# FCC Proposed Rules from SHVERA



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

Here it is, hot off the presses all 460 pages. Enjoy the read.

Adobe Acrobat: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-24A1.pdf
Word: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-24A1.doc

_Added: Here is the press release from the FCC:
Adobe Acrobat: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256592A1.pdf
Word: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256592A1.doc
- *Holtz*_


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

is this list that sat companyes are supposed to use if they offer sig viewed?


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

rocatman said:


> Here it is, hot off the presses all 460 pages. Enjoy the read.
> 
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-24A1.pdf


I started reading but it's very long and full of the usual legal bable. Hope some of you can give us a better understanding of it soon.

One thing I did see (I think) is something to the effect that they want satellite carriers to go ahead and start using the list.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

NOTE: skip to page 38 for the start of the signficantly viewed stations by county.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

I find it interesting that they include stations already in the market for many of the counties. My county shows four stations, but I already receive all four of those stations in the locals package. They could have saved a lot of space in the report by saying "no significantly viewed stations in this county". 

My mother, who is on the border with Memphis and Greenwood-Greenville, MS, could receive the following:

CBS3, NBC5, and FOX13 from Memphis
ABC6 from Greenwood (once available on sat)

She would be tickled pink to receive the Memphis stations.


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

arent they supposed to mirror cable sig viewed?


----------



## mwgiii (Jul 19, 2002)

I think I will wait for the Cliff Notes.:lol:


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

not necessarily...I think the rules are a little different.

I noticed that our new FOX station in Vicksburg/Jackson, MS is not listed on any county list in MS. The ABC affiliate in Tupelo-Columbus (online in 2001) is not listed either. This list is probably NOT complete.

I suspect that as public feedback arrives, this list will be modified. They used a 1972 list and then added new stations coming on line since then. Many of the stations in 1972 are broadcasting at higher power or have taller towers today (which means greater coverage).

IMHO, this was a "thrown together" list to meet the deadline. They probably allow for feedback. If cable carries an SV station in your county not on the list, send the FCC feedback.


----------



## YOUNGTOO (Feb 4, 2005)

a little confused , so are they going to go by county? because where I live in JEFFERSON COUNTY ,THEIR IS 2 CABLE CO. ONE CARRIES ST.LOUIS PLUS MY LOCALS (PADUCAH,KY.) AND THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT! AND THE CUT OFF FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS ABOUT A MILE. I REALLY HOPE ITS BY COUNTY?? THANKS FOR ANY INFO !


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I note the WHME 46 (LeSea South Bend) is NOT significantly viewed in its own county, but has been added to the SigView list in Elkhart, Fulton and Noble Counties. Only two of the South Bend stations make it into neighboring LaPorte county (NBC and CBS) while the FOX and independent with similar coverage contours didn't make the cut.

BTW: Make sure you check the end of the state list. Some cities get more than their counties.

Well, at least we have some more FACTS to deal with. 

JL


----------



## toomuchtv (May 17, 2002)

No FOX affiliate for my county but do show one for a neighboring county. Very frustrating!


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

this is not accurate not at all i know of cumberland counties in nj that have both ny and phili stations . ocean countys as well and southern monmouth county . so this list is not only flawed but dam wrong . by the way doea anybody have the list for sig viewed that cable uses


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

It is important to remember that if a station is reasonably new and in your DMA, there is no reason to list it as a significantly viewed station in your county. It may not qualify as significantly viewed outside your DMA and therefore not be listed at all.

Also, this list was started in 1972(which predates DMA classification) and is THE list.


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

none of my stations are new except for upn 57


----------



## chaddux (Oct 10, 2004)

Five stations for my county. Two of them I would like to have.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

This is DEFINATELY not accurate - our NBC station is not listed - even in the county where its transmitter tower is !


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

and i bet the people who made this list make more monay then we do


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Of course, there is the possibillity the cable company has a waiver because its headend serves more than one county. There are many reasons that the list might not look correct.

*Remember, a tv station does not have to have significantly viewed status if it is in your DMA and already provided by your provider.*


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

You can file comments at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ (read the instructions). Be sure to refer to MB Docket No. 05-49. Also, once posted, the comments will be available for public viewing.

There is also a Express Filing system, but since this was released today, it's not on the list yet.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

scooper said:


> This is DEFINATELY not accurate - our NBC station is not listed - even in the county where its transmitter tower is !


How are the ratings for that station?

As JohnH noted, this is THE LIST. Please, before you fill the FCC comments box with pleas for "corrections" read the rules on how the list is made and how the corrections are to be made. Most likely the stations "missing" don't have trouble getting on cable in the counties they are missing from and it is a non-harmful oversight.

Also as JohnH noted, a station does not have to be on "the list" to be carried in its own DMA. So if that is your "correction" please avoid comment.

What the FCC really needs is opinions on what THEY have written - for example where options are given or you believe their interpretation of the law isn't right. Remember they do have their own lawyers for interpretation and the big players will keep the FCC to the law.

And if you feel driven to speak out, remember that the deadline for comments is two months away. Relax ... take a breath ... and get all your comments in one well written *public* letter. Help the FCC.

JL


----------



## beasst37799 (Mar 8, 2004)

JohnH said:


> *Remember, a tv station does not have to have significantly viewed status if it is in your DMA and already provided by your provider.*


well it might be true if the only staions listed in the report is all the stations in my dma already :nono2:


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

It shows 2 stations that we have not gotten in years... they were bought out...


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

Links have gone dead! Somebody save that file!!!


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I've got the Word version of the file. 

In persusing over it - note this remark in the document

"34. We note that the SHVERA requires that local stations must be carried on a single dish. Does this requirement with respect to local stations apply to out-of-market significantly viewed signals? If so, does the statute necessarily require that out of market significantly viewed signals be carried such that the subscriber would receive them on the same 
antenna and equipment as the local signals? We seek comment on these questions."

