# SCFAPA 2007 - One way to replace SHVERA etc



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> The National Association of Broadcaster certainly played hangman with Charlie Ergen and his little Boo-Boo with distant networks.


Thats why I have a bounty out on the NAB and the dinocasters.



La Push Commercial Codman said:


> I know there is still a issue, with TIVO AND DISH NETWORK, but maybe if E* can go along with TIVO AND AGREE to a contract with E*, I bet TIVO will build receivers for Dish Network on DVR'S


NO THANK YOU! :nono: :nono: :nono: on tivcrapo I don't want anything to do with their sell out device and software. Even if it means Dish loses their PVR. No thanks!



La Push Commercial Codman said:


> FINNALY, MEDIACOM and Sinclair will not agree to a contract for retransmission consent. I figured Dish Network will gain a bunch of subs.. But when January 1st, 2009 fastly comes, DISH NETWORK better think about, getting HD local's up and consider a goal of only to west coast hd locals to area's involved in mountain regions, like San Diego, ..st hd locals. Federal Government created wasted bandwidth, and it's running DISH NETWORK into the ground. .


I am still working on the specifics but the whole idea is the creation of the

Satellite Consuer Fair Access and Protection Act of 2007.

Goal: Fix the mess that SHVA, SHIVA, SHERVA and Title 17 have all created.

First, everyone needs to stop looking at "locals" and "affilaites" and look at NETWORKS..... NBC, ABC, CBS etc... You hit the nail on the head its a waste of limited resources to send 100's of duplicate signals of the same stuff via DBS. So lets stop....

I am still working on the specifics but what I am seeking in the SCFAPA 2007 is basically:

1) Dish is PERMITTED to offer ANY AND ALL TAKERS a set of 8 national feed channels for the networks. Till such time as the networks choose to get on board and feed Dish these channels direct the DBS carrier will be permitted to select one source of each network in the Eastern and Western time zones. NOPE, no argument from the source chosen. If its LA, NY, Podunk or Hooterville, thats the DBS carriers choice.

2) Those who subscribe to the network package will pay a NAB & Affiliates Extorion Fee and Tax and it will be worded and label exactly that way and for what it is. Say $2.00/month, thats works out to $0.25/month per channel. This fee will be paid to the NAB to divide to the dinocasters in the manner they decide.

3) The NAB will be told only the following that you have 300 subs of the network package for zipcode 12345. Thats it, nothing more. If the NAB wants to divide it up so that WDNO (fictitous) gets 300 X $0.25 (or whatever) for the subs in their DMA, fine. If its another formula fine, too. Thats between the NAB and the dinocasters. They can squabble how the pie is divided on their end. The CONSUMER has paid the cost for them.

4) No waivers, no testing, no grade a, grade b, white areas, unserved or served. Everyone can sign up. Thats why #3. The idea is simple this is simply about "alleged" loss of monies from viewers not watching x dinocaster so their ad revenue is down......Oh puhlease.... ADS who watches the ads! PVR and the remote killed the ad along time ago. So heres your money, shut up.

5) A time line is setup for the ELIMINIATION of Part 73 Television. Guess who just wasted a ton of money on ATSC upgrdes.... SUCKERS.

6) There is no elimination of LIL, if the DBS carriers want to waste technology and space on LIL, fine. Thats their choice, I am just after getting whats needed for the future and thats not LIL.

7) Part 73 is modified so that all stations have zero say in DBS or crapble carrying their signal if they choose to. So no more retrans disputes ala Sinclair currently. Basically Part 73 would mandate that you if you broadcast it and if another service like DBS picks it up and sends its along to its subs, so be it!

8) An incentive and timeline to encourage the networks to shove the dinocasters out!

9) The nonsense on ATSC signals not being allowed to carry differing time zones is wiped away.. ie: W zone getting an E feed, and E getting a W feed. Makes it compatible with the present system. Allow for HD feeds of networks if the DBS carrier wants.

10) Permit DBS to take an ATSC signal convert to non ATSC and send this along. So that when 2009 rolls around (if it actually takes place) when ATSC is the only source and the networks still haven't gotten the hint DBS can convert to continue network feeds in their present form.

NOTE: Don't confuse the transmission method of DBS with the method the source may be transmitted in, ie: OTA ATSC, OTA NTSC, DBS DVB-S, DBS DSS etc.. The above is simply to allow an ATSC source to be converted to video and sent as a NON HD or SD signal (SD is NOT EQUIVALENT to NTSC ANALOG) in the transmission mode of the carrier ie: DVB-S for DISH DBS-DSS for direcrap, QAM for crapble.

11) All the syndex and other crap is tossed out! Its 2007 and none of it applies. Other than a few of the afternoon hormone shows very few dinocasters show reruns or the same syndicated programming like they did. Most have crapcasts, err, newscast (whatever) that start at 4 or 5PM and run till the network national news starts. Then some more fluff and filler for from 7 to 8PM. Most is mostly "entertainment news" or a few other select shows like Wheel and Jeporady (I can remember when these were on in the DAYTIME and you went shopping on Wheel!)

The dinocasters have shown they have no respect for the consumer in the marketplace so its time to get rid of them!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Why stop with Broadcasters? We should eliminate ALL business-based laws.

Why should someone who makes a product be allowed to charge money for it? Why should WalMart be allowed to stop shoplifters? Why can't I just copy magazines, newspapers, Cds and DVDs and sell them on e-bay?

God gave us the earth and it's "bounty"....why should I have to pay the grocer for what originally came from the Earth?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Why stop with Broadcasters? We should eliminate ALL business-based laws.
> 
> Why should someone who makes a product be allowed to charge money for it? Why should WalMart be allowed to stop shoplifters? Why can't I just copy magazines, newspapers, Cds and DVDs and sell them on e-bay?
> 
> God gave us the earth and it's "bounty"....why should I have to pay the grocer for what originally came from the Earth?


 As for many months, I saw disappointing blows to Dish Network, wanting to provide distant networks with General Delivery. The Broadcasters got upset, and took it to court. Almost 1/2 million Dish subs had distant networks until judge applied a injunction, once that happened. Everybody lost there distants and Charlie Ergen had to get together with Rick Mountfield to provide distants thru NPS. Now we see the broadcasters crying foul play.. The broadcasters our even crying foul play with video on demand. Even the general manager at KERO TV 23 is crying foul play over distants and video on demand. Craig Jahelka of KERO TV 23 back fired and talk to David K . Rehr, Why I know this because, They did. they our throwing a hissy fit.. CBS IS GOING BACK TO GAME SHOWS AND MY DRAMA SHOW CSI is going to be pulled. ALL THESE NETWORKS ABC, NBC, CBS, AND FOX our in for local corperate bucks, $$$BIG$$$BUCKS$$$. They have no mercy for owners with video on demand DVR'S. And if so, wait until dinocaster drives us and DISH INTO THE GROUND.. It's National Association of Broadcaster's David K. Rehr and Dennis Wharton pushing there localism crap.. They have been in favor of congress pushing to pass the COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006, so Internet on demand, video on demand, satellite radio and satellite tv be regulated. David K. Rehr of National Association of Broadcasters wanted a protection act passed to prohibit out of market media service, to protect local hd-radio and hd - tv, from out of market source. David K. Rehr has got congress convinced, that protecting local hd operation means doomsday for satellite radio and satellite tv. It won't be easy to pass legislation, and if we can convince democrats in the house and the senate, what major victor we may have. Nearly 3% of the 260 million people our receiving satellite radio. We definitely should allow choice. Sinclair broadcaster, replied on a email, saying they will not agree to a contract with mediacom. Hooray, Advantage DISH NETWORK, USING WASTED BANDWIDTH.. A double wammy and January 1st, 2009 coming, when you end up broadcasting hi definition in un-known digital format MPEG 2 WITH A MPEG 4 UNIT.. Cable tv is to crappy, hdtv viewers can see. My hd set with mpeg feature with dish looks good to super good. I do agree, the protection act must be passed for satellite tv, and I hope it happens. If it doesn't happen, our prices will continue to go up to pay for those extra echostar satellite dish network is trying to get permission for to broadcast wasted hd bandwidth at 61.7 W.L. AND other news hd satellite locations., since broadcaster's our to dumb founded to think. MY DISH NETWORK GOING TO PUT, ALL ON ACCOUNT OF FEDERAL DUMB FOUNDED LEGISLATION. I do believe legislators will have a hard time passing legislation since XM AND SIRIUS has the satellite radio protect still in affect..

What DISH NETWORK need's to do, is allow there dvr hd-mpeg 4 unit's pick up off air A.T.S.C. hd channels, atleast, we keep DAVID K. REHR and N.A.B. off our A.S.S. And if you look at the percentage of where the retransmission of hdtv station need to be carried, YOU ELLIMINATE BIG MARKETS LIKE NEW YORK. If every area is prone to picking up hi definition signal, then we consider, what markets. The ones for retransmission for hi def. Definitely Colorado, Washington state, California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, and a small percentage of the east coast like New york maybe, be of Lake Placid, a mountain region. Dish Network need's a survey on hd locals.. As for R.V. hd distants, it has to be Atlanta and San Francisco hd locals. If every square mile picks up local hd, no pressure on E*


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I read the original post, and think....

