# Ticked about having NO network stations in HD!



## marty45714 (Dec 16, 2006)

Hey new Dish Network Internet Response Team:

I am seriously ticked about losing my HD Distant Network channels compounded by the fact that my local channels are STILL not offered in HD, compounded again by the fact that my friend on DirecTV just told me that he now has HD local channels in my market!

So, can you try to answer the following for me:

1) When can I get DNS in HD again?

2) When will my local channels (Clarksburg / Fairmont / Morgantown, WV) be offered in HD?

This is a REALLY big deal to me and if I miss the Super Bowl in HD, it will be next to impossible for me to forgive and forget. I will almost assuredly switch to DirecTV when my contract is up!


----------



## marty45714 (Dec 16, 2006)

Oh, and I am aware that DirecTV has no connection to All American/Sobongo. So no need to tell me that. My question is how Dish Network will handle the situation now that the damage is done.


----------



## BillR (Dec 27, 2006)

I don't think you are by yourself and I am thinking I can't rid of Dish fast enough! I still wonder how much fallout there will be over this, no communication from either Dish or Sobongo (AAD):nono2: and how many people will leave Dish that either don't read this forum or post or have access to this information. My locals will probably never be offered in HD and they look like crap on a HD TV! I have an antenna, but the stations, 1-don't broadcast in HD, 2-I can't pick them up with an antenna.

I have read where Dish is talking about getting back into the distant networks offerings. For me, it probably won't work. Their plan is probably just for RV's.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

BillR said:


> My locals will probably never be offered in HD and they look like crap on a HD TV! I have an antenna, but the stations, 1-don't broadcast in HD, 2-I can't pick them up with an antenna.


Many years ago, when I lived in Monterey, CA, before there was local TV and cable, the most common installation of an outside antenna used a 15-20' mast with guy wires and a very huge directional antenna on top. The masts were telescoping to make installation easier. Very good reception was achieved from the San Francisco stations. Height was considered extremely important.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

There have been a number of threads discussing this issue. The internet response team has never posted anything in any of those threads. I have been hoping for a while that they would clarify the situation. There are rumors that Dish will start a nationwide DNS service, but no one really knows. This issue is really a non-issue to most customers, who do not receive DNS, but it is a VERY important issue to those who do.

If Dish already provides local-into-local service to a market, a subscriber in that market is generally not eligible for distants from Dish unless that market is a short market. Then the subscriber is eligible for any distant to replace the missing network or networks. And that distant can be in HD, even if the locals in the market are carried only in SD.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

runner861 said:


> There have been a number of threads discussing this issue. The internet response team has never posted anything in any of those threads.


I'm sure there are and will be many subjects where the IRT will not be able to comment due to Dish policy, or just because they don't have the answers to the question (in many cases, Dish hasn't figured out the answer).

Rest assured, as soon as anyone here knows something, they'll post the info for all.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Wilf said:


> Many years ago, when I lived in Monterey, CA, before there was local TV and cable, the most common installation of an outside antenna used a 15-20' mast with guy wires and a very huge directional antenna on top. The masts were telescoping to make installation easier. Very good reception was achieved from the San Francisco stations. Height was considered extremely important.


Where in Monterey were you located? What years was it? A directional antenna in the Monterey market that is mounted at a high elevation can achieve good reception from San Francisco. Height and location are paramount. Pebble Beach and Pacific Grove, probably because the signals travel over the ocean, are known to receive good OTA reception from San Francisco. Good reception from San Francisco can also be achieved from the top of the hills near Laguna Seca, between Salinas and Monterey.


----------



## BillR (Dec 27, 2006)

Wilf said:


> Many years ago, when I lived in Monterey, CA, before there was local TV and cable, the most common installation of an outside antenna used a 15-20' mast with guy wires and a very huge directional antenna on top. The masts were telescoping to make installation easier. Very good reception was achieved from the San Francisco stations. Height was considered extremely important.


 Basically I am in the bottom of a bowl..so to speak. I have a mountain directly behind me and hills, trees etc in front and on the sides. It is difficult to get a signal, but I get some of the stations. The problem is they are only broadcasting in SD.....on an HD TV, it still looks bad. My only option is to install a 40-50 foot tower to get above the trees and hills. It is possible I can improve my reception, but for SD programming, it isn't worth it. I have also heard rumors that TV stations are considering quitting broadcasting over the air for free. Right now, the way my luck is going, I put up the 50 foot tower, have all wiring run from the tower to the house, then the TV stations start broadcasting in HD and quit doing it for free! Along with my homeowners association wanting to come after me for installing a tower on my property!:eek2: Which I know I can install the antenna, the tower is what they will PO'd about! :nono2:


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

BillR said:


> Basically I am in the bottom of a bowl..so to speak. I have a mountain directly behind me and hills, trees etc in front and on the sides. It is difficult to get a signal, but I get some of the stations. The problem is they are only broadcasting in SD.....on an HD TV, it still looks bad. My only option is to install a 40-50 foot tower to get above the trees and hills. It is possible I can improve my reception, but for SD programming, it isn't worth it. I have also heard rumors that TV stations are considering quitting broadcasting over the air for free. Right now, the way my luck is going, I put up the 50 foot tower, have all wiring run from the tower to the house, then the TV stations start broadcasting in HD and quit doing it for free! Along with my homeowners association wanting to come after me for installing a tower on my property!:eek2: Which I know I can install the antenna, the tower is what they will PO'd about! :nono2:


What if you got your homeowner association to install the antenna and wire it to each residence? They could use the best location available, you wouldn't have to directly pay for the whole thing out of your own pocket, and all the residents would benefit. It would be just like the old CATV from the 1950s thru 1970s.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

runner861 said:


> Where in Monterey were you located? What years was it? A directional antenna in the Monterey market that is mounted at a high elevation can achieve good reception from San Francisco.


This was in the 60's in Monterey itself. I remember the tall-masted TV antennas were ubiquitous all over the peninsula. Some were equipped with rotors for tweaking when switching stations, even at that distance from SF. I wish I could get the SF stations now - instead of Baltimore - VBG. Well, almost anything instead of Baltimore.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Wilf said:


> This was in the 60's in Monterey itself. I remember the tall-masted TV antennas were ubiquitous all over the peninsula. Some were equipped with rotors for tweaking when switching stations, even at that distance from SF. I wish I could get the SF stations now - instead of Baltimore - VBG. Well, almost anything instead of Baltimore.


Which stations were you able to receive from San Francisco? I think KGO 7 was difficult to receive at that time because the signal was overpowered by KSBW 8. I imagine KTVU 2, KRON 4, and KPIX 5 would be receivable, as well as KNTV 11. Did you receive any UHF stations?


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

runner861 said:


> There have been a number of threads discussing this issue. The internet response team has never posted anything in any of those threads. I have been hoping for a while that they would clarify the situation. There are rumors that Dish will start a nationwide DNS service, but no one really knows. This issue is really a non-issue to most customers, who do not receive DNS, but it is a VERY important issue to those who do.
> 
> If Dish already provides local-into-local service to a market, a subscriber in that market is generally not eligible for distants from Dish unless that market is a short market. Then the subscriber is eligible for any distant to replace the missing network or networks. And that distant can be in HD, even if the locals in the market are carried only in SD.


Part of my biggest frustration with not having Local HD available is the lack of any plan being put forward by DISH on when those of us in the short, rural markets can expect any sort of relief.

At least DIRECT has put forward what markets they plan to offer HD in 2011, and I think in 2012.

So far from I can see..........DISH has offered no such future plan......


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

psdstu said:


> Part of my biggest frustration with not having Local HD available is the lack of any plan being put forward by DISH on when those of us in the short, rural markets can expect any sort of relief.
> 
> At least DIRECT has put forward what markets they plan to offer HD in 2011, and I think in 2012.
> 
> So far from I can see..........DISH has offered no such future plan......


Well, not quite so fast. While I completly understand your frustration I have to disagree with your post. Go to the Direct Forums here and elsewhere, and see just how "happy" people are about Direct HD compared to Dish. But more to the point, Dish made a huge step to address your situation. Surprised you haven't read any posts about it as it directly affects you. They got permission to carry out of market stations, primarily to fill short markets, and possibly to offer significantly watched stations.....


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

Digital TV reception is more difficult in fringe areas than the old analog broadcasts, where you might have gotten a picture, but it was somewhat grainy. Now, because of the digital "cliff effect," you either get a perfect picture or no picture at all.
Also, most stations are now on UHF, regardless of whether it still says "Channel 4," etc. with the exception of upper band VHF stations (channels 7-13) which generally opted to stay on the same channels after the digital transition. Many of those stations are regretting that decision , because digital reception on upper VHF has proven to be worse than UHF. 
As far as locals in HD are concerned, as has been mentioned repeatedly in these forums, Dish is under mandate to carry all stations in all of its local markets in HD by early 2013, (with more to be added this year, and more next year.)


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

I've found a secret for much better UHF reception on digital channels.

If you have a metal roof (needs to be grounded) and place your UHF antenna near the peak of that roof. also tune antenna for highest signal numbers.

I use a PR4400 UHF antenna. Note antenna support pole can be shorter about one foot above the roof works well.










This configuration has worked well for me three times in a fringe zone.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HarveyLA said:


> Also, most stations are now on UHF, regardless of whether it still says "Channel 4," etc. with the exception of upper band VHF stations (channels 7-13) which generally opted to stay on the same channels after the digital transition. Many of those stations are regretting that decision , because digital reception on upper VHF has proven to be worse than UHF.


The problem with high VHF chs are fact that they are on the 3rd harmonic of FM stations. The FM stations usually have 10x the power so even the 3rd harmonic is stronger than the TV station. Chs 9-10-11 have the most problems. None of this was know until things were out in the real world. I worked for a station that was on ch 9 and there was little way for people to get the signal that was over 25 m away form the transmitter. I had trouble at my house until I read an article about the interference problem. I then put a FM filter in line and almost stopped all the problems even though my house was less than a 1 m from the FM station transmitter that was the cause.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

tampa8 said:


> Well, not quite so fast. While I completly understand your frustration I have to disagree with your post. Go to the Direct Forums here and elsewhere, and see just how "happy" people are about Direct HD compared to Dish. But more to the point, Dish made a huge step to address your situation. Surprised you haven't read any posts about it as it directly affects you. They got permission to carry out of market stations, primarily to fill short markets, and possibly to offer significantly watched stations.....


