# EchoStar Rejected by High Court Justice, Must Halt Distant Networks



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

By Greg Stohr

Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas refused to block a ruling requiring EchoStar Communications Corp. to halt delivery of distant network television signals to hundreds of thousands of subscribers.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the halt in May, saying EchoStar had engaged in a pattern of offering those signals to customers who aren't eligible under federal law. Today's rejection is a victory for News Corp.'s Fox Network and stations affiliated with the four major networks.

*Full Story*


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The decision made in May:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf

Echostar's Plea:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/08/plea_for_delay.html
Today's Rejection:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/08/actions_at_the.html


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

So I guess we can expect to see the rest of the locals in the country finished by years end. If not then Dish will suffer irreparable harm since they no longer will have distant networks to sell. This will effect the rv and truck owners as they no longer will have an access to distants.

They should have got all the locals done by now and this would have been a minor problem by the time the lawsuits would have been settled. I still think of the two satellites up there doing practially nothing now in relation to locals, on 105 and 121. They don't have the excuse that they don't have the bandwith any longer. 

ON a lighter note I have heard from my local Channel 6 Cbs station that Dish will probably be unlinking the dma #139 Beaumont/Pt.Arthur , Texas channels by next month. Finally I will get my locals and ota guide information . 

Charlie needs to stop gambeling with his customers and trying to cheat the intent of the laws even if he doesn't agree with them. First the Distants networks turned off and maybe the Dvrs turned off next within 30 days. It is time to settle this Tivo crap before the next thing that gets turned off is my 622 dvrs. IF my dvrs go off then my 3 Dish accounts will be next.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

As part of the original lawsuit, did they give any specifics of the violation?

I'd be interested in knowing if it was a failure to keep up on records or someone figuring out that they were offering distants to customers without valid waivers. If it turned out to be documented cases of "movers", there would likely be an open season on same.


----------



## nova828 (Mar 29, 2004)

What pisses me off about all of this is that the courts are punishing law-abiding customers with this crap. Ordering Dish to stop selling distants while not making the same apply to Direct TV means it is designed as a punishment. I live in Eastport Maine. No locals and nothing comes in over the air. What did I do to deserve this? But I'm sure if Dish really works hard and put other "luxury" projects aside for a bit, such is HD locals, they can get the other 4 percent of the country covered with SD locals before they have to shut down distants. There are LOTS of people like me in rural Maine that are waiting for our local channels. Alot of us can't get cable so our only options are distant networks, or TV show DVDs from Netflix. Downloading shows is not an option since high speed internet is hard to come by.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nova828 said:


> Ordering Dish to stop selling distants while not making the same apply to Direct TV means it is designed as a punishment.


It is precisely a prescribed penalty. That it doesn't much affect Dish Network but impacts some of their customers greatly is the reason that some other penalty should have been sought.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Greed...money....stupidity. The Federal gov't and the judiciary know what's best for the consumer. Just another win for the special interest groups who feed the cash cow that make a career in politics. I'm glad I still have a choice with satellite programming. This just supports my reasons for NOT watching network programming.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

Time to pay up and settle Charlie! Don't let the DNS go dark on us!


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> Time to pay up and settle Charlie! Don't let the DNS go dark on us!


I don't think there is anything to "pay up or settle", its done.. The distant networks are going dark and will probably not come back. As noted by some, only by providing remaining local DMA's can this sort of be resolved.

Never understood why I can't get any channel I want no matter where it comes from, I am sure there are all sorts of reasons.. None that make any sense to me..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> As part of the original lawsuit, did they give any specifics of the violation?


See post two in this thread.

Primary violation was not accurately making sure people qualified for the service.
They started in in 1998 when they took over the customers from Primetime 24 and Mr Ergen promised to re-qualify customers but didn't. It went through several changes with no improvement in compliance (the statistics to how many customers were illegally receiving locals are in the court ruling). E* seemed to be making up its own rules and even after previous correction continued to provide service to customers who were specifically ruled as not eligible.

These are people who when the audit was done on E*'s records were found ineligible because they were in Grade B and even Grade A of a network station's feed. E* blew it on the eligibility.

They have now corrected their process but the legal penalty is specific - permission to offer distants must be withdrawn. The chance for mercy ended when E* continued violating the rules.


----------



## thopki2 (Mar 29, 2006)

What pisses me off about all of this is that the courts are punishing law-abiding customers with this crap. Ordering Dish to stop selling distants while not making the same apply to Direct TV means it is designed as a punishment. I live in Eastport Maine. No locals and nothing comes in over the air. What did I do to deserve this? But I'm sure if Dish really works hard and put other "luxury" projects aside for a bit, such is HD locals, they can get the other 4 percent of the country covered with SD locals before they have to shut down distants. There are LOTS of people like me in rural Maine that are waiting for our local channels. Alot of us can't get cable so our only options are distant networks, or TV show DVDs from Netflix. Downloading shows is not an option since high speed internet is hard to come by

I agree with you 100%. Up here in northern Maine we have the same problem, however, I have heard several rumors that we may be seeing Bangor channels in the near future.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

normang said:


> I don't think there is anything to "pay up or settle", its done.. The distant networks are going dark and will probably not come back. As noted by some, only by providing remaining local DMA's can this sort of be resolved.
> 
> Never understood why I can't get any channel I want no matter where it comes from, I am sure there are all sorts of reasons.. None that make any sense to me..


No, Dish is negotating with FOX and the remaining couple of broadcast groups to settle damages. If they settle with these groups (Directv has already done so), the distants stay. The crying to the Supreme Court was just E* trying to keep the distants without settling.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Anybody seen a specific date where all of this takes affect?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

September 11th, 2006 (per the latest 10Q).


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> No, Dish is negotating with FOX and the remaining couple of broadcast groups to settle damages. If they settle with these groups (Directv has already done so), the distants stay. The crying to the Supreme Court was just E* trying to keep the distants without settling.


Seems like the court has a deaf ear to such a settlement now.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

JohnH said:


> Seems like the court has a deaf ear to such a settlement now.


If the parties settle though, there's no need for an injunction.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> If the parties settle though, there's no need for an injunction.


And that will be the ultimate resolution.


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

If Dish has settled with all others than Fox.. They can keep all but Fox going. That puts the pressure on Fox also. Customers complaining they can't get Fox when they can get others put the negotiating onus on Fox.

Out of the situation could come a decent negotiating position for Dish. If I'm reading it all correctly and they can run with the settlements they have already made.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> If the parties settle though, there's no need for an injunction.


A violation of the law has been determined and no settlement is likely to change that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnH said:


> A violation of the law has been determined and no settlement is likely to change that.


That was what I was thinking ... at some point this becomes a crime against the state where a penalty MUST be paid.

The broadcasters have agreed to delay the issuance of the injunction until September 11th. I suppose they could have some say in the matter.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

JohnH said:


> A violation of the law has been determined and no settlement is likely to change that.


$$ to the broadcasters will change that. Directv violated the law too, and settled with the broadcasters to continue to sell the distants. Dish just hasn't settled yet.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

AllieVi said:


> And that will be the ultimate resolution.


Yea it's basically "take your money and shut up", but I see no reason why the couple remaining broadcasters wouldn't take the cash. They get nothing otherwise.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From E*'s 10-Q for the 2nd Quarter:
In the event the Court of Appeals' decision is upheld, and if we are unable to settle with the remaining plaintiffs, we will attempt to assist subscribers in arranging alternative means to receive network channels, including migration to local channels by satellite where available, and free off air antenna offers in other markets. While the broadcasters have agreed to delay issuance of the injunction until September 11, 2006, we are likely to commence (but not complete) shut offs of distant network channels during the third quarter of 2006. Those shut offs could have a material impact on our results for the quarter. However, we cannot predict with any degree of certainty how many of our distant network subscribers would cancel their primary DISH Network programming as a result of termination of their distant network channels. Our revenue from distant network channels is less than $5 per distant network subscriber per month. While less than one million of our subscribers purchase distant network channels from us, termination of distant network programming to those subscribers would result, among other things, in a reduction in average monthly revenue per subscriber and free cash flow, and a temporary increase in subscriber churn. We would also be at a competitive disadvantage in the future, since the injunction would prohibit us from offering distant network channels that will be available to certain consumers through our competitors.​


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

^^ Ok, so it's now up to Dish to settle or the distants disappear. From everything I read and understand, the whole problem here is that Dish did not settle like Directv did for their violations.


----------



## Shellback X 23 (Sep 19, 2004)

Well I fully qualify for a RV Waiver which is how I get my nets and if NYC and DEN disapear on 9/11 I will take my waiver to D* on 9/12.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

Shellback X 23 said:


> Well I fully qualify for a RV Waiver which is how I get my nets and if NYC and DEN disapear on 9/11 I will take my waiver to D* on 9/12.


I'm gone too if it happens. I have my distants 100% legally and I would feel betrayed by Dish if I lose my signals due to their incompetence. They need to do the right thing and settle this. It may be costly, but in terms of subscriber losses and future potential subs not going with E*, it'd be less costly to just settle.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Not only did they not settle at that time, but the pattern of violations apparently continued.

There probably are currently some out there with 4 or 5 of the same network.

It may not be a good business decision to settle at this point.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

Well if it's not a good time to settle now, when is? It's not going to get any better, what's done is done. It's time to pay up Charlie.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Don't settle, let the distant subs stay or go to D*, concentrate on HD and new subs and gain subs from cable and D*. Make the VIP internet ready and start up DishSling devices!

Thats what I would do.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> Well if it's not a good time to settle now, when is? It's not going to get any better, what's done is done. It's time to pay up Charlie.


May be cheaper to let the distants go away.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

Foghorn, you'd have a different view of things if you currently had the distants! Keep in mind that most all of the distant subscribers are very LONG term subscribers and probably have high monthly bills (mine is over $100). Charlie would want to keep us I'd assume. We shall see..


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

JohnH said:


> May be cheaper to let the distants go away.


But aren't they still liable for damages even if the injunction happened? It seems to me it's either 1) pay the damages and settle or 2) have the injunction issued, lose hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and still pay damages later


----------



## BarryO (Dec 16, 2003)

normang said:


> Never understood why I can't get any channel I want no matter where it comes from, I am sure there are all sorts of reasons.. None that make any sense to me..


Simple. When the networks sell a show to a local station, that station buys an exclusive license to broadcast that show in its DMA. The contract says the network won't permit anyone else to broadcast the show into the local station's territory.

Such copyright-licensing arrangements are also enforced by laws like the SHVIA (sp?) Act. As someone once pointed out to me, there is an NAB member operating in nearly every congressional district in the country, so they generally get what they want.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

I wonder is Dish will offer incentives to those who will lose their distants to try to keep ud from switching to Direct. Fortunately we get our locals through Dish so the loss of the distants will save us $5 a month with very little pain.

It is really best business practice to obey the laws.:nono2:


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

I'd laugh at Dish if not only do they not settle but they then offer a "free off-air antenna" (1998 again anyone?). I'll be long gone from E* before they make such a lame offer to me, but I hope others tell them to shove it. Hopefully it won't come to that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I expect E* will end up losing distants. I believe they are beyond settlement.

Distants are so last millenium. Time to move on.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

I don't know how it could be cheaper for DNS to go away when your looking at the potential loss of thousands of subscribers. Especially when most of us can get our Distants by going to Direct. And that's exactly what I plan to do on 9/11/06 when the switch is thrown.


----------



## Badger (Jan 31, 2006)

hankmack said:


> Fortunately we get our locals through Dish so the loss of the distants will save us $5 a month with very little pain.
> 
> It is really best business practice to obey the laws.:nono2:


Question. If you can get your locals through E* then why did they give you distants? Isn't that what put them in this mess?

Someone else in the midwest posted that they can get their locals OTA but also get LA distants from E*. Isn't that another example why E* is in this mess?


----------



## crackasmile (Nov 15, 2004)

Distants are what I primarily watch. I love the time shifts from CA stations if I miss stuff on the NY stations. I also love the fact that all of the distants are in STEREO. Only one out of our 3 major network affiliates (no ABC here in Terre Haute, IN) actually broadcasts in stereo all the time. Another never does and the 3rd does sometimes.

Was going to upgrade to HD system but have held off pending Distants decision.

I will leave dish if I lose my distants because I can get my locals OTA.

Can anyone tell me what specifically has to happen between now and Sept 11 for Dish to keep distants and will it cost us more...prefer no speculation and only facts if possible.

Thank you.



James Long said:


> I expect E* will end up losing distants. I believe they are beyond settlement.
> 
> Distants are so last millenium. Time to move on.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From the court's decision:The best case scenario, which takes as valid EchoStar's claims of waivers and grandfathered status (the same ones for which district court found EchoStar failed to carry its burden of establishing), indicates that, on a nationwide basis, EchoStar is presumptively providing illegal service to 26.5% of its subscribers receiving ABC distant network programming, 26.9% for CBS, 20.2% for Fox, and 28.1% for NBC.​Those people can't simply move to D* and get locals. And thanks to the latest version of the law, people cannot get distants if their own locals are offered. (Fortunately D* has less LIL markets so more of the country will qualify than if the situation were reversed.  )


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Anybody else find it interesting that the ONE network that E* can't reach a settlement with is FOX that's owned by the same company that owns D*????? I can't believe this isn't a point of argument in their plea for a stay of the injuction, or even a lawsuit for unfair competition / business practices!

I don't have distants, but I think that if a local station refuses to grant a waiver to people seeking distants via sattelite they should be required to send someone to that person's property to prove what antenna and rotater setup would be required to achieve a reliable level of reception - with some requirement that the applicant agrees to purchase up to a certain reasonable level of said system.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

crackasmile said:


> Can anyone tell me what specifically has to happen between now and Sept 11 for Dish to keep distants and will it cost us more...prefer no speculation and only facts if possible.


There is certainly nothing WE can do. With Charlie's attitude toward distants (begging congress for help at the 11th hour to change the rules instead of following the rules set forth for the last few years) I don't have a lot of hope that E* will find a solution that keeps distants.

Distants are cool. I had them for a while and was able to use them when my locals interruped programming for weather and other local problems. But I don't see them staying.


----------



## crackasmile (Nov 15, 2004)

I obtainted all of my waivers legally from the stations themselves back in 1998 after lots of badgering the stations to take a hard look at my situation. I fell under the grandfathered status and have had distants from NY and CA for all networks since then.

What can I expect to happen with my channels? Will I keep the ones that they settled with or lose all unless they settle with all?

Thanks for the help so far.



James Long said:


> From the court's decision:The best case scenario, which takes as valid EchoStar's claims of waivers and grandfathered status (the same ones for which district court found EchoStar failed to carry its burden of establishing), indicates that, on a nationwide basis, EchoStar is presumptively providing illegal service to 26.5% of its subscribers receiving ABC distant network programming, 26.9% for CBS, 20.2% for Fox, and 28.1% for NBC.​Those people can't simply move to D* and get locals. And thanks to the latest version of the law, people cannot get distants if their own locals are offered. (Fortunately D* has less LIL markets so more of the country will qualify than if the situation were reversed.  )


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The court order is that E* will not be able to offer distants AT ALL. Even the networks that settled with E*.


----------



## crackasmile (Nov 15, 2004)

I've read that D* settled with networks to continue offering Distants. Does this mean E* will have to settle with ALL parties involved before being able to keep distants or what needs to happen for them to stick around?



James Long said:


> The court order is that E* will not be able to offer distants AT ALL. Even the networks that settled with E*.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

crackasmile said:


> I've read that D* settled with networks to continue offering Distants. Does this mean E* will have to settle with ALL parties involved before being able to keep distants or what needs to happen for them to stick around?


I think that something like this still would be possible. Respective to the, "law" that E* violated. Does this law carry fine or jail sentence? Is it a felony, misdemeanor or infraction? Maybe that has yet to be determined. It seems that if an agreement is reached the court could dismiss or even reverse the action. Maybe someone has some expert knowledge about this?


----------



## jakexxl (Nov 29, 2005)

For those people currently getting distant locals because they "have to" (in other words, their locals are not available thru E*) ... if they end up losing these distants and have to get locals OTA, will the E* receivers support programming guide information on these channels? So will these people who have the distants not only lose their channels, but also lose the ability to see what's on?

A little off topic, but something I was wondering about while reading through this thread.


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

interesting question


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

E* plans on getting all 210 markets up anyways. (It was mentioned on Tech Chat last week.) Perhaps this will speed them up? Certainly can't slow down much more.


----------



## pdxsam (Jun 20, 2004)

There's a lot of time in the interm They've got a lot of DMA's to put up and those can't be put up in a month. Should be interesting for OTA people with a DVR.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pdxsam said:


> There's a lot of time in the interm They've got a lot of DMA's to put up and those can't be put up in a month. Should be interesting for OTA people with a DVR.


Not any worse than it is today for those OTA channels (although one can look at a distant and guess what is on their local).

Uplinking EPGs for all the missing locals is possible - E* does that for digital subchannels in some markets (extra EPG info for channels not actually broadcast via E*). They would probably have to pay a little more for the rights to that data.


----------



## BillyBob_jcv (Feb 12, 2006)

The FCC should stick to allocating frequencies. Why do we need the govt involved in how network content is delivered? If the networks don't want the satellites to rebroacast, then they don't have to sell their content to them. If that causes the networks and/or dbs corps to go under - too bad - they screwed-up. That's free enterprise.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BillyBob_jcv said:


> If the networks don't want the satellites to rebroacast, then they don't have to sell their content to them.


Actually, satellite providers DO NOT require the permission of the content providing stations or networks to use a station as a distant. All they have to do is FOLLOW THE LAW in qualifying customers and pay a royalty fee to a government fund.


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

BillyBob_jcv said:


> The FCC should stick to allocating frequencies. Why do we need the govt involved in how network content is delivered? If the networks don't want the satellites to rebroacast, then they don't have to sell their content to them. If that causes the networks and/or dbs corps to go under - too bad - they screwed-up. That's free enterprise.


Distants only exist because the government got involved. Without the government, distants are copyright infringement.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

James Long said:


> The court order is that E* will not be able to offer distants AT ALL. Even the networks that settled with E*.


Actually, the order is only to prevent them from using the statutory license to offer distants.
If Dish came to an arrangement with the network and affected affiliate in the DMA, they could offer the distant under such compensation as agreed upon by Dish, the Network, and affected affiliate. ala CBS HD in O&O areas.
As of now, Dish has only settled with ABC, CBS, & NBC. So they could get distances in O&O markets, but that's it for now.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

derwin0 said:


> Actually, the order is only to prevent them from using the statutory license to offer distants.
> If Dish came to an arrangement with the network and affected affiliate in the DMA, they could offer the distant under such compensation as agreed upon by Dish, the Network, and affected affiliate. ala CBS HD in O&O areas.
> As of now, Dish has only settled with ABC, CBS, & NBC. So they could get distances in O&O markets, but that's it for now.


Well, there would also have to be an agreement with every copyright holder of the content on the would be distant station. It would not happen.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

James Long said:


> E* plans on getting all 210 markets up anyways. (It was mentioned on Tech Chat last week.) Perhaps this will speed them up? Certainly can't slow down much more.


