# Congress may delay distant net reauth for another 15 days



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The old extension to SHVERA is set to expire Feb. 28, aka this Sunday. Without some kind of authorization, Dish and DirecTV won't be able to carry any *distant* broadcast channels to their subscribers.

According to Broadcasting & Cable, the new version of the bill is called STELA (the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act), and I guess they're having trouble making time to talk about it. Either that, or lawmakers are doing Brando imitations and giggling too hard to concentrate.

John Eggerton, who seems to be the only person keeping track, says that yesterday (Feb. 22) Congress was going to try to give itself a 15-day extension by unanimous consent, but did they? Even he doesn't know.

Go read it all: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450337-Fifteen_Day_Extension_Floated_For_Satellite_Bill.php


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

FTA Michael said:


> The old extension to SHVERA is set to expire Feb. 28, aka this Sunday. Without some kind of authorization, Dish and DirecTV won't be able to carry any local broadcast channels to their subscribers.
> 
> Go read it all: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450337-Fifteen_Day_Extension_Floated_For_Satellite_Bill.php


That's a distortion... it does NOT affect subscribers who receive their LIL's only those who receive DNS Network feeds would lose their signals. That's bad enough but the majority of clients would be unaffected.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

John Eggerton, the hardest working man in Washington, says that the Senate is now looking at a 30-day extension.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...des_30_Day_Reprieve_For_Satellite_License.php


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Thanks for keeping us up to date on legislative issues. Even though I've been back on cable for a while, I still have my dish(es) proudly and firmly mounted on a pole out in the south forty, but I'm still very interested in what's going on with sat.

Speaking of cable, my local Comcast just upped its HD channel count to 72, but still no *MSNBC HD*. I guess *QVC HD* and *E! HD* are considered more important than (not then) a channel that carries actual important programming such as "Way To Early" with Willie Giest.

I'm just sayin' :whatdidid


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Something is wrong with the arithmetic (30 days after Feb 28 is not March 28) but there are recent reports of a longer than 15 day delay

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...des_30_Day_Reprieve_For_Satellite_License.php


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I been all over this stuff. I called my Senator's office the last few days and the guy I usually talk to was out. I plan to call tomorrow. Anything I find out I WILL be posting here. I been waiting and waiting to see what direction they were going to go with for LIL and for DNS feeds. Quit delaying it and decide already. Its getting out of hand with the delays.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The Senate did not pass the reauthorization. According to John Eggerton, Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) wouldn't go along with unanimous consent for the package including the STELA postponement because of other stuff in the package.

What will happen Monday, March 1? I don't know, but at least I have a link to the story (mobile version): http://mobile.multichannel.com/article/451053-Senate_Fails_To_Pass_Satellite_Extension_Extension.php

PS, Sorry for my earlier LiL confusion. SHVIA and SHVERA sound so much alike!  This is about _distant_ networks, not local.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

It drives me around the bend that 1 Senator can prevent the other 99 from voting. These aren't "rules of order" rather it is anarchy.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Im gonna be ticked if I lose my DNS feeds over this crap. It wass supposed to be sorted out by the end of last year. Quit putting it off and deal with it already. This is stupid.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

joshjr said:


> Im gonna be ticked if I lose my DNS feeds over this crap. It wass supposed to be sorted out by the end of last year. Quit putting it off and deal with it already. This is stupid.


Your tax dollars at work. 

The folks on the committee to get this done should be ashamed.


----------



## uprevx (Jul 20, 2006)

This has got to be the stupidest rule ever, if I want to pay for the feeds from wherever, why shouldn't I be able to?

I can subscribe to newspapers anywhere in the world and they will send them to me. I can log on to the internet and check the news anywhere in the world also.

It is no different than saying for instance, you can not buy any products outside your home area, that would be the end of the majority of online ordering wouldn't it? That would never fly.

Here is another example, there are several local channels that my local cable provider can give me, but directv can not because the channels are classified as being in a different market, WTF?

Just another instance of big brother telling you what you can and can not do.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Well here is the part that burns my bacon.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/84015-dish-directv-licenses-set-to-expire-due-to-hold-ups-on-the-hill



> The companies' licenses to deliver distant network affiliate TV signals to viewers will expire at midnight on Sunday. A measure to extend the licenses was part of a proposal to extend unemployment benefits and other expiring tax provisions.


Ok, so what does unemployment have to do with satellite TV and why was that part of the bill?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

uprevx said:


> This has got to be the stupidest rule ever, if I want to pay for the feeds from wherever, why shouldn't I be able to?
> 
> I can subscribe to newspapers anywhere in the world and they will send them to me. I can log on to the internet and check the news anywhere in the world also.


Let me put this the simplest way.

If you want to get the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune delivered to you, you contact each company and they can mail those newspapers to you.

If you do not want to wait a couple of days for a newspaper, you could go to a newstand which may have the papers available. You could even go to each newspapers' website and get the news, provided you agree with their terms and conditions.

If you even want to watch local newscasts on channels generally unavailable to you, you can view them over the internet.

However, are you paying each station to deliver feeds to you? Including feeds of programming that are copyright-restricted, such as network programming?

That is where the disconnect in this whole argument.


uprevx said:


> Just another instance of big brother telling you what you can and can not do.


Well, in this case, if the government decides to let the market run its course and as "big brother" does nothing, distant network feeds should no longer be available. How is it "big brother" when the government doesn't meddle?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Draconis said:


> Ok, so what does unemployment have to do with satellite TV and why was that part of the bill?


Back in both 1999 (SHVIA) and 2004 (SHVERA), these bills were tied to the big budget bills (omnibus appropriations) and passed. Why should this be any different?


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Anyone know if this will affect RV users getting the DNS? My dad gets them in his RV.

Thanks


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Technically, it is supposed to affect everyone. However, it appears that many legislators have signed a letter addressed to DirecTV and Dish Network asking for the status quo to be maintained until they can pass a bill and get it signed into law.

All it would take is for one station group to sue for copyright violations...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Anyone know if this will affect RV users getting the DNS? My dad gets them in his RV.


Without congressional action, DNS would cease to exist altogether and RV users would be forced to rely on OTA or changing to a conventional residential account with appropriate address changes.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

uprevx said:


> Just another instance of big brother telling you what you can and can not do.


Just another instance of something very much like a regulated monopoly. Regulated monopolies are often necessary to the survival of a service in a particular market.

Other examples of regulated monopolies are wireline phone services, electricity, gas, water, cable television and garbage services.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Without congressional action, DNS would cease to exist altogether and RV users would be forced to rely on OTA or changing to a conventional residential account with appropriate address changes.


Perhaps they should attach the legislation to the one that includes their pay raises....it'll get done overnight.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps they should attach the legislation to the one that includes their pay raises....it'll get done overnight.


I doubt it, they gives themselves raises anytime they please as it is.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Contact Senator Bunning of Kentucky. He is holding up the bill which also includes a one month extension of unemployment benefits. He is holding up the bills because he wants to Senate to eliminate the millionaire Estate Tax. And by the way, he is not up for re-election. Classic obstructionism by our so called representative in Washington.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Back in both 1999 (SHVIA) and 2004 (SHVERA), these bills were tied to the big budget bills (omnibus appropriations) and passed. Why should this be any different?


It isn't different, but still not a good way of doing things.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> Let me put this the simplest way.
> 
> If you want to get the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune delivered to you, you contact each company and they can mail those newspapers to you.
> 
> ...


The *newspapers* are glad to have you purchase their paper (regardless of how you do it).

The *stations used for DNS* have no issue with you watching their station.

The *networks* are happy that you're watching their program, regardless of where you watch it, but they don't want to tick off the affiliates either.

*DirecTV* and *the company Dish Network* uses have no issue providing you with DNS. I personally have every DNS feed except for NBC and FOX, and I'm paying $12 a month for it. If I had NBC and FOX, I'd be paying $19 a month for all of them.

Can you guess the one group I've left out of the above argument?! 

~Alan


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

The one that has the legal standing to provide the programming you want to watch!


Alan Gordon said:


> The stations used for DNS have no issue with you watching their station.


That also depends. They'd prefer that their stations aren't used to usurp the affiliate system, as I'm sure WCBS doesn't care if their station is used for DNS, but they care if another station is imported into their territory.

