a press release or other official word stating what this means to whom. I expect it will cover RV/commercial vehicle and short markets.


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

slice1900 said:


> I guess these DNS deals will be like all carriage deals and wait until the last minute (or maybe a little after) to get finished.
> 
> Those who are following this remember this Fox deal and others that may follow will only help out people with RV, boat and other "mobile" accounts. Everyone else getting DNS channels is going to lose them on June 1st and would have no matter what Directv did, because Congress changed the law.


Helps me out as a full-time RVer


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> I guess these DNS deals will be like all carriage deals and wait until the last minute (or maybe a little after) to get finished.
> 
> Those who are following this remember this Fox deal and others that may follow will only help out people with RV, boat and other "mobile" accounts. Everyone else getting DNS channels is going to lose them on June 1st and would have no matter what Directv did, because Congress changed the law.


I know this is not likely but any chance a computer error for some of the people who are grandfathered non-RV DNS subscribers, can we hope Directv has our DNS listed as RV by accident, shhh, if it happens to you and you get lucky, don't call in, don't post about it.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

GordonGekko said:


> I know this is not likely but any chance a computer error for some of the people who are grandfathered non-RV DNS subscribers, can we hope Directv has our DNS listed as RV by accident, shhh, if it happens to you and you get lucky, don't call in, don't post about it.


Most likely not, but there could be a few exceptions. In my case my bill always said "Network Package- Mobile East" so they clearly knew I was an RV customer. It will be interesting to see what the terms are though, and how this is going to work. Will the older RV customers who got East & West Coast DNS still get both coasts, or just the one where their registration is? Will those of us who only got one East or West because of the way DirecTV chose to enforce STELAR now get both if we ask, or are we still stuck with just one? Personally I'd pay extra just to get the East & West coast stations. Since the law is now out of the equation and it is strictly between DirecTV and the networks it should be up to them to set the ground rules now for who gets what.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> Most likely not, but there could be a few exceptions. In my case my bill always said "Network Package- Mobile East" so they clearly knew I was an RV customer. It will be interesting to see what the terms are though, and how this is going to work. Will the older RV customers who got East & West Coast DNS still get both coasts, or just the one where their registration is? Will those of us who only got one East or West because of the way DirecTV chose to enforce STELAR now get both if we ask, or are we still stuck with just one? Personally I'd pay extra just to get the East & West coast stations. Since the law is now out of the equation and it is strictly between DirecTV and the networks it should be up to them to set the ground rules now for who gets what.


I don't think Directv should care whether you get both coasts or not, it will be up to the language in the contract whether that's allowed or you only are only allowed one. I can't think of any particular reason why the network should care since the big 4 stations in both LA & NYC are O&O, but maybe they could have their reasons and if they insist on language only allowing one there's no way Directv would fight them on it when they just want to get deals done.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Judging by the fact that DirecTV now has Spotbeam versions of WABC and the DC CW affiliate I'd say it is unlikely at this point they're going to reach a deal with those channels, but that could change of course. I guess that answers our "Movers" question too though. Clearly they're planning on eliminating that possibility.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

I am a "mover".
I am able to receive WABC on 396 but on 7 I get a 771 error.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> So it appears that the first wave of notices (and credits) were for people who will lose distants and can't get all locals. The second wave is for the people who can be provided an alternative channel (as poor as it may be). Thanks for the data points.


They have sent letters to grandfathered DNS subscribers as well, any word on anyone else able to get the $20 per month discount good for 24 months?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> Judging by the fact that DirecTV now has Spotbeam versions of WABC and the DC CW affiliate I'd say it is unlikely at this point they're going to reach a deal with those channels, but that could change of course. I guess that answers our "Movers" question too though. Clearly they're planning on eliminating that possibility.


They could have eliminated the "movers" at any time, by having people getting their locals from NYC or LA DMAs get them via spot beam, and only let people allowed to get true DNS channels to receive the nationals.

I suspect a lot of the "movers" are close to NYC or LA but just outside that DMA who feel they really should be getting those channels, not people three states away.


----------



## forecheck (Jun 13, 2002)

Not knowing what is in Fox's new agreement, but it wouldn't surprise me if the RV Fox on 398 and 399 are going to be different than the LA and NY versions, either slightly by just replacing some local commercials with national ones, or something larger like replacing local programming with infomercials. They would then put the NY and LA versions on spot beams and local viewers would have to watch that version. For us old timers, I am imagining it could look like the old Fox Net in the early days of PrimeTime 24.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> I suspect a lot of the "movers" are close to NYC or LA but just outside that DMA who feel they really should be getting those channels, not people three states away.


Some of the "movers" are in DMA's that don't have locals. 12 DMA's I think?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

forecheck said:


> Not knowing what is in Fox's new agreement, but it wouldn't surprise me if the RV Fox on 398 and 399 are going to be different than the LA and NY versions, either slightly by just replacing some local commercials with national ones, or something larger like replacing local programming with infomercials. They would then put the NY and LA versions on spot beams and local viewers would have to watch that version. For us old timers, I am imagining it could look like the old Fox Net in the early days of PrimeTime 24.


I would not be surprised. Fox may not have the rights to create a national channel with all the content that normally airs on the current distant networks. Anything that Fox does not have the rights to deliver nationally will need to be deleted.

(The benefit of relying on the DNS legislation is all the rights issues are overridden by the law. An agreement outside of the law needs to consider what rights the channel has to offer the programming.)


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> With all this Social Distancing going on it might be the time to try though! They might let things slide more right now.


won't work. i tried getting my genie and mini replaced at the same time and it came back as an incomplete install holding the rep hostage with no choice other than to send a tech out.. they will send you 5 text msgs asking questions if you have or have been around someone with covid. and if you say yes to any. at that point you'll need to reschedule your appt


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

242424 said:


> Some of the "movers" are in DMA's that don't have locals. 12 DMA's I think?


They didn't have to move, they were and still are until next Monday getting DNS channels because the law allowed it.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Just throwing another theory out there.. right now WABC and the DC CW are the only stations moved to spot beams. Maybe they’re close to a deal with ABC but possibly are going to give west coast ABC to the DNS people to discourage “moving”? Dish only offers west coast DNS so maybe they got the idea from them?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cpalmer2k said:


> Just throwing another theory out there.. right now WABC and the DC CW are the only stations moved to spot beams. Maybe they're close to a deal with ABC but possibly are going to give west coast ABC to the DNS people to discourage "moving"? Dish only offers west coast DNS so maybe they got the idea from them?


There was a time (many years ago) where people would move to specific addresses where DNS was available, but as the distants legislation changed living at those addresses only worked for grandfathered subscribers (and will stop working on Monday). "Moving" to a market with locals means you get that market's locals - or not if DIRECTV does not carry the local channels. For the past decade "moving" has been used to receive neighboring market's signals (if within a spot beam) or NY/LA signals (since they are on ConUS).

DISH does not offer west coast distants or east coast distants. They offer their choice of a distant network to fill in short markets. Generally it is a close distant - one that can be received from the spotbeam where the distant is a local. DISH transmits groups of all four networks from several markets that could be used as distants - but does not market a distants package directly.

The movement of channels to spotbeams will discourage people from "moving". We are probably seeing the beginning of such moves. What we have seen moved are the "only channels moved so far". If we don't see the west coast channels move I expect that the channels are staying ConUS for internal use. There is no rush, no deadline and no requirement to move all locals to spotbeams.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH does not offer west coast distants or east coast distants. They offer their choice of a distant network to fill in short markets. Generally it is a close distant - one that can be received from the spotbeam where the distant is a local. DISH transmits groups of all four networks from several markets that could be used as distants - but does not market a distants package directly.


They don't publicize it, you have to ask for the forms but they will give them to you. I contacted them again about a month ago when DirecTV first started sending out the notices. I still have an inactive Outdoors account. I was told if I sent the RV forms in they would be processed. The channels are on the 119 bird. KABC, KCBS, KNBC and whatever the LA Fox is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thanks. There are uplinks for the NY stations on 119 and 72.7. Denver and Chicago channels are also uplinked. (All on DISH.) Not sure why they don't openly advertise ... maybe they will next month.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> Thanks. There are uplinks for the NY stations on 119 and 72.7. Denver and Chicago channels are also uplinked. (All on DISH.) Not sure why they don't openly advertise ... maybe they will next month.


WGN? Back when they sports did dish enforce blackouts?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> WGN? Back when they sports did dish enforce blackouts?


Back when WGN (and WTBS) were true superstations they were carried under a statutory license similar to DNS.
All channel content could be carried and copyright holders would have to make a claim with the copyright office for compensation.

WGN created WGN America and WTBS created TBS as channels separate from their OTA broadcasts and cable and satellite started carrying those feeds in place of the true superstations. WGN and TBS could negotiate their own carriage rates but had to remove content that they did not have the rights to air nationally. That is what I expect will happen with the Fox feed on DIRECTV. While Fox can negotiate a better rate than the stautory distants rate they will either need to secure national rights for everything on the channel or create a separate feed for DIRECTV to use as a "distant".

And by everything I mean everything. There may be production libraries that they have licensed for use on their stations that are not licensed for national use. There may be news and sports clipping services that they have licensed for use on their stations that are not licensed for national use. It being Fox they probably are using libraries and services with national licensing - but it is a legal issue that they need to take in to account when THEY give DIRECTV to rebroadcast the signal instead of relying on DNS laws.

DNS ends Sunday Night on DIRECTV ... on Monday we will see what survives.

(BTW: The Denver and Chicago stations mentioned above would be the major networks that could be carried as DNS, not WGN.)


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> Back when WGN (and WTBS) were true superstations they were carried under a statutory license similar to DNS.
> All channel content could be carried and copyright holders would have to make a claim with the copyright office for compensation.
> 
> WGN created WGN America and WTBS created TBS as channels separate from their OTA broadcasts and cable and satellite started carrying those feeds in place of the true superstations. WGN and TBS could negotiate their own carriage rates but had to remove content that they did not have the rights to air nationally. That is what I expect will happen with the Fox feed on DIRECTV. While Fox can negotiate a better rate than the stautory distants rate they will either need to secure national rights for everything on the channel or create a separate feed for DIRECTV to use as a "distant".
> ...


So NFL ticket on mobile accounts will have no blackouts then?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NFL Sunday Ticket is not carried under the DNS laws. It is carried under a separate contract with the NFL.

Any games carried on a station delivered via the DNS laws should not be subject to blackout. I assume games delivered via the new Fox service for DIRECTV will not be blacked out, however since the DNS replacement deal was done outside of the DNS laws the blackout rules may apply.


----------



## Scoob8888 (Apr 23, 2013)

When DNS goes away Monday do I have to contact Directv to get my local channels activated. My current package is listed as Premier with no locals.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Scoob8888 said:


> When DNS goes away Monday do I have to contact Directv to get my local channels activated. My current package is listed as Premier with no locals.


Are locals available where you live? There are 12 small markets where Directv does not have locals, so when people there lose their DNS they will not get locals unless they have an antenna.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Scoob8888 said:


> When DNS goes away Monday do I have to contact Directv to get my local channels activated. My current package is listed as Premier with no locals.


I'm guessing yes since you specifically have a line of them being not on your bill. Are you getting a discount on the package because you don't get locals?


----------



## Scoob8888 (Apr 23, 2013)

Yes the locals are available here in Western Mass. As to the discount never got one specifically but doing the CSR roulette i have usually gotten the $60 off per month for a year and some smaller ones off the Premier package though not in the last 5 years or so. Thanks for your quick responses !


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

what is interesting is that we have gotten NOTHING from Directv about my distant networks. NOTHING at all..


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> what is interesting is that we have gotten NOTHING from Directv about my distant networks. NOTHING at all..


Surprised, people I know, with grandfathered accounts got the letter, I checked the guide after June 1st and the distants are not greyed out, of course that probably does not mean anything, we'll find out on Monday, I'm sure if we call in for the $20 per month credit for 24 months, some of us will get a line about how "I never heard of that credit".


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

One interesting observation from the DirecTV app.. If I scroll forward to Monday the DC CW station isn't listed in the guide any more at all. The East/West ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX are still there, but just the west coast CW station.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The app often seems to be ahead of the receiver with channel adds - why not with a channel deletion?


----------



## jeret (Apr 22, 2007)

I don't know. I'm gonna miss the dns channels. So for posterity sake, I took pictures of the dns channels in the guide at 6:00 and 9:00 pm PDT while the info is a nice bright white, before they go dull gray on Monday. This is Saturday and I will probably do it again Sunday, the last day. Bye Bye DNS


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

jeret said:


> I don't know. I'm gonna miss the dns channels. So for posterity sake, I took pictures of the dns channels in the guide at 6:00 and 9:00 pm PDT while the info is a nice bright white, before they go dull gray on Monday. This is Saturday and I will probably do it again Sunday, the last day. Bye Bye DNS


Even though the 5 tuner DVR reduced its advantages, I will miss the extra NFL games, the nutty live California police car chases, the post game sports report on L.A. sports, and the once in a blue moon watching of local L.A. news for the heck of it.

One less thing that ties me to Directv, it was a cool thing that separated Directv from cable, I'll flick on 391 or 393 right now to see the Los Angeles coverage of the protests, any big L.A. story, most recent one was the tragic death of Kobe Bryant, it was nice to have the local perspective and extra coverage, sad to see that gone.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> Even though the 5 tuner DVR reduced its advantages, I will miss the extra NFL games, the nutty live California police car chases, the post game sports report on L.A. sports, and the once in a blue moon watching of local L.A. news for the heck of it.
> 
> One less thing that ties me to Directv, it was a cool thing that separated Directv from cable, I'll flick on 391 or 393 right now to see the Los Angeles coverage of the protests, any big L.A. story, most recent one was the tragic death of Kobe Bryant, it was nice to have the local perspective and extra coverage, sad to see that gone.


Eh that's all still there for you for free. Just use their apps or web pages and cast or airplay it to your tv.

I have alerts for the local channel apps so I get notifications when ever we have a car chase and any one of the 5/6 stations get overhead of it.

Heck most our car chases are just on streaming anymore anyway. Really other than sports the only thing I like watching live... car chases here get crazy sometimes!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> Eh that's all still there for you for free. Just use their apps or web pages and cast or airplay it to your tv.
> 
> I have alerts for the local channel apps so I get notifications when ever we have a car chase and any one of the 5/6 stations get overhead of it.
> 
> Heck most our car chases are just on streaming anymore anyway. Really other than sports the only thing I like watching live... car chases here get crazy sometimes!


I hear you, it is just that I only like watching TV through the Genie DVR, I'll actually watch the replay of a car chase on Youtube, that is cool but I'll miss hitting record on all of those NFL games, even though I might only watch the 4th quarter or a few highlights, it was my way of keeping up with the league as a whole.

I know I could just sign up for NFL ticket but it was the whole idea of getting those extra games for peanuts.

Crazy, about an hour ago on 393, they were looting a Flight Club shoe store, it was like some sort of futuristic "Running Man" movie, the looters would run down the street with boxes of shoes but as they tried to get to the end of the street, they had to dodge Hulk like guys who were kicking the boxes out of their hands, tossing the boxes into waiting cars. L.A. helicopter news coverage blows away CNN/MSNBC/Fox News of these protests, I'd rather watch the birds eye view than a dopey reporter of any political affiliation snort through a mask, breathlessly repeating the same things over and over again.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

What’s sad is that they aren’t showing the peaceful protests, just the idiots...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The peaceful protests don't stay peaceful long enough. Watch the early newscasts and you are more likely to see people shouting and parading with signs while the police stand back and take the abuse. 800k police officers in the US and their "idiots" seem to get the most attention. The protests in my area didn't get violent and WERE covered on the local news. (That being said, the protests are better of discussed elsewhere.)

Television coverage of police chases ... why? Are the stations informing the public or providing a sadistic form of "entertainment"?_*"We interrupt our regular programming to show you traffic flowing normally on the 405 and the 101. No accidents, no major problems."
"Look Bob, that trucker slowed down to leave more space between his vehicle and the small car in front of him. And watch as that motorcyclist waits behind traffic instead of riding the lane divider at a high rate of speed."
"We are going to stay with this live shot for the next few hours as the good driving continues."*_​And that is the news.

As far as distants - the intent was to provide major network programming to people who could not receive it any other way. Grandfathering continued to deliver the content regardless of the ability to receive it via local channels. While there were positive side effects (out of market sports and news) that was not why the service was created.

I like the concept of a statutory license - have a set rate to cover the copyright fees and let all copyright holders benefit from rebroadcasts. I would like to see statutory licensing extended to local into local coverage. No more issues with local stations withholding their signals from rebroadcast or smaller stations forced to choose a no payment option to get their content rebroadcast. But the end of distants is basically the end of the discussion on improvements. Every improvement in local into local carriage was triggered by the every five year review needed for distants - and there is no set date to review the remaining laws.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

So when does DTV actually pull the plug on the DNS grandfathered subscribers?
Will we automatically have the locals added to our current package?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FussyBob said:


> So when does DTV actually pull the plug on the DNS grandfathered subscribers?
> Will we automatically have the locals added to our current package?


No official word, but permission to deliver distants ends today. Whether the plug is pulled at midnight Eastern or Pacific or some random time is unknown.

I do not expect locals to be automatically added - but that is just my expectation. There is a group of grandfathered subscribers who were allowed to keep distants until they added locals (they had distants before their local market was added and the law at the time gave them the choice). They may get locals since they were not legally allowed to have both.

Since AT&T|DIRECTV has not announced their plans we are all it a "wait and see" mode.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The peaceful protests don't stay peaceful long enough. Watch the early newscasts and you are more likely to see people shouting and parading with signs while the police stand back and take the abuse. 800k police officers in the US and their "idiots" seem to get the most attention. The protests in my area didn't get violent and WERE covered on the local news. (That being said, the protests are better of discussed elsewhere.)
> 
> Television coverage of police chases ... why? Are the stations informing the public or providing a sadistic form of "entertainment"?_*"We interrupt our regular programming to show you traffic flowing normally on the 405 and the 101. No accidents, no major problems."
> "Look Bob, that trucker slowed down to leave more space between his vehicle and the small car in front of him. And watch as that motorcyclist waits behind traffic instead of riding the lane divider at a high rate of speed."
> ...


Actually the news is very good about telling us where the case is and seems to be headed and telling people to stay away from it.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The peaceful protests don't stay peaceful long enough. Watch the early newscasts and you are more likely to see people shouting and parading with signs while the police stand back and take the abuse. 800k police officers in the US and their "idiots" seem to get the most attention. The protests in my area didn't get violent and WERE covered on the local news. (That being said, the protests are better of discussed elsewhere.)
> 
> Television coverage of police chases ... why? Are the stations informing the public or providing a sadistic form of "entertainment"?
> _*"We interrupt our regular programming to show you traffic flowing normally on the 405 and the 101. No accidents, no major problems."
> ...


Not to divert the topic of the thread, yes police chases are a low form of entertainment, guilty as charged but there is one public service, helps people stay the heck away as police chases are highly dangerous to the public, I'm of the opinion that unless the suspect is a violent criminal, the chases should not happen.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have seen TVs in cars while in Chicago (illegal, if I understand correctly, as the driver could see the screen). Otherwise I don't see how TV coverage keeps people away from a chase.

I have seen coverage of volunteers cleaning up after last night's protests. Not on a distant since I don't qualify, but TV can show the good.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> I have seen TVs in cars while in Chicago (illegal, if I understand correctly, as the driver could see the screen). Otherwise I don't see how TV coverage keeps people away from a chase.
> 
> I have seen coverage of volunteers cleaning up after last night's protests. Not on a distant since I don't qualify, but TV can show the good.


I don't want to be a snarky clown but come on man, smartphones, Twitter, even before social media I could call a friend and deliver a warning but now come on, once a car chase breaks it is all over Twitter in minutes. Not to mention you are alerting newscasters on the radio which then warn their listeners.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Exactly ... many methods exist now to alert people. Not that the TV in the car crowd should be joined by the twitter in the car crowd or cell phone in the car crowd. I find the overhead signs giving traffic alerts to be valuable (since I don't listen to local radio or TV in a car). I do not believe that TV is the only source of information for the radio broadcasters and other "media". National delivery of live car chase coverage is certainly not needed "to inform the public".


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Exactly ... many methods exist now to alert people. Not that the TV in the car crowd should be joined by the twitter in the car crowd or cell phone in the car crowd. I find the overhead signs giving traffic alerts to be valuable (since I don't listen to local radio or TV in a car). I do not believe that TV is the only source of information for the radio broadcasters and other "media". National delivery of live car chase coverage is certainly not needed "to inform the public".


"Not needed", that could be written about almost anything, they are covering it because it gets ratings, same thing with the protests, more violence, higher ratings, there is a corollary benefit to both though, more people watching, more chance someone will get the word to stay away from that intersection or highway, your beliefs about it aside, that is an objective fact. Also things on Twitter with video seem to have a higher chance of going viral, subjective opinion on that sentence.

TV is just another way in which a story can be amplified, often differing media sources feed off of each other, again, more viewers gives a story a better chance of more tweets, the media's motivation is a whole different story.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> "Not needed", that could be written about almost anything, they are covering it because it gets ratings, same thing with the protests, more violence, higher ratings, there is a corollary benefit to both though, more people watching, more chance someone will get the word to stay away from that intersection or highway, your beliefs about it aside, that is an objective fact.


So you are saying you NEED a distant network feed of LA stations so you can ... 1) alert the other media in LA or 2) call your friends in LA? I am glad that you mentioned that the stations do it to get ratings - because that is the objective truth. If it "informs the public" that is a side effect.

BTW: Something isn't an "objective fact" just because you believe it. You need more than antidotal evidence that some person tweeted or called some one in a car based on what they saw on TV and that was their only alert. Did any such "warning" make a difference where a person left the affected highway and the root source was TV coverage?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> So you are saying you NEED a distant network feed of LA stations so you can ... 1) alert the other media in LA or 2) call your friends in LA? I am glad that you mentioned that the stations do it to get ratings - because that is the objective truth. If it "informs the public" that is a side effect.
> 
> BTW: Something isn't an "objective fact" just because you believe it. You need more than antidotal evidence that some person tweeted or called some one in a car based on what they saw on TV and that was their only alert. Did any such "warning" make a difference where a person left the affected highway and the root source was TV coverage?


Why do you have to reduce the argument down to the personal, if it affects you or I, that is not relevant to the discussion (I already wrote that I watch for the entertainment value), the objective fact is that the more people that watch a news event, the greater chance/odds/probability whatever word you want to use, that information will be spread by other means, is it a guarantee, no, we are talking about statistics/probability etc., if you have a 1 in 500 chance of winning a raffle and there are 500 people playing, no guarantee somebody will win, if you are running for President, do you want more or less people watching your rallies on TV than your rival, does it mean you will win, nope. Or does it guarantee more people (that were not watching) will hear about your rally and your central points, no but it gives you a greater chance of exponential spread.

All I can control is myself, I want to know the places to avoid and I don't care that the media makes money off it, perhaps their coverage causes more people to show up to the looting areas, that's on those idiots, if you can't recognize more people equals a greater chance, I don't know what else to write, seems fundamental.

And again, "need", did I ever write that anything in this thread was needed, obviously the police chase coverage only informs those who live in the area, should I write that gravity is the reason the apple falls from the tree.

And bringing up the word need, one entity that needs something is the media, they need ratings or they can't turn the lights on and pay their employees, good journalism, classic journalism makes money and informs the public, side effect or not I hope some form of good journalism will never leave this planet, otherwise we are in danger of losing many of the gains civilization has acquired over the centuries.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Why do you have to reduce the argument down to the personal,


You took a swipe at me by referring to what I said as "your beliefs" and what you said as "objective fact". You don't own the facts.
I thank you for sharing your opinions. (I'll leave the rest of your rant to the side.)

*Distant Subscribers:* Please let us know what happens when the distant networks expire.


----------



## blazera (May 31, 2011)

Channels 390-9, 394-9, and 399-9 were created early Sunday evening, each showing this slide.


----------



## Visman (Feb 17, 2008)

I was watching the LA Protest on NBC LA 393 and at 7:00 pm CDT the channel want off. That is the end DNS networks. I will miss them.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Visman said:


> I was watching the LA Protest on NBC LA 393 and at 7:00 pm CDT the channel want off. That is the end DNS networks. I will miss them.


Is there a message on the channel, or an INFO channel like the one shown above?
I'm also seeing the Important Information -9 channels for CBS East, DC CW, and the West Coast Fox on 399. I'm not seeing "Important Information" channels for NBC East or ABC East though. I'd be curious to know what those on the west coast are seeing?

Maybe they reached a deal with NBC & ABC? Also, the 399 one seems unusual since we know they reached a deal with FOX. Maybe everybody will be East Coast Fox DNS now?

I'm on an RV waiver, so it will be interesting to see what is left in the morning as I'm not affected by the "grandfathering" provision.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

This is posted at TV Channel Updates for AT&T & DIRECTV TV Services

An update on your DIRECTV service

As of June 1, 2020, a new change in the law means select DIRECTV customers living in certain communities can no longer access ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC or CW as they have before.

Until recently, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act allowed satellite companies like DIRECTV to provide certain out-of-market broadcast network stations, typically from New York or Los Angeles. Unfortunately, Congress decided not to renew key portions of this law, over the objections of AT&T, consumer groups, and others.

To see if you're impacted, enter your zip code below.

This change in law affects only certain customers, including long haul truckers and recreational vehicles, who have unique service plans. *DIRECTV has already entered into agreements with CBS, NBC and FOX to retain some affected customers' access to national network content and continues to work with ABC and CW to try to minimize any further disruptions.* Some customers who had previously received out-of-market broadcast network stations, in addition to their local affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CW, will no longer have access to these out-of-market stations. However, they will still be able to view their local stations.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

GordonGekko said:


> Not to divert the topic of the thread, yes police chases are a low form of entertainment, guilty as charged but there is one public service, helps people stay the heck away as police chases are highly dangerous to the public, I'm of the opinion that unless the suspect is a violent criminal, the chases should not happen.