In my particular circumstance, it was rumored that our locals were going to be available no later than September of 2005. Here it is a year later and I have not heard another peep about it.
I've already checked with Direct and I am eligible for all Distants except CBS which was the same criteria as E*. I was able to get a waiver from the CBS affiliate and would expect that I could get another when I switch to Direct. So I guess worse case would be that on 9/11/06, I'll need new DVR boxes and will lose CBS for a month or so while the waiver request meanders it way through the process. 
Dish is going to lose a lot of subscribers over this. The court stated that approx. 25% of the current DNS subscribers were receiving DNS illegally. That means that 75% were entitled to it. Which also means that 75% can continue to get DNS by switching to Direct. Yep, gonna be a lot of pissed off people come 9/11/06.


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

Badger said:


> Question. If you can get your locals through E* then why did they give you distants? Isn't that what put them in this mess?
> 
> Someone else in the midwest posted that they can get their locals OTA but also get LA distants from E*. Isn't that another example why E* is in this mess?


I got the distants years ago before they offered the locals. Fpr the minimum time I have watched the distants I should have cancelled years ago. Network TV is pretty bad--local or distant.


----------



## cobaltblue (Feb 22, 2006)

I would like to know if the Superstation pack is effected by the court ruling. In my case I receive a waiver for east and west feeds of Fox and ABC back in 1998. Will they go dark due to the ruling ???


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

Yes you lose FOX and ABC when the switch is thrown. Your superstations are safe.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Funny the next Charlie Chat is on 9/11/07 . I wonder if there is any connection with the injunction date? Maybe an announcement of somekind of settlement with the networks or maybe a sad announcement. Strange that the day is on a date with so much significance to this country.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Funny the next Charlie Chat is on 9/11/07 . I wonder if there is any connection with the injunction date? Maybe an announcement of somekind of settlement with the networks or maybe a sad announcement. Strange that the day is on a date with so much significance to this country.


Agreed, that day signifies group of fanaticals showing their true evil, government failure, and a major losses to americans. I'd say the day is fitting :nono:


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

The date of the chat is of no significance as they are usually on the second Monday of the month. The date of the injunction postponement could be of some significance, but IMHO it is a poor choice of dates if it was intended to be of the same significance as the 911 activity was.

BTW: Should say 9/11/06. Time flies, no need to speed it up.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

I think that Dish will find a legal or financial solution to the DVR dispute with TIVO and will not allow DVRs to go black. On the other hand, I don't see how E* will get out of the Distant Network dispute; distant networks are history on E*. To be honest, I won't miss distant networks. Except for news, I watch less than 3 hours a week of network TV. To keep customers, E* could add the remaining locals and work out a deal to add neighboring stations for missing networks. If this happens, one would hope that E* would be aggressive about adding SV channels to local packages. It will both take some of the sting from losing distants and will allow the NAB to no end - and guess what there is nothing they can do about it.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

If E* is going to supply networks from "neighboring area's" to subscribers that are unserved becasue they do not have networks originating in their own areas, isn't that really backdooring the DNS concept ? I live in a white area so what is the difference if I get DNS from LA or from a city in my state ? Both network feeds orginate outside of my area.


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

Do I understand correctly that if E* doesn't carry your locals or if your locals don't include all the networks, then you STILL lose the distants?


----------



## finniganps (Jan 23, 2004)

toomuchtv said:


> Do I understand correctly that if E* doesn't carry your locals or if your locals don't include all the networks, then you STILL lose the distants?


Yeah, that was my understanding. If that's true, they will lose a lot of customers. Seems to me it should also apply to Direct since they also supply distants.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

When/if the injunction becomes effective, there will be no disatants, period.

Significantly Viewed is nice, but they have to negotiate with each individual station for carriage.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The only "settlement" that would work is the one that should have happened long, long ago. E* knew they were breaking the law by not keeping a leash on the "SHVA monster". 

The current "settlements" are between network O&Os and E*....not between E* and the thousands of individual network affiliates (the "franchise owners"). They were the ones getting hurt by losing viewers. 

E* is being punished for breaking the law time and again....like a drunk driver who gets stopped over and over. You finally take HIS license and car keys, to get HIM off the road. You don't take the licenses from the other drivers, too.

Legit DNS subs can switch to D*. Everyone on E* can get their local stations, or the nearest L-I-L. No one is harmed.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

finniganps said:


> Yeah, that was my understanding. If that's true, they will lose a lot of customers. Seems to me it should also apply to Direct since they also supply distants.


DirecTV settled. Why should they lose the privilege of selling distants?


----------



## PBowie (Jan 4, 2006)

One day-maybe just one day we will see a win for the consumer and not the networks.

I live iin Florida , get local channels, lets say my wife is from dallas and wants to keep up with the local news there, why cant we if we are willing to pay
get Dallas locals as well !!

whats the difference between us getting Dallas locals than to going on the net to read Dallas newspapers?

the whole thing sucks and so does any government that panders to corporations interests instead of the people.

revolution my brothers and sisters ! lets get back to what the consitution stands for !
all govt is corrupt and in the pockets of special interests and big corporations who pay for them.

anyway-I want to watch and pay for anything I wish !! so much for freedom of choice !


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Let me recap this for those of you that have missed it:

Because the courts found too much abuse by Dish Network on the license that enables Dish Network to give customers distant networks, Dish Network loses use of the license. So, the same answer is given to all these questions...

If I have waivers, do I lose my distant networks?
If I am grandfathered, do I lose my distant networks?
If I am in a "white area", do I lose my distant networks?
If I have an RV waiver, do I lose my distant networks?

Because the courts have injuncted use of the license, the answer to the questions above is, "YES, distant networks are lost".

There are work arounds, but they won't apply to everyone. Dish Network could settle with the broadcasters, to stop the process from remaining in the courts, leaving the license to broadcast distant networks untouched. Originally, there were eight groups in the suit, but ABC, NBC and CBS have reached an agreement. The five remaining groups are FOX and the affiliate boards of all four networks. If Dish Network comes to an agreement with the CBS affiliate board, then CBS is removed from the injunction. This applies to both the ABC and NBC affiliate boards, as well. Dish Network must settle with both FOX and the FOX affiliate board to stop the injunction on FOX distants.

If Dish Network is allowed to import nearby affiliates, it is not a "distant network", it is "significantly viewed", which is a completely different criteria. This could have been done already; after all, Dish Network has a few markets where they are already providing significantly viewed stations (as Baltimore is one market where it is offered).


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

PBowie said:


> I live iin Florida , get local channels, lets say my wife is from dallas and wants to keep up with the local news there, why cant we if we are willing to pay get Dallas locals as well !!
> 
> whats the difference between us getting Dallas locals than to going on the net to read Dallas newspapers?


What's the difference of going on the net to the Dallas stations' websites and watch the news there?

Well, the difference is that the Dallas local station is controlling their distribution. However, when it pertains to "distant networks" as we know them, the local stations do not control their own distribution.

The local Dallas station does not own a copyright license to redistribute the network and syndicated programming nationwide. So they cannot sell anyone in Florida their programming. It is against their contracts with the networks and the syndicators.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

JohnH said:


> Well, there would also have to be an agreement with every copyright holder of the content on the would be distant station. It would not happen.


Easy to fix. Just have the distant network available only during Network programming time.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

derwin0 said:


> Easy to fix. Just have the distant network available only during Network programming time.


But not so easy to fix. I think the network-affiliate agreements allow for first-run broadcast rights. Therefore, the network has problems simply throwing out a customer-subscription network feed without changing the network-affiliate agreements.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Copyright is the major issue. If Dish were to transmit a network into a DMA that does not have that network - there would be no local channel to sue. Although it is true that Dish needs retrans for SV channels, foe some of us these channels are a necessity. With a dual-tuner DVR, I really do not have to time-shift. However, we are feed our networks from upstate NY. They have gotten better, but many of the stations have a habit of pre-empting programming. We have been treated to religious programming, the many hats of Mary Lou Whitney, Congressman McSweeny has a tummy ache - we will stay with the story all night, how to make our local urban violence-riddle schools better - I'm not in an urban area and we have some of the best performing schools in the country,how a thunderstorm is born.

Slight (but not much of an) exaggeration, every time there is a flurry - we will stay with this storm all night. I have missed more programs because of local channels following snow storms - well I am a native New Englander - really unless we are talking more than 2 feet of snow at once, it really has no really impact on me - especially at night - just let me watch my programs.


----------



## steveT (Jul 12, 2002)

I was an original Primetime 24 subscriber. And I've done everything a citizen can do to fight to keep distants over the years: I've written Senators and Congressmen, I've gone to their local public forums and brought the issue up for public debate, I've called their offices, I've written letters, and on and on... And in the end, I lost all four DNS feeds from NY and LA years ago, so I find it shocking to read in that court decision that supposedly NO Dish customer ever lost their DNS per any congressional or judicial ruling. That's totally untrue.

And, I've done everything I can to work with the local stations (Dallas) to get them to try to fix their audio and video feeds so I wouldn't need DNS in the first place. The Dallas ABC station has horrible picture quality: grainy and low res. The Dallas NBC station has had a thick, stationary, white bar running right down the left center of the screen for years, and no one else here seems to care (I can see it even when I go to local TV stores that carry dish, so it's not my equipment...) The Dallas Fox station is half decent. And the Dallas CBS station has grainy video and virtually NO stereo sound. 

So, after months of working with them to try to fix it (which the local ABC station did, for a few years until all the original video problems crept back), I finally begged all of them for waivers. Only the CBS affiliate here finally agreed with me that the picture and sound quality they were delivering to Dish was so bad, and they could not fix without expensive equipment upgrades, that they granted me a waiver. And now that I have both NY and Dallas CBS feeds, it's so easy to see the difference. I can PIP and swap them quickly on my 721, and it's amazing to see how much worse the Dallas video is, and hear how the stereo goes away.

So now years of work goes down the drain, thanks to this travesty of justice. All I ever wanted was decent video and sound on big budget shows like "Lost" or "24". And now I won't be able to get it unless I spend thousands on an HDTV, or move jobs to a different city.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

It boils down to "if Dish had played by the rules" on DNS, they wouldn't be in this pickle. 


Steve T - it isn't "thousands on HDTV" anymore - you can get very reasonable HDTV's WITH BUILTIN ATSC tuners for under $1000 now, or you can buy an ATSC set top box for around $200 on the net. And this set top box will be able to output to your current NTSC (analog) TV, just like your DBS receivers.

I suppose I'm a bit spoiled by having really excellent local stations with wonderful reception (at about 20-25 miles from their towers, one is at ~40 miles) - even the 2 Sinclair owned stations do decent NTSC broadcasts. I can't speak for their digital yet, but WRAL is probably the nation's leader in HDTV (certainly one of the first), and it shows on their NTSC as well. The only reason I take the locals is to be able to DVR them (that's another issue).


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Chris Walker said:


> ^^ Ok, so it's now up to Dish to settle or the distants disappear. From everything I read and understand, the whole problem here is that Dish did not settle like Directv did for their violations.


Sky Report states that E* has offered $100 million to settle the case while the braodcasters want $300 Million. E* estimates that as many as 400,000 customers would bolt if the distants go away. That's about $500 a subscriber.

It boils down as to which scenario they value more.... the 400,000 subscribers or the $300 million.

Judging from his past experience, I think he will kiss off the subscribers and blame the whole mess on the courts and Congress's lack of action on the matter.

We all know that Charlie isn't afraid of brinksmanship. He has no problem screwing us over in the short term to get a better deal.. The question then becomes.... IF he gets them back, do we have to go through the process to get our waivers back from square 1? It took me years to get some of them after numerous attempts....

My 622 glitched Monday night trying to record Treasure Hunters as my tuner 2 stopped seeing the satellite.. After a power inserter and receiver reboot, and subsequent check switch I got it back. No big deal, I recorded the later feed off the west coast. My 622 timer insurance goes out the window if this goes through....

My situation is minor compared to the rural areas that really get screwed here.... They may be the only group that can force Congress to rewrite the laws...


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

steveT said:


> I was an original Primetime 24 subscriber. And I've done everything a citizen can do to fight to keep distants over the years: I've written Senators and Congressmen, I've gone to their local public forums and brought the issue up for public debate, I've called their offices, I've written letters, and on and on... And in the end, I lost all four DNS feeds from NY and LA years ago, so I find it shocking to read in that court decision that supposedly NO Dish customer ever lost their DNS per any congressional or judicial ruling. That's totally untrue.
> 
> And, I've done everything I can to work with the local stations (Dallas) to get them to try to fix their audio and video feeds so I wouldn't need DNS in the first place. The Dallas ABC station has horrible picture quality: grainy and low res. The Dallas NBC station has had a thick, stationary, white bar running right down the left center of the screen for years, and no one else here seems to care (I can see it even when I go to local TV stores that carry dish, so it's not my equipment...) The Dallas Fox station is half decent. And the Dallas CBS station has grainy video and virtually NO stereo sound.
> 
> ...


Hard to believe ALL network affliates of a major market like Dallas have crappy audio and video. Do all Dallas subscribers have this problem? Wouldn't we have heard about it? Is it broadcast OTA that way, or is it just in the feed that Dish gets? If it's the latter, and Dish won't fix it, sounds like it's time to dump Dish and go to cable or D*.


----------



## steveT (Jul 12, 2002)

FLWingNut said:


> Hard to believe ALL network affliates of a major market like Dallas have crappy audio and video. Do all Dallas subscribers have this problem? Wouldn't we have heard about it? Is it broadcast OTA that way, or is it just in the feed that Dish gets? If it's the latter, and Dish won't fix it, sounds like it's time to dump Dish and go to cable or D*.


Yes, it is hard to believe. But true. I've talked to Dish about this as well. They told me that in most major cities, they get a direct digital feed from the local station. But the Dallas stations won't do it, and so Dish actually picks up the signals here over the air, then sends it on to Colorado to get uploaded to sat. The local stations confirmed that for me too. What goes out over the air here is exactly what we get back on the dish.

My reasons previously for staying with dish, not switching:

1. Got my waiver on local CBS. Don't want to lose that. 
2. Grandfathered on Superstation package. Don't want to lose that either.
3. Integrated dual-tuner DVR (721). Don't want to downgrade picture quality by going with D*'s Tivo-based solution.

I guess at least two of those are now at risk of going away. Like someone else here just asked, will I have to start the waiver process all over if I switch to D*? I lucked out last time and found one reasonable person to grant it at the local CBS station. What are the odds that will happen again?


----------



## BillyBob_jcv (Feb 12, 2006)

GeorgeLV said:


> Distants only exist because the government got involved. Without the government, distants are copyright infringement.


That's fine with me. I don't consider administration of a gov't program to allow someone to receive a specific TV station worthy of my tax dollars. If that means I lose access to a sat channel - oh well. Shut the whole thing down and let the free market take over. If your market is too small to be in an area serviced by a content provider, that's too bad - but not my problem, and not a problem that needs to be fixed by tax-funded gov't regulation.

It isn't copyright infringement if the companies involved enter into an agreement. I understand I'm on the outside here - but maybe the old business model is no longer viable. Maybe locals should be looking to the internet as their primary distribution channel. If you want a local station - subscribe directly with that station to have access to the content. Or maybe local network affiliates no longer make sense - maybe the big networks should handle national broadcasting, and the locals should handle only local content. I don't have all the answers, but I think the market should be allowed to figure this out, and we don't need to spend tax dollars to build and maintain a gov't bureacracy to administer it. These are big businesses making serious money - and they make that money (one way or another) from consumers. If they want my money, they will find a way to reach me.


----------



## Deputy-Dawg (Jul 19, 2006)

The problems with local stations are not isolated in Dallas!! In the Fort Smith / Fayetteville, AR the locals on E* are so bad as to be un-watchable at times. The local NBC outlet on E* looks like it is being recieved an extremely badly aligned analog reciever. It appears as if the IF has been extremely peaked ("ringing" around the edges of objects) has sound bars in the video and sync buzz in the audio. The local PBS and FOX channels have been off the air with the message "No signal found" numerous times over the last few months.

An OTA antenna would do me no good as I am in a hole between two mountains on the edge of Beaver Lake. The images supplied by the local cable provider are as bad as E* (indeed they look like the same signal) and D* is no better. When (note I am not saying if) DNS goes away I plan on simply not watching the major networks. Indeed I find I am not watching them much anymore anyway. To bad to, at 73 I have found memories of them in their Hay Day but that is changing.

In the end the killing of DNS could backfire on everyone, the local stations, the networks and E* as well. I my opinion they have earned it.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

steveT said:


> Only the CBS affiliate here finally agreed with me that the picture and sound quality they were delivering to Dish was so bad, and they could not fix without expensive equipment upgrades, that they granted me a waiver.


The satellite companies are responsible for receiving a quality picture off the air, not the affiliate. You were complaining to Congress and the local stations over a problem likley caused by Echostar's less than adequate facilites. Did you also complain to Dish?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

wkomorow said:


> Congressman McSweeny has a tummy ache -


What do you expect after he drank that much?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

BillyBob_jcv said:


> The FCC should stick to allocating frequencies.


Echostar was sued for violating copyright statutes. The FCC rules are incidental.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

minnow said:


> If E* is going to supply networks from "neighboring area's" to subscribers that are unserved becasue they do not have networks originating in their own areas, isn't that really backdooring the DNS concept ? I live in a white area so what is the difference if I get DNS from LA or from a city in my state ? Both network feeds orginate outside of my area.


It really depends on where you live. For instance, WTVH in Syracuse can claim about 2/3rds of Utica, WRGB can claim the other 1/3rd. Both are carried on Dish and could be sent to Utica using the '"Significantly Viewed" rules even without LiL in Utica.


----------



## Thinker3932 (Apr 12, 2006)

So, I am new to sat tv, but have read this whole thread. A few newbie questions:

I thought local were all transmitted via spot beams...how can one get "distants" if they are not in the beam?

What was the original criteria for distants, such as the gentleman who has an RV and thus a waiver? So, these waivers were granted by a local affialiate to say an individual could get a "distant"?

My only interest in "distants" or whatever is to watch my hometown news when I am 500 miles away in Boonhill, MT. I assume if I am out of the spot beam, I can't get the locals.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

PBowie said:


> whats the difference between us getting Dallas locals than to going on the net to read Dallas newspapers?


The difference is that the local Florida paper has not signed a contract for exclusive territorial rights to the same stories that are on the Dallas web pages.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> The satellite companies are responsible for receiving a quality picture off the air, not the affiliate.


They do not have to go to extraordinary measures. The affiliate is responsible for getting the signal to the point of presence. In most cases that isn't a problem (pops are generally located in or near a tower farm).


Thinker3932 said:


> I thought local were all transmitted via spot beams...how can one get "distants" if they are not in the beam?


The stations offered as distants are carried on conus beams.


Thinker3932 said:


> My only interest in "distants" or whatever is to watch my hometown news when I am 500 miles away in Boonhill, MT. I assume if I am out of the spot beam, I can't get the locals.


True. If you are out of the spot for locals being carried on a spotbeam you physically won't get those locals.