You are correct about Dish providing out of market stations to those of us in a short market. We did start receiving our missing CBS in SD. Our DMA had 2 SV CBS stations available, and DISH decided to provide our DMA with the SD version, not the HD version........ not sure of the reasoning?

At any rate.... my point was ok....whats the plan for HD to our DMA in the future?.....it would be nice to know what the plan is? Thats all.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

runner861 said:


> Which stations were you able to receive from San Francisco? I think KGO 7 was difficult to receive at that time because the signal was overpowered by KSBW 8. I imagine KTVU 2, KRON 4, and KPIX 5 would be receivable, as well as KNTV 11. Did you receive any UHF stations?


The TV stations were incidental. I was more interested in getting stereo FM, which was very new at the time. But we are off topic, and the forum police are going to come after us :nono:


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

psdstu said:


> You are correct about Dish providing out of market stations to those of us in a short market. We did start receiving our missing CBS in SD. Our DMA had 2 SV CBS stations available, and DISH decided to provide our DMA with the SD version, not the HD version........ not sure of the reasoning?
> 
> At any rate.... my point was ok....whats the plan for HD to our DMA in the future?.....it would be nice to know what the plan is? Thats all.


Most likely they already have an agreement for carrying the SD in place. Now how soon the HD will take place probably be when the next time the contract is sign & it includes the carriage of HD. They don't rush out and start a new contract just to carry HD.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

HarveyLA said:


> Also, most stations are now on UHF, regardless of whether it still says "Channel 4," etc. with the exception of upper band VHF stations (channels 7-13) which generally opted to stay on the same channels after the digital transition. Many of those stations are regretting that decision , because digital reception on upper VHF has proven to be worse than UHF.


That is exactly the opposite of what I've experienced. I live on the wrong side of a hill and analog TV reception has always been awful, even with a good antenna on a long mast. Locally we had one high band VHF channel (12) that had a semi usable though ghosty signal. All the other stations were on UHF and none were received as more then a smear.

After the digital transition our channel 12 moved to channel 7 and one of the UHF stations moved to channel 8. The other stations remained in the UHF band.

Now I get a reliable HD signal and sub-channels on the two high band VHF stations but the UHF stations don't give me so much as a wiggle on the signal quality meter. I even bought a super high gain UHF antenna and longer mast but I get nothing on UHF. Its as if the stations are off the air. I wish they could all go to high band VHF.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

JWKessler said:


> That is exactly the opposite of what I've experienced. I live on the wrong side of a hill and analog TV reception has always been awful, even with a good antenna on a long mast. Locally we had one high band VHF channel (12) that had a semi usable though ghosty signal. All the other stations were on UHF and none were received as more then a smear.
> 
> After the digital transition our channel 12 moved to channel 7 and one of the UHF stations moved to channel 8. The other stations remained in the UHF band.
> 
> Now I get a reliable HD signal and sub-channels on the two high band VHF stations but the UHF stations don't give me so much as a wiggle on the signal quality meter. I even bought a super high gain UHF antenna and longer mast but I get nothing on UHF. Its as if the stations are off the air. I wish they could all go to high band VHF.


Have you been to the antenna topic at AVS? Those folks are super helpful and knowledgeable about antenna tricks and such.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

david_jr said:


> Have you been to the antenna topic at AVS? Those folks are super helpful and knowledgeable about antenna tricks and such.


I've been looking for information from many sources. As I recall, the AVS forum is where I got the recommendation for the antenna I bought. I've also been in contact with the engineers at our local PBS station and they offered some suggestions. Perhaps if I was willing to spend the money to put up a tall tower I might be able to resolve this, but I'm too cheap/poor.

I'm just over 20 miles from the transmitters, but on the back side of a large hill. If my house was just a 1/4 mile up the road I'd have everything.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

As far as I know, the HD distants appear to still be uplinked. Of course, we are not really sure that they are uplinked, but they appear to be. And all has gone silent about the HD distants.

I am wondering why Dish isn't offering the HD distants at this time, if Dish wanted to offer HD distants. One possibility is that Dish wants to work something out with a third-party vendor, and that is why the mydistantnetworks website remains under construction and I believe is owned by a company just down the road from Dish. Another possibility is that Dish wants to run everything by the special master and that is just taking a while because the other parties have to be involved in that communication. Or perhaps Dish is just slow, with "George" on vacation. Or perhaps the speculation is wrong, and Dish is not going to offer HD distants. (However, if Dish were not going to have HD distants on its system, the uplink makes no sense.)


----------



## ljr01 (Mar 6, 2008)

I exchanged several emails with somebody that identified themselves as a "supervisor" at Sobongo last week. He insisted their site outage was temporary due to being hacked. That made little sense then and less now.

I also got a response from the Dish CEO email address. He asked for my phone number so he could address my concerns. He never called me and my calls to him go to voicemail. 

I'm in an RV with $1k+ of HD and audio equipment watching SD while it rains.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

ljr01 said:


> I exchanged several emails with somebody that identified themselves as a "supervisor" at Sobongo last week. He insisted their site outage was temporary due to being hacked. That made little sense then and less now.
> 
> I also got a response from the Dish CEO email address. He asked for my phone number so he could address my concerns. He never called me and my calls to him go to voicemail.
> 
> I'm in an RV with $1k+ of HD and audio equipment watching SD while it rains.


I think it is really poor service by Dish that you are left in that situation. Even though Sobongo was a separate company, their service benefited Dish customers and Dish. It is hard to divide the two.

The mydistantnetworks site was transferred from Sobongo to another company that, as far as I understand from other posts on this website, is owned by a company with offices about eight miles away from Dish's offices. But you will never get a straight answer from Sobongo or from Dish. They both have been full of double-speak throughout this termination of the HD distants service.

I hope there is some movement on this issue soon.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

A post has popped up on the other website saying DNS will be available from Dish in the near future. It also says maybe and not from official Dish website in parenthesis. What is the big secret?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> A post has popped up on the other website saying DNS will be available from Dish in the near future. It also says maybe and not from official Dish website in parenthesis. What is the big secret?


It isn't our rumor ... sometimes these rumors come true, sometimes they don't. One needs to corner the person making the claims.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> It isn't our rumor ... sometimes these rumors come true, sometimes they don't. One needs to corner the person making the claims.


I am trying to figure out what is going on. I have been looking on the Pacer website to see if there are any filings from the special master indicating what is going on, but nothing. I also joined the other website just to pursue this issue (although I prefer this website). I sent a message asking for specifics, but no response. The other website is full of rumors about a lot of things.


----------



## speedlaw (Oct 18, 2006)

JWKessler said:


> That is exactly the opposite of what I've experienced. I live on the wrong side of a hill and analog TV reception has always been awful, even with a good antenna on a long mast. Locally we had one high band VHF channel (12) that had a semi usable though ghosty signal. All the other stations were on UHF and none were received as more then a smear.
> 
> After the digital transition our channel 12 moved to channel 7 and one of the UHF stations moved to channel 8. The other stations remained in the UHF band.
> 
> Now I get a reliable HD signal and sub-channels on the two high band VHF stations but the UHF stations don't give me so much as a wiggle on the signal quality meter. I even bought a super high gain UHF antenna and longer mast but I get nothing on UHF. Its as if the stations are off the air. I wish they could all go to high band VHF.


I saw some of this back during the analog days. I had in my car a ham radio with the FM audio carriers of 2-11, the radio range of the radio. All stations transmitted from NYC. I'd go up a ridge in Fahnstock State Park, which went from a valley to 1100 feet. Depending on the frequency, I'd get and lose stations as I went up the hill. It was interesting that, say, channel 2 would come in closer to the base of the hill, drop, channel 4 would come in and drop, the the high VHF would come in near the crest of the hill where all stations would come in. Over the top of the hill, you could for stretches get 2, 4 and the others, but all in different spots !!! For analog, 4 and 5 were best in hilly terrain. Two was all over the place, and the high VHF stations were mostly line of sight near the top of the hill.

Each frequency "bent" over hills slightly differently and second diffractions hit at different altitudes. I drove that route frequently and the stations were very predictable by location/altitude. It was far fringe for TV fool, and would have driven any installer mad, as neighbor A would get one bunch of stations and B a second, even though they'd be very close. A house on the right side of the ridge would have received an 80 mile signal.

Playing with ham radio, I have had conversations on 2 meters, high VHF, or 6 meters, channel 2. Depending on the terrain and the path, one band OR the other will work better, given same power and antennas.

Sometimes, (often), moving an antenna from one side of the house to the other, or changing the height (not always higher) will change your reception. You can't break anything...experiment.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I am trying to figure out what is going on.


The retailer site quoted (DishForMyRV.com) is the one noted in the old thread as being a good candidate for offering a non-DISH operated DNS service --- with the caveat being that the retailer's site focuses on RV users ... which means an RV service would be the likely goal, not a home DNS service.

On the positive side, it is the retailer's website that claims "DISH Network will be proud to offer Distant Locals in the coming months. Stay Tuned!" in a section talking about using OTA antennas for reception out of market.

There is some DISH Terms of Service violating language on the DISH for my RV website (the "same residence" requirement of the Residential Customer Agreement (PDF). ) The RV website suggests adding a mobile receiver to the home account. DISH requires accurate service address.

In any case, it looks like this is more than the standard rumor - it has a source. A single line on a single retailer's website ... and as long as the old NPS/AAD channels remain in test mode I suppose there is still hope.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The retailer site quoted (DishForMyRV.com) is the one noted in the old thread as being a good candidate for offering a non-DISH operated DNS service --- with the caveat being that the retailer's site focuses on RV users ... which means an RV service would be the likely goal, not a home DNS service.
> 
> On the positive side, it is the retailer's website that claims "DISH Network will be proud to offer Distant Locals in the coming months. Stay Tuned!" in a section talking about using OTA antennas for reception out of market.
> 
> ...