A lot of chars they back off and follow with just the helicopters so the driver will slow down and be more careful then just swam him when he stops. For non violent offenders at least. I've seen them do it with a few violent ones too.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Exactly ... many methods exist now to alert people. Not that the TV in the car crowd should be joined by the twitter in the car crowd or cell phone in the car crowd. I find the overhead signs giving traffic alerts to be valuable (since I don't listen to local radio or TV in a car). I do not believe that TV is the only source of information for the radio broadcasters and other "media". National delivery of live car chase coverage is certainly not needed "to inform the public".


I will say twitter and other forms are not as good as tv or live radio for warning on things like this because they move so quickly from one area to another. And yes you can tell sometimes people clearly know about the chase when it goes through their area.

I believe any image on a screen that a driver can see with ease and moves beyond a certain refresh rate is legal everywhere. It is in California for sure.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> Also, the 399 one seems unusual since we know they reached a deal with FOX. Maybe everybody will be East Coast Fox DNS now?


We know they reached a deal with Fox, but not necessarily for both east and west. I would think they would want either both coasts available or all the networks to come from one coast. Having a mix where some DNS channels come from the east coast and some from the west doesn't seem like it would work out too well.

Since the big 4 stations in those two markets are all O&O I wouldn't think they'd need to reach separate deals to carry the Fox stations in NYC and LA. So if they are showing the -9 slate for the Fox station in LA it would seem to point to them carrying only the east coast stations for DNS in the future.


----------



## dpstang (May 27, 2007)

Well this sucks, 20 some years of having the east and west coast feeds. Any alternatives, I live close to Canada.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

cpalmer2k said:


> ... I'd be curious to know what those on the west coast are seeing? ....


Still receiving the big 4 on CONUS beam tps. here in the L.A. market. ....

Mapped into the local channel range of the guide and the 390s as usual ...

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

how do I get an RV waiver ? is it hard to get? i live on the boarder of the Mississippi river. half the town is east of the river , half is west of the river. .per se' . also I have always been listed as NO LOCALS.. ever.. and still I never got any notification.. NONE..


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> You took a swipe at me by referring to what I said as "your beliefs" and what you said as "objective fact". You don't own the facts.
> I thank you for sharing your opinions. (I'll leave the rest of your rant to the side.)
> 
> *Distant Subscribers:* Please let us know what happens when the distant networks expire.


If you want to, let us agree to disagree, if you want to get the last word in that is fine, just know I never meant to get personal with you, good luck and hopefully we can move on to the DNS situation, stay safe and take care.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

*"DIRECTV has already entered into agreements with CBS, NBC and FOX to retain some affected customers' access to national network content"*
My camp has NBC (DNS-NYC and LA) up in Northern NY where there is a low power NBC in Watertown. Funny thing is Spectrum in Watertown carries NBC from Syracuse as well as the Watertown NBC. Hopefully, I'll keep my NBC because I'm no where anywhere near antenna range for NBC Watertown. I think there might be an exception for me since the NBC is low power?


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

GordonGekko said:


> Could it be that your distance to your local station's tower could save some of the distant network feeds, I don't know.


I looked at my bill and it's still on there. And I never received a letter from Directv about anything relating to losing DNS.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

I live in northeastern PA. My DNS (E/W coasts) ABC, CBS, NBC were turned off. I still get FOX E/W.

I just switched packages because my current Xtra Classic package had no locals, went to the Xtra package which had 15 more channels and locals and is $9 cheaper than my old package with DNS charges. I would say the picture quality of the locals is about 95% of what I got rom NY and LA. My STARz and Sports Pack stayed intact with my package switch. I'm ok with the DNS loss but would be nice to have them back as I will miss the entertaining NY and LA 11PM news.

The only flaw right now is the my local PBS station on DTV is very herky-jerky video. It could just be a current transmission issue, any NE PA people here that can confirm this?


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

GordonGekko said:


> If you don't mind can you write how it reads on your bill for the network NBC charge, thanks.


ACCOUNT ACTIVITY
Billing Period: 05/22/20 to 06/21/20
Payments
Previous Balance -$63.05
Payment received on 05/02/20 - Master Card -7.68
BALANCE -70.73
DIRECTV Channels
1. TOTAL CHOICE-no locals 91.99
2. Network: NBC 3.50
3. Regional Sports Fee 9.99
SUBTOTAL 105.48


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

GordonGekko said:


> Thanks, did you originally get that because you were too far away from your local NBC tower?


Yes the nearest NBC was in Syracuse which is about 100 miles away. The low power NBC in Watertown that is now on is about 35 miles from me, but I cant even get a whiff of it on my rooftop antenna. As I said, Spectrum in Watertown which covers most of the area is still carrying both Syracuse and Watertown NBC....so I'm thinking maybe because the cable is carrying out of market maybe they (Directv) can as well up here. Watertown is about 63 miles from Syracuse btw..and Watertown has a full slate of affiliates (if you include the low power NBC).


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Just putting the word out, if the veterans here and the moderators think it is best we all keep quiet, to anyone who are getting some of the channels still, feel free to delete the posts, not sure if that ultimately would ever matter, if Directv is keeping some on, I assume it is not a mistake and there is some way they are able to do this, again, I'll let the veterans here decide what is best.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> No official word, but permission to deliver distants ends today. Whether the plug is pulled at midnight Eastern or Pacific or some random time is unknown.
> 
> I do not expect locals to be automatically added - but that is just my expectation. There is a group of grandfathered subscribers who were allowed to keep distants until they added locals (they had distants before their local market was added and the law at the time gave them the choice). They may get locals since they were not legally allowed to have both.
> 
> Since AT&T|DIRECTV has not announced their plans we are all it a "wait and see" mode.


My CBS channels (390 & 391) and ABC channels (396 & 397) disappeared early this evening. The NBC and FOX channels are still present.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The TV Channel Updates for AT&T & DIRECTV TV Services is a good place to start.
I put in a few zip codes to see what was said.

My market had ABC as a DNS a long time ago and may have some grandfathered subscribers:









Alpena has no Local into Local service:









Lafayette once had only a CBS affiliate (now all are covered as sub channels):









These may give a hint as to what will remain.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The TV Channel Updates for AT&T & DIRECTV TV Services is a good place to start.
> I put in a few zip codes to see what was said.
> 
> My market had ABC as a DNS a long time ago and may have some grandfathered subscribers:
> ...


Very helpful, does anyone know the reasons behind the split, why for certain areas, CBS/ABC gone but NBC/FOX remain, this does not even match what the STELAR sunset bill was ordering, very odd. Or more accurately it does not match what was lost with the sunset of the STELAR bill, anyway no matter where anyone lives, I don't see how two networks could still remain but I hope it does remain for those that still can get 2 out of 4 DNS feeds.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm guessing, James, that it doesn't even matter if one has waivers (remember those) from each of the 4 O&O network stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JiminToga said:


> *"DIRECTV has already entered into agreements with CBS, NBC and FOX to retain some affected customers' access to national network content"*
> My camp has NBC (DNS-NYC and LA) up in Northern NY where there is a low power NBC in Watertown. Funny thing is Spectrum in Watertown carries NBC from Syracuse as well as the Watertown NBC. Hopefully, I'll keep my NBC because I'm no where anywhere near antenna range for NBC Watertown. I think there might be an exception for me since the NBC is low power?


Does DIRECTV carry the Watertown market? If so, they should have WVNC (unless there is a carriage dispute).

I am surprised that Alpena Michigan is getting Fox. Affiliate WBKB transmits Fox (along with CBS and ABC) in the Alpena market. There is no NBC affiliate in Alpena - which would allow for the feed from NBC (supported by a side deal, not the DNS law). CBS is the primary feed on WBKB which may be why Fox allows their national signal and CBS doesn't.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> I'm guessing, James, that it doesn't even matter if one has waivers (remember those) from each of the 4 O&O network stations.


Waivers are part of grandfathering and the old law. I doubt if anyone gained distants due to the reported side deals with CBS, Fox and NBC.



cpalmer2k said:


> Also, the 399 one seems unusual since we know they reached a deal with FOX. Maybe everybody will be East Coast Fox DNS now?


I noticed that the wording of the message for Alpena is "FOX remains available on channels 398 *or* 399 and NBC remains available on channels 392 *and* 393" (emphasis added). Perhaps Fox is only allowing one feed based on time zone?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Waivers are part of grandfathering and the old law. I doubt if anyone gained distants due to the reported side deals with CBS, Fox and NBC.
> 
> I noticed that the wording of the message for Alpena is "FOX remains available on channels 398 *or* 399 and NBC remains available on channels 392 *and* 393" (emphasis added). Perhaps Fox is only allowing one feed based on time zone?


But to everyone who has been reading every page of this Stelar law and its demise, was it not only the RV type accounts that might be able to keep them, if NBC/Fox are being allowed in some house accounts, something must have changed, FOX/NBC have crafted some sort of unique agreement with ATT/Directv, right?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Under the law (which required DIRECTV to offer locals in all markets to keep DNS) RV/Commercial Vehicles could keep DNS and residents in short markets (markets missing an affiliate) could keep DNS (for that affiliate). All grandfathering was lost (people who got distants under previous versions of the law who would not qualify to add distants today).

Under the side deal for CBS, NBC and FOX it appears they have crafted something similar without the requirement to offer locals in the final 12 markets. I have not typed zip codes for every short market into the website, but it appears the short markets are getting NBC and FOX if there is not a local affiliate. I am not sure about CBS.

Under the DNS law the short market distants cannot be from an earlier time zone than the local channels in market. Under the side deals I don't believe that legal prohibition applies. It would be up to the agreement what stations could be provided where.


I'd like to hear from people in short markets on both coasts and from RV/commercial vehicle users before I make further guesses as to what the side agreements allow.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Under the law (which required DIRECTV to offer locals in all markets to keep DNS) RV/Commercial Vehicles could keep DNS and residents in short markets (markets missing an affiliate) could keep DNS (for that affiliate). All grandfathering was lost (people who got distants under previous versions of the law who would not qualify to add distants today).
> 
> Under the side deal for CBS, NBC and FOX it appears they have crafted something similar without the requirement to offer locals in the final 12 markets. I have not typed zip codes for every short market into the website, but it appears the short markets are getting NBC and FOX if there is not a local affiliate. I am not sure about CBS.
> 
> ...


Not only happening in short markets.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

My billing statement says "Network Package- Mobile East" typically on an RV waiver. As of this morning all is well, no interruptions. They must've struck a deal late in the game for RV/Truckers at least.


----------



## Swanni (May 5, 2013)

cpalmer2k said:


> My billing statement says "Network Package- Mobile East" typically on an RV waiver. As of this morning all is well, no interruptions. They must've struck a deal late in the game for RV/Truckers at least.


AT&T says there are deals now with everyone but ABC:
Updated: DIRECTV Loses ABC's 'Distant' Channel, But Keeps Others - The TV Answer Man!


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

So does this mean that the distants will be reinstated?


----------



## Swanni (May 5, 2013)

JiminToga said:


> So does this mean that the distants will be reinstated?


AT&T won't say exactly who will get them and who won't. But if Fox was still there last night, you probably will also be able to keep NBC, CBS and Fox.


----------



## Robert Auger (Sep 18, 2018)

JiminToga said:


> So does this mean that the distants will be reinstated?


Is your Off the air


----------



## Swanni (May 5, 2013)

Swanni said:


> AT&T won't say exactly who will get them and who won't. But if Fox was still there last night, you probably will also be able to keep NBC, CBS and Fox.


This was their stance for the Fox announcement as well. They wouldn't say if residential customers would get the Fox out-of-market channel after the law changed. But last night, Fox was still there, as was NBC for some.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

Was mentioning earlier our cable company carries the low power NBC and the Syracuse NBC (still)...so I'm thinking that's a precedent to keep the NBC I get for DNS. The only NBC locally is the low-power one and it's way too far for an antenna. They offer it on the Directv locals package (which I dont subscribe to), but I think there are exceptions for low-power affiliates?


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

Robert Auger said:


> Is your Off the air


I haven't checked but nothing in my bill reflects a refund nor did I ever get a letter from Directv about losing the DNS channels (in my case NBC)


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Anyone know whom we can contact at DirecTV to get back the CBS channels, now that an agreement has been reached? IIRC, there used to be an Email address one can write regarding DNS feeds.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Not only happening in short markets.


Please clarify.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JiminToga said:


> I haven't checked but nothing in my bill reflects a refund nor did I ever get a letter from Directv about losing the DNS channels (in my case NBC)


Per the website refunds could take a couple of billing cycles.


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

James Long said:


> I'd like to hear from people in short markets on both coasts and from RV/commercial vehicle users before I make further guesses as to what the side agreements allow.


RV user here, and as of right now, nothing has changed for me.

I'm not sure what the important data is. I've had DNS since 2003, grandfathered with both east and west coast feeds, and I pay a separate amount for a PBS feed. Service address is in a large Texas city, and I'm currently in a Colorado city. I'm using the original satellite dish and an old receiver, getting SD signal on satellite 101. As of right now, I have everything I had before: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and CW, all with both east and west coast feeds, as well as the one PBS feed I pay for separately.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

lamplight said:


> RV user here, and as of right now, nothing has changed for me.
> 
> I'm not sure what the important data is. I've had DNS since 2003, grandfathered with both east and west coast feeds, and I pay a separate amount for a PBS feed. Service address is in a large Texas city, and I'm currently in a Colorado city. I'm using the original satellite dish and an old receiver, getting SD signal on satellite 101. As of right now, I have everything I had before: CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and CW, all with both east and west coast feeds, as well as the one PBS feed I pay for separately.


Thank you. I am assuming they have your account flagged as an RV account, which makes the service address less relevant. I am surprised that you have ABC since that has not been mentioned on their website.

Attached is the results for Glendive Montana, a market with a CBS and NBC affiliate but no ABC or FOX affiliate. ABC, CBS and NBC are no longer carried (FOX is carried).


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

I still have FOX E/W, WITH ABC, CBS, NBC gone. My account now has a credit of $2.45 for each ABC, CBS, NBC DNS network that I lost yesterday. No credit issued for FOX. I now have my locals including the local FOX.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

FussyBob said:


> I still have FOX E/W, WITH ABC, CBS, NBC gone. My account now has a credit of $2.45 for each ABC, CBS, NBC DNS network that I lost yesterday. No credit issued for FOX. I now have my locals including the local FOX.


Has anybody else on here seen a credit to their account? I haven't checked my channels but I checked my account activity and no credit in the activity was noted. I'm thinking I still may have my NBC DNS.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Please clarify.


Since the cat is already out of the bag, check Fussy Bob's post and a few others, here is the ultimate question to those who retain Fox or both Fox/NBC, I don't believe this is a Directv oversight, if they turn off and credit one or two other networks, they would easily see the others, so it seems to me that Fox/NBC did something in their agreements, gave Directv more latitude to keep the $3.50 per month charges for each of those other two networks, that is my hope, seems logical right now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We probably need more data, such as FussyBob's market so we can see what the local Fox is. As noted, there is a Fox affiliate in Alpena Michigan (a WBKB sub channel) but Fox national feeds are still available. Alpena is not carried by DIRECTV.


----------



## mrfatboy (Jan 21, 2007)

My info. 

-San Diego Market
-Home account
-Grandfathered East/West ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox 
-Have all locals

I only have East/West NBC now


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

We probably aren't going to get solid data on this on day one. If, for example, someone has an RV account and looks at what channels they receive they may not get an accurate picture since Directv can turn channels on/off but changing the ability for a particular customer to actually view or not view those channels will depend on their receiver getting a 'hit'.

I'm sure they are sending out hits to affected accounts but it probably takes some times to get to them all, and if the receiver is not on at the time it won't see the update.

So I'd take the stories of people who are seeing DNS channels the law says they should not, or who are missing channels others are getting, with a grain of salt at this time. It will take a day or two for things to stabilize. Plus I'm sure Directv is busy negotiating with ABC to complete the set, and that will require another round of hits to affected accounts.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> We probably aren't going to get solid data on this on day one. If, for example, someone has an RV account and looks at what channels they receive they may not get an accurate picture since Directv can turn channels on/off but changing the ability for a particular customer to actually view or not view those channels will depend on their receiver getting a 'hit'.
> 
> I'm sure they are sending out hits to affected accounts but it probably takes some times to get to them all, and if the receiver is not on at the time it won't see the update.
> 
> So I'd take the stories of people who are seeing DNS channels the law says they should not, or who are missing channels others are getting, with a grain of salt at this time. It will take a day or two for things to stabilize. Plus I'm sure Directv is busy negotiating with ABC to complete the set, and that will require another round of hits to affected accounts.


Yes but if hypothetically you lose CBS, you see the credit and disconnect on your account but retain one of the others, your receiver and account got the hits. Of course perhaps for some reason your receiver needs to get separate hits, one for CBS and one for Fox etc., but in that scenario what would be the delay on your account getting the credit/disconnect message for said Fox network.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

mrfatboy said:


> My info.
> 
> -San Diego Market
> -Home account
> ...


Out of curiosity, if you know or care to check on one of those hd antenna sites, is your home location more miles away from the NBC tower than it is from the Fox antenna tower?

Anyway I have a theory that Fox/NBC may have put some language in there regarding the distance to their home towers as to which grandfathered can keep them turned on but this is just me throwing stuff against the wall to try to make some sense of this, I wish we could just get some clear language to know where we stand.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

James Long said:


> We probably need more data, such as FussyBob's market so we can see what the local Fox is. As noted, there is a Fox affiliate in Alpena Michigan (a WBKB sub channel) but Fox national feeds are still available. Alpena is not carried by DIRECTV.


My market is northeastern PA (Wilkes-Barre, Scranton). The local FOX station is WOLF. I believe that the local stations (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) all broadcast from the same mountain area which is about 30 miles from my home with 3 mountains between me and the transmitters. I can't get those local stations over the air. The irony of all this is that I also have local cable ($20/month for 70 channels which includes 3 local city area TV stations that are cable only, and the major networks). I need the DTV locals so I can record on my DVR's my favorite programs, otherwise I'm redundant with local major networks, the cable does help when needed for sat rain fade. The loss of the DNS screwed everything up! In fact, the local cable gives me almost everything that DTV channel lineup has that I watch except that they dropped the YES network last year and I'm a Yankee fan and need YES. The cable would cost about $120 with 2 DVR's. I could add the MLB package but that is pricey. Now my next option would be YouTube TV streaming as I would get the same locals and YES for $49. I just changed my package last night to Xtra to get the locals. So I guess I'm now locked in for another 2 years with DTV.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

There is no way ABC is going to be an outlier when the other networks have signed agreements with Directv. All it needs is for some senator or congressman to raise the issue about truckers delivering needed supplies and they will cave. Give it a day or so.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Lord Vader said:


> Anyone know whom we can contact at DirecTV to get back the CBS channels, now that an agreement has been reached? IIRC, there used to be an Email address one can write regarding DNS feeds.


Someone here probably knows what the current equivalent is to the Office of the Vice President email that we used back in the day, here is the problem though, if you were grandfathered, I don't know that even if things change with CBS to mirror Fox/NBC that you could get CBS back, and we still don't know if Fox/NBC has some sort of individual agreement with Directv that has extended to grandfathered accounts.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

What still puzzles me is why DIRECTV duplicated only WABC HD/SD and WDCW SD feeds on local spotbeams and place those markets on them. As an apparent preparation to the shutdown of their CONUS feeds if negotiations ultimately fail (still a possibility with ABC).

But never did the same for the west coast ABC and CW feeds of KABC HD/SD and KTLA SD?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> What still puzzles me is why DIRECTV duplicated only WABC HD/SD and WDCW SD feeds on local spotbeams and place those markets on them. As an apparent preparation to the shutdown of their CONUS feeds if negotiations ultimately fail (still a possibility with ABC).
> 
> But never did the same for the west coast ABC and CW feeds of KABC HD/SD and KTLA SD?
> 
> Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


I can only speculate that it was done as a negotiation strategy with ABC to indicate that D* was serious and that ABC would soon have to deal with the truckers complaining to Washington. They were clearly near agreement with CBS and NBC so didn't feel that it was necessary to take that step with those networks. Why they did the east coast and not the west coast ABC feed is beyond me.


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

Full-time RVer here
DNS since 2009 (both east and west coast feeds)
Located in Texas at my current service address (was a bear to change recently though)
930a all channels
12p all channels except east coast ABC


----------



## mrfatboy (Jan 21, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Out of curiosity, if you know or care to check on one of those hd antenna sites, is your home location more miles away from the NBC tower than it is from the Fox antenna tower?
> 
> Anyway I have a theory that Fox/NBC may have put some language in there regarding the distance to their home towers as to which grandfathered can keep them turned on but this is just me throwing stuff against the wall to try to make some sense of this, I wish we could just get some clear language to know where we stand.


Give me a link to the website and I will check. Thx


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

GordonGekko said:


> Since the cat is already out of the bag, check Fussy Bob's post and a few others, here is the ultimate question to those who retain Fox or both Fox/NBC, I don't believe this is a Directv oversight, if they turn off and credit one or two other networks, they would easily see the others, so it seems to me that Fox/NBC did something in their agreements, *gave Directv more latitude to keep the $3.50 per month charges for each of those other two networks, that is my hope, seems logical right now.*


Something like this would be my guess, too.

We've had NBC E/W since probably 2003 (waiver for no local HD).

When the "local" finally arrived around '07, we were "allowed" to keep NBC by paying the fee if we wanted them. (We lost waivers for the others.)

Then they took away the HD (and gave them back later) all the while we paid the monthly fee, so we never lost our "grandfather" of the NBC feeds.

Although I received the e-mail toward the end of April, there was no official notice in the paper bill, and the full fee was still there.

As of now, both 392 and 393 are still on. The only other speculation I would have is that there's no translator or any other way to receive our "local" affiliate. Nearest NBCs are way out of antenna range.

However, the affiliate we're in the market for does come through the sat (like the other "locals").

Suffice to say, we live in a weird, "jerrymandered" market for the last few decades. Whether that has anything to do with it or not, I don't know.

Just happy NBC E/W HD is still up for us.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FussyBob said:


> I can't get those local stations over the air.


Unfortunately that has been irrelevant for several years. If a Fox station was in your market and DIRECTV carried any station in your market they were required to offer carriage to that Fox station and not deliver the DNS Fox to any new customers.

WOLF is full powered and carried by DIRECTV. So either the just have not killed the DNS for you yet or the deal is better than DIRECTV would have had if they used the DNS law.


----------



## blazera (May 31, 2011)

GordonGekko said:


> Out of curiosity, if you know or care to check on one of those hd antenna sites, is your home location more miles away from the NBC tower than it is from the Fox antenna tower?
> 
> Anyway I have a theory that Fox/NBC may have put some language in there regarding the distance to their home towers as to which grandfathered can keep them turned on but this is just me throwing stuff against the wall to try to make some sense of this, I wish we could just get some clear language to know where we stand.


I have another theory: In San Diego (where the OP is), NBC is an O&O while Fox is not. Could these agreements allow distants into O&O markets?


----------



## blazera (May 31, 2011)

bobinraymoremo said:


> RVer here
> DNS since 2009 (both east and west coast feeds)
> Located in Texas at my current service address (was a bear to change recently though)
> 930a all channels
> 12p all channels except east coast ABC


Is your current service address in the DFW DMA?


----------



## DavidLyle (Jul 5, 2005)

mrfatboy said:


> My info.
> 
> -San Diego Market
> -Home account
> ...


I have the same situation as you EXCEPT I am in the Phoenix market.

I now only have East/West FOX

ABC, CBS, & NBC are all showing a partial credit in my online statement.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i have nothing .. every thing is turned off.. and I had waivers for cbs and NBC top notch.. and the others were turned on.. but I have waivers.. and my account is listed as NO LOCALS..


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

Full-time RVer here
DNS since 2009 (both east and west coast feeds) 
Located in Texas at my current service address (was a bear to change recently though) 
930a all channels 
12p all channels except east coast ABC



blazera said:


> Is your current service address in the DFW DMA?


I get local channels from San Antonio


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

bobinraymoremo said:


> Full-time RVer here
> DNS since 2009 (both east and west coast feeds)
> Located in Texas at my current service address (was a bear to change recently though)
> 930a all channels
> 12p all channels except east coast ABC


4p update - both east and west ABC now gone


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

mrfatboy said:


> Give me a link to the website and I will check. Thx


Thanks: Antenna Signal Prediction


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

blazera said:


> I have another theory: In San Diego (where the OP is), NBC is an O&O while Fox is not. Could these agreements allow distants into O&O markets?


What is O&O?

Update: Owned and operated, Fox and NBC in NY is O&O correct? Are all 4 in NYC O&O?

Update: All 4 are in NYC, based on what people are reporting in the NY area, I don't think O&O has anything to do with it, I still think Fox/NBC cut wider agreements.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Nobody will answer the phone. On hold for an hour last night, 40 minutes now. My account shows 'no locals.' There was a $50 credit, then it went to $0 and now it shows $70 credit.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> <---
> As of now, both 392 and 393 are still on. --->


*Update*:

Must've just not gotten the "kill signal," yet. They're gone now - about 1/2-hour ago.

Not surprised, just disappointed. Oh, well...


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

after almost an hour, someone from overseas answered and was no help. He transferred me to someone in the US. After another 40 mins on hold, I accidentally hung up.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> *Update*:
> 
> Must've just not gotten the "kill signal," yet. They're gone now - about 1/2-hour ago.
> 
> Not surprised, just disappointed. Oh, well...