You will also have to "move" to do that (give E* a service address in your 'hometown' despite where your dish is set up).


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

boylehome said:


> I think that something like this still would be possible. Respective to the, "law" that E* violated. Does this law carry fine or jail sentence? Is it a felony, misdemeanor or infraction? Maybe that has yet to be determined. It seems that if an agreement is reached the court could dismiss or even reverse the action. Maybe someone has some expert knowledge about this?


The text of the law according to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...fbI&refer=&r_n=sr042.106&item=&sel=TOC_68808&

(A) if the pattern or practice has been carried out on a substantially nationwide basis, the court shall order a permanent injunction barring the secondary transmission by the satellite carrier of the primary transmissions of
that television broadcast station (and if such television broadcast station is a network station, all other television broadcast stations affiliated with such network), and the court may order statutory damages not exceeding $250,000 for each 6-month period during which the pattern or practice was carried out; and


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

James Long said:


> They do not have to go to extraordinary measures. The affiliate is responsible for getting the signal to the point of presence. In most cases that isn't a problem (pops are generally located in or near a tower farm).


In most cases signal measurements are made before a POP is selected. A location with a poor signal should not have been selected as a receive site in the first place.


----------



## oldave (Dec 22, 2003)

Tower Guy said:


> In most cases signal measurements are made before a POP is selected. A location with a poor signal should not have been selected as a receive site in the first place.


In Macon, GA, the receive site is at WMGT (NBC-41... the calls actually stand for "We *MIGHT* Get Television") in downtown Macon. All the Macon network affiliates are up on their digital signal (granted, mostly light-bulb-weak).

A couple of weeks ago, WMGT lost the klystron in their analog transmitter. The DISH feed was down Friday into Sunday. It was possible (if you held you mouth right and your left leg in just the right position) to see their digital signal (I'm only 16 miles from the transmitter - terrain is a problem, though).

The Cox cable feed stayed up - I don't know if Cox uses the digital or if they have a fiber feed - the Fox affiliate has claimed they're running fiber to Cox.

You'd think WMGT would just provide a feed to DISH, since it's in the building...  but nooo... when we get it, we get all the horrible ghosting, etc.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Tower Guy said:


> What do you expect after he drank that much?


Good one - frat pictures do tell all. And this actually tells you what is wrong with the current DMA system. I have no interest in McSweeny and I should know nothing about his indiscretions nor do I really care about Joe Bruno's granddaughter's break up with her boyfriend, but I know all about them. Even though I live in MA and I get the Boston Globe delivered daily, I am bombarded on the local news out of Albany about what is happening in NY. I want to know how much will be coming out of my paycheck to fix the Big Dig fiasco - not that NY taxpayers are picking up parts of the Porco legal fees.


----------



## Chris Walker (May 19, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> Sky Report states that E* has offered $100 million to settle the case while the braodcasters want $300 Million. E* estimates that as many as 400,000 customers would bolt if the distants go away. That's about $500 a subscriber.
> 
> It boils down as to which scenario they value more.... the 400,000 subscribers or the $300 million.
> 
> ...


I strongly believe there will be a settlement and there will be no disruption. Many of us distant subs are long time high paying customers and are probably worth $500 a pop to Charlie because it'd take well more than that to get a similar quality customer to replace us. They spend $400+ on just an average sub


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

But the question is how many subscribers will actually leave if their distants are shut off, knowing that they will need to go through a requalification process with Direct, and knowing that they will need to have Direct requests waivers. Especially given that many of us are grandfathered or received waivers before our local channels were available. I doubt that many stations will be granting waivers when their channels are available in local packages to that customer via satellite.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Anyone who considers leaving should look at the big picture.
See what you will get if you go to D* ... look at the entire package.
Waivers are the hard part because you won't know until you get them or get denied.


----------



## narnia777 (Mar 28, 2003)

I switched to Directv a couple years ago. But I keep Dish for Sky Angel and for a few super stations and for 3 waivers I have for distants. I like them and want to keep them took months for me to get the waivers.

I hope I can keep them.

Jim


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

IF I can get "significantly viewed in either of two DMA's, I'll stay. Otherwise, I will have to switch to (shudder)cable.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

steveT said:


> 3. Integrated dual-tuner DVR (721). Don't want to downgrade picture quality by going with D*'s Tivo-based solution.


HUH??? - you DO know that the D-Tivo's record the sat bitstream directly, EXACTLY like the E* units do...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Thinker3932 said:


> I thought local were all transmitted via spot beams...how can one get "distants" if they are not in the beam?


In addition to what JL said about some locals being on conus... I believe there are a few places where spotbeams overlap, so there are some customers who are located in the fringes of multiple spotbeams and could "choose" from amongst the ones they can see from their location.


----------



## jrbdmb (Sep 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> Anyone who considers leaving should look at the big picture.
> See what you will get if you go to D* ... look at the entire package.
> Waivers are the hard part because you won't know until you get them or get denied.


I've read multiple posts where it is said "I'll take my waivers to D*." First, waivers will not automatically transfer. Second, will D* file waivers if you already receive local channels? (I ask this because most distant network subs appear to also get their locals, but prefer the distants for one reason or another.)

The other thing not noted here yet is that if E* does reach a settlement with the networks, the rules for qualifying for distant NETs may change drastically, i.e. no waivers, no NETs if you get locals, no grandfathering. The NAB and locals affiliates want your eyes watching the locals, so I expect any settlement will result in a drastic reduction in the number of qualifying subs.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Yep - like a very strict observance of the SHIVA - if you got locals , no distants (at least for the networks in your DMA). And this might have to be verified by a site visit (If i was on the networks side, I would insist on this).


----------



## jonsnow (Apr 18, 2006)

This ruling makes sense only to a powerfull elite in government who wants control over peoples lives. I makes no economic or pursuit of happiness sense whatsoever.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

jonsnow said:


> This ruling makes sense only to a powerfull elite in government who wants control over peoples lives. I makes no economic or pursuit of happiness sense whatsoever.


Really? It appears that Echostar would like to fork over $100 million to the remaining plaintiffs for the right to continue distant networks. The affiliate boards and FOX appear to want about $375 million for that right. Sounds like an economic pursuit of happiness by the plaintiffs.


----------



## steveT (Jul 12, 2002)

Tower Guy said:


> The satellite companies are responsible for receiving a quality picture off the air, not the affiliate. You were complaining to Congress and the local stations over a problem likley caused by Echostar's less than adequate facilites. Did you also complain to Dish?


I did complain to Dish. They were the ones that first told me they'd tried to get a better signal from all the Dallas stations, but none would provide one. They're also the one who told me that unlike other major markets, Dallas won't give them a direct feed, forcing them to pick it off the air. The local stations confirmed all this for me. So basically Dish is just deliverying exactly the same pic quality that you can get here OTO or by cable. It's garbage-in, garbage-out...


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Sounds like extorsion to me- Corporate Extorsion. Dish will have to pay or lose the right to broadcast to truckers and rvers etc. It looks like it is going to ge a very ,very expensive month or two for Dishnetwork when they have to unass all this money to keep their service running the same as it has always run. 

I hope Charlie understands that playing by the rules is the way to go. IF he wanted to effect change with the distants networks issues he should have lobbied Congress to change the rules instead of acted in disregard of them. With regards to Tivo he better pay up and forget about suing them later. Just pay and be done with it. 

MOVE ON ALREADY!!


----------



## steveT (Jul 12, 2002)

dishrich said:


> HUH??? - you DO know that the D-Tivo's record the sat bitstream directly, EXACTLY like the E* units do...


I posted the same question on another thread on dbstalk, and thought it said Tivo required additional compression. Looking back at that thread, I missed the responder's comment that it didn't apply to DirecTivo, which they said operates just like the Dish DVR. Sorry, my mistake.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

I think it's time to fight against protected territoties. Personally I could live without any locals anyway. Unfortunately, if every DBS subscriber said "NO" to locals of any kind it wouldn't change a thing.

As I've said before, the way it ought to be is you should be able to receive any channel a provider is willing to make available. Heck, a few local channels are still available via internet or FTA feed! And even how you receive programming is in the midst of change. 

This "penalty" hurts subscribers more than anyone, but of course the intent, I suppose, is to force subscribers to jump ship and go with another provider. Amazing that the government can approve a deal to allow 1 company to make 70%+ of all the washing machines but it's a major no, no to provide a quality TV signal to those who want one. It looks like the consumer is no longer priority #1, assuming it ever was.

I'm sorry it had to be Justice Thomas to deny the appeal. Usually I enjoy and support his opinions. I guess he made his decision based on the merits of the origional complaint with respect to contract law. I guess some days it sucks to be a Constitutional Constructionist. :lol: 

Still, I wish I could think of some way to make the networks suffer a consumer's wrath.


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

wkomorow said:


> Copyright is the major issue. If Dish were to transmit a network into a DMA that does not have that network - there would be no local channel to sue. Although it is true that Dish needs retrans for SV channels, foe some of us these channels are a necessity. With a dual-tuner DVR, I really do not have to time-shift. However, we are feed our networks from upstate NY. They have gotten better, but many of the stations have a habit of pre-empting programming. We have been treated to religious programming, the many hats of Mary Lou Whitney, Congressman McSweeny has a tummy ache - we will stay with the story all night, how to make our local urban violence-riddle schools better - I'm not in an urban area and we have some of the best performing schools in the country,how a thunderstorm is born.
> 
> Slight (but not much of an) exaggeration, every time there is a flurry - we will stay with this storm all night. I have missed more programs because of local channels following snow storms - well I am a native New Englander - really unless we are talking more than 2 feet of snow at once, it really has no really impact on me - especially at night - just let me watch my programs.


I know what you mean! Here in FL they often have 24/ 7 coverage or at least frequent "news flashes" anytime there's a hurricane anywhere within 500 miles of the coast. I really wish I could have the option to receive the networks from another market because you can only be told to "hunker down" so many times before succumbing to the temptation to throw a brick at the TV.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

> I really wish I could have the option to receive the networks from another market


abc, nbc, cbs, fox, and wb (soon to be cw) in new york and los angeles are all on national feeds. new york also has upn on a national feed. you could "move" to one of these cities and you'd get their locals. you won't get the minor locals that are on a spotbeam but you won't get 24 hour hurricane coverage in either of these locations. when you do care about hurricane coverage, you can use some rabbit ears.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

There is nothing to say that ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX will stay on ConUS if the Distants go.


----------



## marty43 (Sep 30, 2005)

JohnH said:


> There is nothing to say that ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX will stay on ConUS if the Distants go.


I don't think there is any law that says E* has to put NY and LA on a spot beam, it might be wise on their part to keep them on conus.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

restart88 said:


> I think it's time to fight against protected territoties. Personally I could live without any locals anyway. Unfortunately, if every DBS subscriber said "NO" to locals of any kind it wouldn't change a thing.
> 
> As I've said before, the way it ought to be is you should be able to receive any channel a provider is willing to make available. Heck, a few local channels are still available via internet or FTA feed! And even how you receive programming is in the midst of change.


Could you really live without locals? Do you really care about nothing that goes on in your town? Locals provide a necessary service; I don't understand all the venom directed at the concept of locals. "Lost" is the same on the Huntsville ABC as on the NYC ABC. If you can get locals, why all fighting to get stations from out of town? Does it really matter which station you watch "American Idol" on?

I've heard the timeshifting arguement -- get a VCR or DVR. I've heard the annoyance with pre-emptions for local programming -- the bumped network show is usually broadcast at a later time, where you can record it, and does it really happen that often with first-run network programming anyway. A local ABC affliliate that pre-empts "Desperate Housewives" for a Little League gane or for Billy Graham is committing economic suicide. Weather interuptions happen, and they're usually important to your viewing area. That falls under the s**t happens catagory.

If another town's news is so important to you, maybe you should move (not "move") there, and then there's no problem. Take the time to get to know your town -- the one you live in.

And when it all comes down to it -- it's just TV.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

steveT said:


> I did complain to Dish. They were the ones that first told me they'd tried to get a better signal from all the Dallas stations, but none would provide one. They're also the one who told me that unlike other major markets, Dallas won't give them a direct feed, forcing them to pick it off the air. The local stations confirmed all this for me. So basically Dish is just deliverying exactly the same pic quality that you can get here OTO or by cable. It's garbage-in, garbage-out...


Poppycock. Over the air TV can be excellent quality. The only garbage would be caused by a poor location for a pick-up point. That's in Dish's control, not the affiliates. The excuse that the affilaite won't feed them directly is probably a refusal by the affiliates to pay for Dish's location mistake.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> Locals provide a necessary service...Take the time to get to know your town -- the one you live in.


Sincerely Yours,

The National Association of Broadcasters


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Point being...?

What's wrong with getting to know YOUR city, not the one you left? I moved from Detroit 20 years ago, and each stop I've made, I've tried to get to know my new city. I've lived in Florida for ther last 17 of those years. I still root for Detroit sports teams, but I have almost no interest in getting Detroit locals. For what? Any important news from there I can get off the internet or from my folks. I need to know what's happening HERE and my locals do that. 

And no one has answered my main point -- (aside from technical issues) what bloody difference does it make which ABC affiliate you watch "Lost" on?


----------



## Deputy-Dawg (Jul 19, 2006)

Tower Guy said:


> Poppycock. Over the air TV can be excellent quality. The only garbage would be caused by a poor location for a pick-up point. That's in Dish's control, not the affiliates. The excuse that the affilaite won't feed them directly is probably a refusal by the affiliates to pay for Dish's location mistake.


Locating a OTA reception site can be a bit complicated! Not all markets have a common location were all of the outlets have their transmitting antennas (like on top of the Empire State building in NYC). Out in the "country" as Dallas is and certainly like the Fort Smith /Fayetteville market the transmitter sites may be seperated by many miles and by significant geographic obstructions. E* certainly cannot afford, nor should they have, to install seperate reception sites for each of the outlets.

But frankly I do not believe that there can be any consumer friendly resolution to this problem so long as the "locals" are given an absolute controling vote (veto) in this matter. The law, in my opinion, should provide that the locals, if they wish to have this control, would have to deliver a signal of suitable quality to any willing service provider such as E*. This could be fairly easily acccomplished if they were required to broadcast an ATSC signal.


----------



## Deputy-Dawg (Jul 19, 2006)

Couple of questions:

First of all am I correct in my understanding that this decision will cause the removal of the CBS-HD feed? It would seem so since is tied to the DNS subscription, or so I understand it.

Second, I am an annual subscriber - just renewed my subscribtion earlier this month - what, any refund or adjustment will I be entitled to if DNS is shut down. Before you answer this read the residential service agreement portion which is extracted below. It seems to me that strictly interpreted that E* is not obligated to make any adjustment.

_"In the event that we delete, rearrange or change any programming, programming packages or other Services, you understand and agree that we have no obligation to replace or supplement any programming, programming packages or other Services previously offered that have been deleted, rearranged or otherwise changed. You further understand and agree that you will not be entitled to any refund because of a deletion, rearrangement or change in the contents of any programming, programming packages, or other Services previously offered. "_


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Deputy-Dawg said:


> Locating a OTA reception site can be a bit complicated! Not all markets have a common location were all of the outlets have their transmitting antennas (like on top of the Empire State building in NYC). Out in the "country" as Dallas is and certainly like the Fort Smith /Fayetteville market the transmitter sites may be seperated by many miles and by significant geographic obstructions. E* certainly cannot afford, nor should they have, to install seperate reception sites for each of the outlets.


We're talking about Dallas; not New York or Arkansas.

Both New York and Dallas have transmitters in almost the same spot.

In Fort Smith there's about 50 miles between the ABC and NBC transmitters. They are both on UHF, so a highly directive receive antenna is not that large.
Here's a data center that's on a favorable location for TV reception:
http://www.kirkhamsystems.com/index.php?q=datacenter


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

FLWingNut said:


> ... And no one has answered my main point -- (aside from technical issues) what bloody difference does it make which ABC affiliate you watch "Lost" on?


It makes no difference whatsoever, of course.

But network programming isn't necessarily why people want out-of-market channels. You seem to disagree, but some people *do* want to stay in touch with other markets. Viewers should be able to make the choice. Distant locals also have their own schedules of non-network programming. Viewers may prefer a distant channel's lineup to their own.

Another consideration is that some people like me live in one DMA but are more connected to another. My community is in the Los Angeles DMA, but people here tend to work in San Diego. Their work life is related to San Diego and most of their co-workers live there. The ability to receive San Diego channels would be a nice option.


----------



## zmark (Apr 18, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> And no one has answered my main point -- (aside from technical issues) what bloody difference does it make which ABC affiliate you watch "Lost" on?


Timeshifting: With an east coast and west coast feed, I can record everything I want. Sometimes there are three shows on at roughly the same time.

Pre-emption: Some stations have a bad habit of preempting a show for stupid local crap or for 'chicken-little' weather reports. The Distants (NY, LA) rarely if ever do this.

Location: For some of us, our 'local' affiliate is 100 miles away and pretty much ignores us on all local issues. SO when they do preempt, is for crap that has nothing to do with us.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IF the network programming was available via video on demand or by a national pay per view channel with a monthly subscription like Hbo or Showtime , this would totally do away with the locals reason to exist except as a local news and weather source. They ought to just let you have national feeds of the networks and give you one sub channels via each dma that gives you nothing but news/sports/weather etc. This would sure free up all the bandwith up there on the satellites if they did do this. Better picture quality too if they eliminated the extra locals etc.


----------



## dlp85x (Mar 19, 2004)

This post will be a little bit long, so I am warning you beforehand. I just thought I would like to weigh in on the discussion. I live about 30 miles away from my local Washington, DC stations, and can get grade A signals from all of them. I also have distants for both NBC and FOX. But, I didn't 'move' or do anything of the like to receive them ... I applied for waivers through E*'s website. FOX (local station WTTG) approved the waiver without a question, and it took a few tries to get NBC (local station WRC) approve, as they only allowed me to get co-owned KNBC-LA and not KUSA Denver, which is not owned by NBC. Both WTTG and WRC are network O&O stations, so that might explain why they approved the waivers when I live so close. 

What I don't get is how everybody is saying that E* are the people who completely are behind the reason why so many people are getting distants illegally when they get local-grade signals of their locals, etc. Yes, people do 'move' and there have been quirks in E*'s site where they wrongly allowed people to apply for distants temporarily, but some of the blame must be placed on the local stations themselves. As I already said, my local NBC and FOX stations apparently didn't care if I got distants as long as they were owned by the same people who owned them--the network. My local ABC (WJLA) and CBS (WUSA) stations, which are owned by Albritton Communications and Gannett respectively, denied my waiver requests. If the NAB and local stations are blaming E* for breaking the rules by allowing people to receive DNS, shouldn't these local stations who approve customers who live in their grade A signal contour be blamed also? It might be a hard sell for the networks to be against E* selling distants when their own owned-and-operated stations are allowing metro-area customers get DNS without question. It hasn't just happened here with my waiver approvals; I had a friend who lived in the Houston area 10 miles away from downtown, received a grade A signal from all stations, and was able to have FOX O&O KRIV-26 approve his waiver request through E*.

