# DirecTV & Dish Network Team Up to Lobby FCC



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

It's interesting when fierce competitors team up on something. Considering the bandwidth that would be required to broadcast all local markets in HD I'm not suprised.

*DirecTV, Dish Network Team Up to Lobby FCC*
http://grassvalley.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=313268


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ratara said:


> It's interesting when fierce competitors team up on something. Considering the bandwidth that would be required to broadcast all local markets in HD I'm not suprised.


Martin just doesn't get it.

Ooooh, look at all of the pretty pictures.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Current SD channels (MPEG2/QPSK) are uplinked at about 12 per transponder. HD channels (MPEG4/8PSK) can be uplinked at 6 per transponder (or more). So E* needs twice the bandwidth.

The big hit will be on receivers. Most of the receivers out there WILL NOT do HD. Tell Martin that relying on satellite/cable services to bail out the government on the DTV transition doesn't work if everyone needs new satellite receivers to continue to receive their existing channels.

If the FCC goes the wrong way on multi-cast bandwidth will also take a hit. If the providers could take their "1/6th transponder" and divide it down for stations doing multicasts neither the main HD or multicast would look good.

There needs to be some sanity in this.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

This presents an interesting problem for the FCC. In principal, I agree that the satellite providers, the cable providers, and off-the-air providers (which is the FCC itself) ought to be providing universal service everywhere.

Let's start with a mandate that all the international channels available to Dish customers be shown on cable and a mandate that the FCC licensed local stations broadcast the international channels on the sub-frequencies that the digital switch created.

Then let's require NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and The CW which depend upon the FCC to figure out how to broadcast OTA HD signals to every square foot of the United States.

All by 2009. Seems reasonable to me. Not.

Oh, I forgot. I don't get any usable cell phone signals at my home. So shouldn't that be more important? Let's require Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, etc. to provide universal coverage over every square foot of the United States that is served with a land line.


----------



## davejacobson (Mar 14, 2005)

phrelin said:


> let's require NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and The CW which depend upon the FCC to figure out how to broadcast OTA HD signals to every square foot of the United States.
> 
> All by 2009. Seems reasonable to me. Not.
> 
> Oh, I forgot. I don't get any usable cell phone signals at my home. So shouldn't that be more important? Let's require Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, etc. to provide universal coverage over every square foot of the United States that is served with a land line.


In my area some customers are 70+++ miles from any off air transmitter. With a deep fringe VHF antenna you can get all networks some very snowy but watchable. With the changeover they will get nothing. No converter box is going to get you a signal without major antenna upgrade. So lets start at $300+ to get your antenna upgrade (antenna poles tripods boosters labor ext) and then not get a guarentee of signal. Alot of these customers DONT WANT A DISH. They want to watch "free tv"off air. Next year they will not be able to watch tv without $$$$ they dont have. In a rural area there is no way any network is going to put up a transmitter to service a few people.Just like cell phones a cell tower to service 100 or less people the numbers just dont work out. THANKS FOR NOTHING FCC


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

davejacobson said:


> In my area some customers are 70+++ miles from any off air transmitter. With a deep fringe VHF antenna you can get all networks some very snowy but watchable. With the changeover they will get nothing. No converter box is going to get you a signal without major antenna upgrade. So lets start at $300+ to get your antenna upgrade (antenna poles tripods boosters labor ext) and then not get a guarentee of signal. Alot of these customers DONT WANT A DISH. They want to watch "free tv"off air. Next year they will not be able to watch tv without $$$$ they dont have. In a rural area there is no way any network is going to put up a transmitter to service a few people.Just like cell phones a cell tower to service 100 or less people the numbers just dont work out. THANKS FOR NOTHING FCC


i do 70 miles here and my new HDTV will not pick up the ntsc from that channel CBS (old sdtv would get it very snowy), but the new digital channel is locked in although low strenght, its a perfect picture


----------



## gargoyle8 (Mar 1, 2008)

i never thought it would come to this, but here i am. in the past week dish has created new programm packages to maximize profits from hd customers, i just tried directv and found that the hardware is junk and i installed a db4 antenna which recieves 15 channels in my area (5 of which are the most beautiful examples of what hd has to offer). did i mention that i was one of those idiots that bought an hd dvd player.i have cancelled both dish and directv. dish has the hardware, directv has the channels and they both want to charge out the bung-hole. OTA is the only way! i have been begging my brother to get an hdtv for a few years now. he asked to go to best buy this morning to pick one out. i told him that i could not, in good conscience, recommend getting an hdtv until dish and directv get their acts together. i just think its funny how much time and money i have invested in hd, and now look where i ended up. i have two very nice hdtv's and 5 channels. i am considering buying a blu ray player. am i just digging a deeper hole? to cancel my service from both satellite providers was not an easy choice. i keep telling myself that it is a matter of principle (maybe not SD people, but it sure seems HD people are getting screwed). i am sure a lot of you guys feel the same. do you think we are making a differance? i like to think if enough subscribers drop out and hdtv sales fall, maybe things will change.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

The saga continues.