Sorry that you lost them, did you see the disconnect on your account activity?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

They obviously made some kind of RV related arrangement with ABC, or at least got them to agree to an extension for the RV tiers because ABC is still going strong for me. One thing that seems crazy to me.. if they were going to replace the DC CW station with the CW Plus feed why not at least make it HD? On the opposite side now I can see Seinfeld at 10pm again!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> They obviously made some kind of RV related arrangement with ABC, or at least got them to agree to an extension for the RV tiers because ABC is still going strong for me. One thing that seems crazy to me.. if they were going to replace the DC CW station with the CW Plus feed why not at least make it HD? On the opposite side now I can see Seinfeld at 10pm again!


What is CW Plus? I always wanted to get the national PBS 389 as they sometimes (at least they did years ago, not sure now) premiere shows before the various NY PBS stations get them but even in the waiver days, it was never authorized for my location.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

GordonGekko said:


> What is CW Plus? I always wanted to get the national PBS 389 as they sometimes (at least they did years ago, not sure now) premiere shows before the various NY PBS stations get them but even in the waiver days, it was never authorized for my location.


The CW Plus is similar to the old FoxNet channel and the old The WB 100 Station Group it is a specialized national feed of The CW that the network operates themselves with syndicated programming that has no syndex restrictions (i.e. another local station can't force a cable/satellite provider to block out the syndicated program due to exclusivity provisions.)

It is used on cable systems and digital sub-channels in small markets that are primarly ranked below the top 100 Nielsen DMAs. It allows the station/cable operator a way to provide a CW channel without having to go through all the expenses of paying for programming to fill non-CW network hours. It also complies with the FCC's E/I requirements by airing at least 3 hours or more of educational content / week for kids.

Here is the Wikipedia article on it for more in depth details. And the article on its predecessor The WB 100+ Station Group.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> We probably need more data, such as FussyBob's market so we can see what the local Fox is. As noted, there is a Fox affiliate in Alpena Michigan (a WBKB sub channel) but Fox national feeds are still available. Alpena is not carried by DIRECTV.


To the Directv veterans here, does it mean anything if you lost a channel, went from white to greyed out on the guide, now it is back to white but still unviewable, did that mean anything in the past, don't want to call until we fully know what is going on.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

GordonGekko said:


> To the Directv veterans here, does it mean anything if you lost a channel, went from white to greyed out on the guide, now it is back to white but still unviewable, did that mean anything in the past, don't want to call until we fully know what is going on.


That's what happened to my CBS west feed. Channel 390 is still grayed out and unviewable, but channel 391 is now white again but does not have programming on it. It has that traditional ext. 721 error message on it, which it has had since yesterday evening.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Lord Vader said:


> That's what happened to my CBS west feed. Channel 390 is still grayed out and unviewable, but channel 391 is now white again but does not have programming on it. It has that traditional ext. 721 error message on it, which it has had since yesterday evening.


Yep, 721, I was wondering if perhaps Directv's agreement which according to TV AnswerMan was made after the May 31st deadline, hoping that new CBS deal made some of us eligible again.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I know that in the past, once a DNS channel is turned off, it can never be reinstated. I don't know if the same would apply here, but I'd guess it does.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Lord Vader said:


> I know that in the past, once a DNS channel is turned off, it can never be reinstated. I don't know if the same would apply here, but I'd guess it does.


I once had a customer rep offer me a credit deal for the year, promised to not mess with my account but she cancelled it and put me in as a new subscriber, lost them all, I emailed the Office of the Vice President, she was able to reinstate the DNS after I described what happened, so on a technical level it can happen but it is true that from reading the reports on this site, very difficult.


----------



## fertree (Apr 21, 2002)

I lost all 4, got FOX and NBC (both feeds) back, then lost them again a bit ago. I tried to refresh and got an error message that said we know you are having problems with locals and are working on it. I'm located 120 miles north of Seattle, and get nothing but Vancouver BC with an antenna. My bill shows I've paid for all 4, no credits.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Lord Vader said:


> I know that in the past, once a DNS channel is turned off, it can never be reinstated. I don't know if the same would apply here, but I'd guess it does.


This is a different world. In the past when a grandfathered customer gave up a distant it could not be restored. The law defined the grandfathering rules. Now the contract (the side agreement) defines the rules. It may be "once gone, always gone" but there is no law preventing the return of a feed carried due to a side agreement.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> This is a different world. In the past when a grandfathered customer gave up a distant it could not be restored. The law defined the grandfathering rules. Now the contract (the side agreement) defines the rules. It may be "once gone, always gone" but there is no law preventing the return of a feed carried due to a side agreement.


Thanks JL, you brought out what I was not considering, the new side agreement defines where we go forward, maybe a new customer can get the distants based on this side agreement, who knows, I wish we could get some clear guidance from ATT/Directv but I know that is a laugh given the current regime in power at ATT.

JL, is what you are writing that the new side agreement might make the whole concept of grandfathering to be over?

Even though I hope the side agreement would open up options for new subcribers to sign up for DNS, I wonder if the networks would even want that, so it goes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> JL, is what you are writing that the new side agreement might make the whole concept of grandfathering to be over?


Possibly. I believe that it is fair that a person who signs up for DIRECTV tomorrow gets the same channel lineups available to 20 year customers in the same markets. But there may be wording in one or more of the agreements that allows people to keep the distant without allowing people to newly add the distant - similar to some of the weird grandfathered channels packages DIRECTV has. Sometimes loyalty has a reward.

I know I don't know. I am just taking notes as we move along.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

James Long said:


> This is a different world. In the past when a grandfathered customer gave up a distant it could not be restored. The law defined the grandfathering rules. Now the contract (the side agreement) defines the rules. It may be "once gone, always gone" but there is no law preventing the return of a feed carried due to a side agreement.


So, James, do you think I should call and ask to get back the missing CBS feed? BTW, I'm one of the original DNS subscribers who worked his tail off to obtain waivers from each of the O&O stations in Chicago: CBS, NBC, ABC, & FOX. It was a pain in the ass, but I got them all.


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

RVer here located with a service address in Texas with an update, as of 930a CDT, lost 394 and 395 (CW). Cumulatively I have CBS, NBC & FOX. I don't have CW & ABC.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> So, James, do you think I should call and ask to get back the missing CBS feed? BTW, I'm one of the original DNS subscribers who worked his tail off to obtain waivers from each of the O&O stations in Chicago: CBS, NBC, ABC, & FOX. It was a pain in the ass, but I got them all.


You live in Chicago and got the New York and Los Angeles dns feeds?

Personally I'd wait a week before calling because I'm guessing they have a lot of people calling right now.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Lord Vader said:


> So, James, do you think I should call and ask to get back the missing CBS feed? BTW, I'm one of the original DNS subscribers who worked his tail off to obtain waivers from each of the O&O stations in Chicago: CBS, NBC, ABC, & FOX. It was a pain in the ass, but I got them all.


I'll chime in, even though I want Lord Vader to call so we can this issue clarified, I can only advise what I am doing, waiting, I would hate for LV to call in and then they tell him, wait a second, NBC/Fox should also be turned off, now as I wrote in the past, I don't think anyone will have their channels survive because of a glitch, I think Directv is following a plan and those NBC/Fox DNS channels are on for a reason, but heck, this is Directv, probably wise to wait.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

GordonGekko said:


> Sorry that you lost them, did you see the disconnect on your account activity?


I don't regularly monitor account activity. Nothing ever changes except rate/fee increases, or PPV.

The paper bill was not any different than usual. (The old DirecTV probably would've pro-rated the fee to some extent.)

The email I got in April stated something about a credit within two billing cycles (if I recall).



GordonGekko said:


> To the Directv veterans here, does it mean anything if you lost a channel, went from white to greyed out on the guide, now it is back to white but still unviewable, did that mean anything in the past, don't want to call until we fully know what is going on.


In my case the NBC E/W (only ones I was receiving) went grey. Then CBS W (which we never had) went white, but was not viewable.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I don't regularly monitor account activity. Nothing ever changes except rate/fee increases, or PPV.
> 
> The paper bill was not any different than usual. (The old DirecTV probably would've pro-rated the fee to some extent.)
> 
> ...


I understand but if you sign in right now, go to the billing section, click recent activity, it would be interesting to see if they issued you a credit for the NBC feeds and or you see an NBC disconnect message, if they did not, you might be able to call in and get them back, because these side deals were struck after the law ended, your NBC channels might have been turned off before the side deal was cut. Even if they did issue you a credit you might be able to get them back.

Right now multiple people are reporting the same thing with 391, makes me think the CBS side deal altered something, I would like to know which department should we call, in the past I would call Retentions no matter what I needed because they seemed to be the ones with the most power to alter something on your account, who knows.

Update: One other problem, we all know through the years that many customer service reps provide information that is wrong, so in this instance how in the heck will we know if what they are saying is the truth, does anyone know what the current equivalent to the old Office of the Vice President email is? (if it exists)


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

I think there was a deal with NBC regarding distance to the transmitter. I am 38 miles from the transmitter to a low power NBC and I still have my DNS (E and W)


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

JiminToga said:


> I think there was a deal with NBC regarding distance to the transmitter. I am 38 miles from the transmitter to a low power NBC and I still have my DNS (E and W)


I've talked to people in that boat, Fox/NBC on, both more than 50 miles from tower, CBS off, less than 50 miles from a tower or secondary tower/transmitter, but we'll probably have someone post who reports a situation that counters yours.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

GordonGekko said:


> I understand but if you sign in right now, go to the billing section, click recent activity, it would be interesting to see if they issued you a credit for the NBC feeds and or you see an NBC disconnect message, if they did not, you might be able to call in and get them back, because these side deals were struck after the law ended, your NBC channels might have been turned off before the side deal was cut. Even if they did issue you a credit you might be able to get them back.
> 
> Right now multiple people are reporting the same thing with 391, makes me think the CBS side deal altered something, I would like to know which department should we call, in the past I would call Retentions no matter what I needed because they seemed to be the ones with the most power to alter something on your account, who knows.
> 
> Update: One other problem, we all know through the years that many customer service reps provide information that is wrong, so in this instance how in the heck will we know if what they are saying is the truth, does anyone know what the current equivalent to the old Office of the Vice President email is? (if it exists)


Nah, I've no real desire to have to interact with T. (But the advice is appreciated.)

I figure if the powers that be want to be able to continue to collect that fee from me, then they'll have to figure it out for themselves.

If there were no other NBC alternatives available I might be more apt to do something.

I willing to let it go.

The most we ever used them for was to circumvent statewide interruptions (news/weather) with their annoying graphics, or as another available opportunity to view something with the west coast feed that was either missed, or needed another unavailable tuner.

These days there are other ways to get programming, and the OD seems to work well enough if needed.

Edit to add:
I've noticed a remarkable deterioration in the NBC E feed within the last few years. Most stunning when comparing DVR programs from a few years back. Point being, even less reason to want/need that channel anymore.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

fertree said:


> I lost all 4, got FOX and NBC (both feeds) back, then lost them again a bit ago. I tried to refresh and got an error message that said we know you are having problems with locals and are working on it. I'm located 120 miles north of Seattle, and get nothing but Vancouver BC with an antenna. My bill shows I've paid for all 4, no credits.


My service address is 550 miles west of the nearest OTA transmitters in Anchorage. When I first set up the account, I had both east and west coast feeds but about 6-8 years ago, I got an email from DTV and was told that with the advent of HD programming - and MP4? - I would have to take 'whichever one is closest to you' which gave me the WC HD feeds. I would point out that DTV has never spent 10 cents on my install because of my remote location, I've had to install my dishes myself and hire an installer.

I lost the 4 west coast feeds on Monday and nobody at DTV answers the phone.

I haven't checked in years but the last I knew, in order to get an RV or truck waiver, you had to supply a title and registration.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

FarNorth said:


> My service address is 550 miles west of the nearest OTA transmitters in Anchorage. When I first set up the account, I had both east and west coast feeds but about 6-8 years ago, I got an email from DTV and was told that with the advent of HD programming - and MP4? - I would have to take 'whichever one is closest to you' which gave me the WC HD feeds. I would point out that DTV has never spent 10 cents on my install because of my remote location, I've had to install my dishes myself and hire an installer.
> 
> I lost the 4 west coast feeds on Monday and nobody at DTV answers the phone.
> 
> I haven't checked in years but the last I knew, in order to get an RV or truck waiver, you had to supply a title and registration.


Are you eligible for locals? If so that's why you lost the west coast channels. 550 miles west of Anchorage? Do you live on Nunivak Island?


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Cabin outside Nome, Alaska, 99762. No OTA signals, no cable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> Cabin outside Nome, Alaska, 99762. No OTA signals, no cable.


Are you not able to get locals via DIRECTV? Alaska has some special laws for local into local that require satellite operators to offer all channels (including sub-channels). Stations in the lower 48 do not have to have sub-channels carried.

The wording on the AT&T website makes it look like you are out of luck. Not what I expected.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

FarNorth said:


> Cabin outside Nome, Alaska, 99762. No OTA signals, no cable.


But it's not the distance to any OTA transmitters, but the DMA you're in and whether DIRECTV provides any locals to your location through spotbeam coverage.

And while certainly remote, Nome is nevertheless technically in the Fairbanks DMA which according to the TPN maps is adequately covered by the Fairbanks-Juneau Ka-band spotbeam "A4BD" from the T11 satellite at 99W.

Have you asked DIRECTV about providing you local channels from Fairbanks or Juneau?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Are you not able to get locals via DIRECTV? Alaska has some special laws for local into local that require satellite operators to offer all channels (including sub-channels). Stations in the lower 48 do not have to have sub-channels carried.
> 
> The wording on the AT&T website makes it look like you are out of luck. Not what I expected.
> View attachment 30615


That wording is not accurate to every area, I've seen the same exact language in zip codes that have certain DNS channels turned on still.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> But it's not the distance to any OTA transmitters, but the DMA you're in and whether DIRECTV provides any locals to your location through spotbeam coverage.
> 
> And while certainly remote, Nome is nevertheless technically in the Fairbanks DMA which according to the TPN maps is adequately covered by the Fairbanks-Juneau Ka-band spotbeam "A4BD" from the T11 satellite at 99W.
> 
> ...


Umm, how can I ask DTV when no one will answer the phone?

How is my situation different from all the others here who have distants? Is everyone else asking the same questions an RVer or trucker?


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Note: Fairbanks and Juneau TV affiliates suck. Stations are low budget, signals are spotty and subject to outages. Anchorage only slightly better, both ABC and Fox are near bankruptcy.


----------



## mrfatboy (Jan 21, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Thanks: Antenna Signal Prediction


Fox & NBC antennas are both 25 miles from my house according to the website.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> Umm, how can I ask DTV when no one will answer the phone?
> 
> How is my situation different from all the others here who have distants? Is everyone else asking the same questions an RVer or trucker?


Try chat? It appears that DIRECTV considers you to be in an area without locals.









It is a shame you don't live in Fairbanks.








https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/pack...?assetId=cms_local_channels&_requestid=352887

Juneau has a different list of affiliates.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

mrfatboy said:


> Fox & NBC antennas are both 25 miles from my house according to the website.


Thanks, do you still only have NBC E/W feeds?


----------



## mrfatboy (Jan 21, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Thanks, do you still only have NBC E/W feeds?


As of right now I have NBC E/W feeds. Nothing else.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

FarNorth said:


> Cabin outside Nome, Alaska, 99762. No OTA signals, no cable.


I just looked on the map can you get OTA signals from Russia?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

FarNorth said:


> Umm, how can I ask DTV when no one will answer the phone?
> 
> How is my situation different from all the others here who have distants? Is everyone else asking the same questions an RVer or trucker?


You mean even the main cus. ser. number doesn't answer from your location?

1-800-531-5000

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> both ABC and Fox are near bankruptcy.


I heard things are bad up there.

And no ABC in Fairbanks?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

mrfatboy said:


> As of right now I have NBC E/W feeds. Nothing else.


OK, thanks, well that destroys our theory about the distance from the towers but also who knows, maybe they cut your channel before the side agreement was reached, somebody will eventually get impatient and call and hopefully report back here and we will learn what we can do.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

FarNorth said:


> Umm, how can I ask DTV when no one will answer the phone?
> 
> How is my situation different from all the others here who have distants? Is everyone else asking the same questions an RVer or trucker?


What number are you calling, call the main line and say "cancel service", when they ask if this is because you are moving, say, "no".


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

DirectMan said:


> I just looked on the map can you get OTA signals from Russia?


Moscow police chases?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

FarNorth said:


> Note: Fairbanks and Juneau TV affiliates suck. Stations are low budget, signals are spotty and subject to outages. Anchorage only slightly better, both ABC and Fox are near bankruptcy.


Perhaps they are ....

But frankly it's DIRECTV's problem to provide for adequate signal collection and transmission of those otherwise spotty OTA TV stations. And even though the stations may suck and some near bankruptcy. By law if your eligible to receive those locals DIRECTV has to provide them and can't give you DNS channels.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

When I was a kid during the height of the Cold War, we could not get shortwave radio, radar jammers would knock out across frequencies. I would try to listen to sporting events like the Rose Bowl or Indy 500 on AFRN and would have to jump around to various stations, try to stay ahead of the Russians. There used to be a solid AFRN station out of Turkey but the Russians would usually block that one, too. Saw MIGS in the sky a couple of times ...


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Perhaps they are ....
> 
> But frankly it's DIRECTV's problem to provide for adequate signal collection and transmission of those otherwise spotty OTA TV stations. And even though the stations may suck and some near bankruptcy. By law if your eligible to receive those locals DIRECTV has to provide them and can't give you DNS channels.
> 
> Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


So how do others get approved for DNS and why did I for so many years? Nothing has changed on my end.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The law has changed several times over the decades. You were apparently in one of the grandfathered classes.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

James Long said:


> Try chat? It appears that DIRECTV considers you to be in an area without locals.
> View attachment 30616
> 
> 
> ...


I assume that's why my account says 'No locals.' I'd talk to DTV but no one answers the phone ...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

To be clear ...

Are you calling the main line numbers such as 1-800-531-5000 or maybe 1-800-347-3288 and still getting no answer?

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> You mean even the main cus. ser. number doesn't answer from your location?
> 
> 1-800-531-5000
> 
> Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


Yes. Get transferred to tech support, no one answers.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

'If you're calling about [loss of locals], please press 6.'

Recorded message.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Choose another option. That would be a tech support issue.

Based on what we are seeing online it is more of an issue of where DIRECTV placed your zip code in their local market database. Not something I expect to get fixed on a simple phone call. But perhaps you can get the ball rolling.


----------



## DirectMan (Jul 15, 2007)

FarNorth said:


> Cabin outside Nome, Alaska, 99762. No OTA signals, no cable.


I looked at pictures on Google Maps and it doesn't seem like many homes have satellite dishes. I saw one with a big dish angled to the horizon and checked the D* alignment tool it said 2 degrees elevation. Must make dish placement difficult.

If people don't have dishes what other options are available. Streaming? Why no repeater stations in town?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

28k square miles, 10k people in what we would consider the county around Nome. 3900 people in town.
If the "big city" stations in Fairbanks are struggling where would one get the funding for a repeater in Nome?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

DirectMan said:


> I looked at pictures on Google Maps and it doesn't seem like many homes have satellite dishes. I saw one with a big dish angled to the horizon and checked the D* alignment tool it said 2 degrees elevation. Must make dish placement difficult.
> 
> If people don't have dishes what other options are available. Streaming? Why no repeater stations in town?


Yeah ....

In fact the dish face for 1.2m AK/HI ODU in Alaska actually points downward toward the ground for a negative depression angle.

So that the actual receive beam angle of the dish is the net difference between the dish offset angle and the negative depression angle. For a difference of around a positive 2 to 8° above the horizon throughout Alaska.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

DirectMan said:


> If people don't have dishes what other options are available. Streaming? Why no repeater stations in town?


Alaska Rural Communications Service - Wikipedia

ARCSTV.ORG


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

DirectMan said:


> I looked at pictures on Google Maps and it doesn't seem like many homes have satellite dishes. I saw one with a big dish angled to the horizon and checked the D* alignment tool it said 2 degrees elevation. Must make dish placement difficult.
> 
> If people don't have dishes what other options are available. Streaming? Why no repeater stations in town?


Gotta aim low. Most folks in Nome have cable. My cabin in in Council, 70 miles away. May not show on a map. It used to be bigger.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ....
> 
> In fact the dish face for 1.2m AK/HI ODU in Alaska actually points downward toward the ground for a negative depression angle.
> 
> ...


The good news is that snow doesn't collect on the dish .... it falls right off.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

FarNorth said:


> I assume that's why my account says 'No locals.' I'd talk to DTV but no one answers the phone ...


Again, what number are you calling, I've never had a problem getting through to Directv, unless the pandemic has messed with their customer service.


----------



## bwarning (Aug 29, 2004)

I am in the Chicago DMA eith locals ,had east west DNS as grandfathered. Lost CBS and ABC still have NBC and Fox east and west. I thought they all wood be gone, don't know why I still have half.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bwarning said:


> I am in the Chicago DMA eith locals ,had east west DNS as grandfathered. Lost CBS and ABC still have NBC and Fox east and west. I thought they all wood be gone, don't know why I still have half.


Do you also have Chicago locals?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I just talked to my parents, they lost all of theirs on Monday. They had them since 1995.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I just talked to my parents, they lost all of theirs on Monday. They had them since 1995.


Where are they located?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Where are they located?


Phoenix, AZ


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Phoenix, AZ


They should definitely call up, nothing to lose since they are all gone, the side deals might allow them to be reinstated. Good luck.


----------



## bwarning (Aug 29, 2004)

James Long said:


> Do you also have Chicago locals?


locals.

Yes I have the Chicago locals.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> They should definitely call up, nothing to lose since they are all gone, the side deals might allow them to be reinstated. Good luck.


They already tried. AT&T said no, sorry, since you get locals you can't have DNS.


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

So why do some of us now have locals and some DNS stations?

I now have my local FOX station and the east/west DNS FOX stations. Thus 3 FOX stations.

That’s possibly 3 NFL games at 1pm and 3 more at 4pm on Sundays.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bwarning said:


> Yes I have the Chicago locals.


I believe Fox and NBC in Chicago are Owned and Operated by the network, which may be why you are still receiving the distant versions.
The CBS deal seems to be more limited.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> They already tried. AT&T said no, sorry, since you get locals you can't have DNS.


Under the old law that would be true (except for grandfathering). Either the CSR is stating old rules or the side deals don't cover their market.
At the end of the day they have the network content via locals. Much better than locations that do not have a replacement.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

James Long said:


> I believe Fox and NBC in Chicago are Owned and Operated by the network, which may be why you are still receiving the distant versions.
> The CBS deal seems to be more limited.


Would that be why I am still getting the NBC DNS from NY and my local NBC Boston? They are both O&O.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

TheRatPatrol said:


> They already tried. AT&T said no, sorry, since you get locals you can't have DNS.


OK but the person they talked to, actually a very good chance that person had no idea about the side deals, to the extent that they want them back, I would keep trying to reach higher up.


----------



## gwlbe (May 7, 2009)

I lost my DNS that I've had since 1998, so I"moved" back home from zip 04497 to 04496. I will miss them mainly because the west coast feeds are more convenient for recording.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

I would love to have west coast feeds of the networks... with most cable channels, if you miss a recording for any reason - like weather, power outage, conflicts, whatever - the program will usually re-air at 11pm or midnight or whenever for the west coast or there is a west coast feed of the channel. With the networks, you're SOL, unless you want to deal with their terrible commercial-ridden on-demand. I used to have Dish around 2000 and they would let you choose your networks between 5 cities and I would change them often during football season but the rest of the year, I chose west coast as it was easier back them with a 2-tuner DVR.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> OK but the person they talked to, actually a very good chance that person had no idea about the side deals, to the extent that they want them back, I would keep trying to reach higher up.


Considering that we invented the term "side deal" to help explain the difference between DNS delivered under the DNS law and the out of market feeds DIRECTV continues to deliver it makes sense the CSRs don't know.

If you look up your zip code on the website and it doesn't list the national feed there is probably not a person high enough up in AT&T|DIRECTV who can restore the channel. But it is up to the individual how much effort they want to make.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Considering that we invented the term "side deal" to help explain the difference between DNS delivered under the DNS law and the out of market feeds DIRECTV continues to deliver it makes sense the CSRs don't know.
> 
> If you look up your zip code on the website and it doesn't list the national feed there is probably not a person high enough up in AT&T|DIRECTV who can restore the channel. But it is up to the individual how much effort they want to make.


I disagree, Directv is using the term "new agreements", no reason their CSR's should not have the updated info, of course this is Directv, I expect their CSR's to be clueless, doesn't mean that is how a company should be run though: Updated: DIRECTV Loses ABC's 'Distant' Channel, But Keeps Others - The TV Answer Man!

And since I've seen zip codes that according to that tool should have nothing and yet the subscriber has two or three out of four network E/W feeds, I don't much stock in that tool.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The most accurate words from the update:_It's a mystery why some subscribers are still receiving out-of-market networks while others are not. And perhaps an even bigger mystery as to why some are getting one or two, but not the others.
*It's all just guesswork because AT&T isn't elaborating on the cause*, leaving subscribers scratching their heads and picking up the phone or computer to complain._​


----------



## Guesst925XTU (Jan 29, 2004)

GordonGekko said:


> '
> And since I've seen zip codes that according to that tool should have nothing and yet the subscriber has two or three out of four network E/W feeds, I don't much stock in that tool.


Like me for example.

Zip 08008.

I am in the NYC DMA and am getting all of the NYC locals plus CBS-W, NBC-W and FOX-W all active right now.

Of course I am way out of reach for any NYC OTA reception and about 20 miles closer to Philadelphia than I am to NYC geographically.