Besides, the stations have no say whether or not they are used for DNS.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Greg Bimson said:


> That also depends. They'd prefer that their stations aren't used to usurp the affiliate system, as I'm sure WCBS doesn't care if their station is used for DNS, but they care if another station is imported into their territory.


Absolutely! That doesn't make my statement any less true...

~Alan


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Back in both 1999 (SHVIA) and 2004 (SHVERA), these bills were tied to the big budget bills (omnibus appropriations) and passed. Why should this be any different?


Guess that makes sense.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

uprevx said:


> This has got to be the stupidest rule ever, if I want to pay for the feeds from wherever, why shouldn't I be able to?
> 
> I can subscribe to newspapers anywhere in the world and they will send them to me. I can log on to the internet and check the news anywhere in the world also.
> 
> ...


Not exactly.

It's the powerful, big money NAB lobby telling Congress and the FCC what to do. Under current law & FCC rules, broadcasters _own_ the eyes of the viewers in their DMA.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Why is this continually an issue? Why don't they just just give the satellite companies the right to provide local channels and any missing affiliates in those markets will be provided in the locals package. For example, if your market has no local ABC station, then one will be provided in the package for you much like CW is added to the packages now with Dish in areas that don't have a CW affiliate.

I think both services should be required to carry locals in all markets, then distants wouldn't be an issue, just provide the missing affiliates so each market for their $3 or $5 a month gets an ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, and CW station.


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

davring said:


> I doubt it, they gives themselves raises anytime they please as it is.


Nope, not since the 27th Amendment was (finally!) ratified. They can only give the _next_ Congress a pay raise. ('Course, given re-election rates prior to 2010, that's not been too far from giving themselves a boost, but still...)


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

phrelin said:


> It drives me around the bend that 1 Senator can prevent the other 99 from voting. These aren't "rules of order" rather it is anarchy.


He didn't prevent them from voting. It was a "unanimous consent request" to AVOID voting. Why is it unconscionable that one person can stop something that REQUIRES everyone to agree?


----------



## gully_foyle (Jan 18, 2007)

Draconis said:


> Ok, so what does unemployment have to do with satellite TV and why was that part of the bill?


Nothing, except this is the grab-bag list of stuff that they want to ignore for another month, and one senator is P.O.'d about something else the majority wants to ignore again.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

That stupid Senator from Kentucky is the same idiot who help up the vote on the jobless claims and cobra extensions


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Link said:


> Why is this continually an issue? Why don't they just just give the satellite companies the right to provide local channels and any missing affiliates in those markets will be provided in the locals package. For example, if your market has no local ABC station, then one will be provided in the package for you much like CW is added to the packages now with Dish in areas that don't have a CW affiliate.
> 
> I think both services should be required to carry locals in all markets, then distants wouldn't be an issue, just provide the missing affiliates so each market for their $3 or $5 a month gets an ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, and CW station.


Because it makes sense that's why. I'll be down to one network if the DNS' get shut down.

However... I had a station manager tell me that DTV could give you any channels they want if you are in a DMA that doesn't have all the networks and they choose to give you the East side or the West side instead of letting you have the ones in a neighboring DMA. Made sense to me as they would be distant if you can't receive them.


----------



## Wetboss (Aug 19, 2007)

Nick said:


> Thanks for keeping us up to date on legislative issues. Even though I've been back on cable for a while, I still have my dish(es) proudly and firmly mounted on a pole out in the south forty, but I'm still very interested in what's going on with sat.
> 
> Speaking of cable, my local Comcast just upped its HD channel count to 72, but still no *MSNBC HD*. I guess *QVC HD* and *E! HD* are considered more important than (not then) a channel that carries actual important programming such as "Way To Early" with Willie Giest.
> 
> I'm just sayin' :whatdidid


MSNBC has almost no viewership, it would be. a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## wilsonc (Aug 22, 2006)

compnurd said:


> That stupid Senator from Kentucky is the same idiot who help up the vote on the jobless claims and cobra extensions


Lets keep politics out of this. He held it up because the Senate wasn't paying for it. He said he would allow it to pass, if they could find some way to pay for it instead of adding to the national debt.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

John Eggerton's Friday night sign-off: The Senate adjourned without passing the bill, and unless they go back in session by Sunday night, the license to deliver distant networks expires midnight Monday.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...djourns_With_Satellite_License_Un_Renewed.php


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

There is zero chance that the Senate is going to go into session tomorrow - but - DirecTV hasn't said a word so I would think they have something worked out.

A week ago, there was a banner up on channel 395, I think. The message was talking about locals in, of all places, Kentucky but that disappeared. One would think that if the distant locals were going off in 24-28 hours, there would be a crawl or banner or something.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

FTA Michael said:


> The Senate did not pass the reauthorization. According to John Eggerton, Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) wouldn't go along with unanimous consent for the package including the STELA postponement because of other stuff in the package.
> 
> What will happen Monday, March 1? I don't know, but at least I have a link to the story (mobile version): http://mobile.multichannel.com/article/451053-Senate_Fails_To_Pass_Satellite_Extension_Extension.php
> 
> PS, Sorry for my earlier LiL confusion. SHVIA and SHVERA sound so much alike!  This is about _distant_ networks, not local.


Jim Bunning is a moron. He is also single handedly holding up passage of the extension to the Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits (EUC tiers) including Cobra which expires today. As of tomorrow it is estimated 150,000 unemployed will be without benefits and over 1,000,000 by the end of the month. He is filibustering a (for once) bi-partisan 30-day extension that EVEN THE REPUBLICANS want him to lay off (no pun intended) of.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

wilsonc said:


> Lets keep politics out of this. He held it up because the Senate wasn't paying for it. He said he would allow it to pass, if they could find some way to pay for it instead of adding to the national debt.


That's not politics, it's a fact of what he has done. 150,000 people will be without benefits tomorrow (and even some without local TV stations which is even more important  ) because of his principle.

This has nothing to do with politics, just a stupid stupid man who sits in his million dollar home while people lose theirs.


----------



## lotboy16 (Apr 26, 2009)

Honestly if congress doesnt pass it then sure that is a issue with our elected officials that we all need address this fall. But Directv and Dish both continue to ignore the effect this will have on their viewers. No craw, no emails, no nothing from either of them. It could very well have a larger backlash of D* because of the mounting loss of channels ei. Versus. :nono2:


----------



## Martinrrrr (Apr 5, 2007)

Just to clarify, Bunning just wanted to use leftover "stimulus" money to pay for the benefits. He's not against extending the benefits, it's just the way it's paid for.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6247981.shtml
_Bunning says he wants to renew the programs, which costs 10.3 billion, but only once they are adequately paid for. (He advocates using stimulus funds.) Democrats are expected to vote to override his block early next week._


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Nick said:


> Speaking of cable, my local Comcast just upped its HD channel count to 72, but still no *MSNBC HD*. I guess *QVC HD* and *E! HD* are considered more important than (not then) a channel that carries actual important programming such as "Way To Early" with Willie Giest.
> 
> I'm just sayin' :whatdidid


MSNBC-Owned by NBC Universal.
E! Entertainment-Owned by Comcra... er, Comcast.
QVC-Owned but Liberty Media, but Comcra... er, Comcast gets a percentage of every purchase its subscribers make.

Hope this helps...


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Something is wrong with the arithmetic (30 days after Feb 28 is not March 28)


30 days hath September,
April, June and November,
All the rest have 31,
Excepting February alone.
Which only has but 28 days clear
And 29 in each leap year


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

uprevx said:


> This has got to be the stupidest rule ever, if I want to pay for the feeds from wherever, why shouldn't I be able to?


<SIGH>

OK, let's say you decide to go into business. You choose a product that gives you an exclusive territory. No one else can sell your product in that market. You put lots and lots of money into your business. You buy (or lease) specialized equipment to operate your business. You hire a staff of experts to operate that equipment, market your product to your exclusive market and add value to the product you sell.

Now imagine that someone wants to come into your exclusive territory with absolutely no investment of time, money or resources and sell the exact same product to the same consumers you have the exclusive right to serve. Not only that, it isn't even their product to sell-they are taking the output of another person like you, in a different exclusive territory, that is designed and marketed to that territory and just wants to dump that product in your market for anyone to obtain. Oh, and that other franchisee (for want of a better term) has way more resources than you and can put out a flashier, more inviting product.