My thought is that the DNS will be offered through a third-party vendor. That is really the only reason I can see that would be holding the service up. Otherwise, why not start it now? Channels are uplinked, there is no carriage agreement that has to be negotiated. I feel that the only thing holding it up now is the agreement with the third party. That can also explain why the mydistantnetworks website has changed hands.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

runner861 said:


> A post has popped up on the other website saying DNS will be available from Dish in the near future. It also says maybe and not from official Dish website in parenthesis. What is the big secret?


Didn't "Just Pop Up", they give a website that shows exactly that. What big secret? Read their link and you know as much as anyone.....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

We have more questions than answers ... until DISH (or the possible third party) says something there really is no answer. We didn't know about NPS/AAD until they were ready to launch (and only found out early via the preemptive legal action intended to protect NPS/AAD from being shut down before it started).

If it happens, it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. Right now it appears possible but without something more solid there are no guarantees.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

speedlaw said:


> Sometimes, (often), moving an antenna from one side of the house to the other, or changing the height (not always higher) will change your reception. You can't break anything...experiment.


Perhaps when this god awful weather breaks I'll try some other locations. It sure can't hurt.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I sent an email today to the ceo address and inquired as to the possibility of HD DNS on Dish. I received a phone call from Dish within two hours. The representative was very courteous. He said that Dish wants to have the service, and intends to have the service soon. He could not give an exact date.

He said that Dish recognized that many people liked the Sobongo HD service and were upset when it abruptly ended. He said that the delay is Dish is attempting to locate a third-party vendor to take over the service.

I got the impression, although I did not specifically ask and he did not specifically state, that the termination of the HD DNS service was a decision of Sobongo. I am disappointed in Sobongo just leaving its customers hanging, especially those who were in the middle of year-long contracts. Imagine the reverse situation, with a customer in a year-long contract with Sobongo trying to end that contract early and get a refund!

I do very much appreciate the responsiveness of Dish in calling me back. I continue to be overall quite pleased with Dish. (Of course, I would like to see full-time HD RSNs, a nationwide HD DNS service, and all local markets served with 100 percent HD. All of those things, I am sure, are coming.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

The mydistantnetworks website is now back in the hands of AAD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> The mydistantnetworks website is now back in the hands of AAD.


Whomever AAD may be ...

The domain registration is still the Colorado company (perhaps they bought AAD from NPS or are representing the new owners on the internet).

The terms and conditions page refers to:
*Distant Networks, LLC d/b/a AllAmericanDirect ("DN")*

Address (from that page): Distant Networks, LLC Correspondence Administrator 8101 E. Prentice Avenue, Suite #700 Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Apparently the new AAD ... with a gap in website between when they took over the service from NPS and now.

The site has been updated to be SD only ... and changed to harder to read colors, although the layout is the same as it was before under NPS (with the pricelist hidden in the FAQ). It is a shame they didn't have something up last month.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

So what is going on here? Are we sure that the distant networks service has been sold by NPS/Sobongo to another company? Or is it still with Sobongo, but being represented by another company on the internet for purposes of sales of service to customers?

If it has been sold to another company, then why aren't the HD distants available? They appear to be uplinked, and Dish has said privately that the HD service will be started soon and through a third-party vendor.

The situation just does not appear to make sense.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> So what is going on here? Are we sure that the distant networks service has been sold by NPS/Sobongo to another company? Or is it still with Sobongo, but being represented by another company on the internet for purposes of sales of service to customers?
> 
> If it has been sold to another company, then why aren't the HD distants available? They appear to be uplinked, and Dish has said privately that the HD service will be started soon and through a third-party vendor.
> 
> The situation just does not appear to make sense.


As best as I can tell, NPS out of Indianapolis has sold All American Distants to the new "Distant Networks, LLC" based out of Colorado. The new company no longer wishes to offer HD distants and dropped the service. All their choice (from what I can tell).

Based on your information DISH would like _someone_ to offer HD distants and are leaving the transponder available hoping _someone_ will accept the challenge of running such a business. That someone won't be "Distant Networks, LLC".

Sound logical? Such a scenario would fit what we've been told.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

And they are using a different qualifying process apparently. My address no longer qualifies for one of the networks if I were applying today, my Father, who has always qualified for all networks only does for one now.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

marty45714 said:


> Hey new Dish Network Internet Response Team:
> 
> I am seriously ticked about losing my HD Distant Network channels compounded by the fact that my local channels are STILL not offered in HD, compounded again by the fact that my friend on DirecTV just told me that he now has HD local channels in my market!
> 
> ...


Aren't you in the Parkersburg DMA? They have only one in-market channel: WTAP-15 NBC, the rest are imported from surrounding DMA's (I presume the cities you listed is what E* is giving you now). You would think that the imported stations could come from a larger market (Columbus or Cincinnati) where HD abounds.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> As best as I can tell, NPS out of Indianapolis has sold All American Distants to the new "Distant Networks, LLC" based out of Colorado. The new company no longer wishes to offer HD distants and dropped the service. All their choice (from what I can tell).
> 
> Based on your information DISH would like _someone_ to offer HD distants and are leaving the transponder available hoping _someone_ will accept the challenge of running such a business. That someone won't be "Distant Networks, LLC".
> 
> Sound logical? Such a scenario would fit what we've been told.


I'm with you till the part of not wishing to provide HD channels. Could it be they were able to take over the SD broadcasts, but had to apply for the HD ones? Or, are going to provide different HD ones than before? I see their site says "Standard Definition Package" as if at sometime there will be an HD package, unless they have simply used what was there before.

Edit...I called them, asked if they offer HD package, he said no. I asked if they might in the future. He said they recently dropped that service, but he "keeps hearing they are working on getting it back" but has no information when or if they will........


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I guess that this is what we are left with. Perhaps there is not enough money in an HD package--not enough subscribers. Hopefully, since the transponder space is still available, some company steps forward and offers an HD distants service. Or perhaps Dish will just offer the HD distants service itself. That would mean fewer customers are eligible for the service, but greater stability for the service. It would likely not be abruptly terminated, and Dish doesn't incur any significant costs in offering the service.

I tried sending an email to [email protected], the email address listed on the mydistantnetworks for inquiries, and it bounced back to me. Apparently that address is no longer valid.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I called the 800 number for AAD this morning and spoke to a very nice lady. She told me that they are AAD and that Sobongo sold the operation. We already knew that, but she confirmed it. In inquired about the possibility of offering HD, and she said she didn't know because she is not in corporate. She added that she thought that it was interesting that people are calling asking for HD when, until recently, we only had SD television and everyone was happy with it. I commented that it is similar to the transition from black and white to color. Everyone was happy with black and white also--that is, until color appeared.


----------



## ahmedgnz (Mar 1, 2011)

I just read a new FCC ruling dated Sep 2010 that seems to grant permit to Dish Network to offer DNS again to qualifying markets either itself or through affiliates, reversing the Federal Court ban of several years ago. This, coupled to rumors that the new owners of MyDistantNetwork eliminated HD service because DishNetwork was asking then too much money for transponder space in their Western Arc satellite, leads me to believe that DishNet has plans to transmit HD networks either on its own or through another affiliate in the not too distant future. Any comments?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ahmedgnz said:


> I just read a new FCC ruling dated Sep 2010 that seems to grant permit to Dish Network to offer DNS again to qualifying markets either itself or through affiliates, reversing the Federal Court ban of several years ago. This, coupled to rumors that the new owners of MyDistantNetwork eliminated HD service because DishNetwork was asking then too much money for transponder space in their Western Arc satellite, leads me to believe that DishNet has plans to transmit HD networks either on its own or through another affiliate in the not too distant future. Any comments?


The ruling allowed DISH to go back to court and get a waiver of their injunction.

DISH can offer distants, but the rules about where they can offer distants severely limit their offerings. They are basically limited to fill ins - only carrying a network in a market where there are no affiliates in that market. Plus the RV market.

As far as profitability ... from what I understand AAD was paying $150,000 per month for the transponder ... which at $149.99 per year for all four HDs would require 12,000 customers to break even on JUST the transponder space. (6,000 if people subscribed to both east and west - 5,373 average per channel at the per channel rate). There are other costs involved (backhaul, uplink and statutory rights payment, plus overhead for running the company). It takes a lot of customers to make the offering viable and since last year DISH has cut in to that customer base by offering their own "free" fill-in distants in many markets.

For HD Distants to return via a third party they need to find a large number of subscribers (10,000?) to support the program offering. They could return via DISH but only on a very limited basis (fill ins and RVs). DISH would probably make more money off of the transponder at $150,000 per month than selling distants themselves.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The ruling allowed DISH to go back to court and get a waiver of their injunction.
> 
> DISH can offer distants, but the rules about where they can offer distants severely limit their offerings. They are basically limited to fill ins - only carrying a network in a market where there are no affiliates in that market. Plus the RV market.
> 
> ...


Right now Dish is earning nothing off of the transponder. It is essentially in back up status, ready to be used for HD distants or any other service. However, Dish is now earning nothing off of the transponder.

I wish that Dish would make the situation clear. I think it is poor to first allow the one-year contracts of customers to be abrogated midway through, then to say nothing about what the plans are for HD distants. I know, one can argue that the AAD is the one that abrogated the contract, not Dish, and this is true but not the complete story. All the HD distant customers were also Dish customers, and AAD was operating the HD distant service on Dish's equipment. Both Dish and Dish's customers benefited from the service. Dish and AAD, while separate companies, are closely linked.

Of course, Dish has no obligation to offer HD distants, just as Dish has no obligation to offer most other stations. However, Dish seems content at this time to uplink the HD distants, but not offer them. It makes no sense, and I think that it is a poor way to treat customers.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Dish has not offered distants, and still isn't. What would they have to say about it? As far as they are concerned nothing has changed. Just as when a channel is no longer carried by Dish, they put up a message on the channels that said to call AAD if you have questions, these channels are no longer available. 
They and AAD were not closely linked, in fact Dish went to great pains to make that abuntantly clear in Court when AAD leased the space. In addition, Dish did none of the qualifying or billing for service, it was done by the company providing them. In my opinion, Dish has nothing to say unless they will begin to provide distants themselves.

