# SHVIA Mccain Bill PASSED!!!



## Mr. Shvia (May 5, 2004)

SHVIA Mccain Bill PASSED!!!

It looks to me that about six hours ago the version of the Satellite Bill that
includes Digital White Areas and also allows for people to receive both their
local stations and distants at the same time has passed!!!

Echostar has also posted a statement on their website commending John Mccain.

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=dish&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=646314


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

The President has line item veto power...... Hmmmmmmm... Let's see how this goes.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I believe that line item veto power was decalred unconstitutional back in 1997.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> I believe that line item veto power was decalred unconstitutional back in 1997.


It was. The case was Clinton v. The City of New York. The line item veto power which became effective on January 1st 1997, and was declared unconsitutional by the Court in July of 1998 only applied to funding and taxing bills, not to legislation such as this.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Thanks Mike I thought it struck it down altogether.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bobby94928 said:


> The President has line item veto power...... Hmmmmmmm... Let's see how this goes.


One would have to give the president a REASON to line item veto something. And one would have to have access to the president's staff to suggest it.

Hmmm... How many times has the line item veto been used?

JL


----------



## RaceTrack (Jun 11, 2004)

Did Significantly Viewed pass or not?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

RaceTrack said:


> Did Significantly Viewed pass or not?


Passed.

JL


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Thanks Mike I thought it struck it down altogether.


Sorry Chief, it was struck down all together, what I was explaining is that BEFORE it was struck down it only applied to funding and tax measures, not things such as this 

Sorry I wasn't clear.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Cool.


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

Mike,

Thanks for the clarification. Now, then Prez wants the budget, so he's gonna sign it. :yesman:


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> Did Significantly Viewed pass or not?
> 
> Passed.


Fabulous news. This along with digital white areas should be GREAT for satellite and a real blow to broadcast and the NAB. I look forward to eventually getting Orlando locals added to my West Palm Beach locals here midway between the two.

I wonder how they will define "significantly viewed". Anyone know?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Probably the same rules that apply to cable. Here in SE Monmouth Cty., NJ both NY and Philly stations are carried by cable, while satellite forces us into the NY local. My wife will be happy to see Eagles games.

Hopefully they will let us get all of the broadcast networks in HD like we can get with CBS HD now....


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Boo. The NAB has three years to stall this thing. It may be 2007 before we can get them........


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2004)

So what happens to people who already receive distant nets and thier LiL's do they stay or do they go now. Do I have to make a choice between my LiL or the distants. And if I must choose can I keep both NY & LA?


----------



## bobmcl (May 2, 2002)

Our local Cable Company Time Warner carries one local Milwaukee station in our area. Will I be able to get Milwaukee from Directv?

Directv customer since Oct 96


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

I'm about 20 pages into reading this 100 page bill and I've just noted some things that are new, important and I don't think was in force before. First, the local stations have 30 days to deny a waiver or it is assumed that the waiver is APPROVED. I don't think they had to reply before and the waiver was assumed DISAPPROVED. Second, the satellite companies must periodically submit reports on all locals subscribers, with addresses, to the local stations. Presumably this is so local stations can challenge subscriptions. The rest of the first 20 pages concerns changes to put satellite at parity with cable.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Following on to my previous post, the next 10 pages all concern royalty fees and royalty arbitration. The 15 pages after that deal with low power and superstations and lays out a number of definitions, such as what is a "superstation" and a "low power station". The distances of 35 miles normally and 20 miles if in one of the top 50 urban areas of the country are laid out with respect to the local market of a low power station. The 10 pages after that charge the Register of Copyrights to determine, by Dec. 31, 2005, to what extent current law harms or mitigates harm to copyright holders of broadcast programming. There is more on royalties, and special clauses concerning Alaska. Man it's getting boring at this point!

--- WCS


----------



## Mr. Shvia (May 5, 2004)

Where can we find a copy of this bill? I have been looking like mad on 
Senate.gov. All I know is that it was grouped with some kind of spending bill.


----------



## FaxMan (Oct 14, 2003)

BobMurdoch said:


> Boo. The NAB has three years to stall this thing. It may be 2007 before we can get them........


Can anybody further expand on the provisions of the '3 year' period alluded to in the E* release and some of the posts above?

It would seem a pretty simple procedure to determine if a particular local is being provided LIL and has no digital (or HD) signal. It would also seem that the sat providers would jump pretty quickly on getting time zone appropriate HD feeds from an HD enabled local that would like the additional viewers (=ad revenues).

John


----------



## FaxMan (Oct 14, 2003)

Mr. Shvia said:


> Where can we find a copy of this bill? I have been looking like mad on
> Senate.gov. All I know is that it was grouped with some kind of spending bill.


http://www.house.gov/rules/h4818divj.pdf

Apparently the SHVIA stuff starts on about page 122.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Ok, more reading with 10 more pages down... affirms a number of things already mentioned earlier in the bill. Defines "significantly viewed" and charges the FCC with publicly posting a list of "significantly viewed" stations for each DMA. Satellite providers also must do this, by community [presumably they will use zip codes and just update their current eligibility database for LIL]. Also this part provides penalties for bad faith abuse of satellite transmissions: $50/station/day/subscriber charged to satellite carrier for abuse, or $50/station/day/subscriber charged to station(s) for bringing a frivolous charge.

Next 10 pages: retransmission consents and negotiations, more definitions ("network station", "community", etc.), carriage of local stations on a single dish within 18 months (all analog retransmissions on single dish and all digital retransmissions on a single dish but analog and digital don't need to be the same dish if both sets are retransmitted), must-carry rules and non-applicability of low power stations to "must-carry".

Next 10 pages: grandfathering of recipients of distant networks because they don't have access to LIL yet, rules for providing distant networks to other subscribers not prohibited from receiving them [ie. rural areas], special rules for digital transmissions of distant nets to unserved households and where digital isn't available from local stations, time zone must be the same or later for digital distant nets and bandwidth must be the same or greater than off-air broadcast, must switch to local digital from distant digital when local is available and receivable by subscribers.

Next 5 pages: subscriber can request a signal test if denied a waiver, subscriber requests a test through the satellite provider, 30 days to respond, sets out who will test and who will pay.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Last ~20 pages: more on notices and waivers between satellite providers and network affiliates, within one year the FCC must determine if current signal testing is adequate for digital signal prediction (must make the determination with reasonable cost of antenna, antenna rotation and indoor vs outdoor - how these factors determine whether a household is served or unserved), notices to subscribers with respect to signal availability and grandfathering, privacy rights of satellite subscribers, study required of FCC to determine the effect of SHVIA on cable competition (9 month deadline), carriage in non-contiguous states, more stuff on Alaska.

That pretty much covers my summary of what's in the new SHVIA extension. I probably missed some stuff and there are a lot of cross-references and references to material in the original SHVIA but this pretty much is the gist of it.

--- WCS


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

So the subscriber may have to pay now even if it is determined if the station cannot be received? I hear that these tests are not cheap either.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

FaxMan said:


> Can anybody further expand on the provisions of the '3 year' period alluded to in the E* release and some of the posts above?


From my reading, there are a number of dates mentioned from 31 Dec. 2005 to 31 Dec. 2007 that have to do with households being considered "unserved" because they won't be able to receive a DIGITAL signal. The delays I read about seemed to me to be aimed at giving local stations time to get an adequate digital signal out. On balance, the FCC has a year to determine if a new method of calculating signal adequacy should be applied separately to digital signals and what details should be considered such as antenna type, etc. I would draw from my reading that the point of contention is that most locals won't be up to speed digitally by 2006, as they should be, and some of their viewers could be declared "unserved" by 2007. In the meantime an analog grade-b signal will be considered as adequately served. The text is a little turgid and doesn't apply directly to me, so I may have misinterpreted something.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> So the subscriber may have to pay now even if it is determined if the station cannot be received? I hear that these tests are not cheap either.


The subscriber has to write to the satellite company and the satellite company has 30 days to respond. If they agree to the test, then the subscriber doesn't have to pay (either the satellite provider or station will pay, depending on the results of the test). If they don't agree or fail to respond, then the subscriber has the option to offer to pay for the test. The satellite provider must provide an estimate of the cost.

--- WCS


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I would think that they would fail to agree by default therefore not being an option unless the consumer would pay to have it done.


----------



## Adam Richey (Mar 25, 2002)

So does this also have the HD distants and all?


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Adam Richey said:


> So does this also have the HD distants and all?


They didn't use the word HD, rather they use the word "digital", which could mean HD or one or more digital subchannels, whatever the particular station is transmitting. The satellite providers must use the same amount or more bandwith than the over-the-air transmission they are retransmitting. In practice this means HD because satellite providers are unlikely to go to the trouble to provide duplicate network transmissions of less than HD. Yes, it covers providing distant digital stations, but the qualification rules will be changing between 2005 and 2007, depending on how well any given local station comes into compliance with the requirement to transmit digitally and depending on what the FCC decides is an acceptable digital signal and how much hardware a viewer should be required to have to receive it. By the end of 2007, any viewer who can't receive an acceptable digital signal off air is supposed to be able to receive that network via satellite distant net, unless Congress changes the law again between now and then.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> I would think that they would fail to agree by default therefore not being an option unless the consumer would pay to have it done.


