# NAB: If Locals Available, No Distant Nets



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

While the National Association of Broadcasters didn't come out completely against distant network signals delivered by satellite TV, the organization said in comments sent to the Federal Communications Commission last week that use of distant network signals should be a last resort.

NAB's comments were part of the FCC's look into distant network signals, including digital distant networks, which were authorized in the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA). Once the FCC rules are in place, satellite TV services would be allowed to offer customers digital distant network feeds, with restrictions.

NAB said the FCC should stick with a "if local, no distant" principle in determining eligibility for distant network signals. "Because local-to-local service is the desirable way to deliver network affiliates to satellite subscribers, and because distant network station signals are at best a necessary evil, the SHVERA pushes the DBS industry towards the former and away from the latter," the broadcast association said.

Part of the FCC inquiry scrutinizes the extent in which satellite TV companies will be allowed to deliver digital HD signals from large cities - such as New York City or Los Angeles - to smaller markets. NAB said in its comments the FCC should promise that a DBS company cannot "use the distant digital compulsory license as an inexpensive, large-scale substitute for digital local-into-local."

http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)


----------



## capman (Mar 23, 2005)

well here it goes - - ( WAH !) :hurah:


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

> "Because local-to-local service is the desirable way to deliver network affiliates to satellite subscribers,


It is? Not to satellite customers who can't get national channels added because their DBS provider's bandwidth is clogged with "desirable" LIL.


> and because distant network station signals are at best a necessary evil, ...


Wow, they _really_ don't understand the people their members are supposed to be serving.* For many, distant nets are pure manna. Too many NAB member stations don't deliver proper picture and sound, and don't adhere to their affiliated network's schedule. Also, having a time-shifted distant net allows the viewing of more network programming.

* Yes, I realize this sentence is nonsense. The people matter only when the ratings come out and the NAB exists only to protect the interests of the member stations.


----------



## gor88 (May 9, 2003)

BobaBird said:


> ... For many, distant nets are pure manna. Too many NAB member stations don't deliver proper picture and sound, and don't adhere to their affiliated network's schedule. Also, having a time-shifted distant net allows the viewing of more network programming...


Well said, BobaBird.

I was smart enough to exploit a loophole in the distant qualification process in March 2004. We got a new FOX station on 9/30/2003, after not having one for two years in Jackson, MS, due to Pegasus Broadcasting flipping it to WB over a dispute.  Unfortunately, the new owners thought it would be too cost prohibitive to add a MTS stereo encoder to the new station at the time. FOX35's audio is monaural, which sucks when watching sports in surround. I am told that the station is waiting on approval from the corporate office of a game plan to add MTS stereo. Who knows what will happen. Anyway, the distants database was not updated with this new FOX station until around 9/1/2004, about 4.5 months after the FCC granted WUFX full license.

Fortunately, since I "qualified" under DirecTV's distant qualification at the time, I am now grandfathered with my distant with no waiver at all (since I didn't "have" a FOX affiliate then). I watch NASCAR on FOX5 NY now (when races are on FOX) and love it. My wife finds it quite ironic that we have to watch a "Yankee" station to get the proper surround sound for a NASCAR race. :lol: 

I hope the NAB doesn't win in their campaign to pull distants from those of us who are grandfathered. For crying out loud, we will lose it in 2009 anyway, if I remember correctly. Hopefully, by that time, the HD locals for Jackson, MS (DMA #91) will be available via DirecTV.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

BobaBird,

Dito, my brother! Both you and gor88 should send copeis of these posts to your congressmen and both senators from your states. When we don't communicate they can only assume we don't care.

I agree with the NAB to some extent. Local-into-local should be given the highest priority. However not to the exclusion of other same network signals if within range. Require LIL if any and once LIL has been satisfied allow other signals and let the subcribers watch the channels they choose to watch. If he wants the watch the local station, great. If he wants to watch a DNS then let him make that choice provided the lil signal is an option.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2005)

The broadcast lobby (aka NAB) is an evil empire that believes it should be able to determine what people should be able to get on TV. The prohibition on receiving distant stations is like being told you can't read the New York Times because you live in Chicago. Cable and satellite companies are compelled by law to carry local TV stations, yet those same stations are protected from having to compete with distant stations.

These onerous regulations will only have the effect of prolonging the decline of the broadcast TV dinosaur. Over the long run, newer technologies will make it impossible for them to defend their turf against competition.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

rcoleman:

I couldn't've said it any better. And in fact, I have said exactly that. 

The NAB is just like the Buggy Whip Manufacturers Protection Society.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Over the long run, newer technologies will make it impossible for them to defend their turf against competition.


Shhhhhh!!!! Tivo has a service that lets you download programs via the Internet "*to your laptop*" any where in the world called TIVO to go. A friend just sent me this. http://www.slingmedia.com/ They need to deceide if they want to be part of the 21st centuray or left behind for having no vision for the future.

The cardinal rule of business: Give the customers what they want. Customers are willing to pay something fair. I don't like communism and I don't like censorship. All pizza isn't the same if the toppings are different. All network station's aren't the same if the local programming is different.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2005)

Yes, I've read about the Slingbox. It's an example of new technologies that will make it impossible for the broadcasters to prevent people from watching distant TV stations. 

The broadcasters and the giant media companies always have the same approach to new technologies - instead of adapting their business model, they try to get the new technology outlawed. The "broadcast flag" is the latest example - they broadcast their programs over the public airwaves, free to anyone with a TV antenna, but they are afraid people will "steal" their programs and redistribute them. So their answer is to try to take away the fair-use rights of viewers to record programs for their own use. 

The movie companies (some of them owned by the same companies that own the TV networks and some of the stations) are just as bad. Their answer to the VCR was to go to court in the early '80s to try to have it banned. They have since made billions of dollars from home video, but all they can see is that a few people are ripping them off.


----------



## exreno (Jul 15, 2005)

Let's see....If I want to buy the New York Times in San Francisco, No Problem. If I want to listen to a 50,000 watt L.A. radio station at night, No problem. But if I want to watch an out of town TV station.....YOU CAN'T DO THAT!


----------



## BobMurdoch (Apr 24, 2002)

Yes, if I buy the LA times I am depriving my local newspaper from being able to exercise their godgiven right to own what ads they forcefeed into me. 

This is right up there with media sharing. I am prohibited from sharing a track I bought on a CD via a peer to peer network, but my local government mandates that I pay to support a library that will buy a book and then share it with as many people as they can without compensating the author for anything more than the first copy (um, didn't I do that when I bought the CD?) Sorry, old rant of mine. Kind of like Bill Maher and his high fructose corn syrup rants. Gotta work it into a conversation at least once a month or so.....


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

.....however you have to realize where this attitude is coming from. No one sold the NY Times, the LA times or any other newspaper "exclusive rights" to publish in any given area. The local TV stations did however pay to have "exclusive rights" to broadcast their network programming in their "area". So of course they'll act real defensive if anything threatens that. After all they have paid for the right to not to have to compete with anyone else offering the same product in their area. Like I said I don't agree with it but I do know why that's the way it is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2005)

tsmacro said:
 

> .....however you have to realize where this attitude is coming from. No one sold the NY Times, the LA times or any other newspaper "exclusive rights" to publish in any given area. The local TV stations did however pay to have "exclusive rights" to broadcast their network programming in their "area". So of course they'll act real defensive if anything threatens that. After all they have paid for the right to not to have to compete with anyone else offering the same product in their area. Like I said I don't agree with it but I do know why that's the way it is.


They may have agreements with the broadcast networks regarding network programs, but keep in mind that they are using the public airwaves to operate their business. The restrictions on importing distant stations are the result of the money and political power of the broadcast lobby and nothing else.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

More likely, those restrictions are to keep the stations operating and paying their bills.

However, if they could just NATIONALIZE the entire media and give us everything for FREE (well, at least just pay for it all through our taxes), it wouldn't matter if individual stations have any viewers or make any money.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> .....however you have to realize where this attitude is coming from. No one sold the NY Times, the LA times or any other newspaper "exclusive rights" to publish in any given area. The local TV stations did however pay to have "exclusive rights" to broadcast their network programming in their "area". So of course they'll act real defensive if anything threatens that. After all they have paid for the right to not to have to compete with anyone else offering the same product in their area. Like I said I don't agree with it but I do know why that's the way it is.


I don't think so. ABC and NBC networks pay the local stations to be affiliates, not the other way around. With FOX and CBS no money is exchanged as far I know.

Local newspapers do buy rights to AP and UPI stories and photos plus colums and comic strips. Local TV stations are just being anti-free speech.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Clearification: They are protectionists over being principled proponents of an unabridged electronic news media. What they don't seem to realize is they would benifit most if we lived in a country where there were no restrictions on what TV station the American people were permitted to watch.


----------



## Spruceman (Nov 21, 2004)

What the NAB wants is to pursue an economic model similar to that Mussolini had prescribed for Italy in the 1930s, and what was once tried in the USA in the '30s (Natl Industrial Recovery Act) but much of which was thrown out by the courts. If your local affiliate wants your eyes and ears, all it has to do is to DO ITS JOB using state of the practice equipment and procedures as an affiliate and provide good local programming during non-network hours -- e.g., a good 6 and 11 PM newscast, etc.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> If your local affiliate wants your eyes and ears, all it has to do is to DO ITS JOB


I'm not complaining about the job my local affiliate is doing. I think they do a very good job especially the NBC and ABC stations. The quality they produce is superior to many larger markets. What they cannot do is offer me in-depth local coverage things going on in other cities. If you live in San Diego but want to keep up with the happenings in Los Angeles for whatever reason, the censorship lobby and their proponents suggest you address that problem by relocating to Los Angeles.