How would you feel?

You'd want to enforce your exclusive right to sell your product in your territory, right? You would not want to see all your time, money, effort and resources turn into nothing, wouldn't you? You wouldn't want to have to fire all your employees, sell all your now unneeded equipment at fire sale prices and close up shop-or worse, declare bankruptcy, right?

That's the way TV is. Its roughly 210 different stations (per network) each selling the exact same base product (the network shows) with value added features (local news, sports and entertainment as well as syndicated shows) that are tailored to the local market. While TV stations are charged with serving the public good, they are primarily for profit businesses. As my Intro to American Broadcasting professor said on day 1, "The sole reason for American commercial television is to deliver the maximum number of viewers to a certain point in time so that an advertiser can present their message."



uprevx said:


> I can subscribe to newspapers anywhere in the world and they will send them to me. I can log on to the internet and check the news anywhere in the world also.


But those newspapers are not delivering the exact same base product. They all retain the right to pick and choose what news goes where in the paper, how long the stories run and what is left in or taken out of the stories.



uprevx said:


> It is no different than saying for instance, you can not buy any products outside your home area, that would be the end of the majority of online ordering wouldn't it? That would never fly.


If you have an exclusive contract for a territory, then unless that contract is declared null and void in court, it certainly would fly, and does all the time.



uprevx said:


> Here is another example, there are several local channels that my local cable provider can give me, but directv can not because the channels are classified as being in a different market, WTF?


That has long been a sore spot with DBS providers-the unequal treatment by the FCC and Congress over neighboring locals/significantly viewed channels. Cable has been around longer, has more support in the Capitol (such as the Senator from Comcra... er, Comcaat, Arlen Specter) and has more money to throw around.



uprevx said:


> Just another instance of big brother telling you what you can and can not do.


In this one instance, we are in agreement.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Martinrrrr said:


> Just to clarify, Bunning just wanted to use leftover "stimulus" money to pay for the benefits. He's not against extending the benefits, it's just the way it's paid for.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6247981.shtml
> _Bunning says he wants to renew the programs, which costs 10.3 billion, but only once they are adequately paid for. (He advocates using stimulus funds.) Democrats are expected to vote to override his block early next week._


I am very aware of that, meanwhile 150,000 people will not get benefits (and local TV - gee what's more important) today because he is the ONLY ONE in Congress holding it up. It's only a 1 month extension. Give the one month and argue about the rest of the year later. He's creating terrible uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of people as well as the states who have to constantly change their payment rules.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

lotboy16 said:


> Honestly if congress doesnt pass it then sure that is a issue with our elected officials that we all need address this fall. But Directv and Dish both continue to ignore the effect this will have on their viewers. No craw, no emails, no nothing from either of them. It could very well have a larger backlash of D* because of the mounting loss of channels ei. Versus. :nono2:


I called the VP of Customer Services Office Friday and was told that they recieved a fax asking them to keep the DNS feeds on as they expect to reach an agreement very soon. She indicated that is what they planned to do. I will call back today and see if the story has changed.


----------



## lotboy16 (Apr 26, 2009)

joshjr said:


> I called the VP of Customer Services Office Friday and was told that they recieved a fax asking them to keep the DNS feeds on as they expect to reach an agreement very soon. She indicated that is what they planned to do. I will call back today and see if the story has changed.


Deffinatly all the info that can be gained would be a great help to all of us in understanding this mess. If u get any updates please let us know


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

lotboy16 said:


> Deffinatly all the info that can be gained would be a great help to all of us in understanding this mess. If u get any updates please let us know


I just called back again. After a good 5 minute wait with this same office not a normal CSR I was told that the DNS feeds would not be shut off. I was told that Congress should be coming to an agreement on this very soon. Fine with me. Im pretty sure someone in this thread posted a link that said something to this affect to. D* and E* were asked to keep airing them. My guess is that they will rule on it in osme capacity by the end of next week. I plan to call my Senator's office back on Monday to see what I can find out from them.


----------



## lotboy16 (Apr 26, 2009)

joshjr said:


> I just called back again. After a good 5 minute wait with this same office not a normal CSR I was told that the DNS feeds would not be shut off. I was told that Congress should be coming to an agreement on this very soon. Fine with me. Im pretty sure someone in this thread posted a link that said something to this affect to. D* and E* were asked to keep airing them. My guess is that they will rule on it in osme capacity by the end of next week. I plan to call my Senator's office back on Monday to see what I can find out from them.


Good to hear thats for sure. I guess we will find out for sure tomorrow if DNS is staying on the air or not. Wouldnt want to be a directv or dish CCR if they shut them off tho :eek2:


----------



## neOHIOdishNETWORKdealer-1 (Apr 27, 2008)

I believe that on the Dish Network side of the fence, the customers affected will be All American Direct customers as Dish Network no longer is in the Distant Locals business.


----------



## Martinrrrr (Apr 5, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> I am very aware of that, meanwhile 150,000 people will not get benefits (and local TV - gee what's more important) today because he is the ONLY ONE in Congress holding it up. It's only a 1 month extension. Give the one month and argue about the rest of the year later. He's creating terrible uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of people as well as the states who have to constantly change their payment rules.


Or the rest of congress is irresponsibly trying to allocate additional money that they don't have, when in fact, there is ready money left over from the "stimulus" that can be used immediately. But, hey lets do whatever, just so you can keep watching TV.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Martinrrrr said:


> Or the rest of congress is irresponsibly trying to allocate additional money that they don't have, when in fact, there is ready money left over from the "stimulus" that can be used immediately. But, hey lets do whatever, just so you can keep watching TV.


 No, so "I" can pay my rent. Can't watch TV if I have no place to watch it.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

After midnight, everything's still on, nothing has changed,


----------



## ElectricPickle (Aug 18, 2006)

Newshawk said:


> <SIGH>
> 
> OK, let's say you decide to go into business.....
> Now imagine that someone wants to come into your exclusive territory...Oh, and that other franchisee (for want of a better term) has way more resources than you and can put out a flashier, more inviting product.
> ...


I appreciate the explanation and I do understand why these regulations are in place, but I see it as classic "Too big to fail" thinking. The OTA broadcasters are dinosaurs that are being propped up by the Federal Government. Technology has almost made them irrelevant. Local news and weather are the only things going for them and there are less and less eyes watching it - which means less revenue from local advertizing. It's kind of like the automobile put the horse and buggy dealers out of business. Cellular phones are taking out land line phone subscriptions and the Internet has taken away a big chunk of the US Post Office's business (although they really are too big to fail  )


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I still have my DNS east coast channels tonight!


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

FYI, NPS said they have no plans to shut off distants as they report the same thing as posted above, legislation will eventually be passed. How they are still being provided I do not know, just glad they are.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

According to John Eggerton's most recent dispatch, the reason everyone is still providing distant signals is that they've been assured by Congressional staff that the eventual bill (or another extension?) will include language to "retroactively make the interim delivery legal."  Meanwhile, the bill or something is apparently back in the pipeline.

You know you want to read it all: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/449437-Satellite_Bill_Returns_As_Part_Of_Jobs_Package.php


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

FTA Michael said:


> According to John Eggerton's most recent dispatch, the reason everyone is still providing distant signals is that they've been assured by Congressional staff that the eventual bill (or another extension?) will include language to "retroactively make the interim delivery legal."  Meanwhile, the bill or something is apparently back in the pipeline.
> 
> You know you want to read it all: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/449437-Satellite_Bill_Returns_As_Part_Of_Jobs_Package.php


Thanks!


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I spoke with my Senator's office today and they believe that this will be cleared up by the end of this week.


----------



## huron77 (Jun 8, 2008)

I can only get Fox distant. All others denied me.

With no agreement in place, can I slide in and get these
networks now?

Just wonderin'...


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

*I DOUBT IT* LOL


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Shhhhh.....use your INSIDE voice.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

huron77 said:


> I can only get Fox distant. All others denied me.
> 
> With no agreement in place, can I slide in and get these
> networks now?
> ...