You are putting a lot of emphasis on the fact the distants may still be linked. I can't tell you how many channels over the years Dish has had linked that took months to be added, or in some cases never were. It is entirely possible Dish does not know when or if they will be offered. With most all the country being served now by locals, we are only talking about short markets and RV's/Truckers. If dish was to offer them, there just isn't much money to made doing it. They can however with the waiver now offer them to those short markets, which I'm sure they will eventually do, and may be the reason to keep them linked. From a financial standpoint it would seem a third party is needed to allow the maximum amount of people to subscribe. But if the figures are correct in the above post, it would take alot of subscribers, more than will get them.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

tampa8 said:


> Dish has not offered distants, and still isn't.


Dish has been providing distants since around the middle of 2010. Dish continues to provide distants today.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tampa8 said:


> Dish has not offered distants, and still isn't.


DISH offers distants, however the distants DISH offers are fill-ins for markets missing a network, and DISH has chosen to offer closer distants - ones with a spotbeam covering the market needing a distant network - instead of using national feeds.

I believe the transponder is still there because DISH is leaving the door open for someone to come along and offer the service. They have not given up hope that someone will want to take the financial risk. The only distants DISH can offer are fill-ins or an RV service. DISH is not charging for fill-ins so it would take a lot of RV customers to pay for that transponder. To fully realize the potential of that transponder and get the most money out of it they need someone else to offer the service.

They probably should give up and put something else there. Starting their own distants service for RV users isn't major income (unless DISH charges $15 per month and finds 10,000 customers). If DISH starts their own service it shuts the door for a third party to take over the service without a lot of explaining to the Special Master.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

Dish may end up not offering HD distants and not having any third-party vendor offer them. But if they do that it is still a significant gap in their service. Direct offers HD distants to qualified subscribers. Many RVers and truckers are Dish subscribers and want the HD distants. Maybe it won't mean much in terms of money, but some of these subscribers are high end, and they will leave. Anyone who has HD service in a truck or RV is a high-end subscriber. Some of those people may take their home or vacation home subscriptions with them.

Right now Dish is making nothing off of the transponder. They should just offer the service themselves, making at least a little money in the process.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

It may be the words used, but I stand by my post.

Dish "USES" out of market networks to fill in short markets, but if you wanted a network not in your DMA, because you are in a white zone with no locals offered by dish, or have an RV etc..., they would not offer them because they do not provide distants. They provide out of market networks only to those markets they serve, but that do not have all the networks in the DMA.

I just feel saying Dish has been "offering" networks way overstates the case, especially in regards to what this thread is about.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> Right now Dish is making nothing off of the transponder. They should just offer the service themselves, making at least a little money in the process.


Right now DISH has no commitment to the content on that transponder. If they began an RV distants service it would not bring a lot of income - and it would tie up the transponder for an undetermined length of time. It would be better to not offer RV distants than start a money losing service.



tampa8 said:


> Dish "USES" out of market networks to fill in short markets, but if you wanted a network not in your DMA, because you are in a white zone with no locals offered by dish, or have an RV etc..., they would not offer them because they do not provide distants.


Most of the out of market channels DISH delivers are legally distants ... and are legally limited to short markets or RV'rs. So far, DISH has chosen not to sell distants to RV'rs - and does not deliver the same distants nationally.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Right now DISH has no commitment to the content on that transponder. If they began an RV distants service it would not bring a lot of income - and it would tie up the transponder for an undetermined length of time. It would be better to not offer RV distants than start a money losing service.


I am not sure that it would be a money-losing service. There is no lease fee if Dish offers the service itself. Dish will lose some RV and trucker high-end customers if it does not offer the service. When a subscriber leaves, particularly a high-end subscriber (such as a HD subscriber), that is noticed.

Why does Direct set aside the transponder space and offer the service? Direct is also offering "neighboring distants" in short markets, but has not terminated its nationwide service, available in both HD and SD. I am aware that Direct does not provide locals in every market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If DirecTV is so perfect why not subscribe to it? There are a lot of things DirecTV does that DISH doesn't do ... providing distants to the RV/Truck market is way down the list of importance (with apologies to a certain RV subscriber who also thinks HD Distants is a must have service).

DISH does not have to do everything the DirecTV way.

If providing the service themselves would bring in enough money to cover the costs I'm sure DISH would have done it. If it were a profitable service charging $3.49 per channel per month or $149.99 per year for a full set (one city) I'm sure someone would be doing that. The door is still open if someone is willing to give it a try.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> If DirecTV is so perfect why not subscribe to it? There are a lot of things DirecTV does that DISH doesn't do ... providing distants to the RV/Truck market is way down the list of importance (with apologies to a certain RV subscriber who also thinks HD Distants is a must have service).
> 
> DISH does not have to do everything the DirecTV way.


I'm not implying that Direct is perfect, or that I want to subscribe to it. I am just drawing a comparison. I'm sure that HD distants are way down the list of importance. A lot of people want full-time HD RSNs, me included, but that also seems to be way down the list of importance.

I am still hopeful that both will ultimately be available on Dish.


----------



## ahmedgnz (Mar 1, 2011)

Does lack of local network affiliate still signify a network that the network does not broad cast a B-class or better signal that can reach the subscriber with an over-the-air antenna? If this is so, then the eastern half of Puerto Rico, including the San Juan metropolitan area, still qualifies for this kind of distant network service, given that all the network "affiliates" here, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, (the broadcasting rights of which are in reality all owned by a single consortium of Pacific rim investors, which means no real network competition for ad spots) are transmitted by antennas from either the west coast of the island or from the Virgin Islands not powerful enough to reach San Juan and eastern Puerto Rico over the air.
If lack of network affiliate is still defined by lack of over-the-air reception, then indeed Dish Network would be legally able to provide PR customers with DNS, but will they actually do it, given that they offer the so-called local affiliates as part of their local station package.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

ahmedgnz said:


> Does lack of local network affiliate still signify a network that the network does not broad cast a B-class or better signal that can reach the subscriber with an over-the-air antenna? If this is so, then the eastern half of Puerto Rico, including the San Juan metropolitan area, still qualifies for this kind of distant network service, given that all the network "affiliates" here, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, (the broadcasting rights of which are in reality all owned by a single consortium of Pacific rim investors, which means no real network competition for ad spots) are transmitted by antennas from either the west coast of the island or from the Virgin Islands not powerful enough to reach San Juan and eastern Puerto Rico over the air.
> If lack of network affiliate is still defined by lack of over-the-air reception, then indeed Dish Network would be legally able to provide PR customers with DNS, but will they actually do it, given that they offer the so-called local affiliates as part of their local station package.


If Dish is providing local service within the market, then Dish generally cannot provide any distants to that market unless that market is a short market. There are a few exceptions, such as a viewer who has a waiver, but that is the general rule.

A third-party provider, such as AAD, can provide distants to unserved subscribers (those who cannot receive a signal OTA).


----------



## ahmedgnz (Mar 1, 2011)

As I understand it, a white zone is an area unable to receive an over-the-air Class B or better signal from its local network affiliates, no matter if it can get such local networks via satellite or cable reception. The intention of Congress behind limiting Distant Networks to such zones (and to RV's) was to prevent the preemption by national feeds of the ad space allocated to over-the-air local affilliates and thus preserve the latters' market. In short, Congress did not want local stations to be run out of business by the broadcast walmarts. There was also some worry about preserving the local flavor and diversity of these market areas but only inasmuch as local flavor is another contributing factor to the economic. or money-making, identity of the local markets.


----------



## ahmedgnz (Mar 1, 2011)

Please enlighten as what a "short"market is


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ahmedgnz said:


> As I understand it, a white zone is an area unable to receive an over-the-air Class B or better signal from its local network affiliates, no matter if it can get such local networks via satellite or cable reception. The intention of Congress behind limiting Distant Networks to such zones (and to RV's) was to prevent the preemption by national feeds of the ad space allocated to over-the-air local affilliates and thus preserve the latters' market. In short, Congress did not want local stations to be run out of business by the broadcast walmarts. There was also some worry about preserving the local flavor and diversity of these market areas but only inasmuch as local flavor is another contributing factor to the economic. or money-making, identity of the local markets.


In 2004 Congress changed the law, preventing delivery of distants into MARKETS that had a carried affiliate. Subscribers that had a distant could be grandfathered. In MARKETS that do not have an affiliate of a particular network carried that network can be imported ... but that 2004 change of law got rid of the option to deliver both an in-market and distant affiliate to white areas.

A "short market" is a market missing one or more network affiliate. Distants can be brought in for the missing networks.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

ahmedgnz said:



> ...... In short, Congress did not want local stations to be run out of business *by the broadcast walmarts*. There was also some worry about preserving the local flavor and diversity of these market areas but only inasmuch as local flavor is another contributing factor to the economic. or money-making, identity of the local markets.


I love the analogy. Thank You.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels Available*
9950 WABC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9951 WCBS added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9952 WNBC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9953 WNYW added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9954 KABC added to 110° TP 17 (HD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9955 KCBS added to 110° TP 17 (HD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9956 KNBC added to 110° TP 17 (HD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9957 KTTV added to 110° TP 17 (HD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
9958 PBS PBS National Feed added to 119° TP 8 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*

The actual content of the feeds and available to whom? I don't know.
110°	TP 17 is the former NPS/AAD HD location ... 119° TP 20 is the long time home of NYC SD stations.
Perhaps DISH's RV service is coming?


----------



## Juanjo (Feb 1, 2011)

"James Long" said:


> New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels Available
> 9950 WABC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) AVAILABLE
> 9951 WCBS added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) AVAILABLE
> 9952 WNBC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) AVAILABLE
> ...


Hey, James I hope you are doing fine. Although I have a strong signal from 110 Tp 17 these channels are not showing up on my guide. Do you know why could that be.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

You quoted the answer.

To expand, "hidden" means only those who subscribe to the channel see it in their guide, and he doesn't know who that may be. Aside from the clue taken from the current names of the channels, the actual content of the channels is also unknown.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Because you don't have distants?