Welcome to the Soviet States of America. How many Communists and/or Socialists have to be in Congress before a law like this is passed?


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> As for many months, I saw disappointing blows to Dish Network, wanting to provide distant networks with General Delivery. The Broadcasters got upset, and took it to court. Almost 1/2 million Dish subs had distant networks until judge applied a injunction, once that happened. Everybody lost there distants and Charlie Ergen had to get together with Rick Mountfield to provide distants thru NPS. Now we see the broadcasters crying foul play.. The broadcasters our even crying foul play with video on demand. Even the general manager at KERO TV 23 is crying foul play over distants and video on demand. Craig Jahelka of KERO TV 23 back fired and talk to David K . Rehr, Why I know this because, They did. they our throwing a hissy fit.. CBS IS GOING BACK TO GAME SHOWS AND MY DRAMA SHOW CSI is going to be pulled. ALL THESE NETWORKS ABC, NBC, CBS, AND FOX our in for local corperate bucks, $$$BIG$$$BUCKS$$$. They have no mercy for owners with video on demand DVR'S. And if so, wait until dinocaster drives us and DISH INTO THE GROUND.. It's National Association of Broadcaster's David K. Rehr and Dennis Wharton pushing there localism crap.. They have been in favor of congress pushing to pass the COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006, so Internet on demand, video on demand, satellite radio and satellite tv be regulated. David K. Rehr of National Association of Broadcasters wanted a protection act passed to prohibit out of market media service, to protect local hd-radio and hd - tv, from out of market source. David K. Rehr has got congress convinced, that protecting local hd operation means doomsday for satellite radio and satellite tv. It won't be easy to pass legislation, and if we can convince democrats in the house and the senate, what major victor we may have. Nearly 3% of the 260 million people our receiving satellite radio. We definitely should allow choice. Sinclair broadcaster, replied on a email, saying they will not agree to a contract with mediacom. Hooray, Advantage DISH NETWORK, USING WASTED BANDWIDTH.. A double wammy and January 1st, 2009 coming, when you end up broadcasting hi definition in un-known digital format MPEG 2 WITH A MPEG 4 UNIT.. Cable tv is to crappy, hdtv viewers can see. My hd set with mpeg feature with dish looks good to super good. I do agree, the protection act must be passed for satellite tv, and I hope it happens. If it doesn't happen, our prices will continue to go up to pay for those extra echostar satellite dish network is trying to get permission for to broadcast wasted hd bandwidth at 61.7 W.L. AND other news hd satellite locations., since broadcaster's our to dumb founded to think. MY DISH NETWORK GOING TO PUT, ALL ON ACCOUNT OF FEDERAL DUMB FOUNDED LEGISLATION. I do believe legislators will have a hard time passing legislation since XM AND SIRIUS has the satellite radio protect still in affect..
> 
> What DISH NETWORK need's to do, is allow there dvr hd-mpeg 4 unit's pick up off air A.T.S.C. hd channels, atleast, we keep DAVID K. REHR and N.A.B. off our A.S.S. And if you look at the percentage of where the retransmission of hdtv station need to be carried, YOU ELLIMINATE BIG MARKETS LIKE NEW YORK. If every area is prone to picking up hi definition signal, then we consider, what markets. The ones for retransmission for hi def. Definitely Colorado, Washington state, California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, and a small percentage of the east coast like New york maybe, be of Lake Placid, a mountain region. Dish Network need's a survey on hd locals.. As for R.V. hd distants, it has to be Atlanta and San Francisco hd locals. If every square mile picks up local hd, no pressure on E*


I guess this all makes sense to someone  .


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> I guess this all makes sense to someone  .


 I felt that possible, Because N.A.B. and David K. Rehr believe in localism and more, so xm satellite radio had it problems digesting those possible regulations. I can't say copy right modernization be a problem. I sure believe National Association of Broadcasters support it, and Recording Industry Association of America supports Copy Right Modernization. WWW.XMRADIO.COM/GRASSROOTS is feeling music channels are in trouble, and again what we pay for is be taken away from us. Yea, but will Copy Right modernization affect satellite radio, and satellite tv? Leave us out of the equator, and oh boy, is N.A.B. David K. Rehr SAYING 260 MILLION LOCAL VIEWERS AND LISTENERS. This number changed to 300 million locals viewers and listeners, Which makes me wonder what were they doing with O.T.A.R.D. in November 2006. I couldn't find the site with my limited time. 3% is a small number who subscribed to xm or Sirius among N.A.B. 260 MILLION PEOPLE in U.S.A.. In 2004 in May 12th, about 25 U.S. House reps 14 republicans and 11 democrats support satellite listener act 2004, Which would prohibit satellite radio in markets, which went dead in the House of Rep. House Rep republican Mr. Green introduced legislation which failed, and If they passed it, they you deny rights and violate the protection act to satellite radio. Congress passed legislation to protect satellite radio, from N.A.B. and David K. Rehr attacks. Satellite tv needs protection to video on demand and all programing including distant networks. DISH NETWORKS- NPS provider needs protection too. I can't say, this broadcasters can throw a hissy fits, we know big corperation is digging satellite tv into the ground and they rather not be dealing with rude people. I can live without networks for there greed in our country..

I finished watching 3 1/2 hours of commercial free Criminial minds from my D.V.R. v.o.d. unit. Know I will watch 40 minutes of fox Prison Break. I can't assume broadcasters are losing revenue on TV, and the broadcaster can not assume, I will not buy there product. Granite Broadcasting filed brankruptcy, and when you see that happen, I bet broadcaster will go hunting on Video On Demand. The broadcasters would be wasting my time, with there stupid ads, like select Budweiser... I have no mercy for corperation, but if trouble is coming, then video on demand D.V.R. is something that some day might need a waiver for permission, or there slap a $5.99 fee for DVR, then slap a $10.00 a month fee all to corperates, ABC,NBC, CBS, AND FOX. Yea, it's a soviet thing to say, but sure enough N.A.B. certaintly became a problem over V.O.D. when Edward O. Fritz was N.A.B. pres. in 2001 years. You think Kris Roberts, and Dennis Wharton Know? Don't ask them?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> I felt that possible, Because N.A.B. and David K. Rehr believe in localism and more, so xm satellite radio had it problems digesting those possible regulations. I can't say copy right modernization be a problem. I sure believe National Association of Broadcasters support it, and Recording Industry Association of America supports Copy Right Modernization. WWW.XMRADIO.COM/GRASSROOT is feeling music channels are in trouble, and again what we pay for is be taken away from us. Yea, but will Copy Right modernization affect satellite radio, and satellite tv? Leave us out of the equator, and oh boy, is N.A.B. David K. Rehr SAYING 260 MILLION LOCAL VIEWERS AND LISTENERS. This number changed to 300 million locals viewers and listeners, Which makes me wonder what were they doing with O.T.A.R.D. in November 2006. I couldn't find the site with my limited time. 3% is a small number who subscribed to xm or Sirius among N.A.B. 260 MILLION PEOPLE in U.S.A.. In 2004 in May 12th, about 25 U.S. House reps 14 republicans and 11 democrats support satellite listener act 2004, Which would prohibit satellite radio in markets, which went dead in the House of Rep. House Rep republican Mr. Green introduced legislation which failed, and If they passed it, they you deny rights and violate the protection act to satellite radio. Congress passed legislation to protect satellite radio, from N.A.B. and David K. Rehr attacks. Satellite tv needs protection to video on demand and all programing including distant networks. DISH NETWORKS- NPS provider needs protection too. I can't say, this broadcasters can throw a hissy fits, we know big corperation is digging satellite tv into the ground and they rather not be dealing with rude people. I can live without networks for there greed in our country..
> 
> I finished watching 3 1/2 hours of commercial free Criminial minds from my D.V.R. v.o.d. unit. Know I will watch 40 minutes of fox Prison Break. I can't assume broadcasters are losing revenue on TV, and the broadcaster can not assume, I will not buy there product. Granite Broadcasting filed brankruptcy, and when you see that happen, I bet broadcaster will go hunting on Video On Demand. The broadcasters would be wasting my time, with there stupid ads, like select Budweiser... I have no mercy for corperation, but if trouble is coming, then video on demand D.V.R. is something that some day might need a waiver for permission, or there slap a $5.99 fee for DVR, then slap a $10.00 a month fee all to corperates, ABC,NBC, CBS, AND FOX. Yea, it's a soviet thing to say, but sure enough N.A.B. certaintly became a problem over V.O.D. when Edward O. Fritz was N.A.B. pres. in 2001 years. You think Kris Roberts, and Dennis Wharton Know? Don't ask them?


 xm grassroot's is down.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

kenglish said:


> Why stop with Broadcasters? We should eliminate ALL business-based laws.
> 
> Why should someone who makes a product be allowed to charge money for it?