They have 30 days to respond. I doubt they will respond before that 30 days and my guess is this will be finalized within that time. The real loop hole was between feb and the transition date. Some affiliates went digital early meaning there is no way you could get an analog signal and they could not deny your waiver. Well the transition has passed and all local stations are now digital so you missed the window as did I. Just because they denied you once done mean you shouldnt try again. I kept submittint them until I got them all passed except for CBS. Its worth trying. Do it yourself from the website here: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageIFnorail.jsp?assetId=P4880022#h:583.455


----------



## Bowlin (Dec 8, 2003)

Newshawk said:


> <SIGH>
> 
> OK, let's say you decide to go into business. You choose a product that gives you an exclusive territory. No one else can sell your product in that market. <snip>


But therein lies the rub, eh? Isn't the very granting of exclusivity contrary to the best interests of the consumer?

Free competition is the bedrock of a free enterprise capitalist system. Sure, every seller of a product wants to maneuver to get an edge over their (potential) competition, and in some cases they even get in bed with the government to _prevent_ competition. This seldom serves the consumer.

Want proof? You need only look at the airlines or telephone companies. They used to be regulated and the prices of those products today in actual numeric dollars (not time-value dollars) is in most cases lower than in the days of regulation. Consider inflation and prices today are pennies on the dollar. Competition lowers prices.

I own a liquor store. Sure, I'd like to be the only guy in town who can sell the products I carry, but I'm not. Sure, I'd like to have the government step in and prevent another liquor store from opening within, oh, say, about 200 miles of my store, but I can't.

If they did, I'd make even more money. I'd be able to curtail my hours, reduce my staff, raise prices and reduce my overhead - all to save costs and increase profit, secure in the knowlege that everyone has to buy from me.

Instead, I have to compete with both the small mom-'n-pop neighborhood stores and the big megopolies on price and service, and I do. In fact, I do such a good job that my store has been voted as the best in town. And I don't have access to any product or service that isn't also available all over town. Instead, I'm forced to simply do it better!

Sorry, Newshawk, I vigorously disagree with your underlying premise. If there ever was a day when exclusivity in any communications endeavor was appropriate, it is long past.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Nick said:


> Shhhhh.....use your INSIDE voice.




BTW I think they said this passed this morning on the news.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Bowlin said:


> I own a liquor store. Sure, I'd like to be the only guy in town who can sell the products I carry, but I'm not. Sure, I'd like to have the government step in and prevent another liquor store from opening within, oh, say, about 200 miles of my store, but I can't.
> 
> If they did, I'd make even more money. I'd be able to curtail my hours, reduce my staff, raise prices and reduce my overhead - all to save costs and increase profit, secure in the knowlege that everyone has to buy from me.
> 
> Instead, I have to compete with both the small mom-'n-pop neighborhood stores and the big megopolies on price and service, and I do.


Analogies seldom are accurate when comparing retail sales with a service such as broadcasting.

Assume the "Star Trek" transporter were invented and the consumer could freely visit any liquor store in the country by pushing a button. Can you "do it better" than the biggest liquor store in NYC or LA, and survive? Because that's the equivalent of bringing NYC network channels into Podunk.

If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.


----------



## ElectricPickle (Aug 18, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> Analogies seldom are accurate when comparing retail sales with a service such as broadcasting.
> 
> Assume the "Star Trek" transporter were invented and the consumer could freely visit any liquor store in the country by pushing a button. Can you "do it better" than the biggest liquor store in NYC or LA, and survive? Because that's the equivalent of bringing NYC network channels into Podunk.
> 
> If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.


I like your Star Trek transporter analogy. If there were such a thing it would affect transportation throughout the world and change everything. Your last statement makes my point that local broadcasters are outdated and irrelevant. In today's digital age you only need one NBC station. A national one. Local broadcasters could still exist, but not affiliated with a network. They would have to gain revenue from local programming, or dare I say it, government subsidies (PBS). 
Your analogy is pretty much what happened to computer stores. There used to be a mom-and-pop computer store in every town. Then the mail-order builders like Gateway & Dell caught hold and many of the mom-and-pops could not compete. After a while even the brick-and-mortar Gateway stores had to close, not profitable enough against small profit margined, low overhead mail-order companies (Apple stores are still around though). Now you can't even buy computer parts other than at Best Buy or the basic stuff at the local Wal-Mart. We are still taxed to pay for computers and broadband in government schools, which give no benefit to local private businesses. The private sector has to survive on profit; the public sector can always raise taxes.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

paulman182 said:


> If a city had two or three NBC stations, neither would do well enough in the ratings to make money.


You could say the same about gas stations at a corner or radio stations using similar formats. Competition benefits the consumer and hurts profits compared to non-competitive situations.

In particular, if there were two NBC stations, they'd have to work to differentiate themselves. Maybe they'd use different transmission methods (OTA, cable-only, mobile DVB). Maybe they'd concentrate on different areas within the market. At some point, they might decide to merge, or one might switch to a different network. It would be much closer to a free market, where products and services evolve to meet demand.

But it's pretty pointless to talk about it. The system we have is the way it is. No one with enough clout wants to change local market exclusivity for broadcast content. There's a better chance of the internet revolutionizing how we get TV than of us convincing Congress to change rules in a way that doesn't benefit any broadcasting industry.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The latest John Eggerton dispatch: He talks with House Communications Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who says that "(t)he satellite reauthorization bill should be signed, sealed and delivered to the president's desk by week's end".

You really should read it all: http://www.multichannel.com/article/449591-Boucher_Satellite_Bill_Should_Be_Law_By_Week_s_End.php


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Here's an exclusive, though unsurprising, bit of info I just verified. STELA is reported to include the true grandfathered Superstations in its reauthorization. So there's one less thing for us all to worry about.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I didn't really see anything on D* for DMA's that don't have locals. So D* already has DNS feeds. Does that mean there is no emphasis for them to add the remaining missing markets?. Also what will happen with the significantly viewed stations? As for the grandfathered part, well we can only hope to be so lucky.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Where would local TV come from for you folks in Miami, Josh? IOW, what are your nearest affiliates?


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

D* and E* should just be allowed to turn all the locals on for everyone, at least as far as the spot beams will go. They would have to trim the edges of the spot beams so they don't bounce in and out, but other than that, you should be allowed to receive whatever your equipment can, but only your DMA can be remapped to 2-69 on the satellite boxes. The whole local affiliate exclusivity is ridiculous.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Frankly, I'm happy with what I have now; antenna for PBS, ABC, and NBC, waivers for CBS and FOX. Actually, I would do NBC if I had a shot since the NFL games on the local affiliate suffer from break up whenever the camera pans quickly. But, it seems that later this year locals will come to my area. I keep abreast of it by visiting the Local HD Info thread for my area at AVSForum. I was going to suggest Josh do the same, so here's the index thread where you can try to narrow down to your location or the nearest one. We're being told that DISH Network has set up equipment at a local transmission facility to pick up over-the-air broadcasts. Binghamton, the city mine is paired with along with Corning in that thread, has been told that in June or thereabouts DirecTV will offer them locals. My issue is whether they'll just pass the CBS feed that's being transmitted here, a 480i sub-channel feed by the local ABC affiliate, or if they'll spring for the HD feed they provide for Time-Warner Cable. If it's the former, I'll have major issues.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd be happy with "every station in your DMA" (even though DMAs are arbitrary) plus "every station that reaches anywhere in your zip code with their predicted signal" (including former analog Grade B coverage that is allegedly replicated in digital).

Very few people want a station from thousands of miles away. Most want the stations they could get on cable. The closest affiliates. The only expansion needed would be for those who would still be missing an affiliate after the two rules above.

The early days of satellite spoiled people with out of market stations delivered without permission to viewers across the nation. There would be no locals or distants at all if it were not for the permissive rules put in place by congress. The only drawback is that satellite rules are too restrictive on out of market signals. (Signals that a cable system can be forced to carry cannot be delivered to the same customer via satellite.) Get rid of the gap and I believe most viewers will be happy.

There will always be those who want everything from everywhere ... but the majority would be served by just giving satellite customers what locals they get from cable.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bidger said:


> Where would local TV come from for you folks in Miami, Josh? IOW, what are your nearest affiliates?