*In the 80s and early 90s the local cable company carried the EMI (microwave) version of WWOR and channel 11 varied between WPIX and WBAL depending on the weather/season.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The most accurate words from the update:
> _It's a mystery why some subscribers are still receiving out-of-market networks while others are not. And perhaps an even bigger mystery as to why some are getting one or two, but not the others.
> *It's all just guesswork because AT&T isn't elaborating on the cause*, leaving subscribers scratching their heads and picking up the phone or computer to complain._​


Yes but that is from a journalist or commenter, AT&T should be informing their employees of the exact rules.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Guesst925XTU said:


> Zip 08008.
> 
> I am in the NYC DMA and am getting all of the NYC locals plus CBS-W, NBC-W and FOX-W all active right now.


That fits the pattern of people who had grandfathered DNS stations in owned and operated markets being able to keep their distants.
(That is not to say everyone outside an O&O loses distants, it seems that being in an O&O makes a difference.)


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

Been receiving the E/W feeds for all network except (CW, who the hell watches that anyways?) for the past 20+ years. Im the southern tier of upstate NY. Fox is still live for me with e/w, and NBC e/w keeps going in and out(mostly been on for the past 36 hours). Where i live my local stations aren't available via OTA, as there are way too many mountains around. Then i see today on one of local stations that they are in a contract dispute with DTV and aren't broadcasting ABC,CBS and CW. So, im hopeful that i can get CBS and ABC e/w active again.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> That fits the pattern of people who had grandfathered DNS stations in owned and operated markets being able to keep their distants.
> (That is not to say everyone outside an O&O loses distants, it seems that being in an O&O makes a difference.)


That makes sense, as there are no affiliate contracts in O&O markets for the network to violate. Though it is odd that Directv would care about letting those who are grandfathered keep their distants, unless there is/will be an option for anyone living in those markets to add the distants for $20/month or whatever.

That would generate additional revenue for the networks as well as give Directv a feature that isn't available elsewhere, which they sorely need in the age of cord cutting.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> That makes sense, as there are no affiliate contracts in O&O markets for the network to violate. Though it is odd that Directv would care about letting those who are grandfathered keep their distants, unless there is/will be an option for anyone living in those markets to add the distants for $20/month or whatever.
> 
> That would generate additional revenue for the networks as well as give Directv a feature that isn't available elsewhere, which they sorely need in the age of cord cutting.


That would be cool if they announce such news, O&O theory not working out in the NY area to people I have talked to, all owned and operated and yet they have FOX/NBC but don't have CBS.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rodnig1 said:


> Been receiving the E/W feeds for all network except (CW, who the hell watches that anyways?) for the past 20+ years. Im the southern tier of upstate NY. Fox is still live for me with e/w, and NBC e/w keeps going in and out(mostly been on for the past 36 hours). Where i live my local stations aren't available via OTA, as there are way too many mountains around. Then i see today on one of local stations that they are in a contract dispute with DTV and aren't broadcasting ABC,CBS and CW. So, im hopeful that i can get CBS and ABC e/w active again.


Are you seeing anything on your Directv account's "recent activity" regarding NBC?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rodnig1 said:


> Been receiving the E/W feeds for all network except (CW, who the hell watches that anyways?) for the past 20+ years. Im the southern tier of upstate NY. Fox is still live for me with e/w, and NBC e/w keeps going in and out(mostly been on for the past 36 hours). Where i live my local stations aren't available via OTA, as there are way too many mountains around. Then i see today on one of local stations that they are in a contract dispute with DTV and aren't broadcasting ABC,CBS and CW. So, im hopeful that i can get CBS and ABC e/w active again.


If anyone does get lucky in getting CBS reinstated, can you please ask the rep how they were able to do it, you could say you have a friend/relative in the same boat, thanks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> That would be cool if they announce such news, O&O theory not working out in the NY area to people I have talked to, all owned and operated and yet they have FOX/NBC but don't have CBS.


Did these people you have talked to have CBS DNS in the NY Market on May 31st, 2020?


----------



## videojanitor (Oct 8, 2006)

I haven't seen many (any?) reports here from the west coast, so thought I would drop this nugget: I have a friend in LA who has grandfathered DNS -- he says he is still receiving everything, with the exception of WABC.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Did these people you have talked to have CBS DNS in the NY Market on May 31st, 2020?


Yes.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > Did these people you have talked to have CBS DNS in the NY Market on May 31st, 2020?
> ...


So we have two people in the same market with the same channels on May 31st, one lost CBS-W and the other one did not. And it has been nearly a week so if it was a case of not sending the shut off codes yet DIRECTV should have been able to cycle through all of the accounts by now.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> So we have two people in the same market with the same channels on May 31st, one lost CBS-W and the other one did not. And it has been nearly a week so if it was a case of not sending the shut off codes yet DIRECTV should have been able to cycle through all of the accounts by now.


So O&O does not appear to have anything to do with it, unless, the CBS-West for that NY account is eligible to be reinstated based on the new agreement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I am not going to toss out O&O as a factor since it seems to be right in many of the cases stated. It is probably time to compile a table from this week's reports.

The first separation would be RV/commercial vehicle accounts. If a subscriber received distants because of an RV/commercial vehicle they should have CBS, FOX and NBC - and might have ABC if they have been left on pending final agreement. Under the law DIRECTV would still be able to deliver distants to these subscribers by adding the 12 markets. This would not be a grandfathered class - anyone with proof of registration of an RV/commercial vehicle could add service at any time. And if DIRECTV adds the 12 markets they can once again rely on the law to deliver distants instead of the private agreements with the netwoks.

The next separation would be reasons why a subscriber would not qualify for a distant of a particular network. Relying on the law DIRECTV would not be able to deliver a distant network to any market that had an in-market station. So a market like Alpena that has an ABC, CBS and FOX affiliate would not be eligible to receive DNS. Alpena can receive NBC since there is no in market affiliate. The private agreement with FOX is apparently allowing their DNS channels to be delivered. Alpena is not getting CBS.

Is there a market with no CBS affiliate that is not getting the CBS DNS? Is there a market with no NBC affiliate that is not getting the NBC DNS? Is there a market with no FOX affiliate that is not getting FOX DNS?

The third separation would be what I would call bonus coverage. These subscribers would not get DNS if DIRECTV relied solely on the law to provide service (they have in market affiliates). But for some reason subscribers are still receiving DNS channels. Many theories have floated (distance from stations, O&O markets) but we don't have a 100% clear line to say why some subscribers kept a distant and others did not. Is it a fluke that they have them or a fluke that they are gone? I assume that everyone in this category had the DNS in question on May 31st (I have seen no reports of subscribers gaining a distant channel).

I appreciate all of the data points volunteered this week as we help work through understanding the issue. It would be nice if DIRECTV, CBS, FOX and NBC would simply tell us what the new rules are.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> So we have two people in the same market with the same channels on May 31st, one lost CBS-W and the other one did not. And it has been nearly a week so if it was a case of not sending the shut off codes yet DIRECTV should have been able to cycle through all of the accounts by now.


They would have had time to cycle through everything for receivers that have been constantly on. If people are reporting what they see in their RV by "start it up, see what channels they get, then shut it down" they still might not have "current" authorizations.

Or maybe there is some other difference in the accounts between the person who kept CBS-W and the person who lost it that accounts for that...


----------



## videojanitor (Oct 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> I appreciate all of the data points volunteered this week as we help work through understanding the issue. It would be nice if DIRECTV, CBS, FOX and NBC would simply tell us what the new rules are.


I agree. Although I haven't had DNS for many years, I do find this topic interesting and appreciate the work you've put into trying to piece together this puzzle.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> They would have had time to cycle through everything for receivers that have been constantly on. If people are reporting what they see in their RV by "start it up, see what channels they get, then shut it down" they still might not have "current" authorizations.
> 
> Or maybe there is some other difference in the accounts between the person who kept CBS-W and the person who lost it that accounts for that...


What about the person from suburban Chicago, lost CBS E/W, Chicago is an O&O CBS station.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

James Long said:


> The first separation would be RV/commercial vehicle accounts. If a subscriber received distants because of an RV/commercial vehicle they should have CBS, FOX and NBC - and might have ABC if they have been left on pending final agreement. Under the law DIRECTV would still be able to deliver distants to these subscribers by adding the 12 markets. This would not be a grandfathered class - anyone with proof of registration of an RV/commercial vehicle could add service at any time. And if DIRECTV adds the 12 markets they can once again rely on the law to deliver distants instead of the private agreements with the netwoks.


Just to add to this one.. I'm an RV waiver user from the most recent iteration of the law, which meant I could only get East Coast DNS service (Because I live in the Eastern time zone). Until sometimes yesterday I still had WABC on Channel 396. I noticed last night it was gone from the guide, and gives the 721 error now. I don't get a 396 "Info" screen either though, which is strange. I still get WCBS, WNBC, and WNYW. I also have KCBS (391) listed in the guide for some reason now, but it gives a 721 error :-(


----------



## FussyBob (Jan 11, 2009)

I now get the 4 local networks (including FOX) plus I also continue to receive the DNS FOX E/W channels.

The 4 local (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) transmitter towers are all located at the same antenna farm spot on a mountain. 

Thus I doubt that distance from me to the transmitter is the reason that I still receive the DNS FOX E/W stations along with the locals.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> Just to add to this one.. I'm an RV waiver user from the most recent iteration of the law, which meant I could only get East Coast DNS service (Because I live in the Eastern time zone). Until sometimes yesterday I still had WABC on Channel 396. I noticed last night it was gone from the guide, and gives the 721 error now. I don't get a 396 "Info" screen either though, which is strange. I still get WCBS, WNBC, and WNYW. I also have KCBS (391) listed in the guide for some reason now, but it gives a 721 error :-(


From my understanding everyone lost ABC DNS because ABC is the only network that didn't reach a DNS deal with AT&T.

Do not worry I never had DNS but where they added those -9 INFO channels my guide now incorrectly highlights 390 (WCBS) and 391 (KCBS) as Channels I get but alas I too get the evil 721 error code.


----------



## videojanitor (Oct 8, 2006)

videojanitor said:


> I haven't seen many (any?) reports here from the west coast, so thought I would drop this nugget: I have a friend in LA who has grandfathered DNS -- he says he is still receiving everything, with the exception of WABC.


Update to my previous post: my friend texted me to let me know that his feed of WCBS just turned off. Still receiving WNBC and WNYW tho.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Another crazy development in this new world of alternative DNS. I was just watching James Cordon on WCBS and "Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen" came on. It goes black and pops up a Game Search Window that says "Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen is blacked out on this channel. It has been found on 390" (duh, the channel I'm on!).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> What about the person from suburban Chicago, lost CBS E/W, Chicago is an O&O CBS station.


Well another thing to keep in mind is that someone at Directv would have to flag all the O&O stations and program their systems to give them special treatment if that's what they want. They aren't likely to get everything right from day one, they'd have issues to address.

The contracts with each network might be different, maybe some are OK with O&O duplication and others aren't. Or they might specify a list of places where it is OK for people to receive the national feeds that don't exactly match the O&O list.

It may take us a while to figure this out. And good luck to anyone thinking that calling CSRs will help. I'm sure they don't know anything about this - most of them probably didn't know anything about "grandfathering" for a small number of subscribers, either. Companies train CSRs on basic stuff that affects a lot of subscribers. If you are lucky they have some supervisors who know more, but often the niche stuff just falls through the cracks and they don't care if the CSRs are clueless about it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The contracts with each network might be different, maybe some are OK with O&O duplication and others aren't. Or they might specify a list of places where it is OK for people to receive the national feeds that don't exactly match the O&O list.


I agree. I would be surprised if the rules for any two networks were exactly identical. They would be if they relied on the DNS law - but having separate agreements means they do not have to be identical.

The stated intent of the separate agreements is to continue delivery of distants to people who need them to receive each network's signal. People who would otherwise not receive that network's content at all. That is my starting point - and it seems that there are some exceptions on both the website lookup and based on subscriber reports. There could be errors on the website as well as subscribers who may have either kept a feed or lost it due to an error. If they have lost a CBS, FOX and/or NBC feed and have no other source available (an in market affiliate station) there is probably an error - otherwise it comes down to trying to read the clues and figure out the puzzle of "guess the exceptions".


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Maybe a sign of life ... When this issue first went down, I could not access any of the 390s and it brought up the STELA splash screen but today, at least those channels showed in guide - greyed out - and when I tuned to them, I got a 721 error.

CSR was sympathetic but says no official word yet, try back in a few days. Meanwhile, Indycar races at Texas in 5 hours. If I want to watch, I have to stream it via NBC Gold which will cost me $55 and eat up data. 

At some point, I'll find out if I really need DTV or not.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> Maybe a sign of life ... When this issue first went down, I could not access any of the 390s and it brought up the STELA splash screen but today, at least those channels showed in guide - greyed out - and when I tuned to them, I got a 721 error.
> 
> CSR was sympathetic but says no official word yet, try back in a few days. Meanwhile, Indycar races at Texas in 5 hours. If I want to watch, I have to stream it via NBC Gold which will cost me $55 and eat up data.
> 
> At some point, I'll find out if I really need DTV or not.


It's interesting that you can't get Fairbanks or Anchorage locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> It's interesting that you can't get Fairbanks or Anchorage locals.


I agree. DISH customers are provided Anchorage locals in Nome (14 channels, not just the major networks).

This is probably an issue that needs to go to DIRECTV's "office of the president" (or whatever has replaced that level of customer service).


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

techguy88 said:


> From my understanding everyone lost ABC DNS because ABC is the only network that didn't reach a DNS deal with AT&T.


I'm not sure what you mean by "everyone," but I posted upthread that I'm an RVer using the SD satellite and I'm still getting all five networks from both east coast and west coast, as well as my nationwide PBS feed.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

lamplight said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "everyone," but I posted upthread that I'm an RVer using the SD satellite and I'm still getting all five networks from both east coast and west coast, as well as my nationwide PBS feed.


Still today? I'm on an RV waiver too but I eventually lost ABC a day or so ago


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> I agree. DISH customers are provided Anchorage locals in Nome (14 channels, not just the major networks).
> 
> This is probably an issue that needs to go to DIRECTV's "office of the president" (or whatever has replaced that level of customer service).


+1 here too ...

Since though remote, Nome is still well within the "A4BD" local spotbeam footprint for the Fairbanks-Juneau market from T11 at 99W.

http://www.iamanedgecutter.com/resources/D11D/D11_A4BD_Fairbanks_Juneau.kmz

Don't understand why DIRECTV can't simply turn on one of those cities' stations for subscribers in Nome. ...

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Not many DTV subscribers up here, most are either Dish or GCI cable. Note that I am not actually in Nome, I have a place a fair bit out of town. Cable is not an option. I'd switch to Dish if it wasn't for ST.


----------



## jeret (Apr 22, 2007)

FarNorth said:


> Not many DTV subscribers up here, most are either Dish or GCI cable. Note that I am not actually in Nome, I have a place a fair bit out of town. Cable is not an option. I'd switch to Dish if it wasn't for ST.


Just curious. Do you use Hughesnet for your internet connection, or is there something else available?


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> I agree. DISH customers are provided Anchorage locals in Nome (14 channels, not just the major networks).
> 
> This is probably an issue that needs to go to DIRECTV's "office of the president" (or whatever has replaced that level of customer service).





HoTat2 said:


> +1 here too ...
> 
> Since though remote, Nome is still well within the "A4BD" local spotbeam footprint for the Fairbanks-Juneau market from T11 at 99W.
> 
> ...


That... could be the issue right there. E* is providing Anchorage locals, the spotbeam from D* that covers the area is the Fairbanks-Juneau DMA but that is not the intended locals for Nome. Does D*'s spotbeam for Anchorage also cover Nome?

Looking at this list from Wikipedia Nome is included with the Anchorage DMA which matches E*. The Wikipedia article does not include Nome in the Fairbanks DMA and matching D* in that regard. Also this Nielsen map from 2018-2019 that I was able to find actually has Nome (with most of Alaska) as "Unmeasured" so it is also possible D* is providing locals to just the measured areas (we would have to run zip codes to verify).

My computer will not open those .kmz files (says I don't have the necessary program) so I can't see them. However if D*'s Anchorage, AK spotbeam doesn't cover Nome but E*'s spotbeam does that could explain how E* is able to provide locals to that area while D* is not.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

James Long said:


> I agree. DISH customers are provided Anchorage locals in Nome (14 channels, not just the major networks).
> 
> This is probably an issue that needs to go to DIRECTV's "office of the president" (or whatever has replaced that level of customer service).


Last time I checked, Dish locals in Nome are SD.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

jeret said:


> Just curious. Do you use Hughesnet for your internet connection, or is there something else available?


Exede. Slightly better, both are slow and expensive.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

FarNorth said:


> Last time I checked, Dish locals in Nome are SD.


See the link in my post (word DISH) for the lookup page. DISH transmits HD where HD is provided by the station. One would need to have HD equipment to view the HD feeds. (Long term subscribers may still be using SD only equipment - although a conversion a couple of years ago to 8PSK pushed many subscribers to HD equipment.)

I agree with techguy88 on his reading of the situation. Having the Fairbanks/Juneau spot beam cover you doesn't help if you are in the Anchorage DMA unless the spot beam coverage for Anchorage also covers Nome. You would be better of if your equipment lived in Fairbanks (assuming the Fairbanks spotbeam covers your location). 

BTW techguy88, the KMZ file is a shapefile that opens in Google Earth.








Not promising. Nome is barely inside the weak 38dB contour.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

James Long said:


> BTW techguy88, the KMZ file is a shapefile that opens in Google Earth.


OHHH I did not know that! Thank you so much!!


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

FarNorth said:


> Last time I checked, Dish locals in Nome are SD.


On Dish they have a mix of HD and SD locals.

ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC and PBS all air in HD and SD. CW only airs in HD.

Rather weird for Dish they carry an unusually large amount of digital subchannels in this area. 

They have all the subchannels for the PBS member station KAKM. KAKM-DT2 (Create), KAKM-DT3 (360 North) are in SD only (because their sub-channels are in SD only) Dish carries KAKM-DT4 (PBS Kids) in both HD and SD despite the subchannel only airing in 1080i HD OTA. Dish must be downconverting this subchannel on their end.

They are also providing some of the subchannels from the ION affiliate KDMD owned by Ketchikan Television. KDMD-DT1 (ION), KDMD-DT4 (Grit) and KDMD-DT5 (Laff) are in SD only. KDMD-DT3 is branded as "KACN" and is also carried by Dish. It is Anchorage's MeTV affiliate. The only subchannel they appear not to carry is KDMD-DT2 which is the local Telemundo affiliate.

Dish in my area carries the bare minimum of the locals (they carry only 1 of the 2 PBS member stations in my DMA and 0 subchannels.)

DirecTV on the other hand carries both PBS member stations in my area plus the MyNetworkTV/MeTV affiliate that is on a subchannel of the NBC affiliate.


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

With the inconsistencies in who has what, could it be that still having two systems in place be a reason why some of these inconsistencies exist? 

I can't say if they haven't corrected a lot of the issues they had at the beginning in regards to DNS and Lil's on accounts migrated to the AT&T system but if some or all of those are still there, inconsistencies like you all are seeing wouldn't surprise me in the least.

In the old DirecTV system, things like local address changes and DNS authorizations were built in whereas, according to the Office of the President person I talked to, the AT&T system was not designed to handle that type of thing whatsoever. When my account was migrated to the new system days before I was to remove my temporary service address change, it took them a couple days to get my channels right but they never did get my billing correct and were still charging me Florida taxes and fees when I lived in Michigan. Their "fix" was to issue a permanent credit for the differences. It was a complete and utter cluster ****.

So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they haven't fixed a thing with the new system and it very well may be a completely manual process that could take weeks or even longer to go thru any migrated DNS accounts and even then, they could miss a few along the way as well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> Rather weird for Dish they carry an unusually large amount of digital subchannels in this area.


There are special laws applying to Alaska and Hawaii. Subchannels should be carried.

47 U.S.C. 338(a)(4) added in 2004 (SHVERA)
(4) Carriage of signals of local stations in certain markets
A satellite carrier that offers multichannel video programming distribution service in the United States to more than 5,000,000 subscribers shall[/b] (A) within 1 year after December 8, 2004, retransmit the signals originating as analog signals of each television broadcast station located in any local market within a State that is not part of the contiguous United States, and (B) within 30 months after December 8, 2004, retransmit the signals originating as digital signals of each such station. The retransmissions of such stations shall be made available to substantially all of the satellite carrier's subscribers in each station's local market, and the retransmissions of the stations in at least one market in the State shall be made available to substantially all of the satellite carrier's subscribers in areas of the State that are not within a designated market area. The cost to subscribers of such retransmissions shall not exceed the cost of retransmissions of local television stations in other States. Within 1 year after December 8, 2004, the Commission shall promulgate regulations concerning elections by television stations in such State between mandatory carriage pursuant to this section and retransmission consent pursuant to section 325(b) of this title, which shall take into account the schedule on which local television stations are made available to viewers in such State.​
I also found the following:
Title 17 Section 122(j)(2)(D) added in 2004 (SHVERA)
(D) CERTAIN AREAS OUTSIDE OF ANY DESIGNATED MARKET AREA.-Any census area, borough, or other area in the State of Alaska that is outside of a designated market area, as determined by Nielsen Media Research, shall be deemed to be part of one of the local markets in the State of Alaska. A satellite carrier may determine which local market in the State of Alaska will be deemed to be the relevant local market in connection with each subscriber in such census area, borough, or other area.​


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Everything where people have problems under AT&T billing that they didn't under Directv billing (or at least had fewer problems) are things where satellite is different than cable or cable-like systems like Uverse TV. The locals you get on that are defined by the headend you use, and there are no "DNS channels" to worry about. If you "move" you stop service at the old address and start service at the new address, there is no keeping an account active while you bring the receivers since they wouldn't work until service is turned on at the new address anyway. Receivers are always leased, and cannot be owned. Nobody has an "RV account" with a cable company.

All those things are where AT&T's system has shortcomings for Directv subscribers, and things don't work the same way for Directv subscribers that they used to. It is easy to guess why. Some of them will have to be fixed for AT&T TV, so maybe things will get a little better eventually.


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

cpalmer2k said:


> Still today? I'm on an RV waiver too but I eventually lost ABC a day or so ago


I just checked (as I do every morning, with great trepidation), and I still have both east and west coast feeds for all five networks plus the nationwide PBS.

I'm currently in a location where I can get all of the networks over the air. Knowing my luck, I'll lose the DNS ones as soon as I have no other way to get the networks.

As I pointed out above, I'm using an SD receiver. Not sure if that matters. And here's something else that occurred to me--my receiver has never been connected to a phone line, so it's never communicated back to DirecTV, and I've never done any pay-per-view or anything other than just being on the receiving end of whatever they transmit to me. On my online grid, it shows the local channels for my service area in bold white, as if I get them, but it does that "game search" thing if I tune one in.

I don't understand any of this. I'm just throwing data out there for those who might.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Just to add a little more to the pool of data... RV Waiver user here, and because of the date I signed up I only got the "East Coast" DNS stations. I also did receive my regular local channels too though as long as I am within the spot beam of home.

The past two nights I've watched WCBS and left the TV playing after their late night programs went off. WCBS plays a lot of older CBS shows or talk shows in the wee morning hours that apparently are not "cleared" for this new world of DNS they're operating under. Friday night "Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen" was blacked out on WCBS in my location. It comes on our local WMYA affiliate at the same time, so I sort of understood that one. Last night the showing of "Leverage" on WCBS was blacked out as well though. It does show on our local CBS station at 3am though. So, it appears if a local station has the rights to a show that isn't network material WCBS has to black it out now. This doesn't bode well for those of us who loved getting extra football games on the DNS stations.

At some point in the last two days I lost the CW Plus feed on 394 too. That was a major bummer. I was starting to like the 10pm hour long run of "Seinfeld" they offered each night.

Now I only get WCBS, WNBC, and WNYW.

I'd be curious to hear from other RV Waiver users who also have locals as to whether you have WABC and the CW Plus feed still or not. I had them both for a few days, and then they went away. It looks like one of the "tests" under the new system may also be whether you get other locals from DirecTV or not. This makes no sense though, considering the whole point of DNS is for when you are outside your spot beam area.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

grover517 said:


> With the inconsistencies in who has what, could it be that still having two systems in place be a reason why some of these inconsistencies exist?
> 
> I can't say if they haven't corrected a lot of the issues they had at the beginning in regards to DNS and Lil's on accounts migrated to the AT&T system but if some or all of those are still there, inconsistencies like you all are seeing wouldn't surprise me in the least.
> 
> ...


All possible but if that were the case, you would not have 2 out 3 networks on and 1 off, all three would be on or off, ABC obviously is not in play because they have not reached a new agreement. I do think though it could be an issue if CBS is allowed to be reinstated under the new agreement, I think it is possible that either of the systems does not have a way for the customer rep to turn it back on in the system.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> Just to add a little more to the pool of data... RV Waiver user here, and because of the date I signed up I only got the "East Coast" DNS stations. I also did receive my regular local channels too though as long as I am within the spot beam of home.
> 
> The past two nights I've watched WCBS and left the TV playing after their late night programs went off. WCBS plays a lot of older CBS shows or talk shows in the wee morning hours that apparently are not "cleared" for this new world of DNS they're operating under. Friday night "Comics Unleashed with Byron Allen" was blacked out on WCBS in my location. It comes on our local WMYA affiliate at the same time, so I sort of understood that one. Last night the showing of "Leverage" on WCBS was blacked out as well though. It does show on our local CBS station at 3am though. So, it appears if a local station has the rights to a show that isn't network material WCBS has to black it out now. This doesn't bode well for those of us who loved getting extra football games on the DNS stations.
> 
> ...


