# I don't like DMAs/territories (was Dish wont let me install??)



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

How about if you had the freedom to pay what ever is being blasted through the airways and if you want a distant station you buy it for a reasonable price, if you want BASEBALL you buy it. 
There is way to much regulation for these signals that fly through the air. I have no problem paying for what I want. Just get this rich fat headed, money grubbing people to let me buy the signals I want. Without having 3 different companies and paying a ridicules amount. The biggest blubber boy is Rupert over there at Direct, but of course he pays off the the political cronies and gets what he wants. So people have to try little workarounds to get what they want. Over Regulation Now don't whine, it's there if you want to pay for it. Geez I would need 3 companies to fulfill what I want, when dish could do it. I hate Rupert and his propaganda channels


----------



## cmtar (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> Is this what you're thinking? :beatdeadhorse:
> 
> The "lie" is easy ... getting E* (or D*) to give you equipment is the hard part. They key is to get it installed at your real location then "lie" about moving it and hope that E* (or D*) lets you get away with moving without installation at the new place.
> 
> Perhaps some day E* (and D*) will police movers better ... until then there will be people who "move" and get away with it. As for me and my house, the billing address and service address are the same and all receivers are connected to the same phone line ... so I don't have to worry about future enforcement or changes in spotbeams or anything else that may harm service to a "mover".


Well I dont really see it as a problem since i am paying for the channels. I already found my answer, but the reciver for $99 or get it off ebay, Done. It wasnt hard for me to do it with D* since i had my equipemt for yrs but anyway i got my answer.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes, you found your answer ... and yet you still complain.


----------



## robert koerner (Aug 20, 2005)

Thank the FCC's protection of local TV stations for these problems.

Dish has to follow the rules, and have some method to prevent people watching local stations that aren't local to the viewer.

Bob


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The local stations are protected by these regulations for the same reason that we all want to protect our own interests. If you run a business, you wouldn't want your competitor to rent out space in your store would you?

Say you sell books... you wouldn't rent out half your store to Borders and let them sell within your store would you? Even if Borders pays rent, you still lose in the long run! If people want to go to Borders, they can go to Borders... you shouldn't have to provide Borders storefront space in your store!

So for locals... Locals are protected within their market for a similar reason. If you live in Raleigh, you watch Raleigh locals. If you want New York locals, then move to New York! No reason to complain about not being able to watch New York locals when you obviously don't want to live there or you'd be there!

And on a similar but different note... If New York didn't have locals... then you couldn't want to watch them as distants! Your distants are someone else's locals!

If all that existed were network feeds, and no locals... a lot of people would be out of jobs. If back in the day there were no locals... OTA TV would have had MUCH slower growth in this country... locals were the biggest reason for most of the growth of TV from inception through the 1970s.

Cable helped expand beyond that, and now satellite too... but locals still provide a valued service in their communities that a network-only feed simply could not provide.

So if you want to shop at Wal-Mart... go to Wal-Mart... Don't go to Sears and complain that they don't have Wal-Mart stuff! And if you want to watch locals outside your market... move for real and live in that market and support that entire market not just with what you spend on TV but by spending money in the community too!


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

Robert I do not thank the FCC, I think their just as messed up as this whole govt. that is run behind the drapes that are pulled and the plays are made in the shadows.

HDME . This just makes no sense. You need to look at the BIG picture of all this. No if I had a bookstore I would not rent out space to another. Book Store, then I would not own a Brick and Mortar Book Store That sorta make sense.. However, Amazon.com who does sell new books, lets there store be populated with people who sell books, the same titles and sometimes for pennies on the dollar. It's a new age of marketing.

Have you looked at advertising on TV and what we are selling and showing today. I understand how we got here but this is 2007 not 1957. Most of my buying decisions are made on the internet after research there, not some dumb ad, I watch movies mostly anyways documentaries etc.. Bills tackle store does not advertise in SD on NBC It's all the big chain stores, cars, real estate, airlines, multibillion dollar business. The mom and pop stores are gone even in Anchorage. You have to be out where I am to get Mom and pop stores. So that Dog just don't hunt on advertising. The ads today are created by million dollar ad agencies all bidding to come up with the coolest sound and visual to try and hold your attention. If the station says I have 10 million feeds going out over out of area by the DBS then that would count as rating points and advertised coverage, which would be good for car commercials and Victoria's Secret big bucks.

It also allows me a freedom of choice. A choice I should have. In fact I liked watching the news in the East, and Denver, it opens me up to their culture. I do not need more where I live. I am bombarded by it. Checking out the other markets makes me interested in going there and educates on how other Americans are thinking, or not... gives me a real look me at a their way of life. To me that is very important and actually generates interest to travel there. If it flies through the air and I am willing to pay a reasonable fee, I should have REASONABLE access it. 
I can't think the last thing that TV even slanted my buying thoughts on one way or the other, or that I discovered a product directly from TV advertising.

Just because it's not local to me does not mean I will not watch it, why do you thing all the people who had the cross country feeds wanted it. Choices. If people want something, then it's not very smart to take advantage of something they are willing to pay EXTRA for, and if they can't get it, well history certainly should have taught us by now, that one way or the other, people will get what they want.

I do not shop at Wal Mart unless totally required to by no other choice. I do live in 2 entirely different places. I liked it as I could watch LA news and keep an eye on Cal. If I was not in SD, I still have to watch Cal Worthing, he advertises in LA and Anchorage, where he keeps this huge house and spends a lot of his time, well the kid does more now. So I did not miss him. in Cal and and Alaska, now how sick is that. 

Just give me the choices I want, stop letting these spoiled little rich boys stop arguing and open the airways to what's available to everyone willing to pay reasonable price for the product.

If you want to limit yourself to just local stations, well you have that right, you can even put up rabbit ears and skip Dish all together. You have that right. I just want the equal right to have what I want with out having to deal with all this stupidity of contracts. Nobody limits your radio, you can buy a transistor radio and listen to any station you want, for free, even across the world if your willing to pay. I should have the same right to have access to anything through the air if I am willing to pay reasonable equipment costs. and access. Not 3 companies to get everything I enjoy because brat boyz cant come to a deal and Rupert wants to rule the world. XOF news for the rest of you who believe their real..
G


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

To me it like I must buy a car from a local dealer, but not from a dealer that has better price and service 50 miles away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep ... And every step of the argument has been argued here before ... not to long ago since E* turned of distant networks in December and out of market locals was a hot topic back then.

In this case the "dealer" is part of an "affiliate network" similar to the way soft drinks are sold. Each "dealer" is granted a territory and as part of their agreement with all other affiliates and the network, they agree not to sell their product outside the territory.

TV network affiliates are not the same as newspapers or car dealerships or retail stores that have not restricted their territory by contract. Those affiliates have agreed to a territory ... and they MUST follow it.

Asking your satellite provider to deliver stations from another market is like asking a trucker to go get a semi-load of beverages from another "bottling company's" region. That distant "bottling company" agreed not to sell outside of their region, and will be in trouble with the network (the brand owner/affiliate group) if they are found to be selling to customers outside of their territory.

The federal laws are just backing up the private agreements made freely by the affiliates (if you call "sign or don't get our programs" a free will agreement). In any case, the blame lies with the networks and the affiliates.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

geoffinak said:


> How about if you had the freedom to pay what ever is being blasted through the airways and if you want a distant station you buy it for a reasonable price, if you want BASEBALL you buy it.
> There is way to much regulation for these signals that fly through the air. I have no problem paying for what I want. Just get this rich fat headed, money grubbing people to let me buy the signals I want. Without having 3 different companies and paying a ridicules amount. The biggest blubber boy is Rupert over there at Direct, but of course he pays off the the political cronies and gets what he wants. So people have to try little workarounds to get what they want. Over Regulation Now don't whine, it's there if you want to pay for it. Geez I would need 3 companies to fulfill what I want, when dish could do it. I hate Rupert and his propaganda channels


Nice, I take it you are a mlb fan too ? I agree here, let me pay for what I want to watch. I have both E* and D* just because of MLB's greed.