My locals come from pittsburg kansas & joplin missouri but I live in oklahoma. Go figure. I called my Senators office again today & they are trying to find out if my DMA is one of the 19 new ones Directv is rolling out to this year. I use an antenna for CBS but have DNS feeds for the rest.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Josh, you could also call one of your local affiliates, ask to speak to the engineer or program director and ask if they feel there's any likelihood of their feed being carried by the satellite providers in the near future. If DirecTV or DISH is talking to one of them, then you can safely assume they're talking to all of them.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'd be happy with "every station in your DMA" (even though DMAs are arbitrary) plus "every station that reaches anywhere in your zip code with their predicted signal" (including former analog Grade B coverage that is allegedly replicated in digital).
> 
> Very few people want a station from thousands of miles away. Most want the stations they could get on cable. The closest affiliates. The only expansion needed would be for those who would still be missing an affiliate after the two rules above.
> 
> ...


I still think the best thing to do would be to just say any station that broadcasts within 60 miles of you should be able to be provided to you by your chosen television provider. If you're beyond the 60 mile limit for any network you should be allowed to purchase either a national version of that network or even one from a city in your region. But i'm sure that's way too simple to work, but it sure makes a lot more sense in my head than the current DMA based rules they have for satellite and a completely different set of rules for cable.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bidger said:


> Josh, you could also call one of your local affiliates, ask to speak to the engineer or program director and ask if they feel there's any likelihood of their feed being carried by the satellite providers in the near future. If DirecTV or DISH is talking to one of them, then you can safely assume they're talking to all of them.


Believe me I have done that. They say they are coming but no one seems to know when. I have a high up contact with D* that said if 2010 it would be Q4. I have talked with my Senator, my Congressman, D*, VP of CS for D*, higher then that with D*, FCC, Decisionmark, VP of Decisionmark, part owners of decisionmark, GM and Chief Engineer for all 4 affiliates in my DMA, some of their owners, etc. Trust me I can promise you I have researched this more then anyone on this site in the last 2 years. Granted Im more up on my area but I still know a ton on DNS feeds, LIL, antenna's and all that jazz.

I even listend to the congressional hearing last June that had D*, E*, Disney, NAB, and a few others there. It was long but very very interesting to say the least. It was very educational. Im all over this for sure. I have made sure that the people that have the power to change this stuff know what I want. Problem so far seems to be that E* is the one that is really getting somewhere with all this. Since they have DNS feeds at stake and want them back it gives them incentive to add all or almost all DMA's. D* already has DNS feeds so what motivates them I have no clue. I am waiting on my Senator's office to call me back anyday to let me know if my DMA is one of the 19 D* is planning to launch this year.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

When this bill is finally signed will this mean that I will one day be able to once again receive from "E" the local to me CBS station from Dothan Al due to my Panama City FL DMA does not have a CBS affiliate?

I'm not sure if it's which of the correct terms it's covered under..... Distant Networks.... Local into Local.....or Significantly Viewed..... but I used to get CBS from E and wanted to know if this new bill would give those of us in this situation any hope.

Thanks.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

psdstu said:


> When this bill is finally signed will this mean that I will one day be able to once again receive from "E" the local to me CBS station from Dothan Al due to my Panama City FL DMA does not have a CBS affiliate?
> 
> I'm not sure if it's which of the correct terms it's covered under..... Distant Networks.... Local into Local.....or Significantly Viewed..... but I used to get CBS from E and wanted to know if this new bill would give those of us in this situation any hope.
> 
> Thanks.


Possible. I think there will be something in there about significantly viewed. If thats the case then yes you could se it back. If not then I doubt it as they would just import one in from NY. That being said you could always just add a large antenna and get them anyways.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> I'd be happy with "every station in your DMA" (even though DMAs are arbitrary) plus "every station that reaches anywhere in your zip code with their predicted signal" (including former analog Grade B coverage that is allegedly replicated in digital).
> 
> Very few people want a station from thousands of miles away. Most want the stations they could get on cable. The closest affiliates. The only expansion needed would be for those who would still be missing an affiliate after the two rules above.
> 
> ...


I guess I can see your point, at least allowing them to have the same as cable would put them on a level playing field. The geek in me just wants the government to allow D* and E* to just through the switch and get all the locals on national transponders, and whatever spot beams it gets.



tsmacro said:


> I still think the best thing to do would be to just say any station that broadcasts within 60 miles of you should be able to be provided to you by your chosen television provider. If you're beyond the 60 mile limit for any network you should be allowed to purchase either a national version of that network or even one from a city in your region. But i'm sure that's way too simple to work, but it sure makes a lot more sense in my head than the current DMA based rules they have for satellite and a completely different set of rules for cable.


NO! The problem is the channels that are between 60 and 100 miles away, like the NYC locals, which go more than 80 miles E-NE into Hartford-New Haven via cable, and partially on D* (in HD). If you're only 60 miles or less away, you can get them anyways OTA. The issue is where I live, we are 80+ miles from NYC, and because of 9/11 and the subsequent antenna issues that are still plaguing the area, as many of the antennas hastily stuffed onto the Empire State Building (or weaker backup antennas that were activated) after 9/11 are still in use at the primary transmission method.

In New England, we have a lot of out-of-market locals, including Boston locals ranging from the middle of NH to NE CT (3+ hour drive), and NYC locals covering most of CT.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Out in the west there are huge DMAs where there is no hope of local reception ... except perhaps from a neighboring DMA that you can get on cable but can't get via satellite. Another reason to level the playing field.

Once DISH gets the rest of their local markets up (soon) we'll start to see that playing field level as out of market stations begin to appear.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

I still think the bill was slanted to better E*. There is no incentive for D* to offer all DMA's their locals.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Out in the West, we have lots of translators. Most of them are still analog.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> Out in the west there are huge DMAs where there is no hope of local reception ... except perhaps from a neighboring DMA that you can get on cable but can't get via satellite. Another reason to level the playing field.
> 
> Once DISH gets the rest of their local markets up (soon) we'll start to see that playing field level as out of market stations begin to appear.


Yeah, what rules do the cable providers run under anyways?



harsh said:


> Out in the West, we have lots of translators. Most of them are still analog.


Then they're not worth anything, since they're not HD. The channels have to be HD to count.

Whats unbelievable to me is that we still have broadcast TV from the networks. If the big networks went for a single national feed, or at least regional feeds, the PQ advantage to OTA would dry up, since the DBS providers could throw a LOT more bandwidth at them. We would still need local news, but the quality of local coverage really doesn't suffer from over-compressed 720x480i.

But yes, leveling the playing field would be the right thing to do. What rules does cable operate under? What about Verizon and AT&T, now they they are getting an absolutely massive footprint, especially AT&T. AT&T has more HD locals from out-of-market even than cable, since they don't have virtually unlimited capacity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, what rules do the cable providers run under anyways?


Better rules, IMHO. I believe I have summarized it before in this thread but basically:
A cable system has to set aside a percentage of their capacity for locals - a small system would have less of a locals burden than a large one (which is kind of moot as the locals are a key part of what cable service sells). Once that allotment is full, they don't have to add locals. If a satellite carrier carries one station in a market they must carry all stations who want coverage (stations can refuse to be carried).

What qualifies as a local station is based on actual reception not arbitrary lines cutting the country county by county. Satellite has been prohibited from carrying stations from neighboring markets even to customers who could pick up those stations on an antenna or local cable. The new law fixes that (again). The biggest problem with the 2004 law that allowed "close distants" (Significantly Viewed) was it was written treating those channels as distant signals, not locals. If cable can carry a signal satellite should be able to carry it too.

Controversial but I'd go a step further and require carriage without payment to local broadcasters. Broadcasters should not be selling the rebroadcast of their signals. Cable and satellite could be good partners with broadcast TV if they both worked together to get the signals distributed and in viewers homes instead of fighting over money.



> We would still need local news, but the quality of local coverage really doesn't suffer from over-compressed 720x480i.


Take a look at your local channels ... who has the best local news? Is it a network station (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX)? In rare cases an independent will have decent news. Unfortunately in a growing number of cases even network stations fail at local news - but look at the best broadcast news and you will likely see a major network.

They get to be the best by spending money on their product ... by buying the best talent and equipment that they can. They get their money by selling local advertising during their news and that major network programming.

If people get their network programming from a national feed and don't see local advertising (including ads for the news) it makes it harder for the station to survive. If the networks left the local stations many would close down. National feeds are good for viewers ... but not for the stations.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

According to Broadcasting & Cable's John Eggerton, the House passed HR 4851, which would give them until April 30 to figure out whether what changes they might want to make to the Senate-passed STELA.