And some more parpagraphs - 

"superstations and network stations. Thus, it appears that a satellite carrier must be offering local-into-local service and a subscriber must be receiving this service as a pre-condition to offering an out-of-market significantly viewed station’s signal to that subscriber (subject to the exception described below). We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.
39. Because the statute specifically applies to the receipt of local service “pursuant to Section 338,” we believe that subscribers would not qualify for satellite retransmission of out-of-market significantly viewed signals if they are obtaining local stations via an over-the-air TV antenna, including one that is integrated with a satellite dish. It is not clear what the result would be if a subscriber is receiving local-into-local service but the local affiliate of the network with which the significantly viewed station is affiliated is not carried by the satellite carrier. Such situation could arise if the local station failed to request carriage, refused to grant retransmission consent, or otherwise did not qualify for carriage pursuant to Section 338. We tentatively conclude that a subscriber receiving local-into-local service in a market is eligible for out-of-market significantly viewed stations even if the local stations retransmitted by the satellite carrier exclude an affiliate of the network with which a significantly viewed station is affiliated. We do not think that a subscriber should be deprived of access to a significantly viewed station because the local station refused to grant retransmission consent or is otherwise ineligible for local carriage, but we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
40. Although Section 340 does not specifically restrict application of this subscriber eligibility requirement to markets in which satellite carriers are offering “local-into-local” service to subscribers, Section 119(a)(3)(B) of title 17 limits application of the statutory copyright license to the retransmission of significantly viewed stations to subscribers who receive local service pursuant to Section 122 of title 17. Therefore, we believe that the SHVERA, as a whole, contemplates that subscribers in a market in which “local-into-local” service is not being offered are not eligible for significantly viewed stations retransmitted by such carriers, except in the situations described in Section III.B.4., infra, in which there is no affiliate of a given network in the market. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions. "


In general - no real surprises in this document.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

I think most people will be surprised by the list. For example, Hartford stations are listed as significantly viewed in the Berkshire, but Springfield is between us and Hartford and the Springfield stations (on all cable systems in the county) are not listed. Back when we had antennas on the house, we could pull in the Springfield stations. I also noticed the list includes Canadian and Mexican stations. This gives DBS the ability to transmit these within the country with just normal copyright payments?


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

MikeW said:


> Links have gone dead! Somebody save that file!!!


FCC website documents and E-Filing systems will be unavailable from 8:00 PM (EST) on Monday February 7 until 6:00 AM (EST) on Tuesday February 8 due to scheduled maintenance.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

justalurker said:


> As JohnH noted, this is THE LIST. Please, before you fill the FCC comments box with pleas for "corrections" read the rules on how the list is made and how the corrections are to be made. Most likely the stations "missing" don't have trouble getting on cable in the counties they are missing from and it is a non-harmful oversight.


My market (Albany, GA, DMA #147) has SIX stations (sorta!) in it. They are a NBC affiliate (WALB), a FOX affiliate (WFXL), two PBS channels that are repeaters of channel #8 out of Atlanta, a UPN affiliate (WVAG) that is licensed to Valdosta which is in the Tallahassee, FL DMA, but has it's studio in and tower within the Albany, GA DMA and a independent station (WSST). Currently, DirecTV has yet to offer my local channels, but Dish does and offers WALB, WFXL and ONE of the PBS channels. Currently, SOME of the subscribers can get the ABC affiliate (WSB) out of Atlanta, and very few if any have access to the CBS affiliate out of Atlanta.

When looking up my county (Terrell) in this list, it lists WALB, WFXL and TWO "Significantly Viewed" channels which consist of the CBS affiliate (WRBL) and the ABC affiliate (WTVM) out of the Columbus, GA DMA (#125). But it does not list the other TWO "Significantly Viewed" stations that cable offers in the parts of Terrell County that have cable. They are a CBS affiliate (WCTV) from the Tallahassee, FL DMA, AND the ABC affiliate (WSB) from the Atlanta, GA DMA.

~Alan


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 2, 2004)

Since the document server is down for 'scheduled maintence' is there any chance someone will mirror it for those of us who missed it?


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

...or perhaps some kind soul would post The List for Connecticut, before I die of curiosity?


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Maphisto's Sidekick said:


> ...or perhaps some kind soul would post The List for Connecticut, before I die of curiosity?


 Welcome to Dbs talk..  County?


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

dfergie said:


> Welcome to Dbs talk..  County?


I'm most curious about Hartford, New Haven, and Fairfield.

Thanks, and thanks.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Darkwing Duck said:


> Since the document server is down for 'scheduled maintence' is there any chance someone will mirror it for those of us who missed it?


 Don't know how to do that.. give me your state and county...(the list is tedious to scroll thru)


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Fairfield

wcbs 2 ny
wnbc 4 ny
wnyw 5 ny
wabc 7 ny
wwor 9 ny
wpix 11 ny
wtnh 8 new haven
+wtxx 20, waterbury
Hartford
wfsb 3 hartford
wtnh 8 waterbury
wvit 30 new britain
+wctx 59 new haven
+wtic hartford
new haven
wfsb 3 hartford
wtnh 8 new haven
wtxx 20 waterbury
wtic 61 hartford 
plus all the above ny stations... the + means ? cannot find ...


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 2, 2004)

Ohio Butler Thanks you kind kind sir  Also I'm curious what Hamilton County has as well.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Darkwing Duck said:


> Ohio Butler Thanks you kind kind sir  Also I'm curious what Hamilton County has as well.


 coming...


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

Thank you.

Interestingly, for Hartford County, they're apparently unaware that in a sizeable portion of the county, Springfield Mass stations are carried on cable.

Still, there should be some interesting discussions on new "moving" strategies in coming months.


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Butler
wlwt 5 cinn
wcpu9 cinn
wkrc 12 cinn
wxix 19 cinn
+wstr 64 cinn
wdtn 2 dayton
whiv 7 day
+wkef 22 day
+wrgt 45 dayton
Hamilton
5,9,12, 19, 64 , 45 from above...


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Np  yup some of this like my area is history...


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

dfergie said:


> Fairfield
> 
> wcbs 2 ny
> wnbc 4 ny
> ...


+ means added since the original 1972 list.


----------



## Darkwing Duck (Sep 2, 2004)

dfergie said:


> Butler
> wlwt 5 cinn
> wcpu9 cinn
> wkrc 12 cinn
> ...


Exactly like cable, except no Dayton PBS stations, oh well! Thanks for posting that for me


----------



## dfergie (Feb 28, 2003)

Np...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mark Holtz said:


> FCC website documents and E-Filing systems will be unavailable from 8:00 PM (EST) on Monday February 7 until 6:00 AM (EST) on Tuesday February 8 due to scheduled maintenance.


For those who can't wait until morning ...

http://tk.com/shvera/

Broken down into four downloads so you can read the text separate from the cities list.

JL
Thanks to the unnamed for the bandwidth!


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

There are several stations missing from what should be listed as significantly viewed in some of the Illinois counties. Cable carries more than this list has.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I think they need to do a bit of re-evaluating of what counties should get what stations. Its weird how in some particular counties they would only show only one of two or so stations that come out of the same city for some of the counties. Thats very messed up. Come on get it straight. There are going to be some people wondering why they are getting one station and not the other one especially when they come out of the same city. I dont know about the other DMA's but the one I am in shows two or so cities that the station is at. I am guessing that they are not basing it on that but where the tower is actually at. 