This is 2005. Technological advancements are in place to lift the line-of-sight restrictions that have historically limited the reach of broadcast television. Instead of getting behind the new opportunities to allow regional superstation status to nearly every local TV station in America, the powers that be have instead dug in their heels to restrict the opportunities these advancements have made available. Its both frustrating and bewildering. Imagine a modern world with the amazing technology of the Internet and all the possibilities it brings to bring the entire world into your home. Not so fast! Local traditional BBS servers feel threatened so they unify and get congress to restrict the Internet so that you can only visit local websites that are hosted in your local area under and entire list of justifications. This is what has happened to satellite TV.


----------



## Jeff McClellan (Apr 22, 2002)

What I think is a hoot is that with a great UHF antenna and preamp, I can pull in 4 different DMAs. Digital that is. Guess thats against the law to.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> What I think is a hoot is that with a great UHF antenna and preamp, I can pull in 4 different DMAs. Digital that is. Guess thats against the law to.


I won't tell anyone. I just don't get this "lets stay in the stone age as long as possible" mentality.

BTW: Thanks for the great idea! Question: I'm not digital just yet (waiting for the prices on equipment to come down a little more) but how many miles away is the most distant market you can get?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

JEFF M said:


> What I think is a hoot is that with a great UHF antenna and preamp, I can pull in 4 different DMAs. Digital that is. Guess thats against the law to.


No, it's not against the law to watch anything that you can receive. What is against the law is for someone to receive those signals and retransmit them to you. They can't because they don't own the copyright to the programming. The TV stations have purchased the programming rights to anywhere that their over the air signal can reach. Retransmission by a third party to another area is not in the program rights contract and not allowed by law.

You're lucky to be in an area where you have can make your own choice of programming, so no complaining allowed, I'm jealous. My antenna on a 120' tower can't get much outside of Albany.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

News Junky said:


> I'm not complaining about the job my local affiliate is doing. I think they do a very good job especially the NBC and ABC stations. The quality they produce is superior to many larger markets. What they cannot do is offer me in-depth local coverage things going on in other cities. If you live in San Diego but want to keep up with the happenings in Los Angeles for whatever reason, the censorship lobby and their proponents suggest you address that problem by relocating to Los Angeles.


I totally agree, if they're going to have all the local channels on satellite, you should be able to at least subscribe to other cities newscast if you want to keep up on what's going on "back home."



News Junky said:


> This is 2005. Technological advancements are in place to lift the line-of-sight restrictions that have historically limited the reach of broadcast television. Instead of getting behind the new opportunities to allow regional superstation status to nearly every local TV station in America, the powers that be have instead dug in their heels to restrict the opportunities these advancements have made available. Its both frustrating and bewildering. Imagine a modern world with the amazing technology of the Internet and all the possibilities it brings to bring the entire world into your home. Not so fast! Local traditional BBS servers feel threatened so they unify and get congress to restrict the Internet so that you can only visit local websites that are hosted in your local area under and entire list of justifications. This is what has happened to satellite TV.


Yup, if I'm able to get cell phone service inside of my home, then I should be able to receive all of my OTA HD local channels inside of my home.



kenglish said:


> However, if they could just NATIONALIZE the entire media and give us everything for FREE (well, at least just pay for it all through our taxes), it wouldn't matter if individual stations have any viewers or make any money.


You know, maybe its time for these so called "national networks" to go national like CNN, ESPN, etc. Or if a person can't get their local OTA HD channel via antenna, at least go "national" during primetime or during major sporting events that are broadcasted in HD.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2005)

Tower Guy said:


> No, it's not against the law to watch anything that you can receive. What is against the law is for someone to receive those signals and retransmit them to you. They can't because they don't own the copyright to the programming. The TV stations have purchased the programming rights to anywhere that their over the air signal can reach. Retransmission by a third party to another area is not in the program rights contract and not allowed by law.
> 
> You're lucky to be in an area where you have can make your own choice of programming, so no complaining allowed, I'm jealous. My antenna on a 120' tower can't get much outside of Albany.


Keep in mind how cable TV got started. It wasn't to broadcast TV signals into local markets that could receive those signals over the air. It was to extend those signals into fringe areas and areas that were out of range of the TV stations. No permission was needed for retransmitting broadcast signals until the broadcasters started lobbying Congress for legislation to protect themselves from competition. It was only when newer technologies allowed broadcast signals to be transmitted over greater distances (i.e., to distant cities where there were TV stations) that the broadcasters started claiming it was a "copyright" issue.

The broadcast industry has a history of buying influence in Congress and getting legislation passed that protects them from competition, but they are fighting a losing battle. As newer devices like the Slingbox become widespread, they are going to find it impossible to prevent people from watching distant TV stations.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Ummm...actually, the TV stations fought cable tooth and nail until congress passed laws that allowed specific exceptions to the copyright laws to allow cable compnies to continue infringing on copyright owners' rights. Yes the fight hit a fever pitch with satellite delivery, but the fight was already a decade old (thanks to WTBS or whatever the station was called just before it changed to WTBS) when the SHVA and the cable communications act of of 1984 was passed. There was also a previous version which also addressed distant signals but not as strictly.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Ummm...actually, the TV stations fought cable tooth and nail until congress passed laws that allowed specific exceptions to the copyright laws to allow cable compnies to continue infringing on copyright owners' rights. Yes the fight hit a fever pitch with satellite delivery, but the fight was already a decade old (thanks to WTBS or whatever the station was called just before it changed to WTBS) when the SHVA and the cable communications act of of 1984 was passed. There was also a previous version which also addressed distant signals but not as strictly.
> 
> See ya
> Tony


Ummm, actually what I stated is correct. When cable TV came into existence, it was to bring TV signals to areas that couldn't receive the signal, and no permission was required until Congress started passing laws to protect the broadcasters. Until about 15 years ago, cable companies were able to retransmit signals into areas that could already receive those signals without needing permission from the TV stations.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

No, what you said was INCORRECT. The legislation passed by Congress was not to protect the TV stations from the cable companies, it was to protect cable systems ( a new medium) from the already entrenched broadcast industry. The first laws dealing with cable SUSPENDED THE BROADCASTER'S COPYRIGHTS nullifying several civil court actions that had been in the works for a decade or more. Had Congress NOT acted, the broadcasters would have gotten to the point we are now about 30 years ago!

Yes, when cable companies came into existance it was expressly as a community antenna system. This is from 1947-1974(?). At this time HBO came on the scene and satellite technology was beginning to make exporting TV station's signals all over the country relatively inexpensive. In 1976, the proverbial **** hit the fan! Ted Turner took a small TV station in Atlanta and made it available nationwide. Tha problem was that he was paying the program distributors royalties to broadcast the programs ONLY IN ATLANTA. The began a virtual firestom of behind the scenes actions. There were no less than 50 separate court actions going on to stop Turner (and then later Mediacom (?) WWOR and whomever started up WGN nationally.) to put a stop to it. Congress put a stop to it in (I think) 1979 or 1980. The passed legilation to protect the calbe industry which was just getting started in metro areas at this time. It wasn't until 1984 that Congress started to loosen the restrictions PREVENTING broadcast groups from enforcing their copyrights.

You are right that no permission was needed before congress got involved, but no it is NOT true that broadcasters were just "okay" with this. They were trying from about 1972 until now to enforce copyrights they ALREADY OWNED.

The fight by broadcastes goes back to 1949 when John Walson started charging for the community antenna service. At this time the FCC chairman asked for information. It took 10 years for Congress to get into the act. In 1959 they tried to take control of cable systems away from the FCC when it was outside the signal contours of broadcasters. This failed.

There was a 1965 FCC report that said:
1) CATV should carry local stations because CATV supplements, not replaces, local stations and the non-carriage of local stations gives distant stations an advantage since people will not change from the cable to the antenna to see a local station; 

2) non-carriage is "inherently contrary to the public interest"; 

3) CATV duplication of local programming via distant signals is unfair since broadcasters and CATV do not compete for programs on an equal footing; the FCC recommends "a reasonable measure of exclusivity".

So, once again, it is nothing new and it is something that Congress acted AGAINST until now. The reason they acted against it was to help the cable industry grow. Now that the industry is mature, they removed the protections.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

Sorry, but you are the one who is incorrect. The entire history of regulation in this area has been geared toward protecting broadcasters, not cable or satellite companies (and certainly not consumers). Without help from Congress, the broadcast industry would be a dinosaur by now. It is based on obsolete technology and an obsolete business model and continues to thrive only because of laws like the "must-carry" rules. 

If you want to believe that your congressman and senators are representing you and not the media moguls who are funneling money to them, you are free to do so. The facts say otherwise.


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

Actually, TNGTony is correct, but so are you.

Congress and the FCC have only done the bare minimum they had to gfor cable - if it was any less, the $#!t really would've hit the fan.

I fully agree that local broadcast as it stands is a total dinosaur. There are only two reasons to have it - local news/weather/etc, and emergency notices. Yes, I am totally ignoring local commercials - commercials are also going the way of the dinosaur.