It would seem to me that this is worded in such a way that if the satellite provider really wants to sell distant nets to a particular subscriber in a marginal area, then they have to put their money where their mouth is and gamble on having to pay for the survey. If they balk, then the subscriber must pay. What's not clear right now, and won't be until the FCC reports in 2005, is how much equipment you're expected to invest in to receive off-air digital programming. They need to determine whether an outdoor antenna is required and whether or not the consumer will have to install a rotor, or whether they should get a good signal using rabbit ears. After that they have to determine if the old analog signal contours are ok or if they need a new digital model. They're supposed to come to some "reasonable" conclusion and report back to Congress by Dec. 31, 2005. Doing a survey before that is probably a waste of time and money because the standard may change.

At the same time the Register of Copyright has 9 months to determine how all this affects copyright holders and report back to Congress, so their report will probably be presented before the FCC's. NAB may strongly lobby the RoC to make a finding of severe damage to copyright holders, forcing more debate in Congress over allowing distant nets at all.

--- WCS


----------



## SR0655 (Nov 23, 2004)

I'm in the New York City DMA, so I receive DirecTV's complete assortment of NYC stations. My "service address" is in a white area, which currently allows me to also receive the Los Angeles ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox stations.

Here's what I'm wondering:

1. Will the new legislation permit me to keep the distant stations?

2. If so, should I worry about the possibility that the requirement to report subscriber information to the networks might enable them to somehow determine that I don't actually reside at my "service address"? (My DMA is the same, but my actual address qualifies for only one of the four distant networks.)

3. Doesn't this bill have to be reconciled with the House bill (meaning that some of the wording might not make it into the final bill that reaches President Bush's desk)?


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

A couple of thoughts after reviewing the bill. 

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

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

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

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

Does that sound right?

MIKE


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

I can see a new wave of moving coming soon. Those satellite subs moving to an area that qualifies and is receiving "significantly viewed" status from a 2nd DMA by their satellite provider and those moving to receive distant HD channels by satellite . I would be tempted to move halfway between Atlanta and Chattanooga to receive both DMA's locals .


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

SR0655 said:


> I'm in the New York City DMA, so I receive DirecTV's complete assortment of NYC stations. My "service address" is in a white area, which currently allows me to also receive the Los Angeles ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox stations.
> 
> Here's what I'm wondering:
> 
> ...


If you have distants now you should be able to keep them at least for a few more years. You might lose them in 2009, or sooner if something changes. If your receiver reports its location (ie. phone number) back to DirecTV and it's within the grade-b contour of an affiliate, then you could lose the corresponding distant net when DirecTV audits your service address. If they don't catch it and the affiliate does, then DTV could be fined $50/day/per station. It's unlikely the affiliate will catch anything before DirecTV does since DTV will be supplying the address info.



SR0655 said:


> 3. Doesn't this bill have to be reconciled with the House bill (meaning that some of the wording might not make it into the final bill that reaches President Bush's desk)?


I was under the impression that this is the final wording going to the President for signature.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

Chris Freeland said:


> I can see a new wave of moving coming soon. Those satellite subs moving to an area that qualifies and is receiving "significantly viewed" status from a 2nd DMA by their satellite provider and those moving to receive distant HD channels by satellite . I would be tempted to move halfway between Atlanta and Chattanooga to receive both DMA's locals .


Heck, I moved to "Canada". 

--- WCS


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

I'm not conversant in this DBS technical stuff at all, so could someone tell me if this allows Dish Network to sell me all of the Superstations, or will the restrictions that are in place for me now, still in place. My local ABC station is a WB affiliate as well, and has just recently launched a cable only WB station. So I'm unable to recieve the WB Superstations.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

If a local station was caliming syndicvated exclusivity (and that is how WB is considered) you were and are out of luck. You could get the UPN stations.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> If a local station was caliming syndicvated exclusivity (and that is how WB is considered) you were and are out of luck. You could get the UPN stations.


Dang! Yeah, I get the UPN stations. Oh well, might be time to switch back to cable when my committment is up.


----------



## swing (Aug 13, 2004)

wcswett said:


> Ok, more reading with 10 more pages down... affirms a number of things already mentioned earlier in the bill. Defines "significantly viewed" and charges the FCC with publicly posting a list of "significantly viewed" stations for each DMA. Satellite providers also must do this, by community [presumably they will use zip codes and just update their current eligibility database for LIL]. Also this part provides penalties for bad faith abuse of satellite transmissions: $50/station/day/subscriber charged to satellite carrier for abuse, or $50/station/day/subscriber charged to station(s) for bringing a frivolous charge.
> 
> Next 10 pages: retransmission consents and negotiations, more definitions ("network station", "community", etc.), carriage of local stations on a single dish within 18 months (all analog retransmissions on single dish and all digital retransmissions on a single dish but analog and digital don't need to be the same dish if both sets are retransmitted), must-carry rules and non-applicability of low power stations to "must-carry".
> 
> ...


Significantly viewed by DMA would be interesting. In Philly market, the edges of it are significantly viewed for some or all of the main New York, Wilkes Barre-Scranton, Harrisburg, Salisbury MD stations and maybe even Baltimore. An FCC listing maybe miscontrued as that all of those are significantly viewed, when in the metro area, none of the are. Maybe they should go by a county basis, instead of by DMA. And doesn't Nielsen and the TV stations know this information? I didn't think the FCC has this available, as in most disputes, the FCC must be given third party data. There are also many stations that did gentlemen agreement deals, limiting their cable coverage but given exclusive rights (Baltimore and D.C. stations have done this in certain areas, even though they broadcast well beyond each other's city). I wonder how that will playout, if a station is still significantly viewed in an area, but doesn't want to serve that area.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

swing said:


> Significantly viewed by DMA would be interesting. In Philly market, the edges of it are significantly viewed for some or all of the main New York, Wilkes Barre-Scranton, Harrisburg, Salisbury MD stations and maybe even Baltimore. An FCC listing maybe miscontrued as that all of those are significantly viewed, when in the metro area, none of the are. Maybe they should go by a county basis, instead of by DMA. And doesn't Nielsen and the TV stations know this information? I didn't think the FCC has this available, as in most disputes, the FCC must be given third party data. There are also many stations that did gentlemen agreement deals, limiting their cable coverage but given exclusive rights (Baltimore and D.C. stations have done this in certain areas, even though they broadcast well beyond each other's city). I wonder how that will playout, if a station is still significantly viewed in an area, but doesn't want to serve that area.


This part of the bill is meant to give satellite parity with cable, so whatever has already been determined for cable will now apply to satellite. I believe the significantly viewed is by "community", not DMA, so it will probably be broken down by zip code. I don't think the FCC has publicly published this information, so this bill now requires that the information be made public.

Several places in the bill mention what data will be used and the criteria for various determinations. Nielsen household data is one important source.

--- WCS


----------



## swing (Aug 13, 2004)

wcswett said:


> This part of the bill is meant to give satellite parity with cable, so whatever has already been determined for cable will now apply to satellite. I believe the significantly viewed is by "community", not DMA, so it will probably be broken down by zip code. I don't think the FCC has publicly published this information, so this bill now requires that the information be made public.
> 
> Several places in the bill mention what data will be used and the criteria for various determinations. Nielsen household data is one important source.
> 
> --- WCS


Thanks for the PDF and explanations.

I looked down the PDF on this, and it defines community:

The term 'community' means
"(A) a county or cable community, as determined under the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Commission applicable to determine with respect to a cable system whether signals are significantly viewed;
"(B) a satellite community, as determined under such rules, regulations and authorizations (or revisions thereof) as the Commission may prescribe in implementing the requirements of this section.

(p.179)

e.g. It may not be broken down by zip code, at first.

Since its leans toward the direction of what cable offfers, it may be of this nature.

The FCC reviews every cable franchise. One is Comcast of Ocean County NJ. Reviews that 6 Philadelphia stations happen to be significantly viewed in that cable community. Then of all the zip codes in the Comcast Ocean County, will be listed as New York plus some additional Philadelphia market stations. Then that list is offered publicly. Something of complicating nature, though, is cable companies aren't required to carry significantly viewed station if it's duplicating another station (such as a network station), but giving priority to the closer station (in distance).

Another method would be for the FCC having all U.S. zip codes at hand, and trying to determine from Nielsen what stations are significantly viewed per zip code. They don't keep this information and would have to generate it, based on this SHVERA. This effort would be much more lengthy and very difficult to generate.

Another method would be for the FCC to request each TV station to send a list of zip codes of which zips are significantly viewed in their area.