----------



## Juanjo (Feb 1, 2011)

"BobaBird" said:


> You quoted the answer.
> 
> To expand, "hidden" means only those who subscribe to the channel see it in their guide, and he doesn't know who that may be. Aside from the clue taken from the current names of the channels, the actual content of the channels is also unknown.


So how can I subscribe to them? What package?


----------



## Juanjo (Feb 1, 2011)

"RasputinAXP" said:


> Because you don't have distants?


You mean distant hd ? No , since AAD suspended the service


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Juanjo said:


> So how can I subscribe to them? What package?


We don't know.

"Available" is just a nice way of saying the channels are no longer marked "test" in the data. It doesn't say WHO is authorized to view the channels (if anyone). DISH may have turned them on to demonstrate them to a potential distants company without giving that company full access to all test channels. Unless and until someone announces a programming package we'll never know for sure.

Weird, but "available" doesn't always mean available to customers.

(And as noted the "hidden" flag means the channels are hidden from all except those who are authorized to view the channels. Without that flag they would be red in the guide for those who were not authorized to view the channels. Or green if a different flag was on the channel.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> We don't know.
> 
> "Available" is just a nice way of saying the channels are no longer marked "test" in the data. It doesn't say WHO is authorized to view the channels (if anyone). DISH may have turned them on to demonstrate them to a potential distants company without giving that company full access to all test channels. Unless and until someone announces a programming package we'll never know for sure.
> 
> ...


So were the channels visible in the guide for a brief period of time when they were marked available (March 2), until they had a hidden channel group added (March 4)?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> So were the channels visible in the guide for a brief period of time when they were marked available (March 2), until they had a hidden channel group added (March 4)?


The hidden marker was there when they were first added on March 2nd.
The March 4th change was internal (another "channel group" added) with the channels remaining hidden.

Here's the March 2nd post:


James Long said:


> *New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels Available*
> 9950 WABC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
> 9951 WCBS added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
> 9952 WNBC added to 119° TP 20 (SD Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
> ...


Still no clue "to whom" ...


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> The hidden marker was there when they were first added on March 2nd.
> The March 4th change was internal (another "channel group" added) with the channels remaining hidden.
> 
> Here's the March 2nd post:
> Still no clue "to whom" ...


Just a thought--perhaps these stations are being sold by Dish through pocket sales, at least pending location of a distants vendor. That would explain why the stations are uplinked and available.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

As we finish the 1st quarter of the year I don't think DISH has added any new Local HD stations.

I hope that those of us who are to still waiting to receive our missing HD locals might see something from DISH soon....... especially because OTA HD is not possible..... hope springs eternal...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

psdstu said:


> As we finish the 1st quarter of the year I don't think DISH has added any new Local HD stations.


HD Locals made available since December 31st ....

*Channels Uplinked before December 31st Now Available*
5256 WUFT (5 HD Local) GAINESVILLE, FL (PBS) 129° 13s53 (SC Florida) HD Gainesville, FL market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5273 KXTF (35 HD Local) TWIN FALLS, ID (FOX) 129° 8s12 (NE Idaho) HD Twin Falls, ID market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5122 KTNL (2 HD Local) SITKA, AK (CBS) 110° 4s46 and 4s47 (Alaska / Hawaii) HD Juneau, AK market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5251 KZTV (10 HD Local) CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (CBS) 129° 13s52 (South Texas) HD Corpus Christi, TX market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5274 KQET (25 HD Local) WATSONVILLE, CA (PBS) 129° 13s32 (WC California) HD Monterey, CA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5278 KSMS (67 HD Local) MONTEREY, CA (UNIVISION) 129° 13s32 (WC California) HD Monterey, CA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5194 WNYA (51 HD Local) KINDERHOOK, NY 61.5° 3s3 (Bethpage) HD Albany, NY market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5276 KUFM (11 HD Local) MISSOULA, MT (PBS) 129° 6s11 (NW Idaho) HD Missoula, MT market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5256 KAID (4 HD Local) BOISE, ID (PBS) 129° 4s11 (NW Idaho) HD Boise, ID market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5156 WRLK (35 HD Local) COLUMBIA, SC (PBS) 61.5° 5s8 (Charleston) HD Columbia, SC market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5266 WPSU (3 HD Local) CLEARFIELD, PA (PBS) 129° 12s26 (SC New York) HD Johnstown/Altoona, PA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5266 KISU (10 HD Local) POCATELLO, ID (PBS) 129° 7s12 (NE Idaho) HD Idaho Falls, ID market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5255 KSIN (27 HD Local) SIOUX CITY, IA (PBS) 129° 16s14 (Central Minnesota) HD Sioux City, IA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5256 KXNE (19 HD Local) NORFOLK, NE (PBS) 129° 16s14 (Central Minnesota) HD Sioux City, IA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5255 WGTE (30 HD Local) TOLEDO, OH (PBS) 129° 16s23 (NW New York) HD Toledo, OH market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5280 WGXAD (16 HD Local) MACON, GA (ABC) 77° TP 13 HD Macon, GA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*
5283 WGXA (24 HD Local) MACON, GA (FOX) 77° TP 13 HD Macon, GA market Hidden - *AVAILABLE*

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels Available*
5170 WHTM (27 HD Local) HARRISBURG, PA (ABC) added to 77° TP 20 (HD Harrisburg, PA market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (27-01)
5171 WHP (21 HD Local) HARRISBURG, PA (CBS) added to 77° TP 20 (HD Harrisburg, PA market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (21-01)
6317 KCOP (13 HD Local) LOS ANGELES, CA (MYTV) added to 129° 6s33 (South California) (HD Los Angeles, CA market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (13-01)
5173 WRDQ (27 HD Local) ORLANDO, FL (ABC) added to 129° 5s53 (SC Florida) (HD Orlando, FL market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (27-01)
5173 WRDQ (27 HD Local) ORLANDO, FL (ABC) added to 61.5° 3s9 (Miami) (HD Orlando, FL market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (27-01)
5154 WKPD (29 HD Local) PADUCAH, KY (PBS) added to 77° TP 12 (HD Paducah, KY/Harrisburg, IL market Hidden) *AVAILABLE*
5265 KPXJ (21 HD Local) MINDEN, LA (CW) added to 119° 1sA13 (Shreveport) (HD Shreveport, LA market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (21-01)
5266 KDCU (31 HD Local) DERBY, KS added to 119° 4sB09 (Oklahoma City) (HD Wichita, KS market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (31-01)
5154 WAPA (4 HD Local) SAN JUAN, PR added to 119° 5sB22 (Puerto Rico) (HD San Juan, PR market Hidden) *AVAILABLE* OTA Mapping (4-01) - Regional Restriction

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels NOT Available (some recently added)*
6317 WCIU (26 HD) CHICAGO, IL added to 129° 9s22 (Lake Michigan) (HD Chicago, IL market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (26-01)
6317 WCIU (26 HD) CHICAGO, IL added to 61.5° 11s11 (Chicago) (HD Chicago, IL market *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 129° 9s22 (Lake Michigan) Ch 6317
6338 KTFD (14 HD) BOULDER, CO (TELEFUTURA) added to 129° 6s19 (NC Colorado) (HD Denver, CO market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (14-01)
5258 KINT (26 HD) EL PASO, TX (UNIVISION) added to 129° 11s46 (West Texas) (HD El Paso, TX market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (26-01)
5260 KTFN (65 HD) EL PASO, TX (TELEFUTURA) added to 129° 11s46 (West Texas) (HD El Paso, TX market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (65-01)
5265 KNVO (48 HD) MCALLEN, TX (UNIVISION) added to 129° 4s52 (South Texas) (HD Harlingen/Brownsville, TX market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (48-01)
5270 KTFV (32 HD) MCALLEN, TX added to 129° 4s52 (South Texas) (HD Harlingen/Brownsville, TX market *TEST* Hidden)
6308 WXTV (41 HD) PATERSON, NJ (UNIVISION) added to 61.5° 7s3 (Bethpage) (HD New York, NY market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (41-01)
6315 WFTY (67 HD) SMITHTOWN, NY (TELEFUTURA) added to 61.5° 7s3 (Bethpage) (HD New York, NY market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (67-01)
6403 KUVS (19 HD) MODESTO, CA (UNIVISION) added to 110° 18s43 (North California) (HD Sacramento, CA market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (19-01)
6405 KTFK (64 HD) STOCKTON, CA (TELEFUTURA) added to 110° 18s43 (North California) (HD Sacramento, CA market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (64-01)
6414 KDTF (36 HD) SAN DIEGO, CA (TELEFUTURA) added to 110° 29s39 (SC California) (HD San Diego, CA market *TEST* Hidden)
6444 KDTV (14 HD) SANTA ROSA, CA (UNIVISION) added to 119° 4sA02 (San Fransisco) (HD San Fransisco, CA market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (14-01)
6445 KFSF (66 HD) VALLEJO, CA (TELEFUTURA) added to 119° 4sA02 (San Fransisco) (HD San Fransisco, CA market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (66-01)
5254 WLMB (40 HD) TOLEDO, OH added to 129° 16s23 (NW New York) (HD Toledo, OH market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (40-01)
5153 WKAQ (2 HD) SAN JUAN, PR (NBC) added to 119° 5sB22 (Puerto Rico) (HD San Juan, PR market *TEST* Hidden) OTA Mapping (2-01) - Regional Restriction



> I hope that those of us who are to still waiting to receive our missing HD locals might see something from DISH soon....... especially because OTA HD is not possible..... hope springs eternal...


Lots of additions and more currently testing. Don't lose hope.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

But no news on HD distants. And no uplinks of PBS in the San Francisco market. San Francisco, being the number five market in the country, is far behind where it should be on Dish.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

runner861 said:


> And no uplinks of PBS in the San Francisco market. San Francisco, being the number five market in the country, is far behind where it should be on Dish.


Very much agree, unless there is more to it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> But no news on HD distants. And no uplinks of PBS in the San Francisco market. San Francisco, being the number five market in the country, is far behind where it should be on Dish.


Add that failure to the list. 