Greg Bimson said:


> I read the original post, and think....
> 
> Welcome to the Soviet States of America. How many Communists and/or Socialists have to be in Congress before a law like this is passed?


Companies and other organizations use public airwaves to distribute original or third-party content. Such an arrangement necessarily includes government involvement. The government, which represents content owners, broadcasters, viewers, and everyone else, should create rules that properly balance the interests of all parties for the greater public good.

If someone says that they want access to all OTA broadcasts, they're effectively saying that if it's free for some viewers, maybe it should be free for all viewers. There may be holes in that idea, but it is unhelpful and inflammatory to simply suggest that the concept is Soviet, Communist, or Socialist. It is also unhelpful and inflammatory to suggest that such an idea is equal to stealing from stores.

Describing how a particular idea would be unfair to one or more parties is a good way to refute an argument. Slapping labels on an idea doesn't do anyone any good.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Why stop with Broadcasters? We should eliminate ALL business-based laws.


I fail to see the parallels or comparisons, nor the humor.

Video broadcasting via TERRESTIAL means is outdated and no longer needed. That means bye bye affiliates..... That fact that the nets have not done this already amazes me. I am sure they've very discretly ran the numbers on how much they could rake in minus the affiliates.

FACT: 85% of the US consumer gets the TV source from something OTHER THAN OTA.

Terrestial video broadcasting has run its course. Time to move on... Just like in the movie Other Peoples Money....."...I am sure the last buggy whip maker made the best damn buggy whip....." Its over for OTA. ATSC is a band aid and a poor one at that compared to the DVB-T standard and a kludge.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Sinclair broadcaster, replied on a email, saying they will not agree to a contract with mediacom. Hooray, Advantage DISH NETWORK, USING WASTED BANDWIDTH..


While I am not after any one loosing programming they want to see, IF the networks were direct feeding the DBS and crapble then this wouldn't be an issue.

While you may not see it as wasted bandwidth if your effected, the LIL system is a huge kludge to appease one faction, NAB and their members the dinocasters. 100x the channels to accomplish what 8 would.

If Part 73 and Title 17 are modified all these squabbles go away, till the end of the terrestial broadcasting comes about. Basically they would be REQUIRED to allow DBS or crapble to pick up the OTA signal and provide to their subs. Title 17 would set a reasonable rate to be paid, which while I am totally against the idea of them getting one red cent, its just not going to fly till some one gets "greased."

The broadcasters are LICENSED to UTILIZE a LIMITED PUBLIC RESOURCE, thus they need to be held to certain standards. Thats why all the kiddie filler rules etc..

You want to make the NAB gang really flip out. Start filing letters with the FCC each and every time one of your local dinocasters license comes up for renewal. Trust me the FCC looks very closely at the public letter(s) in a stations file when renewal time comes. Enough letters and things just don't get rubber stamped thru. The LAST THING a station wants is ANY COMPLAINT LETTERS in its file.



La Push Commercial Codman said:


> ETWORK need's to do, is allow there dvr hd-mpeg 4 unit's pick up off air A.T.S.C. hd channels, atleast, we keep DAVID K. REHR and N.A.B. off our A.S.S. locals. If every square mile picks up local hd, no pressure on E*


No, this is EXACTLY what they SHOULD NOT do! This only helps to continue terrestial broadcasting.

The whole reason this is occuring and the NAB's "localism" approach is they know they are headed to extinction.

Plus that means that people have to put up either an OTA antenna or sub to crapble. I have no issues with antennas, but some people (HOA zealots, etc.) have huge issues with this. While the OTARD ruling null and voids their nonsense it plays and panders to the dinocasters and I want nothing to do with crapble other than their internet service since DSL and fiber (not yet anyway) is not available.

SCFAPA's only goal is to allow persons to get networks period and clean up the mess we have now.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rec9140 said:


> While I am not after any one loosing programming they want to see, IF the networks were direct feeding the DBS and crapble then this wouldn't be an issue.


Ah, yet another "free market" approach to "the problem" - not.

Broadcast networks set up a system (before satellite) of distribution to the end viewer that included territorial rights. That system is still in place. Perhaps some progressive network will rewrite its contracts and allow a national satellite channel along with as the 'exclusive' agreements with affiliates, but that makes their network less valuable as something to sell to affiliates. Most local broadcasters are not looking to rebroadcast a cable or satellite channel - they are looking for exclusive content that they can in turn sell to their advertisers.

Your suggestion is to have the government interfere in that private arrangement. There are protections in place to make sure one company doesn't get to much control of media. You seem to want to throw away that protection (granting networks control of media in all markets) as well as hurt every local affiliate in the country. Not good.

And your further suggestion to end terrestrial broadcasting is so far off the wall that it barely deserves a comment. Lets close every shoe store in the country so the mail order Zapatos can have an exclusive. Nahhh.


rec9140 said:


> You want to make the NAB gang really flip out. Start filing letters with the FCC each and every time one of your local dinocasters license comes up for renewal. Trust me the FCC looks very closely at the public letter(s) in a stations file when renewal time comes. Enough letters and things just don't get rubber stamped thru. The LAST THING a station wants is ANY COMPLAINT LETTERS in its file.


The FCC knows the difference between a valid complaint and fluff. (See the indecency complaints and how those are handled.) Plenty of stations get renewed with garbage in their file. Only VALID complaints, generally filed with clear legal descriptions and no off the wall statements ("this violates 'RICO' " would not be a valid statement) will get considered.

Find an example of ONE station that didn't get renewed because of complaint letters from viewers. Then look hard at those letters. If such non-renewal has ever occurred you can bet that the letters were not fluffy.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Wow.. I'm trying to decipher all of this. Are you all saying the hodge podge of regulations is in place to serve the interests of local broadcasters and are thus unnecessary because over the air broadcasting is becoming a thing of the past?

Seems they will be on the air for the foreseeable future; I haven't heard about any stations relinquishing their TV broadcasting licenses.

--- CHAS


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

rec9140 said:


> While I am not after any one loosing programming they want to see, IF the networks were direct feeding the DBS and crapble then this wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> While you may not see it as wasted bandwidth if your effected, the LIL system is a huge kludge to appease one faction, NAB and their members the dinocasters. 100x the channels to accomplish what 8 would.
> 
> ...


 The broadcasters have taken too much away. Look at xm satellite radio, you can listen to a live broadcast of sean Hannity on xm satellite radio. Yes, I was testing everybody to questions. It would be good to allow choice for everyone. Atleast bills get paid for the satellites And start broadcasting in Hi definition, since anolog is ghosting. Atleast a MPEG-2 broadcast isn't as bad a MPEG-4 broadcast. What get's me is Mission: Impossible is on KDOC UHF CH 56, AND HDCH.56-1. Instead broadcast KDOC HDCH instead of uhf, but no they can't. Yea, I see our chances look better. Just hope, I get Seattle, Washington station back. I spend my Summers in a ksanami enviroment, tidal wave, highly in Callam Bay County, near Folks.. Yea, scarey.. I have to spend one summer with no Seattle station, KOMO, KIRO, KING station. Have to settle for San Francisco-Atlanta, in R.V.. In 2005 Summer, We had to evacuate because local seattle station flash a ksanami alert. Didn't happen. Turn satellite radio news on no report of it. Turn VHF MARINE RADIO ON IN TRUCK TO VHF CH 22 Bravo. Got the report. Won't have Seattle this summer, so not good.. Congress would not love to hear this story, But I bet they do. They read our complaints..


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

James Long said:


> Ah, yet another "free market" approach to "the problem" - not.
> 
> Broadcast networks set up a system (before satellite) of distribution to the end viewer that included territorial rights. That system is still in place. Perhaps some progressive network will rewrite its contracts and allow a national satellite channel along with as the 'exclusive' agreements with affiliates, but that makes their network less valuable as something to sell to affiliates. Most local broadcasters are not looking to rebroadcast a cable or satellite channel - they are looking for exclusive content that they can in turn sell to their advertisers.
> 
> ...


What has satellite radio do? Broadcast live talkshow conveniently. satellite radio is awsome. It provide commercial free music, nice. satellite radio provide talk radio. Live shows, like the G-man, G Gordon Liddy live on xm radio. Nice. The thing about it is the federal government decided not to pick on satellite radio. They love to, but haven't they picked on us enough. Bills have gone dead. Thank for VIDEO ON DEMAND AND satellite radio, we have confused the lobbyist. There cry Mama. And David K Rehr-national Association of Broadcaster should shut-up. ALL OF YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT, WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE WHAT EVER CITY WE WANT, AND AS MANY. Charlie Ergen feelings were hurt by David Pinnocho Rehr, A Dingle Berry..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Satellite radio has it's place. So far not a big place, but they are growing.