Although I will be dissapointed when my distants are taken away, I won't switch away from E* just because of it. First of all, their picture quality is superior to the cable company here (Comcast), and I get a second NBC station (WHAG 25 Hagerstown, MD) which is also in my market that Comcast, or D* doesn't carry. 

If I could make up the rules, I would have the distant networks (for those who get LIL already) set up to where the station is blacked out during syndicated programming and/or network programming depending on your local station of the same network's choice. Local, original programming originating from the station (such as news, community shows, etc.) will be broadcasted to anybody who can receive the station via nearby spotbeam, ConUS, etc. E* has the ability to black out a channel during some programming; they've done it before on the CCTV channel and other international stations when you aren't subscribed. The local news would be available to everybody and some other programming, but many of the shows are not able to be seen. This would satisfy those who move away from their hometown and can keep up on the local stations from that area, and it would benefit the local stations since the syndicated/network programming would still have to be seen on their channel. It would, though, cut into news ratings of the locals, so it probably isn't too feasible! Another idea would be to allow the ratings for whatever program you are watching on a distant (network programming, etc.) apply to the local channel with the same network that you receive. So, for example, if you watch Saturday Night Live on New York's WNBC, and your local is WRC for NBC, WRC gets the ratings. This is not a logical idea, but it would be great if it was the case.

Another issue, as others brought up, is the significantly viewed stations. I think its good to allow you to get nearby markets especially if cable carries it where you live, but if you can pick up the stations with a watchable, color signal via a rooftop antenna, then I think you should be able to get them on E* too. In my case, I live about 55 miles away from Baltimore, but I can receive NBC, ABC and CBS from the city with a watchable color signal all the time. Why shouldn't I be able to get these stations on E*? The Baltimore NBC station comes in clearer than the (much closer, local) Washington NBC station (WRC) half the time, due to WRC being a lower VHF channel which is more prone to interference. Maybe they should make the SV situation exclusive to the customer, like allow customers to receive anything they can regularly pick up with a rooftop antenna. It might defy the NAB's precious 'protection' of local broadcasting, but if I can already watch Baltimore stations on my television with pretty good signals via antenna, why shouldn't I watch them alongside my locals on E*?


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

dlp85x said:


> if I can already watch Baltimore stations on my television with pretty good signals via antenna, why shouldn't I watch them alongside my locals on E*?


a very good question. i think one of the main issues here is that the existing laws are based on an outdated business model from the 1960s. and what exactly is that business model? the national association of broadcasters would answer in one word: localism. localism was a great thing in the 1960s. but hey -- so was that phone you leased from at&t. technology has advanced but the laws have not. meanwhile, the value of localism continues to decline (despite what FLWingNut would have you believe). satellite companies lobbied for years just to be able to carry local stations. they finally got their wish but the NAB lobbied heavily behind the scenes to ensure that the restrictions associated therewith would promote localism (there's that word again). as far as i'm concerned, the satellite companies should broadcast all locals on a CONUS beam and let their customers choose which ones they wanted, a-la-carte style. until that comes to pass, count me among the progressives. the rest of you better check your phone bill -- that lease you've got from at&t is really beginning to add up.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dlp85x said:


> if I can already watch Baltimore stations on my television with pretty good signals via antenna, why shouldn't I watch them alongside my locals on E*?


In my perfect world you would be able to get those channels via satellite (assuming you are Grade B to the stations and not getting a good signal due to a better than average antenna).

Congress wrote a bad law. First they limited LIL service to just stations within a DMA (regardless of location or stations outside the DMA that provide coverage). The last revision added "significantly viewed" but congress chose to use a fundimentally flawed list - one drawn up for cable use - to define what stations are significant. Cable gets to carry (or is forced to carry in some instances) stations that cover the area where the cable system is. Satellite is forbidden from carrying some of those same stations just because of a DMA line. Stupid.

The worst part is congress is actually working against localism by not allowing all Grade B stations to be carried via satellite.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

James Long said:


> In my perfect world you would be able to get those channels via satellite (assuming you are Grade B to the stations and not getting a good signal due to a better than average antenna).
> 
> Congress wrote a bad law. First they limited LIL service to just stations within a DMA (regardless of location or stations outside the DMA that provide coverage). The last revision added "significantly viewed" but congress chose to use a fundimentally flawed list - one drawn up for cable use - to define what stations are significant. Cable gets to carry (or is forced to carry in some instances) stations that cover the area where the cable system is. Satellite is forbidden from carrying some of those same stations just because of a DMA line. Stupid.
> 
> The worst part is congress is actually working against localism by not allowing all Grade B stations to be carried via satellite.


Actually the worst part is how congress can't seem to get anything right and are supposed to be working for the people. Instead they have invested so much time and effort to Con-Troll what we watch in the interest of broadcasters who fund them. Real sad :nono:


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

foghorn2 said:


> Actually the worst part is how congress can't seem to get anything right and are supposed to be working for the people. Instead they have invested so much time and effort to Con-Troll what we watch in the interest of broadcasters who fund them. Real sad :nono:


If you went in a time machine back 5,000 years ago, you would find the same thing. You would find the same thing anywhere in any time. In fact, you find the same things with different species. It turns out that chimpanzees have political campaigns, and the candidates make a point of kissing the babies, in order to court the female vote. I kid you not.

Just the way of things...


----------



## SergeantPinback (Feb 21, 2006)

I'm in the Los Angeles area.

Right now, I get the LA stations ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX in HD and a handful of local stations in SD (WB, etc.), plus the New York stations CBS in HD and ABC & NBC in SD.

So, come September, as I understand it, I'll lose the two SD stations from NY (ABC and NBC), and the HD CBS from NY.

Questions --

I thought the CBS HD NY channel was a special case..? When I first signed up, I was not able to get CBS NY, but when I upgraded to HD, I got the HD NY CBS without even asking. In fact, I had NY HD CBS before any of the major networks were available in HD in the LA area.

Does this affect any of the 'Superstation' channels, like DENVER KWGN, NEW YORK WPIX, BOSTON WSBK or NEW YORK WWOR?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HD is special and is not covered under the distants laws. E* has a special arrangement with CBS to carry the CBS-HD feed generally in CBS owned and operated markets.

Superstations are a different piece of law. Losing distants will not lose superstations.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

James- are you saying that this court ruling will not affect the CBS HD channel at all? I have a waiver to receive that channel (WCBS in NYC) only and am charged the $1.50 per month for it. 

For others, does it affect those in other markets who have waivers?


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

psnarula said:


> a very good question. i think one of the main issues here is that the existing laws are based on an outdated business model from the 1960s,and what exactly is that business model? the national association of broadcasters would answer in one word: localism. localism was a great thing in the 1960s. but hey -- so was that phone you leased from at&t. technology has advanced but the laws have not. meanwhile, the value of localism continues to decline (despite what FLWingNut would have you believe). satellite companies lobbied for years just to be able to carry local stations. they finally got their wish but the NAB lobbied heavily behind the scenes to ensure that the restrictions associated therewith would promote localism (there's that word again). as far as i'm concerned, the satellite companies should broadcast all locals on a CONUS beam and let their customers choose which ones they wanted, a-la-carte style. until that comes to pass, count me among the progressives. the rest of you better check your phone bill -- that lease you've got from at&t is really beginning to add up.


What does AT&T have to do with localism? I understand you're trying to say that localism is as outdated as leasing a phone, but that arguement makes no sense. When something critical happens in your town it's the local affliliate that will tell you, nit NYC or LA. You don't care what happens in your town? You might if it's a hurricane, a chemical spill on your interstate (or on the train tracks behind your kids school) or a serial killer loose in your neighborhood. How is that localism not valuable? Do station sometimes pre-empt? Of course. But the network show is almost always broadcast later, and you can tape it then.

I make no apologies for the fact I believe in localism and the affiliate business model. It's worked well for 80 years -- first in network radio, then TV. It continues to work today. Because something has been around around a long time doesn't mean it's automatically outdated, and being "new" doesn't mean it's great (see Mini-discs, laserdiscs, betamax, etc)

Local affiliates have to have ad revenue to survive. Watching out of market stations disrupts the rating system and the ad dollars needed to pay for salaries, and equipment (including HD that so many of you are screaming for).

I do want those that can't get locals to be able to get network programming, whether it's in expanded LIL or via distants. If that's you, hopefully, you'll be able to get them.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I went through this somewhere else...

If you receive distant network service through Dish Network, either by waiver, grandfathering or white area status, you will be cut-off from distant network service. This is because the courts will issue an injunction against the use of the distant network service license. Since everyone receiving distant network services is using that license and it is being revoked for Dish Network, everyone loses their distant feeds.

The main question is the CBS-HD feed at this point. There are two schools of thought:

1) CBS has cleared for nationwide delivery all of their syndicated feeds as well as any programming that isn't directly run by CBS. This means that CBS would have to go to the distributors of Dr. Phil, Entertainment Tonight and The Insider and obtain a "national" license. If the NFL is delivered on CBS HD, then CBS would also have to go to the NFL to obtain a national license.

2) the contract between CBS and Dish Network is for a blanket waiver for the HD channels.

Those are the two ways for WCBS and KCBS to clear the copyrights. Which one is easier? Contacting all copyright holders to give CBS national rights to the syndicated shows, or foregoing that by simply putting a blanket waiver in a contract with Dish Network?

My feeling is that the HD agreement between CBS and Dish Network is only a blanket waiver. Of course this would mean that it is a waiver under the SHVIA's distant network license. In turn, it is the same license which Dish Nework would be prohibited from using to sell distant networks, so the HD feeds would be gone as well.

Like I said, it is my opinion. However, if anyone can tell me why the CBS-HD/Dish Network agreement wouldn't be under the SHVIA license, I'd be happy to listen and try to understand.


James Long said:


> HD is special and is not covered under the distants laws.


No, HD is covered under the distants laws. The only question is how the contract is structured. If the contract uses the license, there is trouble. If the contract does not use the license, then all is good.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

psnarula said:


> i think one of the main issues here is that the existing laws are based on an outdated business model from the 1960s,and what exactly is that business model? the national association of broadcasters would answer in one word: localism.


Ok. Wheel of Fortune, one of the programming syndicators, sells their programming to local affiliates to make big bucks from many stations. Same goes for Jeopardy!, Access Hollywood, Oprah, Judge Judy, Maury, Dr. Phil, The Insider, etc.

Outdated business model? If you pass a law that allows access to any channel, you can bet the distributors of the above shows will sue on unconstitutional grounds as the government will have seized the value of their contracts with local channels by making their content available nationally.

The business model is far from oudated. The technology could allow nationwide delivery, but then we'd have to answer the question: when the need to go to HD was developed, why did we turn to the same technology that was used to first broadcast television in the 1930's and 1940's? Because the FCC believes in localism, too.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> the FCC believes in localism, too.


i'm not convinced that this is true. the FCC certainly enforces localism. but do they really believe in it? perhaps they just enforce what the NAB tells them to.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

psnarula said:


> i'm not convinced that this is true. the FCC certainly enforces localism. but do they really believe in it? perhaps they just enforce what the NAB tells them to.


Or the government of the people. After all, the FCC was told to create these rules by laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by The President.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnH said:


> After all, the FCC was told to create these rules by laws enacted by Congress and signed into law by The President.


True. I believe there is a more democratic process when the decisions are left up to the FCC than when congress writes the rules for them. When a law is passed that says "the FCC _SHALL_ have rules to this effect" it isn't fair to blame the FCC for the way things are run.

I wish the definition of SV was left up to the FCC, but as the law was written they MUST use the same rules that were in effect on April 15th, 1976. The FCC is being forced, by law, to use 30 year old rules designed for cable and apply them to satellite use with no allowance for modification.


----------



## Steve H (May 15, 2006)

What decides which city your locals come from? I live 350+ miles from Salt Lake City & 150 miles from Las Vegas and about 300 miles from the Southern California coverage area. My locals are Salt Lake. I do not receive any OTA signals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The AC Neilson company provides viewing statistics (ratings) for television. They have divided the nation into 210 markets (with some areas in Alaska not being in a market and Puerto Rico not being a ranked market). Those dividing lines are accepetd by congress and the FCC for the purpose of defining TV markets. If Neilson decides that a county or portion of a county is more likely to view Salt Lake City stations than another market that area is placed in the Salt Lake City market.

There are not a lot of other markets nearby to be in ... making SLC bigger than most. According to Neilson, people in your area watch SLC ... so you get to be in that market.


----------



## Steve H (May 15, 2006)

Thank You James


----------



## DTV TiVo Dealer (Sep 27, 2003)

We just received the following new Dish Network conversion memo from DIRECTV, which was sent to all Nationwide authorized dealers as well as indpendent dealers in the effected areas.

The “Switch from Dish” $150 Cash Back Offer will be available to new DIRECTV customers in the 10 markets listed below (all channels of distribution). To be eligible, customers must submit their last Dish bill AND their first DIRECTV bill along with the completed redemption form. Eligible customers will receive $10 credits on their account each month for 15 months. 

GROUP 1 – Markets where DIRECTV has all locals & Dish customers will lose all

Mankato = (ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX on DNS) 
Rochester MN = (ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX on DNS) 
Springfield-Holyoke = (ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX on DNS) 
Wilmington NC = (ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX on DNS) 
Zanesville = (ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX on DNS) 
GROUP 2 – Markets where DIRECTV has locals & Dish customers will lose *one*

Monterey-Salinas = (ABC is on DNS) 
Juneau = (FOX is on DNS) 


GROUP 3 – Markets where DIRECTV has locals & Dish customers are missing one (already) and there is NO DNS option today 

Corpus Christi = (No ABC) 
Myrtle Beach-Florence = (No NBC) 
Lafayette LA = (No NBC) 


Offer

· Current DISH customers hear of the “Switch from Dish” $150 Cash Back Offer via radio, newspaper, or DIRECTV (inquiry or escalation). New, low risk customers may submit order through ANY sales channel.

· Offer Dates: 
· Purchase by Date: 8/21/06 – 10/02/06 
· Activate by Date: 11/02/07 
· Postmark by Date: 12/02/07 
· These customers will be required to meet all the following eligibility rules in order to be eligible for the 15 monthly $10 Credits.

· Last Dish bill and first DIRECTV bill must be submitted along with redemption form 
· New DIRECTV customers only (validated by welcome message on copy of bill) 
· Low risk credit score (validated by presence/absence of fee on copy of bill) 
· Must activate within the offer dates 
· Must reside in eligible market area (validated against the zip code file) 
· Must provide copy of first bill 
· Activate TOTAL CHOICE ($44.99 or above) or Seleccion Extra ($29.99 or above) or World Direct ($29.99 or above) as validated by TAOS

Miscellaneous Information

DIRECTV will post the “Switch from Dish” $150 Cash Back Mail-in Redemption Form PDF file so that eligible customers can download and print the forms themselves. 

-Robert


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

FLWingNut said:


> What does AT&T have to do with localism? I understand you're trying to say that localism is as outdated as leasing a phone, but that arguement makes no sense. When something critical happens in your town it's the local affliliate that will tell you, nit NYC or LA. You don't care what happens in your town? You might if it's a hurricane, a chemical spill on your interstate (or on the train tracks behind your kids school) or a serial killer loose in your neighborhood. How is that localism not valuable?


Several points here:

- I live in a rural area, and the only local channel with a reporter in this area, removed that reporter about 12 years ago. Ironically, that channel is not in the DMA package which are the LIL channels here on Dish and DirecTV as well. That channel IS in the local cable system, since it is much closer than the LIL channels.

- c.f. the other post above about the guy 350 miles from his LIL DMA channels.

- I certainly have never had any local events covered on the LIL channels, and I'm sure the guy 350 miles away has never had any either.

- More importantly, why would I want to sit in front of my TV for a half hour, just in case some actual real local news was reported, especially since all they are going to talk about are the local versions of Jon Benet Ramsey and Scott Peterson, i.e. no actual news.

- Even more importantly, *this is 2006*. When I want the local weather, I go to weather.com or wunderground.com or accuweather.com . I do this at the same moment that the thought occurs to me "What is the weather going to be like?". I don't wait 13 hours until some LIL channel decides to do a weather report.

In short, the only things more outdated than "Local TV channels" are typewriters.
The incredible waste of wireless bandwidth and satellite bandwidth used for them is mind-boggling, and probably accounts for how far behind the US is in broadband as compared to places like France or Korea.


----------



## shippert (Aug 12, 2003)

FLWingNut said:


> Local affiliates have to have ad revenue to survive.


Leaving aside the legal issues, I'm not sure this is the case. I think, in this day of DVRs and time-shifting, that most locals ought to think about trying to expand their revenue model beyond just ad buys. If the locals have the exclusive rights to show me a program, and I want to watch it from a different source (for timezone or HD reasons, for example), then it seems like good business on their part to find a way to let me do so.

My solution is a fee to maintain my distant waivers. This has a lot of advantages for the locals: they get a steady stream of income regardless of whether I watch or not, or whether I DVR the commercials or not. The fee would naturally supress the number of people who would be willing to get distants, so the local ad model would remain largely intact. They'd make more money, they'd diversify their revenue streams, and I would get to watch the channels I want. Everybody wins - well, except for those people who want distants for free (or for cheap). But if I'm willing to pay, I think it's pretty shortsighted for my locals and the networks not to try and find a way to take my money.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

FLWingNut said:


> Because something has been around around a long time doesn't mean it's automatically outdated,


But it does mean we shouldn't want something different, something better able (scheduling, PQ, SQ) to fullfil our entertainment desires? Why are you so committed to preventing that?


> and being "new" doesn't mean it's great (see Mini-discs, laserdiscs, ...


Now you would take away my MDs & LDs too? This is stahtin' to get real personal padnuh!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> The "Switch from Dish" $150 Cash Back Offer will be available to new DIRECTV customers in the 10 markets listed below (all channels of distribution). To be eligible, customers must submit their last Dish bill AND their first DIRECTV bill along with the completed redemption form. Eligible customers will receive $10 credits on their account each month for 15 months.t


What, no distants?

I don't see that offer stealing away too many E* customers. It does show that the grass is not nessisarily greener. There isn't an offer there to move to D* _and_ get distants - just get your locals.


----------



## DTV TiVo Dealer (Sep 27, 2003)

James Long said:


> What, no distants?
> 
> I don't see that offer stealing away too many E* customers. It does show that the grass is not nessisarily greener. There isn't an offer there to move to D* _and_ get distants - just get your locals.


James, sorry, maybe I don't understand your post. DIRECTV can still offer and activate _distant locals_ in all markets, where the customer is eligible.

I believe of the 400,000 or so effected Dish Network customers DIRECTV could maintain their _distant locals_ for about 150,000 of them.

-Robert


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> James, sorry, maybe I don't understand your post. DIRECTV can still offer and activate _distant locals_ in all markets, where the customer is eligible.
> 
> I believe of the 400,000 or so effected Dish Network customers DIRECTV could maintain their _distant locals_ for about 150,000 of them.