I live closer to a city where another DMA is at in which only has one network there than the city where my own DMA is yet that channel is not on the list which I think is WRONG. I had people ask me about that particular channel in the neighboring county as well as here and I had to tell them that the law says that they are not allowed to receive that channel. That neighboring county that is in the other DMA in which that channel comes out of has all of our channels listed as significantly viewed. So basically they can see our channels but we cant see theirs. How stupid is that? 

I guess this is the best that they could do for now until they have some modification made. They need to see what the cable companies offer their customers to get a good idea of what should be viewed. Why should my neighbor that has cable be able to get channels from my neighboring DMA but I can't on satellite even after something that would propose to view stations from the neighboring market?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

In accordance with the SHVERA, we have compiled a list of stations that have been granted significantly viewed status pursuant to the Commission's cable television rules. This list ("SV List"), attached as Appendix B, is a list of significantly viewed stations and the communities containing such stations combining the Commission's original 1972 list of significantly viewed stations granted on a county-wide basis with stations added on a county or community-wide basis over the intervening years. When the Commission initiated the cable carriage rules in 1972, the goal was to be broadly inclusive in order to provide a wide range of programming choices for cable viewers by designating significantly viewed stations on a county-wide basis. The Commission provided that, after this initial period, stations can be added to the list on the basis of community surveys that focus on the area in which the station is significantly viewed. In addition, stations beginning operation after the initial survey period can use the county-wide methodology comparable to that used by Arbitron for the initial survey in lieu of a community-based survey.

Based on the short time frame mandated by the SHVERA for publication of the SV List, as well as the legislative history, we believe that Congress intends for satellite carriers to make use of the SV List to expand their carriage offerings so that their subscribers can begin to experience the benefits of the SHVERA as soon as possible. *We are confident that the SV List appended to this Notice has a high degree of accuracy and, therefore, believe that both cable and satellite carriers may rely on its validity to commence service, consistent with the other requirements set out in the SHVERA and this proceeding, prior to the adoption of a final list.* Nevertheless, in light of the length and age of the SV List, we are asking all interested parties to review the SV List to confirm its accuracy. . . . Parties may file comments in response to this Notice describing the nature and basis of any error, including changes in call sign or community. Such comments must include documentary evidence supporting the requested correction.​
Amazingly enough, THE LIST was drawn based on the channels that are significantly viewed. Sometimes that can skip over a town or a county. Some stations are more appealing to urban or rural areas and may not reach significance in a continuous path. (There are non-contiguous DMAs as well, so this should be nothing new.)

THE LIST will change (it isn't THE FINAL LIST, whatever final means in a changing world). For now the FCC has confidence in what they provided. It is the starting point.

JL


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

Something tells me that they will lose a lot of confidence once the feedback starts pouring in.

Mississippi full power commercial stations totally missing from the list:

WUFX FOX35 Vicksburg/Jackson
WKDH ABC45 Houston/Tupelo/Columbus
WMDN CBS24 Meridian
WGBC NBC30 Meridian
WNTZ FOX48 Natchez


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

gor88 said:


> Something tells me that they will lose a lot of confidence once the feedback starts pouring in.
> 
> Mississippi full power commercial stations totally missing from the list:
> 
> ...


I wonder about that.

I downloaded the file this morning, once the FCC server came back up, and checked out my old stomping grounds, Coffee County, Alabama.



The List said:


> Coffee
> WTVY, 4, Dothan, AL
> +WDFX-TV, 34, Ozark, AL (formerly WDAU)
> WSFA, 12, Montgomery, AL


That completely misses WDHN, the ABC affiliate out of Dothan. Coffee County is part of the Dothan DMA.

I wondered if WDHN had just been completely left off the list...but I checked and it does show up in Houston County.

Since The List is supposed to be based on actual ratings...I can't help but wonder: were the missing stations accidentally left off The List...or are their ratings just that poor?

I'm planning to send in comments asking that stations carried locally via cable, available OTA within the Class B band, or from neighboring markets if there is no station of that network within the market (e.g., if no WB station in-market, it should be OK to import it from the next market over; consider also the lack of Spanish-language stations in The List) be deemed acceptable for "significantly viewed" standards.


----------



## ddobson (Nov 25, 2003)

Well, the cable companies win again.

In both Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana the Cable Companies offer most of the South Bend Indiana stations. According to this Document, they will not be available on satellite.

Or do the cable companies have to pull them now?

That would be interesting after people are used to having them for 20 years.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

gor88 said:


> Something tells me that they will lose a lot of confidence once the feedback starts pouring in.
> 
> Mississippi full power commercial stations totally missing from the list:
> 
> ...


Why would any of these stations be listed as significanly viewed in any other market?


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

ddobson said:


> Well, the cable companies win again.
> 
> In both Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana the Cable Companies offer most of the South Bend Indiana stations. According to this Document, they will not be available on satellite.
> 
> ...


Are Lake and Porter Counties in the South Bend DMA? If so the answer is here.

One has to ask how did they get those stations, since this is the list they are supposed to be working from?


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

This SUX!

Monmouth County, NJ = All New York stations + NO Philly stations (my cable company has all except the CBS affiliate)

Ocean County, NJ = All New York stations + ONLY the ABC Affiliate from Philly. (The local Comcast has ALL of the New York and Philly Channels)

Once again, Congress issues press releases telling us how wonderful their legislation and then it turns out to be worthless (Or even worse..... with the now useless availability of sig. viewed channels which DON'T match cables', we get distants taken away and HD stalled for at least another 3 years for those of us >40 miles away from the city.


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Hey, NOW we know why the NAB was SO happy with this legislation......

The NAB weasels win again. I wonder how big the check was to our elected leaders to sell us down the river like this.


----------



## jagec82 (Jul 26, 2004)

Some background info, followed by some questions/comments/observations.