For now the FCC is leaving satellite out of the content rules because it is a subscription service with tools in place for locking out content and other "parental controls". One does not have to worry about the five year old "learning new words" or "growing up too fast" by accidentally tuning to XM the way they could accidentally find an OTA radio or TV signal. If the kid trips over something on XM, SIRIUS or a subscription cable or satellite TV service it is something the parents choose to allow into the home (or car).

At the moment no one is asking for all local broadcasting to go away so that XM and SIRIUS can take over. Then again, radio is not syndicated in the same way as TV. We have four major commercial TV networks, PBS and several smaller networks (including The CW and MyTV). On the radio side there are dozens of content providers --- even just for national talk programs there are MANY sources for someone to ask the compelling questions. While some programs (such as Rush) are popular enough that it seems some station in every market will pick up the program and carry it there are very few full form radio networks where every station in every market carries every program (unless the station is owned by the network).

What does this have to do with local TV stations getting their licenses renewed? Very little. But you did bring it up.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rec9140 said:


> Video broadcasting via TERRESTIAL means is outdated and no longer needed. That means bye bye affiliates..... That fact that the nets have not done this already amazes me. I am sure they've very discretly ran the numbers on how much they could rake in minus the affiliates.
> 
> FACT: 85% of the US consumer gets the TV source from something OTHER THAN OTA.


FACT: The big four networks own affiliates that reach over 20 percent of the nation's households. They have a vested interest to keep the status quo...

Everyone that "loves" network programming wants to create a law to destroy the very networks they wish to get.

FACT: If terrestrial video is so outdated, why in the world is everyone investing in a second set of transmitters and cameras, for the HD revolution? Because even if the technology is from the 1950's, it is still applicable to the modern day.


FTA Michael said:


> If someone says that they want access to all OTA broadcasts, they're effectively saying that if it's free for some viewers, maybe it should be free for all viewers. There may be holes in that idea, but it is unhelpful and inflammatory to simply suggest that the concept is Soviet, Communist, or Socialist. It is also unhelpful and inflammatory to suggest that such an idea is equal to stealing from stores.


Fine. BUY an antenna and get what you can with your television tuner. To purchase a copy the programming from another party requires the approval of the original party.

Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise, any attempt to change the legislation which allows the government to basically seize the copyrights of any content broadcasting over the airwaves is SOCIALIST.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

"FACT: 85% of the US consumer gets the TV source from something OTHER THAN OTA.

Terrestial video broadcasting has run its course. Time to move on... Just like in the movie Other Peoples Money....."...I am sure the last buggy whip maker made the best damn buggy whip....." Its over for OTA. ATSC is a band aid and a poor one at that compared to the DVB-T standard and a kludge."

But, the programming that is being watched on satellite and cable is still what is coming from licensees of OTA stations and contracted network affiliates. So, without the local affiliate station to broadcast the programming, those viewers get a "blue screen".

Unless the networks (or, should I say, "when" the networks) quit selling programming to affiliates, and just put up a national pay channel on DBS and Cable, there will still need to be local OTA stations to link that programming from network to viewer....even if there is another step (Cable or Satellite) in between.

Of course, when "all OTA channels go away", I wonder who will be the local link for news and emergencies? Will it be your local "City Hall TV", or county "Sheriff's Department News", or "Civil Defense Channels"?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

James Long, You left out video on demand, commercial free goods. Kenglish didn't mention our D.V.R. Commercial free O.T.A. NEWS, COMMERCIAL FREE O.T.A. SOAPS, DRAMA, COMEDY, AND A WHOLE TON OFF COMMERCIAL FREE GOODS.. GOING HI DEFINITION D.V.R. Don't forget E*'s U.S. Supreme court issue. We need to email our congress leaders. Our new one's.. I have Honorble Kevin McCarthy to email to support for distant network support, for 800'000 subs on Dish, who lost there distant networks..


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

When the networks lose the income they get from the local broadcasters (who have to buy the programming from them, they'll definitely want to charge the viewers for it. And, they'll be a defacto monopoly, too.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> Wow.. I'm trying to decipher all of this. Are you all saying the hodge podge of regulations is in place to serve the interests of local broadcasters and are thus unnecessary because over the air broadcasting is becoming a thing of the past?


The mess of the various laws on the books now was BOUGHT and PAID for courtsey of the NAB. Syndex and all the other crap.... Its 2007 and the laws written still do not account for DBS, they still consider only OTA and crapble which have obvious limits on their territory served.



HIPAR said:


> Seems they will be on the air for the foreseeable future; I haven't heard about any stations relinquishing their TV broadcasting licenses.


No, this has not happened, YET. I'm suggesting that it SHOULD OCCUR, and the sooner the better. Its wasted spectrum better served for public safety and new wireless services, not wasted video broadasting that an over whelming majority of persons do not even use.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

kenglish said:


> Unless the networks (or, should I say, "when" the networks) quit selling programming to affiliates, and just put up a national pay channel on DBS and Cable, there will still need to be local OTA stations to link that programming from network to viewer....even if there is another step (Cable or Satellite) in between.


Thats correct. The whole goal is to PUSH or drag kicking and screaming the networks into this.

Till then 8 sources of the networks will be found. These 8 channels will be sent via DBS ala NPS. Lets say Netwok A sees the light and creates Network A on AMC16. DBS picks up this Network A feed (EAST & WEST) and then DROPS 2 channels from the OTA sources. This repeated till all 8 are fed direct from the networks.



HIPAR said:


> Of course, when "all OTA channels go away", I wonder who will be the local link for news and emergencies? Will it be your local "City Hall TV", or county "Sheriff's Department News", or "Civil Defense Channels"?


Plain and simple if you need "localism" touches, your NOT going to get them with my plan.

I don't use mass media news for info, so if thats an issue to get this info then your going to have a problem with DBS under my proposal. I just don't get the need for this alleged info. If the local authorities want to get info out they have plans to do so which does NOT involve local media be it radio, tv or print. Theres a reason every police, fire and EMS unit has a PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

James Long said:


> Ah, yet another "free market" approach to "the problem" - not.


So put your proposal forth.....



James Long said:


> Broadcast networks set up a system (before satellite) of distribution to the end viewer that included territorial ........at protection (granting networks control of media in all markets) as well as hurt every local affiliate in the country. Not good.


Forget the affilaites! They are WALKING DEAD! We DO NOT NEED THEM. This is why we are in the mess we are in. Who cares what content they have to offer the affiliates.

In one fell swoop you can get your network on 24Million DBS subs, and I am sure the crableco's would ditch having to deal with the affiliates in a heartbeat. I am sure Mediacom would be more than willing to pick up a direct feed of the networks .

The government when a private agreement is not in the best interest of the PUBLIC using PUBLIC AIRWAVES needs to intervene. Thats now.



James Long said:


> And your further suggestion to end terrestrial broadcasting is so far off the wall that it barely deserves a comment. Lets close every shoe store in the country so the mail order Zapatos can have an exclusive.


Works for me. If I can not get an item outside of food on the internet, then I don't need it.

I only shop for food in a store as none of the stores deliver. Funny how in the 50's stores would deliver, but now that the technology is here to benefit a chain to have delivery they don't offer it. Various services have tried and all failed, even one by the local/regional chain failed. What could be better. Place order on line, truck delivers.....you would think every parent on the planet would be klamoring for this..... one less trip out with the rugrats......



James Long said:


> Nahhh.The FCC knows the difference between a valid complaint and fluff. (See the indecency complaints......were not fluffy.


There has not been, BUT if you want to put a fly in the oinment you can seriously put a hurt on the broadcaster. You would have to find a legitimate issue, and thats going to be tough, but if the religious kooks can flip out over some of the most stupid stuff broadcast then theres probably room to find some thing to complain about the local affilate. They don't like letters of complaints in their files. You will get contacted by them to follow up to resolve it, fluff or not. They don't want it. It looks bad on them regardless of fluff or not.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rec9140 said:


> So put your proposal forth.....


Cable equality ... _allow_ satellite to provide any channel that is available to a customer OTA Grade B to be carried via satellite. Also allow the current DMA based coverage, since many markets have stations that do not fully cover their market.

Treat significantly viewed the way that cable treats it. An additional station that isn nessisarily Grade B but has enough viewership to be forced onto the cable system.

One step further ... forget consent to carry. Those signals are available via free OTA broadcast spectrum, permission of the broadcaster (nor payment) should not be required to deliver it to customers that SHOULD receive the signal OTA.

Must carry would remain market based (I don't want to force satellite to immediately carry every local channel) but if a station is uplinked in a neighboring market everyone in Grade B gets the signal.

The steps above do not interfere with the stations rights before satellite. Every customer with a decent antenna has the right to receive the signal OTA - why should the customer be prevented from receiving the same signal via satellite (especially when cable can carry the signal). The only place this interferes with those rights is extending the station to cover it's entire market.