That information wasn't in the offer you posted. Thanks for adding it - It helps define the effect of losing distants better when there are numbers attached. 250,000 will be just be SOL if E* turns off their distants - and have to decide E* or D* based on other matters. (I'm sure anger against E* will help with that decision.  )


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

BobaBird said:


> But it does mean we shouldn't want something different, something better able (scheduling, PQ, SQ) to fullfil our entertainment desires?


Anyone is welcome to create a program and deliver it any way that they want. You could make a show and send it as a file on the Internet, sell a DVD, or rent a VHS tape, etc. You could choose to limit the Internet to Apple iTunes and DVD rentals to Blockbuster. That's your choice. If Blockbuster wants the same stuff that Apple has, they need to make a lawful deal for it. They can't just say that it's OK to sell the program in areas where Broadband Internet doesn't exist. That would be the same copyright laws in force even on new technology. But that's essentially what E* had been claiming.


----------



## psnarula (Aug 13, 2005)

FLWingNut said:


> Local affiliates have to have ad revenue to survive.


again, a true statement. but what you aren't mentioning is that the affiliates are effectively being subsidized by consumers that have no choice in the matter.

nobody subsidizes the mom and pop grocery store when walmart puts up a supercenter across town. the fact is, we have seen a lot of small-market retailers go out of business because they just can't compete with big businesses. is that a bad thing? perhaps. perhaps not. that's really not the point here.

the point is that we don't see the federal governemtn jumping in to protect the selling rights of joe's market. but we do see the fcc jumping in to ensure that localism survives in broadcast television. if consumers could choose their locals, my guess would be that a lot of local affiliates would go out of business. but is that really such a bad thing? smaller competitors continue to survive in virtually all industries by finding a niche audience and serving it well. who's to say that television couldn't be the same? here's one vote to try it and find out...


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

psnarula said:


> nobody subsidizes the mom and pop grocery store when walmart puts up a supercenter across town. the fact is, we have seen a lot of small-market retailers go out of business because they just can't compete with big businesses. is that a bad thing? perhaps. perhaps not. that's really not the point here.
> 
> the point is that we don't see the federal governemtn jumping in to protect the selling rights of joe's market. but we do see the fcc jumping in to ensure that localism survives in broadcast television. if consumers could choose their locals, my guess would be that a lot of local affiliates would go out of business. but is that really such a bad thing? smaller competitors continue to survive in virtually all industries by finding a niche audience and serving it well. who's to say that television couldn't be the same? here's one vote to try it and find out...


The way the system is set up now for tv definitely wreaks of artificial government protectionism.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

psnarula said:


> nobody subsidizes the mom and pop grocery store when walmart puts up a supercenter across town. the fact is, we have seen a lot of small-market retailers go out of business because they just can't compete with big businesses. is that a bad thing? perhaps. perhaps not. that's really not the point here.


True. It's apples and oranges.

Network TV stations in the US sign affiliation agreements that give them first run rights within a market for their programming. This is not imposed by the government but by mutual consent between the parties. That NY or LA network station that you prefer to podunk is a party to that agreement. They two have agreed that the local affiliate has first run rights.

Now enter technology that allows people anywhere in the country view TV from other parts of the country. A nice invention. Except that NY or LA station is still bound by the agreement. They CANNOT agree to allow their signal to be used outside of their local market without permission from the local affiliate(s) with first run rights.

Now enter the court system. When satellite companies first put up broadcast stations they were sued for copyright infingement.

Now enter the government - congress that wrote a specific law that ALLOWED satellite companies to broadcast local TV stations under certain circumstances. For distants NO PERMISSION from the station is needed (they do not have to willingly violate the network affiliation agreement). But the conditions included getting the permission of the local rights holding affiliate (waivers), living in an area with no local affiliate (white areas), being a full time RV'r (no locals) or having service prior to the law (grandfathered). Narrow definitions of where satellite providers could offer network stations as distants, but permission.

The laws have been modified over time, but one MUST remember that the legislation is PERMISSIVE. If you want the government out of the equation remember there would be no distants (unless the network affiliation agreements were rewritten to remove the first run promise made to affiliates).

Distants are a government interference with a contract. The idea of getting any local from any market is inviting the government to further interfere with that contract. Those asking for any local any market are requesting more government interference - not less.

The first step toward "national" channels isn't the government interfering further. It is the networks changing the first run rules to allow for national channels.


----------



## DTV TiVo Dealer (Sep 27, 2003)

James Long said:


> That information wasn't in the offer you posted. Thanks for adding it - It helps define the effect of losing distants better when there are numbers attached. 250,000 will be just be SOL if E* turns off their distants - and have to decide E* or D* based on other matters. (I'm sure anger against E* will help with that decision.  )


Thanks James, I'm not greedy, I'd be very happy with just a tiny little 1% of the potential 150,000 subscribers.

-Robert


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

psnarula said:


> again, a true statement. but what you aren't mentioning is that the affiliates are effectively being subsidized by consumers that have no choice in the matter.
> 
> nobody subsidizes the mom and pop grocery store when walmart puts up a supercenter across town. the fact is, we have seen a lot of small-market retailers go out of business because they just can't compete with big businesses. is that a bad thing? perhaps. perhaps not. that's really not the point here.
> 
> the point is that we don't see the federal governemtn jumping in to protect the selling rights of joe's market. but we do see the fcc jumping in to ensure that localism survives in broadcast television. if consumers could choose their locals, my guess would be that a lot of local affiliates would go out of business. but is that really such a bad thing? smaller competitors continue to survive in virtually all industries by finding a niche audience and serving it well. who's to say that television couldn't be the same? here's one vote to try it and find out...


That analogy doesn't apply for one big reason -- scarcity of the airwaves. Unlike a retail outlet, I just can't decide to start my own radio or TV station. I have to buy an exisiting frequency. Frequencies are allocated by the FCC -- and it has to be this way. Can you imagine the havoc that would happen if people were just allowed to start broadcasting anywhere they'd like?

Since Congress and the FCC allocate the frequencies, they can (and do) make the rules regarding how they are used. That's why for years stations were mandated to carry a certain percentage of news and public affairs programming, and for a long time the amount of commercials that could be carried per hour was regulated, too.

You have no problems with affiliates "going out of business." That's fine for you, with your distants and you DBS dish. But what about the households that only get TV through the rabbit ears? Who serves them, if the local stations all die? That, too, is mandated by the FCC. Stations are supposed to serve their local communities. How is up to them, and they have to justifiy their efforts at licence renewal time. Does Wal-Mart have to do that?

The affiliate model works. It says, we the affiliate, will provide you -- the viewer, with high quality (your definition may vary )network programming. You the viewer get the programming for FREE, but in exchange you (pretend) to watch our commericals. Maybe you'd like a TV tax like most other countries have, in order to support the locals -- which are needed to service Mr. and Mrs. Rabbit Ears (and eveybody else).


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

James Long said:


> True. It's apples and oranges.
> 
> Network TV stations in the US sign affiliation agreements that give them first run rights within a market for their programming. This is not imposed by the government but by mutual consent between the parties. That NY or LA network station that you prefer to podunk is a party to that agreement. They two have agreed that the local affiliate has first run rights.
> 
> ...


And what he said.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> Thanks James, I'm not greedy, I'd be very happy with just a tiny little 1% of the potential 150,000 subscribers.


I'd say that the number of people who:
- really really qualify for distants via the tests
- have a clue what that means
- are willing to go through being tested, etc.
- don't have locals available by satellite added since they first subscribed to distants
- are willing to change to DirecTV for that

are maybe 100 people in the entire country. 

Maybe a little more or less, but people always make the mistake of thinking that Forums represent the average person.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> The first step toward "national" channels isn't the government interfering further. It is the networks changing the first run rules to allow for national channels.


There are already national channels.

For example, *Deadwood* is better than anything on CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

As you indicate the question is whether or not the subscriber receives DNS via the statutory license of 17 USC 119 or not. This ruling impacts only those who do. That is to say those who receive (appropriately or not) DNS because Congress made an exception to the copyright law. These groups are the white area people, RV/Truckers and the various grandfathers. Anybody who receives DNS (HD or not) by other means (e.g., a contract that CBS has with the content provider) are by definition not using the statutory license. CBS has otherwise approved non-CBS owned programming for delivery. Even if 17 USC 119 did not exist, CBS (or NBC or....) could do this by contract with the copyright owner. The waiver is a different issue. What is being "waived" by the local affiliate is the protection it has under the law against distant signals of its network being delivered by DBS. Thus for a CBS O&O local station, CBS corporate can waive the protection. In summary, if you are receiving DNS by operation of the statutory license in 17 USC 119, you lose as soon as the injunction is in place. Any other service (ESPN, CBS-HD, C-SPAN, etc.) that is delivered via some other licensing mechanism will continue, provided there is a waiver if needed.

This should make sense. The statutory license forces the copyright owner to provide its product (for a established royalty). Congress wanted to minimize use of this club to where it was really essential. So if the provider (E*) played fast and loose and abused this license, the death penalty would be imposed. There is no reason to do that in cases where all parties are in voluntary agreement.



Greg Bimson said:


> I went through this somewhere else...
> 
> If you receive distant network service through Dish Network, either by waiver, grandfathering or white area status, you will be cut-off from distant network service. This is because the courts will issue an injunction against the use of the distant network service license. Since everyone receiving distant network services is using that license and it is being revoked for Dish Network, everyone loses their distant feeds.
> 
> ...


----------



## DTV TiVo Dealer (Sep 27, 2003)

kstuart said:


> I'd say that the number of people who:
> - really really qualify for distants via the tests
> - have a clue what that means
> - are willing to go through being tested, etc.
> ...


DIRECTV and I believe it is far more than your estimate of 100 of the more than 400, 000 Dish Network subscribers who will stop receiving their distant networks that are eligible and will want to keep them. Personally I think DIRECTV can pick up at least 100,000 or more new subscribers. That's why they sent out the memo to many select dealers to help target market to the effected DMAs.

Why would you think only forum members would care about loosing their network feeds?

-Robert


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> kstuart said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that the number of people who:
> ...


That isn't quite what he said ... The number of people who will lose distants and want to keep them exceeds the number of people who will lose distants and be able to get them from D*.


DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> Personally I think DIRECTV can pick up at least 100,000 or more new subscribers. That's why they sent out the memo to many select dealers to help target market to the effected DMAs.


If D* believes that only those 10 DMAs are affected then E* should be a lot more confident. If losing distants only costs E* 100,000 subscribers they will take that hit and move on.


DTV TiVo Dealer said:


> Why would you think only forum members would care about loosing their network feeds?


I assume most people not on the forum will be more worried about losing their distants once they find out that it is a possibility or a reality. We react to what we know - most subscribers don't know that having distants is even at risk.

How E* introduces the concept will go a long way toward keeping (or not) the customers. D*'s advertising may sway the decisions (although apparently only in 10 markets). Hopefully people will look before they jump ship and realize what they are getting into.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> Anybody who receives DNS (HD or not) by other means (e.g., a contract that CBS has with the content provider) are by definition not using the statutory license. CBS has otherwise approved non-CBS owned programming for delivery.


And that thinking is VERY INCORRECT.

Think about it for a moment. The local channels in my market, Baltimore are:

2 - ABC - WMAR - Scripps Howard
11 - NBC - WBAL - Hearst
13 - CBS - WJZ - CBS Corporation
24 - UPN (to be MyNetworkTV) - WUTB - FOX Corporation
45 - FOX - WBFF - Sinclair
54 - WB (to be CW) - WNUV - Sinclair

All of these are part of larger station groups, so I have no problem stating these are retransmission consent stations.

You do realize that part of being a retransmission consent station is that you are using the local channel license in your carriage contract?

So, if all of a sudden, Dish Network was issued an injunction to stop delivering local channels, ALL LOCAL CHANNELS WOULD GO AWAY. I am shouting for a reason: the contracts would specify the use of the license for carriage. And simply because there is a contract does NOT mean their isn't use of a license.

So, if the CBS HD feed, which is a contract between CBS and Dish Network, uses the license in Chapter 17 Section 119, as a blanket waiver, then CBS HD will go away with the injunction.


BobS said:


> Even if 17 USC 119 did not exist, CBS (or NBC or....) could do this by contract with the copyright owner.


But think about it. CBS does not own the national rights to Dr. Phil, Entertainment Tonight, or The Insider. Case in point: all those programs are available on KRON. This may change later this year.

If KRON owns the first run syndication rights to these programs, why are they available on CBS HD in the San Francisco market? If I were KRON, I'd be suing as I have first run rights on these channels. Unless KRON cannot sue because everything is legal, i.e., the copyrights were cleared under blanket waiver.

My belief still holds true. If the carriage agreement is a blanket waiver by CBS, then the CBS and Dish Network agreement references the license, and CBS HD is lost.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> That isn't quite what he said ... The number of people who will lose distants and want to keep them exceeds the number of people who will lose distants and be able to get them from D*.


Actually, my main point is that if you call up *all* the poeople who will lose their Distant Network channels and say:


> I will send you a check for $100 if you can tell me what a "Distant Network Channel" is.


less than 10% of the people will be able to answer correctly. (and only a fraction of those will actually do anything about losing them other than obtain their own local channels from Dish,cable, or OTA).
My in-laws have Dish Network, and they have distants. So, I called them when this was announced, and it turns out that they didn't even realize they have the distants, and long ago, they bought the locals on a locals-only feed from cable for $12/month. They are definitely above average in intelligence, but like most people, don't understand anything technical outside their field.

Here's another point:

- Suppose you have sales people call all the Dish Network customers *with* Distants, and try to get them to switch to DirecTV in order to get Distants.
- Then I have sales people call the *same number* of Dish Network customers *without* Distants, and try to get them to switch to DirecTV.

I haven't the slightest doubt that the number who switch in the two groups will be equal. Human beings don't do such things for rational reasons, they do them because they are sold the idea.

PS *DNS* is *D*omain *N*ame *S*erver.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> And that thinking is VERY INCORRECT.
> 
> Think about it for a moment. The local channels in my market, Baltimore are:
> 
> ...


LIL is a statutory license under 17 USC 122, not 17 USC 119. It has nothing to do with this issue except as it is referenced as a bar to the applicability of the statutory license in 17 USC 119 (no distant where locals). Must carry and retransmission consent of locals are not germane.



Greg Bimson said:


> So, if all of a sudden, Dish Network was issued an injunction to stop delivering local channels, ALL LOCAL CHANNELS WOULD GO AWAY. I am shouting for a reason: the contracts would specify the use of the license for carriage. And simply because there is a contract does NOT mean their isn't use of a license.


Well, yes if E* is issued an injunction to do X, then they must do X or Charlie goes to jail. But you are mistaken. Perhaps it is the nomeclature. The permission that Party A gives to Party B to do something that Party A has legal control over is a "license." Now the piece of paper may be referred to as a contract but the fact is that both concepts are present. What I said was that the statutory license (that is a license forced by the government) is a substitute for the contract (and by implication license) between Party A and Party B. It is this STATUTORY LICENSE (I am shouting for emphasis) that 17 USC 119 controls. This STATUTORY LICENSE has restrictions. Violation of this STATUTORY LICENSE in the manner E* has been found to have done has the mandatory penalty of termination of this STATUTORY LICENSE. CBS-HD is not done by STATUTORY LICENSE. Therefore CBS-HD cannot be terminated by revocation of this STATUTORY LICENSE, just as ESPN or HSN cannot. Now it may be that CBS and E* may cancel the arrangement because of the termination of DNS but that is a secondary impact not a direct result of this case. The penalties for violation of 17 USC 122 are similar, but not identical to 17 USC 119.



Greg Bimson said:


> So, if the CBS HD feed, which is a contract between CBS and Dish Network, uses the license in Chapter 17 Section 119, as a blanket waiver, then CBS HD will go away with the injunction.But think about it. CBS does not own the national rights to Dr. Phil, Entertainment Tonight, or The Insider. Case in point: all those programs are available on KRON. This may change later this year.


Here is the problem. A waiver is not the same as the statutory license. A waiver is a relinquishing of legal protections by the local affiliate. This is a step IN ADDITION to the license. Thus if you are in Grade B you are presumed to have service and the local affiliate is protected from importation. If the local affiliate waives its protection then you may use the statutory license to force the content owner (which typically is NOT the local affiliate) to provide you (via E*) network programming. If the local affiliate does provide a waiver (give permission), it does not matter what anybody else wants to do. Even if the subscriber owned the network and all the programming and E*, he could not get DNS without a waiver.



Greg Bimson said:


> If KRON owns the first run syndication rights to these programs, why are they available on CBS HD in the San Francisco market? If I were KRON, I'd be suing as I have first run rights on these channels. Unless KRON cannot sue because everything is legal, i.e., the copyrights were cleared under blanket waiver.


I do not know what KRON does and does not "own." Apparently the agreements among the parites allow for this - KRON has OTA and CBS has DBS. Just because everything is legal does not mean it was done under a "blanket waiver." Isn't KRON an independent station? If so, a waiver wouldn't be needed. I'm quite sure that CBS has legal authority to send what it does via DBS. If KRON were to sue, it would be under its syndication contract and not copyright law.



Greg Bimson said:


> My belief still holds true. If the carriage agreement is a blanket waiver by CBS, then the CBS and Dish Network agreement references the license, and CBS HD is lost.


I have no doubt you believe what you say. However, whatever the legal details, this issue has nothing to do with the statutory license under 17 USC 119 and thus could not be (directly) impacted by the recent court decision.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> And that thinking is VERY INCORRECT.
> 
> Think about it for a moment. The local channels in my market, Baltimore are:
> 
> ...


I couldn't care less if I lost netorks. To me network television is a crock.


----------



## foghorn2 (Jun 18, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> I couldn't care less if I lost netorks. To me network television is a crock.


This topic is overblown. Some will suffer, most won't.

D* people are the ones who are making a big deal over it and a few who will lose distants who will flock over.

E* should just focus on adding more locals, more birds and more HD and all will be fine.


----------



## DennyC (Dec 24, 2002)

I'm one long time DISH subscriber (since '96) that wil bolt to Direct the minute my distants are cut off-- and I know a LOT of people in similar situations that will do the same.

Right now, I receive both coasts, plus the Phoenix locals, using a General Delivery address in western Arizona. I was a fulltime RV'er at the time I started using that address, but RV waivers hadn't been invented yet-- you just told DISH where you were (I used to give them a new address every time I changed time zones and minutes later all was right with the world). No locals back then, of course.

Now I live in the Phoenix area in a fixed abode most of the year, but when I travel in the RV (as I am now-- I'm typing this from Berea, Kentucky) I rely on the distant network package. If DISH isn't able to supply them, I'll switch to Direct, get an RV waiver, and resolve both the distant network AND pending DVR issues. It'll be a costly move for me (I just had a $2000 dish installed on the motorhome that elevates and aims itself at both 110 and 119 with the push of a single button-- don't know yet what it will cost to convert that to Direct TV), but we watch the networks a lot when we're on the road; not having that capability is unacceptable.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Why are you using a general delivery address in western AZ? You live in Phoenix (=PHX locals) and you are an RV'er (=DNS). Are you that far out when traveling? Right now you probably can pick up Lexington OTA.