----------



## dhageremtp (Sep 25, 2006)

oljim said:


> To me it like I must buy a car from a local dealer, but not from a dealer that has better price and service 50 miles away.


Plus, the dealership can change the car at anytime and your stuck with it for a period of time.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Besides all the other arguments... People seem to keep missing the point that if there were no local stations then there would be no distants for them to want to watch. If the Denver locals were not being watched by Denver people... then they would go under and not be available for you to even want to watch from California... and vice-versa.

If the local stations go away, then there will be no distants for you either.

As for "the right to watch as long as you pay"... only partially true.

You might come to my house and say "I want to buy your car for $10,000" and I say no. You can't complain to me or the police or the government that you want to buy my car and pay for it so you should... because I also have the right not to sell it to you!

This is what is happening with locals/distants to a degree. As James said... the locals all agree to their broadcast area as part of their FCC obtainment of frequency. When things like cable and satellite came about that had the ability to transmit locals outside of their designated range, everyone agreed not to do this to be fair to everyone involved. So stations are basically saying they don't want you to buy their signals because they really don't want to compete on that level nationally with all the other locals and risk running themselves out of business.

You may have "a right" to pay for something... but ONLY if that something is for sale... and other people also have the right not to sell to you.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

I thought all the advertising money went into the same pot. I used to have D* and I received NY locals here in Chicago because they said all the advertising revenue went into the same pot anyway. Wouldn't this put a dent in your argument about the locals not existing if you watched the locals from outside your market?


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

Many cable Cos have local network from more than the local Dma, they do here. I can get stations from more than 1 dma OTA, I can only get 2 HD stations from My dma and get 6 from a nearby dma.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

heisman said:


> I thought all the advertising money went into the same pot. I used to have D* and I received NY locals here in Chicago because they said all the advertising revenue went into the same pot anyway. Wouldn't this put a dent in your argument about the locals not existing if you watched the locals from outside your market?


You're talking about network commercials. Local stations also sell air-time locally for paid-programming and for commercials. My local car dealership does not advertise nationally on CBS, for instance... but they do buy local air time for the local spots, as do local restaurants and shops.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

oljim said:


> Many cable Cos have local network from more than the local Dma, they do here. I can get stations from more than 1 dma OTA, I can only get 2 HD stations from My dma and get 6 from a nearby dma.


This is one point I agree on... Somehow cable has a different set of rules than do satellite... so if you are neighboring two adjacent DMAs you may get both DMAs locals on your local cable system BUT satellite is being forced to pick just one DMA to provide you.

I believe the same rules should apply to satellite and cable... So you could maybe get Greensboro and Raleigh, NC DMA channels depending on where you live in NC whether on cable or satellite BUT still shouldn't be able to get New York or California locals since they are clearly way outside your local market.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

HDMe said:


> This is one point I agree on... Somehow cable has a different set of rules than do satellite... so if you are neighboring two adjacent DMAs you may get both DMAs locals on your local cable system BUT satellite is being forced to pick just one DMA to provide you.
> 
> I believe the same rules should apply to satellite and cable... So you could maybe get Greensboro and Raleigh, NC DMA channels depending on where you live in NC whether on cable or satellite BUT still shouldn't be able to get New York or California locals since they are clearly way outside your local market.


This is the one that irks me the most... I understand why we're limited to our "local" channels, and while I'd love to get distants, I'm not eligible, and that's OK with me... What kills me is that I'm considered the Salinas/Monterey DMA... Salinas/Monterey are 45 minutes from my house. San Jose is 25 minutes from my house... But I don't get the San Jose channels, I get Salinas...

The boundaries they've set up are just silly in many cases... I know they had to draw a line somewhere, and if they move the line 10 miles then someone 10 miles away from me is going to complain that they're closer to the SF/SJ DMA than the Salinas one... But cable can provide from both DMAs when you're right there on the borderline of 2, so I don't understand why Sat can't as well...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That is one of the many inequities between satellite and cable that needs to be fixed. Cable has several ways that stations qualify for carriage where satellite is banned from carrying signals unless the station is in the customer's market (or is on the cable company's SV list ... although E* lost that right along with distants).


----------



## dahenny (Apr 16, 2007)

HDMe said:


> This is one point I agree on... Somehow cable has a different set of rules than do satellite... so if you are neighboring two adjacent DMAs you may get both DMAs locals on your local cable system BUT satellite is being forced to pick just one DMA to provide you.
> 
> I believe the same rules should apply to satellite and cable... So you could maybe get Greensboro and Raleigh, NC DMA channels depending on where you live in NC whether on cable or satellite BUT still shouldn't be able to get New York or California locals since they are clearly way outside your local market.


THANK YOU!!!
I live in extreme western NC, right on the border with TN. My DMA is Charlotte (which I love BTW), but I also love the Tri cities TN/VA DMA which I'm only about 35 miles from (ATCF). 
I qualify for distant networks out of NY and maybe Denver/Los Angeles???, but not for TN channels, which is really a peeve for me.
With an OTA antenna_*sp_, I get only one channel in the Charlotte area.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

As it happens where I am, in Raleigh, I am in an area where cable and satellite carries the same channels (ok, right now cable carries more locals in HD than Dish or DirecTV does but I get all mine OTA so I am ok anyway)... so none of this would affect me.

But I do know lots of people, especially like the far western NC example... where if you put up OTA you can get lots of surrounding channels from different markets, and can get more than one DMA on cable too.

I would fully support a plan to equal the playing field between satellite and cable... as I do not think it is fair for cable to be able to offer you a channel that satellite cannot. Those rules do need to be equalized.


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

oljim said:


> To me it like I must buy a car from a local dealer, but not from a dealer that has better price and service 50 miles away.


Well that maybe that's way you do it but in the opposite side. The way other people do it. My friend had a truck stolen and wanted the same color and style. and year Got on the net and found a great deal in texas, hoped on a jet from Cal to Tex and was home the next day with a great truck that has run fine for 3 years. Took him 2 days to find it buy it and get it home pretty good if you ask me. Plus saved money from what was offered locally but not in the color the guy wanted. Plus employed Truck Trader com people. The internet has made the market place country wide and world wide. The best information for my satellite internet connection, comes from a guy in South Carolina. 
In the 60s you probably never drove 20 miles to get another car, it's a new world, just about everyone I know buys cars, parts off the net. So what if you have to spend a few days vacation going to somewhere to save twice what you pay for locally. There is a whole world to see out there and not just through the tube.-err plasma
Geoff


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Besides all the other arguments... People seem to keep missing the point that if there were no local stations then there would be no distants for them to want to watch. .


Ever see how many magazines there are, how many choices of of say outdoor, hunting, fishing, shooting magazines. 100s If I pay to see distant channels the Uncle Charlie is going to be paying for and making money off of me, then that should be my choice, not the FCC, who is owned by Rupert and the Fat Cat 4 anyway. If out of market were truly the law of the land why am I stuck watch the Braves and Jaws on the Superstations. It just limits my choice. It's like your internet should be held locally because you may buy something, see something or learn something, from someone in another city or heaven for bid another state. It limits our view of our country, what are the other news stations saying as opposed to mine. I find that very interesting. I have family and friends all over the country, If I want to pay to get a station, it should be available. This advertising dog just don't hunt. Car dealers, please, I am not going to have pity for Cal Worthington and his Dog Spot. Or for Mr Nye and his band of merry dealers either. Car dealers seem to make money just fine, although they all have internet sales departments that sell out of state. Nothing protects that or stops that. I can order a new car, fly and get it or hire a drive away.
Geoff


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Yep ...
> 
> The federal laws are just backing up the private agreements made freely by the affiliates (if you call "sign or don't get our programs" a free will agreement). In any case, the blame lies with the networks and the affiliates.