That is interesting, I wondered whether the NFL games were part of the reason the CBS new agreement might not be including certain people, obviously FOX has the NFC games but maybe they are not factoring it into their decision making.

CBS West in NY area is now back to greyed out in the guide for those who lost it.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> That is interesting, I wondered whether the NFL games were part of the reason the CBS new agreement might not be including certain people, obviously FOX has the NFC games but maybe they are not factoring it into their decision making.
> 
> CBS West in NY area is now back to greyed out in the guide for those who lost it.


For some reason, the channels in the 390s are greyed out in the guide ... but have a plus sign up in the rh corner which means you can add them, I guess?


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

DTV CSR from MS told me to use the streaming apps to watch the networks. I tried ABC. After registering and logging in, I got this error message:

_You have not been signed in since it appears your TV subscription does not include access to the following channel(s):

*ABC Logo*

If you believe you have received this message in error, please contact your TV provider.

OK, GOT IT
_
I went back to her but she was gone.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> That is interesting, I wondered whether the NFL games were part of the reason the CBS new agreement might not be including certain people, obviously FOX has the NFC games but maybe they are not factoring it into their decision making.
> 
> CBS West in NY area is now back to greyed out in the guide for those who lost it.


The NFL has stricter rules than any other league about how their games are broadcast. I could easily see them blacking out the non-national games (the ones usually on at 12/1 Sunday afternoons)


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

slice1900 said:


> The NFL has stricter rules than any other league about how their games are broadcast. I could easily see them blacking out the non-national games (the ones usually on at 12/1 Sunday afternoons)


Yes but why did they not do this for the past twenty years, I never understood why they allowed the national feeds to show the games not on in the regional area the subscriber was located, unless the number of people was low enough that they did not care, but it certainly had to cut into Sunday Ticket sales a little.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GordonGekko said:


> Yes but why did they not do this for the past twenty years, I never understood why they allowed the national feeds to show the games not on in the regional area the subscriber was located, unless the number of people was low enough that they did not care, but it certainly had to cut into Sunday Ticket sales a little.


"National feeds" as in DNS? DNS were carried under a statutory license and restrictions set by federal law. All of the copyright and clearance issues were overridden by the law. Without relying on the DNS law, DIRECTV now has to obey the whims and rules of the content owners (such as the NFL). I expect we will see blackouts.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> "National feeds" as in DNS? DNS were carried under a statutory license and restrictions set by federal law. All of the copyright and clearance issues were overridden by the law. Without relying on the DNS law, DIRECTV now has to obey the whims and rules of the content owners (such as the NFL). I expect we will see blackouts.


Sad but you are probably 100 percent correct, if that turns out to be the case then I won't even care about getting CBS back, I would like to retain at least one of the other remaining, FOX/NBC for news and general Los Angeles events, I had hoped to at least have NFC games (FOX) but if you are correct, those will be gone too.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

GordonGekko said:


> Sad but you are probably 100 percent correct, if that turns out to be the case then I won't even care about getting CBS back, I would like to retain at least one of the other remaining, FOX/NBC for news and general Los Angeles events, I had hoped to at least have NFC games (FOX) but if you are correct, those will be gone too.


Yes I agree with James, previously the law had the final say and didn't allow for blackouts so the NFL's wishes were not taken into account. Anyone eligible for DNS under the law had them and could watch those games.

Now Directv is getting them via contracts, so all bets are off as any contracts between the networks and the NFL can restrict what games are shown on those channels to subscribers who live outside the NY or LA DMAs.

Even if the contracts don't specify anything today (since it wasn't really a potential issue until June 1st) there's a very good chance it will come up when CBS & Fox redo their contracts with the NFL next time. I think that's coming up in a couple years, but I'm not sure about the dates.

Even if it isn't in the contracts today, the NFL could certainly 'make their wishes known' to the network presidents right now, who would likely do what is necessary to keep the NFL happy - they won't want to rock the boat unnecessarily before the next contract negotiation lest "the NFL on CBS" becomes "the NFL on NBC" next time around!


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

rodnig1 said:


> Been receiving the E/W feeds for all network except (CW, who the hell watches that anyways?) for the past 20+ years. Im the southern tier of upstate NY. Fox is still live for me with e/w, and NBC e/w keeps going in and out(mostly been on for the past 36 hours). Where i live my local stations aren't available via OTA, as there are way too many mountains around. Then i see today on one of local stations that they are in a contract dispute with DTV and aren't broadcasting ABC,CBS and CW. So, im hopeful that i can get CBS and ABC e/w active again.


and now my NBC is done... so all i have now is Fox E/W


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rodnig1 said:


> and now my NBC is done... so all i have now is Fox E/W


You should call, a relative of mine called in, lives in my region, CBS off, FOX/NBC on, Retentions Rep saw the FOX/NBC on, asked if he still needed those channels (this was before he inquired about the loss of CBS), told the Rep yes and could you look into reinstating CBS, he said he would try, then he said it appeared he could not turn CBS back on, for those who have CBS West turned off, now back to white on the guide again, still ext. 721.

Based on my relative's call, it appears if you call in, it is not some glitch, it is not because your FOX/NBC has not hit your box yet, you can call without fear of having them turn you off, just remember though that even if they can't reinstate any of your channels, that might be false information, call back the following month.

Update: OK, my CBS West I assume is still turned off but when I tried to tune to the channel, instead of the EXT 721, I have: Gamesearch hasn't found your program, "Funny You Should Ask" is blacked out on this channel.

More Info reads: Directv must abide by agreed-upon rules for distributing programs. For sporting events, your receiver automatically checks other channels...

You know the rest.

Program not locally available (727)

Update II: Now back to 721 and nothing on CBS West.


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

I'm the RVer who's been continuing to get both east and west coast feeds for all five networks. I just noticed that I lost the east and west coast feeds for both ABC and CW. They are grayed out on my channel grid, and I get a "721-Channel Not Purchased" if I tune them in. I know I watched ABC this afternoon, so it must have happened in the last few hours.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Are you seeing channel 60 (CW)? I have not seen that reported by a subscriber yet, but someone should be getting it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Yes I agree with James, previously the law had the final say and didn't allow for blackouts so the NFL's wishes were not taken into account. Anyone eligible for DNS under the law had them and could watch those games.
> 
> Now Directv is getting them via contracts, so all bets are off as any contracts between the networks and the NFL can restrict what games are shown on those channels to subscribers who live outside the NY or LA DMAs.
> 
> ...


so mobile users who buy NFL ticket will get all games with no black outs on the NFL ticket channels?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JoeTheDragon said:


> so mobile users who buy NFL ticket will get all games with no black outs on the NFL ticket channels?


Was any of ST they blacked out last year for RV/Commercial Vehicles? That would be the biggest clue as to what the NFL will allow.

DNS has changed since last year (relying on private contracts instead of DNS law). But ST should have the same rules for the ST channels.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Was any of ST they blacked out last year for RV/Commercial Vehicles? That would be the biggest clue as to what the NFL will allow.
> 
> DNS has changed since last year (relying on private contracts instead of DNS law). But ST should have the same rules for the ST channels.


Yes I agree, why would this impact Sunday Ticket subscribers, the only thing blacked out on that are your local teams, at least that is what I remember from years past.


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

James Long said:


> Are you seeing channel 60 (CW)? I have not seen that reported by a subscriber yet, but someone should be getting it.


Are you asking me? Channel 60 isn't even among the listing of "channels I get."


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lamplight said:


> Are you asking me? Channel 60 isn't even among the listing of "channels I get."


It's actually the CWplus network feed now on ch. 394, remapped for convenience into the local channel range for markets that have no local OTA CW affiliate.

Don't think this applies to you. ....

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Sunday Ticket is subject to blackout for RV users. It’s based on your account service address just like regular customers.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

cpalmer2k said:


> Sunday Ticket is subject to blackout for RV users. It's based on your account service address just like regular customers.


It is just your local teams right, so if you live in NY and you have an RV account, you can't watch Jets/Giants via Sunday Ticket, correct?

I understand Directv needs to maintain the secrecy of their new agreements but I've asked a Directv employee on the ATT forums who has helped me in the past, to try to see if Directv can provide an input code that the rep could type into the computer to determine if one of the channels can be reinstated.

Yeah I know, the chances of Directv providing that are zero, and again, maybe it means nothing but I really think that 391 appearing white in the guide could mean it is available to be reinstated.

I realize CBS might blackout the NFL games but I'd like to get this channel back and see what happens if and when the NFL starts.


----------



## techguy88 (Mar 19, 2015)

FarNorth said:


> DTV CSR from MS told me to use the streaming apps to watch the networks. I tried ABC. After registering and logging in, I got this error message:
> 
> _You have not been signed in since it appears your TV subscription does not include access to the following channel(s):
> 
> ...



ABC must have changed their requirements at some point. Previously you could watch the most recent 3-5 episodes of a show on demand without logging in but it seems ABC/Disney now requires TV Everywhere authentication for everything. 
CBS, Fox and NBC will still allow you to watch the most recent episodes of an in-season show without TV Everywhere credentials. Usually somewhere around 2-5 episodes. Sports excluded.
The CW doesn't use TV Everywhere authentication to view content so your good there. 
If you want full access to shows from ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC within the current TV season that would normally require TV Everywhere authentication here are alternatives:

*ABC, Fox and NBC* - Their primetime and late night network content (excluding sports and live award ceremonies) are available on Hulu. You can subscribe to the ad-supported $5.99/mo plan to gain full access to this content. As a bonus there is a lot more content available with Hulu as well. 
*CBS* - For the full primetime and late night network content you would want a CBS All-Access Limited Commercial $5.99/mo subscription. In most areas CBS All Access includes a live feed of a local CBS affiliate as well.


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

James Long said:


> Was any of ST they blacked out last year for RV/Commercial Vehicles? That would be the biggest clue as to what the NFL will allow.
> 
> DNS has changed since last year (relying on private contracts instead of DNS law). But ST should have the same rules for the ST channels.


Full-time RVer here with a response on ST and channels.

ST - last year blackouts were set on service address, at least that is the way it worked for us. KC Chiefs fan here in Texas for last season. Called and tried to change our KC service address a few time playing CSR roulette with different explanations but same results, could not change. During the season games blacked out that were not national games.

DNS channels - as previously mentioned I have CBS NBC FOX but no CW ABC. The only difference is some days I get a STELA announcement as to why no channel some days I get the screen like I can order them.

As previously mentioned after 8 hours on the phone with 10 different people and finally an escalation to the backoffice I have local channels. And once I can move again I'll have DNS networks when I am outside my spot beam.

Hope this helps


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bobinraymoremo said:


> Full-time RVer here with a response on ST and channels.
> 
> ST - last year blackouts were set on service address, at least that is the way it worked for us. KC Chiefs fan here in Texas for last season. Called and tried to change our KC service address a few time playing CSR roulette with different explanations but same results, could not change. During the season games blacked out that were not national games.
> 
> ...


Thanks, only thing I'm unsure in your message, the STELA screen is that Info channel right? What is the screen in which you can order them look like and does it replace the Info subchannel?


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

bobinraymoremo said:


> Full-time RVer here with a response on ST and channels.
> 
> ST - last year blackouts were set on service address, at least that is the way it worked for us. KC Chiefs fan here in Texas for last season. Called and tried to change our KC service address a few time playing CSR roulette with different explanations but same results, could not change. During the season games blacked out that were not national games.
> 
> ...


What makes you think you will be able to get DNS networks? Talked to a person in the ATT presidents office today. She said that once you loose DNS there is no way to get them back.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

gandl said:


> What makes you think you will be able to get DNS networks? Talked to a person in the ATT presidents office today. She said that once you loose DNS there is no way to get them back.


How did you reach that person?


----------



## bobinraymoremo (May 25, 2020)

gandl said:


> What makes you think you will be able to get DNS networks? Talked to a person in the ATT presidents office today. She said that once you loose DNS there is no way to get them back.


I have the waiver for DNS now and am getting CBS NBC FOX now.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

techguy88 said:


> ABC must have changed their requirements at some point. Previously you could watch the most recent 3-5 episodes of a show on demand without logging in but it seems ABC/Disney now requires TV Everywhere authentication for everything.
> CBS, Fox and NBC will still allow you to watch the most recent episodes of an in-season show without TV Everywhere credentials. Usually somewhere around 2-5 episodes. Sports excluded.
> The CW doesn't use TV Everywhere authentication to view content so your good there.
> If you want full access to shows from ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC within the current TV season that would normally require TV Everywhere authentication here are alternatives:
> ...


The late night content on Hulu is a week or two old.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

cpalmer2k said:


> Sunday Ticket is subject to blackout for RV users. It's based on your account service address just like regular customers.


Yup. I was in Hawaii for Christmas one year and the Seahawks game was blacked out on the ST app on my Roku based on my service address. It was not carried on the Hawaii network affiliate, either, because they had chosen to carry a different game. I ended up going to a dumpy sports bar at 9 in the morning to watch the game. Seattle won so that made things better.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

gandl said:


> What makes you think you will be able to get DNS networks? Talked to a person in the ATT presidents office today. She said that once you loose DNS there is no way to get them back.


Looks like he has an rv account and that's who dns is really for so...he should be able to get them on his rv account.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Looks like he has an rv account and that's who dns is really for so...he should be able to get them on his rv account.


According to the person we talked to in the ATT presidents office she stated that no matter what account you have DNS will eventually be turned off for all RVers, truckers and anyone who can receive local channels at their "home" zip code.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

gandl said:


> According to the person we talked to in the ATT presidents office she stated that no matter what account you have DNS will eventually be turned off for all RVers, truckers and anyone who can receive local channels at their "home" zip code.


If you really did talk to such a person, you received wrong or old information, again how did you contact the person, I've been trying to find out what the current equivalent to the old Office of the Vice President is, in the old days that was the place to go to get difficult problems with Directv solved, so again, do you have an email address or phone number to reach the AT&T Office of the President?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

gandl said:


> According to the person we talked to in the ATT presidents office she stated that no matter what account you have DNS will eventually be turned off for all RVers, truckers and anyone who can receive local channels at their "home" zip code.


Eventually DIRECTV satellite service will be turned off completely ... but no, the information as stated is not correct.

AT&T recently signed agreements to CONTINUE to deliver "distant" channels to customers who need them. Agreements have been signed with CBS, FOX and NBC. Those publicly announced agreements contradict the information you are providing.


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> If you really did talk to such a person, you received wrong or old information, again how did you contact the person, I've been trying to find out what the current equivalent to the old Office of the Vice President is, in the old days that was the place to go to get difficult problems with Directv solved, so again, do you have an email address or phone number to reach the AT&T Office of the President?


When I talked to someone stating they were from the Office of the President a year ago about my issues, it was in response to a complaint I had filed thru the FCC regarding the fiasco they created with my local channels due to their migrating my account while a temporary address change was in effect. There never was a number or email address provided to me to get in touch with them. It was always a "Don't call us, we'll call you" arrangement.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Filing a complaint with the BBB will also get you phone call from the Office of the President.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

grover517 said:


> When I talked to someone stating they were from the Office of the President a year ago about my issues, it was in response to a complaint I had filed thru the FCC regarding the fiasco they created with my local channels due to their migrating my account while a temporary address change was in effect. There never was a number or email address provided to me to get in touch with them. It was always a "Don't call us, we'll call you" arrangement.


Yes, there is a good chance that poster never communicated with the Office of the President.


----------



## tuncer (Sep 21, 2007)

Hey all, I've tried a "move" and got transferred to movers which I don't want. Have you guys changed your addresses without being told you need someone to come out and do your install?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tuncer said:


> Hey all, I've tried a "move" and got transferred to movers which I don't want. Have you guys changed your addresses without being told you need someone to come out and do your install?


It has been an uphill battle the past few years. AT&T|DIRECTV believes that dishes (and often receivers) only work when professionally installed by their technicians or their contractors. Getting them to accept that a system was moved by the consumer and works perfectly in the new location - no need to send a tech - is a challenge. Focus on "I have moved" and "the system is working fine, I just need to change my address". If you mention any problems (such as "I can't get my locals at the new address") the CSR will probably see that as a repair issue and want to send out a tech.

Roulette may work - spin the wheel, call again, see if you can get a customer service representative who will believe that you - a mere mortal - could move your dish and equipment, set it up at a new address and get it working without specialized AT&T|DIRECTV training. I suppose that too many people can't accurately align a modern DIRECTV dish.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

tuncer said:


> Hey all, I've tried a "move" and got transferred to movers which I don't want. Have you guys changed your addresses without being told you need someone to come out and do your install?


Tell them you moved yourself, everything is working fine and you refuse to let someone come to your house because of Covid19


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

GordonGekko said:


> Yes, there is a good chance that poster never communicated with the Office of the President.


Well your wrong. We sent an email to Jim Greer, ATT assistant Vice President of corporate communications. After e-mail was sent we were contacted by someone who identified herself as being in the office of the president. I can only report what we were told.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

gandl said:


> Well your wrong. We sent an email to Jim Greer, ATT assistant Vice President of corporate communications. After e-mail was sent we were contacted by someone who identified herself as being in the office of the president. I can only report what we were told.


Email address? And Jim Greer, that is odd, because here he is saying the opposite of what was told to you: DIRECTV Subs: Where Are My Network Channels? - The TV Answer Man!

Jim Greer, an AT&T spokesman, told the TV Answer Man on Monday that his company has secured new agreements with all the networks except for ABC. Due to the change in the law, the company was forced to negotiate new deals with the networks to continue offering their programming to subscribers who previously received the out-of-market signals.

But that's where it gets confusing. Greer says AT&T can not provide specifics regarding each network agreement, That means the company can't, or won't, say which subscribers would continue getting the out-of-market signals for the networks, except ABC.

All Greer would say is: "Our goal is to continue providing network content to as many homes as possible."


----------



## marabunta (Jul 9, 2006)

Regarding "Office of the President": I've been retired from AT&T for a few years, but here's how it works: "Office of the President" is an AT&T internal escalations process/group available to AT&T employees to handle inquiries from friends/family/general public when normal customer service channels fail. The employee fills out a web form and the customer is contacted by an "Office of the President" representative, usually within a few hours.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

How do I start that process?


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

FarNorth said:


> How do I start that process?


https://www.att.com/support_media/images/pdf/Wireless/1239368042948.Notice_of_Dispute_Form.pdf


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Tell them the house you moved to already had a dish and everything installed, all you did was plug everything in and it worked perfectly. And tell them you have someone who is immune compromised in your household and you won't allow anyone inside without passing a covid test first.


----------



## JGinLA (Aug 10, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> Tell them the house you moved to already had a dish and everything installed, all you did was plug everything in and it worked perfectly. And tell them you have someone who is immune compromised in your household and you won't allow anyone inside without passing a covid test first.


and a 14 day quarantine.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JGinLA said:


> and a 14 day quarantine.


Where, in your garage?


----------



## lamplight (Jun 1, 2020)

The plot thickens.

I'm the fulltimer RVer who somehow kept all the networks longer than a lot of people, and then lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of ABC, but kept everything else. In the past hour, I've now lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of all of the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CW), as well as the one national PBS feed.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

lamplight said:


> The plot thickens.
> 
> I'm the fulltimer RVer who somehow kept all the networks longer than a lot of people, and then lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of ABC, but kept everything else. In the past hour, I've now lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of all of the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CW), as well as the one national PBS feed.


Call in and please report back what they say, better to call in and say "cancel service", that will transfer you to the Customer Loyalty department, you have the best chance of possibly getting them back through them, good luck.

Tri state area over here, home subscriber, still have NBC and FOX west feeds.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

lamplight said:


> The plot thickens.
> 
> I'm the fulltimer RVer who somehow kept all the networks longer than a lot of people, and then lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of ABC, but kept everything else. In the past hour, I've now lost both the east coast and west coast feeds of all of the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CW), as well as the one national PBS feed.


I'm in the same situation almost. Had a valid RV waiver for many years now, East Coast only. For several days after the shutdown ABC stayed on, then it disappeared. Then the CW station disappeared but CBS, NBC and FOX were good. Sometime yesterday all the rest disappeared. This morning I got a bill adjustment credit. I still have my original waiver paperwork filed many years ago as a .pdf. I'm debating contacting them and sending it back in with an updated registration. Can't really decide if I want to mess with it or not though.

In preparation for them all going away I bought a three year VPN subscription and signed up for a streaming service that carries almost all the NY locals. So far in my testing it has worked flawlessly. If I fire up the Locast app I can get all the NY locals. I would just have to donate to their cause to avoid interruptions. DirecTV has made it clear satellite is going away soon anyway, so I might just stick to streaming.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

cpalmer2k said:


> In preparation for them all going away I bought a three year VPN subscription and signed up for a streaming service that carries almost all the NY locals. So far in my testing it has worked flawlessly. If I fire up the Locast app I can get all the NY locals. I would just have to donate to their cause to avoid interruptions. DirecTV has made it clear satellite is going away soon anyway, so I might just stick to streaming.


I have tried the Locast app using a VPN connected to a NY server. No luck for me. Keep getting a location error message when I tried to test it out. Do you have any advice to make it work?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

gandl said:


> I have tried the Locast app using a VPN connected to a NY server. No luck for me. Keep getting a location error message when I tried to test it out. Do you have any advice to make it work?


Keep in mind you can't use any device that has a GPS or location sensor. If you do that you're going to have to find a way to fake your location as well.


----------



## mauigolfer (Aug 2, 2011)

Are you accessing Locast through DTV app or through a "stick". I have no issues with locast and vpn loaded on my firestick.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

mauigolfer said:


> Are you accessing Locast through DTV app or through a "stick". I have no issues with locast and vpn loaded on my firestick.


If this question is to me- I am using a fire stick that has both Locast and the VPN loaded. When I load Locast it asks me to activate account from a PC or mobile device. So I have to make sure the VPN is in use on those devices as well.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Once the Locast account is created you can change your VPN to any available area where Locast is at and watch. I can watch from every area available from my VPN. Washington DC, Denver, Dallas, Houston, NY and LA. But not from my phone or tablet. It seems my phone and tablet gives its location by GPS instead of the IP address. Web browser and streaming boxes work OK for me though.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

Several people in a RV forum are saying they got an email this week from ATT regarding DNS. It states:

"We recently notified you that Congress had decided not to renew
key provisions of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) and that as a result, you would have lost access to out-of-market broadcast networks ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and The CW starting June 1, 2020.

We’re happy to let you know that DIRECTV will now continue to provide you with access to broadcast networks CBS, FOX, and NBC as part of your Mobile Network Package. Unfortunately, access to ABC and The CW networks are no longer part of your Mobile Network Package.

In recognition of any inconvenience to you, we are adjusting the price of your Mobile Network Package from $15 to $11, effective June 1, 2020. Please note this new price (and any related credits) will appear within 1 to 2 billing cycles.

If you have any questions, please call us at 866.595.9429.

Thank you for choosing DIRECTV."

Unfortunately so far I have not gotten this notice.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Sounds like Directv doesn't think a deal with ABC is coming anytime soon. I wonder what the holdup is? Maybe they are pressing them to renegotiate the ESPN/Disney deal to get it or something.


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

Phil T said:


> https://www.att.com/support_media/images/pdf/Wireless/1239368042948.Notice_of_Dispute_Form.pdf


So does this mean that if i have waivers from all the local stations, that i would be able to get my distanced networks back??


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

rodnig1 said:


> So does this mean that if i have waivers from all the local stations, that i would be able to get my distanced networks back??


No, a dispute form does not mean anything, you need to call Directv, ask for the Customer Loyalty department or speak "cancel service" when prompted, tell them your situation, tell them about the Directv announcement that they negotiated new side agreements with CBS/FOX/NBC, ask if those can be reinstated, if they tell you no, ask why.

Ask them why you in particular do not qualify under the new side agreements, if they can't tell you a specific reason related to the new agreements, try to send the question up the chain of command, continue to call once per month until they actually give you a reason why you don't qualify under the new agreements, until you get that specific reason, assume the customer reps don't have a clue and even if you are able to get them reinstated under the new agreements, assume the reps don't have the knowledge of how to make it happen, so, keep calling.

If you are able to get them reinstated please report back here with the results, thanks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Has anyone had their distants reinstated?


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

James Long said:


> Has anyone had their distants reinstated?


It has been reported on other forums that full time RVers who still have a mobile DirecTV (not ATT) account have gotten CBS, NBC and FOX DNS back. Those of us who were migrated to an ATT account have not gotten all of those back (although I never lost the FOX stations). I have been told that there are no mobile ATT accounts.


----------



## jackjack71 (Jun 11, 2020)

James Long said:


> Has anyone had their distants reinstated?


Has anyone noticed the link to check your DNS eligibility is gone from the website? Why did they take it down?


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

jackjack71 said:


> Has anyone noticed the link to check your DNS eligibility is gone from the website? Why did they take it down?


https://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/glob...4880022&lang=es_ES&lid=lang-Spanish#h:573.437


----------



## jackjack71 (Jun 11, 2020)

Thanks....but when I enter any address it just resets? I've tried a few addresses and they all just clear the fields...


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

jackjack71 said:


> Thanks....but when I enter any address it just resets? I've tried a few addresses and they all just clear the fields...


Try a couple of things:
1) always provide at least the 5-digit zip code in the form
2) verify that you don't have a "pop-up blocker" and cookies disabled


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

any one actually get there dns turned back on..


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> any one actually get there dns turned back on..


I'm curious too, any luck? Tri-state area over here, still have Fox West and NBC West, CBS West the only one I lost is still out, I tried a few months ago to get it back, will try again soon.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I enquired yesterday about getting back WABC. No possibility right now. Personally I think relations with Disney are not that easy anymore; I noticed my local ABC station in L.A. is no longer on the DirecTV app.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

This evening I spent over an hour on the phone speaking to 3 different people, the first 2 who said that my CBS channels 390 & 391 should never have been turned off in the first place. My NBC & FOX channels never disappeared, but the 2 CBS channels were turned off on Sunday, May 31st at precisely 6:00 p.m. CDT, several hours before they were supposed to be turned off. The guide then showed them grayed out. 