DennyC said:


> I'm one long time DISH subscriber (since '96) that wil bolt to Direct the minute my distants are cut off-- and I know a LOT of people in similar situations that will do the same.
> 
> Right now, I receive both coasts, plus the Phoenix locals, using a General Delivery address in western Arizona. I was a fulltime RV'er at the time I started using that address, but RV waivers hadn't been invented yet-- you just told DISH where you were (I used to give them a new address every time I changed time zones and minutes later all was right with the world). No locals back then, of course.
> 
> Now I live in the Phoenix area in a fixed abode most of the year, but when I travel in the RV (as I am now-- I'm typing this from Berea, Kentucky) I rely on the distant network package. If DISH isn't able to supply them, I'll switch to Direct, get an RV waiver, and resolve both the distant network AND pending DVR issues. It'll be a costly move for me (I just had a $2000 dish installed on the motorhome that elevates and aims itself at both 110 and 119 with the push of a single button-- don't know yet what it will cost to convert that to Direct TV), but we watch the networks a lot when we're on the road; not having that capability is unacceptable.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kstuart said:


> For example, *Deadwood* is better than anything on CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX.


But if you want to keep up with the water cooler conversation, you pretty much need to be watching Lost or American Idol. It isn't about quality, it is about broad access and marketing.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

IF there was a legal way to pay for distant networks... I might actually be interested in doing that... for places I used to live, or somewhere far away just out of curiosity. Of course the network programming would be the same, so the only reason I would be interested would be for the "local" news and programs specific to those markets. Which again points to the oddness of people being so mad at their locals and hating them, and not realizing that their locals are someone else's distants!

I also imagine there may be a lot of others like me who would have a similar interest if they could do so legally... BUT, I would be willing to bet that the actual number of people who find the lack of distants to be an absolutel deal-breaker would be a smaller number than some in the forums seem to think. Sure, probably a lot of disappointment... but I can't imagine but a small number actually having this as their primary driving force for TV needs.


----------



## DennyC (Dec 24, 2002)

BobS said:


> Why are you using a general delivery address in western AZ?


Because it works, and has for almost a decade. Why rock the boat? When all this nonsense about DMA's and white areas and RV waivers started, I watched a lot of people try to comply with the rules-- and end up losing their distant nets as the result of their efforts. I did nothing, and still have mine (well, at least I do today....).

I can do without the Phoenix locals (they're available OTA or on cable at our Phoenix home), but I can't do without the distant nets-- we spend a LOT of time traveling in areas where there's little or no OTA reception. Here in Berea, I'm able to get extremely poor reception of most of the Lexington nets, but at our last stop (Franklin, Kentucky) I was able to receive only one OTA station (a CBS broadcast from somewhere), and next week we'll be heading to Opelika, Alabama-- an area that doesn't qualify for distants or locals, yet has no OTA reception.

It's just easier to just watch distant nets as we travel, rather than try to figure out what, if anything, is available OTA each night. If DISH loses the capability to provide that service, we'll have no choice but to switch to Direct.


----------



## minnow (Apr 26, 2002)

I get a kick out of some of you guys that attempt to marginalize the effect the loss of DNS will have. Obviously from your carefree comments, you don't rely upon DNS for the basic networks. I can assure you that those of us E* customers that currently get DNS and can legally get them from Direct will do so. This is an important issue for many of us regardless of how some you attempt to trivialize it.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

minnow said:


> I can assure you that those of us E* customers that currently get DNS and can legally get them from Direct will do so. This is an important issue for many of us regardless of how some you attempt to trivialize it.


This is a good assurance. Those who can legally get distant network channels will benefit by going to Directv. From what I understand, Directv is legally doing business respective to DNS. The day the the DNS switch is turned off at E*, I wonder what E* will do to sweeten the pot so to keep those legitimate DNS subscribers?


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

DennyC said:


> Because it works, and has for almost a decade. Why rock the boat? When all this nonsense about DMA's and white areas and RV waivers started, I watched a lot of people try to comply with the rules-- and end up losing their distant nets as the result of their efforts. I did nothing, and still have mine (well, at least I do today....).


I don't think anybody who has a RV situation has had a problem. If you do switch to D*, I don't think the setup you have will be accepted. They will insist on the RV paperwork. You are completely legit - there is no need for you to play an address game - that's what I couldn't understand.



DennyC said:


> I can do without the Phoenix locals (they're available OTA or on cable at our Phoenix home), but I can't do without the distant nets-- we spend a LOT of time traveling in areas where there's little or no OTA reception. Here in Berea, I'm able to get extremely poor reception of most of the Lexington nets, but at our last stop (Franklin, Kentucky) I was able to receive only one OTA station (a CBS broadcast from somewhere), and next week we'll be heading to Opelika, Alabama-- an area that doesn't qualify for distants or locals, yet has no OTA reception.


Make perfect sense. That is why there is an RV exception. Forgive my ignorance but do you only have reception when stopped or do you have some sort of tracking mechanism that allows the non-driver (only, I hope!) to watch DNS? (Incidentally this is why I though OTA made more sense - no problem watching while on the go).



DennyC said:


> It's just easier to just watch distant nets as we travel, rather than try to figure out what, if anything, is available OTA each night. If DISH loses the capability to provide that service, we'll have no choice but to switch to Direct.


Incidentally, this is why the QUOTE function can be a problem. You cannot respond sectionwise without cutting/pasting the quote tags and you need to write something outside the quoted area to process. I don't think this makes it any clear who said what.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

minnow said:


> I get a kick out of some of you guys that attempt to marginalize the effect the loss of DNS will have. Obviously from your carefree comments, you don't rely upon DNS for the basic networks. I can assure you that those of us E* customers that currently get DNS and can legally get them from Direct will do so. This is an important issue for many of us regardless of how some you attempt to trivialize it.


I agree. Those of us in urban/suburban areas won't lose network programming - we'll just have to be satisfied with our local provider.

Satellite subscribers in rural areas with no locals *will* be affected. If DISH can't deliver the networks, those people will be motivated to switch. It's hard to say how many customers will be affected, though. AFAIK, DISH doesn't provide such statistics.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> LIL is a statutory license under 17 USC 122, not 17 USC 119. It has nothing to do with this issue except as it is referenced as a bar to the applicability of the statutory license in 17 USC 119 (no distant where locals). Must carry and retransmission consent of locals are not germane.


And I never said they were germane.

Let's say a few local broadcasters haul Dish Network into court. They feel that there are entirely too many subscribers "moving", and would like to have the practice stopped. Then, the courts feel that so many of Dish Network's customers are moving that the courts issue an injunction against the local channel license.

Local channels either choose retransmission consent or must-carry. If must-carry is chosen, of course the local channel license was used. However, if retransmission consent is used, the local channel license is also in the contract. With my example, if the courts issue an injunction, all local channels are gone.

Just because there is a contract between Party A and Party B doesn't mean there aren't any government given licenses involved. After all, all local channels are under the license given in 17 USC 122. So when this is stated:


BobS said:


> This STATUTORY LICENSE has restrictions. Violation of this STATUTORY LICENSE in the manner E* has been found to have done has the mandatory penalty of termination of this STATUTORY LICENSE. CBS-HD is not done by STATUTORY LICENSE.


When I hear that CBS-HD is not done by statutory license, I must ask:

1) Everyone realizes that all local channels and their contracts refer to the license given in 17 USC 122, which means if an injunction ever comes to pass on that license, all local channels are shut-off even though there is a contract between the local broadcaster and Dish Network?

2) CBS does not own all of the programming shown on WCBS and KCBS. So when Dish Network and CBS signed the agreement for carriage, was anyone present in the room to know if the license given by 17 USC 119 was in the contract?

To point 2), I believe the license is in the contract, as it is the only real way CBS could clear the copyrights on the programming they don't own on WCBS and KCBS.

You all can fight with me about this.

Think about it. I am sitting in range of a CBS affiliate owned by CBS (WJZ Baltimore) and another owned by Gannet (WUSA DC). If I receive my HD waiver, I can get WCBS from New York.

But that waiver is only being requested of the DC station, as the Baltimore station has already given its "waiver". If the DC station issues the waiver, I get the CBS-HD distant. But I am now DEFINITELY using that license, and my CBS HD will be revoked once the distant network license is terminated.

Is the contract between CBS HD and Dish Network looking more and more like a "blanket waiver" under the terms of 17 USC 119 now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AllieVi said:


> It's hard to say how many customers will be affected, though. AFAIK, DISH doesn't provide such statistics.


Sept 1999: 879,808 subscribers including 331,586 former PrimeTime 24 subscribers
April 2002: Of the 898,847 ABC subscribers, 50.9% (457,584) were predicted to receive a Grade B or better signal from an ABC station; 28.5% (255,980) of those were Grade A.
Of the 864,494 CBS subscribers, 55.7% (481,659) were predicted to receive a Grade B or better signal from a CBS station; 28.2% (244,022) of those were Grade A.
Of the 993,490 Fox subscribers, 38.7% (383,987) were predicted to receive a Grade B or better signal from a Fox station; 25.8% (256,741) of those were Grade A.
Of the 867,240 NBC subscribers, 56.4% (489,315) were predicted to receive a Grade B or better signal from an NBC station; 29.6% (256,503) of those were Grade A.​Source: 11th Circuit Court Decision​While less than one million of our subscribers purchase distant network channels from us, termination of distant network programming to those subscribers would result, among other things, in a reduction in average monthly revenue per subscriber and free cash flow, and a temporary increase in subscriber churn.​Source: Echostar SEC Filing 10-Q for 2nd Quarter 2006 pg47​Looks consistant at just less than a million subscribers. No breakdown of rural in the current figure but the court decision data is only a couple of years old. None of the customers receiving Grade B or higher would be able to get distants via D*. We're talking less than half a million before eliminating those who live in markets with network locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I believe that it is clear that 17 USC 119 is for distants and 17 USC 122 is for "within local markets" - LIL.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

One of the points people miss is that while out of 850,000, 480,000 receive a Grade B signal, but it doesn't state how many are still subscribing to distants, despite locals being available by Dish (and probably DirecTV as well).

As stated in the thread, many people enjoy having two different channels of each network, so that when one pre-empts due to a car chase, weather report, or sports overtime, they can just watch the network show on the other channel.

All those people will simply be told that they can no longer get NY or LA, but they can get their local channels on Dish, and will do so. (And all the grandfathered people already lose that status if they move from one DBS provider to another.)

The only important statistic is - how many Dish subscribers are in the areas that still don't have locals by satellite ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kstuart said:


> One of the points people miss is that while out of 850,000, 480,000 receive a Grade B signal, but it doesn't state how many are still subscribing to distants, despite locals being available by Dish (and probably DirecTV as well).


Less likely on D* (they have less markets). The 'special offer' from D* only covers 10 markets. The important part of the numbers given is how many people receive distants without a Grade B signal ... these are the only people who will be able to go to D* and get distants (without going back through the waiver process).

It would be nice to see how many of the "850,000" or "less than one million" distant customers have LIL available. E* does have a lot of markets covered.


kstuart said:


> As stated in the thread, many people enjoy having two different channels of each network, so that when one pre-empts due to a car chase, weather report, or sports overtime, they can just watch the network show on the other channel.
> 
> All those people will simply be told that they can no longer get NY or LA, but they can get their local channels on Dish, and will do so. (And all the grandfathered people already lose that status if they move from one DBS provider to another.)
> 
> The only important statistic is - how many Dish subscribers are in the areas that still don't have locals by satellite ?


I wouldn't call it the _only_ important statistic.

E* does claim (Tech Chat on August 14th at 6mins into program) that they cover 96% of the TV households in the US with LIL service. (Obviously that isn't the subscriber count.) They need to bring that up to 100% ASAP.


----------



## odbrv (May 12, 2006)

AllieVi said:


> I agree. Those of us in urban/suburban areas won't lose network programming - we'll just have to be satisfied with our local provider.
> 
> Satellite subscribers in rural areas with no locals *will* be affected. If DISH can't deliver the networks, those people will be motivated to switch. It's hard to say how many customers will be affected, though. AFAIK, DISH doesn't provide such statistics.


Unfortunately, D* has fewer local markets. When I lose my grandfathered distants, I will not go to D* unless they can guarantee me distants. D* does not carry my locals. In addition , It will cost over $800 for me to match my equipment with D* to get less HD. I guess I will stay with E* and save $11.98 per month and have to put up with poor local PQ. Now if I lose the right to use my DVRs, that will be a more impacting decision maker.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> E* does claim (Tech Chat on August 14th at 6mins into program) that they cover 96% of the TV households in the US with LIL service. (Obviously that isn't the subscriber count.) They need to bring that up to 100% ASAP.


That jives with my very very rough estimate based on Tony's DMAs covered by Dish Chart that over 97% of households have Dish locals available.

A lot of the remaining ones are the smallest DMAs, averaging only 65,000 households. I think some of them are small due to broadcaster politics, rather than always being due to remoteness. This is because they are likely to be the ones with the least number of existing Dish subscribers, as well as the smallest ones. Once you get to 96-97%, you're going to have covered the smaller DMAs that happen to have a higher Dish subscriber base.

Anyway, roughly 350,000 without Grade B. I think that due to the above, saying that 4% don't have Dish locals available is a high figure. Rounding up, that makes 15,000 subscribers.

Some of those, like my in-laws, are going to already be subscribers to locals-only cable package or may do so now.

I think that Dish will lose more customers to DirecTV due to the delay in adding Setanta Sports than due to losing the Distants.


----------



## DennyC (Dec 24, 2002)

BobS said:


> If you do switch to D*, I don't think the setup you have will be accepted.


Oh, I'm sure it won't-- I'll have to jump through the hoops and get an RV waiver if I switch to Direct. I never did it with DISH simply because I didn't have to-- I've been with them for so long, using the western Arizona address, that there was no reason to muddy the waters when we bought the Phoenix house, or when the concept of "RV waivers" was invented.

With regard to the dish on the RV, they come in versions that can be used in-motion, or used only when stationary; ours is a stationary one. We chose stationary because we have no kids, and neither my wife nor is is going to be watching TV while underway (I watch the road, she watches the GPS <g>). We chose this particular statonary model (Motosat MD500) because it can look at 110 and 119 simultaneously, while the others look at only one satellite at a time-- so there is a substantial delay while you wait for satellite realignment when you change channels.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my email to Motosat to find out what's involved in getting my unit to align with Direct's satellites instead of the DISH birds....


----------



## Thinker3932 (Apr 12, 2006)

So, which locals are ConUS? Is it just LA and NYC or where do I find this list of channels that I presumably could get if I install a D* dish in my RV?


----------



## hankmack (Feb 8, 2006)

odbrv said:


> Unfortunately, D* has fewer local markets. When I lose my grandfathered distants, I will not go to D* unless they can guarantee me distants. D* does not carry my locals. In addition , It will cost over $800 for me to match my equipment with D* to get less HD. I guess I will stay with E* and save $11.98 per month and have to put up with poor local PQ. Now if I lose the right to use my DVRs, that will be a more impacting decision maker.


I would probably switch if we loose DVR. That is important for me. The loss the distant nets will have a minimum impact on my viewing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

boylehome said:


> Those who can legally get distant network channels will benefit by going to Directv. From what I understand, Directv is legally doing business respective to DNS.


Truth be known, DirecTV is probably a worse violator than Dish Network when it comes to illegal customers. DirecTV has a whole lot of Canadian customers as well as a relatively large population of movers due to their sports orientation (some move to get teams and others move to avoid blackouts).

DirecTV is being very careful about DNS right now and they are being incredibly stingy about adding DNS customers. Combine this with the fact that many Dish DNS subscribers are grandfathered and that status wouldn't travel with them, DirecTV probably isn't the answer for all but those who are willing to prove via site survey that they are unserved.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Thinker3932 said:


> So, which locals are ConUS? Is it just LA and NYC or where do I find this list of channels that I presumably could get if I install a D* dish in my RV?


Just NYC and LA. Note that the key word is "install". Here's section 18 of the SHVIA:


SHVIA said:


> 18. How does the exemption for recreational vehicles and commercial trucks apply?
> 
> A: The "recreational vehicle" must meet the definition contained in regulations issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The "commercial truck" must meet the definition contained in regulations issued by the Department of Transportation. The owner of the recreational vehicle or the commercial truck must produce the required legal documentation and include a signed declaration that the satellite dish is permanently attached to the vehicle or to the truck. SHVIA specifically states that the terms "recreational vehicle" and "commercial truck" do not include any fixed dwelling, whether a mobile home or otherwise.
> 
> HUD regulations (Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 3282.8) define "recreational vehicle" as a vehicle that is: (1) built on a single chassis; (2) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (3) self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (4) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.


Here's the DirecTV RV web page: http://directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=1200070

Like many DNS situations, the subscriber will likely perjure themselves to accomplish the goal. I see waaay too many dishes sitting on the ground in trailer parks and campgrounds.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> I believe that it is clear that 17 USC 119 is for distants and 17 USC 122 is for "within local markets" - LIL.


And now that you put it that way, I can make a better, more concise argument...

Local channels sign contracts with Dish Network and their contract, by default, must reference the license given in 17 USC 122. If there were ever an injunction on that license, even though there are contracts, Dish Network would have to stop delivering local channels.

I realize it could be a stretch, but I also believe in Occam's razor. If an agreement calls for a local channel to be delivered nationally, and the carriage contract references the license given in 17 USC 119, any injunction of the distant network license will force the station to be dropped, even with a carriage contract in place.

Think about this. DirecTV had both CBS and FOX HD available before the SHVERA was signed in December, 2004. Why is it all of a sudden subscribers to those channels, who received both, can now only receive the one in their closest time zone?

I'd bet it is because the carriage contracts between DirecTV and both CBS and FOX reference the distant network license, so DirecTV is simply following the law. Of course, DirecTV added their own policy that the eastern half of the US will only receive CBS and FOX East, but not west. The western half of the US is prohibited from receiving WCBS and WNYW in HD due to the changes in the SHVERA. And those subscribers out west lost their eastern feeds once the law was enacted.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kstuart said:


> I think that Dish will lose more customers to DirecTV due to the delay in adding Setanta Sports than due to losing the Distants.


I doubt it. The vocal will always gather around their favorite rallying point and predict gloom and doom if their request isn't granted. Yet somehow E* survives and continues to gain customers. The good news (for D*) in the Setanta case is that they can get the channel via D* ... no such promise for distants.


Greg Bimson said:


> Local channels sign contracts with Dish Network and their contract, by default, must reference the license given in 17 USC 122. If there were ever an injunction on that license, even though there are contracts, Dish Network would have to stop delivering local channels.
> 
> I realize it could be a stretch, but I also believe in Occam's razor. If an agreement calls for a local channel to be delivered nationally, and the carriage contract references the license given in 17 USC 119, any injunction of the distant network license will force the station to be dropped, even with a carriage contract in place.


I would not assume that contracts contained references to 17 USC 119 or 17 USC 122. Private agreements are possible outside of the laws. If a station grants the right to secondary transmission via a private arrangement the revocation of either license (or both) would not cause harm. The local station has paid the copyright owners for any rights to air content - if they knowingly sell their signal nationally without obtaining national rights it is the failure of the station, not the satellite carrier.