Given the community definition provided, likely the first method of determining significantly viewed areas (through the cable community) will be used and published.


----------



## GWMontee (Jul 5, 2002)

Will I (living in Fla) be able to watch the San Francisco Locals?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GWMontee said:


> Will I (living in Fla) be able to watch the San Francisco Locals?


No.

If you live in an unserved area, you could get the big four networks from San Francisco (assuming E* offered them as distants) but the law does not allow you to get the local channels. E* doesn't offer San Fransisco as distants, and transmits them on a spot beam where you physically can not receive them in FL (regardless of the law).

JL


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

GWMontee said:


> Will I (living in Fla) be able to watch the San Francisco Locals?


This leads off topic into technical stuff but...

Both DirecTV and DISH Network have the main San Francisco locals on a spot beam, so it's not technically possible to receive them in Florida as Florida is way outside the reception area. For this and possibly other reasons they don't offer SFO as a distant net.

--- WCS


----------



## ehgreen (Nov 23, 2004)

wcswett said:


> For this and possibly other reasons they don't offer SFO as a distant net.--- WCS


Dtv only offers LA and NY for distant nets. No real effort for Regional sourcing, but the 3 hour time zone offset exactly matches the time span of "prime time". *This is the "2"*

Charlie is a sports fan, which may contribute to the fact E* offers multiple cities, more than any other fact. *This is the "5".* As the "owner" of E*, I'm sure he can have his PVR programed to "monitor" any stations they carry.

I have wondered why only the 4 networks from the distant cities -- I'd also like the main PBS feed since they carry the "Great Performances" the same night that they are nationally advertised. The National PBS feed on Dtv 384 and E*249 doesn't carry all of the offerings as the Affiliates, and delays by one day most programming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There are laws involved. The four major networks are the ONLY ones permitted as distants. PBS is under different rules. E* and D* can offer any network affiliate they please as a distant, but have chosen a few major cities - and have decided to do some regional distants as well. (Significantly Viewed will probably eclipse the need for regional distants).

Channels are not offered as distants to please the whim of one man wanting to see a sports lineup. Do you realize that you are accusing E* and Charlie Ergen of violating federal law? His home falls under the same restriction as his neighbors as far as what broadcast feeds he can get. (And there are better ways of providing a "bootleg feed" than national carriage of the channel as a distant.)

JL


----------



## ehgreen (Nov 23, 2004)

justalurker said:


> The four major networks are the ONLY ones permitted as distants. . . . . E* and D* can offer any network affiliate they please as a distant, .. .. ..Channels are not offered as distants to please the whim of one man . . . you are accusing E* and Charlie Ergen of violating federal law. . . . JL


Clearly I'm speculating as to the choices, both the specific cities and the number of cities, made by E*. The goal might have been to have a city from which the Distant Networks were available to be in each of the four mainland time zones.

My point was to discuss the varied choices for providing Distant Networks - - - from just 2 cities VERSUS Regional Networks stations. Having lived and/or worked in a dozen or so DMAs, I appreciate that people have different interests, which may be better met by different Regional collections of Network stations.

My posting came partially because SFO was mentioned a couple of postings ago; as a native of that area, I'd really rather have those stations instead of LA for my West Coast feed. I often watch the 11pm Pacific news at 2am on the East Coast. Arnold is often featured, so there is enuf to keep me entertained. Like the Pacific Salmon, I will return to Northern California to spawn.

If there had been time, there could well have been useful discussion, here, in the smoke-filled-offices in DC, and at varied Networks, as to the value of Congress allowing or encouraging "multiple Regionally-sourced Network" feeds.

Consider that the Network content may only be 25% of the broadcast day for the affiliate stations. Lots of Regional content is interesting to watch if you are *From or Going to * a particular part of the country. With Local in Local from scores of cities, think the technical issues are modest to have Regionally based Distant Station offerings.

There is NOTHING immoral or illegal in a business owner making decisions based on his own enlightened self interests. If his big investors, likely on the Board of Directors, think his choices are way off the mark, they can fix the problem. If the FCC feels 5 cities are too many, they too have their ways.

On purely Executive oversight basis, I do hold firm that designated officers of a service provider do have 'extra' rights to monitor their offerings. I'd guess that some of the other readers here are subject to call-out for some "back at work" problems -- and perhaps use remote access facilities to do their work from home. Same for Charlie, but not his neighbors!

Sorry if my intents were unclear. JL ----please contact me off line.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

ehgreen said:


> Clearly I'm speculating as to the choices, both the specific cities and the number of cities, made by E*. The goal might have been to have a city from which the Distant Networks were available to be in each of the four mainland time zones.
> 
> My point was to discuss the varied choices for providing Distant Networks - - - from just 2 cities VERSUS Regional Networks stations. Having lived and/or worked in a dozen or so DMAs, I appreciate that people have different interests, which may be better met by different Regional collections of Network stations.


In my opinion TWO is the MINIMUM number of sets of distant networks DBS distributors should offer, and those two should probably be NY and LA (at least they should be east and west coast to correspond to the two network feeds). Canada's ExpressVu offers Boston and Seattle, and Star Choice offers Spokane, Seattle, Buffalo and Detroit. I believe DISH offered so many distants at first because they were putting local-into-local service up on CONUS beam transponders at first, before they had any spot beams, and that enabled them to offer more choice to subscribers. You could still only subscribe to a maximum of two sets, but you had more to choose from. I think as they get more spot beams up and perhaps transition to Ka beams DISH will cut the distants back to two sets, NY and LA, so they're not using so many CONUS transponders for analog networks.

--- WCS


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You keep re-editing your prior posts ... I'll snapshot this one.


ehgreen said:


> Dtv only offers LA and NY for distant nets. No real effort for Regional sourcing, but the 3 hour time zone offset exactly matches the time span of "prime time". *This is the "2"*
> 
> Charlie is a sports fan, which may contribute to the fact E* offers multiple cities, more than any other fact. *This is the "5".* As the "owner" of E*, I'm sure he can have his PVR programed to "monitor" any stations they carry.
> 
> I have wondered why only the 4 networks from the distant cities -- I'd also like the main PBS feed since they carry the "Great Performances" the same night that they are nationally advertised. The National PBS feed on Dtv 384 and E*249 doesn't carry all of the offerings as the Affiliates, and delays by one day most programming.


And part of today's huge addition:


ehgreen said:


> On purely Executive oversight basis, I do hold firm that designated officers of a service provider do have 'extra' rights to monitor their offerings. I'd guess that some of the other readers here are subject to call-out for some "back at work" problems -- and perhaps use remote access facilities to do their work from home. Same for Charlie, but not his neighbors!


Mr Ergen is not an on-call repairman. Your insinuation that he "monitors" channels at home that he cannot legally watch is insulting.
_*Charlie is a sports fan, which may contribute to the fact E* offers multiple cities, more than any other fact. As the "owner" of E*, I'm sure he can have his PVR programed to "monitor" any stations they carry.*_​You are clearly suggesting the cities were added for one man's benefit so *he* could PVR sports from those channels. And in your last novel on the subject, you confirm that you suggested he does this from home.

BTW, E* is now down to *4* National cities on distants, not five. Having 151 markets of LIL makes distants less important, and with SHVERA taking effect distants will be harder to sell.

JL


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

justalurker said:


> Your insinuation that he "monitors" channels at home that he cannot legally watch is insulting.


If I was him, I would. I think he could make a pretty good case for doing so. Of course with nearly all locals going to spot beams, eventually it won't be physically possible to see many DMA's, even for Charlie.

--- WCS


----------



## billpa (Jul 11, 2003)

justalurker said:


> You are clearly suggesting the cities were added for one man's benefit so *he* could PVR sports from those channels. And in your last novel on the subject, you confirm that you suggested he does this from home.


how awful!
shame on that poster....shame, i tells ya!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Ok after reading all of this and many other threads on this site and others, I'm still confused. So will we be able to keep the distant networks or not if you also receive your locals? A simple yes or no answer please.


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> Ok after reading all of this and many other threads on this site and others, I'm still confused. So will we be able to keep the distant networks or not if you also receive your locals? A simple yes or no answer please.


Yes.

--- WCS


----------



## teknophyle (Oct 12, 2004)

Richard King said:


> Fabulous news. This along with digital white areas should be GREAT for satellite and a real blow to broadcast and the NAB. I look forward to eventually getting Orlando locals added to my West Palm Beach locals here midway between the two.
> 
> I wonder how they will define "significantly viewed". Anyone know?


I am in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale market. Does this mean that DirecTv will add the West Palm Beach stations onto the Miami list? Also may I get the Distants from New York and LA?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

wcswett said:


> Yes.
> 
> --- WCS


Ok so we won't have to re-aply for waivers then? 
Will we have to choose if we want to keep the distants or our locals? 
Thanks!


----------



## cjrleimer (Nov 17, 2004)

So what does this mean like me I live in the RENO DMA Would I be able to get the Sacramento ones on Dish ?