Not that there's a whole lot of new stuff, but you ought to read it anyway: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...ing_Satellite_Blanket_License_to_April_30.php

Best surprise note: "The bill is also expected to have an advanced timetable for Dish carriage of noncommercial stations' HD signals. A spokesperson for the Association for Public Television Stations said this week that they were still negotiating a private deal for HD carriage that would make that amendment moot." Will we hear something soon about Dish and PBS HD?


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

What qualifies as a local station is based on actual reception not arbitrary lines cutting the country county by county. Satellite has been prohibited from carrying stations from neighboring markets even to customers who could pick up those stations on an antenna or local cable. The new law fixes that (again). The biggest problem with the 2004 law that allowed "close distants" (Significantly Viewed) was it was written treating those channels as distant signals said:


> James,
> 
> I certainly hope that you are correct in the new law "fiixng" this issue. In Dec 2006 "E" dropped our local CBS Station because it was coming from a neighboring DMA. (Our DMA does not have a CBS affiliate).
> 
> ...


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> What qualifies as a local station is based on actual reception not arbitrary lines cutting the country county by county. *Satellite has been prohibited from carrying stations from neighboring markets even to customers who could pick up those stations on an antenna or local cable.* The new law fixes that (again). The biggest problem with the 2004 law that allowed "close distants" (Significantly Viewed) was it was written treating those channels as distant signals, not locals. If cable can carry a signal satellite should be able to carry it too.


Thats not really true. If I remember right I read through the last SHVERA act and its in there. What the new act does in my opinion make it easier for the sat providers to carry more of the significantly viewed stations. I am pretty sure that there are a few markets that have them now at least with D* just not very many.

Even if its in in the final bill and approved then we will have to wait and see what markets the providers decide to work something out with. I can gurantee you it wont be every market. I not only hope to have my DMA's locals but would love to have Tulsa's as well as it is in state and my DMA is not. That being said I am not holding my breath even though Tulsa is a stong presence at least in my zip code and county. The cable co here offers a few of the Tulsa channels and a strong antenna will pick them up as well. I plan to add a very large antenna soon to get Tulsa on my own since D* is not really helping me with locals other then DNS.

So that being said keep your fingers crossed. If passed I look for it to be 6 months to a year before they really get much going with it anyways. Another thing that would work for some of you though as E* customers is that with the new bill passed it would appear to me that if you are in a short market that they would import you that affiliate via a DNS station. Thats the whole deal with this bill for E* anyways. Offer all DMA's and use DNS feeds to cover the gaps.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

joshjr said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> > What qualifies as a local station is based on actual reception not arbitrary lines cutting the country county by county. *Satellite has been prohibited from carrying stations from neighboring markets even to customers who could pick up those stations on an antenna or local cable.* The new law fixes that (again). The biggest problem with the 2004 law that allowed "close distants" (Significantly Viewed) was it was written treating those channels as distant signals, not locals. If cable can carry a signal satellite should be able to carry it too.
> ...


It is in there, but it it is in there as I stated ... carried as distant signals instead of local signals. When DISH lost permission to carry any distant signal (including to legally qualified customers) they also lost permission to carry significantly viewed signals. If congress would have put SV into the locals part of the legislation DISH would still have SV channels.

Widening out from the one company (DISH) to satellite in general, the SV legislation was based on a list of stations. Stations on the list are considered SV. As long as the cable company carries the station there is no reason for the station to seek SV list status. Cable companies can carry stations not on the SV list but if the station does not have SV status it cannot be carried by satellite. It is a situation where cable can carry a signal by simply receiving it and satellite cannot carry the same signal to the same customer because of some list. A list that is harder to get a station added to as over the air reception counts drop (thanks in part to cable carriage - the station must meet a threshold value of over the air viewers to make the list). The list is pretty good, but isn't perfect.



> What the new act does in my opinion make it easier for the sat providers to carry more of the significantly viewed stations. I am pretty sure that there are a few markets that have them now at least with D* just not very many.


For DISH it makes it possible again. DISH was moving strongly into adding as many SV stations as it could before they had to pull them all. DISH has very few markets left uncovered ... under current law DISH could only deliver stations to those markets that were in those markets (for example, Lafayette Indiana would only get one local ... their CBS). The new law reopens the door so Lafayette can get most of the Indianapolis channels as well. (One local and seven SV stations ... Indy locals are 11 channels with 3 PBS stations.)

I'm not sure what DirecTV's problem is. They have some SV carriage but they don't seem to be pursuing it as much as DISH did five years ago. Perhaps it is smaller spots or less capacity. Or perhaps a lack of desire. DirecTV seems to be doing fine without 100% local market carriage. They don't need the new law to add new SV.



> Another thing that would work for some of you though as E* customers is that with the new bill passed it would appear to me that if you are in a short market that they would import you that affiliate via a DNS station. Thats the whole deal with this bill for E* anyways. Offer all DMA's and use DNS feeds to cover the gaps.


The big benefit is restoring "close distants" ... out of DMA stations that are on the SV list. There is still the loophole of unlisted stations being blocked from satellite but possible on cable.

I don't believe that carriage should be list based. Carriage should be coverage based. If that doesn't fix the "short market" problem then add in the closer distants from the customer's market or a neighboring market. Just like cable.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I don't believe that carriage should be list based. Carriage should be coverage based. If that doesn't fix the "short market" problem then add in the closer distants from the customer's market or a neighboring market. Just like cable.


I don't understand the meaning of "closer distants from the customer's market." If they are in the customer's market, they are locals. If they are outside the customer's market, they are distants. They are not both. That is my understanding.

The "neighboring market" argument sounds good, but it may prove to be unworkable. Until now, Congress has generally placed stations into two categories--locals and distants. It will be difficult to write a definition for "neighboring locals" or "neighboring distants." A more likely outcome is to continue with the distants as being any station outside the local market.

Consider the Salinas-Monterey market in California. It lacks an ABC station. What is its neighboring market? San Francisco is the market to the north, Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo is the market to the south, and Fresno is the market to the east. Why should one of those markets receive priority over the other?

A better way to handle it is to continue with the current law, which generally allows any out-of-market network station to be imported into a market that lacks that same network. People in Salinas-Monterey are legally receiving ABC from KGO, located in San Francisco; KABC, located in Los Angeles; and WABC, located in New York. There may be others who are legally receiving other ABC affiliates in the Salinas-Monterey market. Let the satellite company and the customer mutually decide which station to receive to fill the gap in the short market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I don't understand the meaning of "closer distants from the customer's market." If they are in the customer's market, they are locals. If they are outside the customer's market, they are distants. They are not both. That is my understanding.


My proposal throws out markets as a first step. A local in my proposal is any station with a signal that covers the customer. These are the stations most people want. Coverage of the station based carriage is what cable can do ... why not satellite?



> The "neighboring market" argument sounds good, but it may prove to be unworkable. Until now, Congress has generally placed stations into two categories--locals and distants. It will be difficult to write a definition for "neighboring locals" or "neighboring distants." A more likely outcome is to continue with the distants as being any station outside the local market.


I don't want to leave any subscriber without a station of any network just because no affiliate has not been built that covers their location. That is why I'd expand to the current "market based locals" and what many would consider "significantly viewed" stations from other markets. Whatever is done I would never consider a station that should be viewable over the air to a subscriber (they are in the station's coverage area) as a distant. The satellite SV law put these stations in as distants ... which was wrong.



> Consider the Salinas-Monterey market in California. It lacks an ABC station. What is its neighboring market? San Francisco is the market to the north, Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo is the market to the south, and Fresno is the market to the east. Why should one of those markets receive priority over the other?


Three neighbors ... sounds like any of the three would work. What does cable do?



> A better way to handle it is to continue with the current law, which generally allows any out-of-market network station to be imported into a market that lacks that same network. People in Salinas-Monterey are legally receiving ABC from KGO, located in San Francisco; KABC, located in Los Angeles; and WABC, located in New York. There may be others who are legally receiving other ABC affiliates in the Salinas-Monterey market. Let the satellite company and the customer mutually decide which station to receive to fill the gap in the short market.


I don't want anything more restrictive than current law ... although if the local cable company cannot carry KABC and WABC why should satellite be able to? Equality is the goal.