At that time I Immediately called and spoke to a DirecTV rep who admitted they should not yet have been switched off. He told me he would get them turned back on. A few hours later my guide no longer showed them grayed out. Instead, they were once again lit up. However, I was unable to tune to them. Over the next few months, I periodically called and even sent a letter to DirecTV, politely explaining the law, my situation, and their having inadvertently turned off 390/391 too soon and their promise to reinstate those 2 channels. My conversations tonight were the longest, including a special DirecTV "Loyalty Representative" to whom I was transferred. She was basically useless, even telling me that she lacked the technological capability to turn that channel on or off. She said she was in the tech department, but that they don't have the ability to turn those channels on, that that is solely up to CBS. I tried not to laugh, and I politely told her that I knew that was not an accurate, truthful statement.

To make a long story short, she told me to have my Congressman contact DirecTV and request that those 2 channels be turned on for me.

This whole thing is ridiculous, especially when it appears that those 2 channels should NOT have been switched off in the first place.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I strongly believe all the reps have been firmly instructed not to implement any further changes to a former DNS recipient’s eligibility, regardless of whether they were incorrectly pulled or not. I further believe it has to do with specific, apparently confidential language in the new contracts CBS, NBC, and Fox signed just before the STELAR regs ran out. IOW once a viewer lost his DNS, they could NEVER get them back unless a physical relocation to an unserved area occurred. It is also apparent that although said contracts were signed BEFORE STELAR ran out, for some reason DirecTV couldn’t perform a blanket implementation of the new policy in time and the clock ran out for some subscribers. It is almost like multiple reps each had lists of a single distant net’s customers and were attempting to cancel out the channels’ impending disappearance, one viewer at a time.

As to why some subscribers did manage to get their DNS back, well, who really knows? Maybe some CSRs took it upon themselves to right a wrong, but I doubt AT&T/DirecTV would ever condone such a tacit admital that a mistake had ever been made in the first place. So now that door is completely shut.

Furthermore, why some had their DNS pulled BEFORE the midnight EST deadline...simple human error? More complicated computer error?

I humbly suggest we stop banging our heads against the wall (especially yours truly) and enjoy what we might have left. Because who can guess how long that will last? Confidential contracts, you know.


----------



## grover517 (Sep 29, 2007)

It seems they can't handle things that used to just take a few minutes anymore in relation to anything doing with "mobility" or DNS, which for many was a huge plus for choosing DirecTV over other solutions. AT&T has basically turned DirecTV into a "cable" system where things like temporary service address changes and DNS are not something they plan for or care to support any longer.

The elimination of local channel changes and our inability to apply for DNS (before the STELA sunset) in our RV was THE reason we left. One of the big advantages of sat over cable, and that was what kept us around all that time was the ability to move around and take our service with us, including local channels.

We fought with AT&T for over 3 months last year to get our local channels correct after they migrated our account to the AT&T system with a temporary service address change in effect. Long story short, after multiple hours on the phone, a high level tech figured out that if we created a move request, even though it was from/to the same billing address under the same name, would update our lineup. Once that change happened (it took about an hour), they then went in and cancelled the move request before it was actually processed on the billing side of things so we wouldn't get charged 200.00 and generate a new 2 year commitment.

That fixed our lineup issue but our billing was still screwed up, still showed our service address somewhere else and we were overcharged almost 25.00 each month due to tax and fee differences between our home and seasonal locations. Their "solution" was to credit back the overpayments and create a new, perpetual monthly credit to "get us close" to what we should be paying. We decided after all this to just toss in the towel after 22 years as a DirecTV customer. When we left, we still had over 100.00 in credits on our account which took another 4 months and two calls to the Office of the President to finally get credited back to our autopay CC.

It just shouldn't be this difficult to do such basic things, yet here we are.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bjlc said:


> any one actually get there dns turned back on..


I only lost 2 of the DNS feeds (pretty sure it was ABC) but they were turned back on for me without ever calling. The only DNS channels I am missing is CW. I have all the other 4 for both coasts.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

grover517 said:


> It seems they can't handle things that used to just take a few minutes anymore in relation to anything doing with "mobility" or DNS, which for many was a huge plus for choosing DirecTV over other solutions. AT&T has basically turned DirecTV into a "cable" system where things like temporary service address changes and DNS are not something they plan for or care to support any longer.


Like I've said before, I think it the move to the AT&T computer system was to blame. Uverse TV works like cable, people can't move receivers around to a second home, when they move to a new house, or in an RV, so it didn't have support for that sort of thing. Same thing with owned receivers and DNS channels, like cable providers Uverse TV didn't have those. So they had to fit Directv customers into the system designed for Uverse TV, and that stuff was lost.

They could have added support for that to their system, but they probably checked and found only a small percentage of customers owned receivers or had RV accounts, moving receivers to a second home or temporarily in an RV was against existing terms of service, and they could manage people moving to a new house from their end.

Similar reasoning for not allowing other receivers on an account with an HS17, how many customers need more than 7 tuners?

Problem is, if you cut off too many "niche" customers they can add up to a lot overall.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

joshjr said:


> I only lost 2 of the DNS feeds (pretty sure it was ABC) but they were turned back on for me without ever calling. The only DNS channels I am missing is CW. I have all the other 4 for both coasts.


That's amazing you got ABC turned back on! Last I heard they still didn't have a post-STELAR agreement with DirecTV. Would you possibly know otherwise? Thanks!


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i lost cbs as well and am afraid to call and say anything because i don't want to lose what I still have.. but I am very interested in hearing IF ANY ONE gets their channels turned back on..


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

BrucePadgett said:


> That's amazing you got ABC turned back on! Last I heard they still didn't have a post-STELAR agreement with DirecTV. Would you possibly know otherwise? Thanks!


Nope, I have heard nothing. I was shocked that they turned them back on. Happy to see it happen though.


----------



## gandl (Feb 25, 2008)

joshjr said:


> I only lost 2 of the DNS feeds (pretty sure it was ABC) but they were turned back on for me without ever calling. The only DNS channels I am missing is CW. I have all the other 4 for both coasts.


Are you getting local network channels as well?


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

gandl said:


> Are you getting local network channels as well?


Yes, all of them from my market and 2 channels from a neighboring market as well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

BrucePadgett said:


> That's amazing you got ABC turned back on! Last I heard they still didn't have a post-STELAR agreement with DirecTV. Would you possibly know otherwise? Thanks!


I read something pretty recently that they had finally come to an agreement.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Apparently something super double secret like the original agreements where details were not disclosed.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> i lost cbs as well and am afraid to call and say anything because i don't want to lose what I still have.. but I am very interested in hearing IF ANY ONE gets their channels turned back on..


Same thing here, I tried, the Retentions Rep tried a few things in the computer, could not get CBS West back, it did not jeopardize the other ones I still have, I did share your worry though but I think you can give it a shot without losing the others.

Based on the latest posts it appears that nothing is settled, I don't think the reps know how to reinstate them, not because of some ATT conspiracy, just because AT&T does not put a lot of care and resources into the Directv services.

Keep trying, I will try again, if it happens I will ask the Rep how he or she was able to reinstate the channel and report back here, good luck.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

GordonGekko said:


> Keep trying, I will try again, if it happens I will ask the Rep how he or she was able to reinstate the channel and report back here, good luck.


If you or anyone else is successful, I would like to know as well, because nothing I have tried has worked.


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

I sent an inquiry to an ATT DNS e-mail address that was floating around from a year or so ago when they started asking for updated documentation from RV owners inquiring about why I lost the DNS stations despite being on a valid RV waiver but never received a reply. I've been using Channels DVR with my HDHomeRun devices for several years and like AT&T and others they offer the ability to integrate Locast streams into your guide and record them, etc. I ended up just going that route and have zero complaints. Now instead of being limited to just ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX from NYC I get all the NYC area locals including Pix11. Streaming is the future anyway, so might as well adapt now. I'm good unless Locast gets sued out of business.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Streaming is ridiculous, because I sure don't want to watch television programs on some small screen with crappy sound. I much prefer my 7.2 Dolby Digital system with a kick ass AV unit and 70" TV. It'd rather difficult to achieve this via the Internet. For one thing, many AV receivers don't allow for such.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I read something pretty recently that they had finally come to an agreement.


It seems that something with ABC was straightened out and an agreement was reached.

As DIRECTV had WABC duplicated on both local Ka and Ku spot and CONUS beams for a time last month. Apparently in preparation for a possible turnoff of the CONUS beams if post STELAR negotiations failed. But recently the local spotbeams have been removed and WABC is now solely on CONUS beams as always pre-STELAR.

Why this preparatory move was done only for WABC and not for ABC's west coast O&O KABC as well is unknown.

Sent from my LM-V600 using Tapatalk


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

[email protected]-mail.com


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Michael H.. said:


> [email protected]-mail.com


Did you email them and get results?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

O.K. here’s my updated situation: After a very, very nice person in Loyalty conferred with Technical, they agreed I was entitled to have WABC reactivated due to my grandfather status. It was added to my billing and then...it just wouldn’t turn on. Reboots, refreshes, deleting and re-adding the channel, etc. were attempted on both ends. They even had a tech come out (within an hour!) to check on my equipment. It’s all good, but 396 still...won’t...turn...on. I am still conferring with Loyalty and another very committed rep is currently working on the problem with others, with a promised return call tonight. Strangely, an email with updated billing states “Networks Non-Local” instead of ABC, but I was assured that was O.K.

4 hours total thus far trying to make this happen. Something must be wrong with me.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

When the Loyalty rep called back, he was certain the problem had been solved. Well, it wasn’t, and then I respectfully requested he give me his supervisor or refer me to a department which oversees his. I was asked to wait while he tried one more thing. Then I was disconnected.

And that’s how DirecTV treated me today. Customer since 1994. 

It’s been a long day and tonight I see a fool when I look into the mirror.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Now I find out from my online account that “Networks Non Local” means NBC. And NBC itself is no longer mentioned on my package page. I can’t wait to call Loyalty back today!


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

BrucePadgett said:


> Now I find out from my online account that "Networks Non Local" means NBC. And NBC itself is no longer mentioned on my package page. I can't wait to call Loyalty back today!


If you haven't yet, I would seriously try calling directly to the tech support dept. They can do things that Loyalty dept cannot. Use the 844-822-3352 number, at the prompt, say DirecTV, or ATT if you've been migrated over then indicate your account or telephone number. I'd call in the morning to avoid wait times accumulating throughout the day.

I've used that a few times this year when I developed a couple major issues with my account, and with success as opposed to the Loyalty dept.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I tried that. The rep didn’t know what the distant networks were. I’m serious.

i’ll try Loyalty again. Thanks anyway for the suggestion. I appreciate your concern!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> I tried that. The rep didn't know what the distant networks were. I'm serious.
> 
> i'll try Loyalty again. Thanks anyway for the suggestion. I appreciate your concern!


It stinks that you are going through this, talking for hours with any customer service rep is akin to being at Gitmo, however if you are able to restore them, you will be the trailblazer for us all, until of course we lose them when Dish takes over ATT, joking, but who knows, thanks for keeping us in the loop, if you are successful, please try to find out what input code the rep typed in to restore them, thank you.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

ABC is now completely off the table. The “Non Network Local” item and charge have both disappeared. For some obtuse reason, I was given a 58 cent rebate on NBC. And although I am still receiving WNBC, it is not showing up in the latest online and email summaries of next month’s prospective charges. One Loyalty rep said no cancellation of NBC was in my file, but at this point, who the hell knows? And frankly I’m beginning not to give a damn. Truly, what hath AT&T wrought upon DirecTV?


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

BrucePadgett said:


> I tried that. The rep didn't know what the distant networks were. I'm serious.
> 
> i'll try Loyalty again. Thanks anyway for the suggestion. I appreciate your concern!


Sorry to hear that. You might have to try Tech Support 'roulette' and see if someone else can get a little further. I'm on the legacy DirecTV billing side of things, so maybe that helped me more. It seems the morphed over ATT billing services/computer systems for customers are more crippled than the legacy customers.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I wouldn’t be surprised if they hard coded the system so if you ever lose ABC distant you will
Never get it back without an rv account. I’m guessing that’s part of the agreement with ABC. Personally, if I where you I would never expect to get it back. 

How you lost it is irrelevant to them. The only relevant part is if you are in a situation where you should be getting it today against today’s rules. 

I also wouldn’t be surprised if someday anyone without an rv account or true reason to get them looses all dns feeds.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I accept changes in the rules. If only the reps were made aware of them! Four hours wasted all around, whatever good faith with DirecTV gone as far as I’m concerned. Even checking online to verify my status is problematic. Missing account pages, peculiar automated e-mails from them, etc. etc. etc. I am now apathetic about DirecTV, at best. Way to go AT&T!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

inkahauts said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if they hard coded the system so if you ever lose ABC distant you will
> Never get it back without an rv account. I'm guessing that's part of the agreement with ABC. Personally, if I where you I would never expect to get it back.
> 
> How you lost it is irrelevant to them. The only relevant part is if you are in a situation where you should be getting it today against today's rules.
> ...


I thought in this thread there were a few people who reported they get some channels turned back on.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> I accept changes in the rules. If only the reps were made aware of them! Four hours wasted all around, whatever good faith with DirecTV gone as far as I'm concerned. Even checking online to verify my status is problematic. Missing account pages, peculiar automated e-mails from them, etc. etc. etc. I am now apathetic about DirecTV, at best. Way to go AT&T!


So is that it, will you email someone higher up or are you finished?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I’m not sure whom to e-mail. Are appeals still being taken by DirecTV’s Office of the President? If anyone has a suggestion or two, I’m game. Thanks for any contact info you may have!


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

BTW every rep I spoke with refused to help with a possible appeal upstairs. One person in Loyalty who I asked even disconnected me.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> I'm not sure whom to e-mail. Are appeals still being taken by DirecTV's Office of the President? If anyone has a suggestion or two, I'm game. Thanks for any contact info you may have!


If someone here knows the email to the Office of the Vice President, if it is still active, when I lost my DNS channels (many years ago) after a rep mistakenly canceled my service, it was that office that called me and restored the channels.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Ah ha! That paraphrases what I said to the reps—an all-powerful executive-level office with coding powers beyond mere mortals. I make light of it now, but trust me, I wasn’t amused by this point of the conversations between myself and the reps. Part of me actually felt bad for them that they couldn’t solve the problem, and had no ready access to higher-ups who doubtless could. Therefore, challenging situations not getting solved must be a daily norm for them. I.E. no one wins. 

If I can get access to a well-trained person of influence, I will pursue the DNS matter further. Otherwise I will have learned nothing from this week’s negative experiences. Just want to be able to watch DirecTV again without a bad taste in my mouth.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

GordonGekko said:


> If someone here knows the email to the Office of the Vice President, if it is still active, when I lost my DNS channels (many years ago) after a rep mistakenly canceled my service, it was that office that called me and restored the channels.


You can fill out this form. They usually give you a call a day or two after you send it.

Office of the President Contact Form


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Thank you so much. Hopefully the final, definitive answer will be good. Thanks b4pjoe and all who’ve let me vent. Appreciated guys, and I will let you know what happens.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Oh, boy. I filled out the form, but was linked to a page telling me my intended destination had either been moved, replaced, or was currently unavailable. I spent over 30 minutes composing what I thought was an intelligent, respectful request on a page which led to nowhere. So why was it still on the AT&T website?

Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three, four times. But no more. Never again.

Time to consider alternative ways to spend my money...and time.

Thanks anyway b4pjoe. Your efforts to assist me were indeed appreciated!


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

That is weird. I've always got a call back after filling out that form. Or you're saying when you hit submit you got an error page? That is a reason I always copy my typed out info before hitting submit. Probably just a temporary outage which is not unusual for any AT&T website. I would type it out again and save the text. Then try the form again and paste the text in and submit again. I just tried a test on it and I got the "Thank you for submitting your comment or question" page.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I tried again with a detailed message, within the word limit posted. It failed. Then I sent a much shorter message requesting they please contact me to discuss a problem. That went through, so we’ll see if they follow-up. Again, a failure of their website to do what it’s supposed to.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Since it did accept it this time I think you will get that call.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

And guess what—I just did! I explained everything in detail, emphasizing there are a couple thousand of us grandfathered DNS recipients in limbo since STELAR expired. I offered to send the rep—who did indeed identify herself as from the President’s Office—links to this site, and she said to expect follow-up calls soon from her or perhaps even other specialists she would consult with. I emphasized I was putting my reception of NBC on the line, and expressed my fervent hope not to lose that along with ABC.

BTW the rep was very courteous and professional, even giving me her contact phone number. She also asked if I had documentation that I was authorized to receive the distants. I asked her to check my bills as evidence, as there were no specific written contracts for that issued back in 1996.

Wish me luck everyone! I’ve done all I can.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Was the call from Mississippi and she have a southern accent? If so she is awesome.

Good luck.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> And guess what-I just did! I explained everything in detail, emphasizing there are a couple thousand of us grandfathered DNS recipients in limbo since STELAR expired. I offered to send the rep-who did indeed identify herself as from the President's Office-links to this site, and she said to expect follow-up calls soon from her or perhaps even other specialists she would consult with. I emphasized I was putting my reception of NBC on the line, and expressed my fervent hope not to lose that along with ABC.
> 
> BTW the rep was very courteous and professional, even giving me her contact phone number. She also asked if I had documentation that I was authorized to receive the distants. I asked her to check my bills as evidence, as there were no specific written contracts for that issued back in 1996.
> 
> Wish me luck everyone! I've done all I can.


Good luck, if they are able to restore the CBS, please ask how others like you can get the channel restored, thanks.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> Was the call from Mississippi and she have a southern accent? If so she is awesome.
> 
> Good luck.


Couldn't place the accent or location, but my agent was awesome for sure.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> Good luck, if they are able to restore the CBS, please ask how others like you can get the channel restored, thanks.


Will do Gordon. I got a really positive vibe speaking with the rep. I expect a fair hearing and resolution to my situation, and hope it sets a benchmark of sorts for those of us grandfathered for the distants.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

And the decision has been reached. Because STELAR expired and ABC had failed to reach an agreement with DirecTV before then, grandfather status for ABC went away. Admittedly some subscribers may have experienced exceptions to this, but as a rule, they shouldn’t have been able to regain ABC. But the good news is that DirecTV’s general policy isn’t to remove any of a subscriber’s distants should DirecTV realize it made an error by allowing said subscriber to retain them.

So the upshot is that subscribers’ grandfather status for NBC, CBS and Fox never should have changed when STELAR expired. And apparently any subsequent agreement reached with ABC did not restore that status to those who lost it post-STELAR. But again, some may fallen between the cracks and either lost or gained something which contradicts the new status quo.

For me personally, I keep NBC. And a good portion of my confidence in DirecTV’s customer status has been restored, in that our grievances can be fairly addressed by the DirecTV President’s office. The rep I had was terrific, and promised to contact me if any regulation changes should take place. 

Perhaps that’s the best takeaway for all of us. There is still someone at DirecTV who will listen.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> And the decision has been reached. Because STELAR expired and ABC had failed to reach an agreement with DirecTV before then, grandfather status for ABC went away. Admittedly some subscribers may have experienced exceptions to this, but as a rule, they shouldn't have been able to regain ABC. But the good news is that DirecTV's general policy isn't to remove any of a subscriber's distants should DirecTV realize it made an error by allowing said subscriber to retain them.
> 
> So the upshot is that subscribers' grandfather status for NBC, CBS and Fox never should have changed when STELAR expired. And apparently any subsequent agreement reached with ABC did not restore that status to those who lost it post-STELAR. But again, some may fallen between the cracks and either lost or gained something which contradicts the new status quo.
> 
> ...


Wait though, you are keeping us in suspense, first, which channel did you lose, did you get that channel back? It reads as if you lost NBC and got it back and that anyone who had grandfathered status still retains it with the possible exception of ABC, is this correct?

And if it is, how do I get back my CBS West, the only one I lost, never had ABC as it was not originally granted based on my location when I applied many years ago.

OK, after reading it again, you made it clear, but did the rep give you any information as to how any of us can restore (CBS/NBC/FOX), a code that a rep can input or will we have to contact the Office of The President?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Gordon, I think contacting the Office of the President would be best. They seem to be the only entity which has the proper authorization with appropriate codes to restore distant networks. Last week when Loyalty and Technical tried to return ABC to me, they simply couldn’t despite their best efforts. There must be exclusive codes only a few high-up reps should have access to.

Good luck Gordon. Please let us know your results!


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> Gordon, I think contacting the Office of the President would be best. They seem to be the only entity which has the proper authorization with appropriate codes to restore distant networks. Last week when Loyalty and Technical tried to return ABC to me, they simply couldn't despite their best efforts. There must be exclusive codes only a few high-up reps should have access to.
> 
> Good luck Gordon. Please let us know your results!


Thanks but can you be clear, which network did you lose, in your previous post you wrote about NBC but now you refer to ABC, which one did you lose and get restored, which networks did you never lose?

And I gather now you were assured that nobody will lose the networks they kept if they try to restore the networks they lost?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I always kept NBC, even after STELAR expired. ABC is the one I lost and tried to get restored. I haven’t had national Fox or CBS for a long time.

Based on my personal experience, one should not lose what they already have. It was clear from the conversation with the rep that wasn’t a goal DirecTV had. Her goal was to make me a happy DirecTV customer, not the opposite. Just emphasize how important the distants are to you when you communicate with the President’s Office.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I don't want to sound stupid, nor mean any disrespect towards anyone here, but I thought with this new law that no one could get the distant networks anymore, regardless if they were grandfathered or not? Or did I miss something? Thanks


The big takeaway is that the law no longer applies to DIRECTV. They lost the protection of the law by not providing locals in all markets. Any "distants" that they provide are by private agreements with the networks - agreements for which the terms have not been made public.

We have been applying terms that were defined under the law (such as grandfathering) but how those terms are defined under the private agreements are unknown and can vary by network.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> Oh yes, I made it clear I would unsubscribe. As for reevaluations, the President's Office has no desire to initiate them. But I learned that if other departments get involved with my problem and try to re-add billing for NBC, an automatic reevaluation could take place and un-grandfather me. (That is, if I haven't been already.)
> 
> Whoa. That's a kick in the head!


We could go around in circles, what about for the people who were for grandfathered for CBS and currently lost it, the only way we would know what the Office of the President would do in that situation is if one of us tries, does anyone want to try after reading your debacle, I doubt it.

Because technically for someone who lost CBS, they would have nothing to lose, either the President's office recognizes your grandfathered status and turns it back on or they don't or some other department reevaluates it and you lose grandfathered status, sounds like they won't mess with any channels you currently receive but right now we can't be confident on that based on your NBC no longer being charged the $2.50 or $3.25 per month fee.

Look at your recent activity, it should show the change when the NBC distant network was pulled from your bill, was that date before or after you spoke with the President's office?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The big takeaway is that the law no longer applies to DIRECTV. They lost the protection of the law by not providing locals in all markets. Any "distants" that they provide are by private agreements with the networks - agreements for which the terms have not been made public.
> 
> We have been applying terms that were defined under the law (such as grandfathering) but how those terms are defined under the private agreements are unknown and can vary by network.


I've only been using the term grandfathering because of what the Office of the President told Bruce, does that mean the term was included in the new agreements, no way to know, will I leave Directv when a cheaper option that has the same DVR abilities of the Genie arrives, probably.

Does Directv give off the impression they don't care how many Genie subscribers they lose, most definitely.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

bjlc said:


> but the bottom line is that nothing was turned back on..


Right you are sir. ABC still dark on my TV.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

GordonGekko said:


> We could go around in circles, what about for the people who were for grandfathered for CBS and currently lost it, the only way we would know what the Office of the President would do in that situation is if one of us tries, does anyone want to try after reading your debacle, I doubt it.
> 
> Because technically for someone who lost CBS, they would have nothing to lose, either the President's office recognizes your grandfathered status and turns it back on or they don't or some other department reevaluates it and you lose grandfathered status, sounds like they won't mess with any channels you currently receive but right now we can't be confident on that based on your NBC no longer being charged the $2.50 or $3.25 per month fee.
> 
> Look at your recent activity, it should show the change when the NBC distant network was pulled from your bill, was that date before or after you spoke with the President's office?


NBC disappeared from my billing before I spoke with the President's rep. And she can't figure out exactly why either. But she's wise enough to tell me to stand pat, since I'm still getting it, and the matter could possibly resolve itself. Getting more departments of DirecTV involved could put the channel at further risk.

Given my experiences, I strongly suggest no one else attempt screwing with their DNS.

Quite a way to run a company, eh? Ya think the FCC would be happy about this?


----------



## cpalmer2k (May 24, 2010)

Just for the fun of it I submitted the form to the "Office of the President" today. However once I hit submit it gave me what should have been a confirmation screen but instead it said page not found. Did it do that for anyone else? I had a valid RV waiver since 2013 and kept my stations until sometime in late June when they went away. I know lots of RV users that kept theirs entirely after that point in time. I figure it can't hurt to ask. I've moved on to streaming now and have that covered, but it would be nice to have them back.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

There is a word limit to that form and if you exceed it, it won't submit. Try a shorter statement and ask them to call you to discuss it.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I had the same problem. After two LONG written explanations, I also got the “no page found” notice. Then a short request to call me went through. I suppose placing appropriate instructions on the form was too difficult for AT&T to do.