I would want to see a contract before assuming that one referenced 17 USC 119 or 122. It isn't needed.


Greg Bimson said:


> Think about this. DirecTV had both CBS and FOX HD available before the SHVERA was signed in December, 2004. Why is it all of a sudden subscribers to those channels, who received both, can now only receive the one in their closest time zone?


Satellite providers are not required to offer distants at all. Those who had digital distants before December 2005 were free to keep them as grandfathered. Perhaps D* just decided to make it easy on themselves and apply the new rules to the old subscribers (and not have to keep track of grandfathering).

For all these laws the burden of proof is on the carrier to prove that they did not do wrong. Guilty until proven innocent. It is the wrong way around.

I doubt if any action will be taken on the 17 USC 122 front for willful or repeated violations of the law. Although people do "move" and leave E* open to suits by making them provide locals to a subscriber they can not legally provide those channels to it doesn't seem to be as noticable and once E* finds out that a subscriber is not eligible they do disconnect service as required by law.

E* probably could do better to catch movers - but the TV stations are not complaining about perhaps a few thousand people - they are complaining about the half million.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It's over ???
EchoStar Settles Nine Year Litigation With ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox Affiliates (maybe)

Please discuss today's events in the new thread.
This thread remains open for followup to comments made here.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> I would not assume that contracts contained references to 17 USC 119 or 17 USC 122.


I would.

Very simple theory here. If any local channel withing a given market signs a contract containing references to 17 USC 122 (the local channel license), then any channel in that market can choose must-carry.

Remember, without the use of the local channel license, must-carry is not needed. Yet almost every market has a must-carry station.

It appears it is all moot, now. Congrats to Dish Network on settling. Now let's see if Fox will play ball.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

PBS stations are REQUIRED to be Must Carry (no retrans for them). Smaller, less popular independents might also be Must Carry.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The tie to 17 USC 122 is made in the election process. If they decide to elect "must carry" both sides are bound by that until the next election. The station must be carried until the next election and the satellite carrier has permission to carry them until the next election. If the station changes content (perhaps moving from a low rated independent to a network) they are stuck with their election.

The same goes for stations that choose consent. Once they choose consent to carry they are stuck. If they lose their network or ratings and are no longer worth the consideration E* is giving they could be dropped (subject to the terms of their payment contract). Personally, if I were a station choosing consent I'd make my contracts as long as the election period (or longer).

I suppose you could consider the Must Carry election a contract - it binds both parties to an agreement for a period of time. If it is a contract it is a prewritten contract, not one that is negotiated between station and provider. 

Stations that choose consent could reference the USC or not. Their carriage could be considered a private agreement separate from 17 USC 122. It's all in the wording.

I suppose that if 17 USC 122 were ever revolked for repeated violations the court may or may not interfere with private agreements. It would be harmful to remove stations with private agreements but it would also be harmful to remove must carry stations and let private agreement stations remain.

That might be the salvation for E* in the 17 USC 119 dispute ... if the injunction goes through and removes the authority for distants sign a private contract with the networks and affiliate groups for those networks willing to play ball and go around the law. The injunction prevents use of 17 USC 119 licensing - not the use of a private contract.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> Stations that choose consent could reference the USC or not. Their carriage could be considered a private agreement separate from 17 USC 122. It's all in the wording.


Of course this is where I disagree.

If 17 USC 122 was not signed into law on 29 November, 1999, how many local stations would have become available during the following year?

Once the law was passed, both DirecTV and Dish Network each offered about 40 markets worth of local networks, from 29 November, 1999 to 31 December 2001. I'd be much more inclined to believe the "private agreements" reference the local channel license in 17 USC 122, simply because:

1) the providers went from zero LIL to 40 markets in just over 13 months, and;
2) must-carry is tied only to the use of the local license. If every station in the New York DMA came to a carriage agreement with Echostar and did not use the license, none of the must-carry channels would be there.

Must-carry is only available to stations if any retransmission consent stations within the market use the local channel license.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Let's try it this way.

I own WXXX. I am a network affiliate with syndicated programming. I know, from my contracts with the network and the syndicators that I cannot resell programming without clearing the copyrights and assigning the delivery area from both the networks and the syndicators.

So, if I want to sign a retransmission agreement, either I:
a) go to the network and the synidcators and attempt to get both coverage areas and clearances to the programming and then sign a retransmission agreement, or;
b) I insert the local channel license within 17 USC 122 in the contract and sign the retransmission agreement.

Part a) costs tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Part b) is much easier, simply because it already gives permission for the clearances and the coverage area, and costs practically nothing.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

What does E* pay in royalties for a 122 license? $0
What does E* pay in royalties/fees for a private contract? Something > $0.
When E* offers to carry a DMA under 122, each station can opt to be carried or negotiate under retrans consent. It is not surprised that the number of LIL stations went up dramatically under LIL. A station cannot ask for anything of value in the mandatory carry situation. The 122 license is to rebroadcast the signal of the local station. What is contained in that signal is a contract between the network/local affiliate and the content owner. E* plays no role unless it wears one of those hats. A 122 license provides all of the copyright clearance needed. A 122 license cannot be used in conjunction when money is exchanged. Therefore any contract which has a 122 license a term is void ab initio. Now in a retrans consent situation the station and the copyright holders may agree to copyright clearance "as if a 122 license existed" to make things simple (we'll just argue about money) but the two situations are mutually exclusive.....



Greg Bimson said:


> Let's try it this way.
> 
> I own WXXX. I am a network affiliate with syndicated programming. I know, from my contracts with the network and the syndicators that I cannot resell programming without clearing the copyrights and assigning the delivery area from both the networks and the syndicators.
> 
> ...


----------



## restart88 (Jun 18, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> Could you really live without locals? Do you really care about nothing that goes on in your town? Locals provide a necessary service; I don't understand all the venom directed at the concept of locals. "Lost" is the same on the Huntsville ABC as on the NYC ABC. If you can get locals, why all fighting to get stations from out of town? Does it really matter which station you watch "American Idol" on?
> 
> I've heard the timeshifting arguement -- get a VCR or DVR. I've heard the annoyance with pre-emptions for local programming -- the bumped network show is usually broadcast at a later time, where you can record it, and does it really happen that often with first-run network programming anyway. A local ABC affliliate that pre-empts "Desperate Housewives" for a Little League gane or for Billy Graham is committing economic suicide. Weather interuptions happen, and they're usually important to your viewing area. That falls under the s**t happens catagory.
> 
> ...


Actually local newscasts ain't what they used to be. In some markets they are even worse!

A few years ago you might have said the same of the national nightly news being important. Now, I don't even trust the nightly news since CBS got caught telling lies.

Networks are losing my interest with their prime time offerings. My weather scanner tells me when there are weather emergencies. Why do I need locals? :lol:


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> A 122 license cannot be used in conjunction when money is exchanged.


Oh yes it can. Nowhere in 122 does it state money cannot change hands. Nor is that an issue in 47 USC 338, which governs must-carry on DBS:


> (a) Carriage obligations
> 
> (1) In general
> Subject to the limitations of paragraph (2), each satellite carrier providing, under section 122 of title 17, secondary transmissions to subscribers located within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made by that station shall carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations located within that local market, subject to section 325(b) of this title


Ok. If any stations in a given market are using the license in 17 USC 122, then all stations in the market choose retransmission consent or must-carry.

Let's take my market: Baltimore.

I have one PBS station available to me. It must be through must-carry, as non-commercial educational stations can only declare must-carry. However, must-carry can only be implemented if one of the commercial stations in the Baltimore market is using the license given in 17 USC 122 (anyone remember the "carry one, carry all" provisions?).

So, would anyone tell me how a commercial station using retransmission consent can use the license in 17 USC 122?

A "private agreement", to me, means that all copyrights have been cleared by the interested parties, without need for the local-into-local license.

It simply appears to me that all local carriage contracts are using the license.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

restart88 said:


> Actually local newscasts ain't what they used to be. In some markets they are even worse!
> 
> A few years ago you might have said the same of the national nightly news being important. Now, I don't even trust the nightly news since CBS got caught telling lies.
> 
> Networks are losing my interest with their prime time offerings. My weather scanner tells me when there are weather emergencies. Why do I need locals? :lol:


Same here. If theres something good on HBO at 5 PM PST I'll skip local news.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Of course this is where I disagree.
> 
> If 17 USC 122 was not signed into law on 29 November, 1999, how many local stations would have become available during the following year?


17 USC 119 has more to do with the increase in local channels. Taking away the distants made network television unavailable without LIL (or OTA).


Greg Bimson said:


> Must-carry is only available to stations if any retransmission consent stations within the market use the local channel license.


That would explain the local channels on SkyAngel that are not part of a complete market coverage. 

But what would happen if come election time EVERY station in the market choose "must carry"? Think about it. E* decides to enter a market and sends out the election notices and they all come back "must carry". Since none of the stations in the market are using retransmition consent does that mean 17 USC 122 doesn't apply? Would you like to rephrase your statement?


Greg Bimson said:


> A "private agreement", to me, means that all copyrights have been cleared by the interested parties, without need for the local-into-local license.


Or at least all objections have been cleared. That is where a 'private agreement' settlement in the 17 USC 119 case could usurp the distants law.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> But what would happen if come election time EVERY station in the market choose "must carry"? Think about it. E* decides to enter a market and sends out the election notices and they all come back "must carry". Since none of the stations in the market are using retransmition consent does that mean 17 USC 122 doesn't apply? Would you like to rephrase your statement?


Nope. I could be mistaken on this one, but I think not...

Every one of the 210 markets has a network station. Each of those will of course ask for money. However, your point stands. If every station in Baltimore chooses must-carry, Dish Network could simply drop the market. However, if they carry even one channel, they must carry them all. And simply because Baltimore is a top 30 market, Dish Network would carry it.

Heck, I am getting tired of arguing this point. But I would prefer to point out that these licenses exist, and they are being used more than anyone would like to believe.

I am 100 percent certain that almost all of the local-into-local channels are using the license given in 17 USC 122. Otherwise, instead of following the market definitions outlined in the law, each station would also have to give Dish Network a listing of counties where their signal should be available if this were strictly a private agreement.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> That would explain the local channels on SkyAngel that are not part of a complete market coverage.


And hence this "private agreement" is not using the local channel license.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

As I have said many times, there are no local channels on Sky Angel. Those are Networks.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> Oh yes it can. Nowhere in 122 does it state money cannot change hands. Nor is that an issue in 47 USC 338, which governs must-carry on DBS:Ok. If any stations in a given market are using the license in 17 USC 122, then all stations in the market choose retransmission consent or must-carry.


47 USC 338(e) Compensation for carriage 
A satellite carrier shall not accept or request monetary payment or other valuable consideration in exchange either for carriage of local television broadcast stations in fulfillment of the requirements of this section or for channel positioning rights provided to such stations under this section, except that any such station may be required to bear the costs associated with delivering a good quality signal to the local receive facility of the satellite carrier.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Although that doesn't stop stations from charging E* and D*. 

The money CAN change hands as long as it isn't the station paying.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> If any stations in a given market are using the license in 17 USC 122, then all stations in the market choose retransmission consent or must-carry.


No, a station may simply choose not to be carried period.

Congress said in effect: We are giving the satellite carrier and network station an easy way to arrange carriage. The station must request carriage and provide a good signal. There is to be no consideration given for carriage. If you do it our way, copyright is not a problem. If the station wants to take a chance and miss mandatory carriage for three years, all must be negotiated. If this includes royalties, it includes royalties. If it includes charges for carriage so be it. It would be laughable to allow either the station or satellite company to profit from the negotiation while telling the copyright owners they are SOL regarding royalties. No royalties was an incentive for the players to choose mandatory carriage. The statutory license of 17 USC 122 only applies to cases where the station has chosen mandatory carriage under if one, then all. The "all" part was to prevent the satellite company from putting the screws to weaker stations. If you are a "hot" station, you may choose a negotiation because you know that E* really wants you. This is akin to Internet broadcast - get the required permissions or substitute something else/a black screen. Retransmission consent (aka "private contract") is outside the scope of 17 USC 122. A contract between Party A (E*) and Party B (WXXX) cannot impose a requirement (give us your stuff for free) upon Party C (copyright owner).


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

From the FCC:

We find that Section 338 provides a satellite carrier with two options for carrying local television broadcast signals. If a satellite carrier provides its subscribers with the signals of local television stations through reliance on the statutory copyright license, they will have the obligation to carry all of the commercial television signals in that particular market that request carriage. If a satellite carrier provides local television signals pursuant to private copyright arrangements, the Section 338 carriage obligations do not apply. In this context, we note that a retransmission consent agreement, in most instances, is not analogous to a private copyright arrangement. Retransmission consent permits an MVPD to retransmit a station's signal, but it does not generally grant copyright clearance for the program content carried by that station. To obtain private clearances for material carried by a particular station, the copyright holders of each of the programs, advertisements, and music aired by that station must consent to the retransmission. In some cases, however, a television station may have permission from the copyright holders to provide clearances on their behalf. We therefore conclude that unless the retransmission contract clearly provides for all copyright clearances, a carrier retransmitting television stations electing retransmission consent would be subject to the compulsory license and be required to carry all other local market television stations under the provisions set forth in Section 338.

That is to say that unless there is copyright clearance under retransmission consent then the DBS MUST be using the statutory license and therefore "carry one carry all" applies. The converse of this is that true "retansmission consent" requires copyright clearance and is NOT using the statutory license. The DBS cannot get around carry one carry all by claiming its carriage of WXXX is being done by retransmission consent when copyright clearance is a required feature of that method.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> That is to say that unless there is copyright clearance under retransmission consent then the DBS MUST be using the statutory license and therefore "carry one carry all" applies. The converse of this is that true "retansmission consent" requires copyright clearance and is NOT using the statutory license. The DBS cannot get around carry one carry all by claiming its carriage of WXXX is being done by retransmission consent when copyright clearance is a required feature of that method.


Then you missed it in your own reference:


> In this context, we note that a retransmission consent agreement, in most instances, is not analogous to a private copyright arrangement.


So, a retransmission consent agreement (i.e., a carriage agreement) is not analogous to a private copyright arrangement (i.e., a "private contract"). This is because:


> We therefore conclude that unless the retransmission contract clearly provides for all copyright clearances, a carrier retransmitting television stations electing retransmission consent would be subject to the compulsory license and be required to carry all other local market television stations under the provisions set forth in Section 338.


Reread this one in plain English:

Unless the retransmission contract clearly provides for all copyright clearances (what you have been calling a "private contract"), the station declares retransmission consent and makes the license active, and then the carriage contract follows.

Which in turn means that if the local-into-local license were ever injuncted, the carriage contract follows the terms set in the license set forth in 17 USC 122, and all local channels would be dropped, even though there is a contract.

See? I was right.

And that is why I said that if the CBS-HD contract with Dish Network is simply a blanket waiver, it was in jeopardy.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg,

You are missing the essence. I understand the wording is confusing. If the 17 USC 122 license is being used then COCA applies. A non-statutory license agreement involves two things 1. retransmission consent (permission from the station to carry the signal) and 2. copyright clearance from the content owners - may be the station, a syndicator, Joe Blow. The FCC is saying that if a agreement to carry a station DOES NOT include copyright clearance then the ONLY possible arrangement must be a 17 USC 122 license and COCA applies. Again this is to prevent the DBS company and one station from scamming the system by claiming that a "retransmission consent" agreement is in place (and thus avoiding COCA). It is the exact opposite of what you are stating. E* can have a TRUE retransmission consent agreement with XABC (XABC having obtained all the necessary copyright clearances) and ignore XNBC, XCBS and XFOX - there would be NO requirement to carry them. 47 USC 338(a)(1) makes this perfectly clear. COCA is linked to the statutory license, retransmission consent agreements (which are necessary but not sufficient for rebroadcasting) are not. Failure to get retransmission consent is a violation of Title 47 in its own right - even if copyright clearance has been obtained. If retransmission consent automatically included a 17 USC 122 license then this discussion by the FCC is meaningless.



Greg Bimson said:


> Then you missed it in your own reference:So, a retransmission consent agreement (i.e., a carriage agreement) is not analogous to a private copyright arrangement (i.e., a "private contract"). This is because:Reread this one in plain English:
> 
> Unless the retransmission contract clearly provides for all copyright clearances (what you have been calling a "private contract"), the station declares retransmission consent and makes the license active, and then the carriage contract follows.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I am not quite missing the essense, as I may not be wording my opinion as well as I should.

Without trying to hit the semantics, I had part of the process backwards. From BobS' FCC post:


> We therefore conclude that unless the retransmission contract clearly provides for all copyright clearances, *a carrier retransmitting television stations electing retransmission consent would be subject to the compulsory license* and be required to carry all other local market television stations under the provisions set forth in Section 338.


The local channel license is in 17 USC 122. The election of stations to either claim must-carry or retransmission consent is what invokes the license.

I don't particularly feel like delving into the details of how a station elects, but the essense is that once a selection is made, the carriage contract is under the terms and conditions of the license, which means the license is somehow tied to the carriage contract. I have been stating the retransmission contract would have the license listed with these terms and conditions, but in reality, according to that FCC paragraph, the contracts with a station that claims retransmission consent automatically must follow the license.

And, like I said earlier, but now can clarify, if there is ever an injunction of the local channel license, all the local channels would be pulled even if there is retransmission consent contract, because somehow the carriage contracts under retransmission consent are linked to the local channel license.


BobS said:


> A non-statutory license agreement involves two things 1. retransmission consent (permission from the station to carry the signal) and 2. copyright clearance from the content owners - may be the station, a syndicator, Joe Blow.


Correct.

The issue here is that everyone is stating that CBS-HD is a "private agreement", kind of like you state in the quote above. I am tossing out the plausible theory that the CBS-HD agreement with Dish Network is simply a blanket waiver under 17 USC 119, because it mirrors exactly what a waiver under the section accomplishes. Why?

WCBS-HD and KCBS-HD have syndicated programming on it. I do not believe that CBS nor the stations involved have received the copyright clearances from their syndicators, since it is a difficult task. Especially when all that is needed to distribute CBS-HD to customers within CBS O&O areas is a blanket waiver under 17 USC 119.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

17 USC 119 Hypotheticals. Please indicate the part of the law that is relevant.

Let's say that I live in the East Elbow DMA, wherein is located WELB-TV, an Network Y affiliate. All interested parties agree that I cannot receive a Grade B signal from WELB-TV. However, another Network Y affiliate, WUSH - located in the neighboring West Undershirt DMA is receivable at the Grade B level. There is no LIL service in either DMA. Do I qualify for a distant Network Y signal?

Same scenario but I am within WELB Grade B and they have given me a waiver. Do I qualify for a distant Network Y signal?

Does either answer change if West Undershirt is in a different state?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobS said:


> 17 USC 119 Hypotheticals. Please indicate the part of the law that is relevant.
> 
> Let's say that I live in the East Elbow DMA, wherein is located WELB-TV, an Network Y affiliate. All interested parties agree that I cannot receive a Grade B signal from WELB-TV. However, another Network Y affiliate, WUSH - located in the neighboring West Undershirt DMA is receivable at the Grade B level. There is no LIL service in either DMA. Do I qualify for a distant Network Y signal?
> 
> ...