A single local channel similar to cable's "local access" would handle the first need, and modern technology is capable of providing local emergency crawls - regardless of the channel being viewed - even if it's a DVR recording. This is actually BETTER than the current system.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Sigh::::

The Cable communications act of 1984 had many provisions that PREVENTED broadcast stations from suing cable companies and distributors on the grounds of copyright enfringement! How hard is that to understand? The entire super station clause that exists to this day was done so that distant stations could continue to exist LONG afte the broadcast stations would have had the practice shut down in CIVIL COURTS. The Congressional acts are PERMISIVE. Every single one of the congressional acts are to ALLOW (sometimes mandate) carriage of broadcast stations when it otherwise would NOT be allowed or prevented by existing copyright laws!

Please learn your history and the current legislation before you tell some one they don't know what they are talking about!

Local into local via satellite was ILLEGAL until congess took action. Distant network channels were never allowed and court action by the broadcasters against cable and satellite companies were attempting to stop the practice via several civil law suits. The court cases were derailed two or three times by Congress until the Miami Court finally ruled this continually morphing case. But their ruling was made mosty moot (not mute) by the SHVIA. Superstations are allowed to this day because Congress created an exception to copyright laws already in the books and therby preventing broadcasters from stopping the practice.

I know this doesn't fit into your preconceived idea of what happened, but if it weren't for Congress STOPPING the NAB in its tracks a half dozen times, copyright law would have ended distant networks and superstations in 1979!

See ya
Tony


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

Sorry, Tony, but it just isn't so. If distant signals were never allowed, then the first cable systems would never have gotten off the ground. After all, they were importing signals into areas that couldn't otherwise receive them. 

As to Congress allowing satellite operators to carry local channels, that was in reaction to an outcry from thousands of satellite subscribers who were having their distant network feeds cut off. If you want to believe that Congress is being "permissive" (note the spelling - you might want to consider using a spell-checker) by giving back a little of what they have taken away with previous legislation, that's up to you. It doesn't change the fact that most of the legislation that regulates the use of the public airwaves is written for the benefit of the broadcast industry, not the public.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

It's useless to argue. I know I know what I am talking about. I have been involved with cable and satellite legislation since 1975! 

(note the spelling - you might want to consider using a spell-checker)

And when some one whom I know is DEAD WRONG and refuses to admit it starts to harp on spelling in a forum I know they have no real substance to their arguments.

See ya
Tony


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

http://www.ppc-online.com/glossary.cfm


> Syndicated Exclusivity (SYNDEX). Federal requirement that cable systems black out syndicated programming from distant signals (out-of-town television stations) for which a local broadcaster has exclusive contractual rights. For example, cable operators cannot import I Love Lucy as part of a distant TV signal if a local broadcaster has purchased the syndication rights for that program in its market. (The FCC eliminated this requirement in 1980 but reimposed it in 1990.)


http://users.primushost.com/~bcompain/telecomreg/cable issues.htm


> The Economic Report (1979)
> 
> Cable a minor threat to broadcast industry
> 
> ...


There's more but there is no reason I should do all the research for you


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

Sorry, Tony, but you are the one who is dead wrong, and I'm not referring to your spelling. If you choose to believe that the laws and regulations that have been passed over the years to protect broadcasters and take away choices from everyone else are for your benefit, it is certainly your right to do so. It's a free country, at least in theory, and that means you are free to live in a fool's paradise.

I commend you for at least doing some research on this subject, which is more than most people do. You just need to learn to read beyond the headlines and understand that when a bill is called the "Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act", it doesn't necessarily mean the "improvement" will benefit you. There is a reason the SHVIA isn't called the "Broadcasters Protection Act" (or maybe the "Satellite Home Viewers Harassment Act" would be more appropriate). The broadcast lobbyists who write the legislation are counting on people like yourself believing that it is something other than what it really is - a bill to preserve entrenched interests and to protect an antiquated business model from extinction.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

As with all internet forum arguments, morphing the argument to include things not originally mentioned is a specialty of those who are initially incorrect and then change their argument to muddy the issue.

Your statement that I called incorrect: "No permission was needed for retransmitting broadcast signals until the broadcasters started lobbying Congress for legislation to protect themselves from competition. It was only when newer technologies allowed broadcast signals to be transmitted over greater distances (i.e., to distant cities where there were TV stations) that the broadcasters started claiming it was a "copyright" issue."

My comment was "actually, the TV stations fought cable tooth and nail until congress passed laws that allowed specific exceptions to the copyright laws to allow cable companies to continue infringing on copyright owners' rights"

The very first copyright fight started in 1949 which happened to be EXACTLY the same time when a community antenna system first started charging for its services. Basically the stations fought copyright issues from DAY ONE of cable's existence.

The FCC at this time started to exercise its dominion over CATV. Congress tried to limit it and almost succeeded. The whole cable thing was up in the air for 10 years. It was a supreme court ruling 10 years later that finally gave the FCC the power to regulate cable. Syndex was an effort to codify and provide EXCEPTIONS to colyrights the stations owned and was put into effect in the early 60s! When the cable explosion happened in the very late 70s and early 80s syndex was RESCINDED.

So...your assertion that broadcast stations didn't care until recently is DEAD WRONG.

BTW as far as doing research, I have to break out my Cable Mgt text books from my 1980-1983 college courses again to get you specific legislation HR and SR numbers attempting to limit the FCC's dominion over cable if you wish.

See ya
Tony


















Specifically on this one PP 177-185 dealing with the history of the 1976 copyright act.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2005)

Your logic suffers the same flaws as your spelling. And you seem to believe that if you keep chanting the same arguments over and over again they will somehow make sense. 

The "copyright" issue is nothing but a red herring that was used by the broadcasters to hamstring the growth of cable TV in order to preserve their antiquated business model. It's the reason cable TV didn't reach most homes until 30 years after the first systems came online. It's an argument that has been used to rationalize all these restrictive rules and to allow broadcasters to decide what consumers can choose. And it has provided political cover for the corrupt politicians who take their money to pass repressive legislation. 

In what other industry does copyright dictate where the copyrighted material can be viewed? It's like passing a law that says you can't have the New York Times mailed to you if you live in Chicago. Or that you can't have an antenna more than 20 feet high because it would allow you to receive a copyrighted broadcast from a TV station you couldn't otherwise get. The early CATV systems were simply extending the reach of signals were offered free to anyone with an antenna to receive them. 

The broadcast lobbyists and the politicians who take their money must love people like you. All they have to do is give their legislation a misleading name and you will believe they are working for you. So keep reading - maybe you will eventually catch on that none of these laws are designed to benefit you. They are the product of a corrupt political system in which money buys influence and lobbyists write legislation.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

OK I am trying to follow all this but am having trouble. I grew up in Western MA in area with poor OTA reception. When cable came it brought in the Albany NY (the local market) but it also brought in NYC, Boston, and some other New England stations.

Was that legal? I am nott aking sides. I really can't follow this.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The thing I am trying to get through to RColeman whch I am now putting on my ignore list so I can give his posts the attention they deserve, is that it was never "okay" by many of the local channels for cable companies to import other channels. It was in 1949 when the first law suit by a broadcast group against a cable company (then a CATV system) for copyright infringment. The FCC started to clain dominion and began to form regulations when Congress stepped in and told the FCC they had no explisit dominion over CATV systems. It was a 1959 supreme court decision that finally settled the issue that CATV systesms were common carriers and the FCC did have jurisdiction. In the early 1960's the FCC set up the SYNDEX regulations to settle the over 50 active law suits in the works. In 1974 cable systems, the MPAA and one other group that escapes me, came to a compromise agreement on copyrights, payments and SyndEX. Notice that th government was NOT involved. In 1976, Congress codified most of the agreement. This became the Copyright Act of 1976.

So in answer to your question Cheif, it was not illegal directly. It was a copyright issue that was being settled in the courts until the other two branches of the US government stepped and and screwed up the deals not once, but 6 separate times. Most of the time the acts of congress were counter to what the broadcast stations wanted. What's worse is that it was counter to what the cable systems wanted too. 

But then again, logic may be escaping me.

The fact that I said one statement of Mr. Coleman's post was dead wrong and proceded to prove it has been met with morphing arguments and the inability to understand that it was NEVER okay with broadcasters. BTW, try buying truckload of Coca Cola from a distributor not licensed to your area.

See ya
Tony

:::LONK:::


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

I am just trying to follow the argument. And for whatever reason had a hard time knowing who was on first. You know I respect your posts sir.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> Your statement that I called incorrect: "No permission was needed for retransmitting broadcast signals until the broadcasters started lobbying Congress for legislation to protect themselves from competition. It was only when newer technologies allowed broadcast signals to be transmitted over greater distances (i.e., to distant cities where there were TV stations) that the broadcasters started claiming it was a "copyright" issue."
> 
> My comment was "actually, the TV stations fought cable tooth and nail until congress passed laws that allowed specific exceptions to the copyright laws to allow cable companies to continue infringing on copyright owners' rights"


And Tony is absolutely correct, with respect to this argument.

The broadcasting industry fought very hard to make sure their product wasn't being misused by the cable industry, from day one. The problem was that this was the mid-1950's, and anyone that knows anything realizes at that time big business did not rule the roost, but the government did.


rcoleman111 said:


> The "copyright" issue is nothing but a red herring that was used by the broadcasters to hamstring the growth of cable TV in order to preserve their antiquated business model. It's the reason cable TV didn't reach most homes until 30 years after the first systems came online.


No. The reason that cable TV experienced a boom in the 1980's was because the content on cable systems differed from what the local broadcasters provided.