Something would need to be worked out for people who do not have a Grade B of an affilate. The current distants laws would help there.

What I would not do is demand that an industry go out of business just because someone doesn't like their local affilate. If you want NY TV live in NY (not "move", just move).


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rec9140 said:


> The government when a private agreement is not in the best interest of the PUBLIC using PUBLIC AIRWAVES needs to intervene. Thats now.


Devil's Advocate time...

I have DirecTV. DirecTV is using satellite slot licenses provided by the FCC, as is Dish Network. So, shall we have the FCC demand that the DBS companies provide their service for free?

I can't stand this thinking that "the FCC granted the licenses, so they should have some say". Good lord, broadcasting is about the third most federally-regulated industry in the country (behind the airlines and healthcare), and the ills to all problems are solved by having the government step in?

It is the government that setup the "localism" that is so despised. It is the government that regulates what type of programming can be shown on network TV. The government has even lately tried to regulate the type of programming that can be shown on basic cable/satellite (the whole issue with the Family packs).

It is the government that tried to stop the current network system in television when the industry first started, yet four major networks are built out. Yet the government will not allow those network to own all of their affiliates.

Yet the Canadians, which have an even more regulated broadcast industry, allow for some choice language and skin to be shown over their free-to-airwaves television, which doesn't seem possible here.

But let's make sure the local affiliates can't charge any money to be on the local cable or the satellite system. After all, DBS was only at about 7 million subscribers when there weren't any local channels available via satellite, although both DBS companies were providing networks illegally. With the local-into-local laws, that number is darn near 28 million in just over seven years. So local-into-local and network programming has drawn a large chunk of the more recent 21 million subscriber additions, and those affiliates and networks, which are the most watched programming, shouldn't receive a dime.

Shall I keep going? As Spock would say, "That is completely illogical".


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> I have DirecTV. DirecTV is using satellite slot licenses provided by the FCC, as is Dish Network. So, shall we have the FCC demand that the DBS companies provide their service for free?


No, and thats just another out of line analogy. The business model of the OTA broadcaster as FREE and AD SUPPORTED medium is different fromt that of a SUBSCRIPTION BASED model like DBS.



Greg Bimson said:


> I can't stand this thinking that "the FCC granted the licenses, so they should have some say". Good lord, broadcasting is about the third most federally-regulated industry in the country (behind the airlines and healthcare), and the ills to all problems are solved by having the government step in?


When corporations act like a bunch of school yard bullies to the CONSUMER, its time for the government to step in, and RESOLVE THINGS. Broadcasting is regulated for good reason, and needs more till at least terrestial video broadcasting is terminated.



Greg Bimson said:


> It is the government that setup the "localism" that is so despised. It is the government that regulates what type of programming can be shown on network TV. The government has even lately tried to regulate the type of programming that can be shown on basic cable/satellite (the whole issue with the Family packs).


When the religous kooks and bible thumpers are the only ones doing the lobbying and PAYING OFF of the political process then you get the crap about content and family packs... The vocabulary used on TV today would make send the "standards" peolpe at network over the edge 10 years ago. I have zero issue with it, but some still have a major "panty twist" over some of the most stupid things. Change the channel or better yet read a book.



Greg Bimson said:


> It is the government that tried to stop the current network system in television when the industry first started, yet four major networks are built out. Yet the government will not allow those network to own all of their affiliates.


Should have persistsed, and FORGET THE AFFILIATES. I want NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. My goal is a DIRECT FEEDS of the networks to DBS and crapble. From the source to the consumer carrier(s). No middle men affiliates along the way.

I can drive around most areas near me and the only antennas I see are for the wise consumers who have chosen DBS over what the rest get, crapble. I see few OTA antennas, and the few I do are in such disrepair that they are of no use. So either the home is vacant or theirs another provider. So theres no need for OTA broadcasting. Those in such remote areas that no crapble would ever get to them can get DBS. The only persons still with an issue then would be those who could not view the DBS sats for some reason, tress etc..



Greg Bimson said:


> Yet the Canadians, which have an even more regulated broadcast industry, allow for some choice language and skin to be shown over their free-to-airwaves television, which doesn't seem possible here.


Thanks but NO THANKS on the PCURC, NO WAY. That's even more fubard than the mess we have now.

The "Puritan" views that some have over what should be viewed on TV be it OTA or any source is solved simply by DONT WATCH IT THEN. Theres 100's of channels I am sure you can find one that meets your uptight needs. They would stroke out on my desktop background within about 2 seconds.



Greg Bimson said:


> But let's make sure the local affiliates can't charge any money to be on the local cable or the satellite system.


Works for me! Now this is never going to happen, till they get run out of business.

As a means to the better end, I am willing to continue some of the payola for set in stone period. NONE of the antics like the whole ATSC mess.

Network package is $10.00 and then you pay a "NAB & Affiliates Exortion Fee & Tax" (this is printed right on the bill exactly this way) $2.00 so every one knows who is getting paid off.



Greg Bimson said:


> After all, DBS was only at about 7 million subscribers when there weren't any local channels .......dditions, and those affiliates and networks, which are the most watched programming, shouldn't receive a dime.


Lets pretend for a moment that the PT24 setup was still the only way to get nets on DBS to this day. Would their be a difference in the number of subs, yes. I don't think it would be more than a few mill for each DBS carrier. Billy Bob Sue and Jane just need to be detox'd from the affiliate state to NETWORK state. You ask whats their favorite show on a network... Click to 5733 at 9PM and Greys Ananatomy will be shown.

Now as to ...... AFFILIATES GONE! REPLACED with DIRECT NETWORK FEEDS. No loss of continuity in the programming and possibly now they are AD FREE and the Puritan content rules can be tossed as can the kiddie fluff and filler.



Greg Bimson said:


> Shall I keep going? As Spock would say, "That is completely illogical".


Sure, because YOUR KEEPING AFFILIATES, I AM NOT. I am not trying to put a modern V8 engine in a horse buggy and then drive it around town using my buggy whip to try to make the throttle work and leather reins to steer.

Why does everyone want to keep the affiliate system????

1) It certrainly doesn't help the networks $$$ wise or content wise. How many thru fit over Book of Daniel because of its content? Lets see I can collect $$$ fees direct from the the DBS and crable subs and NOT SHARE with affiliates or continue with the present system??? I pick door 1! And Door one they have not even sold one minute of ad time and get paid!

2) The networks would certainly have much better schedule ease. How many more people could be watching your shows if it were on to meet their schedule. HBO etc. got this one right. Show it several times at differing days/times. Even in the world of the PVR and the VCR, many peolpe will just watch it at a time better for them v. recording it.

You want illogical.....

AFFILAITES and LIL. Most illogical.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

rec9140 said:


> No, and thats just another out of line analogy. The business model of the OTA broadcaster as FREE and AD SUPPORTED medium is different fromt that of a SUBSCRIPTION BASED model like DBS.
> 
> When corporations act like a bunch of school yard bullies to the CONSUMER, its time for the government to step in, and RESOLVE THINGS. Broadcasting is regulated for good reason, and needs more till at least terrestial video broadcasting is terminated.
> 
> ...


 Well your getting into the nitty gritty routine. A church Paster, are making issue over Video On Demand to congress leaders. And like networks I would dream.. Granite broadcasting is slowly going out of business. They won't make it. Granite broadcasting is blame CABLE TV DVR, DISH NETWORKS VIP622, DIRECTV HR20-700, TIVO SERIES3 AND REPLAY HD DVR. U.S. Congress can't really do anything, but they could. But you just can't prohibit video on demand in markets. So what can Granite Broadcasting do?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rec9140 said:


> The business model of the OTA broadcaster as FREE and AD SUPPORTED medium is different fromt that of a SUBSCRIPTION BASED model like DBS.


No it isn't. They are BOTH licensed by the FCC.

At the risk of sounding like a four-year old, "WHY?"


rec9140 said:


> When corporations act like a bunch of school yard bullies to the CONSUMER, its time for the government to step in, and RESOLVE THINGS. Broadcasting is regulated for good reason, and needs more till at least terrestial video broadcasting is terminated.


And now we understand your position. Fine. Nothing is stopping the networks themselves from removing their programming from their affiliates and making the network a pay service on satellite or cable. But...

ESPN charges in the neighborhood of under $3 per subscriber per month, and gets nowhere near the ratings of an ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX.

Would you care to pay an extra $20 a month for those network feeds?


rec9140 said:


> Should have persistsed, and FORGET THE AFFILIATES. I want NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. My goal is a DIRECT FEEDS of the networks to DBS and crapble. From the source to the consumer carrier(s). No middle men affiliates along the way.


Then, let me make something very clear that you don't seem to understand:

THE NETWORKS AND THE AFFILIATES WANT IT THIS WAY.