You MUST have waivers from all stations that you can receive Grade B regardless of DMA or LIL service. All of your hypotheticals lead to the same answer: NO.

17 USC 119 (a)(14) WAIVERS.-
A subscriber who is denied the secondary transmission of a signal of a network station under subsection (a)(2)(B) may request a waiver from such denial by submitting a request, through the subscriber's satellite carrier, to the network station asserting that the secondary transmission is prohibited.

17 USC 119 (a)(2)(B) Secondary transmissions to unserved households. -
(The section that defines ILLR model, accurate site measurement, and C Band grandfathered definitions of an unserved household.)​


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> 17 USC 119 Hypotheticals. Please indicate the part of the law that is relevant.


I'll expand on Mr. Long's correct post, but simply by editing the parts of BobS' question in order of relevance:


BobS said:


> However, another Network Y affiliate, WUSH - located in the neighboring West Undershirt DMA is receivable at the Grade B level.


No matter what happens, in order to receive distant network service, you need a waiver from WUSH.



BobS said:


> Same scenario but I am within WELB Grade B and they have given me a waiver. Do I qualify for a distant Network Y signal?


No, because WUSH also claims you as within their Grade B contour. In order to qualify for a distant network, one must obtain waivers from any network affiliate that claims the subscriber can receive at least a Grade B signal. In this case, both WUSH and WELB must issue waivers, since both are available to the subscriber.

Here is one that follows a slightly different track, because it is related to the SHVERA:


BobS said:


> There is no LIL service in either DMA. Do I qualify for a distant Network Y signal?


Ok. The way the law is currently written, if your locals *are* available, and you are a new subscriber, you cannot get distant networks. There is some question regarding asking for waivers.

However, in this scenario, the local channels *aren't* available. Because they aren't available, waivers can certainly be requested. If you are within the Grade B contour of two stations of the same network, both affiliates must issue waivers before you can be qualified. I seem to recall this is another of the problems that Dish Network had during this lawsuit. Dish Network was qualifying based on the home market's broadcast contour, while ignoring any of the other channels that may have been available to the subscriber at their location.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And I truly believe this:

The only reason Dish Network settled is that they hope to get some consideration during the rulemaking sessions at the FCC for HD distants. Without the settlement, the HD distants will go away with the injunction that the judge in the case must issue. And that is the reason Fox is so hell-bent on stopping Dish Network from using the license.

Until Dish Network gets more bandwidth to offer local channels in HD, Dish Network will have to use the distant network license to offer network HD to a large chunk of their subscriber base.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I think I may have found the source of the confusion. That is using the term "retransmission consent" to mean two different things or rather the same thing in two different contexts.

In a given market, once the 122 license is invoked (and used) there are two choices for the station (1) elect compulsory carriage with no payment to DBS permitted or (2) elect negotiation with DBS which may or may not result in carriage. In the case of a successful negotiation (the station consents to rebroadcast) the 17 USC 122 license IS being used. Copyright clearance is not a concern. In other words, once used it is available for that DMA. The license is "out of the bag."

If the license has NOT been invoked then a negotiation for rebroadcast must cover copyright clearance. Thus if DBS wants to carry one and only one station, it must not invoke the license and deal with both retransmission consent and copyright (probably with assistance from the station). It could follow the same procedure with other local stations.

What is not clear is if during an election cycle, DBS negotiates a non-122 agreement with Station A, can it then later invoke a 122 license for Stations B, C and D without affecting the contract with Station A.

There is no mandatory carriage without the 17 USC 122 license. However the 17 USC 122 license may be used without mandatory carriage (if all stations opted to negotiate instead).

Does this make sense? Now to think more about CBS-HD.....


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I should have added that the 122 license can never be a subject of retransmission consent negotiation/contract. It is either there or it isn't. It's just that if it isn't there copyright has to be dealt with in the normal commercial manner. Greg B. - I apologize if this is what you have been trying to say. My head is swimming with USC sections that are not written as clearly as they could be.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Also - all "retransmission consent" contracts are "private contracts" in the sense that the government is not a party. The only question is how many parties there are. If a 122 license exists, only the DBS and station are parties. If not, those two and the copyright holder(s) are parties to the contract.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> Greg B. - I apologize if this is what you have been trying to say. My head is swimming with USC sections that are not written as clearly as they could be.


You made me go into the sections of the code. I'll never be the same again! 

In all seriousness, I _understand_ these sections, but if I never have to read them again it would be fine with me.

Yes, it is what I was trying to say. Once the SHVIA was passed, and all these sections came along with it, there was this local license. And from the refresher course here, the license is tied to whether or not a station in a given market does its election for either must-carry, retransmission consent, or no election at all.

And the only reason I ever brought up the local license was because the CBS-HD carriage agreeement with Dish Network, to me, appears to be a blanket waiver of the existing distant license. I needed a comparasion somewhere.

Unfortunately, in my current job status, I understand the problems with terms and conditions that flow down through agreements. That is what all of these agreements look like to me.

Of course, the only reason there is now any importance in this is if Fox derails the entire settlement.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

BobS said:


> Also - all "retransmission consent" contracts are "private contracts" in the sense that the government is not a party.


True. However, the private contract may use the license, which of course means that any injunction of the license will remove the ability to even use the contract, as the revocation of a license deems the point moot.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobS said:


> I should have added that the 122 license can never be a subject of retransmission consent negotiation/contract.


It appears that 17 USC 122 only gives copyright protection - The retrans consent / must carry argument is separate.

For example, 17 USC 122 specifically covers LP stations within 35 miles of their transmitters (within 50 miles of their transmitters in the top 50 DMAs) within the bounds of their own DMA. But LPs do not have the right to claim must carry.

The concepts of consent and must carry are presented elseswhere ... not in 17 USC 122. Section 122 applies to all stations _for the payment of royalties_ unless a private arrangement is made outside of the section.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> And the only reason I ever brought up the local license was because the CBS-HD carriage agreeement with Dish Network, to me, appears to be a blanket waiver of the existing distant license. I needed a comparasion somewhere.


Wouldn't a distant fall under 17 USC 119 anyways?

The payment of copyright could always be done via private arrangement. We are talking about Viacom owned stations here - not carrying some podunk station nationally. They would have the clout and buying power to get national rights on all of their programming ... including syndication.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Correct. After all, Title 17 is Copyright. However the titles reference each other back and forth so it is often difficult to follow and then there are the cases where the various sections contradict each other.....Incidentally, the 122 license is royalty-free (unlike the 119).



James Long said:


> It appears that 17 USC 122 only gives copyright protection - The retrans consent / must carry argument is separate.
> 
> For example, 17 USC 122 specifically covers LP stations within 35 miles of their transmitters (within 50 miles of their transmitters in the top 50 DMAs) within the bounds of their own DMA. But LPs do not have the right to claim must carry.
> 
> The concepts of consent and must carry are presented elseswhere ... not in 17 USC 122. Section 122 applies to all stations _for the payment of royalties_ unless a private arrangement is made outside of the section.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I don't see why a regular copyright clearance process could not jump in and fill the void. It would be messy but all is not lost.



Greg Bimson said:


> True. However, the private contract may use the license, which of course means that any injunction of the license will remove the ability to even use the contract, as the revocation of a license deems the point moot.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I would phrase it differently. When a DBS wants to carry a local station it has the two hoops to jump through. Assuming the 122 license is already in play (from Station 1) then (eligible) Stations 2 to x, have the three choices:

1. mandatory carriage for free
2. negotiated carriage
3. no carriage (either because negotiations failed or the station did not want to be carried)

So the copyright license is initially determined by the DBS. Either invoke the compulsory license or negotiate copyright clearance. Once the compulsory license is in play, it makes no sense not to use it (unless as a hedge against its revocation down the road).



Greg Bimson said:


> And from the refresher course here, the license is tied to whether or not a station in a given market does its election for either must-carry, retransmission consent, or no election at all.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

Greg Bimson said:


> And the only reason I ever brought up the local license was because the CBS-HD carriage agreeement with Dish Network, to me, appears to be a blanket waiver of the existing distant license. I needed a comparasion somewhere.


Ok so why does Dish not offer NBC-HD, ABC-HD, or FOX-HD as DNS? It has the copyright license. Do the other networks not want to play? Is there no capacity? Are there no O&O affiliates in the other networks? It seems a little odd.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobS said:


> I would phrase it differently. When a DBS wants to carry a local station it has the two hoops to jump through. Assuming the 122 license is already in play (from Station 1) then (eligible) Stations 2 to x, have the three choices:


It's a real mess when 47 USC 325 (a)(1) says "each satellite carrier providing, under section 122 of title 17, secondary transmissions to subscribers located within the local market of a television broadcast station of a primary transmission made by that station shall carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations located within that local market, subject to section 325(b) of this title."

17 USC 122 is "how to pay for LIL copyright" (actually - don't pay if it is LIL).

The authority to carry LIL actually comes from 47 USC 325 (b), not 17 USC 122.


BobS said:


> Ok so why does Dish not offer NBC-HD, ABC-HD, or FOX-HD as DNS? It has the copyright license. Do the other networks not want to play? Is there no capacity? Are there no O&O affiliates in the other networks? It seems a little odd.


Perhaps they didn't want to start a business that they might get kicked out of? Then again, E* is taking the alternate approach of just getting local HD markets up.

Digital Distants (and distants themselves) are not required service offerings. E* made decisions not to put channels up until the ViP receivers were ready and then put channels up ONLY for the new ViP receivers (despite the ability to uplink new channels in MPEG2 for existing receivers). Both of those decisions would seem to be contrary to the goal of providing HD, so would not providing HD distants.

I believe E* decided not to pursue distant HD as a business decision. Perhaps after the settlement they will reconsider that decision.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> Wouldn't a distant fall under 17 USC 119 anyways?
> 
> The payment of copyright could always be done via private arrangement. We are talking about Viacom owned stations here - not carrying some podunk station nationally. They would have the clout and buying power to get national rights on all of their programming ... including syndication.


Yes, a distant would fall under 17 USC 119. However, what I pointed out was that a retransmission consent station with a carriage contract somehow has the local-into-local license invoked.

I don't think CBS Corporation has the power over the syndicators. Remember, just like the network affiliates have first-run rights, so do the syndicators. I recall that Dr. Phil is on KRON in San Francisco, so I am sure that CBS did not buy some kind of national rights for the show when all that is needed is a waiver under 17 USC 119.


BobS said:


> I don't see why a regular copyright clearance process could not jump in and fill the void. It would be messy but all is not lost.


I only believe that copyright clearing is so messy that it is much easier to use the waiver clause under 17 USC 119.


BobS said:


> Ok so why does Dish not offer NBC-HD, ABC-HD, or FOX-HD as DNS? It has the copyright license. Do the other networks not want to play? Is there no capacity? Are there no O&O affiliates in the other networks? It seems a little odd.


And here is the big point I was trying to make.

Sure, Dish Network could simply use the distant license and put ABC, NBC and FOX up in HD. The issue is that without some kind of agreement, it would only be available to a subset of customers (those with HD sets) that can receive distant networks.

We've heard that there are under 1 million customers receiving distant networks, and that a very large percentage of those are receiving them illegally. So now we are down to about maybe 500,000 customers. Now how many of those have HD sets? Maybe 100,000? There is no sense on getting the networks up in HD using the distant license for just a handful of people.

That is why Dish Network had this agreement with CBS regarding the HD feed. If CBS issues a "blanket waiver" under the distant license, all of a sudden the HD feeds are available to a much wider audience.

Then DirecTV got into the mix, and offered CBS HD, then a bit later FOX HD, and right after the SHVERA was NBC and ABC, both in HD.

The contracts with DirecTV are definitely blanket waivers. Not long after passage of the SHVERA, DirecTV started to remove either East or West distants from customers that had both sets. Use of the distant license spells out that customers are not able to get a distant HD feed from an earlier time zone. So DirecTV followed the law, and those people in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones lost their HD feeds from New York. DirecTV also implemented their own policy that customers will only be allowed one set of networks, so the people in Eastern and Central Time Zone lost their Los Angeles HD feeds.

So, like I said, it is more likely that any local channel is on satellite because of the licenses, not because they've gained copyright clearance from all programmers.


----------



## BobS (Jun 23, 2006)

I understand the challenges but the question still stands. It must have been a win-win with regard to CBS. What is different about the other networks?



Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, a distant would fall under 17 USC 119. However, what I pointed out was that a retransmission consent station with a carriage contract somehow has the local-into-local license invoked.
> 
> I don't think CBS Corporation has the power over the syndicators. Remember, just like the network affiliates have first-run rights, so do the syndicators. I recall that Dr. Phil is on KRON in San Francisco, so I am sure that CBS did not buy some kind of national rights for the show when all that is needed is a waiver under 17 USC 119.I only believe that copyright clearing is so messy that it is much easier to use the waiver clause under 17 USC 119.And here is the big point I was trying to make.
> 
> ...


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

It is possible the other networks don't trust Dish Network.

Or, let's also look at the case of NBC. Dish Network is now offering local-into-local HD feeds. NBC, after selling four of their small market stations, has all of their owned-and-operated stations available in HD from Dish Network, except Hartford, which will be in service soon. 

Why would NBC sign an agreement when Dish Network already provides all NBC O&O affiliates in HD already?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BobS said:


> I understand the challenges but the question still stands. It must have been a win-win with regard to CBS. What is different about the other networks?


CBS/Viacom may have pushed for it from their end. I can't remember exactly when it was added. They were first and up a long time before D* added the other networks. Perhaps at the time E* added CBS-HD it was a good deal and that changed once SHVERA passed and changed the rules.

All we know for sure is that they could carry the networks and are not currently carrying them. All else is, as we say, speculation.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Simple question: Why is it that, here in Lafayette, Indiana, Insight Communications can provide not only the Lafayette DMA channel, WLFI (CBS), but all Indianapolis DMA channels including WISH (CBS), all in HD too, yet NO dbs carrier can sell me the same Indy locals that are must-cary for both Insight and Comcast (Insight controls the city, Comcast controls the boon-docks) here in Tippecanoe County? the so-called grade b signal must be from an antenna on a mast, which is not really a fair determinant; some of us cant put up a roof-top antenna, and why should we need to anyway when those channels could just be fed right to us?

We, because of this are locked into insight who just this week sent us a letter saying they plan to "revamp" digital cable in the next month or so, we all know what that is code for...a few channels do the Lido Shuffle and we get a nice juicy price hike, and oh yea, MTV-HD, whoopty-f***ing-DO

Will no one hear the screams of the ~70000 being raped by Inshight? Does anyone from D* or E* read these forums? do they give a rats rear end?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd love to see Lafayette IN added to E*'s system, including SV stations from Indy. I don't believe E* has done HDs out of market yet. IIRC the rule is that they have to offer in market HD channels FIRST before doing out of market (similar to the SD rules).

WLFI signed and up would be a good deal.


----------



## cobra2225 (Feb 4, 2006)

when is the next charley chat


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

James Long said:


> I'd love to see Lafayette IN added to E*'s system, including SV stations from Indy. I don't believe E* has done HDs out of market yet. IIRC the rule is that they have to offer in market HD channels FIRST before doing out of market (similar to the SD rules).
> 
> WLFI signed and up would be a good deal.


Who would I call to get the ball rolling on WLFI sat carriage? charlychat? d* or E* customer service? WLFI Studios? FCC?

Also, I dont really care about HD right now, I dont have an hdtv, I just mentioned that the digital cable gives me access to hd feeds of the stations as well as SD, I would love to see WLFI SD and SD SVs availible here...


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

James Long said:


> I don't believe E* has done HDs out of market yet. IIRC the rule is that they have to offer in market HD channels FIRST before doing out of market (similar to the SD rules).


It doesn't matter now...

*THE INJUNCTION HAS BEEN ISSUED*. All distant feeds of CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX will be removed soon enough.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

cobra2225 said:


> when is the next charley chat


I think I saw there is one on the 11.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> It doesn't matter now...
> 
> *THE INJUNCTION HAS BEEN ISSUED*. All distant feeds of CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX will be removed soon enough.


And you don't think the settlement (see sticky thread) will change all this?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cobra2225 said:


> when is the next charley chat


September 11th/ - Unless there is a special one thrown on before then.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

No, that is the problem...

Echostar was found guilty by this judge four years ago, and issued an injunction to cut-off subscribers that don't qualify.

The Appeals Court found that the judge did not follow the law, as Dish Network had signed up customers for distant network service that caused Dish Network to be willfully infringing. The Appeals Court sent the case back to the judge, and told him to issue a permanent injunction on distant networks.

A settlement doesn't supercede the impending shut-off.

Distant Networks will be gone.


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> No, that is the problem...
> 
> Echostar was found guilty by this judge four years ago, and issued an injunction to cut-off subscribers that don't qualify.
> 
> ...


 Just Curious, Are you a DTV dealer or something to that effect? You only seem to have their side of the story!!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Fair enough, Juan.

However, give me Dish Network's side of the story. The problem here is that their story has been dragging on for NINE years.

I have more fun trying to point out legal ramifications than anything else. I admit, due to a couple of posts elsewhere, I came onto this board and said it was too late for a settlement. I could not figure out how the affiliate boards could sever with Fox after the verdict was given in order to settle this suit.

Truth be told, when I was looking for a DBS provider in 1998, I did not choose Dish Network based upon how much they wanted to break this issue. Anyone that would choose to publicly use their customers as pawns will also do other things. So no matter how folksy or charming Mr. Ergen is, I couldn't bear to being party to a company that will pull your stations at a moments notice, or continually willing to push an envelope that should be sealed.

However, keep in mind that DirecTV is now owned by another megalomaniac in Mr. Murdoch. Trust me when I say how bad he could be. He single-handedly ruined Rugby League in both Britain and Australia. Brought the sport to its knees.

We constantly hear the story how Ergen one-upped Murdoch. Well, I think the gamesmanship is starting.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Turns out that Reuters was incorrect that the injunction was issued.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> Turns out that Reuters was incorrect that the injunction was issued.


Yes they were. ONLY a REQUEST for an injunction by Fox network and Rupert Murdoch the a**hole .


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

James Long said:


> September 11th/ - Unless there is a special one thrown on before then.


Is there a way for Non-Dish customers to ask a question? IRC Chat? email? phone line?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Phones are open during the show. I can't recall the number but it is probably in one of the summaries.

There is a place on the Dish Network website where questions can be submitted: *click here*.

There is no guarantee that you'll get through on the phones or email. There are a lot of questions asked and they do tend to screen the questions.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

James Long said:


> Phones are open during the show. I can't recall the number but it is probably in one of the summaries.
> 
> There is a place on the Dish Network website where questions can be submitted: *click here*.
> 
> There is no guarantee that you'll get through on the phones or email. There are a lot of questions asked and they do tend to screen the questions.


Even if it doesnt get a direct answer, maybe it can get an internal ball rolling on giving Tippe, Warren and Fountain counties in Indiana an alternative to the rediculously over-priced CATV


----------