Do you know how many DISH subscribers are in that market? Those are the people they need to serve. What is San Fransisco's market rank in DISH subscribers? DISH doesn't have HD PBS in Chicago either. Or Philadelphia. Or Boston. Or DC. They have New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta and Houston.

They'll have it within the next couple of years ... probably after Chicago and after a lot of smaller markets that need PBS to be 100% HD markets. (Although Chicago has multiple PBS stations so they may have to wait too.)

As for Distants, finding a party that can legally deliver Distants and wants to take the financial risk isn't trivial. DISH's ability to legally deliver Distants is very limited - and delivering them illegally is not a good idea. They can't force some unrelated company into offering a service - and the more "help" they give to said unrelated company the more likely that the court will rule the offer as illegal. Their safe bet would be to offer RV Distants and use the ConUS bandwidth for HD that serves most of their 14 million customers ... not just a few.

DISH is adding locals in HD ... their progress for the past quarter is above. I would not expect any completely new HD markets until the end of the year. Keep an eye out for more fill-ins that will create 100% HD markets. That is the challenge before them when it comes to locals today.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Add that failure to the list.
> 
> Do you know how many DISH subscribers are in that market? Those are the people they need to serve. What is San Fransisco's market rank in DISH subscribers? DISH doesn't have HD PBS in Chicago either. Or Philadelphia. Or Boston. Or DC. They have New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta and Houston.
> 
> ...


I don't know where San Francisco ranks in terms of Dish subscribers in that market, as opposed to other markets. That number, however, will be affected by the number of local HD stations available.

With regard to the distants, the ConUS bandwith is occupied by the uplinked distants. It is just a matter of authorizing subscribers to receive the channels. It seems by the fact that the distants are still uplinked that Dish wants this service to exist. It goes without saying that Dish should not offer distants illegally. However, Dish is no longer barred from working with another company to offer distants. The injunction has been lifted. Dish can do anything that the law allows with regard to distants. The law prohibiting them from working with another company to offer distants related to the section that required the injunction.

Dish does have a special master watching, so they are under extra scrutiny, but the law is no different for them than for any other company.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> However, Dish is no longer barred from working with another company to offer distants. The injunction has been lifted. Dish can do anything that the law allows with regard to distants. The law prohibiting them from working with another company to offer distants related to the section that required the injunction.


I believe you're glossing over what DISH can and cannot do and what the injunction covered.

DISH can offer a network channel as a distant ONLY in markets where they do not carry that network on a local station. In markets where that network is not carried (due to contract dispute) DISH could deliver a distant ONLY to those who are outside of the station's coverage area. (If you say that a station in a contract dispute would approve waivers I want some of what you're smoking.) That creates a very narrow market for distant network stations, with RVers being the only addition.

The injunction did not prohibit DISH from working with another company. There was never a law that prevented them from working with another company. However that other company MUST be separate from DISH. DISH cannot work around the carriage laws by using a puppet company. Leasing full transponders and providing some separate company access (such as they do with AAD and as they did with SkyAngel) was ruled permissible by the court.

If a service is offered by DISH it MUST follow the law. No relaxation. Having the service simply billed by a 3rd party isn't going to cut the mustard.



> Dish does have a special master watching, so they are under extra scrutiny, but the law is no different for them than for any other company.


The law that allows DISH to offer Distants IS different. In order to be able to offer Distants in ANY market (even the fill-ins for short markets) DISH must offer carriage to local stations in ALL markets. DISH has also lost all of their grandfathered customers. Other companies are not under the restrictions DISH is under and can grandfather customers.


----------



## psdstu (Oct 3, 2009)

James Long said:


> DISH is adding locals in HD ... their progress for the past quarter is above. I would not expect any completely new HD markets until the end of the year. Keep an eye out for more fill-ins that will create 100% HD markets. That is the challenge before them when it comes to locals today.


The fill-in of the big 4 that I am missing (CBS) comes from Dothan which has no locals in HD so it looks like I could be waiting for awhile.

Thanks for your update on the 1st quarter HD local additions!

Stu


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> I believe you're glossing over what DISH can and cannot do and what the injunction covered.
> 
> DISH can offer a network channel as a distant ONLY in markets where they do not carry that network on a local station. In markets where that network is not carried (due to contract dispute) DISH could deliver a distant ONLY to those who are outside of the station's coverage area. (If you say that a station in a contract dispute would approve waivers I want some of what you're smoking.) That creates a very narrow market for distant network stations, with RVers being the only addition.
> 
> ...


I believe that the injunction and related statutory language did prohibit Dish from working in concert with any other company to provide distants. However, the court did find that the relationship between Dish and NPS was an arms-length agreement and did not constitute two companies working in concert.

I believe that the same law applies to Dish as to any company. If that company provides locals in a market, it cannot provide distants in that same market (except for short market and waiver situations). The same law applies to Dish, Direct, and AAD. The law is no different for any of them. The difference is with the company. AAD does not provide locals, while Dish and Direct do.

As far as I know, Dish can grandfather customers. Dish just does not have any grandfathered customers at this time. However, as I have discussed previously, there is a very credible argument that Dish can grandfather customers of AAD.

As one of the conditions to get the injunction lifted, Dish does have to provide local service to all markets. However, Dish met this condition approximately a year ago.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I believe that the injunction and related statutory language did prohibit Dish from working in concert with any other company to provide distants. However, the court did find that the relationship between Dish and NPS was an arms-length agreement and did not constitute two companies working in concert.


And that relationship distance MUST continue ... otherwise whatever Distant service provided will have to be provided under the stricter restrictions that DISH (due to all circumstances involved) is under.

DISH cannot uplink and provide a distant of a network in a market where the local is carried or within the coverage area of an in market local if not carried without waivers. DISH cannot provide those channels as "DISH Network" and they cannot do that via a third party. Any third party MUST remain separate. The shorter the arms the more likely broadcasters and the special master will call foul risking all of DISH's Distant carriage.

It seems foolish to suggest that DISH skirt the rules again. If they can't find someone willing to take the risk of offering a HD Distants network while competing with both AAD/DN LLC and DISH's free short market Distants then it is probably better for them to move on to services they can provide.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> And that relationship distance MUST continue ... otherwise whatever Distant service provided will have to be provided under the stricter restrictions that DISH (due to all circumstances involved) is under.
> 
> DISH cannot uplink and provide a distant of a network in a market where the local is carried or within the coverage area of an in market local if not carried without waivers. DISH cannot provide those channels as "DISH Network" and they cannot do that via a third party. Any third party MUST remain separate. The shorter the arms the more likely broadcasters and the special master will call foul risking all of DISH's Distant carriage.
> 
> It seems foolish to suggest that DISH skirt the rules again. If they can't find someone willing to take the risk of offering a HD Distants network while competing with both AAD/DN LLC and DISH's free short market Distants then it is probably better for them to move on to services they can provide.


I'm still not clear what stricter regulations Dish is under. The same law applies to them as to any other company. They have a special master watching them, but that does not change the law.

Direct, for example, is a company similar to Dish, yet it manages to provide distants. The only significant difference between the two companies is that there may be a few markets where Direct does not provide locals.

So I'm not suggesting that Dish skirt any rules. However, this is a gap in their service, and one hopes that it will be addressed soon. There will always be the RV market as well, and the stations are already uplinked, so I still think we will see nationwide HD distants on Dish's system.

Actually, if the injunction had not occurred, it is doubtful that Dish would ever have even thought to have a third-party vendor offer distants on Dish's system. So we are still today seeing the effects of the distants lawsuit. It apparently forever changed Dish, even though the injunction is now lifted.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

runner861 said:


> I'm still not clear what stricter regulations Dish is under. The same law applies to them as to any other company. They have a special master watching them, but that does not change the law.
> 
> Direct, for example, is a company similar to Dish, yet it manages to provide distants. The only significant difference between the two companies is that there may be a few markets where Direct does not provide locals.
> 
> ...


Dish didn't think about having a third party offer distants, they were forced to having a 3rd party, as Dish skirted(violated the rules) Distant Networks, and the FCC backed up others came down Hard on DISH. The rules forced upon Dish and the time frame that allows Dish to compete in the DNS market again, are just now changing, but the rules are still different for Dish than others. Dish has prove they can offer DNS, and follow the rules before the FCC is going to drop its restrictions on Dish.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

GrumpyBear said:


> Dish didn't think about having a third party offer distants, they were forced to having a 3rd party, as Dish skirted(violated the rules) Distant Networks, and the FCC backed up others came down Hard on DISH. The rules forced upon Dish and the time frame that allows Dish to compete in the DNS market again, are just now changing, but the rules are still different for Dish than others. Dish has prove they can offer DNS, and follow the rules before the FCC is going to drop its restrictions on Dish.


The FCC has no particular restrictions on Dish with regard to distants.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

runner861 said:


> The FCC has no particular restrictions on Dish with regard to distants.


So After this court ruling, brought by the FCC against Dish,
*As of Dec. 1 2006, Dish will be barred from providing distant channels, even to customers who would have been eligible. *
When did the FCC change the restrictions on Dish, back to were there were no restrictions, and Dish could do whatever they wanted in the Distant Network market?

With a court ruling like that one, the FCC would have restrictions on any and all carriers, rather it was put in place by the FCC, granted the FCC wouldn't as they have no spine, but since the ruling is a court order, the FCC has to enforce it, and the FCC is the only one that can enforce that kind of ruling and put restrictions on a carrier, like Dish.

I know your personal belief is the injuction doesn't effect Dish, but whats important is how the lawyers involved feel about the language of injuction.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

GrumpyBear said:


> So After this court ruling, brought by the FCC against Dish,
> *As of Dec. 1 2006, Dish will be barred from providing distant channels, even to customers who would have been eligible. *
> When did the FCC change the restrictions on Dish, back to were there were no restrictions, and Dish could do whatever they wanted in the Distant Network market?
> 
> ...


The original lawsuit was filed by a group of broadcasters, not the FCC. The district court imposed the injunction, not the FCC. The injunction has now been lifted by that same court. The FCC is a regulatory agency and lacks authority to impose injunctions. It was not a party to the distants lawsuit.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> I'm still not clear what stricter regulations Dish is under. The same law applies to them as to any other company. They have a special master watching them, but that does not change the law.