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

teknophyle said:


> I am in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale market. Does this mean that DirecTv will add the West Palm Beach stations onto the Miami list? Also may I get the Distants from New York and LA?


I recommend taking a look at what your local cable company offers as that will be a good first guess of what DirecTV will be allowed to offer. The FCC has 60 days to publish a list of "significantly viewed" channels that satellite companies can work from. This list will be broken down by "community", so it's important where in the market you live. DirecTV may be ALLOWED to sell you additional channels, they don't HAVE to carry them or sell them to you. As for distant nets, if you don't qualify for them now then you won't qualify for at least a year. If you have them now, you can keep them. The FCC has until Dec. 31, 2005 to decide what to do about allowing distant digital signals. If you can get the digital local station with an antenna, you won't be allowed to get the corresponding digital distant channel.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> Ok so we won't have to re-aply for waivers then?
> Will we have to choose if we want to keep the distants or our locals?
> Thanks!


You won't need new waivers for analog distants, but if new digital distants are offered your old waivers won't apply to those. There will be new rules written by the FCC by Dec. 31, 2005 for digitals.

If you already have distants, you won't have to choose between them and locals. You can keep them until Dec. 31, 2009. After the law passes, new subscribers can't get distants if their locals are available and will lose distants when their locals become available.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

cjrleimer said:


> So what does this mean like me I live in the RENO DMA Would I be able to get the Sacramento ones on Dish ?


Here is what I told Teknophyle:

I recommend taking a look at what your local cable company offers as that will be a good first guess of what DISH will be allowed to offer. The FCC has 60 days to publish a list of "significantly viewed" channels that satellite companies can work from. This list will be broken down by "community", so it's important where in the market you live. DISH may be ALLOWED to sell you additional channels, they don't HAVE to carry them or sell them to you.

I think Sacramento is on a spot beam, so you'll probably have to be in the spot beam to physically receive Sacramento channels. I don't know if Reno is in the beam. When DISH is ready to sell you more channels, they're supposed to contact you and offer them to you.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

cjrleimer said:


> So what does this mean like me I live in the RENO DMA Would I be able to get the Sacramento ones on Dish ?


Following up to my previous answer... Reno and Sacramento appear to be on different satellites but the spot beams overlap. You should be able to get both 110 sp4 and 119 sp2 with the same DISH 500 located in Reno, so it should be physically possible to get Sacramento locals in Reno via DISH.

--- WCS


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> Ok after reading all of this and many other threads on this site and others, I'm still confused. So will we be able to keep the distant networks or not if you also receive your locals? A simple yes or no answer please.


There is no simple yes or no answer since you have not given enough information to know where under the new law you fall. Is the "we" you use referring to all subscribers or your own family? NOT EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP DISTANTS. But some will, it all depends on when they subscribed and what channels are available as locals.

Plus there is no requirement for E* or D* to offer distants to anyone.

JL


----------



## mraub (Mar 5, 2004)

wcswett said:


> You won't need new waivers for analog distants, but if new digital distants are offered your old waivers won't apply to those. There will be new rules written by the FCC by Dec. 31, 2005 for digitals.
> 
> --- WCS


Is it true that the only digital distants available (at least on DISH) are the CBS HD feeds from NY and LA? I'm assuming the waiver I have from my local CBS station will allow me to continue receiving the satellite CBS-HD feed, at least until my local station gets HD in place.

It is truly amazing that this much complexity is required to maintain a model of information delivery which hasn't really prevailed for the last 10-15 years. I didn't agree with everything Ronald Reagan did when he was president, but his insistence that the free market was a better way to allocate resources than government regulation has done a lot the keep our economy growing steadily (with an occasional burp or two).

MIKE


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

mraub said:


> Is it true that the only digital distants available (at least on DISH) are the CBS HD feeds from NY and LA? I'm assuming the waiver I have from my local CBS station will allow me to continue receiving the satellite CBS-HD feed, at least until my local station gets HD in place.


DISH only has CBS east and west. DirecTV has NBC east and west in addition to CBS.

For digital distant nets where you are receiving the channel under a waiver for analog distant nets, you could be required to receive a separate waiver for digitals under the new law.

--- WCS


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2004)

I live in a true white area for my network locals. I currently subscribe to both distant locals (DirecTV) and my DMA locals (LIL's).

I have been holding off on buying an HD-Tivo until the new SHVEA passed. Assuming this bill is signed in it's current form will I be able to subscribe to the HD Distant Locals that DirecTV offers immediately OR will I have to wait until the new digial white areas are defined? I do not currently subscribe to the HD distant locals, only the analog version.


----------



## woodenshoe (Jun 22, 2004)

justalurker said:


> There is no simple yes or no answer since you have not given enough information to know where under the new law you fall. Is the "we" you use referring to all subscribers or your own family? NOT EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP DISTANTS. But some will, it all depends on when they subscribed and what channels are available as locals.
> 
> Plus there is no requirement for E* or D* to offer distants to anyone.
> 
> JL


I read this as everyone that currently has "distant digital networks" gets to keep them.

``(ii) PRE-ENACTMENT DISTANT DIGITAL SIGNAL SUBSCRIBERS.--Any eligible subscriber under this subparagraph who is a lawful subscriber to such a distant digital signal as of the date of enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 may continue to receive such distant digital signal, whether or not such subscriber elects to subscribe to local digital signals"

This is under SEC. 204. REPLACEMENT OF DISTANT SIGNALS WITH LOCAL SIGNALS.


----------



## freakmonkey (Sep 11, 2003)

teknophyle said:


> I am in the Miami/Fort Lauderdale market. Does this mean that DirecTv will add the West Palm Beach stations onto the Miami list? Also may I get the Distants from New York and LA?


(Assumeing E* jumps on sigvue) If you live in North Miami beach 33180 you may be able get the WPB stations. Fer sure if you live North Broward. Pompano, Parkland, Weston ect. As far as distants there is no white area in all of the South Florida DMA from far western Dade & Broward counties to the southermost point of the US the best you can get is CBS and FOX from E*. D* still lets you receive all 4 distatnts as thier maps still show the Keys a white area.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Question: Could D* offer significantly viewed channels prior to actually offering local channels in an area. I have a feeling its going to be a while before D* decides to offer locals here in the Salisbury MD DMA and it would be nice if I didn't have to wait for them to offer locals here to get the Baltimore/Washington stations that Comcast offers.


----------



## mothergoose45 (Jun 13, 2004)

Ok, sorry if I am asking the same ?'s everyone else is. I live in Lexington Ky 
(zip 40517). I get my locals and they come from Lexington. I can get ABC and CBS HD OTA, but cannot get FOX HD or NBC HD. Does this law mean I can get distant HD Locals for FOX and NBC?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

woodenshoe said:


> I read this as everyone that currently has "distant digital networks" gets to keep them.


That's digital, not analog. That returns us to not all subscribers will keep distants.


Marvin said:


> Question: Could D* offer significantly viewed channels prior to actually offering local channels in an area.


No. No subscriber can get Significantly Viewed unless they subscribe to their own market's locals, regardless of who their provider is.

JL


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

clueless said:


> I live in a true white area for my network locals. I currently subscribe to both distant locals (DirecTV) and my DMA locals (LIL's).
> 
> I have been holding off on buying an HD-Tivo until the new SHVEA passed. Assuming this bill is signed in it's current form will I be able to subscribe to the HD Distant Locals that DirecTV offers immediately OR will I have to wait until the new digial white areas are defined? I do not currently subscribe to the HD distant locals, only the analog version.


I don't recall anything in the bill that equates being in an analog white area with being eligible for distant digitals, even though that has been assumed in the past. I'm in a white area for all networks and I get CBS-HD from DISH, but my DMA is a CBS Owned and Operated so I qualify for CBS that way as well. The best thing to do is call DirecTV and ask them, because whatever they put in their computer, right or wrong, is what will govern what channels you can get and when.

--- WCS


----------



## wcswett (Jan 7, 2003)

mothergoose45 said:


> Ok, sorry if I am asking the same ?'s everyone else is. I live in Lexington Ky
> (zip 40517). I get my locals and they come from Lexington. I can get ABC and CBS HD OTA, but cannot get FOX HD or NBC HD. Does this law mean I can get distant HD Locals for FOX and NBC?


You might be able to get some digital distant nets if your locals are too weak or not transmitting digitally. This will depend on development of digital signal level models by the FCC, due out by Dec. 31, 2005. Don't look for digital eligibility areas before some time in 2006.

--- WCS


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

justalurker said:


> That's digital, not analog. That returns us to not all subscribers will keep distants.
> JL


Having now looked at SHVERA rather carefully, I find no provision anywhere which would cause any current distant subscriber to lose their distants, unless their current reception of those distants is in some way unlawful.

Even grade B subscribers grandfathered under 119(e) should be able to keep their current distants as long as they positively affirm that they want to keep them within 60 days of receiving notice from D* or E* that LIL service is available, as required by SHVERA section 205.