It would be interesting to see when the Federal Laws were made. Back when antenna TV was all there was and if some one blew out a few more thousand more watts it would overlap. Most likely the majority are.

The laws most airlines operate under, were made in the 30s. You may be flying with a pilot who had a rest period of 10 hours, from cockpit door to hotel, eat, sleep get up, shower and get to pre flight planning downstairs. They probably have just has been flying 6 days in a row, 14 hour duty days, with a Max 10 hours of flight time. hmmm think about that your next take off..

Freedom of choice, if a company puts out a product I should be able to buy it. I paid extra to get those out of local channels, when I really did not think I should have to. But so be it. There is not one thing I can not buy out of market, if I order it and pay for it. Including soft drinks and yes I do pay the driver the freight to get the brand I want, but I get what I want, because I like that brand. I am a consumer, if I am willing to buy meet my demands or like some of the others above you actually encourage a end run.

I also think of this as freedom of information, same way I can buy a newspaper and have it mailed. It's not healthy to restrict information. Other then connivence of time factors. I liked out of area stations for the news and information it gave me about life in the area of coverage. It makes me a tad wiser to understand New York, Denver, LA Views, then just one areas. Especially in this day of the internet, I think for commercial TV to survive, your going to have to give me different views, other then the same" bubble headed bleach blond " every night. It's interesting to see the national view and the local view of the reporters in different areas. I don't see the big deal, I do not see loss of advertising, the hurt of local market. I am sure someone from New York may want San Diego. It averages out. We are a mobile society especially the west and i just fail to see any drawback to this. Other then the FCC governing me, telling me , what I can see and what I can not see.
Geoff


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

IIRC the law was written in 1999. The law gave PERMISSION for satellite carriers to carry a local network station outside of their own market if the customer could not pick up any other stations of that network. There were a few other exceptions and the law has been adjusted since 1999.


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

SMosher said:


> Nice, I take it you are a mlb fan too ? I agree here, let me pay for what I want to watch. I have both E* and D* just because of MLB's greed.


SMosher
Yes this really stinks too. If I may ask, how much did it cost to get Rupert's Satellite going. I was looking at a minimum set up, a DVR recorder would be nice, but not mandatory and I would like to dump it as soon as baseball ends. The Package is actually cheaper then Dish was last year but I think I missed the cut off. Maybe they might give me a deal, if I said this is why I am joining.

I wonder how much is baseball running this and how much is Rupert. Ole Rup he controls a lot of what we see and hear.This guy has a lot of influence and $$$$$

I would think this would just be plain stupid for baseball to limit viewers to one company, what is the sense, it only aides rupert. Anywhoo, any tips, tricks or flips, would be greatly appreciated ...and yes I was a tad upset at Charlie, actually Dish has been really dropping the ball, so to speak lately. Charlie will get Cricket or goofy British guys with no teeth and brains to kick each other for hundreds of dollars but Americas Past Time NOOO. Can't have that. This really hurts MLB and they do not need any negative exposure in fact need max exposure. Those salaries are getting really steep.
Fair market sharing is the answer to baseball woes. That is the Yankees and Atlanta on al the time and having all the bucks, while Kansas and small market teams wither, unless their are major injuries on the Bankees.
Thanks Geoff


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> IIRC the law was written in 1999. The law gave PERMISSION for satellite carriers to carry a local network station outside of their own market if the customer could not pick up any other stations of that network. There were a few other exceptions and the law has been adjusted since 1999.


The law stinks and who are the laws written by, and who in there would you trust to make a law that was in the best interest of the consumer and not the Mega Business owners. Which most locals are owned by larger broadcasters corporations anyway.

The government is supposed to serve the people. How do these laws serve us in any way that benefits the average consumer. 1999 is a long time in tech world . 
Freedom of choice, what is so hard to understand and what does it take away from anyone that makes it so detrimental that it is feared and illegal.
Geoff


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> ...
> 
> The boundaries they've set up are just silly in many cases....


You cited *one* example where *you* disagree. The boundaries seem proper here in the Washington, DC, suburbs. I guess they are not silly at all?


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> You cited *one* example where *you* disagree. The boundaries seem proper here in the Washington, DC, suburbs. I guess they are not silly at all?


notice it said MANY, not ALL... Just cause you're lines are drawn in an area that makes sense doesn't mean they ALL are... I'm really glad you get all the channels you want.

Take a look through the forums sometime and look at all the posts of people who are 20 miles from one city and 40 miles from another, and yet because of the way the DMAs are drawn up, they get locals from the one 40 miles away...

The laws are in place to protect local advertising dollars, so that when I watch TV, I see commercials that are local to me... The problem is with the arbitrary boundary drawing in some cases, the advertising isn't really local. If I'm going to make a purchase, I go to San Jose, not Salinas... but the only advertising I see is from Salinas...

I'm not complaining that the DMAs are in place and that the FCC is out to protect local dollars. As a small business person, i understand the idea of keeping the revenues "local". I also understand that lines had to be drawn SOMEWHERE... and sometimes those lines may not have been in the most ideal location, but there had to be a cutoff somewhere... All I'm asking for is some mechanism by which satellite can provide neighboring locals the way cable does... Charter & Comcast here realize that SJ is more local to us than Salinas, and so we get some of the SJ local channels on our cable lineup - channels which satellite is not allowed to provide to me.


----------



## SMosher (Jan 16, 2006)

geoffinak said:


> SMosher
> Yes this really stinks too. If I may ask, how much did it cost to get Rupert's Satellite going. I was looking at a minimum set up, a DVR recorder would be nice, but not mandatory and I would like to dump it as soon as baseball ends. The Package is actually cheaper then Dish was last year but I think I missed the cut off. Maybe they might give me a deal, if I said this is why I am joining.
> 
> I wonder how much is baseball running this and how much is Rupert. Ole Rup he controls a lot of what we see and hear.This guy has a lot of influence and $$$$$
> ...


D* was out here within less than 3 days to install 1 HD dual tuner DVR and 2 SD dual tuners, 1 6x8 switch and 1 AU9 dish for $350.00 (ouch only due to me being a long time holder of D* 7 years ago). I got D* just to watch MLB EI and the pq to me is horrible. Don't matter to me if its in HD or not.

I have been on the phone everyday about with E* and MLB about this bullcrap D* has decided to pull. MLB states and I quote "Echostar decided not to pay market value for MLB EI as the others did". May I remind one who set that market value in the first place, D*. As far as turning up the RSNHDs lately, BFD when anything thats going to be on them is blacked out unless of course its in your DMA, which in my DMA the RSN (FOXBA) still hasn't been turned up yet. MLB and their gross greed has stopped America's game from being in a few select homes for the American dollar. Its MLB that refuses to budge from their stupid price on this package. MLB has also said "You can always get these game via the internet". I had to ask Tim Brosnan, "Have you seen the quality of that crap even at 700k?".

Its all ******** and we as customers will pay either way. I'm with you on the whole DMA thing. I have the WB package from E* and watching news and such on those stations is great.

My rants for the last 2 months are more than clear at this point. DBS as we know it will be changed within the next 2 years. I just feel it.

Hey just think ... Maybe AT&T will buy E* and then they can mess that up like they did the rest of the country. I worked there, I'm shocked you can still get a dial tone. And yes, it was said in meetings that its an idea the AT&T purchase of E*.

Ok, enough about how pist I am at the American markets and their decisions. Enjoy your day Geoff.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

geoffinak said:


> ...
> The government is supposed to serve the people. How do these laws serve us in any way that benefits the average consumer. 1999 is a long time in tech world .
> Freedom of choice, what is so hard to understand and what does it take away from anyone that makes it so detrimental that it is feared and illegal.
> Geoff


Freedom of choice isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In a free market economy with unlimited resources, everything would be available to everyone, for a negociable price. The NAB and their members have used the considerable influence they've gained over the years to pressure Congress into some restrictive legislation. In return, Congressmen get access to local outlets for political campaigns (also lucrative for the stations), and have their faces on the local news periodically. Congress knows that if the whole country has free access to any market they choose, that eventually most of the local stations would collapse from lack of advertising, and the politicians' local platform would disappear.