*DMA #5 (Boston/Manchester, NH) Existing DirecTV Lineup*
WGBH-2 (PBS) Boston, MA
WBZ-4 (CBS) Boston, MA
WCVB-5 (ABC) Boston, MA
WHDH-7 (NBC) Boston, MA
WMUR-9 (ABC) Manchester, NH
WENH-11 (PBS) Durham, NH
WFXT-25 (FOX) Boston, MA
WUNI-27 (UNI) Worcester, MA
WSBK-38 (UPN) Boston, MA
WGBX-44 (PBS) Boston, MA
WWDP-46 (SNBC) Norwell, MA
WNDS-50 (Ind) Derry, NH
WLVI-56 (WB) Cambridge, MA
WNEU-60 (TEL) Merrimack, NH
WUTF-66 (TFA) Marlborough, MA
WBPX-68 (PAX) Boston, MA

*FCC Mandated Lineup/Norfolk, MA County*
WBZ-4 (CBS) Boston, MA
WCVB-5 (ABC) Boston, MA
WHDH-7 (NBC) Boston, MA
WSBK-38 (UPN) Boston, MA
WLVI-56 (WB) Cambridge, MA
+WBPX-68 (PAX) Boston, MA

So I guess for those stations I currently have (not including PBS), I lose? Instead of gaining any channels, I lose the New Hampshire ones I receive? Also, cable companies throughout my county carry all the New Bedford, MA/Providence, RI DMA stations. Why are they allowed to carry them, but satellite systems not?

As someone stated, this needs to be reviewed far more in-depth.


----------



## swing (Aug 13, 2004)

jagec82 said:


> Some background info, followed by some questions/comments/observations.
> 
> *DMA #5 (Boston/Manchester, NH) Existing DirecTV Lineup*
> WGBH-2 (PBS) Boston, MA
> ...


You shouldn't lose any channels. The significantly viewed list is only optional (for the satellite companies) and additive.


----------



## swing (Aug 13, 2004)

BobMurdoch said:


> This SUX!
> 
> Monmouth County, NJ = All New York stations + NO Philly stations (my cable company has all except the CBS affiliate)
> 
> ...


Northern Monmouth County doesn't get Philly stations on cable or over the air easily. I guess their viewing habits explain Monmouth.

As for Ocean County, it is odd only WPVI 6 made the significantly viewed list. I do remember in the late 90s, that KYW and WCAU were repositioned on their respective broadcast channel numbers on cable, which probably led to higher viewership but later.

North Western NJ counties (Warren, Hunterdon) in NY DMA, and Mercer Co. in Philadelphia DMA get a better lineup of Philly and NY signals over the Jersey Shore counties, but oddly enough Warren County and Hunterdon Co. cable systems dropped most Philly stations. The satellite lineup would be better for them.

WMGM 40 (NBC)-Atlantic City didn't make significantly viewed in its home county or any county. This list seems to be quite old. CH.48 listed for Philadelphia was the old WKBS, from the 70's. It went off the air for 10 plus years, and resigned as a small budget station WGTW 48, now a TBN station. When it came back in the 90s, it had a smaller audience, peanuts in rating share.

It is also odd that rural Schuylkill, Carbon and Monroe counties in PA aren't significantly viewed for their home town Scranton DMA channels (except for WNEP-ABC in Carbon), but instead the main Philadelphia channels (3, 6, 10), yet those counties are in Scranton DMA.

As one poster said, it looks FCC pulled a list from 1972, with a few inserted updates.

One difference is that cable companies have to carry the nearest of a broadcast network over a duplicating station, if the nearer station requests and provides a quality signal. In Ocean County, it has meant that Comcast cannot drop Philadelphia stations off the lineups, since the Philadelphia city of license is closer or atleast equal to that of NYC.

Ocean and Southern Monmouth is a large number of HHs, more than some of the small markets that DirecTV and Dish Network are doing now. It's too bad neither provider can be market responsive to them, by being able to activate both sets of locals, to match the cable companies there.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

JohnH said:


> Why would any of these stations be listed as significanly viewed in any other market?


Good question. Actually, the way this list reads, the significantly viewed stations INCLUDE those within the market. For example, Rankin (and Hinds) County reads as follows:

WLBT-TV 3 Jackson, MS
WJTV-TV 12 Jackson, MS
WAPT-TV 16 Jackson, MS
+WDBD-TV 40 Jackson, MS

All these stations are in the Jackson market which Rankin definitely belongs to. I figured that if this list only included out-of-market SV stations, the Hinds and Rankin lists should say "no significantly viewed stations in this county".

Given this pattern, why doesn't Lauderdale county (Meridian) NOT show its own NBC and CBS affiliates? Why doesn't the ABC in Tupelo/Columbus show in Chickasaw county, where the tower and city of license reside?

My point here is that, the way the list appears to be assembled, the stations I mentioned earlier should be significantly viewed in their own market. They would receive at least 3% of the total viewing in their markets. The stations may not be signficantly viewed outside of their market. However, having them omitted completely indicates a problem with the overall list IMHO.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Two oddities:

First, there is one significantly viewed station (the hartford Fox station) that is not carried on any cable in the county (as far as I know). Second, those of us who receive all the stations in our DMA from another state were hoping that we would be able to get in-state stations carried by cable and available to those with roof-top antennas, but that did not happen.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

Submitted my comments dealing with the screwups they did for Butts County, GA.
The direct link to file comments to 05-49 (SHIVA) is: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts?ws_mode=proc_name&proc_id=05-49


----------



## jfraz (Sep 4, 2003)

Most of us agree that the list is woefully inadequate. I do not think the satellite providers will accept this as is. Many, Many stations do not even exist according to this list.


----------



## teknophyle (Oct 12, 2004)

rocatman said:


> Here it is, hot off the presses all 460 pages. Enjoy the read.
> 
> Adobe Acrobat: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-24A1.pdf
> Word: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-24A1.doc
> ...


I have spoken with DirecTv and they know nothing about this and will NOT be making changes to anyone's account TFN! This could take another year from them to act on the customers behalf.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

I agree. Patience is needed. We should take time and evaluate the list of stations. If a station is totally missing, we should politely submit feedback to the FCC indicating this. If any cable company in the county (or other listed area) carries an OTA channel out of market not on this list, we should submit feedback and politely ask why there is a discrepancy.

Since those of us who are satellite junkies are the most interested about this issue, the lions share of consumer input on this issue will probably be from us. Maybe our feedback can help them improve the list before it is finalized.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

As to speaking with DirecTV, they are probably still trying to get their arms around distant network delivery and following the law in the SHVERA act. They're not going to be concerned about SV yet. Also, they are not required to do anything at all.

having said that, I think that the satellite companies will come on board. They are not as willing to add StanDef channels as of late. Allowing for SV channels is one way to attract more people on the edge of DMAs to go with satellite.


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

However, in the document and I quote:

"Based on the short time frame mandated by the SHVERA for publication of the SV List, as well as the legislative history, we believe that Congress intends for satellite carriers to make use of the SV List to expand their carriage offerings so that their subscribers can begin to experience the benefits of the SHVERA as soon as possible. We are confident that the SV List appended to this Notice has a high degree of accuracy and, therefore, believe that both cable and satellite carriers may rely on its validity to commence service, consistent with the other requirements set out in the SHVERA and this proceeding, prior to the adoption of a final list. "


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Scroll up this thread and make your opinions known through the FCC website to help get this corrected before they go too much farther.........