The only restriction is that any such 119(e) subs not currently receiving LIL service will no longer be able to get LIL without giving up their distants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> Having now looked at SHVERA rather carefully, I find no provision anywhere which would cause any current distant subscriber to lose their distants, unless their current reception of those distants is in some way unlawful.


Here is the portion of the new US Code Section 339 that applies.

*47USC339(a)(2)
(A) RULES FOR GRANDFATHERED SUBSCRIBERS TO ANALOG SIGNALS
(i) FOR THOSE RECEIVING DISTANT ANALOG SIGNALS*
These people lose distants when they get locals.
In the case of a subscriber of a satellite carrier who is eligible to receive the analog signal of a network station solely by reason of section 119(e) of title 17, United States Code (in this subparagraph referred to as a 'distant analog signal'), and who, as of October 1, 2004, is receiving the distant analog signal of that network station, the following shall apply:
(I)In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to the subscriber the analog signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the secondary transmissions of the distant analog signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber-
(aa) if, within 60 days after receiving the notice of the satellite carrier under section 338(h)(1) of this Act, the subscriber elects to retain the distant analog signal; *but
(bb) only until such time as the subscriber elects to receive such local analog signal.*

*47USC339(a)(2)
(B) RULES FOR OTHER SUBSCRIBERS TO ANALOG SIGNALS.*
These people keep distants IF they subscribe before locals are available or before Jan 1st.
In the case of a subscriber of a satellite carrier who is eligible to receive the analog signal of a network station under this section (in this subparagraph referred to as a 'distant analog signal'), other than subscribers to whom subparagraph (A) applies, the following shall apply:
(i) In a case in which the satellite carrier makes available to that subscriber, on January 1, 2005, the analog signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the secondary transmissions of the distant analog signal of a station affiliate with the same network to that subscriber if the subscriber's satellite carrier, not later than March 1, 2005, submits to that television network the list and statement required by subparagraph (F)(i).
(ii) In a case in which the satellite carrier does not make available to that subscriber, on January 1, 2005, the analog signal of a local network station pursuant to section 338, the carrier may only provide the secondary transmissions of the distant analog signal of a station affiliated with the same network to that subscriber if-
(I) that subscriber seeks to subscribe to such distant analog signal before the date on which such carrier commences to carry pursuant to section 338 the analog signals of stations from the local market of such local network station; and
(II) the satellite carrier, within 60 days after such date, submits to each television network the list and statement required by subparagraph (F)(ii).

*47USC339(a)(2)
(C) FUTURE APPLICABILITY*
If your area has locals, you can't get distants.
A satellite carrier may not provide a distant analog signal (within the meaning of subparagraph (A) or (B)) to a person who-
(i) is not a subscriber lawfully receiving such secondary transmission as of the date of the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004; and
(ii) at the time such person seeks to subscribe to receive such secondary transmission, resides in a local market where the satellite carrier makes available to that person the analog signal of a local network station affiliated with the same television network pursuant to section 338, and the retransmission of such signal by such carrier can reach such subscriber.


JL


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

JL,

Right. Like I said, if you got 'em now, you can keep 'em. A lot of people will lose eligibility, but nobody will actually lose their current distants except by neglect or by choice under the provisions you cite.

(Btw, where are you finding amended text in copy/pastable form?)

There is, however, one exception that I forgot about earlier. Section 111 specifically prohibits out-of-state DNS to areas of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Alaska where LIL service is available, no ifs, ands, or buts. Doesn't seem to be any room whatever for either grandfathering or waivers, so contrary to what I said previously, it looks like people in SSR Alaska receiving out-of-state nets will lose them if/when LIL is/becomes available.

Furthermore, while market-driven LIL seems sufficient for 49 states, DC, and all U.S. territories, in SSR Alaska, D* and E* (but not Voom) are specifically required to carry the analog signals of *all* SSR Alaska TV stations within one year of enactment *and the digital signals of all SSR Alaska stations within 2 1/2 years of enactment.* These signals must be made available to all subscribers in their DMA at a cost *not to exceed the cost of LIL service in other states.* And all parts of Alaska must be assigned by D* or and E* to at least one DMA for purposes of LIL.

So.... in SSR Alaska, out of state DNS will be terminated and LIL service will be made available. It is so decreed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joblo said:


> Right. Like I said, if you got 'em now, you can keep 'em.


You have obviously misread my post. I'm not agreeing with you. It isn't simply "you got them, you keep them". More than just those in Alaska (and Hawaii, the other non-contigous state) are going to lose the ability to keep distants.

IIRC I got the Acrobat text (not scanned images) download from the conference report on HR4818 linked from thomas.loc.gov . I grabbed it 11/24 - file name h19no043.pdf a massive 12meg. 106k of that is SHVERA itself. Then I downloaded the USCode from the link on Thomas. A little (ok, a lot of) redlining and pasting and one can see what the new code will look like - with all of the changes.

Most of what is important here is complete 'paragraphs' added by SHVERA. But much of the bill is line and word edits throughout 17USC and 47USC. It's a big picture.

JL


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Well, it wasn't easy, but I finally did mange to find a text version of SHVERA on thomas by searching through the CR.

This link should take you to division J of approriations bill, of which SHVERA is Title IX.



justalurker said:


> You have obviously misread my post. I'm not agreeing with you. It isn't simply "you got them, you keep them". More than just those in Alaska (and Hawaii, the other non-contigous state) are going to lose the ability to keep distants.


Only section 210, which mandates LIL service/carriage, applies to both Alaska and Hawaii. Section 111, which prohibits out of state DNS, applies only to Alaska.

But I see nothing in the provisions you posted that would necessarily cause a current DNS sub outside Alaska to lose DNS as long as they make the prescribed choices concerning LIL.

On further reflection, however, I do think that some subs may lose DNS as an indirect result of SV service becoming available, because certain DNS waivers are likely to be revoked once the stations granting those waivers are available as SV stations. See, for example, this post, in the other forum.


----------



## JohnGfun (Jan 16, 2004)

So We Can Have Both Locals And Distants? Now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnGfun said:


> So We Can Have Both Locals And Distants? Now.


Now. But not forevermore. Lenore.

JL


----------



## JohnGfun (Jan 16, 2004)

Wow!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SHVERA, as part of HR4818 Appropriations Bill, has been sent to the White House and is awaiting the president's signature. It's time to make a law!

12/7/2004: Presented to President.​Bill Status

JL


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

Ah, John G is wowed by EA Poe.....


----------



## JohnGfun (Jan 16, 2004)

Hehe!


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2005)

I don't know why anyone would think this legislation is a step in the right direction. With limited exceptions, it perpetuates a system in which most consumers are denied the choice of distant network feeds. It is a victory for the broadcasters and a defeat for the rest of us.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I don't know why anyone would think this legislation is a step in the right direction. With limited exceptions, it perpetuates a system in which most consumers are denied the choice of distant network feeds. It is a victory for the broadcasters and a defeat for the rest of us.


Most normal people would rather have local channels, including those from neighboring DMAs, than distants. This bill will put ALL of each local market offered on one dish. This bill allows for LP and digital signals. And it opens the door to digital distants.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2005)

justalurker said:


> Most normal people would rather have local channels, including those from neighboring DMAs, than distants. This bill will put ALL of each local market offered on one dish. This bill allows for LP and digital signals. And it opens the door to digital distants.
> 
> JL


Well, maybe I'm not normal, but as I understand this bill, it is not going to give me the choice of any TV stations other than those I have at this moment, which are the stations in Atlanta, GA. If my understanding of the legislation is incorrect, feel free to enlighten me.

So why do I want distant stations when I can watch network shows on the Atlanta locals? Well, for starters, the CBS affiliate is a crummy little UHF station that has a lousy signal (even delivered over satellite) and likes to shrink the program to a fraction of the screen or scroll messages over the program any time something occurs which they think would be a good lead-in for their local news, which I never watch anyway. The NBC affiliate has a nice, sharp picture but doesn't hesitate to block out the last five minutes of a show if they deem it necessary. When I had distant feeds from LA, I could watch those same network shows uninterrupted.

It seems pretty clear from the posts in this forum that there are a lot of people who believe they should have the choice of any stations they are willing to pay for. For those who already have distant feeds and will be able to keep them, I can understand why they would be happy. For the rest of us, I really don't see how this legislation does anything except protect TV stations from competition. I also don't get how it opens the door to "digital distants".


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

rcoleman111 said:


> I don't know why anyone would think this legislation is a step in the right direction. With limited exceptions, it perpetuates a system in which most consumers are denied the choice of distant network feeds. It is a victory for the broadcasters and a defeat for the rest of us.


Finally - someone that can see the truth. You're exactly right of course and the clincher is how all the politicans slapped themselves on the back about how much they helped us poor little guys. Either the bill doesn't say what they think it says or it's not being implemented the way it should but in any case, it's NOT helping who they said it would.