DISH, being a company that provides LiL in 100% of television markets, is more restricted than DirecTV (which reaches 95%+ of television households?) which is more restricted than AAD/DN LLC which delivers no LiL. DISH, being a company that has an injunction against them that prevented them from delivering Distants, MUST offer carriage of LiL in 100% of television markets (including setting aside transponder space for channels not carried due to failure of stations to grant consent. NO other satellite provider is REQUIRED by law to offer carriage of LiL in every market in order to deliver Distants to any customer anywhere.



> Direct, for example, is a company similar to Dish, yet it manages to provide distants. The only significant difference between the two companies is that there may be a few markets where Direct does not provide locals.


A few. DirecTV has also been allowed to grandfather customers who had Distants before the laws changed and in markets where locals were later added. DISH has no grandfathered customers. One may wish that grandfathering could be transferred between providers but there is no evidence that anyone has been allowed to change providers and keep their grandfathered Distants or waivers. In real life when you change providers everything starts over.

AAD/DN LLC has the least restrictions as they can serve white areas in any market. The downside is that the overhead costs of running a business need to be applied to their one product ... Distant networks ... while DISH and DirecTV can pay that overhead via other subscriptions (to the point that a line item charge for Distants is not needed).



> However, this is a gap in their service, and one hopes that it will be addressed soon. There will always be the RV market as well, and the stations are already uplinked, so I still think we will see nationwide HD distants on Dish's system.


The number of people DISH could legally deliver Distants to is much smaller than the number of people DirecTV or AAD/DN LLC can deliver Distants to. We're not talking about a huge hole ... we're talking about a few thousand customers. If there were 10,000 customers willing to pay AAD/NPS' price for HD Distants the service would have been viable. As one lowers the price they would likely find more customers willing to pay ... but one still needs to stay above the threshold of making money.

If DISH offers Distants (beyond their current short market offering) it will be a service provided to relatively few people. DISH would be better off agreeing to the demands of YES, MSG and now SNY than providing a Distants service. There is a long list of "one channel" adds that would serve more customers. It is a gap ... but far from being the biggest gap in their offerings.



> Actually, if the injunction had not occurred, it is doubtful that Dish would ever have even thought to have a third-party vendor offer distants on Dish's system. So we are still today seeing the effects of the distants lawsuit. It apparently forever changed Dish, even though the injunction is now lifted.


If DISH had not illegally delivered Distants and continued to illegally provide Distants even after being told by the court to stop the injunction would not have occurred. If congress would have originally placed the satellite SV rules under the LiL section of the law (where they are now) instead of in the Distants section of the law (where they were in 2004) DISH may have not tried so hard to get Distants back. There are a lot of "ifs" (that is why Snoopy sells insurance).

DISH has to deal with where they are NOW. Taking the injunction out of effect does not magically revert DISH to where they were in 2006.

Going back to what you said before:


runner861 said:


> The injunction has been lifted. Dish can do anything that the law allows with regard to distants. The law prohibiting them from working with another company to offer distants related to the section that required the injunction.


DISH can do anything the law allows them to do ... not anything that the law allows a separate satellite company operating under different circumstances to do. For example, DirecTV could decide to pull their LiL service from the Montery market (or any other market) and continue to offer the same Distants service that they offer today nationwide. DISH can't do that.

Lifting the injunction does not change the law governing the relationship between DISH and third party offerings. Either the Distants are DISH Network offerings (subject to all the restrictions we agree are in place) or they are third party offerings (subject to the circumstances relating to the third party). If they are DISH Network offerings there is no need for a third party but if they are not DISH Network offerings that third party MUST stand alone.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> DISH, being a company that provides LiL in 100% of television markets, is more restricted than DirecTV (which reaches 95%+ of television households?) which is more restricted than AAD/DN LLC which delivers no LiL. DISH, being a company that has an injunction against them that prevented them from delivering Distants, MUST offer carriage of LiL in 100% of television markets (including setting aside transponder space for channels not carried due to failure of stations to grant consent. NO other satellite provider is REQUIRED by law to offer carriage of LiL in every market in order to deliver Distants to any customer anywhere.
> 
> A few. DirecTV has also been allowed to grandfather customers who had Distants before the laws changed and in markets where locals were later added. DISH has no grandfathered customers. One may wish that grandfathering could be transferred between providers but there is no evidence that anyone has been allowed to change providers and keep their grandfathered Distants or waivers. In real life when you change providers everything starts over.
> 
> ...


I think that the goal of Dish is to have a third-party offer the distants. Otherwise Dish would make the offer now.

I don't see the hundred percent of all markets being offered LIL service to be a hurdle anymore. Dish met that threshold a year ago, and why would they want to not offer a hundred percent LIL? For that matter, why would Direct want to withdraw LIL service from any market? (Although Monterey is still SD on Direct, so they don't care much about that market.)

It is the same law that applies to AAD, Dish, and Direct. The difference is with each company--the services each company provides--not with the law.

I agree that in real life when you change providers everything starts over. No one has honored grandfathered status across providers. However, it is an interesting and open question, at least from a legal perspective. Perhaps the issue will never come up. There are many areas of law that are uncertain, yet no one ventures into the area. There are also people/companies who challenge the law by taking, for example, tax deductions that are neither specifically prohibited nor specifically permitted by the law. Tax professionals make these kind of decisions all the time.

Speaking hypothetically, Dish, Direct, or AAD could start honoring grandfathered status across providers. As long as the records were accurate, they would have a strong argument for their position. Unless successfully sued and ordered by a court to stop, honoring grandfathered status across providers could become the standard of practice. To me it is an interesting legal question, but it may never be answered.

Is the 10,000 subscribers to AAD HD distants accurate? I thought that they would have had more, but perhaps I am incorrect.

Yes, Dish could agree to the demands of SNY, MSG, or any other channel. That is a negotiating posture and contractual agreement. But the distants are different--they are covered by a compulsory statutory license.

What is interesting now is that Dish has the space reserved for the distants, but it is going unused and therefore making no money for Dish. (Or maybe it is--some distants are uplinked and available, but to whom?)


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> It is the same law that applies to AAD, Dish, and Direct. The difference is with each company--the services each company provides--not with the law.


But there IS a difference. And that difference is based on the services each company provides. DISH cannot break the rules that apply to THEIR service.



> No one has honored grandfathered status across providers.


And I doubt they ever will. Who wants to risk their ability to deliver Distants by delivering them to people who don't qualify? I suppose they could come up with a waiver request form to be submitted with proof that Distants were currently being subscribed to at the moment of the request. But it is a messy situation that could tie a company up in court.



> Yes, Dish could agree to the demands of SNY, MSG, or any other channel. That is a negotiating posture and contractual agreement. But the distants are different--they are covered by a compulsory statutory license.


You missed the point. You claimed there was "a gap in their service" ... as if offering Distants was the one problem with DISH's service. There are MANY more important offerings than Distants.

At the moment DirecTV is sitting with 13-33 channels worth of free space ... DISH is at 6-14 channels (Western Arc). 14 channels if they use the old HD Distants transponder for channels. Getting someone to give them $150k (preferably more) per month for that transponder is solid income. Using it for channels that don't bring in money may or may not improve the bottom line. I believe DISH is still holding out hope for the ~$150k (or more).

I wonder about the health of AAD/DN LLC ... do they have enough subscribers to pay for their SD Distants service? Or did they hope that the HD customers being forced to SD would stay (boosting their SD subscriber count). Consolidating their services to SD only reduced the transponder lease ... but at their current rates they still need at least 10,000 subscribers to "all networks-both coasts" just to pay the lease ... plus additional subscribers to pay for the rest of their operational costs. I would not be surprised to see AAD/DN LLC end services by the end of the year.

And perhaps when they do DISH will offer their own service. Allowing a 2nd third party to compete with AAD would probably kill both services (but give DISH a few months transponder lease payments). DISH turning on RV Distants now would likely be the end of AAD. Perhaps DISH is staying out of the business to keep AAD in the business of paying their monthly transponder lease.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> But there IS a difference. And that difference is based on the services each company provides. DISH cannot break the rules that apply to THEIR service.


I will make one thing very clear. I have never advocated that Dish, or anyone, break the law or the rules regarding distants or any other issue. Look at any past post; you will see that I have never done it. I have only advocated that Dish get the HD distants going, either directly from Dish or from AAD or someone else.

I don't see a significant difference between Direct and Dish with regard to what they can do with distants. However, there are some differences with how they choose to handle distants.

Direct fails to cover a few small markets with LIL, while Dish covers all markets. This was a requirement for Dish to get the injunction lifted. Both have distants SD and HD uplinked, so space is not the issue. Dish has a private vendor marketing SD distants, and probably isn't offering HD distants. Direct offers both SD and HD distants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

What I'm trying to get at is your statement on the injunction ... the lifting of the injunction does not change the relationship between DISH and any third party. DISH cannot give a third party any more help now than they did when the injunction was in place. The third party STILL must stand alone.

If DISH offers Distants on their transponders it will be under the stricter conditions that DISH lives under - not under the conditions that apply to DirecTV or AAD/DN LLC. Giving a third party additional help (such as leasing less than a transponder or sharing feeds between DISH's service to their customers and the third party's service to the third party's customers) is just asking for trouble.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> What I'm trying to get at is your statement on the injunction ... the lifting of the injunction does not change the relationship between DISH and any third party. DISH cannot give a third party any more help now than they did when the injunction was in place. The third party STILL must stand alone.
> 
> If DISH offers Distants on their transponders it will be under the stricter conditions that DISH lives under - not under the conditions that apply to DirecTV or AAD/DN LLC. Giving a third party additional help (such as leasing less than a transponder or sharing feeds between DISH's service to their customers and the third party's service to the third party's customers) is just asking for trouble.