They also made it impossible to access online billing tonight. All I can get is “bad connection” or just lovely blank, white screens. Just like a couple weeks ago, and a couple weeks before that, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Not that I already have issues with DirecTV, of course.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

Well folks I got an email from ATT stating that as of 10-23-20, I will be not getting any DNS service. I only have NBC (east and west) and have a camp on the Canadian border in NY State about 38 miles from a low power NBC (the NBC is offered in the Watertown Locals package). I thought I was spared after the June 1 letter that a lot of people received. Could this be sent in error? The local cable company carries both NBC from Watertown in Syracuse IN WATERTOWN. I'm wondering why I wouldn't be offered the same precedent since the cable company is allowed to import a distant channel. I thought NBC cut a deal with Directv about DNS?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cable rules vary from satellite rules. Satellite is market based ... you get the channels that transmit somewhere within the market where you live. Cable must import channels from neighboring markets if those channels qualify as significantly viewed in a community. Significantly viewed for satellite is an option - DIRECTV can deliver a significantly viewed channel but are not forced to do so.

Significantly viewed count as locals ... so one would need to subscribe to their DIRECTV locals to get any significantly viewed channels DIRECTV makes the choice to offer.

In markets where a major network is missing (no affiliate, full power or low power transmitting that network) DIRECTV could in the past offer a distant channel for that network. That law no longer helps DIRECTV - they now rely on the private agreements mentioned in previous posts.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

b4pjoe said:


> You can fill out this form. They usually give you a call a day or two after you send it.
> 
> Office of the President Contact Form


Have had DNS since C-band days, DNS since DBS Pegasus '94-'05, (acquired by) DirecTV '05-'20 (05/31/2020 STELA expiration).
Had DNS EW SD 389, 394-395 and DNS EW HD 390-393, 396-399, and then there were none. In a remote rural (Pegasus) market that today still has no LIL or OTA whatsoever... nada. Submitted the form. I'll post the results.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

It all seems so chaotic. Given your situation, how could you NOT qualify?



Michael H.. said:


> Have had DNS since C-band days, DNS since DBS Pegasus '94-'05, (acquired by) DirecTV '05-'20 (05/31/2020 STELA expiration).
> Had DNS EW SD 389, 394-395 and DNS EW HD 390-393, 396-399, and then there were none. In a remote rural (Pegasus) market that today still has no LIL or OTA whatsoever... nada. Submitted the form. I'll post the results.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i lost abc east and west this morning.. while I was watching them..


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

and i have distants for 20 years and used it in my RV


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BrucePadgett said:


> It all seems so chaotic. Given your situation, how could you NOT qualify?


Under the law no one qualifies for grandfathered distants. Michael would need to live in a market with no network stations (none exist) and currently qualify for distants to get a full slate of distant channels from both coasts.

Under AT&T|DIRECTV's private arrangements who qualifies is unclear.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> i lost abc east and west this morning.. while I was watching them..


Under account activity, do you see a notation that service ended and you were credited for the remaining days of your current bill?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

James Long said:


> Under the law no one qualifies for grandfathered distants. Michael would need to live in a market with no network stations (none exist) and currently qualify for distants to get a full slate of distant channels from both coasts.
> 
> Under AT&T|DIRECTV's private arrangements who qualifies is unclear.


And that may well account for the recent posts by DirecTV customers describing sudden or impending loss of channels, even though they still had them post-STELAR. It seems that DirecTV is finally getting around to unsubscribing people, since all grandfathering may have indeed expired.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

GordonGekko said:


> Under account activity, do you see a notation that service ended and you were credited for the remaining days of your current bill?


no... nothing at all NOTHING..


GordonGekko said:


> Under account activity, do you see a notation that service ended and you were credited for the remaining days of your current bill?


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Michael H.. said:


> Have had DNS since C-band days, DNS since DBS Pegasus '94-'05, (acquired by) DirecTV '05-'20 (05/31/2020 STELA expiration).
> Had DNS EW SD 389, 394-395 and DNS EW HD 390-393, 396-399, and then there were none. In a remote rural (Pegasus) market that today still has no LIL or OTA whatsoever... nada. Submitted the form. I'll post the results.





BrucePadgett said:


> It all seems so chaotic. Given your situation, how could you NOT qualify?


After a few rounds of telephone tag, Kelly from DTV called and let me know the results of her talk with the DNS folks. Basically, told her that I'm not getting them back, because without legislation that allows DTV to provide them, then DTV is not able to. I asked about the carriage agreements between the networks and DTV, post-mortem STELA, allowing them to provide DNS to qualified subscribers, and Kelly said that the DNS folks did not mention it, but that she assumes that this was done to enable DNS service for mobile accounts.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Michael H.. said:


> In a remote rural (Pegasus) market that today still has no LIL or OTA whatsoever... nada.


Can you tell us/remind us what market you are in?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

Michael H.. said:


> After a few rounds of telephone tag, Kelly from DTV called and let me know the results of her talk with the DNS folks. Basically, told her that I'm not getting them back, because without legislation that allows DTV to provide them, then DTV is not able to. I asked about the carriage agreements between the networks and DTV, post-mortem STELA, allowing them to provide DNS to qualified subscribers, and Kelly said that the DNS folks did not mention it, but that she assumes that this was done to enable DNS service for mobile accounts.


She assumes, that is not an acceptable answer, is that it, will someone else be calling you back or did you drop it?

By the way, if we were to look back at the original quotes from the Directv rep that were reported on that TV Answer Man website, I don't believe he or she said that the special agreements were mobile only, in fact I know for certain that was not stated.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Michael H.. said:


> After a few rounds of telephone tag, Kelly from DTV called and let me know the results of her talk with the DNS folks. Basically, told her that I'm not getting them back, because without legislation that allows DTV to provide them, then DTV is not able to. I asked about the carriage agreements between the networks and DTV, post-mortem STELA, allowing them to provide DNS to qualified subscribers, and Kelly said that the DNS folks did not mention it, but that she assumes that this was done to enable DNS service for mobile accounts.


By any chance, does Kelly work in the DirecTV President's Office? Thanks.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

BrucePadgett said:


> By any chance, does Kelly work in the DirecTV President's Office? Thanks.


Yes.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Michael H.. said:


> Yes.


Thank you. The fact that a DNS department still exists may help me when I next speak to my contact in the President's Office.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

BrucePadgett said:


> Thank you. The fact that a DNS department still exists may help me when I next speak to my contact in the President's Office.


If you really want to do some detective work, see if you can have someone other than Kelly go back to the DNS department and find out some details about these new agreements with the networks.

Yes they probably will tell you they can't offer details, you could ask them, OK without revealing details, what are the dividing lines between those who can keep their DNS and those who will get their DNS removed?

Yes those are considered details but there should be a way in which Directv can offer some guidance without getting into concrete details that the networks don't want them to reveal.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

I have lost all of it tonight..ALL MY CHANNELS>.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i called Directv tonight.. here is what I was told. .this is a "cad issue" and it will be turned on as soon as this is fixed.. then i was told.. you will be sent an email.. 
then i was told these channels are completely gone.. and "no one ' has them.. and I was told that my RV account is 'no longer good.. "...


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

bjlc said:


> I have lost all of it tonight..ALL MY CHANNELS>.


All your distants were removed, not just ABC? I am truly sorry for you. And you were using them in your RV, as I recall. May I ask if you also had them at a home address? I have an unsettling feeling that DirecTV is now currently implementing a sweep through their DNS subscribers, and applying disconnections as they deem necessary.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

bjlc said:


> i called Directv tonight.. here is what I was told. .this is a "cad issue" and it will be turned on as soon as this is fixed.. then i was told.. you will be sent an email..
> then i was told these channels are completely gone.. and "no one ' has them.. and I was told that my RV account is 'no longer good.. "...


Contact the President's Office tomorrow. They will have a more informed response. Good luck.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

so are you saying that these channels are still "turned on"?


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

I was sent an email on Oct 9 stating I would lose my NBC DNS on Oct 22....it's gone. I am starting to think that something is going on beyond the private agreements with the networks. I think they (ATT) are forcing people to get local packages unless you are an RV customer....they are completely SOL (use wifi and locast with a VPN).


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

bjlc said:


> I have lost all of it tonight..ALL MY CHANNELS>.


What does it read on your "recent activity" section of your Directv account? Sorry to see this happen to you but call Retentions or what is now called the Customer Loyalty department first, then email the office of the vice president.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

JiminToga said:


> I was sent an email on Oct 9 stating I would lose my NBC DNS on Oct 22....it's gone. I am starting to think that something is going on beyond the private agreements with the networks. I think they (ATT) are forcing people to get local packages unless you are an RV customer....they are completely SOL (use wifi and locast with a VPN).


No change here but what exactly was written in the email?


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

we had no indication this was coming but got .70 of discount on our bill..


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

bjlc said:


> so are you saying that these channels are still "turned on"?


Some grandfathered subscribers still receive them.


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

GordonGekko said:


> No change here but what exactly was written in the email?


James,

We are writing to inform you about a change in the law that affects your programming. Until recently, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act authorized DIRECTV to provide you access to out-of-market broadcast networks- ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, and FOX. Unfortunately, Congress has decided to not renew key provisions of this law. As a result, on October 22, 2020, we will no longer be able to provide you access to these channels.

If you have any questions, please call us at 866.595.9429.

Thank you for choosing DIRECTV.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

JiminToga said:


> James,
> 
> We are writing to inform you about a change in the law that affects your programming. Until recently, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act Reauthorization (STELAR) Act authorized DIRECTV to provide you access to out-of-market broadcast networks- ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, and FOX. Unfortunately, Congress has decided to not renew key provisions of this law. As a result, on October 22, 2020, we will no longer be able to provide you access to these channels.
> 
> ...


You didn't receive that email or letter earlier in the year? Right around May I got mine, it seems like they might have missed you but if your received your letter in May, it looks like you learned your fate quickly, again you have to call Directv, have you called them yet?


----------



## JiminToga (Jun 1, 2020)

GordonGekko said:


> You didn't receive that email or letter earlier in the year? Right around May I got mine, it seems like they might have missed you but if your received your letter in May, it looks like you learned your fate quickly, again you have to call Directv, have you called them yet?


No I got the letter October 9th. I think they are shutting off DNS regionally...they had their first wave earlier in the year. They said it was due to the STELA law expiring...Personally I feel ATT does not negotiate with their customers with DNS...I have yet to hear of anyone getting them turned back on. Directv offers local channels in my market (Watertown NY), but the NBC in Watertown is low power and I cant get it off my antenna (hence why I had NBC E-W)...all of the other channels are an easy catch off the antenna. If NBC was easily available on an antenna I would have no issue with Directv on this matter.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The law change went in to effect June 1st. That email makes it sound like the law took effect Oct 22nd. "Until recently" was over four months ago.

It sounds like AT&T is cleaning up who is receiving the channels, which are now delivered based on contracts with each of the major networks - not the law. The intent of distants was to deliver the networks to viewers who could not get the content from local affiliates. The side benefit - especially for "grandfathered" subscribers who had distants before their locals became available - was to have a second source of network programming. The networks sell the right to first air their programming to affiliates. Selling distants through DIRECTV where there is a local affiliate is a conflict with that contract.

I'd like to see a deal that allows RV and commercial vehicle subscribers (not non-movable homes) receive the distant feeds. Markets missing an affiliate could also receive a feed without conflicting with the affiliation agreements. But I don't expect distants to be as freely available as they were in the past.

Has anyone been able to add distants since June? Even RV/commercial vehicle accounts? I see a lot of reports of people losing their distants (mostly people who would still lose their distants if AT&T|DIRECTV relied on the law to deliver distants) but do not recall a single report of a new subscriber to distants.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> The law change went in to effect June 1st. That email makes it sound like the law took effect Oct 22nd. "Until recently" was over four months ago.
> 
> It sounds like AT&T is cleaning up who is receiving the channels, which are now delivered based on contracts with each of the major networks - not the law. The intent of distants was to deliver the networks to viewers who could not get the content from local affiliates. The side benefit - especially for "grandfathered" subscribers who had distants before their locals became available - was to have a second source of network programming. The networks sell the right to first air their programming to affiliates. Selling distants through DIRECTV where there is a local affiliate is a conflict with that contract.
> 
> ...


I recall reading a few people who had their distants turned off and then when the new agreements were struck, they were added back, but I'm fairly certain in those cases they were turned off and added back without them calling in, from what Jimintoga wrote, he did not get a letter in May, maybe it is possible that if you got the letter in May, your situation has been dealt with according to the new agreements, meaning that if you lost CBS but kept NBC/FOX, things will remain that way if you received your letter before losing CBS, who knows though, with ATT, anything is possible.

His letter is worded exactly as mine was in May, only difference being the October 22 date, hopefully he will call to find out more details.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

i called and asked ...nothing good has happened. how do i contact the office of the president?


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Office of the President Contact Form


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

this takes me to an ATT ad site..


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bjlc said:


> this takes me to an ATT ad site..


Try a different browser or make sure you don't have some sort of malicious browser redirect going on. The link took me to the form.

Occasionally when Viglink (a service that tries to get credit for the forum reference to an outside site) goes nuts, it will do what you describe so you may have caught it on a bad day.


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

harsh said:


> Try a different browser or make sure you don't have some sort of malicious browser redirect going on. The link took me to the form.
> 
> Occasionally when Viglink (a service that tries to get credit for the forum reference to an outside site) goes nuts, it will do what you describe so you may have caught it on a bad day.


Tried the link on Safari and Chrome, he's correct, what the heck is 44siteplug.com, it starts there in the address bar and then redirects to ATT's site, att.com/internet with some internet offers.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

bjlc said:


> this takes me to an ATT ad site..


Go to Investor Relations AT&T. Select Resources - Select Customer Service Contacts - Select Executive Customer Care Contact. The form you need will appear.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

MysteryMan said:


> Go to Investor Relations AT&T. Select Resources - Select Customer Service Contacts - Select Executive Customer Care Contact. The form you need will appear.


thank you very very much.. i truly appreciate it.. thank you..


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Yes vigilink is screwing up the URL. The actual link is

```
https://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pid=27794
```


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I must have clicked it on a good day. Today I get the wrong page.

Viglink is a dangerous tool.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Michael H.. said:


> After a few rounds of telephone tag, Kelly from DTV called and let me know the results of her talk with the DNS folks. Basically, told her that I'm not getting them back, because without legislation that allows DTV to provide them, then DTV is not able to. I asked about the carriage agreements between the networks and DTV, post-mortem STELA, allowing them to provide DNS to qualified subscribers, and Kelly said that the DNS folks did not mention it, but that she assumes that this was done to enable DNS service for mobile accounts.


Hi Michael. I just spoke with my contact in the President's Office. Is it possible you might share your DirecTV case number with me, the one given to you when you made your initial appeal to them? My contact wishes to explore my situation further, but needs your case number for further research.

Thanks for any consideration. It is appreciated.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

anyone get your dns turned back on please pm me..


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

BrucePadgett said:


> Hi Michael. I just spoke with my contact in the President's Office. Is it possible you might share your DirecTV case number with me, the one given to you when you made your initial appeal to them? My contact wishes to explore my situation further, but needs your case number for further research.
> 
> Thanks for any consideration. It is appreciated.


Here's an update Michael. My rep in the President's Office pulled your case. She stated that no contact was made with a specialized DNS department on your behalf...because no such unit exists. Oh boy. And my rep also definitively stated the newest current policy, that once a distant is removed, it cannot, and will not, be turned back on. Grandfather status no longer applies once a distant is pulled.

I am posting this to the forum for informational purposes. And really, to save anyone from wasting anymore time. That doesn't mean some of us may prove exceptions for whatever administrative or technical reason. But from personal experience, I wouldn't recommend trying to get those lost channels back. Even the most helpful and conscientious customer reps can't pull it off, so be content with what you may have left.

Thanks again Michael for sharing your experiences with us. You and I can now be designated the unofficial guinea pigs for this experiment, on behalf of dbstalk.com.


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

After watching the Super Bowl last night, and seeing all the glitching and terrible uplink from my local station(small market Elmira NY), there is no way i am settling for this. 

I have waivers from all the local stations from many years ago that should still remain valid.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rodnig1 said:


> I have waivers from all the local stations from many years ago that should still remain valid.


If you do not currently have distants you will not be able to get distants. The waiver system is gone.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

BrucePadgett said:


> Here's an update Michael. My rep in the President's Office pulled your case. She stated that no contact was made with a specialized DNS department on your behalf...because no such unit exists. Oh boy. And my rep also definitively stated the newest current policy, that once a distant is removed, it cannot, and will not, be turned back on. Grandfather status no longer applies once a distant is pulled.


So what is to prevent them from pulling a DNS channel accidentally, when they should not have, then saying something like, "Oops! Sorry, but we shouldn't have done that. Unfortunately, once a distant network is turned off, it cannot be turned back on. There's nothing more that can be done"?

I ask because that's exactly what happened to my CBS and ABC feeds. I still have NBC and Fox; however, last spring, when the deadline approached, CBS and ABC were pulled precisely at 6:00 p.m. my time (Central Daylight Time, BTW). Fox and NBC remained on due to agreements reached with them (or something to that effect). When I found out that the deadline wasn't until midnight-the new law effective date had not yet arrived and wasn't arriving until midnight-I called and complained. Not one but THREE different reps, each successively higher up the food chain, so to speak, confirmed that those channels should not have been turned off just quite yet. They were shut off too soon, sooner than they legally had to; however, there was nothing they could do. I spent 2 hours on the phone with them that evening and about the same amount of time the next evening complaining about this, but that didn't matter. It was THEIR mistake, but THEY "couldn't" rectify it, to which I say BS.

If the channels can be deactivated, intentionally or unintentionally, then they sure as heck can be REactivated, intentionally or unintentionally.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Tue 2021-02-09 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]

Mr. Greer:

I've seen your name on a couple of occasions in online articles regarding the post STELA (and each prior 5-year version) of the distant network service eligibility, and now under the DirecTV network carriage agreements with the major national networks for RV and residential accounts for STILL UNSERVED DMA areas.
My DirecTV service address is in the: 
##### zip code, 
which still has no local network affiliate LIL DirecTV broadcast transmission nor does it have an OTA broadcast signal.
DirecTV account: ########
I have had DirecTV continuously since 1994, the first decade with Pegasus, the rural DirecTV provider, before its acquisition by DirecTV.
So during the time from 1994 up until 01 June 2020, when each of the 5-year STELA legislation versions were extended, I received both east and west HD DNS, and although I was grandfathered to continue to receive those, had I not been grandfathered, I still would have continuously met eligibility requirements under the then existing legislation during that entire time.
There has been almost no information released to the public by DirecTV regarding the specifics of the DirecTV distant network carriage agreements entered into after the expiration of the last STELA agreement, so I am basing my request on information you have been quoted as providing as the official DirecTV public information release source.
Again, I do not and am NOT ABLE to receive any broadcast of any major network affiliate of any kind, either with DirecTV LIL or any OTA reception.
I have a ticket in:
Case Number: #####
and awaiting a callback from Kelli Wantland of the DirecTV Office of the President, to request reconnection of DNS, based upon my CURRENT ELIGIBILITY under current DirecTV network carriage agreements, as explained by you in interviews with online news media outlets.
I had contacted Ms. Wantland last year, and she had been given no information from DirecTV that corroborated the information that you provided and was unable to fulfill my request at that time but suggested that maybe the information would be eventually disseminated internally and to feel free to revisit the request at a later date.
My reason for contacting you is to request that you provide or direct Ms. Wantland to a link or source to substantiate the specifics of current eligibility for distant network reception.
Or if there are no disclosure restrictions on that information, if you could provide the link or source to me.

Thank you

###### ######


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

Update from #736:

Finally talked to Ms. Kelli Wantland, DirecTV Office of the President, today.
She confirmed that I do not / cannot receive any major network broadcasts, no LIL, no cable, no OTA, whatsoever.
No, I am not above the arctic circle... I am located in the contiguous 48 states.
She did revert early in the discussion to the STELA legislation, to explain that the law was not renewed, so that DirecTV could not legally provide DNS.
I was able to explain that I understood that, and that my request to connect DNS was NOT based upon STELA legislation, but upon carriage agreements which took effect immediately upon retirement of the STELA legislation, agreements between DirecTV and the respective major network corporate offices, not any network affiliate offices, information based upon statements to media outlets, attributed to Mr. Jim Greer, spokesperson for DirecTV.
Ms. Wantland basically repeated what she said in our discussion last year, that DirecTV had no authority to provide DNS according to any of the departments knowledgeable about DNS that the Office of the President communicates with.
Interestingly, she did say that if I were to receive waivers from each affected affiliate station, then I would be eligible to receive DNS under FCC guidelines, which I was surprised to hear her say, because I was under the impression that waivers were a thing of the past, and no longer used to determine eligibility for DNS.
Many on this site and others were told specifically, that when they inquired about waiver eligibility, they were told that that was no longer an option.
Anyway, I explained my dilemma regarding that approach, and asked her what affiliate stations I should submit waiver requests to, since my home is not in OTA broadcast range of ANY affiliates for ANY major network.

Jim Greer is a public relations voice for DirecTV / ATT of some standing, given that he was the official spokesperson who addressed the media regarding the fraudulent creation of DirecTV Now / ATT Now accounts to manipulate revenue numbers / stock prices according to the DirecTV / ATT investors' lawsuit.
So he is at a position to answer the highest level questions posed to DirecTV / ATT.
For the record, DirecTV's position is that they became aware of the situation upon an internal investigation after numerous complaints of subscribers being signed up and billed, but denied involvement in the plan to artificially inflate reported numbers, and were dealing with the individuals that conducted unacceptable sales tactics .

I told her that what I found confusing is that at DirecTV, Public and Press relations, Mr. Greer, someone of stature, is saying that I was and still am eligible under the new carriage agreements to receive DNS, that I should not have had service interrupted... on 01 June 2020... yet eight months later...
and on the other hand, the Office of the President, is telling me that everyone at DirecTV that they've asked, I'm assuming that's everyone with the exception of Mr. Greer and his department, is saying no way, no DNS because DirecTV is not authorized to provide it.

I closed by saying, it might be worthwhile for the Office of the President to contact Mr. Greer directly, to conclusively put this conflicting information by DirecTV to rest.
If DirecTV has information inconsistent with that being provided by the Office of the President, DirecTV should want to address that.
If Mr. Greer was mis-quoted, mis-interpreted, if the media fabricated his statement and it is an outright lie, I would like to think that DirecTV, and Mr. Greer himself, would want to be informed of that.

End of the conversation with Ms. Wantland.
If anything comes of it, I'll post again... don't hold your breath...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A recap:
At the end of 2019 Congress passed a law that made major changes to STELA. Under the law DIRECTV could not continue to carry distants in any market (including markets missing a major affiliate) unless they offered carriage to local stations in every market. DIRECTV would not be required to carry every station in every market, they would just need to offer carriage. Stations could refuse carriage if DIRECTV was unwilling to pay their price. Under the new law all grandfathering, waivers, etc. ended. Carriage under the law is solely based on the stations in each TV market dependent on offering local carriage in all markets. DIRECTV was given until June to comply.

DIRECTV went outside the law and made deals with the individual networks. The wording of those deals and qualifications have not been made public. This very long thread has attempted to decode those rules via observation. The primary observation being that only people who had distants up to the moment the grace period expired on June 1st kept them. Most people who lost their distants had in market locals available. Who kept which network varied by network and market where the subscriber was located.

Mr Greer could in no way be speaking of your specific account or promising that you specifically would qualify for distants.

The broadcast affiliates in your market for each network own the rights to their network for their entire market - including areas where their signals do not reach. Your in market stations would be the ones harmed if DIRECTV delivered distant stations in your market. If there are "waivers" available only your in market affiliates would be the ones who could waive their exclusive right to provide the network(s) they carry within the footprint of your market. These affiliates would be the same stations that DIRECTV would offer carriage to if they offered local-into-local carriage in your market.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Michael H.. said:


> No, I am not above the arctic circle... I am located in the contiguous 48 states.


Where at?


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> So what is to prevent them from pulling a DNS channel accidentally, when they should not have, then saying something like, "Oops! Sorry, but we shouldn't have done that. Unfortunately, once a distant network is turned off, it cannot be turned back on. There's nothing more that can be done"?
> 
> I ask because that's exactly what happened to my CBS and ABC feeds. I still have NBC and Fox; however, last spring, when the deadline approached, CBS and ABC were pulled precisely at 6:00 p.m. my time (Central Daylight Time, BTW). Fox and NBC remained on due to agreements reached with them (or something to that effect). When I found out that the deadline wasn't until midnight-the new law effective date had not yet arrived and wasn't arriving until midnight-I called and complained. Not one but THREE different reps, each successively higher up the food chain, so to speak, confirmed that those channels should not have been turned off just quite yet. They were shut off too soon, sooner than they legally had to; however, there was nothing they could do. I spent 2 hours on the phone with them that evening and about the same amount of time the next evening complaining about this, but that didn't matter. It was THEIR mistake, but THEY "couldn't" rectify it, to which I say BS.
> 
> If the channels can be deactivated, intentionally or unintentionally, then they sure as heck can be REactivated, intentionally or unintentionally.


Yes indeed, they can technically be turned back on. Years ago mine were pulled in error, but reinstated within minutes after I complained. But lately no one at DirecTV seems to want to rectify any similar mistake. Almost like a blanket directive from way up high, one which supersedes every other rule or regulation. And apparently the new agreements with the networks are so super-secret that no full explanation may be offered, even to some top-level executives. If that's the case, don't expect AT&T to consider imparting the truth to more lowly people-namely us, their customers.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

BrucePadgett said:


> Yes indeed, they can technically be turned back on. Years ago mine were pulled in error, but reinstated within minutes after I complained. But lately no one at DirecTV seems to want to rectify any similar mistake. Almost like a blanket directive from way up high, one which supersedes every other rule or regulation. And apparently the new agreements with the networks are so super-secret that no full explanation may be offered, even to some top-level executives. If that's the case, don't expect AT&T to consider imparting the truth to more lowly people-namely us, their customers.