Where I lived, cable wasn't available until 1986. At that time, the only "cable network" on my cable system more than 10 years old was HBO. You are dealing with a nascent technology. The questions haranguing the delivery of non-local content were there 30 years prior, but as Tony and I have argued before:

1) People in metropolitan areas would not need cable TV if it only offered the local channels, and;
2) Cable gave customers enough choice to make it a commoditized product.

Once a large percentage of the US had cable, there were a few surveys completed. Amongst one of the most staggering opinions in a 1989 survey was that people would expect their cable bill to be halved if their local channels were not available on their cable system. We can complain about the local broadcaster, but the reality is that most of these multichannel providers wouldn't be anywhere without the local channels.

And that was the basis for the Cable Act, the one passed in the early 1990's. Broadcasters received the upper hand when it became apparent that cablers built their business on the back of the broadcaster.

By the way, it has always been about copyright. Check United Artists v. Fortnightly. The Supreme Court judged in favor of the cabler (Fortnightly), invalidating United Artists copyright. However, only when cable started offering content only available on cable (HBO, ESPN, MTV, etc.) did the attitude change about copyrights.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> In what other industry does copyright dictate where the copyrighted material can be viewed?


The Book Industry? After all, I can't read the latest best seller on the internet. Or buy it in North America if the release dates are staggard world wide.

For example. My wife collects the Harry Potter books. The last couple were released while we were in Canada for the summer. The U.S. and Canadian releases are different, covers are totally different (Canadian covers are more kiddiefied, they now have an adult version which looks pretty cool though) and some words/names are different. She wanted the U.S. ones to match the ones she already had. Well, I had to go through many a hoop to get them (damn Canadian customs $$$).

The distribution rights in each country are owned by a different company. Scholastic in the States, and Raincoast in Canada. The same as WGAL owning the NBC distribution rights in Harrisburg and WBAL owning them in Baltimore. So there is an example of another industry that copyright dictates where it can be viewed.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

Whoa! What kind of coffee are all you drinking!!!???

Let me weigh in...I'll work from the bottom up.

The book examples given are simply business decisions. As far as I know there are no laws that would control what versions are available where. It's the publishers/distributors themselves that are in control there. When a few stores sold the latest Harry Potter book a bit early, no laws were broken. They didn't go and arrest the sellers or the buyers, instead they bribed them with signed copies to return their copies until the official release date. Similarly, I am not breaking any laws or engaging in black market activities if I buy a European edition of some book on eBay and have it shipped to me in the US.

Now on to the subject at hand. Tony is absolutely correct. The legislation we are all discussing is permissive. If you actually read the law, it essentially legalizes (with conditions) distribution of copyrighted material and defines those conditions.

Now in spirit, rcoleman is also correct. Broadcasters have apparently been heavily involved in lobbying to ensure that those conditions are as favorable as possible to them. Well, any interested party would do the same, but the NAB has certainly been quite successful. Let me give you my real life experience:

Before SHVERA was passed, we had a wonderful bill in the Senate Commerce committee (the Ensign bill) that had the concept of digital white areas, and as written at the time would have been beneficial (and I believe fair) to consumers. The other versions of the bill: the House version (I think at the time it had already been merged with the House Commerce & Judiciary committees) and the Senate Judiciary version did not have any such concept. This is an excellent illustration of Tony's argument: back in 1999 when the previous law was enacted, the concept of a digital white area barely existed, much less was an issue. In 2004, as various versions of what would become SHVERA were being drawn up, seeing that applying the 1999 rules to the new concept of a digital white area was not fair to consumers, Ensign & McCain drafted legislation that PERMITTED digital white area rules. Now, being a concerned consumer and having my state Senator be the ranking minority on the Senate Judiciary committee that did NOT have this digital white area concept in their bill, I became heavily involved. I wrote letters and even had a wonderful conversation on the phone with one of his staffers that was actually the one working on the bill. I told him my concerns and what I thought was fair to the consumer regarding digital white areas, and while he couldn't promise anything, he told me he agreed with my position and felt that it was likely that the digital white area concepts from Ensign/McCain would make it into the final bill.

Well, he was right, but the broadcast interests had their say as well, and while at the end of 2004 as they were rushing to get this legislation passed before the 1999 law permitting things like LIL expired, the NAB certainly used their power to put what I think we all can agree are unfair restrictions on the digital white area concept, that is, they basically extended their deadline (that was originally what, May of 2000/2001???) to 2006/2007!

I think we need to all remember that this type of checks & balances is the way it works. There are usually going to be opposite points of view on issues such as these, and each side is going to fight as hard as they can to get the most favorable results. I don't have a problem in general with this. I have a BIG problem in that I do believe that the legislators in this case caved to the NAB's demands, no doubt because of money, and didn't act in the fairest (notice I did not say best) interests of their constituents: the public.

Finally, let me offer some comments on the OTA broadcast business model. Sure, we all hate it. Sure, it's unique among pretty much all inudstries/markets. It seems quite monopolistic. However--and I'm not defending it here, just looking at it realistically--it is not realistic to expect any laws or changes to laws to change this, as contrary to other business models and laws as it may seem. Why? There is simply too much infrastructure invested in the current business model. Until "cable-only" channels come out with programming that effectively competes with big-network, OTA broadcasting will continue to exist. I have not studied nor do I understand the economics of why this is so, but for whatever reason, we simply don't see a plethora of non-network hit shows out there. There are a few, but they seem to be niche in nature and certainly are not wide-spread. I do see hope: pay-TV channels like HBO do produce some quality, popular series. But apparently the economics at this time are simply not favorable to a non-local OTA broadcast business model because otherwise I think I would be watching more series on networks such as USA, FX, etc. But no, the popular hits (CSI, 24, etc.) are all on network TV. We may hate it, but that appears to be the business model that works.

And while technically speaking a local access-like channel would be "all that's needed" for local news, weather, sports & emergency announcements, let's not forget that competition is good and even necessary. Even though you really only need one, the fact that there are multiple ones competing for viewers keeps the producers of such local programs on their toes and competitive. Without it, you would see an undue amount of power in the hands of a small group of people (controlling what news you see--that's a scary thought!) and probably very shoddy coverage.

There, hopefully I have made everyone sleepy with this and as a result calmed everyone down... 

...Lance


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Lance,

Thanks for the thoughtful addition to this thread. Let me add a couple of thoughtful disagreements.

Strictly speaking, a book's copyright owner legally controls what happens to it. That is, if I write a book, I can publish and sell it myself or contract with whoever I choose to publish and sell it. If someone in France wants to translate it into French and sell the translated version, I may forbid him from doing so, regardless of the royalties he offers. (This is in contrast to the mechanical royalties for reusing a songwriter's work, for example.) It's true that I have little control over the hard copies of the book once they're printed and sold (the primary sale), but I have absolute control before then.

In the Harry Potter case, it was more about the publisher's contracts with booksellers. If a store sold a copy before the launch date, it broke the contract and was no doubt liable for hefty penalties. Thus it appears that selling the book early was unlawful (subject to civil damages) but not illegal (not a criminal offense) unless it were flagrant enough to warrant a DMCA prosecution. Any U.S. purchaser should not be liable for damages, but I can't speak to Canadian law.

You make the point that the size of the OTA infrastructure suggests that overhauling it would not be cost-effective. That would be true 5 or 10 years ago, but now we're already in the slow process of overhauling OTA by eliminating analog TV broadcasting. Given that almost all standalone TVs that receive signals OTA will need replacement or an external converter, we're going to have a largely new delivery system in 5 years or less no matter what happens to traditional broadcasters. 

Regarding non-network popular hits, I wonder if this is cause or effect? I mean, free TV will always have better market penetration than the most popular pay TV network, but given the smaller potential audience, what constitutes a hit? Off the top of my head, I can think of several cable network shows that most folks are aware of: The Shield, American Choppers, Iron Chef, South Park, Battlestar Galactica, The Daily Show, that croc dude Steve Irwin on Animal Planet, and the big one, SportsCenter. Before that, there was Beavis & Butthead, Dr. Ruth, Pop-Up Video, and Mystery Science Theater 3000. I doubt that any of these shows are unprofitable.

In sum, I completely agree that we shouldn't expect any TV law changes in the near term, but I think it's because the TV business benefits from local monopolies, and the idea of distant networks would provide too small a benefit to too few caring viewers.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

Well, I had written yet another lengthy response yesterday, but it never showed up...Oh well!

Anyway, I'll briefly try to say what I said before.

carload, I think we're on the same page re: copyrights. I never meant to imply that the rights of a copyright holder were not legally established. I agree that if I hold the copyright to some material, it is up to me to make whatever distribution agreements I feel fit to do, however, generally, if those are violated, as you said best, it's a civil, not criminal matter. I say generally because laws like SHVERA do regulate this somewhat. it occurred to me this morning that one of the main purposes of the law as it applies to satellite/cable distribution, that if copyright holders and their selected distribution channels could have come to a fair arrangement all on their own, and it served the public interest, there would be no need for laws like SHVERA. However, in the world we're in today, people don't think win-win, they think anything it takes to make a zillion $$$, and thus we had Congress step in and regulate matters such that certain distribution channels (cable/satellite) got fair access to copyrighted material, and in return the copyright holders are fairly compensated for it.

As for OTA, I also didn't mean to imply "Over The Air" literally. I think the word that is used in the law is "network", although I also find this too arbitrary a term. Nonetheless, I am talking about the big-4 network model.