Ok, I get what you are saying. I am thinking that now that the injunction is lifted, Dish can do things like share uplinks and transponder usage. For example, use a transponder for LA network locals and also have another company using it for LA network distants. I think that might be ok. Perhaps it would be ok, perhaps not. I was thinking that Dish could do something along those lines to make it easier for a distants vendor. Of course, the vendor would still have to sell the distants and keep all the money from the distants, less any lease fee to Dish. However, I was thinking that a situation like that might make it economically more palatable to Dish and to the vendor.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just to add to the confusion ... the test channels have been added to the Eastern Arc.

*Changes seen 4/6/11 at 3:41pm ET (v03)*

*New Uplinks / Mappings - Channels NOT Available*
9950 WABC added to 72.7° TP 32 (HD *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 61.5° 15s3 (Bethpage) Ch 6300
9951 WCBS added to 72.7° TP 32 (HD *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 61.5° 15s3 (Bethpage) Ch 6301
9952 WNBC added to 72.7° TP 32 (HD *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 61.5° 15s3 (Bethpage) Ch 6302
9953 WNYW added to 72.7° TP 32 (HD *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 61.5° 15s3 (Bethpage) Ch 6303
9954 KABC added to 72.7° TP 22 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 110° TP 17 Ch 9954
9955 KCBS added to 72.7° TP 22 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 110° TP 17 Ch 9955
9956 KNBC added to 72.7° TP 22 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 110° TP 17 Ch 9956
9957 KTTV added to 72.7° TP 22 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 110° TP 17 Ch 9957
9958 PBS PBS National Feed added to 72.7° TP 5 (SD MPEG4 *TEST* Hidden) EPG linked to 119° TP 8 Ch 249


----------



## bluegras (Jan 31, 2008)

why can't dish network add the pbs stations from Chicago in HD?


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

James Long said:


> Just to add to the confusion ... the test channels have been added to the Eastern Arc.


Now that IS interesting...


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

It's like they love messing with us.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Especially (as runner noted in the uplink thread) with the SD and the HD reversed. EA has east coast HD and west coast SD, WA has west coast HD and east coast SD. The channel numbers are the same for each coast but HD vs SD on the different arcs.

Messy.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

I want to clarify a posting in a prior thread, which is now closed (p 2 of "distant networks lose HD channels"). Some posters, including me, at one point said that grandfathering is not station-specific. In other words, grandfathering perserves "unserved" status, so that a grandfathered subscriber can change distants within the same network (i.e. change from San Francisco ABC to Los Angeles ABC). I believe that "grandfathering" is in most cases station-specific.

17 USC Sec. 119(a)(3)(B) states that generally an "unserved household" may receive a distant signal of the network which does ot serve the household. An "unserved household" may continue to be an "unserved household" when a local station becomes available, as long as the household was a lawful subscriber to a distant at the time of the enactment of STELA 2010. An "unserved household" is unserved as to a particular network, so it appears that any distant station of the appropriate network could serve that household.

However, read the definitions section 17 USC Sec. 119(d)(10), which defines "unserved household" generally as a subscriber who cannot receive the station over the air, who was receiving service in the late 1990s (I think coinciding with the Dish lawsuit regarding distants in Florida), who is receiving service in an RV or commercial truck, or who is receiving service via C-band.

When the definition of "unserved household" is included, it is apparent that the "grandfathering" status under this section is actually quite limited.

The "grandfathering" that will apply to most subscribers is included in 47 USC Sec. 339. (a)(1)(B)(ii). It states that "A subscriber of a satellite carrier who was lawfully receiving the distant signal of a network station on the day before the date of enactment of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 [enacted May 27, 2010] may receive both such distant signal and the local signal of a network station affiliated with the same network until such subscriber chooses to no longer receive such distant signal from such carrier, whether or not such subscriber elects to subscribe to such local signal."

That language appears to be to be specific to the station, not the network. It also is carrier-specific. So, grandfathered status cannot be taken from one carrier to another, and it cannot be used to change distants (i.e. San Francisco to Los Angeles).

However, the subscribers to AAD who had their HD distants terminated are still grandfathered as to those distants from AAD, and may receive them again if AAD ever recommences HD service from LA and Chicago. Those subscribers did not choose to terminate the HD service, so they retain their grandfathered status as to those specific HD stations from AAD.

Bottom line: If you have any sort of distants, and you want to retain "grandfathered" status, don't cancel them for any reason.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

runner861 said:


> However, the subscribers to AAD who had their HD distants terminated are still grandfathered as to those distants from AAD, and may receive them again if AAD ever recommences HD service from LA and Chicago. Those subscribers did not choose to terminate the HD service, so they retain their grandfathered status as to those specific HD stations from AAD.


By that logic all of the DISH customers who had grandfathered distants back in 2006 should get them back. Good luck with that.

The law keeps changing - adjusting to eliminate as many grandfathered customers as possible. AAD is not interested in providing a HD service. It is more likely that AAD will fold up and cease to be a provider that to see any expansion in service.

You may also wish to check to make sure you're not confusing rules written for a provider with local channels (DirecTV and DISH, for example) with the rules that apply to AAD.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> By that logic all of the DISH customers who had grandfathered distants back in 2006 should get them back. Good luck with that.
> 
> The law keeps changing - adjusting to eliminate as many grandfathered customers as possible. AAD is not interested in providing a HD service. It is more likely that AAD will fold up and cease to be a provider that to see any expansion in service.
> 
> You may also wish to check to make sure you're not confusing rules written for a provider with local channels (DirecTV and DISH, for example) with the rules that apply to AAD.


I'm not commenting on anything about the situation with distants in 2006 and Dish Network. I'm just commenting on the state of the law today. (If I recall correctly, Dish brought up the idea at the distants trial that it was impossible to conclude that it did not have a single grandfathered customer. Yet Dish was unable to document a single grandfathered customer.)

I'm not commenting on what AAD may or may not do. I'm just commenting on the state of the law.

I'm not commenting on rules. Rules are written by an administrative agency, such as the FCC. This is the law as written by Congress. Rules and law are not the same thing.

The same law applies to Dish and Direct as to AAD. The law is written in the general sense. A law that specifically applied to Dish only was the injunction.

Again, the law is written in the general sense. There is no "AAD section" of STELA, there is no "Dish and Direct section" of STELA.

If you disagree with my interpretation, then please cite me to the appropriate sections.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You're expressing an OPINION, and so am I.

BTW: If you have not heard of the rule of law perhaps there is no point to study further.

(What you're messing up is reading sections intended for companies that have locals and applying said sections to a company that provides no locals.)


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> You're expressing an OPINION, and so am I.
> 
> BTW: If you have not heard of the rule of law perhaps there is no point to study further.
> 
> (What you're messing up is reading sections intended for companies that have locals and applying said sections to a company that provides no locals.)


Please cite me to the parts you claim I am messing up.

Do a little research on the difference between a law and a rule. Laws are passed by Congress. Rules are promulgated by administrative agencies. Once you understand this, you can perhaps discuss this topic with a higher level of understanding.

Again, there are no sections for AAD as opposed to Dish or Direct. The law is written in a general sense. Why don't you start by reading the sections that I have cited? You haven't included a single citation in any of your responses yet.

Again, if you can give me a citation, then we can perhaps have a discussion.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thanks for your opinion. It will be taken as noted.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Thanks for your opinion. It will be taken as noted.


I take it that you no longer dispute what I have said. If you do disagree, I am interested in a discussion. But it must be that, a discussion, with citation to authorities. Otherwise, it is of no value to anyone. My goal is to educate others, and to be educated. Telling someone that he/she is "messing up" without citation to authority benefits no one.

Also, I will say that these sections that I have cited are very dense. It took a while to get through them and understand them.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> You're expressing an OPINION, and so am I.
> 
> BTW: If you have not heard of the rule of law perhaps there is no point to study further.
> 
> (What you're messing up is reading sections intended for companies that have locals and applying said sections to a company that provides no locals.)


This is the definition of "satellite carrier," as taken from 47 USC sec. 119(d)(6):

SATELLITE CARRIER.-The term ''satellite carrier'' means an entity that uses the facilities of a satellite or satellite service licensed by the Federal Communications Commission and operates in the Fixed-Satellite Service under part 25 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service under part 100 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to establish and operate a channel of communications for point-to-multipoint distribution of television station signals, and that owns or leases a capacity or service on a satellite in order to provide such point-to-multipoint distribution, except to the extent that such entity provides such distribution pursuant to tariff under the Communications Act of 1934, other than for private home viewing pursuant to this section.

The definition fits Dish, Direct, and AAD. Laws are written in the general sense. You actually have this section published on your website.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Apparently you're just here to argue ... with no one?

Note: A lack of detailed reply does not constitute agreement with your opinion. As you noted, you're reopening discussion from a closed thread and basically hijacking this thread. Thanks for admitting your error, but there is no reason to continue that discussion.


----------



## runner861 (Mar 20, 2010)

James Long said:


> Apparently you're just here to argue ... with no one?
> 
> Note: A lack of detailed reply does not constitute agreement with your opinion. As you noted, you're reopening discussion from a closed thread and basically hijacking this thread. Thanks for admitting your error, but there is no reason to continue that discussion.


Not sure why you are responding. I wanted to clarify/correct an earlier statement made by several posters, including me, that was incorrect. This issue is interesting from an intellectual perspective, and it may have practical application at some point. Also, I don't want to leave misinformation out there.

You still haven't cited to anything. You took my comment as an affront to you.

An intellectual discussion is useful; bullying and sarcastic comments don't help anyone.

Why don't you comment on the substance? (I know that you are thinking that because AAD does not provide local service it will have more unserved customers than Dish or Direct, and that is true. But I am talking about grandfathering, which is something different. And it may impact customers who were unserved because of being in a short market, but now that market has added a new station, making the customer no longer be unserved. That customer may still be a grandfathered customer. That is all I am talking about. It is nothing personal to you, yet you took it that way.)


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

There will be no grandfathering. There are no customers to grandfather. It was determined Dish was not following the rules in allowing distant networks. Each and every person would have to show that they were correctly getting the distants at the time Dish had to stop providing them. Even at that, to be grandfathered you have be presently getting the distants from the provider, obviously no one is. 
Anyone who gets or got distants from AAD is getting or got them from a company separate from Dish, so again, no grandfathering.


----------