DirecTV Fights NAB Request at FCC
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6540035.html?industryid=48696


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

From the article:


> The FCC last fall required cable to carry the HD signals of must-carry TV stations after the DTV transition.


I missed that ...

Obviously not effective until next February and if it applies only to Must Carry TV stations the major networks won't be included in many markets (where stations elect Consent to Carry and charge satellite providers for carriage).


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2003)

Am I the only one to see how very wrong the first acticle is? The person wrinting the article says that CURRENTY satellite providers must CARRY all local channels if they carry just one. This is an untrue satement. If it were true we would get all the locals, spanish, PBS, weather channel, etc. etc. etc.. So I for one have my doubts about some of the contents of this first article.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Dave said:


> Am I the only one to see how very wrong the first acticle is? The person wrinting the article says that CURRENTY satellite providers must CARRY all local channels if they carry just one. This is an untrue satement. If it were true we would get all the locals, spanish, PBS, weather channel, etc. etc. etc.. So I for one have my doubts about some of the contents of this first article.


It is an incomplete statement.

If a satellite carrier wants to carry any channel in a market they MUST offer carriage to all other full power stations in the market. Stations have the choice of choosing "must carry" or "consent to carry". The less marketable stations generally choose "must carry" ... and yes, you do see markets with all locals/spanish/PBSs etc.

The more marketable stations generally choose consent to carry and charge DISH and DirecTV for carriage. If the station cannot come to a deal with a satellite carrier their signal is not carried (since they did not grant consent).

The "all the channels" is full power channels within the same DMA (market). It doesn't mean that if DISH wants to carry WABC within the local NY they have to carry every podunk station in every market in America. But it does mean that they have to OFFER carriage to every station in the local NY market ... regardless of quality or popularity.

Which is why some markets have a dozen locals carried by DISH and DirecTV ... the small stations picked the "must carry" option.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Looks like someone with half a brain made the right decision.

*FCC Yields To DirecTV, Dish On HD Carriage*
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ratara said:


> Looks like someone with half a brain made the right decision.


What do you suppose this "pass through HD signals" aspect means to cable? Are they going to have to carry the ATSC version as well as the QAM version?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Ratara said:


> Looks like someone with half a brain made the right decision.
> 
> *FCC Yields To DirecTV, Dish On HD Carriage*
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6543480.html?desc=topstory


Which reads in part ...


> Instead, the FCC decided to give DirecTV and EchoStar until 2013 to carry all stations in HD within any market where they have elected to carry any station's signal in HD format.
> 
> The "carry one, carry all in HD" principle kicks in when a satellite company starts carrying local signals in HD. DirecTV's decision to carry local TV signals in HD does not force Dish to do likewise in the same market.
> 
> ...


It seems to be a good compromise.


> DirecTV and Dish Network caught another big break from the FCC.
> 
> At least for the time being, if digital TV stations demand HD carriage, the satellite carriers are not require to provide a standard definition copy to customers that do not have HD set-top boxes. In others words, none of the dual must carry obligations that the FCC imposed on cable would apply to DirecTV and Dish.


BTW: I consider this irrelevant ... I don't expect DISH or DirecTV to drop the SD versions from their satellites until ALL of their customers have HD capable receivers.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Interesting to see where this is going

*FCC Releases Details of DBS Hi-Def Order*
http://www.tvtechnology.com/pages/s.0015/t.12305.html



> The order extends the local "carry-one, carry-all" mandate into HD, so that satcasters must carry all the local HD channels in any market where they carry one local HD channel. By Feb. 18, 2009, they have to carry local HD in 15 percent of the markets where they offer local stations-a level already reached by EchoStar and DirecTV-ramping up to 100 percent of their markets by February 2013.


Here is the sad part, getting this concession cost DirecTV 1.2 million.

*DirecTV Lobbied on Digital TV Switch*
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrXO6SuUG-BGulsibUbFs-zBcvkQD8VHU5300


----------