Of course this is just my fantasy ... the real law varies.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I guess what we are dealing with is your proposal, which generally sounds good. However, continuing with Salinas-Monterey, which is an excellent short market to use as an example, I am not sure that the proposal will work. 

Do you have any information that in the near-final version of the satellite law that Congress will soon vote on there is any definition that redefines or does away with the designated market areas? Is there any definition of a neighboring station? As opposed to, or different from, a distant station?

In Salinas-Monterey, there are parts of the market, particularly in the South and the East, where it is very rural and there is no cable service available. In the northern part of the market, there are several cities, and the cable service there carries a modified version of KGO. However, it is unlikely that KGO will qualify as significantly viewed in any area other than the extreme northern areas of the market. Distance and terrain keep it from generally being picked up by an antenna in that market.

The modified version of KGO is something that the cable company calls ABC7. It is KGO's signal, but with some local commercials replaced with commercials inserted by the cable company. Also, some syndicated programming (not ABC programming and not local programming) is replaced by the cable company with other programming. This is due to syndicated exclusivity rules, and also it allows the cable company to make more money by selling its own commercials.

As far as cable in that area not being allowed to carry KABC or WABC, as you assert, I do not know what rules govern the cable company's carriage. I do not believe that the cable company would want to carry WABC, as that station is in a different time zone. However, I am unaware of anything other than the choice of the operator that is stopping the cable company from carrying KABC. KGO was historically the easier signal to obtain, because it is several hundred miles closer than KABC, in the days prior to satellite. Cable has served this market since the 1950s, and the cable company in the northern part of the market runs a short microwave relay system to bring signals down from San Francisco. It would have been much more cumbersome to build a microwave system to bring stations in from a greater distance.

It is unlikely that satellite will get involved in an operation like "ABC7," and there may be logistical problems with spilling a spotbeam from a "neighboring" market into an adjacent market and having that spotbeam cover the adjacent market completely. To cover Salinas-Monterey with the "neighboring" market ABC signal, the satellite operator would have to spill the spotbeams for San Francisco, Fresno, and Santa Barbara-San Luis Obispo. This may be expensive and not very efficient. It may not even be technically feasible, given the limitations on satellite space. Or if the satellite operator chose to spill only one spotbeam, how does one fairly decide which spotbeam to spill?

I certainly have no opposition to having a neighboring station imported when a network is not available in the market, but I believe that satellite will still find it more workable to have a station from a big city in the same time zone on CONUS, and that signal can be used to fill the network gap in the short market. Also, I believe in greater choice, and there are always reasons to have cable and other reasons to have satellite. If one prefers a station from a more distant city, that may be a reason to have satellite. Ultimately, I believe that if a network is not available in a market, then any station affiliated with the missing network should be able to be imported, either by cable or satellite, to fill the gap. Let the operator and the customer decide what is best.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Do you have any information that in the near-final version of the satellite law that Congress will soon vote on there is any definition that redefines or does away with the designated market areas? Is there any definition of a neighboring station? As opposed to, or different from, a distant station?


I don't believe Congress is changing the definitions (unfortunate - maybe in five more years?).

As far as they are concerned for satellite local is in DMA and distant is out of DMA even if the signal of the "distant" signal easily covers the customer location in question. For cable local isn't defined solely by DMA.

The big change is in permission to carry, especially for DISH getting their permission to carry "distant" stations back. I have not looked into the details of the other changes. Looks like I have some homework!



runner861 said:


> The modified version of KGO is something that the cable company calls ABC7. It is KGO's signal, but with some local commercials replaced with commercials inserted by the cable company. Also, some syndicated programming (not ABC programming and not local programming) is replaced by the cable company with other programming. This is due to syndicated exclusivity rules, and also it allows the cable company to make more money by selling its own commercials.


This could be done by DISH and DirecTV as well. If KGO provides a "cable channel" feed to DISH or DirecTV it isn't a TV station any more and doesn't fall under the TV station rules. The only limit would be KGO's affiliation agreements.

Satellite providers are prohibited from modifying any OTA station themselves ... so it would have to be a non-broadcast feed.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

It will be interesting to see what actually passes Congress. I agree with almost everything you say. I agree that "significantly viewed" stations should not be treated as "distants." The only thing that we appear to disagree on is that I am not sold on the idea that the network station filling the gap in a short market must be from a neighboring market. I think that any city's station should be able to be used.

What are the code sections that govern carriage by cable?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Poking around the (proposed) law ... probably better to continue the "what is really happening" thoughts in the STELA thread and leave "what James wants to happen" here ...

STELA Thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=173991


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> Better rules, IMHO. I believe I have summarized it before in this thread but basically:
> A cable system has to set aside a percentage of their capacity for locals - a small system would have less of a locals burden than a large one (which is kind of moot as the locals are a key part of what cable service sells). Once that allotment is full, they don't have to add locals. If a satellite carrier carries one station in a market they must carry all stations who want coverage (stations can refuse to be carried).
> 
> ...
> ...


What happens when cable has all the locals, and they aren't up to their percentage? How do you measure the percentage for AT&T, since they don't have a capacity per se, they in effect have an unlimited capacity. They also have all 10 locals in HD from NYC and Hartford-New Haven, which is more than cable or D*. D* has NYC NBC, CBS, and FOX, while Comcast has PBS in HD and the rest in SD. Of course, why not even if no one necessarily wants them, as they have to be on there for other towns anyways, and it's all switched IPTV, so there's no bandwidth penalty.

The key to all this is what cable and IPTV can carry. If I can pick it up with an antenna, then I have no desire for them to copy it onto satellite so that I can just go back in and delete it from the channel guide. The issue I have is that NYC locals are not available OTA, so they have to be brought in via cable or U-Verse.

If they were available OTA, then carriage anywhere else would be utterly irrelevant, as both D* and E* have ATSC tuners with guide integration available for their DVRs. Although the government and broadcasters would never allow it, I'd much rather have WNET HD (PBS NYC) than WEDH HD (Hartford PBS) over satellite, as WEDH is available OTAfrom WEDH-DT.

I agree about the payment for locals. It's absurd. That whole WABC/Cablevision thing was absurd, WABC shouldn't get paid. If they want to get paid, then they should take their signal off the air and be a cable network.

Maybe we would kill off some local news, but if there's a market for it, it would get done. The other thing is, in today's day and age, it's cheap and easy to produce local content, and an independent local news station could use freelance news reporters all over their area to file reports over the internet, and with EVDO, even do live news streams over Skype, at a tiny fraction of the cost of rolling satellite trucks, and in a quicker way too. It would also allow for more hyper-local content, and then to downlink some national stuff, just like newspapers and the AP.



joshjr said:


> So that being said keep your fingers crossed. If passed I look for it to be 6 months to a year before they really get much going with it anyways. Another thing that would work for some of you though as E* customers is that with the new bill passed it would appear to me that if you are in a short market that they would import you that affiliate via a DNS station. Thats the whole deal with this bill for E* anyways. Offer all DMA's and use DNS feeds to cover the gaps.


I don't get how a DMA can be a DMA without all five locals. Concord, NH isn't a DMA because it's missing two of the networks. It's part of Boston, which has them all, even though three of the five are replicated in New Hampshire and Maine. To be fair, one of those is the infamous WMUR, which exists largely as a satellite source for national and international cable news during election season.



James Long said:


> I'm not sure what DirecTV's problem is. They have some SV carriage but they don't seem to be pursuing it as much as DISH did five years ago. Perhaps it is smaller spots or less capacity.
> 
> I don't believe that carriage should be list based. Carriage should be coverage based. If that doesn't fix the "short market" problem then add in the closer distants from the customer's market or a neighboring market. Just like cable.


DirecTV is weird. They don't offer PBS or ABC for NYC to Hartford-New Haven, even though they are on CONUS transponders. PBS is the big one, since the network programming on the others is all the same, but WNET (NYC) doesn't have the same "network" programming as WEDH (Hartford).



James Long said:


> My proposal throws out markets as a first step. A local in my proposal is any station with a signal that covers the customer. These are the stations most people want. Coverage of the station based carriage is what cable can do ... why not satellite?Equality is the goal.
> 
> Of course this is just my fantasy ... the real law varies.


I agree with equality.. so why not put them under the same set of rules? Or just not have rules and let them carry whatever the heck they want?