To take an example from MLB, the Yankees have the biggest market, and the most income. They use that income to buy the best players. Without some form of revenue sharing, the Yankees would dominate baseball forever. The MLB luxury tax provisions level the playing field somewhat. So maybe that's the answer for local television, too. Let anyone pay some a-la-carte fee for whatever market they choose, but create a windfall profits mechanism that would feed some portion of the fees/ad revenue back to the smaller local markets.


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

If the network are so protetive of local stations, how come I can go to CBS.com and watch the NCIS that will air tonight without any local adds
Top this off with the local FOX and ABC is still in SD, mono and has no HD signal. 
And this is from a city in top 100 DMA


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

geoffinak said:


> If you want to limit yourself to just local stations, well you have that right, you can even put up rabbit ears and skip Dish all together. You have that right. I just want the equal right to have what I want with out having to deal with all this stupidity of contracts.


I suppose then you won't buy a house or a car because of "this stupidity of contracts". You can complain about these contracts all you want, but&#8230;

Your problem is that you've missed everything as it relates to business.

If I make a movie and wish it to be shown on NBC, I generally want "the network" to show the movie. NBC decides on the timeslot, and all of that fun stuff. Of course NBC has already decided that the entire network should receive it. And I get paid for the "exclusive" I've given to NBC.

And then because NBC only owns 10 out of the over 200 NBC affiliates nationwide, NBC would prefer each station to only show the movie in their area. This way, each station can get an exclusive and then sell programming to advertisers based upon the exclusive amount of eyeballs that should be drawn to my movie.

Everyone gets to make money off of this scheme.


geoffinak said:


> The government is supposed to serve the people. How do these laws serve us in any way that benefits the average consumer. 1999 is a long time in tech world . Freedom of choice, what is so hard to understand and what does it take away from anyone that makes it so detrimental that it is feared and illegal.


As I recall, the government does not wish to do much in the regulation of business.

So some of "the people" own stocks and run television stations. Not all of "the people" want something to benefit the average consumer.

After all, it is the "freedom of choice" for NBC to sign exclusive contracts with affiliates to keep you from watching the same programming from a separate, distant affiliate.


James Long said:


> IIRC the law was written in 1999. The law gave PERMISSION for satellite carriers to carry a local network station outside of their own market if the customer could not pick up any other stations of that network. There were a few other exceptions and the law has been adjusted since 1999.





geoffinak said:


> The law stinks and who are the laws written by, and who in there would you trust to make a law that was in the best interest of the consumer and not the Mega Business owners. Which most locals are owned by larger broadcasters corporations anyway.


And just because local channels are owned by larger corporations doesn't mean their needs are any less different than a single person owning a single network station, unless you are trying to be a socialist.

You also have to remember the laws that have been passed as it relates to satellite television. Without those laws, there would be no local nor network television on satellite. The original 1988 law allowed for distant network television because the networks were going to start scrambling their backhauls, and the government (specifically Congress) knew the value of "network television" to those in rural areas that could not pick up a reliable signal. It wasn't envisioned there would be a point where over 90 percent of the local networks would become available over satellite.

Every other law has been a revision to this core law. The last pass at the law, in 2004, recognized the fact that there are satellite companies that are providing local stations which include network programming. Because local network programming is available to a large majority of the nation, there was no longer a need for distant networks in areas which are served by a local network broadcaster.


SaltiDawg said:


> You cited one example where you disagree. The boundaries seem proper here in the Washington, DC, suburbs. I guess they are not silly at all?


Speak for yourself!

I live in Crofton, Maryland. I am in Anne Arundel County, which is in the Baltimore market, but I am the same distance away from both the DC and the Baltimore transmission towers. There are places in this county that are 40 miles from Baltimore and 20 miles from DC. The cable company here can offer the DC and Baltimore locals, but DirecTV has not done so yet. While Dish Network had the ability to retransmit distant networks, Dish Network had both the DC and Baltimore major networks here. So this is specifically a DirecTV problem.


oljim said:


> If the networks are so protective of local stations, how come I can go to CBS.com and watch the NCIS that will air tonight without any local adds?


I think CBS waits until after the airing of the show is over on the network before it is pushed through the internet from their site.

Like every other network, CBS has a contract with their affiliates which dictate the terms how programming is shown. The easiest example is that CBS owns their affiliate which has the largest reach, WCBS in New York. CBS doesn't want competition from another CBS station, so that CBS can charge the maximum amount per ad on WCBS. So if I am Gannett, which owns the DC CBS station, I would want that exact same protection which CBS gives itself. And I'd receive that protection, in the form of a contract. What I must give up is that I cannot resell the CBS programming to anyone else, so I cannot distribute CBS programming nationwide.

It is this contract which also gives the affiliates "first-run" rights. Therefore, CBS will not knowingly air the first-run of a show on the internet until it has finished its timeslot on the CBS Network. In other words, *CBS has affiliate contracts to make sure that each area has an assigned, exclusive area.*

So you cannot get ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX from another area. It is because the networks don't want you to see their programming from another area. *So why does everyone blame the government when more blame should be on the networks?*


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

Mikey said:


> Freedom of choice isn't guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. In a free market economy with unlimited resources, everything would be available to everyone, for a negociable price. The NAB and their members have used the considerable influence they've gained over the years to pressure Congress into some restrictive legislation. In return, Congressmen get access to local outlets for political campaigns (also lucrative for the stations), and have their faces on the local news periodically. Congress knows that if the whole country has free access to any market they choose, that eventually most of the local stations would collapse from lack of advertising, and the politicians' local platform would disappear.


I would love to address the revenue sharing that MLB needs but I can't let this go.
Our government, who is there to serve the people, is not supposed accept our displeasure because possibly it could effect their election. I can not have freedom of the airways because the politicians local platform would collapse. That's why we have to give up OUR rights. When has there ever been a meaningful, honest debate, political ads, talk no substance. It's all a joke and the 2% that control this country are laughing their guts out as they have us.

OH you forgot, the Bill of Rights, they do not work any more. George found a better way. It's called Patriotic Act 2. Which followed the Patriotic Act which everyone found so repulsive, that they promised a sunset date. Well that date came up and George was told to say it worked so good that we just might keep it a lot longer.
Nobody cared, nobody really put up a fuss and our congress and Senate sailed it right through with only 2 people voting no.

You deserve the kind of government we have right now and have been sinking too since the Kennedy's were hit. Eisenhower warned us. For the last 40 years, going deeper and deeper into the corporate void to where the politicians are just a joke. There is no political platforms, their elected by money. "President Bush because we need Honor in the White House." That tells me a lot about the candidate. Heck he cheated and had an ear piece to help with answers.

These guys need to get out and really talk but I am not going to rant on this, it's gone already. You have no Constitution and and that idiot running around out there, if told so by his owners. Could start a war, another one and use nukes without any reason. Patriotic Act 2 is the law of the land now. Think your going to get the Constitution back. Who will do that??? Their all bought off and most everyone fell asleep at the wheel in the Burger King drive through as it happened.

This is why there is no health care, that people work 2 jobs, kids are raised at day care, because both parents have to work, we rank 17th in the world in education K-12 and only 23% make it through a 4 year degree and 17% a 6 year degree. 
We do not teach advanced, math, science, and languages to our kids. Our old people try to get by on Medi Care and Social Security and chose between medicine and food or rent. What are we doing, where are we going. What have we accomplished in the last 7 years.