While I completely agree that the list of shows you provided are great shows, I don't consider them "hits". I still feel they serve niche markets and do not show up on a regular basis on the primetime, regular season Nielsen ratings, which is what counts when advertising costs are set. I'm pretty sure you could make the statement that MOST shows are profitable. If they were not, they wouldn't be airing. The exceptions are those shows that are in the process of being cancelled, TV channels that are in the process of going out of business, and shows that are run as "filler" to fill up a 24 hour schedule.

I just have to think that if using the business model that USA, TNT, FX, etc. use was nearly equivalent (or better?) than the one the networks have in place today, that those stations would be in a position to bid on high quality original series programming. We certainly do in the summer, but once the new fall season comes around, it seems like all the highest rated shows are on network TV.

...Lance


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

lpickup said:


> Whoa! What kind of coffee are all you drinking!!!???
> 
> Let me weigh in...I'll work from the bottom up.
> 
> The book examples given are simply business decisions. As far as I know there are no laws that would control what versions are available where. It's the publishers/distributors themselves that are in control there. When a few stores sold the latest Harry Potter book a bit early, no laws were broken. They didn't go and arrest the sellers or the buyers, instead they bribed them with signed copies to return their copies until the official release date. Similarly, I am not breaking any laws or engaging in black market activities if I buy a European edition of some book on eBay and have it shipped to me in the US.


coffee? actually some no name columbian junk 

As for my example. It's the same.
Harry Potter = CBS Network Programming
Scholastic = New York Affiliate
Raincoast = Atlanta Affiliate
Barnes & Nobles = Dish Network

Rowling/CBS own copyrights to Harry Potter/Network Programming
Rowling/CBS sell exclusive rights in certain areas to different people. For Harry Potter is Scholastic in the U.S and Raincoast in Canada. For CBS is WCBS in New York and WGCL in Atlanta.

Since those rights include exclusive distribution rights, then a middle man , Barnes & Nobles/Dish Network can not sell (or distribute) the product of one publisher/station in the other's territory.

Indivuals can get ahold of it outside their territory and bring it to theirs though.
Harry Potter - go to Canada, buy there, bring book to U.S.
CBS - go to New York, tape there, bring tape to Atlanta.

Therefore, my example is legit. It is a business decision in each area. Rowling made a business decision to sell rights to different companies in different areas, and CBS made a business decision to sell rights to different stations in different areas.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

derwin0 said:


> Therefore, my example is legit. It is a business decision in each area. Rowling made a business decision to sell rights to different companies in different areas, and CBS made a business decision to sell rights to different stations in different areas.


Yep, I'll buy that. Good description. The only place it possibly breaks down (I honestly don't know) is that Scholastic & Raincoast are distributors while Barnes & Noble is a retailer, and thus have their own relationships with each other that would allow for Barnes & Noble to sell Harry Potter in the covered territory because they still got the book originally from Scholastic. But, you could tweak your analogy slightly to make it fit just about perfectly:

Harry Potter = Survivor
J.K. Rowling = Mark Burnett
Scholastic = CBS
Raincost = CBC (I don't know what Canadian network carries Survivor)
Barnes & Noble outlets in various US cities = various CBS affiliates in various US cities.
Some Canadian Bookstore Chain in various Canadian cities = various CBC affiliates in various Canadian cities

Rowling certainly made exclusive deals with distributors such as Scholastic & Raincost. This is no different from TV where a show's producer/studio makes an exclusive agreement with a particular network.

Where broadcasters become screwed up is that Rowling and/or Scholastic don't limit themselves to only Barnes & Noble. They correctly see an opportunity in distributing to Amazon.com, Borders, Waldenbooks, and any other book store that will buy it, whereas broadcasters insist on 100% exclusive arrangements, even though from their perspective, they could make up the revenue with correctly worded agreements with other "retailers" such as Dish.

...Lance


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

lpickup: Good posts, but I disagree on the worry about news from one source.

More and more people are using sources OTHER than local OTA stations for their primary news. The trend will continue.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> But then again, logic may be escaping me.


For once you have said something I agree with.

I see you've been busy in the two days since I last checked this forum. You've even gotten Greg Bimson, that tireless defender of the broadcast industry, to weigh in again. I guess we can look forward to a few more of Greg's paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttals and endless analogies. Maybe he will even raise the "takings" argument again, just to see if anyone buys it.

There are some amusing comments and analogies in some of these posts. I found your analogy about buying a truckload of Coca-Cola to be particulary entertaining - I'll certainly try to remember to buy only non-copyrighted beverages in the future. Feel free to offer any other inane comparisons that come to mind. It doesn't change the fact that the net effect of all the laws and regulations in this area is to _take away _ choices from consumers, not grant them.

As I've stated previously, you are free to believe that the broadcasters and the politicians who take their money have your best interests at heart and that they are passing these repressive laws for your own good (or that they are doing it for the sake of protecting "copyrights"). That's what the politicians and the media moguls are counting on.

If you really believe these laws and regulations are "permissive", you're going to be absolutely thrilled with some of the new stuff these nice folks have in store for you:

* The "broadcast flag" that can be used to take away your "fair use" rights (what's left of them, anyway). With the FCC rule having been struck down by an appeals court, which ruled that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority, the broadcast lobbyists are now intent on having it added to an appropriations bill so that it will become the law of the land and the media companies will be free to control what you can or can't do with a free over-the-air TV signal.

* The next-generation DVD standard, which will prevent you from watching DVDs unless you are watching them on a device that is connected to the internet. And if you watch something they don't think is legit, they will be able to zap your DVD player and render it unusable. This one doesn't even required government intervention, since there are two competing organizations that are vying to gain control of the new standard by agreeing to whatever the media companies demand.

* Further "improvements" to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to make it even more onerous than it is already.

* The Induce Act, which would make it illegal for tech companies to manufacture or sell any devices that even _encourage_ anyone to make copies of any copyrighted material. (Why stop there - why not make it illegal to even _think _ about inducing anyone to copy anything?)

As to your comment about putting me on your "ignore list", that's great news. It means you won't be replying to this message or anything I post in the future. And I won't be wasting my time replying to your absurd comments.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

SimpleSimon said:


> lpickup: Good posts, but I disagree on the worry about news from one source.
> 
> More and more people are using sources OTHER than local OTA stations for their primary news. The trend will continue.


I certainly agree with that in general, but I have been trying to think of an alternate source for LOCAL news, weather and sports, not to mention some of the local Sunday morning news shows (that they have where I live anywhere) where they bring in local politicians and such. The only alternative I can think of is the paper, and people are DEFINITELY moving away from that in droves these days. And while I personally do like the paper, I do find that it's not as timely as TV (particularly for weather).

Keep in mind, I'm not in a major market, but not near the bottom either. We are ranked about 90 in the nation. There used to be a state news category in Yahoo that listed the top 3 stories in the state each day (slightly better than the 1 that USA Today gives us!), but that's been long gone.

Other than that, I honestly can't think of any other alternative sources for LOCAL info in my area.

...Lance


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> I see you've been busy in the two days since I last checked this forum. You've even gotten Greg Bimson, that tireless defender of the broadcast industry, to weigh in again. I guess we can look forward to a few more of Greg's paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttals and endless analogies. Maybe he will even raise the "takings" argument again, just to see if anyone buys it.


First, I posted on my own accord. Second, to the copyright holders, this has always been about copyright infringement. Google this term: 392 US 390. It is the Fortnightly decision. The courts ruled that the "distributor" (Fortnightly) did not violate copyrights, even though it is quite obvious copyrights were violated. Just like the anti-trust exemption in baseball, this is just another in a long line of examples where radical _jurists_ create their own laws. However, one comes to expect rulings on a nascent technology (cable at the time) to come down in favor of the new technology. These judgments shift as time goes by, just like opinions.

You are correct, however, regarding the newer laws that are on the docket this year. These are not permissive at all.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

None of the new laws prohibit one station from selling their signal nationwide. All the new laws do is reaffirm that a station or distributor that does not own the copyrights to it programming cannot sell itself or be sold outside the area where it has the right to display their programming.

See ya
Tony


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> None of the new laws prohibit one station from selling their signal nationwide.


Tony is correct. 
If he wasnt', then we wouldn't have TBS or WGN.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Thanks, but these are just cable channels now. WGN 9 in Chicago shares about 60% of the programming available on WGN Cable. WTBS 17 Atlanta is the sole broadcast affiliate of TBS Cable. I am talking about:

US TV Networks available nationwide regardless of local affiliates because the copyright holders - except Puerto Rico because the networks denied permission to sell the national channel there:

Telefutura
Telemundo
Univision

Nationwide including PR

TBN
Daystar (on DirecTV)
Pax/ "i" 

The major networks (ABC CBS Fox NBC PBS) made deals to sell their programming directly to DirecTV subscribers conditionally. CBS and PBS did the same thing on Dish. This is how the HD channels are available.

Sky Angel currently offers the following off air channels nationwide legally because the stations own national rights to the programming:

WSFJ-TV 51 Newark/Columbus, OH (Guardian Network)
WACX TV 55 Leesburg, FL (Superchannel TBN)
KSBN TV 57 Springdale, Ar (Safe TV)
WPCB-TV 40 Pittsburgh, PA (Cornerstone TV)
KGEB TV 53 Tulsa, OK (Golden Eagle)
WTLU-CA 19 Lynchberg, Va (Liberty Network) 

No law prevents a local channel from offering itself nationally. They just have to own the copyright for national distribution.