You want to rectify this problem ? Get on the horn and make a **** load of noise to Congress http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ and the FCC. Tell them we want the digital "white" area NOW. Heck, it's been established for over 6 months (by an independent group - I forget who) and available on the DTC / IWantMyHDTV web site http://www.iwantmyhdtv.com/iwanthdtv/ .

WaltinVt


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> It seems pretty clear from the posts in this forum that there are a lot of people who believe they should have the choice of any stations they are willing to pay for.


Even if it requires lying. Yes, the "as long as I pay for it" crowd is here - and there are a few representatives of the "take it free if I physically can" crowd too.

Your local affiliate owns the rights to the programs on the network in your community. That isn't the fault of Congress or the satellite providers. It's the AGREEMENT that they, and all other affiliates including the ones in LA and NY, have signed. Whether or not they do play the program or even if they butcher the presentation (in your opinion) they still own the rights.

If you want that changed yell at the networks.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

justalurker said:


> Even if it requires lying. Yes, the "as long as I pay for it" crowd is here - and there are a few representatives of the "take it free if I physically can" crowd too.
> 
> Your local affiliate owns the rights to the programs on the network in your community. That isn't the fault of Congress or the satellite providers. It's the AGREEMENT that they, and all other affiliates including the ones in LA and NY, have signed. Whether or not they do play the program or even if they butcher the presentation (in your opinion) they still own the rights.
> 
> ...


Incorrect. The only thing preventing importation of distant signals is federal legislation. Otherwise, there would be no one getting distant feeds, which is obviously not the case. Neither the TV stations nor the networks own the public airwaves.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Many people in my hometown have Directv and distant networks from New York and LA. Everyone I have talked to says they don't care if locals ever come to the area they do not want to give up their distant networks--especially the west coast.

My grandma has them and said she doesn't give a hoot about the local stations and wouldn't want to give up her New York and LA channels. They have had distants for over 10 years first on C-Band then on Directv. They can get them with their outside antenna but they never flip over to the local ones.

More people on the Illinois side of the DMA would rather have Champaign/Springfield, IL stations than Terre Haute, IN because Champaign provides Illinois news. Terre Haute favors Indiana, delays primetime by 1 hour 7 months a year, and only gives you 3 lousy stations. Champaign is on cable and provides locals in addition to WB and UPN. Their local CBS station in Champaign includes our counties in its local weather now. 

Its like the Terre Haute DMA has become obsolete because people that live near and around Terre Haute would prefer Indianapolis local stations.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect. The only thing preventing importation of distant signals is federal legislation. Otherwise, there would be no one getting distant feeds, which is obviously not the case. Neither the TV stations nor the networks own the public airwaves.


The TV stations and networks DO OWN the CONTENT they are putting over the public airwaves - or at least own the rights to broadcast it. Stations/networks don't own the carrier and bandwidth (it is publicly owned and entrusted by license to the broadcast) but they do own the audio and video - and that is what the issue really comes down to.

You need to go back and read SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA - the laws that give us the "right" to have distants. They are PERMISSIVE laws. Laws that say "in certain situations the federal government trumps copyright law, carriage agreements, and whatever else is needed to serve a greater need". Without those permissive laws there would be no distants. The laws don't prevent distants from being offered ... they just don't intervene outside of the specific greater needs addressed, leaving it to a default - as chosen by the networks and their affiliates - of "NO".

If a network changed it's affiliation agreement to make all network programs non-market exclusive there would be no need for SHVA/SHVIA/SHVERA. The network would just place their own feed on satellite. But the networks are not going to do that.

SHVERA, the latest incarnation of the law, actually makes it EASIER for satellite providers to carry out of market signals. Pre-SHVERA one could live within the Grade B signal of a network affiliate and not be able to get that affiliate on satellite (or any other affiliate of that network) without a waiver. Soon people will be able to get that station. The situation is improving.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

justalurker said:


> The TV stations and networks DO OWN the CONTENT they are putting over the public airwaves - or at least own the rights to broadcast it. Stations/networks don't own the carrier and bandwidth (it is publicly owned and entrusted by license to the broadcast) but they do own the audio and video - and that is what the issue really comes down to.
> 
> You need to go back and read SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA - the laws that give us the "right" to have distants. They are PERMISSIVE laws. Laws that say "in certain situations the federal government trumps copyright law, carriage agreements, and whatever else is needed to serve a greater need". Without those permissive laws there would be no distants. The laws don't prevent distants from being offered ... they just don't intervene outside of the specific greater needs addressed, leaving it to a default - as chosen by the networks and their affiliates - of "NO".
> 
> ...


Incorrect again. The TV networks cannot give anyone the right to receive a distant TV station unless the network owns the local affiliate in that market.

The networks do own or control the content they are transmitting, but they do not own the public airwaves. That has always been controlled by federal law. When cable TV became available as a competitor to broadcast TV, for many years it was legal for cable TV systems to retransmit local TV stations without needing the stations' permission and there was no requirement that they pay any fees for carrying that programming. The federal "must-carry" law gave TV stations the right to either demand payment for retransmission of local signals or to demand that the signal be carried for free if a local carrier was unwilling to pay. The rationale behind the legislation was that there was a "substantial government interest" in protecting free broadcasting.

Whatever is spelled out in the contracts between the networks and affiliates, the bottom line on all of this is that the ability of consumers to receive distant TV stations is entirely within the control of Congress. If the public is not allowed to receive programming that is available over the public airwaves, there is no one else to blame.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

Link said:


> Many people in my hometown have Directv and distant networks from New York and LA. Everyone I have talked to says they don't care if locals ever come to the area they do not want to give up their distant networks--especially the west coast.
> 
> My grandma has them and said she doesn't give a hoot about the local stations and wouldn't want to give up her New York and LA channels. They have had distants for over 10 years first on C-Band then on Directv. They can get them with their outside antenna but they never flip over to the local ones.


Exactly my point. Many people (probably most people), if given the choice, would take only the NY and/or LA stations. That is why the broadcasters have fought so hard for this legislation. It is puzzling that so many people seem to believe that this new bill benefits them and not the broadcasters.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect again.


That's what I say about your posts. Fortunately I have the laws on my side. READ THEM. 

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

justalurker said:


> That's what I say about your posts. Fortunately I have the laws on my side. READ THEM.
> 
> JL


Incorrect again.


----------



## Bobby94928 (May 12, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect again.


Ya know, I'm watching this little match go back and forth. "Incorrect" is a word. Can you substantiate why it's incorrect?


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

justalurker said:


> Troll. Why don't you grow up or get lost.
> 
> JL


Resorting to name-calling is an admission that you are losing the debate.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

justalurker said:


> Posting the inaccurate information you have offered is PROOF that the debate was already lost.
> 
> JL


You have gone from name-calling and insults to merely being incorrect again. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bobby94928 said:


> Ya know, I'm watching this little match go back and forth. "Incorrect" is a word. Can you substantiate why it's incorrect?


I agree. If all Mr Coleman has to contribute after two years on this forum is repeated unsubstantiated claims of "incorrect" it isn't much of a discussion.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2005)

justalurker said:


> I agree. If all Mr Coleman has to contribute after two years on this forum is repeated unsubstantiated claims of "incorrect" it isn't much of a discussion.
> 
> JL


I stated the facts in my earlier posts. Your assertion that I am making unsubstantiated claims is incorrect.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I stated the facts in my earlier posts.


You stated lies in earlier posts. You still have not cleared up the claims you made.

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

justalurker said:


> You stated lies in earlier posts. You still have not cleared up the claims you made.
> 
> JL


Once again you are incorrect, but I will state the facts one more time.

As to your assertion that I should "yell at the networks" about the issue of distant stations, that is absurd. I have never read any of the contracts between TV networks and affiliates (I doubt that you have, either), but it really doesn't matter whether the networks could allow satellite operators to carry distant signals. Like anything else that involves use of the public airwaves, this is under the umbrella of federal laws and regulations. There is no question that Congress has the power to determine whether or not consumers are allowed to receive distant stations. Federal law would override any agreements between the networks and affiliates.

An example of this type of regulation is the 1996 telecom law, which empowered the FCC to enact regulations that overrode all existing homeowners' association covenants that were preventing many people who lived in covenant-controlled communities from subscribing to satellite TV. These covenants were perfectly legal at the time, but they were stunting the growth of satellite TV as a competitor to cable at a time when there was widespread anger over rising cable bills. The FCC regulations that were put in place as a result of that law made those covenants unenforceable. Based on your earlier suggestion that I should "yell at the networks" about the rules on distant stations, I suppose your solution to the problem of homeowners' association covenants would have been to "yell at your homeowners' association". That would have accomplished nothing and, without federal regulation, satellite TV could not have become the competitor it is today.