We no longer make anything, we assemble some of our military equipment here. The computer chips are made in China, Korea, Japan and a off switch could be installed and with a flip of a switch it all stops and we have no way to detect this.

We are number one in the world combining every country there is in one thing. They amount we spend on military expenditures. We spend more then the world combined. We know more ways to kill people then heal them.

We are a service industry, all the brains we import from other countries with higher standards of education. Our Universities are filled with foreign students.

Read some Thomas Jefferson, the guys who thought up this democracy a few centuries back, were smart guys and it held a lot of promise, now since saving the world from possible tyrants, we look to the sky and say what are we and who controls this country. It's not the government, it's supposed to be the people, but it's lost and nobody has the will to get it back.

I am lucky I live in Alaska, it's in the lower 48 that it will get real ugly when the leg comes off the economy, which has been fueled by homes being refied. The govt. is throwing billions into stopping the collaspe. And you worry the politicians will not have locals to give their interesting platform speeches on. It's all an act, there either in or their out.
Geoff


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Ok Geoff, take your meds, and chill a bit. I'd love for there to be a less restrictive way to access signals from distant DMAs. If you want to sponsor the "Freedom of Choice" amendment to the Constitution, great, I'll vote for it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Geoff ... you need to stay on the topic of DMAs ... general political rants are off topic in all forums at DBSTalk. Focus on the topic, please.

:backtotop


----------



## geoffinak (Mar 30, 2007)

James Long said:


> Geoff ... you need to stay on the topic of DMAs ... general political rants are off topic in all forums at DBSTalk. Focus on the topic, please.
> 
> :backtotop


Ok Jim, sorry but he hit on political lines, I just answered what he did not know.
But I get it.
Thanks
Geoff


----------



## robert koerner (Aug 20, 2005)

<So you cannot get ABC, NBC, CBS or FOX from another area. It is because the networks don't want you to see their programming from another area. So why does everyone blame the government when more blame should be on the networks?>

Because, the sat signals reach "local" and nationwide simultaneously.

At one time "local" transmissions (territories) were parceled out to insure non-interference. That was the environment when and where the FCC condoned restraint of trade (TV/radio signals).

For the time being, the FCC has chosen to protect local markets, instead of allowing viewers to be able to select their source for programming.

As it is now, some people have access to HD network programming, while others, without local HD, are forbidden to view the exact same HD network programming.

Local stations do not want us to be able to view identical programming from some where else because they want our eyeballs. The more eyeballs they get, the more money they get.

This highlights our part in TV broadcasting, simply a way for broadcasters to make money. Programming is only a method to attract you to the paying message, advertising.

Tha'ts our only purpose to local broadcasters, to provide them with eyeballs they can sell.

In addition to local broadcasters wanting to keep our eyeballs, there are locals who want to keep your eyeballs local also, like local advertisers, and local governments. Ever have to watch an Amber alert on a program you've recorded? Think the locals care that by the time you get stuck with the disruption, the alert is long over.

None of those entities care if we want to watch "programming" from outside of our "local" market. They just want to make sure we can't.

The ONLY way they can enforce their will is through the FCC.

Bob


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I’m I the Buffalo market and on the edge of the county where Buffalo is in, my county is not legally able to receive significantly viewed locals from cable or satellite, but I do get Rochester locals in HD via unencrypted QAM. I watched the Super Bowl in HD on WROC-DT from Rochester. My local CBS affiliate lost me as a viewer for the biggest TV event of the year. I do most of my shopping 60 miles away in the Rochester area, especially larger purchases, I don’t want my sales tax dollars going to support my county. I’d love to be able to get Rochester locals instead of Buffalo on my cable box instead of having to hook the cable line directly to the TV and losing DVR functionality.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

heisman said:


> I thought all the advertising money went into the same pot. I used to have D* and I received NY locals here in Chicago because they said all the advertising revenue went into the same pot anyway. Wouldn't this put a dent in your argument about the locals not existing if you watched the locals from outside your market?


Where did you get that idea?


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Geronimo said:


> Where did you get that idea?


It could be true for the stations owned and operated by the networks.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

robert koerner said:


> At one time "local" transmissions (territories) were parceled out to insure non-interference. That was the environment when and where the FCC condoned restraint of trade (TV/radio signals).


The FCC doesn't care about territories and content (beyond obscene/indecent). Their concern is whether or not the signals of stations will interfere with each other. They care about ownership when a multi-station owner owns enough stations to reach the market cap (a market defined by signal coverage). But as far as the FCC cares every station in the market could be an ABC affiliate ... or TBN ... as long as the ownership and broadcast rules are followed.



robert koerner said:


> For the time being, the FCC has chosen to protect local markets, instead of allowing viewers to be able to select their source for programming.


Your aim is off. Congress makes the law. And "for the time being" they have decided not to _interfere_ with the private contracts between networks and their affiliates (beyond SHVERA's interference) nor allow satellite providers to interfere with those private contracts.



robert koerner said:


> As it is now, some people have access to HD network programming, while others, without local HD, are forbidden to view the exact same HD network programming.


Forbidden? Put up a good enough antenna and you can pick up any signal that reaches your home. It is the free choice of stations to broadcast HD or not.

Perhaps you prefer a communist or socialist system where the government _takes_ property (in this case, broadcast rights) away from the owners? And forces stations to air certain content? That _is_ what you are suggesting.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

James Long said:


> Perhaps you prefer a communist or socialist system where the government _takes_ property (in this case, broadcast rights) away from the owners?


I was with you all the way up to this. Broadcast rights to the public airwaves are _granted_ by the people, through their government, in exchange for public service. The people own the broadcast rights, and they _license_ them to broadcasters.

Deciding how to use the finite electromagnetic spectrum requires societal cooperation. At some point, someone has to make decisions about the best way to use each part. If you read the pre-FCC history of radio, you might find that there are worse things than having an official spectrum traffic cop.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The FCC does fine with spectrum management. They make sure, with the help of guidelines set by Congress, that no one party has too much control over media in each area. The issue here isn't the assignment of broadcast spectrum ... it is the assumed "right" by people to the content that is carried on that broadcast spectrum.

For example: Do you have the "right" to view NBC programming? There is no law against it and I'm sure that the network and local affiliate would not mind if you watched, but is this one of those truths that we hold self evident that all men have the right to see NBC ... in HD. And if our local NBC affiliate annoys us with on screen graphics or pre-emptions for local content or if they (shudder) refuse to air content in HD? We have the "right" to watch some other feed that does fill our desires. Let the rights of the copyright holders and licensees be darned! That's not the way it is ... there is no constitutional or legal guarantee to receive NBC ... let alone NBC in HD. Or ABC, CBS, FOX, WB or MyTV for that matter.

The spectrum police are out there and doing their job ... just don't expect them to cross the line into infringing on the rights of copyright holders and licensees - any more than they already have done with SHVA et al.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

When ALL TV becomes Pay TV, you will be free to pay as much as the market will bear, for whatever you want to watch....subject to local and state legislative censorship, of course!

Hope you have enough money.


----------



## Donp (May 2, 2006)

I live in an area that Dish says I must have the Lexington Ky DMA. I am 45 miles from Lexington and in an area that the FCC says has a 20% overlap with the Louisville DMA. I am actually only 30 miles from the Louisville Metro limits. The local Insite cable shows both DMA's TV stations. We do all of our shopping and movies etc in Louisville too. I'm not interested in in anything that the Lexington TV stations have to offer. They are in DMA 63 While Louisville is in DMA 48. Also three of the four main Louisville TV Stations NBC, CBS and the Fox affiliates do their weather showing my county on their maps and consider it in their broadcast area. I solved my issue by going OTA and now have all the Louisville stations and their HD programming in my Dish guide.