No law prevents a broadcast network from offering its program via cable or satellite directly. It is a business decision.

All the laws in the books just codify this.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2005)

Looks like Tony is ignoring his "ignore list", in addition to contradicting himself. Or to borrow from his earlier analogy, maybe he's been drinking excessive quantities of copyrighted beverages outside the area where he is legally entitled to drink them.

He's been claiming all along that the laws covering this topic are "permissive", but if you read his most recent comments he states that "All the new laws do is reaffirm that a station or distributor that does not own the copyrights to it programming cannot sell itself or be sold outside the area where it has the right to display their programming." It's hard to be certain if I'm reading Tony's message correctly (he got mad when I pointed out that he was spelling "permissive" incorrectly, so I'll refrain from suggesting a remedial course in English composition), but it sounds to me like he's saying that a law which prohibits something is actually "permissive". And if it was already the law, as he claims, then why would it be necessary to pass another law that does nothing but "reaffirm" it?

As to Greg's comment about copyrights ("to the copyright holders, this has always been about copyright infringement"), it is true that the broadcasters have always _claimed_ that it was an issue of copyrights, but that is really just an argument that has been used to provide political cover and to rationalize a slew of restrictive laws and regulations that are designed to preserve an obsolete business model that is based on 1940s technology. I'm sure Greg can remember how the broadcasters also used the "free TV vs. pay TV" argument as a justification for some of the regulations that have been enacted in the past.

Keep in mind that there is no constitutional right to copyright protection. The U.S. constitution merely _empowers_ Congress to enact legislation in this area - it doesn't require it. Whatever rights anyone has to protect their "Writings and Discoveries", and whether that protection extends to retransmitting a free over-the-air TV signal into the same area or importing it into another area, is whatever Congress spells out by statute. And the statutes, for the most part, have been written by broadcast lobbyists and are geared to protecting the broadcasters from competition. The broadcasters are able to call the shots because of the enormous profits they have made from their use of the public airwaves, which they have used to buy influence in Congress. And that is possible because our political system is basically a system of legalized bribery.

I could cite a number of examples that demonstrate how the copyright laws have been tailored to benefit specific industries or corporations, but the best example I can think of is the Disney copyrights. When the copyrights on Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and the other Disney characters were getting close to expiration a few years ago, Disney (which also owns the ABC television network and a number of TV stations) pumped a boatload of money into the coffers of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. In return, Congress modified the copyright law to add another 20 years to the Disney copyrights. I suppose you could argue that this is "permissive" legislation - after all, it has permitted Disney to make billions of dollars of profits which they wouldn't otherwise have made and it put millions of dollars into the pocket of Disney's CEO.

On those rare occasions when Congress has actually _granted _ anything to the rest of us, it has usually been in response to a backlash of public opinion. That was the case when Congress first allowed local-into-local carriage by satellite companies in 1999, which Tony cited as an example of "permissive" legislation. Thousands of satellite subscribers were having their distant network feeds cut off, and members of Congress were being bombarded with letters and e-mails from angry constituents. The situation got a lot of coverage in the news media and many people started to realize that it was actually _illegal _ to receive local TV by satellite. Well, there's nothing like shining some light on a bunch of cockroaches to send them running for cover, and that's exactly what happened at the time. The uproar resulted in a new law that allowed those who were already getting distant network signals to be "grandfathered" and to continue receiving the those feeds for a few more years. The new law had the desired effect - the commotion died down and the broadcasters were able to resume their role in setting public policy.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> (he got mad when I pointed out that he was spelling "permissive" incorrectly, so I'll refrain from suggesting a remedial course in English composition)


Well, yeah, if you want to engage in an online discussion or debate, you need to accept the occasional typo or grammatical error. Otherwise it becomes an English grammar debate, and we'd see citations from style guides, and it would all become very dull, not to mention off-topic.

I agree with you about the perversion of copyright from its inception as a patent-style, limited-time protection to today's too-inclusive, too-extended corporate stanglehold on a lot of really old work. But I'm not sure how relevant that is; even a 28-year copyright would protect most reruns on TV these days.

As far as that "permissive" word, I was reading Tony's posts to mean that the legislation is designed to permit activities that could be unlawful in the absence of that legislation. Having a federally approved procedure for retransmitting a signal, in this case, shields the reseller from some infringement claims. Please excuse me if this isn't what Tony meant.

To return to semantics, it sounds like you two are agreeing more than disagreeing. Maybe you could boil down the content and understand the ideas so you could start with points of agreement then go forward.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> No law prevents a local channel from offering itself nationally. They just have to own the copyright for national distribution.


I have a question. I understand the requires a local channel to "own the copyright" nationally in order to offer their programming including network programming nationally. Does the law also require the viewer of a local channel to not to transport the channel out of the local market for his own private use either on some sort of recorded medium or via some sort of private electronic "live" medium? In my example the local channel is not actively distributing their channel nationally but rather the viewer is accessing the channel at its locale and once accessed transports that channel outside of the market for the viewer's own private convenience. If the same rules regulated print media (thankfully this is NOT the case) If I buy a copy of the New York Times in New York is it okay to take it on the plane with me? Can I mail money to a friend in New York and have him fax the front page to me in Texas?


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

News Junky said:


> I have a question. I understand the requires a local channel to "own the copyright" nationally in order to offer their programming including network programming nationally. Does the law also require the viewer of a local channel to not to transport the channel out of the local market for his own private use either on some sort of recorded medium or via some sort of private electronic "live" medium? In my example the local channel is not actively distributing their channel nationally but rather the viewer is accessing the channel at its locale and once accessed transports that channel outside of the market for the viewer's own private convenience. If the same rules regulated print media (thankfully this is NOT the case) If I buy a copy of the New York Times in New York is it okay to take it on the plane with me? Can I mail money to a friend in New York and have him fax the front page to me in Texas?


You are allowed to record copyrighted broadcast material for your own use. Now if your friend is making money by sending faxed copies of copyrighted print materials he might be in some difficulty too.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Actually, if the friend in NY is making money on the deal, it is a violation of the NYT copyright. You can also have a friend record a show in NYC and send it to you for personal use. That is okay. He can also nationally quote a small portion of the NYT as "fair use". What your friend cant do is copy the entire NYT 10000 times every day and sell it in your area! He also can't receive a TV station via antenna at home, set up a satellite uplink, rent space on a satellite and distribute the signal nationwide to subscribers or FTA.

Broadcast.com was shut down for doing the same thing via the web.

Newspaper Web sites and TV station making themselves available nationwide via web casting is another example. The NYT web site cannot publish nationally synicated articles or cartoons without owning national copyrights, a local TV station cannot make nationally syndicated or copyrighted programming available outside the area they bought the copyrights.

This is such a simple concept that I am not sure why people don't understand it. It may not be what we want, but this is the way the networks and syndicators want to control their product! And it is THEIR product.

See ya
Tony


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

If the issue is about "making money on the deal" was broadcast.com shut down for charging or otherwise making a profit off of the service? As I recall broadcast.com was a free service?


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

They sold ads and they were also "publishing". But there are two different things in play. Publishing without permission of the copyright holder is not okay. Next though. Making money on a product you do not own is not okay.


See ya
Tony


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> This is such a simple concept that I am not sure why people don't understand it. It may not be what we want, but this is the way the networks and syndicators want to control their product! And it is THEIR product.


LOL. I think there are several issues that make the current enforcement of these difficult it accept.

The concept of restricted access to the media goes counter to what we as Americans view as an aspect of what freedom means in America. I'm conveinced more people would be up in arms if they were aware technology is in place to potentially allow for national access to local TV stations from nearly every city in America but high paid lobbyists got involved and got the Congress and several presidents to outlaw it. But satellite TV is a subculture and within satellite TV those who would be the Sat-TV equalvatent of AM radio DXers are even smaller in number. (DXers are people who like to listen in on AM nighttime skywave signals from all over North America).

Lack of understanding of the issues, history and laws. I for one have learned far more about the issue than anyone at DirecTV or Dish Network offered me as their paying customer.

The Napser comparisson. With Napster copyrighted music was being taken without pay. Satellite TV subscribers want to PAY for the service of being able to recieve distant stations. The industry refuses to sell it to us then have the gaull to blame it on the law...the law they tthemselves asked congress to pass so that nobody in their group acts independantly. Nobody wants to steal anything. People can undertand how the record company wants us to buy the CDs. It is difficult to understand why money for something that is already being sent right into our homes is being refused. The American consumer culture has instilled in us all the concept that says "give customer what he wants". Everyone with a stake in the service and product would be paid. Saying "No" comes accross like telling people who shop at Wal-Mart "Let me see your ID. Sorry, you don't live in this neighborhood. You may only shop at Walmart on your own side of town now please leave. Its our store and we said so." Meanwhile there are some products not available at every Walmart (I proved that this weekend ). Some Walmarts have longer lines and others are more clean. Similarities can be made of network TV affiliates.

I am hopefull some compromise can be made as long as we keep reminding the powers that be that this is something at least some of their customers want. Especially in light of new competing technologies such as IPTV such as Tivo To Go and Slingbox.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

> The concept of restricted access to the media goes counter to what we as Americans view as an aspect of our what freedom means in America. I'm conveinced more people would be up in arms if they were aware technology is in place to potentially allow for national access to local TV station from nearly every city in America but high paid lobbyist got involved and got the Congress and several presidents to outlaw it


:::Sigh:::

It has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been unlawful (due to private contracts) to take something that does not belong to you and sell it. It has always been unlawful to pluck a TV or radio signal off the air and charge for its redistribution. The first law suit against a cable company for doing this was within 4 months of the first cable company charging for service (1949). It was congress that STOPPED the law suit and subsequent FCC involvement.

let me repeat that. *There was a civil law suit for copyright infringement by a TV station against a cable company when it first started charging for service. The government STOPPED the legal action*.