Another example is the "must-carry" legislation that was passed by Congress a few years ago. Until that time, cable operators had complete discretion as to whether or not they carried local TV stations. They could choose to carry some of the local stations, all of them, or none of them. The "must-carry" law required cable operators to carry every TV station in their markets. Without this legislation, the broadcast TV industry would probably be a dinosaur by now instead of an industry that has the money and political influence to buy legislation that sets the rules as to what choices consumers will have. Because of the limited bandwidth of cable systems at that time, many cable operators had no choice but to remove existing cable channels in order to make room for local broadcast channels, some of which were low-powered UHF stations which few people even cared about.

Until 1999, it was illegal for satellite operators to even carry local TV stations. Only people who lived outside of what was considered the broadcast range of the local stations could even get distant network feeds on satellite. That changed when the broadcasters went to court and forced the satellite operators to disconnect the distant feeds for viewers who didn't "qualify" to receive them. The passage of legislation to allow satellite operators to carry local stations was not the result of people "yelling at the networks" - it was the result of congressmen and senators being swamped with complaints from angry satellite subscribers whose distant networks were being cut off and who couldn't understand why they shouldn't be allowed to purchase those distant stations.

In passing legislation to enable satellite TV to carry local TV stations, Congress again bowed to the money and power of the broadcast industry and included rules that prohibited consumers who were in the DMA for local stations from receiving distant network feeds, in addition to applying the burdensome "must-carry" rules to satellite TV. As a concession to people who were already receiving distant network feeds (and to silence the outcry from angry constituents), the legislation allowed those who were already receiving distant feeds to be grandfathered for five years, or until the end of 2004.

While I have not read the new legislation, it is foolish to believe that a bill which is being praised by the broadcasters is anything but store-bought legislation. From what I have read so far, the new law will simply perpetuate the system we have now, in which consumers who already have distant networks will be able to keep them and those who do not have them will be denied that choice. As to your assertion that it "opens the door to digital distants", I really don't see how that is going to happen. If you do, then please feel free to enlighten me.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I have never read any of the contracts between TV networks and affiliates, but it really doesn't matter whether the networks could allow satellite operators to carry distant signals.


Your eyes are closed to the debate then, since you ignore the facts at hand.


rcoleman111 said:


> While I have not read the new legislation,


That makes you an expert on the law! Silly boy. You speak from a position of ignorance!

Write a few hundred more errant words. Now we know you're just repeating what you heard elsewhere, and getting it wrong as well!

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

justalurker said:


> Your eyes are closed to the debate then, since you ignore the facts at hand.That makes you an expert on the law! Silly boy. You speak from a position of ignorance!
> 
> Write a few hundred more errant words. Now we know you're just repeating what you heard elsewhere, and getting it wrong as well!
> 
> JL


Incorrect again. You asked for facts and you can only respond with insults.


----------



## chaddux (Oct 10, 2004)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect again. You asked for facts and you can only respond with insults.


Maybe your local NBC affiliate will clarify the law during the last five minutes of your favorite program. Oh wait, that's reserved for Levi's Call/Amber Alert. Nevermind!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Incorrect again. You asked for facts and you can only respond with insults.


You have no facts. Just the misinterpreted quoting of others.

Read the bill. Pull your head out of the sand. Learn something before claiming to have the facts.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Like anything else that involves use of the public airwaves, this is under the umbrella of federal laws and regulations. There is no question that Congress has the power to determine whether or not consumers are allowed to receive distant stations. Federal law would override any agreements between the networks and affiliates.


I'll get back to this; this may be the issue that justalurker has issues with. I certainly do.


> An example of this type of regulation is the 1996 telecom law, which empowered the FCC to enact regulations that overrode all existing homeowners' association covenants that were preventing many people who lived in covenant-controlled communities from subscribing to satellite TV.


Not quite the same argument. The government restricted the rights of any covenant that reduced freedom of choice for communications services. This law did not seize the property of the covenant; it removed the right of an association to prohibit communications choices.


> Another example is the "must-carry" legislation that was passed by Congress a few years ago.


Regarding cable "must-carry", the law was put in place to keep a cable company from being a gate-keeper. Sure, the law may have seized some bandwidth from cablers, but the law, when challenged to Supreme Court scrutiny, barely passed. It was determined that the importance of carrying all local channels was more in the public interest than leaving the choice of channel carriage to the cablers.


> The passage of legislation to allow satellite operators to carry local stations was not the result of people "yelling at the networks" - it was the result of congressmen and senators being swamped with complaints from angry satellite subscribers whose distant networks were being cut off and who couldn't understand why they shouldn't be allowed to purchase those distant stations.


That is because, unlike the cable must-carry law, local channels weren't authorized for satellite. The need to replace the SHVA (the law that allowed those that qualified networks from distant locations) resulted in the SHVIA, the law that allowed local-into-local channel delivery. It was also Charles Ergen's bailiwick; the CEO of Echostar felt the only real way to grow and compete with cable was to have the right to carry local channels. The problem with that line of thinking is that the satellite companies would also be saddled with many of the regulations that apply to the cablers.


> While I have not read the new legislation, it is foolish to believe that a bill which is being praised by the broadcasters is anything but store-bought legislation.


You do have a point here.


> From what I have read so far, the new law will simply perpetuate the system we have now, in which consumers who already have distant networks will be able to keep them and those who do not have them will be denied that choice.


The problem here is that there is currently a system where these ideas are in place: cable. Satellite delivery of local channels will soon mirror that of cable. And that is what the content providers (read networks) want.

Now, back to the original problem:


> Like anything else that involves use of the public airwaves, this is under the umbrella of federal laws and regulations. There is no question that Congress has the power to determine whether or not consumers are allowed to receive distant stations. Federal law would override any agreements between the networks and affiliates.


The problem is that unlike must-carry, the contracts between affiliates and networks have value. They are property.

The Constitution protects property from being seized without due compensation. A law that allows one to pick any of 210 network affiliates, or any of 1600 local channels, would effectively seize the property of any given television station without compensation. This would be counter to the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment. This would be the same argument used by Time-Warner to nullify the "must-carry" law for cable; this is the same right used by Echostar to stop implementation of "must-carry" on satellite. Both objections failed.

And it is the main reason that the business model used by television since the 1950's is still in play today.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> I'll get back to this; this may be the issue that justalurker has issues with. I certainly do.


It is the same issue that you and I went a few rounds on a while back ... Now we understand each other it is good to pass it on! 

If the networks wanted to they COULD broadcast a national feed with all of their programs on it. The only restriction they have on providing that service is their own agreements with their own affiliates. They have agreed with their affiliates NOT to offer such service.

If a TV station wanted to they COULD broadcast as a national feed, as long as they did not violate any market exclusive agreements made with their program providers.

The proof in this is the legally offered feeds on SkyAngel ... many of them being broadcast TV stations. It should be OBVIOUS that SkyAngel is not breaking the law in this respect. One could also point to the "Superstations" on E*, but most are offered under specific clauses in the law because they were superstations in 1991 and 1998. SkyAngel does not broadcast classic superstations, but more modern ones. (Technically every non-network station rebroadcast by satellite is a superstation, but that gets too confusing.)

Our young padiwan seems to want congress to force the market to do his bidding. I do not know from where he earns HIS income, but if I were in business I would not want congress taking away my profits and property.

Imagine this: Mr Coleman runs a burger stand. Ho would Mr Coleman like it if the government came by and confiscated all of his burgers? Would he like it even less if the government's compensation for those siezed burgers was paid to another burger vendor in another state? Even though Mr Coleman and the out of state vendor have signed an agreement not to compete with each other? Would Mr Coleman enjoy this kind of infringement?

JL


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2005)

You could just as easily make the argument that the 1996 regulations that overrode homeowners' association covenants constituted "takings" where the rights of other homeowners were concerned. There is no legal precedent to support the theory that allowing importation of distant signals would be considered a "taking" under the constitution. Also keep in mind also that until Congress passed the "must-carry" law, it was perfectly legal for cable systems to retransmit local signals without any compensation to the owners of the content. The theory that importation of distant signals would constitute "taking" under the Constitution is just that - a theory. 

As to the comment about market forces, that didn't come into play when Congress forced cable system to carry local TV channels. It was a federal mandate that overrode market forces by requiring cable systems to carry all local channels in their markets. Cable operators challenged the rules on constitutional grounds (in this case the first amendment), but the courts ruled there was a "substantial public interest" in upholding the statute. There is no reason to believe they would do otherwise in the case of distant signals. The broadcasters are using the public airwaves to run their business and they are subject to federal regulation. 

In addition to the above, you still haven't explained how the new law "opens the door to digital distants" as you indicated in your earlier post. I have asked this question several times now and you still haven't answered it. You are trying to make the case that Congress couldn't allow consumers to get distant stations even if they wanted to, yet you are suggesting that they would do exactly that in the case of "digital" signals.