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

gor88 said:


> Good question. Actually, the way this list reads, the significantly viewed stations INCLUDE those within the market. For example, Rankin (and Hinds) County reads as follows:
> 
> WLBT-TV 3 Jackson, MS
> WJTV-TV 12 Jackson, MS
> ...


From the look of the stations listed, they may predate DMA type market listings. Remember this list was started in 1972 and some of the old channels may appear when there is no current need for them to appear, because they are in the DMA as your local channels now. They do not need the Significantly Viewed status. You already get them if they elected to be carried.


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

What are these lists based on? I know that some of the Illinois and Indiana stations watch more significantly viewed than what is listed and cable carries more than this. 

For example in Knox County, IN, they should get Evansville channels 7, 9, 14, 25, and 44, not just 7. While Vincennes is closer to Evansville, they are in the Terre Haute DMA (which I have never understood why Terre Haute would get higher Nielsen ratings than Evansville stations would in that county keeping Knox County out of Evansville's DMA).


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

Link said:


> What are these lists based on? I know that some of the Illinois and Indiana stations watch more significantly viewed than what is listed and cable carries more than this.
> 
> For example in Knox County, IN, they should get Evansville channels 7, 9, 14, 25, and 44, not just 7. While Vincennes is closer to Evansville, they are in the Terre Haute DMA (which I have never understood why Terre Haute would get higher Nielsen ratings than Evansville stations would in that county keeping Knox County out of Evansville's DMA).


Significantly viewed status is only acheived by OTA reception figures.

The Terre Haute thing may be because of WTWO(NBC) and WTHI(CBS) being there for long time.


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

swing said:


> You shouldn't lose any channels. The significantly viewed list is only optional (for the satellite companies) and additive.


In other words, D* and E* are generally allowed to offer:

All full-power broadcast stations from your market

PLUS

All stations from the significantly viewed list

PLUS

Any other station for which D*/E* can get a waiver from the in-market station that would provide competition

One strangeness I found in the list: In California, El Dorado County East (South Lake Tahoe) has no SV stations, but the comment "Over 90% cable penetration" appears in its place. That factoid doesn't surprise me, but what does the "90% cable penetration" mark have to do with the new SV rules?

One challenge to the list's accuracy: The FCC apparently forgot about the creation of Broomfield County, CO


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

SV status is achieved only by using OTA ratings.
The 90% cable penetration comment probably says there are no measurable OTA ratings in that area since they are less than 10% of the total.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

JohnH said:


> From the look of the stations listed, they may predate DMA type market listings. Remember this list was started in 1972 and some of the old channels may appear when there is no current need for them to appear, because they are in the DMA as your local channels now. They do not need the Significantly Viewed status. You already get them if they elected to be carried.


Agreed. I just figure that the FCC should be consistent.

I did notice that WABG ABC6 and WXVT CBS15 in the small Greenwood-Greenville market do appear as SV in a few counties outside of their market. Given this, there is a small possibility that maybe a county or two might qualify for one or more of the missing stations. The best example is Yazoo County, just about 20 miles north of the missing Vicksburg FOX. I would guarantee you that WUFX qualifies to be added to their list according to the established standards. Dish Network considers the county in Jackson market, but DirecTV counts it in Greenwood-Greenville. Once DirecTV releases their locals, Yazoo county DirecTV locals subscribers wouldn't get the SV FOX station unless it is added to the list.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

JohnH said:


> Are Lake and Porter Counties in the South Bend DMA? If so the answer is here.
> One has to ask how did they get those stations, since this is the list they are supposed to be working from?


Lake and Porter are in the Chicago IL DMA. LaPorte is also in the Chicago DMA, but two of South Bend's stations are on THE LIST in LaPorte county.

Indianapolis and Lafayette stations and subscribers should enjoy this.
THE LIST opens up WLFI to four more Indiana counties than their DMA.
WTTV is on THE LIST for many counties. It's not perfect and isn't final, but it is a big step in the right direction!

JL


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

Wicomico County MD -

WMAR
WBAL
WJZ-TV
WTTG

At least I'll be getting FOX/NBC locally instead of having to watch NY...now if Directv would only offer my locals..


----------



## DaveP (Dec 8, 2003)

wkomorow said:


> I also noticed the list includes Canadian and Mexican stations. This gives DBS the ability to transmit these within the country with just normal copyright payments?


I sure hope so... the thing I miss most about dropping cable was not getting CBC from Canada anymore. Most of the cable companies in southeast Michigan carry CBC, but neither Dish nor DirecTV carry it.

Of course there's really only two things I watch on CBC - the olympics (they actually show the sports and not the sob stories), and hockey... and we all know how much hockey I'm missing this year... :nono2:


----------



## sbturner (Jul 24, 2002)

So when is Dish going to offering the new stations out of market and will they be able to get those on the dish you have now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sbturner said:


> So when is Dish going to offering the new stations out of market and will they be able to get those on the dish you have now?


Eventually and maybe.

The way the NPRM was worded, the FCC is "confident" about their list and seems to expect the satellite providers to begin their efforts to offer the extra channels to customers. Anyone taking that leap would have to trust that the FCC rules in the NPRM would be close enough to the final rules that the satellite providers don't have to back off on any plans.

Satellite providers are required to give 60 day notice to ALL stations in the market where each SigViewed station will be offered (not just the station of the same network in the FCC's interpretation). That puts the very first possible SigViewed offering 60 days away from whenever a satellite provider notifies the affected stations. That pretty much puts this into mid April *AT THE EARLIEST*.

Will you need a new dish? Probably not ... E* will probably not offer stations AS SigViewed unless they are on Dish500. Especially with the initial rollouts.

JL


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Offering additional channels would just cost the satellite companies more money particularly in the smaller markets since they would have to pay more to get you your locals so I do not see the satellite companies rushing to get these channels to you unless your in a market that does not get all your network channels so they can charge you the full rate. This would also take up space from getting additional markets added.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jacob S said:


> Offering additional channels would just cost the satellite companies more money particularly in the smaller markets since they would have to pay more to get you your locals so I do not see the satellite companies rushing to get these channels to you unless your in a market that does not get all your network channels so they can charge you the full rate. This would also take up space from getting additional markets added.


Most channels that will be offered as SigViewed are already up serving their own markets. It isn't a question of taking up more space ... just turning them on to more customers.