From this point forward, the legislation...ALL the legislation coming out of congress has been to balance the rights of the people who OWN the programming with the preceived rights of the public to have other options.

Without government intervension, the copyright issue would have been settled 50 years ago IN FAVOR OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS!

As you mention, if the copyright holders wished to sell the product directly or allow national distribution, they could do it tomorrow. They do not wish to.

See ya
Tony


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> It has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been unlawful (due to private contracts) to take something that does not belong to you and sell it.


I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying there's a lack of understanding coupled with the "concept" that is in all of our world views that American's access to media shouldn't be restricted. I'm just trying to help you understand why so many are not happy with the current rules. Imagine if 99% of the newspapers got together and formed the National Association of Newspapers. They all united to ban the distant market subsciption by force of the LA Times, NY Times and Denver Post. Regardless of the law people would think censorship.

What's interesting is this loophole. People may access distant stations privately as long as a 3rd party profit is not being made and "publishing" isn't happening. I'm sure with technological advancements having private access to distant stations in a way that doesn't resell the channels or involve "publishing" will become easier. In addition, as a paying customer (of over $1100 a year), I like to at least think my feedback as a customer means something. It is my hope that these and other factors such as keeping my elected officials aware of my wishes will motivate the idustry to offer some compromise. All I've ever wanted was access to available network channels local content and access to nework shows from other markets when the network has been pre-emted locally due to telethons, etc. It would also be nice to catch west coast refeeds if I missed a show. I also am looking for a legal satelitte loophole only available to a select few. I actually found one but I can't tell you. I could tell you but I'd have to...LOL.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

If a friend slingboxes YOU a signal from NYC and no one else, that is okay right now. At least it is untested in the courts and could be argued "fair use".

As to the newspapers, the NYT that is sold nationally is different than the NYT available in the NY metro area because of syndicated articles and comics and so on.

See ya
Tony


----------



## N5XZS (Apr 26, 2002)

There is one legal loophole for TV viewers is get a free to air FSS KU band dish that you can get out of town TV stations in the clear from time to time.

FSS band is located on 10.7 GHz to 11.7 GHz sort like a shortwave video band you get unedited raw news feeds from around the country and even overseas too! 

Just get a 3 foot dish with a H to H motor with a DVB MPEG-2 4:2:0 receiver for around $300!  

And yes we still need to overhaul the dumb copyright laws that hurt TV viewer's right to get out of town TV stations!! 

I agreed with News Junky on this issue!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

News Junky said:


> The concept of restricted access to the media goes counter to what we as Americans view as an aspect of what freedom means in America. I'm conveinced more people would be up in arms if they were aware technology is in place to potentially allow for national access to local TV stations from nearly every city in America but high paid lobbyists got involved and got the Congress and several presidents to outlaw it. But satellite TV is a subculture and within satellite TV those who would be the Sat-TV equalvatent of AM radio DXers are even smaller in number. (DXers are people who like to listen in on AM nighttime skywave signals from all over North America).


But here is the misunderstanding...

AM DX'ers are using the exact same receiving equipment to try and tune in the *original* transmission. DirecTV and Dish Network are making *real-time copies* of a transmission to sell to their subscribers. That is a big difference.


TNGTony said:


> If a friend slingboxes YOU a signal from NYC and no one else, that is okay right now. At least it is untested in the courts and could be argued "fair use".


About as OK as News Junky's Napster comparison.

Just because no court has ruled on something doesn't make it OK. The part in many copyright notices about "unauthorized duplication or distribution" applies to a sling box. The difference is if you yourself own the slingbox, and you yourself pay for the network to get a distant signal to your location, then almost all of this applies to fair use. The diffference is if you share the network with others. Then you are certainly distributing copyrighted material, and that is most certainly illegal.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> AM DX'ers are using the exact same receiving equipment to try and tune in the original transmission. DirecTV and Dish Network are making real-time copies of a transmission to sell to their subscribers. That is a big difference.


Good point. But the DX'er doesn't care how it's getting to them, they only want to hear the broadcast. Same is true for would be Sat TV DX'ers.

Question. I think I know what you're going to say but suppose D* or E* or whoever makes a DNS available for free at no profit? E* might, forget about D* but just for the sake of discussion.

Of course, the best and most likely solution is for the local stations themselves to offer their local programing only on a schedule for a fee. Many do already on the Internet for free. Poor quality and cumbersome but many do.

WXIA Atlanta and WTLV Jacksonville are the same company and same network. I wonder if they would permitt allowing their markets to see each other's stations and if it would even be legal? I heard somewhere network O and O stations offered a similar exception.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

News Junky said:


> Question. I think I know what you're going to say but suppose D* or E* or whoever makes a DNS available for free at no profit? .


That is still publishishing copyrighted material without permission.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Broadcast.com was shut down for doing the same thing via the web.


Not true. Broadcast.com was bought by Yahoo in 1999. It wasn't shut down. Mark Cuban, the co-founder, made a huge fortune on the deal and now owns a pro basketball team.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> :::Sigh:::
> 
> It has ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been unlawful (due to private contracts) to take something that does not belong to you and sell it. It has always been unlawful to pluck a TV or radio signal off the air and charge for its redistribution.


Again, not true.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> From this point forward, the legislation...ALL the legislation coming out of congress has been to balance the rights of the people who OWN the programming with the preceived rights of the public to have other options.
> 
> Without government intervension, the copyright issue would have been settled 50 years ago IN FAVOR OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS!


You can believe that if you wish, but the facts say otherwise. The history of legislation in this area has been to protect a business model based on 1940s technology from extinction. The copyright laws have been modified repeatedly to tailor them to the interests of the broadcast industry.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Just because no court has ruled on something doesn't make it OK. The part in many copyright notices about "unauthorized duplication or distribution" applies to a sling box. The difference is if you yourself own the slingbox, and you yourself pay for the network to get a distant signal to your location, then almost all of this applies to fair use. The diffference is if you share the network with others. Then you are certainly distributing copyrighted material, and that is most certainly illegal.


It's only illegal because the copyright laws have been modified to _make _ it illegal.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> The history of legislation in this area has been to protect a business model based on 1940s technology from extinction. The copyright laws have been modified repeatedly to tailor them to the interests of the broadcast industry.


The only relevant TV copyright laws that I know about are those that specify how third parties may sell OTA broadcasts, both local and distant. It's true that Congress has revisited copyright law, to extend its duration for example, but I can't think of any copyright law revisions aimed at TV broadcasting. Could you please cite the modifications that you're talking about?



rcoleman111 said:


> It's only illegal because the copyright laws have been modified to make it illegal.


Now I would have thought that from the earliest days of broadcast technology that it was illegal to, say, make a recording of a radio show and distribute it without permission. Again, could you please show how this was once held to be legal before a particular copyright law change?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

News Junky said:


> I also am looking for a legal satelitte loophole only available to a select few. I actually found one but I can't tell you. I could tell you but I'd have to...LOL.


Here's the loophole. You won't have to kill anyone. Just be honest and walk out to your RV to watch TV.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/learn/dns_vehicles.dsp


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> The history of legislation in this area has been to protect a business model based on 1940s technology from extinction. The copyright laws have been modified repeatedly to tailor them to the interests of the broadcast industry.


Wait a minute. Here is where we always dive into the semantics...

Until 1988, it was illegal for a third party to take a station, and rebroadcast it on satellite. This had nothing to do with anyone passing a law to protect the broadcast industry; this was simple copyright law. As a matter of fact, the networks were using satellites to feed their programming to their affiliates using these feeds. It was the reason for the growth in the Big, Ugly Dishes (BUDs) through the 1980's.

When NBC decided to scramble their feeds to their affiliates, the BUD community screamed towards Congress. The result was those that could not get a signal from a local affiliate could get a satellite feed of a network affiliate. This was the SHVA: it empowered the networks to protect their business model while ensuring no one got left behind.

Then, when the DBS satellite companies used this legislation to give people networks without checking on the subscribers local channel reception, and the satellite companies insisted that they needed local channels to compete with cable, a new law was born. The 1999 SHVIA allowed the satellite companies to rebroadcast local channels back into the originating market. Sure, there were some points that were tailored to the broadcast industry. The point is that before the SHVIA, it was illegal to retransmit local channels back into the originating market until this law was passed, without any changes to copyright law.

No laws were changed regarding copyrights over satellite for the broadcast industry until the permissive nature of the SHVA, SHVIA, and SHVERA were implemented. So unless you can give examples here, I do not understand how you can say copyright laws were changed in favor to the broadcast industry regarding satellite before these three laws were passed. Copyright law always did make it illegal to retransmit without permission.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Copyright law always did make it illegal to retransmit without permission.


Not true. Until the "must carry" laws were passed, it was legal for cable operators to retransmit signals into the same areas that could receive them over the air.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

carload said:


> The only relevant TV copyright laws that I know about are those that specify how third parties may sell OTA broadcasts, both local and distant. It's true that Congress has revisited copyright law, to extend its duration for example, but I can't think of any copyright law revisions aimed at TV broadcasting. Could you please cite the modifications that you're talking about?