Now, do you stop watching to protest your anger, or simply complain and continue to feed the system?


rec9140 said:



> Lets pretend for a moment that the PT24 setup was still the only way to get nets on DBS to this day. Would their be a difference in the number of subs, yes. I don't think it would be more than a few mill for each DBS carrier. Billy Bob Sue and Jane just need to be detox'd from the affiliate state to NETWORK state. You ask whats their favorite show on a network... Click to 5733 at 9PM and Greys Ananatomy will be shown.


And without any of the SHVA, SHVIA and SHVERA, 5733 would not exist.

"I want network programming my way, screw everyone else."

The networks should have some say in that.


rec9140 said:


> Sure, because YOUR KEEPING AFFILIATES, I AM NOT.


Of course I am.

WHEN ABC, NBC AND CBS OWN AFFILIATES THAT REACH MORE THAN A FIFTH OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN KEEPING THE STATUS QUO.

Or are you so blind to see that?

ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX own all of their affiliates in the top five markets, save FOX which does not own their San Francisco affiliate. None of those networks are so keen to destroy their own affiliate system, as it would completely reduce the value of the affiliates they own. So you'll need to take the blinders off to see the problem:

The networks have just as much skin in the game to keep the status quo. If you really want to change it, then you give us true BUSINESS ideas that would allow you to get what you want and also allow the networks to make even more money. Laws to repurpose their property just won't do it.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> No it isn't. They are BOTH licensed by the FCC.
> 
> At the risk of sounding like a four-year old, "WHY?"And now we understand your position. Fine. Nothing is stopping the networks themselves from removing their programming from their affiliates and making the network a pay service on satellite or cable. But...
> 
> ...


 A challenge. I bet the broadcasters can b-tch, if they want to, but if people want to give Fios a try here in California. Los Angeles tv station would be available. Somebody was right. If Fios tv provide programing and state wide networks, then satellite tv maybe seeing light up ahead.. I wouldn't mind Having Seattle, Washington tv stations. But if legislation is what it is then, How could you tell a Fios sub, sorry no Los Angeles. grab your big old BLACK AND WHITE 1950'S TV and watch the Honeymooners on the old rusted antennae? I betcha, the National Association of Broadcasters, or the pouting paster Oral Roberts will b-tch. Concerns local news media concerns


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Years and years of issue's and as it ends up. Broadcasters want to punish the lazy person, who doesn't have any idea how to pick up local stations.. If you give broadcasters authority, your screwed It is remarkable James, Greg, inhaminity, and others, if we live 120 miles from a transmitter, broadcasters can't make up there mind. Many in Bishop have to settle for Fresno or Las Vegas or Reno or NPS in Bishop, Ca. And if the broadcaster wish not for cable or satellite to provide a retransmission of a hd signal, tough. Blame Neilson ratings for increase. The problem is broadcasters have to many receiving a long distant hd or sd signal. You right about one things. Broadcasters will say tough, if you can't pick us up, then move to town.. 

The disagreement with sinclair and mediacom give federal government a big fat headache. Mediacom and Sinclair are heading to Capital Hill, report from Sky Report. Broadcaster, are happier that Dish Network hd receivers can pick up local hd signals with a local outdoor antenna. Relationship is greater with Dish Network, over cable tv. But, there not please a anolog signal is being charged, instead of a free signal. James You said something about it.. 

If David K. Rehr of N.A.B. doesn't change his predictions about 260 millions for localism, then many will be extremely upset, when they travel to the mountains and can't get jack diddley..


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Yet the Canadians, which have an even more regulated broadcast industry, allow for some choice language and skin to be shown over their free-to-airwaves television, which doesn't seem possible here.


As a card-carrying Republican, you should understand the reason for that. The trend was gradually moving in the other direction until the political arm of the Christian Coalition came to power. Now the networks won't air anything that might be even remotely construed as violating the FCC's vague "decency" standards for fear of being hit with enormous fines. It's the party that claims it wants to keep the government out of your life, while at the same time telling you what you can watch on TV.


----------



## rec9140 (Dec 22, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> The networks have just as much skin in the game to keep the status quo. If you really want to change it, then you give us true BUSINESS ideas that would allow you to get what you want and also allow the networks to make even more money. Laws to repurpose their property just won't do it.


Lets see:

1) Ditch affliates

2) Networks now reach 90% of the viewing public via O&O v. 1/5 with O&O. I think a 70% increase viewers and the subsequent increase in ad revenue would work quite nicely.

3) I can have 100% of the PIE or split with affiliates????? HMMM ALL of the PIE is better that sharing it.

4) No more rules on content

5) No more limits on how many stations you can own, as they don't exist any more and you can reach upto 100% now.

6) Instead of the affiliates getting fees for retrans the NETS GET THEM. (NO DOUBLE DIPPING EITHER!)

The networks stand to make MORE $$$ SANS AFFLIATES than with them. If you now control the source of the network from beginning to end then you don't have to split the pie up with the affiliates. In 50 thru 70's the affilates were needed. With crapble in the 80's gaining wide spread penetration and DBS in the 21st century, its time to ditch the last century business model and FOCUS on the FUTURE. The affiliates are NOT THE FUTURE. They are a burden on the nets.

For a DBS site, the "support the affiliates and OTA" stance is not in line with the technology or even the betterment of the DBS consumer. The affliates and the NAB and the media conglomerates like Sinclair are the ENEMEY and 80% of the reason for the mess with the networks.

SHIVA, SHERVA, etc. may have made network feeding possible, in the legal sense (if PT24 etc. had "greased" the NAB with a fee per sub per month on the net subs we would never be in this mess, while I don't think they deserve one red cent, if its shuts them up and the go away fine. heres your NAB & AFFLIATE EXTORTION TAX, and I don't agree that PT24 or Dish or even crapble for that matter should 1) Pay for retrans or 2) even have to have an agreement from OTA source. Its OTA and if I receive retrans it on my on private transponder so be it!) and looked good at the time, but they are a serious hinderance to DBS and the future. Just like the HD uber alles craving. HD > /dev/null

As for the networks as a package costing $20/month or $20/month each. I think that would be pricing themselves out of the market place.

The networks "public face" to affiliates, the public and the NAB goons may be "support the affiliates!" BUT no way there is not some one bright enough to see the light and know that ditching the affilates is the best move the nets could make since sliced bread.

For the differnce of ad/OTA v. network/sat delivered ala HBO. The only thing in common license wise is a license for sat uplink by the nets now, which they have already for other uplinking. OTA licensing is a whole different leaque with all the nanny filler rules and content restrictions. None of this applies to a network thats not OTA. So if you want to argue the fine point that each has some sort of FCC license, fine. YES your 100% right, but thats not the point. A sat uplink license for the nets to uplink to say Megabird IXIXIXI at 102W is nothing like the rules that apply from Part 73. There are law firms whose sole practice is Part 73 crap. Thats reason enough to put Part 73 video out business. Less business for sleazeyers.

We not going to agree nor are we on the same path to the future.

Affliates and the NAB are the enemey and they must go!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

So, are you saying you want to pay the networks directly for their programming, because you think it's unfair to have to pay the local station, that is already paying the network for that same programming?

The networks get paid by the station, which sells commercials and then gives you the programming (or, in some cases, charges the sat or Cable company for using it to get you to buy their other channels in a big package). If the stations are eliminated, then the home viewer has to foot the entire bill for the programming....no local advertisers to buy it for you (hoping you'll see their commercials).

So, which would you rather do, pay a few cents to the sat and cable company, pay a fortune directly to the networks, or even put up an antenna and get it for free?

Your choice!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Now I am playing devil's advocate...


rec9140 said:


> 1) Ditch affliates


No one really wants to do that. The networks will reach less eyeballs in the beginning.


rec9140 said:


> 2) Networks now reach 90% of the viewing public via O&O v. 1/5 with O&O. I think a 70% increase viewers and the subsequent increase in ad revenue would work quite nicely.


Your math is incorrect. The issue here is that the networks already own affiliates in the top 5 markets, which means with just the top 5 markets the networks reach almost 20 percent of their subscribers with stations they own. The networks are also receiving money from the national advertising, so the only increase you are discussing here is for the local avails that could be used by the networks. And there aren't that many of them.

I have suggested in the past that if the networks wanted, their best method of obtaining national coverage via cable was to make the network-owned HD feed only available on satellite or cable, while the local digital channel would no longer be HD. Both would co-exist. Then, the HD channel could be a bit more risque, could be sold with different (targeted) ads, and could be charged to the cable and satellite companies.

The networks would be fairly happy. The affiliates would be fairly happy if they can figure a way to survive now that they have a lot of space left on that digital transmitter and could learn how to use it. You'd be happy because you could get what you want.

Of course, the question would then be would the networks issue both an East and a West Coast feed?


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2007)

James Long said:


> Your suggestion is to have the government interfere in that private arrangement. There are protections in place to make sure one company doesn't get to much control of media. You seem to want to throw away that protection (granting networks control of media in all markets) as well as hurt every local affiliate in the country. Not good.