As to the rest of your message, you are back to hurling insults and making personal attacks instead of arguing your case. The immaturity of your "young padiwan" comment (not to mention all the insults and name-calling in your previous posts), in conjunction with the fact that you seemed to have no prior knowledge of the '96 telecom law, "must-carry", or any of the other laws that have been passed over the years, and that you couldn't address any of these issues on your own would seem to indicate that you are the one who is younger than you are letting on.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Evidently Mr Coleman is a write only device that refuses to read.


rcoleman111 said:


> In addition to the above, you still haven't explained how the new law "opens the door to digital distants" as you indicated in your earlier post. I have asked this question several times now and you still haven't answered it.


We've been waiting for you to support your arguments. Still waiting. Probably will still be waiting next week (assuming we continue to care about any potential contributions you might have).

Under the old law digital signals were left in the same quagmire that analogs were once in. Undefined by SHVA and SHVIA, they could only be carried based on direct negotiations between the parties involved. But now we have a law that, for the good of society, trumps the copyright and territorial restrictions that the networks and affiliates have placed on their signals - opening the door for digital distants.

What you suggest might be good for you, but would it be for the good of society? Think outside the box. Not just what YOU want to keep YOU happy but what is best for all parties involved - including those with market exclusive contracts. Be selfless not selfish!

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Even I know that history is only a barometer of things to come...

However, what has been failed to be mentioned is that network (not distant, not local, just network) service is one of the prime reasons for the growth of the multi-channel world.

One of the most compelling arguments for networks having the ability to control the distribution of their content:


> During consideration of the 1992 Cable Act, Broadcasting (later Broadcasting & Cable) --a major industry newspaper--noted a survey conducted by the Roper Organization which supported the broadcasters claim that the "cable operators [were] making money on the backs of the network's [sic]." In this survey, two-*thirds of all cable subscribers said that they would cancel their subscriptions if the three major networks were not carried. Eighty*-four percent said that their subscription rates should at least be cut in half.


There is no reason to believe that the networks should have had the ability to charge for carriage/retransmission. Just because, dating back to Fortnightly, copyright law didn't apply to cable retransmission of network TV, doesn't mean things won't change. Usually, things get changed for worse, as the industry gets larger.

Sure, it may be theory that allowing distant networks would cause the broadcasting industry to go to court to nullify a law that would fundamentally destroy their revenue process. However, if the government ever passes a law that fundamentally diminishes the value of your business, I'd bet that you'd be filing a lawsuit to get the law declared unconstitutional.

Since the license to transmit programming is given by the FCC to cover only a specific area, and the coverage of these local channels is also codified to limit cable to retransmit over a specific area, why should satellite be able to transmit unconditionally over a national area? Just because it is satellite?

The SHVERA will now allow DBS to mimic the rules placed upon cable regarding local channel delivery. Tell us why DBS companies should deserve more.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Because they are a national service with technology limitations which preclude them from easily offering what local cable monopolies do.

If local markets had to be taken away to satisfy the law, do you think that the "law" wouldn't be modified? 

Laws are normally developed to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while also balancing these rules to insure that certain individual rights are maintained. When these individual rights are not in sync with the "state", they are usually bypassed for the greater good (laws like Eminent Domain come to mind). Even if it does mean that property values are diminished. This tug of war between the "state" and the individual will continue forever. In some cases the state will do better, in others the individual will do better. The NAB has won many rounds against the satellite companies in protecting their kingdoms through legal means, but has also lost a few, most notably to XM/Sirius who were able to easily shoot down their attacks on their traffic and weather offerings as well as their ability to ignore FCC guidelines as far as "indecent" content goes.


----------



## AzDave (Jan 17, 2005)

If you are a satellite customer and like Distant Networks. go to the link provided.

If you area satellite customer and like local channels also go to the link provided

If you are a satellite customer and like you local channels but think we should also be provided as many distant nets as possible. Go to the link provided!

If you are a satellite customer who wants freedom of choice. go to the link provided.

If you area a cable subscriber that want freedom of choice follow the link provided.

find out the real truth and then do something about it!!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg...g&mailid=custom


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2005)

That link doesn't work, but at least someone agrees that freedom of choice is a good idea.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> That link doesn't work, but at least someone agrees that freedom of choice is a good idea.


Except when it comes to corporate America ... they don't get a free choice.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

No one is saying that freedom of choice is a bad thing. However, in a capitalist society, shouldn't the networks, which are so near and dear to many people, be allowed to distribute their programming as they see fit? Shouldn't the networks have the same freedom of choice?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

No, the rights of the consumer should also be taken into account. Because they are using OUR public airwaves to transmit their programming to us. It needs to be a better balance.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Sure, but aren't both DirecTV and Dish Network using OUR public airwaves to transmit their programming to us? And aren't cable companies receiving more than 90 percent of the programming they rebroadcast from either terrestrial or satellite transmission via the same airwaves that are licensed by the FCC?

Would you like the government to step in and control the media?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

No, but I do want to make sure that the government steps in and makes sure that a handful of media companies don't control it either (witness the NAB trying to get a law passed prohibiting XM and Sirius from offering Traffic and Weather for local cities..... complaining that "local" broadcasters were unable to compete.... um.... my localradio stations had a LOT more local content until "big media" came in and gobbled them all up and made them all sound identical.)


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The NAB is not "a handful of companies". They are most of the companies that are in the broadcasting media, save the TV networks themselves. However, you are still correct.

I don't want the government to dictate content. Pay radio, other than not being able to use local repeaters for locally delivered content, should not be held to the same standards as free broadcast radio, simply because the consumer pays for it.

That is a far different cry than having a law passed that allows for in-market rebroadcast of terrestrial television broadcasts. With one of the quotes I provided above, people *expect* their multi-channel carrier to rebroadcast their local television, and would demand to pay less if the local channels were removed from the lineup. With passage of the SHVIA in 1999, DBS has blown up from 11 million subscribers upon passage of the SHVIA to over 23 million subscribers at the end of 2004. Did the DBS companies addition of the networks double the subscriber base after 5 years? Was the addition of local channels the main reason DBS has become a viable competitor to cable?

Terrestrial broadcasters are happy to keep rebroadcasts of their signal limited, simply because everything in their world is still based upon the 1950's technology that many on this thread have complained about. What makes this even worse is that we are on the cusp of the next technological advance in television in the form of Digital TV, and we are still using 1950's terrestrial broadcasting in order to move the transition forward. It is called localism; even today, using the 1950's era transmission, it still carries the most popular programming in the nation.

If local channels, including the network programming, is that important to both cablers and DBS companies, shouldn't the networks and local broadcasters have input as to how their programming is distributed?

Local channels and networks have been fighting this battle since Fortnightly in the 1960's. For the past almost 50 years, carriage issues (as well as deregulation) have been tilting towards the local broadcasters. It won't change by a push from consumers. If you wish to believe it will, go take a look at the SHVERA again; the broadcasters have shown their power as an industry by getting Congress to tighten rules they believe are counter to their best interest for both distant analog networks as well as distant digital networks.


----------



## olgeezer (Dec 5, 2003)

One thing the local broadcasters are happy about, and it may provide some of the impetus for their change in relationship with the cable services, is satellites willingness to pay for the broadcasters signal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> No one is saying that freedom of choice is a bad thing. However, in a capitalist society, shouldn't the networks, which are so near and dear to many people, be allowed to distribute their programming as they see fit? Shouldn't the networks have the same freedom of choice?


The networks ARE distributing their programming as THEY see fit! They are signing market exclusive contracts with affiliates across America. No act of congress requires their contracts to be market exclusive. That was THEIR free choice.



Greg Bimson said:


> Would you like the government to step in and control the media?


They already do. The first amendment still applies, but the government is there allowing some to broadcast while denying others. Nobody broadcasts in the US without the permission of the government unless they are broadcasting illegally. (Fortunately the government has granted plenty of permission, within certain rules.)

I do not believe stations should be paid for secondary transmission by satellite of their signals within their own assigned coverage areas. Specifically because it is illegal for satellite companies to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal (if special means are required). Level the playing field.

JL


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> The networks ARE distributing their programming as THEY see fit! They are signing market exclusive contracts with affiliates across America. No act of congress requires their contracts to be market exclusive. That was THEIR free choice.


Yep. As well is should be. The business relationship has evolved for fifty-plus years.


> > *Originally Posted by Greg Bimson*
> > _Would you like the government to step in and control the media?_
> 
> 
> ...


No, this isn't "control", as in controlling the distribution and the content. The government does control the entities which get licensed, in the form of regulation, but that is about all.


> I do not believe stations should be paid for secondary transmission by satellite of their signals within their own assigned coverage areas. Specifically because it is illegal for satellite companies to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal (if special means are required). Level the playing field.


Please explain. My point is that if the local stations are now responsible for helping to double the amount of DBS subscribers, then the local channels should be compensated for helping to draw subscribers to DBS. I am not sure what "to charge for more than the reception of the broadcaster's signal" means.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stations are prohibited by law from paying a satellite carrier for carriage.
The exception is that stations can pay to get a clean signal to the uplink, if needed.

JL


----------