I thou gt E* was getting back at me when my locals from the "other" DMA disappeared from my guide but they came back later with the last software upgrade.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

See ya
Tony


----------



## Donp (May 2, 2006)

TNG TONY I live in the indentation bordered by Spencer and Nelson Co's in the Louisville DMA and Anderson Co in the Lexington DMA. That the overlap area. Three of my neighbors work in Louisville and two others in Lexington and we all watch Louisville TV OTA. How old is that DMA map? Louisville is up to 48th from 50.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The maps are current (2006/2007 season) as far as I know. I also looked back at some of my old data. Going back to Sept 2002 this part has not changed. The only changed in the Louisville market in that time I see is the addition of Addair County from the Bowling Green market a year or two ago.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

Mikey said:


> It could be true for the stations owned and operated by the networks.


but not all stationsare O&Os. And even the O&Os operate as separate profit centers.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

If you are really so close to an adjacent market, I'd suspect there is a technological solution....maybe an antenna???


----------



## markheus (May 27, 2007)

Here's an example I think may illustrate why its important to place some restrictions on market access.

Let's say that everyone in a small town in Kansas decides they don't want the local Kansas stations, but inside want stations from... say... Los Angelos. Well, if they start carrying them then the local Kansas station is going to receive a fall off in subscribers (via satellite) and that will hurt to lower their revenue. With lower revenues the loca station can't afford to hire as many reporters, journalists, etc. So local news suffers because of the lost revenue.

So, freedom of choice ends up hurting a local station who responsiblity it is to keep local residents of informed of politics, weather, current trends, etc. 

I would argue that maintaining local networks is more important than you having a choice of which Tv channels to watch. If you want to know about other areas of the county, or the world, use the internet. You can get news from everywhere. And most TV websites have clips from their local news segments.

Of course, you'd have to get up from the couch and move to the desk...


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

markheus said:


> Here's an example I think may illustrate why its important to place some restrictions on market access.
> 
> Let's say that everyone in a small town in Kansas decides they don't want the local Kansas stations, but inside want stations from... say... Los Angelos. Well, if they start carrying them then the local Kansas station is going to receive a fall off in subscribers (via satellite) and that will hurt to lower their revenue. With lower revenues the loca station can't afford to hire as many reporters, journalists, etc. So local news suffers because of the lost revenue.
> 
> ...


The alternative is that the local station could do a better job of servicing their customers in an effort to win back and win over their viewers so that people wouldn't want to see programming from another source.

Letting the free market work isn't a bad thing. Protecting bad affiliates and local TV stations is.

TV stations are granted monopolies to serve specific areas, but they know that those areas may overlap with competitors that offer the exact same programming which just so happens to be offered to a neighboring area. (It's typically called Significantly Viewed, and works fairly well in cable areas and areas where customers like me rely primarily on over-the-air broadcasts).

If the stations from Baltimore offered better quality, better programming, Hi-Def instead of SD broadcasts, or something else that made them seem better than the affiliates from the D.C. area, then I'd have no reason to watch the D.C. stations at all. Unfortunately the broadcasts in Baltimore center around sports teams I don't care about, talk about news events in areas I don't visit, and discuss politics on a local scope rather than the national scope in more cases than not.

So, why should I not be able to get my programming from D.C. instead of Baltimore, MD? Or vice versa?

Or if I preferred to pay for programming from say Philly because I was thinking of trying to get a job in that area and making a ridiculously long commute every day, why shouldn't I be able to?

Or perhaps Richmond, VA is more appealing to me?

The locals get that protection now because they've basically bought their protection thanks to lobbying for very restrictive rules/laws/etc. I don't believe they should keep those protections though and the arguments presented in the quote above don't justify those protections at all. They assume a hypothetical that really isn't possible. The bandwidth and channel capacity is limited. If the original station can't make money, they'll sell to someone who can, and/or they'll change the programming and find something else that works because that is how TV competition works.


----------



## markheus (May 27, 2007)

I agree with you to a certain extent. Especially in areas that overlap, and I know there are a lot of them, but in a lot of areas in the midwest that's not the case.

There are some aggravations, for instance, folks in western Nebraska have to get their locals out of Kearney, Hastings, and Grand Island, even though geopraphically they're closer to Denver. That's ridiculous, and they should be allowed that choice.

But then again, there's no way that an affiliate in Kearney is going to compete with an affiliate in Denver. Once again, there's going to be a loss of audience, leading to lower advertising revenue. That's going to result in a loss of quality for people that still get their programming OTA and don't have the option to choose different programming.

I think the two factors need to be balanced. I don't believe you can make blanket policy that affects the entire country



> They assume a hypothetical that really isn't possible. The bandwidth and channel capacity is limited. If the original station can't make money, they'll sell to someone who can, and/or they'll change the programming and find something else that works because that is how TV competition works.


I don't think its a hypothetical that they can't compete I think its very likely that they couldn't, and as mentioned before, a lot of people who still get their locals OTA are going to lose.

Of course, this is a rational discussion we're having. In Washington its all about money, as you said.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

bdowell said:


> The locals get that protection now because they've basically bought their protection thanks to lobbying for very restrictive rules/laws/etc. I don't believe they should keep those protections though and the arguments presented in the quote above don't justify those protections at all. They assume a hypothetical that really isn't possible. The bandwidth and channel capacity is limited. If the original station can't make money, they'll sell to someone who can, and/or they'll change the programming and find something else that works because that is how TV competition works.


But once again, we go back to a separate theory...

CBS decides on the stations with which they wish to partner. It is how they build their network. CBS owns their own station in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas and Boston. And CBS owns quite a few other affilates. However, with just the seven I mentioned, CBS reaches just under one quarter of the nation's households.

Therefore, it is in CBS' interest that they place their affiliates where they receive the most eyeballs. In areas where they don't own stations, they will afford that protection by only affiliating with one station in the area, just like CBS has done in market number 8, Washington DC, the Gannett-owned WUSA.

Instead, people want the government to stop CBS from determining their distribution and create some handout law just to give people some welfare program to be able to get TV from anywhere.

Why does it matter from where you get your networks? Ask the networks. They are the ones that do not clear copyrights to their affiliates for national distribution. Which means they are more guilty than the "protectionist law", as it is in the power of the networks to stop the practice.

So don't look to the government to destroy what the free market has created.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

markheus said:


> But then again, there's no way that an affiliate in Kearney is going to compete with an affiliate in Denver.


Why not? The Kearney station can spend more news time on regional events, maybe tape-delay some high school or small college sports, provide regional weather alerts, and maybe even lean on a "Nebraska First" theme. How is Denver going to overpower that? With the same syndicated and network programming that Kearney offers?

IMHO, the problem is when the Kearney station just gives up, maybe when some bean-counter gets the notion that local coverage isn't cost-effective. Then the Kearney station just leverages its advantage as the only way certain viewers can see a particular network. It sells the ads, keeps the money (or sends it to some corporate HQ), and relies on exclusivity to maintain its ratings. :nono:


----------



## mdgolf (Apr 14, 2006)

I always find threads on this topic amusing. For some reason everyone thinks DMA boundaries are about protecting programming. Broadcast Licenses are granted in the public interest by the FCC for the purposes of Blah Blah Blah. All that public affairs crap you see on Sunday's? That's only there to fulfill the license obligation. If a local station wasn't required to produce and run it, they wouldn't. It's wasted ad revenue opportunity. Local News broadcasts also fit the requirement and interestingly enough are also the biggest asset a local station has. Local news generates the lions share of their ad revenue. The local ad avails in a network show are minimal and generally on the fringes with just a 4-5 :30 second positions available an hour, and even less in events like the Super Bowl, Grammy's, etc.

The DMA boundary is about protecting local advertising territory. *Nothing more.* All Television - Broadcast, Cable, etc exists ONLY for the purpose of generating revenue from advertising. Programming exists solely to have your eyeballs and ears available to receive the advertising message.