Well, I called within minutes last May 31 when they were pulled. CBS and ABC remained off. They "weren't able to" turn them back on was what I was told. Uh huh. I bet.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BrucePadgett said:


> Yes indeed, they can technically be turned back on.


Technically if a code can be present a code can be added ... but there is no guarantee that there is a place in the CSR's UI where they can add every code. Perhaps a supervisor has more access, but getting the right code in the right place to turn a channel on isn't guaranteed. It could get to the level of needing to hack their database and I don't see them doing that.

Still a customer? I guess all it cost AT&T|DIRECTV was whatever you were paying for the channel ... maybe lose a couple points on their JD Power satisfaction score.

I had a similar problem with Verizon. A plan was removed from our company's account and it was no longer available in their list of plans that could be added. But the code was still in the system (and on one of our other plans). We found the right level of supervisor who could add the plan by code number instead of drop down but they didn't know the code. Once we got the right code and the right access we got our plan back. But it took a few hours on the phone. And it would not have worked if no one had the access or no one knew the code. It is easier to take away "not currently available" options than to add them.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

James Long said:


> Technically if a code can be present a code can be added ... but there is no guarantee that there is a place in the CSR's UI where they can add every code. Perhaps a supervisor has more access, but getting the right code in the right place to turn a channel on isn't guaranteed. It could get to the level of needing to hack their database and I don't see them doing that.
> 
> Still a customer? I guess all it cost AT&T|DIRECTV was whatever you were paying for the channel ... maybe lose a couple points on their JD Power satisfaction score.
> 
> I had a similar problem with Verizon. A plan was removed from our company's account and it was no longer available in their list of plans that could be added. But the code was still in the system (and on one of our other plans). We found the right level of supervisor who could add the plan by code number instead of drop down but they didn't know the code. Once we got the right code and the right access we got our plan back. But it took a few hours on the phone. And it would not have worked if no one had the access or no one knew the code. It is easier to take away "not currently available" options than to add them.


In my case, customer retention wanted to turn ABC back on, but didn't have the code. But they tried mightily anyway. When I then dealt with the President's Office, it was strongly implied they did indeed have said code. Unfortunately, they would not implement it as I no longer qualified for ABC, since my grandfather status was permanently removed when the network was dropped from my programming. No specific statute of the new agreements with the networks was cited when the President's Office made its decision.

And so it goes.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

I'm on the phone with DTV CS right now. I'm in Anchorage, Alaska and the only CW affiliate I get transmits in SD and I don't get PBS at all. 

The little girl in the PI does not understand. There is a rooster crowing in the background. No, I'm not kidding.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

DirecTV Spinoff Gets FCC Approval | Multichannel News
Note this part re: last 12 markets w/no LIL:


> The FCC will not require the New DirecTV to deliver local TV station signals to the 12 smallest markets, as the broadcast affiliate associations had asked. It also declined to apply any program carriage conditions on the deal.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

It would be pretty harsh to make that a requirement. I hate to say it but the channels in those 12 markets just want a hand out. They refuse to assist in getting their signal to its own customers. Why should it be DirecTV's responsibility to do their work for them to make that happen and then pay a pretty penny for it on top of that? Seems like a no brainer to me. Those 12 markets should be asking DirecTV what can we do to help make it happen or our market. I guarantee you if it was my market, I would be putting pressure on the locals. They are the ones with the responsibility to me. Its the business they are in to provide the needed signals to get their channel. My guess is they are satisfied with the current ways that is available and do not want to spend any of their own money to make that any better. Wonder why that is.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The Affiliates Associations contend that because DIRECTV does not provide local-into-local television service in 12 of the DMAs in which it operates, the Commission should require New DIRECTV to provide local-into-local television service to all 210 Nielsen DMAs. The Affiliates Associations argue that, without such a condition, New DIRECTV will have weakened incentives to serve local communities because of the reduced role that AT&T will play in its ownership. The Applicants respond that this issue is unrelated to the proposed transaction, and that the Commission has denied similar requests from broadcasters in prior transactions involving DIRECTV. The Applicants maintain that the proposed transaction would not affect its incentive or ability to provide local-into-local service. In reply, the Affiliates Associations assert that the cases cited by Applicants were wrongly decided, but also seek to distinguish them from the present transaction.

The Applicants are correct that the Commission has previously denied similar requests with regard to DIRECTV. We agree with the Applicants that *nothing in the record indicates that the proposed transaction would reduce New DIRECTV's incentives to carry local broadcast channels*. The Affiliates Associations have not offered evidence or established a credible theory by which the competitive pressures DIRECTV faces to imitate or differentiate itself from other MVPDs in those markets would change as a result of this transaction. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the Affiliates Associations' proposed condition.

(From the FCC decision - emphasis added.)


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I completely agree that it would not reduce incentives to carry local broadcast channels either. I watched all those hearings on DNS and DirecTV asked why the channels themselves did not have any obligations to assist with the poor signal. I believe they said those channels didnt even cover 60% of their own market via OTA. They didnt wanna supply any help getting the signal to DirecTV either. Its a joke. Cant just blame DirecTV here. The locals have responsibility here as well. If they want the deal done, they should be asking what it would take to get it done. Seems like they just wanna play the victims here when its not warranted in my book.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

joshjr said:


> I completely agree that it would not reduce incentives to carry local broadcast channels either. I watched all those hearings on DNS and DirecTV asked why the channels themselves did not have any obligations to assist with the poor signal. I believe they said those channels didnt even cover 60% of their own market via OTA. They didnt wanna supply any help getting the signal to DirecTV either. Its a joke. Cant just blame DirecTV here. The locals have responsibility here as well. If they want the deal done, they should be asking what it would take to get it done. Seems like they just wanna play the victims here when its not warranted in my book.


Those are all small markets, and the stations probably make very little revenue. If they don't have money to spend on increasing their OTA carriage by building taller towers (or setting up repeaters for the ones in mountainous areas) then they also don't have the money to assist Directv in getting those channels.

There's a reason why most of those markets don't have all four network affiliates - it is hard to eke out a profit in such small markets.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Those are all small markets, and the stations probably make very little revenue. If they don't have money to spend on increasing their OTA carriage by building taller towers (or setting up repeaters for the ones in mountainous areas) then they also don't have the money to assist Directv in getting those channels.
> 
> There's a reason why most of those markets don't have all four network affiliates - it is hard to eke out a profit in such small markets.


Yeah I agree. I just don't like that the locals expect DirecTV to bail them out at DirecTV's expense. I think that is shady to say the least. Love to see the locals launched but as a business, I understand both sides and feel that DirecTV should have to foot the bill to make it happen. Either meet in the middle or don't but that's up to the locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And yet in all markets DISH found a way. Perhaps they were more highly motivated.  

"We can't receive your signal" seems like an excuse more than an explanation. I agree with the satellite providers stance that they are helping local stations reach their entire protected DMA and I wish it was more of a partnership.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

yeah well I want my distant networks back..


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> And yet in all markets DISH found a way. Perhaps they were more highly motivated.
> 
> "We can't receive your signal" seems like an excuse more than an explanation. I agree with the satellite providers stance that they are helping local stations reach their entire protected DMA and I wish it was more of a partnership.


Dish was more motivated. They had their DNS yanked for giving it to people who didn't qualify. Dish complained so much about getting DNS back that they were finally told they could have it back if they provided locals in all DMA's. If it was not for that, Dish would have never done it either. Makes me wonder how any local could tell someone were sorry our signal is so weak that you cant get our channel and we refuse to work with DirecTV to help them get it but if you want our channel call DirecTV. The locals in those 12 markets care enough to not fix their OTA issues and make it someone else's problem. If there is one thing I don't handle well its when someone makes their problem someone else's. I would prefer DirecTV offer all DMAs as well but not go in the hole in the last 12 at their own expense just so those markets can profit from it. Seems like a no brainer to me. If the locals wanted a deal done, they would be trying to figure out how to make it work with DirecTV. Instead they played their hand in the DNS bill last year. They got the lawmakers to sunset the bill thinking that if DirecTV was forced to not offer DNS there and had to negotiate with them, that they had DirecTV over a barrel. DirecTV said you can figure out your own problem and the locals there don't like it.

Since DirecTV will have to launch all locals in the market if they launch any in the remaining 12, I don't see that happening unless the channels really work with them. The channel owners would gain from more viewers. They either thing that gain is minimal or don't care and hold the customers in their area hostage in the situation. This is no different than locals going dark because someone wont pay their price. Its the reason why I always blame the channel and also why I don't change providers over channel disputes either.

The TV market will be forced to change a lot over the next 10 years. The bills for TV service just keep rising and people will only take so much. I find it mind blowing that local's made their business model work for years off of selling ads but then figured they could charge for their channel and still cant make it work. My opinion is that the locals are greedy and it is why we see a record number of blackouts every single year or darn near it. As an avid TV watcher, I hate to say these things but I believe them to be true. Should be interesting to see how we watch TV 10 years from now.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bjlc said:


> yeah well I want my distant networks back..


I have them all but CW. We have a CW in the market but DirecTV does not offer it. Every time I call or email the local CW to ask when they are coming to DirecTV, I get we don't have a clue. Really, who would?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are legal limits as to what local stations can do to get their signal carried on satellite. Paying to deliver a usable signal to the satellite company's receive point is allowable. Beyond that, they cannot offer financial assistance to the satellite carrier. A local station cannot pay for carriage.

Thanks to the law local stations have two options: Consent to carry and Must carry. Choose must carry and the station is carried for free. Choose consent to carry and the station can negotiate a price (or could choose free). Unfortunately stations air networks and the networks demand payment when their signals are picked up by cable and satellite via local stations. What (in my opinion) should be a cooperative effort to reach as many homes as possible with the signal has turned in to a money grab. I don't mind seeing rural stations that are struggling to stay on the air grab some money ... it is the cut to the network that annoys me more.

Asking a struggling local station to pay to get their signal on DIRECTV? Seems counterintuitive.



I would like to see a system where DISH and DIRECTV would be required to carry all local stations, pay only a statutory copyright fee, and not be subject to the stations and networks setting exorbitant fees. Yeah, nobody happy and no way Congress would ever pass that law. So we are stuck where we are.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> There are legal limits as to what local stations can do to get their signal carried on satellite. Paying to deliver a usable signal to the satellite company's receive point is allowable. Beyond that, they cannot offer financial assistance to the satellite carrier. A local station cannot pay for carriage.
> 
> Thanks to the law local stations have two options: Consent to carry and Must carry. Choose must carry and the station is carried for free. Choose consent to carry and the station can negotiate a price (or could choose free). Unfortunately stations air networks and the networks demand payment when their signals are picked up by cable and satellite via local stations. What (in my opinion) should be a cooperative effort to reach as many homes as possible with the signal has turned in to a money grab. I don't mind seeing rural stations that are struggling to stay on the air grab some money ... it is the cut to the network that annoys me more.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting idea. I kinda thought a decent discount in the monthly fee per sub for DirecTV having to do the bulk of the lifting to get those channels going. I would be open to seeing how your idea would truly work. Something is gonna happen. The market can't sustain the crazy way it's going for TV prices.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

joshjr said:


> I find it mind blowing that local's made their business model work for years off of selling ads but then figured they could charge for their channel and still cant make it work.


They charge because the networks charge them. I don't know what the balance is between the two, but the networks have been raising what they charge affiliates for years to pay for escalating sports rights among other things.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> They charge because the networks charge them. I don't know what the balance is between the two, but the networks have been raising what they charge affiliates for years to pay for escalating sports rights among other things.


Understood. I'm not against that locals making money. I just can't understand how they have massively increased the mo eg they take in with a 2nd revenue model and still have massive increases. Blackouts tick me off. What would the locals do if everyone went OTA?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

joshjr said:


> Understood. I'm not against that locals making money. I just can't understand how they have massively increased the mo eg they take in with a 2nd revenue model and still have massive increases. Blackouts tick me off. What would the locals do if everyone went OTA?


Like I said I don't know how the contracts between the networks and the affiliates work. But it would make sense for several reasons that they only charge them per retrans viewer, not per overall viewer. With the biggest reason being there is no way to measure their OTA viewership, while they know exact retrans viewership.

If that's the case, "everyone going OTA" would mostly hurt the networks. It would probably hurt the locals some - I doubt they charge exactly what they pay the networks, but it wouldn't hurt nearly as bad as losing ~$5 per viewer per month would if they were taking the entire hit themselves.

Another hint is the fact that other than Dish NO MVPD has EVER supported customers picking up locals via antenna and getting a discount from their provider. And Dish just so happens to have the biggest problems with retrans renewals.

I mean, you'd think with locals now accounting for about $20/month of everyone's bill (I'm over $21/month currently) that for the cost of a $25 ATSC dongle that plugs into your cable or satellite box via USB you'd let the tens of millions of customers who can easily pick up their locals OTA do so and save money while saving the provider retrans fees. You'd gain massive leverage in retrans negotiation if both sides knew a blackout would only affect a minority of customers.

The only conclusion I can reach from the utter absence of this alternative is that the station owner groups really push back hard against this. If they told Directv "OK, you can pay $5 per subscriber, or you can pay $8 per subscriber who pays for locals" maybe that's why Directv only grudgingly supports the LCC as a stopgap solution to retrans blackouts, and won't even allow customers to buy one otherwise. Maybe Dish negotiated the station groups down to $6 on such a deal after a two month blackout, and that's why they are the only one to offer such an alternative.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> mean, you'd think with locals now accounting for about $20/month of everyone's bill (I'm over $21/month currently) that for the cost of a $25 ATSC dongle that plugs into your cable or satellite box via USB you'd let the tens of millions of customers who can easily pick up their locals OTA do so and save money while saving the provider retrans fees. You'd gain massive leverage in retrans negotiation if both sides knew a blackout would only affect a minority of customers.


and sinclair broadcasting says if you want bally sports / the cubs you must take our locals. And soon we may add NBC sports as well.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> and sinclair broadcasting says if you want bally sports / the cubs you must take our locals. And soon we may add NBC sports as well.


Yep, that just makes it an even better deal if MVPDs were able to allow customers to drop locals as they could drop their RSNs as well.

So it will be even less likely that Sinclair would ever allow a contract like that. Might be a LONG blackout for Dish when their Sinclair contract next comes up for renewal - which I believe is sometime this year (probably August 31 so its right before football season)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

joshjr said:


> What would the locals do if everyone went OTA?


Such a move would be impractical or impossible for a large majority of the population.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Yep, that just makes it an even better deal if MVPDs were able to allow customers to drop locals as they could drop their RSNs as well.


The carriers are making far too much profit on the fees to drop them. They would have to cut their fee in half and move that cost to the cable channel package or people would expect to be getting a near $20 discount for not taking locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The primary "profit" on locals is retaining or attracting customers who would find another service if locals were not available.
A $12 fee for the four major networks is close to what the local stations (driven by their networks) are requesting.
That would not cover fees to lesser but still popular network stations plus all of the costs of receiving and retransmiting the actual signals.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

joshjr said:


> I have them all but CW. We have a CW in the market but DirecTV does not offer it. Every time I call or email the local CW to ask when they are coming to DirecTV, I get we don't have a clue. Really, who would?


May I ask how you were able to keep your distants? Thanks.


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

joshjr said:


> I have them all but CW. We have a CW in the market but DirecTV does not offer it. Every time I call or email the local CW to ask when they are coming to DirecTV, I get we don't have a clue. Really, who would?





BrucePadgett said:


> May I ask how you were able to keep your distants? Thanks.


I'm curious as well.
Did you ever lose the other DNS' back in 06/01/2020 and manage to get them back?
Or did you never lose them at all?

I'm in an (EDT) service location that has never had and still has neither an OTA signal or DTV LIL, still 100% unserved DMA.
Premiere / NO LIL programming package, there is no Premiere w/ LIL available at the service location.
Have never submitted a waiver request.
There has never been and still are no local affiliates to even submit waiver requests to.
Had DNS C-band prior to 1994.
When DTV / USSB Ku-band RCA activated 1994 through Pegasus, had the first DBS generation DNS 80-89, before any LIL existed.
When DTV Ku-band H-10 HD activated, added HD DNS 90-99, still before any LIL existed.
Had DNS before it was strictly New York (East) and Los Angeles (West) for the networks, different E & W cities for each network.
No LIL has ever been added to the service address.
Had all Ka-band E & W 389-399, that were removed 06/01/2020.
Talked to DTV, including Office of the President, on several occasions regarding adding back the networks on the basis of DTV / networks carriage agreement for unserved DMA, but have been denied.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

They took some away but gave them back. I never called about it. I was grandfathered in. Still have them but CW. ABCw is blacked out sometimes.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

Good on you joshjr, but the fact that ABCw occasionally gets blacked out is odd, however. Is it happening during west coast primetime? Thanks.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

BrucePadgett said:


> Good on you joshjr, but the fact that ABCw occasionally gets blacked out is odd, however. Is it happening during west coast primetime? Thanks.


Its is hit and miss when it does it but I do notice it more in primetime. No matter though. Dont seem to have that issue with any of the others.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

It's time to allow people to subscribe to distant networks again. Current law is absurd. Let us subscribe to ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC again from New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles via our regions of the country in addition to getting our local channels.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Rob37 said:


> It's time to allow people to subscribe to distant networks again. Current law is absurd. Let us subscribe to ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC again from New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles via our regions of the country in addition to getting our local channels.


This is the part I always hated. Locals claim that they need you watching their channel as they sell ads for revenue. They seem to turn the other way when they are putting the screws to someone like DirecTV when they want a rate increase though. Suggesting we use an antenna for their signal. As if they could afford for all of us to get their signal for free with an antenna. If we pay them for the channel, why does it matter to them if we pay to get the one from NY or LA? Yeah they may make less off ad revenue but its hard for me to have sympathy for them when they went from only surviving from ad revenue to then charging all cable and satellite companies a hefty fee.

Not to mention a few years ago the local cable co dropped Viacom. I missed a show on MTV. Tried to stream it on MTVs site with my DirecTV credentials and then tried with Hulu and was blocked. When I called them they had the balls to tell me yeah CableOne dropped us. I said yeah I know but I pay you through DirecTV and Hulu. They said unless I paid them a 3rd time through the cable company then I would remain blocked just because my internet comes from someone who does not offer their channels to its TV customers. I find that pretty greedy and sick. I have had a lot less compassion for any channels since that happened and that wasnt even a local.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

It should be a matter of choice plain & simple. If a subscriber is willing to pay to get long distance networks, then we should be able to without any hassle.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Rob37 said:


> It should be a matter of choice plain & simple. If a subscriber is willing to pay to get long distance networks, then we should be able to without any hassle.


The claim is locals pay for exclusivity. If they are not considered a significantly viewed channel, then duplicate programming is supposed to be blacked out which is most programming. I would like to see it the way you describe though. Make it where DNS stations are only available if you have your locals first (assuming DirecTV offers them). I wish DirecTV had the sub channel locals here as well as the CW. I dont get CW via DNS and DirecTV dont carry the markets CW. Sucks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IF wishes were ponies we would all have a ride.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

James Long said:


> IF wishes were ponies we would all have a ride.


 Oh Brother


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Let people subscribe to the Distant Networks Again. It's nonsense and a bunch of B.S. that we can't.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rob37 said:


> Let people subscribe to the Distant Networks Again. It's nonsense and a bunch of B.S. that we can't.


Complain to your congressmen. They're the ones who passed the law that limited DNS to basically RV accounts - something that broadcasters had been pushing for every five years when STELA was renewed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Congress wrote the laws ... Congress is the answer. I've stated my wishes multiple times over the years. My horse has not arrived either.

Must carry, statutory set rates for all locals (including non-network stations). If the fees are intended to cover the copyright costs then they should cover the copyright costs, not be set by extortionist local channels and their networks. People qualify for all stations in their DMA plus all stations that claim their address as part of their OTA coverage area. The rules would cover all MVPDs and vMVPDs. No special rights or rules for satellite or cable.

If one lives in a market without a local of a major affiliate they get one from a neighboring market. Otherwise the OTA coverage area rule should help expand into neighboring markets.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

James Long said:


> Congress wrote the laws ... Congress is the answer. I've stated my wishes multiple times over the years. My horse has not arrived either.
> 
> Must carry, statutory set rates for all locals (including non-network stations). If the fees are intended to cover the copyright costs then they should cover the copyright costs, not be set by extortionist local channels and their networks. People qualify for all stations in their DMA plus all stations that claim their address as part of their OTA coverage area. The rules would cover all MVPDs and vMVPDs. No special rights or rules for satellite or cable.
> 
> If one lives in a market without a local of a major affiliate they get one from a neighboring market. Otherwise the OTA coverage area rule should help expand into neighboring markets.


also that law overrides any black out rules / steaming tv has REAL LOCAL feeds with no content blackouts.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rob37 said:


> It's nonsense and a bunch of B.S. that we can't.


What do you hope to gain from receiving a market other than your own?

Localism is a guiding principle (as established by Congress) at the FCC.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I think it’s funny people think that if they get the law changed that will change things. It won’t. DIRECTV will Never make all stations available everywhere. And CBS doesn’t want to kill its franchised locals by allowing everyone access to its New York and LA distants. 

It’s possible it could happen via streaming services but no traditional delivery method could open up all channels to the entire country. So unless CBS etc want to lose the millions of dollars they make just in franchise fees from non owned stations This isn’t ever going to change. There’s no need for it to either really. Not if Rvs and such have access to all dns. 

What they do need to do is not allow franchises to exist that do not show everything in Hi Definition that is available in Hi Definition.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Congress wrote the laws ... Congress is the answer. I've stated my wishes multiple times over the years. My horse has not arrived either.
> 
> Must carry, statutory set rates for all locals (including non-network stations). If the fees are intended to cover the copyright costs then they should cover the copyright costs, not be set by extortionist local channels and their networks. People qualify for all stations in their DMA plus all stations that claim their address as part of their OTA coverage area. The rules would cover all MVPDs and vMVPDs. No special rights or rules for satellite or cable.
> 
> If one lives in a market without a local of a major affiliate they get one from a neighboring market. Otherwise the OTA coverage area rule should help expand into neighboring markets.


That seems reasonable. So mark that as unlikely.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

has anyone gotten their distant networks back since the new Directv started.. I hate my locals with a passion..


----------



## Michael H.. (May 31, 2007)

bjlc said:


> has anyone gotten their distant networks back since the new Directv started.. I hate my locals with a passion..


Nope.
If I can't get 'em, then not much hope for anyone else.
I'm in a zip 04741, that has NEVER had OTA or LIL... nada... zilch.
att_cms_local_channels
Used to have all the channels 389-399, now I have none.
Had the Ku-band SD DNS 80's and HD 90's back in the day, dating back to '94 8-bit RCA's... engineer for Hughes Space & Comm 601's (now Boeing) starting with DTVs 1-3 & Space Systems Loral 1300's (now Maxar), and worked on >half of the DTVs over the years.
DirecTV has given me NFL Sunday Ticket / RZ to keep me from leaving... and it's worked, but when that comes to an end, so will my association with DirecTV...


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Michael H.. said:


> Nope.
> If I can't get 'em, then not much hope for anyone else.
> I'm in an zip 04741, that has NEVER had OTA or LIL... nada... zilch.
> att_cms_local_channels
> ...


It looks like bjlc's locals aren't so bad after all compared to other subscriber's local channels (or lack thereof).


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Technically if a code can be present a code can be added ... but there is no guarantee that there is a place in the CSR's UI where they can add every code. Perhaps a supervisor has more access, but getting the right code in the right place to turn a channel on isn't guaranteed. It could get to the level of needing to hack their database and I don't see them doing that.
> 
> Still a customer? I guess all it cost AT&T|DIRECTV was whatever you were paying for the channel ... maybe lose a couple points on their JD Power satisfaction score.
> 
> I had a similar problem with Verizon. A plan was removed from our company's account and it was no longer available in their list of plans that could be added. But the code was still in the system (and on one of our other plans). We found the right level of supervisor who could add the plan by code number instead of drop down but they didn't know the code. Once we got the right code and the right access we got our plan back. But it took a few hours on the phone. And it would not have worked if no one had the access or no one knew the code. It is easier to take away "not currently available" options than to add them.


I don't think anybody on this site has written that they got their distants turned back on, it is possible, the distant channel situation has been all over the map, I lost one of three, I would have to go back to read my posts, I can't remember if two were turned back on or they never went out, I called a few times to get the lost one restored, no luck.


----------



## rodnig1 (May 31, 2011)

sooo... i guess im stuck watching the crappy local stations forever... sadly i live in one of the smallest TV markets in the country, and they are about 20 years behind in technology, so the picture is always crap


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rodnig1 said:


> sooo... i guess im stuck watching the crappy local stations forever... sadly i live in one of the smallest TV markets in the country, and they are about 20 years behind in technology, so the picture is always crap


Until such time as the funding model for broadcast television changes to something different (or broadcast TV mostly goes away), that's how it will be.

Your best hope may be that NextGenTV is successful and the stations can economically no longer use 20 year old hand-me-downs.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

hoping to get RV waivers...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bjlc said:


> hoping to get RV waivers...


Do they still offer them?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

bjlc said:


> hoping to get RV waivers...


Do you own an RV? Unless things have changed, last I heard, you have to send in a copy of your RV registration to D*. And I think they require a separate account for the RV.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Has anyone added "distant stations" since DIRECTV stopped providing them under STELA and continued carriage under private agreements with the networks/affiliates?


----------



## GekkoDBS (Dec 5, 2015)

James Long said:


> Has anyone added "distant stations" since DIRECTV stopped providing them under STELA and continued carriage under private agreements with the networks/affiliates?


I have yet to read one person report that they have had any channels reinstated after losing them, I lost CBS, was able to keep FOX and NBC west feeds.


----------