The only places I see it requiring adding channels is in markets that are not yet uplinked at all. For example, Lafayette Indiana. They are a market with one TV station that up to this point would be a hard sell. With SHVERA allowing the Indianapolis and Terre Haute stations as SigViewed it is a saleable market. Not bad to be able to uplink one more channel and get $5+ per customer in the market for the trouble.

But the first SigViewed will be existing channels opened to more viewers. No extra bandwidth required. 

JL


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

I was looking at the Indiana counties html page on the website. All the counties in the Terre Haute DMA should have WTTV 4 and WRTV 6 listed. WRTV is their primary source for ABC in those counties because no other ABC station is available. A few of the southern counties might have WEHT 25 from Evansville listed.

Also, with a good outside antenna, WISH 8, WTHR 13, and WXIN 59 can be received from most of the counties in the Terre Haute DMA so I don't know why those aren't listed.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Link said:


> Also, with a good outside antenna, WISH 8, WTHR 13, and WXIN 59 can be received from most of the counties in the Terre Haute DMA so I don't know why those aren't listed.


IIRC there is a threshold (3%?) of population that must watch the channel OTA (not via satellite or cable) to qualify it as Significantly Viewed. Yes, a good antenna can get it. But do at least 3% of the TV viewers in your county watch those channels?

This is where data is needed. Nelson information showing that at least 3% of a county or smaller community within a county watch a particular channel. Present that data to the FCC and get the channel added to the list!

(Obviously that places the burden on the stations who have access to the data on a community by community level.)

JL


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

In the comments I've sent to the FCC, I suggested that the definition of "significantly viewed" that they're using creates competitive issues, both in terms of cable vs DBS, as well as in terms of specialty (Spanish, noncommercial, or newer/minor network) stations versus more established major network stations.

On cable vs. satellite: there are examples out there where even with SigViewed, local cable companies will offer extra/different broadcast stations than DBS will be allowed to deliver. Examples:


Comcast delivers WBZ and WSBK in Northhampton, MA
Cox carries WGBY, WDMR, WWLP, and WGGB in Windsor Locks, CT
Charter in South Lake Tahoe, CA carries Reno nets and KGO out of SFO, even though it's technically in the Sacremento market, and "significantly viewed" is undefined there.
The fun of Lee Vining, CA is left as an exercise for the reader.

I've suggested that when evaluating whether a station is "significantly viewed" for a potential subscriber, that the rule be:


The station is in-market to the consumer; or
The station achieves a minimum viewing level within the consumer's community (i.e., the current definition of sv); or
The consumer is within the station's Class B contour; or
The station is the geographically closest network affiliate for its network to the consumer if there is no network affiliate within that market; or
The station is already available to a consumer if they were to subscribe to a competing cable or DBS system.

That's still more restrictive than what I'd like to have (unrestricted distant nets), but I think it's saner/fairer than what's been proposed.

If I can get a station OTA with an antenna, D*/E* should be allowed to deliver it to me. If I can get it on my local cable system, D*/E* should be allowed to deliver it to me. If I can get it on D* or E*, my local cable system should be allowed to deliver it to me. And if there isn't a local WB station, Cable, D*, or E* should be free to let me subscribe to an out-of-market affiliate.

Feel free to plagiarize those ideas when commenting to the FCC.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

Maphisto's Sidekick said:


> In the comments I've sent to the FCC, I suggested that the definition of "significantly viewed" ...


Those are all great ideas, but the statute restricts the FCC to its 1976 definitions/methodology, so they couldn't implement them if they wanted to.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

> We seek comment here only about whether the SV List accurately reflects such existing significantly viewed determinations, and not about whether the SV List should be modified because of a change in a station's circumstances subsequent to its placement on the SV List.


What they are looking for are stations that HAVE been deemed significantly viewed and are missing or have been removed from SV status but still appear on the list. More of a proofreading - see if the list reflects existing determinations.


> This provision permits a satellite carrier or station to petition the Commission to include a particular station and related community on the significantly viewed list. Section 119(a)(3) of the copyright provisions in title 17 requires that the Commission use the same rules in considering such petitions that were in effect as of April 15, 1976.


Note it is the carrier and stations that are empowered to petition, not consumers. And we are stuck with the 29 year old definition until Congress changes the law.

JL


----------



## Maphisto's Sidekick (Feb 8, 2005)

justalurker said:


> What they are looking for are stations that HAVE been deemed significantly viewed and are missing or have been removed from SV status but still appear on the list. More of a proofreading - see if the list reflects existing determinations.


I know. But a guy can dream, right?


----------



## larrystotler (Jun 6, 2004)

My County - Frederick /Winchester City, VA:

WRC 4 NBC DC
WTTG 5 FOX
WJLA 7 ABC
WUSA 9 CBS

20 Miles SW in Warren Co, VA:

WRC 4 NBC DC
WTTG 5 FOX
WJLA 7 ABC
WUSA 9 CBS
WMAR 2 ABC Baltimore, MD
WBAL 11 NBC
WJZ 13 CBS
WHSV 3 ABC Harrisonburg, VA

No Mention of:

WTMW 14 Spanish DC
WDCA 20 UPN 
WETA 26 PBS
WHUT 32 PBS
WBDC 50 WB
WUTB 24 UPN Baltimore, MD
WBFF 45 FOX 
WNUV 54 WB
WHAG 25 NBC Hagerstown, MD
WWPB 31 PBS/MPT
WVPT 51 PBS Stanton/Front Royal
WWPX 60 PAX Martinsburg, WV
WPXW 66 PAX Manassas, VA
WJAL 68 IND Chambersburg, PA

Adelphia Carries: 3.4.5.7.20.9.25.11.51.13.2.26.68.50.60
on channel 3.4.5.7.8. 9.10.11.12.13.24.26.27.28.31

There's a few more as well......................


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Maphisto's Sidekick said:


> I know. But a guy can dream, right?


Those dreams would have been better off sent to congress last year than the FCC for this NPRM. As long as the law says to use the Apr 15, 1976 definitions the FCC has its hands tied.
The Commission's rules provide that an out-of-market network affiliate should be considered to be significantly viewed if it obtains at least a three percent share of viewing hours in television homes in the community and has a net weekly circulation share of at least 25 percent. For independent stations, the test is a share of at least two percent viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of at least five percent.​The stations that are missing from the Sig Viewed list probably didn't bother getting on the list as long as cable systems carried them. The ramifications of NOT being on that list will be felt.