If you don't know why you are classified in a certain DMA, you can order an OTA signal map from Nielsen and look at the "Grade B" signal lines. That's the basis for the most part. Another factor is county demographic makeup so that Nielsen diaries have the representation that Nielsen and the local markets want for demographic selling to advertisers.

All discussions about why you should be able to buy this programming or that programming, except in the cases that already exist like MLB or ST are a waste of your time until those supplying the programming figure out a way to quantify you as an audience member, sell your demographic information to an advertiser, and generate revenue.

DBS has no means to target by local insertion...yet. Cable gets away with some of their DMA rule breaking because of interconnects. They can insert (or serve) an advertisement to target down to a specific neighborhood...and they are devising ways to target at an even more granular level.


----------



## mdgolf (Apr 14, 2006)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> What kills me is that I'm considered the Salinas/Monterey DMA... Salinas/Monterey are 45 minutes from my house. San Jose is 25 minutes from my house... But I don't get the San Jose channels, I get Salinas...


You might be 25 miles from SJ going right over Loma Prieta peak.  Unfortunately an OTA TV signal from SJ can't see you, which is how the DMA is determined. But, if you're in Watsonville....aren't you 20 or so miles from Salinas? I'm not sure why you'd make the drive over 17 to San Jose to buy things unless your daily business took you to SJ.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> Cable gets away with some of their DMA rule breaking because of interconnects. They can insert (or serve) an advertisement to target down to a specific neighborhood...and they are devising ways to target at an even more granular level.


Cable operates under a separate and unequal set of rules that are not DMA based. Cable is not required to carry all locals (a percentage of their system channel count is set aside for locals). With satellite if they carry one local in a market, they must offer carriage to all (although stations can withhold their signals). Cable carries what is local based on being received in the community OTA (regardless of DMA). Until 2004 Satellite was prohibited from carrying even Grade B OTA signals if they from outside of the market. (And since Congress wrote "Significantly Viewed" into the "Distants" portion of the law instead of the "Locals" part of the law, the prohibition on E* carrying distants also applies to these close local channels.)

Satellite law needs to be revamped to be EQUAL to cable.


----------



## mdgolf (Apr 14, 2006)

I agree that different rules for different carriage operators isn't right. I guess the balance of power in Washington is:

1. NAB
2. CAB
3. DBS


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> This is the one that irks me the most... I understand why we're limited to our "local" channels, and while I'd love to get distants, I'm not eligible, and that's OK with me... What kills me is that I'm considered the Salinas/Monterey DMA... Salinas/Monterey are 45 minutes from my house. San Jose is 25 minutes from my house... But I don't get the San Jose channels, I get Salinas...
> 
> The boundaries they've set up are just silly in many cases... I know they had to draw a line somewhere, and if they move the line 10 miles then someone 10 miles away from me is going to complain that they're closer to the SF/SJ DMA than the Salinas one... But cable can provide from both DMAs when you're right there on the borderline of 2, so I don't understand why Sat can't as well...


The lines go by county, period, with about three exceptions driven mostly by mountains and blocked signals. The most obvious example is Palm Springs, CA.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

SaltiDawg said:


> You cited *one* example where *you* disagree. The boundaries seem proper here in the Washington, DC, suburbs. I guess they are not silly at all?


Except when you consider that in AA and Howard Counties (also Carroll and Frederick) cable carries Baltimore AND DC locals...but with D* and E* it's one or the other (baltimore for all but Frederick which is Washington DMA)

I think that's what most of the complaints are about.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Mine is even worse. My listed town is 100% non-served by the #1 DMA. Aside from *maybe* sports teams (and since most of those went to RSN's, it's becoming less relevant), there is ZERO coverage devoted to my county. It's bad enough that the major Cable player in the area does their OWN area news on their OWN channel, citing this.

My town, as well as probably just about all of my county, should be in the lone CT DMA. It's not even a question to me. We're the lone county in the state that is not in it, and it creates a weird disjointed coverage zone.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

While DMA's might work for Nielsen and their television viewing surveys, whoever thought they were a good way to determine what "locals" satellite tv was allowed to deliver to an area was an IDIOT! The obvious answer should've been just let satellite tv use the same guidlines that cable does. Why someone seemed to think satellite and cable needed two different sets of rules for the delivery of local channels has always baffled me. The fact that someone thought using the Nielsen DMA's for the template for satellite locals was a good idea baffles me even further! I mean come on, do you ever here anyone with cable complain that the local channels that they get aren't right for their area?


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> While DMA's might work for Nielsen and their television viewing surveys, whoever thought they were a good way to determine what "locals" satellite tv was allowed to deliver to an area was an IDIOT! The obvious answer should've been just let satellite tv use the same guidlines that cable does.


Let's say that is obvious...

December, 1999, and there are no OTA broadcasts up except for the four major networks from NY and LA, and the superstations (only on Dish Network).

What channels would be available to the Washington, DC, market? Until the DBS companies decide to serve any of the market with DC local channels, none.

So what you are describing is the ability for the DBS companies to cherry-pick which local channels are given to subscribers. And that is not what was wanted. Therefore, the easiest method was a per-market basis.

To make the law reflect cable's ability, DBS would have had to place 1,500 local channels on their system immediately, as one of cable's rules is that local channels MUST be available to their subscribers.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Let's say that is obvious...
> 
> December, 1999, and there are no OTA broadcasts up except for the four major networks from NY and LA, and the superstations (only on Dish Network).
> 
> ...


Still the wrong answer was to use Nielsen DMA's as the way to define these markets or at least not the way they do it. There shouldn't be situations where you live closer to one city and everyone w/ cable and antennas get stations from that city but because you live on the wrong side of a line that makes up a DMA boundary you get network programming from another city farther away, possibly from another state. There shouldn't be situations where you live half-way between two cities and all your neighbors w/ cable and antennas get locals from both but you only get them from one because Nielsen says you're only in one DMA. If cable is allowed to offer you a local channel cable should be allowed to also no matter if you're in the "wrong" DMA. I like my simple idea that says if you're within 60 miles of a broadcast tower your television provider should be allowed to give you access to that channel. If you happen to live outside the 60 mile boundary you're allowed to get network programming from anywhere your television provider is willing to sell it to you from.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

tsmacro said:


> If cable is allowed to offer you a local channel [satellite] should be allowed to also no matter if you're in the "wrong" DMA.


Not that I disagree with you here, as I'd love to have the DC locals my cable counterparts have in this area.


tsmacro said:


> I like my simple idea that says if you're within 60 miles of a broadcast tower your television provider should be allowed to give you access to that channel.


Not that I disagree with this, either. But now let's take the issue of Columbus, Georgia. Not available on satellite. Will the law also change to force Columbus, Georgia locals onto satellite?


tsmacro said:


> If you happen to live outside the 60 mile boundary you're allowed to get network programming from anywhere your television provider is willing to sell it to you from.


Not that I disagree with this, either, but I don't understand why that should be up to the television provider. It should be up to the network.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Greg Bimson said:


> To make the law reflect cable's ability, DBS would have had to place 1,500 local channels on their system immediately, as one of cable's rules is that local channels MUST be available to their subscribers.


Cable's rules do not require all channels in the market or even all channels that can be (or are) regularly viewed OTA in the community. Cable rules require locals based on the number of channels on the system. Most systems are large enough that the number of required channels exceeds the number of qualified channels.

There are many ways an OTA station can be qualified for carriage. It would only be fair now to extend the rules to make those qualifications EQUAL for cable and satellite.

You are right, of course, that _requiring_ all locals on satellite would be too great of a burden ... especially in 1999. But some compromise should be able to be worked out to deliver any uplinked local channel to any customer who would be qualified to receive it if served by cable.

The FCC has been pressuring both satellite companies to finish covering the entire US - although both companies seem to have given up on new SD markets.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Not that I disagree with you here, as I'd love to have the DC locals my cable counterparts have in this area.Not that I disagree with this, either. But now let's take the issue of Columbus, Georgia. Not available on satellite. Will the law also change to force Columbus, Georgia locals onto satellite?