The government interferes in lots of private arrangements. That's what they did when they passed the "must carry"/retransmission consent law. While you could debate whether it should be legal for cable companies to retransmit local stations to those who can already receive them OTA, that was the case for many years until this legislation was passed. And forcing cable companies to carry local channels (or better yet, giving the local stations the choice of either charging for retransmission or forcing the cable operator to carry a channel) is definitely not "free market". No matter how you slice it, it amounts to interference in a private arrangement. At the time it was passed, it forced many cable companies to drop networks that people wanted in order to carry some local stations that few people cared about.

The reason it was passed has very little to do with the "public interest", which was the argument that was used to defend the law from a court challenge. The fact is that the broadcasters simply had more money, political influence, and lobbying power than the cable operators (they still do, or an antiquated technology like broadcast TV wouldn't continue to thrive in an era when most people get their TV through cable or satellite). And they certainly have more influence than ordinary citizens like us.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> So, are you saying you want to pay the networks directly for their programming, because you think it's unfair to have to pay the local station, that is already paying the network for that same programming?
> 
> The networks get paid by the station, which sells commercials and then gives you the programming (or, in some cases, charges the sat or Cable company for using it to get you to buy their other channels in a big package). If the stations are eliminated, then the home viewer has to foot the entire bill for the programming....no local advertisers to buy it for you (hoping you'll see their commercials).
> 
> ...


 The local broadcasters can force us to watch there local ads, but who cares, we have the dish ViP622, boy does it skip local commercials. This is the one thing broadcasters our after. David K. Rehr - National Association of Broadcasters sent a letter out to Neilson, to advised to do a DVR count. How many house holds have DVR's. Once they do, I just betcha, they will decide to screw all the dish 622 subs and other subs, and will all be screwed. That is called attention..


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> The government interferes in lots of private arrangements. That's what they did when they passed the "must carry"/retransmission consent law. While you could debate whether it should be legal for cable companies to retransmit local stations to those who can already receive them OTA, that was the case for many years until this legislation was passed. And forcing cable companies to carry local channels (or better yet, giving the local stations the choice of either charging for retransmission or forcing the cable operator to carry a channel) is definitely not "free market". No matter how you slice it, it amounts to interference in a private arrangement. At the time it was passed, it forced many cable companies to drop networks that people wanted in order to carry some local stations that few people cared about.


Okay. My opinion and my belief is that must-carry for NCE stations (such as PBS, called non-commercial education) is a good thing, because those would be the first stations dumped by cable if they were forced to have an agreement. That is why must-carry is important.

However, I agree 100 percent that must-carry for commerical stations is just bad.

But to say that the government interfered in a private arrangement by passing that Cable Act in the very early 1990's is not correct. At that time, there was no private arrangement between local channels and cable carriers. Cable received a free pass to carry any station without the need for a carriage contract; they just took the signal and placed it on their system. There wasn't anything remotely "free market" about retransmisson of local channels prior to 1990.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Okay. My opinion and my belief is that must-carry for NCE stations (such as PBS, called non-commercial education) is a good thing, because those would be the first stations dumped by cable if they were forced to have an agreement. That is why must-carry is important.
> 
> However, I agree 100 percent that must-carry for commerical stations is just bad.
> 
> But to say that the government interfered in a private arrangement by passing that Cable Act in the very early 1990's is not correct. At that time, there was no private arrangement between local channels and cable carriers. Cable received a free pass to carry any station without the need for a carriage contract; they just took the signal and placed it on their system. There wasn't anything remotely "free market" about retransmisson of local channels prior to 1990.


You are entitled to your opinion as to whether it's a "good thing", but to say that forcing cable companies to carry local stations isn't interfering in private arrangements is really kind of silly. It's almost as silly as your comment that the cable companies were getting a "free pass" by doing something that was perfectly legal - i.e., retransmitting a clear signal to people who could receive it for free, anyway.

The broadcast industry by its very nature is not a "free market". Broadcast spectrum is a finite resource, which is why it is licensed and regulated.


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

I talked to Mr. Jahelka. 853 am Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007. Hi Sir. I am calling because, you mentioned that you wished to see legislation on video on demand. Is that correct? Yes, it is correct. The reason is because video on demand-DVR is affecting are advertizing market, and we rely on every local viewership. There skipping our commercials and we our losing money over it. Well mr. Jahelka, why do you say, your losing money, how could you say that. You are saying we can not receive distant networks, east coast or west coast, why?
Well, it's because I believe after 8 or 10 years, we saw a lose in advertizing revenue, so my station KERO TV 23 and others will be asking congress to uphold there legislation. Well, Do you care about the 15 millions subs, who have video on demand? NO, WE DO NOT CARE, ALL WE WANT IS FOR PEOPLE TO WATCH OUR PROGRAMS WITHOUT RETRANS IN HOMES. WE WANT PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE CHOICE. We had to layoff many at our station due to video on demand affects and lively affects.
O.k. Craig Jahelka, what do you think about satellite radio and on line new sources? Well, I believe congress needs to get legislation in play to protect local media from losing anymore listening audience. I am always for all localism. I can't figure out why, people are wasting, there money on satellite tv. They should be fourced to settle for cable tv or nothing.. O.k. Mr. Jahelka, your bring on localism issue. Why cable tv? Because cable tv is localism and all the program is our time zone, P.S.T. zone. 

Well, thanks for your time...

I just could not believe Craig Jahelka had the same replys, just as John Phillios KGET tv had the same questions. All, I can say is broadcasters are desperate for BIG CORPERATE BUCKS, AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY CUT JOBS OR BARROW.. The whole thing stinks, and I believe the broadcasters and there big corperate bucks are issue.. Station managers and there owners contacted big corperation to have N.A.B. David K. Rehr, lobby congress for legislation. Digital Milleum and copy right.. Commercial tv been around for 50 years or so, which Senator Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and more senator relying on viewership, and video on demand prevent that, station manager Chance MCkay KBAK CBS 29.. So, will see what happen, I don't know what the heck, I will do. Broadcasters can't do this, but they can..
So, bottom line broadcasters want 100% localism and no video on demand in G.P.T.V. market, and with Neilson reporting the number to National Association of Broadcasters, it looks like you can't pause live tv, or even up in the mountain no distant networks and you are screwed.. In Bakersfield, there is somewhere around 8 thousand or 10 thousand satellite tv subs, maybe more. But to consider very, very strict localism to all programing be a discrimination over the choice and protection act. Mr. Craig Jahelka forgot about that. sticking to 100% localism to congress is wrong and I hope Greed and Big Bucks are not issue, but place your bet.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> You are entitled to your opinion as to whether it's a "good thing", but to say that forcing cable companies to carry local stations isn't interfering in private arrangements is really kind of silly.


How can you even say that? A "private arrangement" would be an agreement between two parties. Prior to the Cable Act, there wasn't a "private arrangement" with which the law interfered; as retransmissons of local channels were a one-way street, the cable company never needed to talk to a local station to gain any permission.

With the advent of the Cable Act, as I said, I am for the must-carry when it comes to the non-commercial channels, but against it for the commercial channels. If you are a commerical channel, you should have content on that people want to watch in order to be carried on a multichannel system. PAX local stations could fall off the radar for all I care, especially as PAX has a national feed they sell.


rcoleman111 said:


> It's almost as silly as your comment that the cable companies were getting a "free pass" by doing something that was perfectly legal - i.e., retransmitting a clear signal to people who could receive it for free, anyway.


Well, free pass in this instance only means the ability to do what they want without permission. That was granted to all cable operators by the Fortnightly v. United Artists decsion at the Supreme Court in 1968. Of course, cable TV didn't take off until the mid-1980's, when most of the channels we all know and love started taking off. But at that time, because of the free pass for local channels, the cable business was built on the backs of the local channels. Take away that free pass, and cable TV penetration would have been halved.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Greg Bimson said:


> With the advent of the Cable Act, as I said, I am for the must-carry when it comes to the non-commercial channels, but against it for the commercial channels. If you are a commerical channel, you should have content on that people want to watch in order to be carried on a multichannel system.


I agree that must-carry for commercial channels seems wrong, but why not extend that to include non-commercial channels? If Reverend Barney builds a transmitter and starts his 24-hour Pray-A-Thon fundraiser, why should he get must-carry while the goofy little America One affiliate has to negotiate to get on the local cable system?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

FTA Michael said:


> If Reverend Barney builds a transmitter and starts his 24-hour Pray-A-Thon fundraiser, why should he get must-carry while the goofy little America One affiliate has to negotiate to get on the local cable system?


Let me guess. I made a bad assumption...

Are religious channels considered NCE? The PAX affiliate here in the DC area, channel 66, was religious for some time. However, they were still commerical.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> How can you even say that? A "private arrangement" would be an agreement between two parties. Prior to the Cable Act, there wasn't a "private arrangement" with which the law interfered; as retransmissons of local channels were a one-way street, the cable company never needed to talk to a local station to gain any permission. .