Another thing of note:
(g) Signals of significantly viewed television broadcast stations may not be retransmitted by satellite carriers to subscribers who do not subscribe to local-into-local service pursuant to section 76.66; except that a satellite carrier may retransmit a significantly viewed signal of a television broadcast station to a subscriber located in a local market in which(1) there is no station affiliated with the same television network as the station whose signal is significantly viewed; or
(2) the station affiliated with the same television network as the station whose signal is significantly viewed does not request carriage or does not grant retransmission consent pursuant to section 76.66.​This is a wierd addition. If you don't subscribe to your own locals you CAN get a neighboring market's network station? I believe the law said you must have LILs to get *any* significantly viewed stations. To make this exception only for networks that are not in market or where the local affiliate refused to be carried seems odd.

It it were mine to rewrite, I'd remove the exception.

JL


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Someone get me John McCain on the Horn Right Now. This List Can't Be Right. My County is missing Atleast 2 channels and a possible 3rd significantly viewed local channel. As it is right now My Local Channels will remain the same as they are currently with absolutely no change or expansion. I am not going to stand for that!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Msguy said:


> Someone get me John McCain on the Horn Right Now. This List Can't Be Right. My County is missing At least 2 channels and a possible 3rd significantly viewed local channel. As it is right now My Local Channels will remain the same as they are currently with absolutely no change or expansion. I am not going to stand for that!!!


As far as "right now", I believe 1:58am is inappropriate despite your anger over your situation.

Stations can get on the list by following the existing regulations. It isn't hard, just produce the survey information and wait for the FCC to add them.

JL


----------



## Link (Feb 2, 2004)

Msguy said:


> Someone get me John McCain on the Horn Right Now. This List Can't Be Right. My County is missing Atleast 2 channels and a possible 3rd significantly viewed local channel. As it is right now My Local Channels will remain the same as they are currently with absolutely no change or expansion. I am not going to stand for that!!!


I think this list has a lot of errors. My county wasn't right either.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

Msguy said:


> Someone get me John McCain on the Horn Right Now. This List Can't Be Right. My County is missing Atleast 2 channels and a possible 3rd significantly viewed local channel. As it is right now My Local Channels will remain the same as they are currently with absolutely no change or expansion. I am not going to stand for that!!!


Msguy,

Send an email to [email protected] . Wendell Robinson, the chief station engineer, is very responsive to the viewers and could get the ball rolling for WTVA to petition for the addition of Alcorn County. Good luck and I hope they get it added for you.


----------



## lifterguy (Dec 22, 2003)

If you don't subscribe to your own locals you CAN get a neighboring market's network station? I believe the law said you must have LILs to get *any* significantly viewed stations. To make this exception only for networks that are not in market or where the local affiliate refused to be carried seems odd.

It it were mine to rewrite, I'd remove the exception.

JL[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is anything "weird" about this exception. If you have a strong "over-the-air" signal for ABC and CBS in your market, but there is no NBC or Fox affiliate, why should you have to buy the satellite package for the two stations you can already receive in order to get the NBC and Fox station from a neighboring market that might not come in well OTA? I doubt D* or E* will offer this option, but I think it makes sense for the FCC to allow it.

I just have to wonder whether D* and E* are ready to meet one of the technical demands this rule requires. The rule says that when importing a significantly viewed station into another market, the provider must protect the local station by blacking out any duplicate programing, if requested by the local affiliate. Many cable systems already do this. But it will require some pretty complicated computer programming for the satellite providers to switch feeds on and off depending on the time of day to make sure that viewers see all their network programming on their local affiliate stations instead the significantly viewed stations imported from a neighboring market.


----------



## JohnH (Apr 22, 2002)

The stations seeking protection will likely have to specify day and time for the blackouts. Blackouts of this type are already in use on the RSNs. If blackouts are requested, D* and E* may refuse to offer the station because of the cost of entering the info into the system. E* already does not offer some Superstations in markets which are requesting blackouts.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

Gor88 I emailed that Engineer at Channel 9 about wanting WTVA Channel 9 in Tupelo added to the list of Significantly viewed channels. All I can do now is wait for a response. Will he be able to get Channel 9 on Alcorn Counties list of Significantly Viewed Channels? or will the FCC have to determine this?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

wkomorow said:


> I think most people will be surprised by the list. For example, Hartford stations are listed as significantly viewed in the Berkshire, but Springfield is between us and Hartford and the Springfield stations (on all cable systems in the county) are not listed. Back when we had antennas on the house, we could pull in the Springfield stations. I also noticed the list includes Canadian and Mexican stations. This gives DBS the ability to transmit these within the country with just normal copyright payments?


I grew up in Pittsfield. We never got any signal from the UHF stations in Springfield. (22,40) We watched the Albany stations and did not get 13 and 17 very well. That was a major reason why people switched to cable---better reception and news from our own state.

In fact I have never heard of anyone getting Springfield OTA in Berkshire County. Of couse I dont recall ever picking up Hartford either. Both would have to be via cable.

I even checked several addresses in Pittsfield, Lee, Lenox and the town of Berkshire at antennaweb and they dont list Springfield stations.


----------



## joblo (Dec 11, 2003)

lifterguy said:


> The rule says that when importing a significantly viewed station into another market, the provider must protect the local station by blacking out any duplicate programing, if requested by the local affiliate.


No, no, no, no... Only stations marked with a "#" are subject to syndex/non-dup, and only in the specific communities identified in the footnotes. This is covered in the 38 pages of technobabble preceding the list. I realize it's a pain to wade through that stuff, but some folks here might just save themselves a coronary if they took the time to read what the FCC has taken the time to write. (And JL... dude, get some sleep! I dunno, but Msguy's comment about John McCain looked a tad facetious to me, y'know?)

OTOH, something not in the technobabble that some folks here might be too young to remember....



larrystotler said:


> My County - Frederick /Winchester City, VA:
> 
> WRC 4 NBC DC
> WTTG 5 FOX
> ...


Back in the prehistoric days of 1972 when this list was created, before the internet and civilization as we know it, TVs used to have these things called "dials", and you had to get up off the sofa and twist these "dials" in order to change the channel. There was one dial for channels 2-13, aka VHF, and another dial for channels 14-83 [sic], aka UHF. Indeed, there were even a few people still using older TVs from the even darker prehistoric past, with only one dial and no ability to receive UHF channels 14-83 at all. But even for those that had UHF dials, it was necessary to insure that the VHF dial was set to "U", in between 2 and 13, to make the UHF dial operational. The complicated nature of this was simply too much for many people to handle, and thus UHF channels 14-83 were rarely able to achieve the SV status that came easily to VHF channels.