However, cable does NOT offer HD Locals out of DC in your area...only SD, if I remember right.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Why not just say that if cable gives you the stations then DBS CAN do so, if hardware and such would allow it? It can't be that difficult, for example, to let a resident of Anne Arundel County Maryland get DC in addition to Baltimore - the spot beam for DC reaches them just fine and no additional equipment is needed.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But now let's take the issue of Columbus, Georgia. Not available on satellite. Will the law also change to force Columbus, Georgia locals onto satellite?Not that I disagree with this, either, but I don't understand why that should be up to the television provider. It should be up to the network.


To be honest I don't know about the Columbus, GA situation to comment.
The reason why I said television provider rather than the network is because it's the television provider that we the consumers deal with. Now the network would be involved via its deals with the television provider. So essentially we consumers would be allowed to get what the network and television provider agree to in their deal w/ each other.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

akron05 said:


> Why not just say that if cable gives you the stations then DBS CAN do so, if hardware and such would allow it? It can't be that difficult, for example, to let a resident of Anne Arundel County Maryland get DC in addition to Baltimore - the spot beam for DC reaches them just fine and no additional equipment is needed.


That's what i'm saying also. I'm not even saying that there should be anything that forces the satellite companies to carry these channels that are officially out of the DMA but rather allow them to do so if they so choose. And try to keep it simple (yeah right I know  ) don't make it so there's a whole bunch of " ands, ors, ifs, in certain situations, jump through this hoop, etc". Lets use a little common sense, we all know what tv stations make sense for us to receive based on where we live, allow the satellite companies to offer these channels even if they're officially outside the DMA you live in.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

akron05 said:


> Why not just say that if cable gives you the stations then DBS CAN do so, if hardware and such would allow it? It can't be that difficult, for example, to let a resident of Anne Arundel County Maryland get DC in addition to Baltimore - the spot beam for DC reaches them just fine and no additional equipment is needed.





tsmacro said:


> That's what i'm saying also. I'm not even saying that there should be anything that forces the satellite companies to carry these channels that are officially out of the DMA but rather allow them to do so if they so choose. And try to keep it simple (yeah right I know ) don't make it so there's a whole bunch of " ands, ors, ifs, in certain situations, jump through this hoop, etc".


But you've now hit on the problem. The current rules are rather, for lack of a better term, simple.

Take Columbus, Georgia. Not available on either DirecTV or Dish. So, unless the laws are updated to force the Columbus locals, and every other market onto satellite, areas like Columbus will get shafted by the fact that the satellite providers can overlook them.

Now to create rules, they become not so simple.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But you've now hit on the problem. The current rules are rather, for lack of a better term, simple.
> 
> Take Columbus, Georgia. Not available on either DirecTV or Dish. So, unless the laws are updated to force the Columbus locals, and every other market onto satellite, areas like Columbus will get shafted by the fact that the satellite providers can overlook them.
> 
> Now to create rules, they become not so simple.


Not at all. If your own DMA is available, you get it. If cable companies in your town/city/county carry an adjacent market, and the DBS provider also has it on a spotbeam that reaches you, you can get them as well.

If your own locals aren't carried, well then they aren't carried and you cannot get adjacent markets even if cable does - the rule could say that only if your own DMA is carried, can you get significantly viewed stations.

How is that different from now? If the adjacent market isn't carried then you obviously can't get it either.

I don't see why that forces D* and E* to carry Columbus, GA.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> But you've now hit on the problem. The current rules are rather, for lack of a better term, simple.
> 
> Take Columbus, Georgia. Not available on either DirecTV or Dish. So, unless the laws are updated to force the Columbus locals, and every other market onto satellite, areas like Columbus will get shafted by the fact that the satellite providers can overlook them.
> 
> Now to create rules, they become not so simple.


Well i'd think that if neither Dish nor Directv decide not to carry Columbus GA locals then the penalty they pay is having fewer subscribers in that area. After all if I lived there and I knew I couldn't get my locals by satellite i'd subscribe to cable or use and antenna, or maybe subscribe to Dish and use and antenna for my locals. But if Dish and/or Directv decides that adding those local channels are going to cost them more money to uplink than what they could get back through additional subscribers than why should they be forced to carry them? After all there's other ways to receive those channels (aforementioned antennas and cable) so it's not like if the satellite companies don't carry them they won't be availble at all. In my opinion it's to satellite's advantage to add as many local channels as possible, it would just mean more subscribers for them. Anyway I think at the very least should be allowed offered the same channels that any cable company can in any given area.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

akron05 said:


> Not at all. If your own DMA is available, you get it. If cable companies in your town/city/county carry an adjacent market, and the DBS provider also has it on a spotbeam that reaches you, you can get them as well.
> 
> If your own locals aren't carried, well then they aren't carried and you cannot get adjacent markets even if cable does - the rule could say that only if your own DMA is carried, can you get significantly viewed stations.
> 
> How is that different from now? If the adjacent market isn't carried then you obviously can't get it either.


And actually, this isn't too different from now. The difference is that DirecTV must negotiate for the right to carry a local channel outside of its local market but within its signficantly-viewed area.

Case in point: My county. Anne Arundel County is within the Baltimore market, yet Comcast, Millenium and FiOS all carry the major DC local channels as well as the Baltimore ones. As a matter of fact, Dish Network was carrying the major DC locals here until the injunction from the distant network lawsuit stopped the practice. This means DirecTV could more than likely add the significantly-viewed channels, but has elected not to do so.

I don't know why. It would make sense to me if those channels were carried here, but DirecTV has decided not to do this.


tsmacro said:


> Well i'd think that if neither Dish nor Directv decide not to carry Columbus GA locals then the penalty they pay is having fewer subscribers in that area. After all if I lived there and I knew I couldn't get my locals by satellite i'd subscribe to cable or use and antenna, or maybe subscribe to Dish and use and antenna for my locals. But if Dish and/or Directv decides that adding those local channels are going to cost them more money to uplink than what they could get back through additional subscribers than why should they be forced to carry them?


But that is one of my points. You are stating that the DBS providers should be forced to give you the same stations that are on your cable system. What if the DBS provider does not carry a set of stations from the market? Now it isn't so clear. If the DBS company does not offer the significantly-viewed stations, should they also be allowed to serve a given "market" with in-market channels?

In my Baltimore example, if Dish Network didn't serve Washington, DC, should not only everyone in the DC market lose access to the DC networks, but anyone else within the 60 mile radius lose access to all channels if the DBS provider doesn't offer ALL local channels?

That's my point. It is being done by market because it is an easy way to identify which people get certain channels. And...


tsmacro said:


> Anyway I think at the very least should be allowed offered the same channels that any cable company can in any given area.


And like I stated earlier, it appears that DirecTV has been given that ability, but has elected not to use it. There are areas in the Hartford DMA that receive the NY locals as significantly-viewed. Dish Network had offered people in my county the major DC locals as signifcantly-viewed until the distant network injunction stopped the practice.

I think we should dig deeper as to why significantly-viewed hasn't been more widespread on DirecTV. We know Dish Network lost the ability because of the injunction.

After all, I'd love to pickup a few extra channels from the DC market, and every other provider has done it in this area before.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And actually, this isn't too different from now. The difference is that DirecTV must negotiate for the right to carry a local channel outside of its local market but within its signficantly-viewed area.
> 
> Case in point: My county. Anne Arundel County is within the Baltimore market, yet Comcast, Millenium and FiOS all carry the major DC local channels as well as the Baltimore ones. As a matter of fact, Dish Network was carrying the major DC locals here until the injunction from the distant network lawsuit stopped the practice. This means DirecTV could more than likely add the significantly-viewed channels, but has elected not to do so.
> 
> ...


I guess I just don't see why it's so damned hard, that's all.


----------