The legislation _forces _an arrangement between two parties, which amounts to the same thing. You are just splitting hairs, in addition to regurgitating the same silly comments you've made repeatedly in the past.



Greg Bimson said:


> With the advent of the Cable Act, as I said, I am for the must-carry when it comes to the non-commercial channels, but against it for the commercial channels.


As if it matters what you are for or against... Laws like "must-carry" are not passed because of popular demand. They are the result of corporate money, lobbying, and influence peddling. As a self-proclaimed "card-carrying Republican", you should be well aware of that.



Greg Bimson said:


> But at that time, because of the free pass for local channels, the cable business was built on the backs of the local channels. Take away that free pass, and cable TV penetration would have been halved.


The growth of cable TV was hamstrung for many years by regulations designed to protect the broadcasters from competition. If anyone was getting a "free pass", it was the broadcasters.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> The legislation forces an arrangement between two parties, which amounts to the same thing. You are just splitting hairs, in addition to regurgitating the same silly comments you've made repeatedly in the past.


Wow. Good counterpunch. I never really thought about your statement in that fashion. However, the problem I have is more relative to the fact that it was the local franchise authority (usually a county or city) which also forced carriage of all local channels as a condition of the franchise grant. It still didn't matter; when it came to cable TV, the cablers never had to negotiate with local channels for carriage.


rcoleman111 said:


> The growth of cable TV was hamstrung for many years by regulations designed to protect the broadcasters from competition. If anyone was getting a "free pass", it was the broadcasters.


Please explain. Because the way this is written, you are basically stating that cable TV's growth was stymied because people wanted what they normally watch from their local stations.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> As if it matters what you are for or against... Laws like "must-carry" are not passed because of popular demand. They are the result of corporate money, lobbying, and influence peddling. As a self-proclaimed "card-carrying Republican", you should be well aware of that.


As a card-carrying Republican that does not toe to the party line, yes I am still very aware of the lobbying. Lobbyists are generally able to get the rules changed.

To me, must-carry for NCE stations is a necessary evil. Must-carry for commercial stations is a bit socialist.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2007)

Originally Posted by rcoleman111:
The growth of cable TV was hamstrung for many years by regulations designed to protect the broadcasters from competition. If anyone was getting a "free pass", it was the broadcasters.



Greg Bimson said:


> Please explain. Because the way this is written, you are basically stating that cable TV's growth was stymied because people wanted what they normally watch from their local stations.


Cable TV's growth was stymied because broadcasters didn't want competition from other channels, including non-broadcast channels. Do a little research and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here's an article that provides a brief summary of the history of cable TV regulation:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv12n1/reg12n1-hazlett.html

Note that until the mid-70s, there were rules in place that prohibited cable companies from carrying more than two distant signals. There were even rules that dictated what programming could be carried from pay channels - e.g., movies couldn't be less than 3 years old or greater than 10 and they couldn't show live or recent sports events. These rules were put in place by the FCC, which was acting under its own interpretation of its authority under the Federal Communications Act. And most of it was geared to protecting broadcasters, not consumers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 26, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> To me, must-carry for NCE stations is a necessary evil. Must-carry for commercial stations is a bit socialist.


At least we agree on this point.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I want two-way must carry ... Satellite systems must carry all signals that reach their POP for a market and provide them to every subscriber in the market or within Grade B of the OTA station _*AND*_ stations must allow carriage of their signal with no restrictions or additional charge to the satellite companies.

Some stations seem to forget that their stations are there to reach viewers in their areas. It should not matter if I'm watching the local station via OTA, cable or satellite. I should be able to get it WITHOUT the local station's permission!


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

JL, I'm happy to find another point of agreement with you. I've often thought that it was strange that a viewer who can get an OTA channel with rabbit ears for free needs to pay (indirectly through cable/sat retrans fees) to get it through other sources.

I can see a certain logic to must-carry, especially now as opposed to the old 36-channel cable days. But I agree that must-carry _and_ retransmission consent together give all the negotiation leverage to one side. Either approach is defensible, but together I don't like it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2007)

I agree with both of the comments above. I don't really have a problem with must-carry, but the current system is weighted heavily in favor of the broadcasters. It's a sweetheart deal that gives all of the options to the broadcasters - they can choose to either charge the cable and satellite operators or force them to carry their channels. Now many of them are trying to tack on extra charges for their HD channels. Those are charges that will be passed on to us.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Wouldn't it be funny if all the networks went DTH (Direct-to-Home) Satellite, and the broadcasters....now flush with money that they don't have to pay the networks...... out-bid everyone else for the rights to all the local sporting events, and MADE us all watch them OTA (with a rusty antenna) or DO WITHOUT?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> ....now flush with money that they don't have to pay the networks....


They would have to come up with something good to be flush with money. Network contracts are practically trade deals --- the station airs the network in exchange fro advertising time during programs. The money the station makes is off of the local ads. The money the network makes is off of the national ads. I doubt if much else passes between the two (certainly not enough to be "flush" if the payments stopped).


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Local affiliates pay a lot of money for the network programming, plus all the ads that the nets place for competing services (on the Cable nets that the big nets own) that sway viewers away. Then, there's the promotional freebies the stations have to give, plus the time and money spent on news co-op work when the net needs local stories.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Local affiliates pay a lot of money for the network programming,


Not really. At one time, all of the networks paid the affiliates to carry their programs. That has changed quite a bit in the past few years and now some of the affiliates actually have to pay "reverse compensation" to the networks. It varies by network and affiliate, but it is probably pretty much a wash as James noted in the previous post.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

To a couple of the earlier posters:

Stop listening to Charlie Ergen, and get a life, before you have a stroke, dude! :grin:


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Wouldn't it be funny if all the networks went DTH (Direct-to-Home) Satellite, and the broadcasters....now flush with money that they don't have to pay the networks...... out-bid everyone else for the rights to all the local sporting events, and MADE us all watch them OTA (with a rusty antenna) or DO WITHOUT?


 I think if the broadcasters become desperate, there cry at congress to condemn the 50 million or 100 million sub DVR video on demand subscribers and complain about loosing money. If we were waiving our right to pay for distant networks, NBC wouldn't be in financial hard-ship. That's 50 or 100 million DVR subs enjoying commercial free tv. That's 50 or 100 million out of David K Rehr 260 million projected viewers, of localism.. The N.A.B. will not only file huge lawsuit, but greed is in there eye. I don't give a DAM, if N.A.B. is so dumb, Then your giving DVR provisional duties to NPS, who is doing a heck of a job with distant networks.
If you want to screw choice even more, throw SATRAD in.. These N.A.B. conventions encourage them to send a letters to FCC and Commerce committee.

The Direct to home for distants networks be a challenged..


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Were all being held hostage for distant networks. We will in 2008 be held hostage for SATRAD AND DVR. Senator Diane Feinstein doesn't realize the investment of subs OUR forking out money. What I can't understand, if someone is getting satellite tv, they should be allowed to receive distant networks. Be disappointted over it. But since N.A.B. IS A ROYAL PAIN IN A ASS, then N.A.B. will be a royal pain in a ass to satrad and DVR. I just have a feeling, and since Feinstein letter clearly says, show repersents corperations of broadcasters, what the HECK.. January 1st, 2008 sucks, I bet. And so does federal government. The Day someone want xm radio, there told they can't have it. Who the heck wrote that. The day someone get's satellite tv, they want distant networks, but there told no, because of N.A.B. AND INTEREST GROUPS. Charlie Ergen faught and lost the war. But the biggest war, is N.A.B. attack to DVR AND SATRAD. 3 or 4 big churches, The Crystal Cathedral, Oral Roberts a church paster. and others were have there petitions on SATRAD AND DVR. Churches are in this too.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

And, there should be no restrictions on commercial fishing within U.S. waters by big commercial trawlers from other countries, either.

After all, isn't that why the cost of food is so high in America? Protectionism?


----------



## La Push Commercial Codman (Jan 5, 2007)

Well, Today The National Association of Broadcaster David Rehr wanted to push the rules about localism over local hd radio. I am keeping a close eye. Senator Feinstein letter has something against choice. Thank God, I kept Dish Network. Just got my distant approved by NPS. The picture video look a little crappy, like the guys said.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

La Push Commercial Codman said:


> Well, Today The National Association of Broadcaster David Rehr wanted to push the rules about localism over local hd radio. I am keeping a close eye. Senator Feinstein letter has something against choice. Thank God, I kept Dish Network. Just got my distant approved by NPS. The picture video look a little crappy, like the guys said.


So, what is THIS rant about? The NAB guy just announced that stations are going to promote FREE HD Radio, as a nice alternate form of getting music and news from the local stations. Are you saying that is somehow taking away your freedom?


----------