(Yes, I know, there were technical and content issues affecting UHFs as well... see previous re facetiousness...)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Link said:


> I think this list has a lot of errors. My county wasn't right either.


The only errors the FCC is interested in is if there are specific stations that have been ruled by the FCC as Significantly Viewed over the years that happen to be missing. They are NOT looking for stations that simply have not made the cut. Chances are, the list IS right. A collection of all stations that have bothered to achieve the status.

It looks like the FCC might be busy with list additions in the future.  Being on a SigViewed list for cable (where the station still has to deliver a usable signal to the headend) is less valuable than being on a SigViewed list for satellite (where the headend is there for the LIL use and getting expanded coverage will be a bonus).

I was interested to see a couple stations on the list in counties where cable no longer carries them. This list suffers from age. It is accurate, but it also needs updating. 

JL


----------



## kc1ih (May 22, 2004)

The list seems to have gaps one could put a BUD through. In effect it says that the Fox station from Boston is not significantly viewed in southern New Hampshire. Like nobody here watched the Super Bowl. What B.S..


----------



## wkomorow (Apr 22, 2002)

Geronimo said:


> I grew up in Pittsfield. We never got any signal from the UHF stations in Springfield. (22,40) We watched the Albany stations and did not get 13 and 17 very well. That was a major reason why people switched to cable---better reception and news from our own state.
> 
> In fact I have never heard of anyone getting Springfield OTA in Berkshire County. Of couse I dont recall ever picking up Hartford either. Both would have to be via cable.
> 
> I even checked several addresses in Pittsfield, Lee, Lenox and the town of Berkshire at antennaweb and they dont list Springfield stations.


Try 12 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201 - you will see Springfield and Hartford stations. Actually Springfield is closer than Schenetady (channels 13 and 17). If you try the southern berkshire towns, like Otis and Sandisfield, you will get several more Springfield and CT stations. What is interesting is that I remember picking up the PBS in Springfield, but according to antennweb that was not possible. When I originally requested a waiver for CBS, WSFB (CT) held it up though WGRB approved it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

wkomorow said:


> Try 12 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201 - you will see Springfield and Hartford stations. Actually Springfield is closer than Schenetady (channels 13 and 17). If you try the southern berkshire towns, like Otis and Sandisfield, you will get several more Springfield and CT stations. What is interesting is that I remember picking up the PBS in Springfield, but according to antennweb that was not possible. When I originally requested a waiver for CBS, WSFB (CT) held it up though WGRB approved it.


There is no question that Springfield is closer (although not by much) but UHF signals dont travel as well and there are mountains in the way. That Schenectady station was probably the best signal we received altough Channel 10 in Albany and 19 in Adams North Adams were a close second.

I agree with that North Street (I remember when that was downtown Pittsfield) address you get MA and CT stations as purple. But I stand by the comment that they are not watched OTA there---at least not by very many people. Addresses just a few blocks away do not list them. Not that I should be amazed at that.

Some of South County might be different but it is only lightly populated. I really think those stations are available to the average Berkshire resident by cable only. But if Hartford is on the list somebody in the county must be watching----I sure never could.

Heck Sandisfield has 824 people. And when you consider that it is one of the largest (by land area) towns in MA you see that it is pretty darned rural. Otis has what---maybe 1400 people. Heck if they were all watching Springfield or Hartford stations it still would not be significant. lol

But I tried the Sandisfield Zip and insterestingly it showed only the NY state stations and the Berkshire based repeaters. So I really don't undertand how those Hartforsd stations appeared. But I hope you enjoy watching them.


----------



## Marcus S (Apr 23, 2002)

This is the frustration, these links do not work. Access to detail about SHVERA seems to move every other day.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

justalurker said:


> It it were mine to rewrite, I'd remove the exception.
> 
> JL


If it were mine to rewrite, I'd write it like this:

1) If a station is in the position to be able to block reception of distant network signals, that station is significantly viewed and can be sold to that subscriber without the consent of the TV station.

2) Any station that is considered to be providing a grade B signal intesity signal to a subscriber is significantly viewed and can be sold to the subscriber.

Ta da! Two lines.

IOW, if you can pick it up with an antenna or if it is predicted you SHOULD be able to get it with an antenna, you can get the station under retransmission consent between the station and the satellite company.
If there is no way in hell you could get it with an antenna and there is no predicted reception in the area, but the TV station absolutely insists you can to the point of denying you some one else's service, then that station can be sold to you whether the station in question wants to be sold or not with no compensation.

See how simple it can be? 400+ pages reduced to two lines!

Basically the opposite of the distant network qualifications now but applies to all TV stations.

See ya
Tony


----------



## RaceTrack (Jun 11, 2004)

Well atleast they got my area correct. I on the edge of the Fort Smith,ARK/Tulsa,OK, DMA. (Just barely in Fort Smith,ARK DMA on the oklahoma side..) But the SV channels are most of the Tulsa,ok market which is correct here. UPN and WB are not on the list, But they are pretty new, So I didnt expect that at all. I hope Dish offer the SV channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> If it were mine to rewrite, I'd write it like this:
> 
> 1) If a station is in the position to be able to block reception of distant network signals, that station is significantly viewed and can be sold to that subscriber without the consent of the TV station.
> 
> 2) Any station that is considered to be providing a grade B signal intesity signal to a subscriber is significantly viewed and can be sold to the subscriber.


And of course:

3) All LP and CA stations shall be carried upon station request unless their content duplicates an existing signal provided to all subscribers in the station's market.

(Again, a complete reversal of the true rules where it is 100% up to the satellite carrier if a LP signal is carried.)

If (in our perfect world) #2 goes in to effect I would add "If a satellite carrier provides any local station to a subscriber that subscriber must receive ALL local analog or digital only station that has Grade B coverage to the subscriber's community."

JL
Back to reality in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## tonyp56 (Apr 26, 2004)

The way I feel about all of this, if I can pull the channel in with an antenna, then I should be able to get it via satellite, cable, jack in the box, etc... I think I am almost to the point of buying an OTA antenna and buying myself a OTA HDTV STB (because I am starting to not like the 811), plug it into my open componet and cancel Dish Networks locals. Use only the DTV stations so I have crystal clear picture and be done with it.


----------



## timpurdy (Mar 4, 2005)

I now receive local NY channels on 380-388 as well as the west coast channels. I also receive the same local NY channels on 880-901. 

Living in NY, if I choose to keep non-locals on 380-388, will the NY locals be disconnected on channels 880-901 too.

Thanks and appreciation for any help.

TimP
New York


----------