The problem with using OTA reception is that it's not equitable with cable. Cable carries signals way beyond OTA reception. Plus, if they are available OTA, its irrelevant for satellite. The receivers can do ATSC.



runner861 said:


> However, I am unaware of anything other than the choice of the operator that is stopping the cable company from carrying KABC. KGO was historically the easier signal to obtain, because it is several hundred miles closer than KABC, in the days prior to satellite. Cable has served this market since the 1950s, and the cable company in the northern part of the market runs a short microwave relay system to bring signals down from San Francisco. It would have been much more cumbersome to build a microwave system to bring stations in from a greater distance.


I think that is the case, as even with today's technology where it would be easy to get KABC via satellite or fiber, people just wouldn't want it.

It's interesting that DBS providers cannot modify the stations, as Comcast gets to put in some of their own commercials- maybe part of the reason they pay for the local stations?



runner861 said:


> It will be interesting to see what actually passes Congress. I agree with almost everything you say. I agree that "significantly viewed" stations should not be treated as "distants." The only thing that we may slightly disagree on is that I am not sold on the idea that the network station filling the gap in a short market must be from a neighboring market. I think that any city's station should be able to be used.
> 
> What are the code sections that govern carriage by cable?


I would agree, as long as the DBS company can choose, and the Lawyers and politicians in Washington who don't have EE degrees don't force D* and E* to provide significantly viewed locals instead of national feeds in places where the spot beams aren't lined up to do so.

What I don't understand is why satellite is being forced to carry certain locals or PBS stations. I don't care if they carry my local PBS in HD, or any of my locals at all. I think the important part is allowing them to carry channels, not making them carry them. The out of market channels are the most important, as if they are more than 70 miles away, or lower power, they can't be picked up OTA, which is where satellite comes in.

Bigger DMAs might have distance challenges, but in Hartford-New Haven satellite LIL's are completely worthless, as our OTA signals cover the whole DMA.

Anyone know what rules AT&T is operating under? They seem to be on their own planet, and they have the possibility to offer about any channel they wanted, as it's just a big switched IP network with channels being send on demand. They could be a real loose cannon if they are not regulated in regards to locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> What happens when cable has all the locals, and they aren't up to their percentage?


If they carry all the available locals they are done.



> If I can pick it up with an antenna, then I have no desire for them to copy it onto satellite so that I can just go back in and delete it from the channel guide.


Over the air is part of "basic cable" and in their "lifeline" level packages. Cable started out as community antenna TV. People paying a monthly fee to share an antenna instead of putting up their own expensive systems (perhaps with large antennas and rotors). Rural communities putting up an antenna and charging a few bucks a month for retransmitted locals. Then someone got the bright idea to have a national fed 24/7 weather channel. And someone decided to do a national fed 24/7 news channel. And someone decided to do a movie channel (as a premium service). The idea grew and the number of national channels grew. Cable became a service that was more than rebroadcasting local channels sharing a common antenna. It became what we now call a content delivery system.

Replacing OTA reception with via system reception is the core of cable and locals are often the missing selling point on satellite systems. I'm glad you have good over the air reception but most just want the content just as clear as their national "cable" channels. That means carriage via satellite.



> I don't get how a DMA can be a DMA without all five locals.


They are market areas. Some company (A C Nielson) decided that, for example, three counties near Lafayette Indiana was a separate market from Terre Haute, Indianapolis, South Bend and Chicago. Unfortunately there is only one full power commercial station based out of those three counties (the FCC channel allotments put channels in the major cities). So Lafayette is a one station market.

Perhaps these micro markets should be merged in with neighbors, but which one? The FCC didn't ask A C Nielson to draw up groups of counties containing all five networks. They just used an existing market list A C Nielson created for ratings.

Just one of the flaws in using the arbitrary markets as the end of the definition of local.



> The problem with using OTA reception is that it's not equitable with cable. Cable carries signals way beyond OTA reception. Plus, if they are available OTA, its irrelevant for satellite. The receivers can do ATSC.


Spend some time on AVS Forum and find out how well ATSC reception is doing. I'm 10 miles from all of the stations in my market and still get better reception via satellite than over the air on a simple antenna. Yes, satellite receivers can do ATSC ... but many customers still need a better antenna. I'm already paying for satellite for other channels - why not also improve my reception of OTA-TV?



> It's interesting that DBS providers cannot modify the stations, as Comcast gets to put in some of their own commercials- maybe part of the reason they pay for the local stations?


Stations are free to make their own arrangements outside of the law to get carriage but if satellite or cable systems use the law carriage is all "no local changes". If Comcast is showing different commercials than OTA then they are not carrying the stations via the law. They have worked out another contract.

Satellite pays for local stations. That is one of the things that IS equal between satellite and cable. Stations can force their signals to be carried (for no charge) or withhold their signals from carriage (unless the cable/satellite provider pays). Stations cannot be charged by satellite or cable to carry their signals.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

James Long said:


> If they carry all the available locals they are done.
> 
> Over the air is part of "basic cable" and in their "lifeline" level packages. Cable started out as community antenna TV. People paying a monthly fee to share an antenna instead of putting up their own expensive systems (perhaps with large antennas and rotors). Rural communities putting up an antenna and charging a few bucks a month for retransmitted locals. Then someone got the bright idea to have a national fed 24/7 weather channel. And someone decided to do a national fed 24/7 news channel. And someone decided to do a movie channel (as a premium service). The idea grew and the number of national channels grew. Cable became a service that was more than rebroadcasting local channels sharing a common antenna. It became what we now call a content delivery system.
> 
> Replacing OTA reception with via system reception is the core of cable and locals are often the missing selling point on satellite systems. I'm glad you have good over the air reception but most just want the content just as clear as their national "cable" channels. That means carriage via satellite.


I don't doubt the need for DirecTV and Dish to carry locals, since it would cost a lot more to have their installers going out and putting up antennas, cabling them in and the like for each and every customer, but it is a well known fact that the best satellite system feeds locals in via OTA.



James Long said:


> They are market areas. Some company (A C Nielson) decided that, for example, three counties near Lafayette Indiana was a separate market from Terre Haute, Indianapolis, South Bend and Chicago. Unfortunately there is only one full power commercial station based out of those three counties (the FCC channel allotments put channels in the major cities). So Lafayette is a one station market.
> 
> Perhaps these micro markets should be merged in with neighbors, but which one? The FCC didn't ask A C Nielson to draw up groups of counties containing all five networks. They just used an existing market list A C Nielson created for ratings.
> 
> Just one of the flaws in using the arbitrary markets as the end of the definition of local.


How do those markets get locals on satellite? Or do they not?



James Long said:


> Spend some time on AVS Forum and find out how well ATSC reception is doing. I'm 10 miles from all of the stations in my market and still get better reception via satellite than over the air on a simple antenna. Yes, satellite receivers can do ATSC ... but many customers still need a better antenna. I'm already paying for satellite for other channels - why not also improve my reception of OTA-TV?


My experience has been 30 miles away from the transmitters with a small ~$30 Wal-Mart antenna and DLOS, which is not realistic in most installations. However, there is some powerful gear out there from antennasdirect.com, which apparently yield some incredible results when paired with high-quality amps combiners and splitters, and clean runs of QS RG-6.

OTA is higher quality, and doesn't require a mirroring fee for every pair of tuners in your house. Plus, at least on Dish, it doubles the number of tuners in the box from 2 to 4, while still allowing a fifth stream to be played back.



James Long said:


> Stations are free to make their own arrangements outside of the law to get carriage but if satellite or cable systems use the law carriage is all "no local changes". If Comcast is showing different commercials than OTA then they are not carrying the stations via the law. They have worked out another contract.
> 
> Satellite pays for local stations. That is one of the things that IS equal between satellite and cable. Stations can force their signals to be carried (for no charge) or withhold their signals from carriage (unless the cable/satellite provider pays). Stations cannot be charged by satellite or cable to carry their signals.


The channels must have had to allow Comcast to modify the ads in order to get paid during contract negotiations. I don't see what the incentive for Comcast to pay anything for them is though, as they are big enough to wipe out 1/4-1/3 of a station's viewership if the station doesn't transmit to them for free, and then Comcast can just pull in Boston/NYC locals to fill the network gap (they're already there).


----------