The key words in your message are "that I know about". Go back and do the research yourself - the history of legislation and regulation in this area is long and complex. If you want an example, look at the Syndex rules from the '80s. I've already cited some examples of the copyright laws being modified to tailor them to the media companies.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Broadcast.com was shut down for doing the same thing via the web.
> 
> Newspaper Web sites and TV station making themselves available nationwide via web casting is another example. The NYT web site cannot publish nationally synicated articles or cartoons without owning national copyrights, a local TV station cannot make nationally syndicated or copyrighted programming available outside the area they bought the copyrights.


There's nothing like making things up. In addition to the bogus comment about Broadcast.com, Tony is now trying to make the case that these same rules apply to newspapers. The NY Times does publish both a New York edition and a national edition, but there is nothing to prevent anyone from subscribing to the New York edition, regardless of where they live. Go to their website and you'll see that you can order either edition. Also, they state that the electronic edition is an "exact replica" of the New York edition.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> The key words in your message are "that I know about". Go back and do the research yourself - the history of legislation and regulation in this area is long and complex. If you want an example, look at the Syndex rules from the '80s. I've already cited some examples of the copyright laws being modified to tailor them to the media companies.


I respectfully ask you to cite the copyright law revisions that were made with broadcast TV in mind, and you tell me to "do the research yourself." Considering that others dispute your claims, I'm sorry that you don't have easy access to the facts that would support your statements so that you could quickly end this discussion by verifying your story.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

carload said:


> I respectfully ask you to cite the copyright law revisions that were made with broadcast TV in mind, and you tell me to "do the research yourself." Considering that others dispute your claims, I'm sorry that you don't have easy access to the facts that would support your statements so that you could quickly end this discussion by verifying your story.


If you want specifics, there is a ton of information out there that supports what I've been saying. For starters, check out Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_TV

Regarding the early days of CATV:
"In the First Report and Order by the Federal Communications Commission on CATV the FCC gave itself the power to regulate CATV. _This Report and Order was designed to protect small town television stations._ It did this by imposing two rules, which in slightly altered form still stand: one requires that a CATV system carry all local stations in which the CATV system is in the "A" (best reception) contour of the station. The second prohibits the importation of programs from a non-local station that duplicates programming on a local station if the duplication is shown either 15 days before or 15 days after its local airing. This 1965 report reasoning is as follows: 1) CATV should carry local stations because CATV supplements, not replaces, local stations and the non-carriage of local stations gives distant stations an advantage since people will not change from the cable to the antenna to see a local station; 2) non-carriage is "inherently contrary to the public interest"; _3) CATV duplication of local programming via distant signals is unfair since broadcasters and CATV do not compete for programs on an equal footing; the FCC recommends "a reasonable measure of exclusivity"._

Note that none of this is about copyrights - it's about protecting broadcasters from competition. Keep reading and you'll see how the issue of "copyrights" has come into play - it has been used as a justification for all sorts of oppressive regulations, as if copyright protection somehow trumps all other rights.

As I've pointed out previously, there is no constitutional right to copyright protection. The U.S. Constitution merely _empowers_ Congress to pass copyright laws - it doesn't require it. It is absurd to suggest, as others have done in this thread, that copyright laws have "always" protected over-the-air TV broadcasts from being imported to other areas. Copyright laws existed before broadcast technology even existed, so how could they have spelled out that retransmitting an OTA signal constituted a copyright violation?


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

More from the above link:

"The 1966 Second Report and Order made some minor changes in the First Report and Order and added a major regulation. _This was designed to protect UHF stations in large cities. The new rule disallowed the importation of distant signals into the top 100 markets, thus making CATV profitable only in cities with poor reception_."


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

From Museum of Broadcast Communications:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/unitedstatesc/unitedstatesc.htm

"The first slow growth period, from cable television's inception through 1965, predates any major regulatory efforts. _During the second phase, from 1965 to roughly 1975, the FCC attempted to restrict cable television to non-urban markets and to mold it into a local media service._"

"_When cable systems began importing signals from more distant stations using microwave links, broadcasters' objections to the new service escalated. Many broadcasters had never been happy with cable service, claiming that such systems "siphoned" their programming *since cable operators had no copyright liability and therefore never paid for the programming*._ In 1956 broadcasters petitioned the FCC to generate a policy regarding cable television. The Commission initially declined; it did not possess clear regulatory authority over CATV because the technology did not use the airwaves. The agency reconsidered, however, and finally asserted jurisdiction over cable television in 1962 in the Carter Mountain Transmission Corporation v. FCC case. Its rationale for regulating CATV focused on cable's impact on broadcasters: _to the extent that cable television's development proved injurious to broadcasting--an industry the FCC was obligated to sustain and promote--cable television required regulation_."

Note the section about cable operators having no copyright liability at that time and not having to pay for programming. That's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_3_32/ai_63330931

"Contrary to critics like Rosenthal [Phil Rosenthal, Chicago Sun-Times], what we saw in the Disney vs. Time Warner fight wasn't the future. It was the past. _It was the destructive, anti-consumer legacy of treating telecommunications as too important for market competition._"

"For 70 years, federal technocrats have imposed rigid categories on telecom--blocking the fluidity that would otherwise match technological creativity and consumer desires. "

"As REASON Washington Editor Michael W. Lynch was early to report, the satellite companies offered customers questionably legal service and changed the balance of power by doing so. (See "I Want My Satellite TV," April 1999.) Federal law allowed Americans to hook up to satellite programming only if they got unbelievably terrible over-the-air service, but the exact definition of that terrible quality was fuzzy enough to provide a temporary loophole. By the time the FCC got around to defining lousy service, millions of people loved their satellite TV. They were outraged that regulators were saying they should do without it.
Perhaps unintentionally, the satellite companies created a grassroots, consumer interest in deregulation, not as an abstract concept but as a day-to-day reality. Ordinary people had something to lose from the regulations that were supposed to protect them, and they were mad as hell. They knew how markets were supposed to work, and this wasn't right. As Bud Smith of Port St. Lucie, Florida, told REASON, "It's my money. I bought the dish. I maintain the dish. I should be able to buy what I want."

Under pressure from angry constituents like Smith, Congress was forced to change the law. That's why Time Warner subscribers in big cities like Houston and New York can now switch to satellite. Unfortunately, as REASON Contributing Editor Tom Hazlett recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, the good lawmakers slipped a "must carry" poison pill into the bill. By 2002, a satellite company that offers one local station must carry all local stations. Given the national reach that satellite subscriptions offer, that translates to something like 1,600 channels (including all those annoying home shopping stations, small-fry religious broadcasters, and infomercial specialists)--a killer requirement for systems that currently offer 500 or fewer stations and concentrate on the ones people actually want to watch.

_After a couple of decades watching telecom regulators and interest groups crush consumers and competition_, Tom is a bit of a pessimist. But this time, there's reason to hope. Two million unhappy satellite subscribers were enough to get the law changed last time. By 2002, there will be millions more. They will demand, with Smith, the right to buy what they want."


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

From the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv12n1/reg12n1-hazlett.html

"Initially the FCC saw cable, from its humble beginnings in Mahoney City, Pennsylvania in 1948, as a useful extension of the household television set. Cable was first used to facilitate reception where long distances or bumpy topography blurred the VHF-UHF band. It seemed to be nothing more than an extremely long antenna wire; indeed it acquired the name Community Antennae Television ("CATV" in industry jargon). Accordingly the FCC, in an unusual show of regulatory restraint, left cable alone in the 1950s."

"The FCC's view changed markedly around 1960. _Cable was growing and beginning to encroach upon the real television market: broadcast television. The National Association of Broadcasters wielded formidable clout, and to them cable was competition. The FCC received that signal without interference: Competition with broadcasters was bad, and should be suppressed by regulation. _ The agency saw clearly that enhanced consumer choice was detrimental to its own larger objectives in overseeing radio and television; reducing the "exclusivity" of a broadcast license concomitantly lessened the FCC's regulatory leverage via the licensing process. Cable became just one more of the FCC's heavily regulated industries.

_*Until the mid-1970s, no cable company could legally build a system to provide more than two new signals to any home within the 50 largest television viewing markets. That is, a company could string cable but it could only sell channels that were already available over-the-air plus two (and one of those had to be from the nearest city). The FCC also drafted a host of arcane and anti-competitive regulations, including the rule that cable systems could not contract with pay channels to show any feature films less than three years old or more than ten, to offer live or even recent sporting events, or to produce any regular series*._

Federal efforts to suppress competition from cable ended during the deregulation movement of the 1970s. The shackles were broken by a series of FCC and federal court decisions since 1972, and by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. _*The importing of distant signals was allowed without limit and programming restrictions were lifted. * _"


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> As I've pointed out previously, there is no constitutional right to copyright protection. The U.S. Constitution merely empowers Congress to pass copyright laws - it doesn't require it. It is absurd to suggest, as others have done in this thread, that copyright laws have "always" protected over-the-air TV broadcasts from being imported to other areas. Copyright laws existed before broadcast technology even existed, so how could they have spelled out that retransmitting an OTA signal constituted a copyright violation?


Sure, copyright laws existed before broadcast technology. So to understand why I'd say this was a violation, one only needs to look at two sentences in the Fortnightly v. United Artists judgment by the Supreme Court:


MR. JUSTICE STEWART said:


> The function of CATV systems has little in common with the function of broadcasters. CATV systems do not in fact broadcast or rebroadcast.


However a cable system can retransmit local channels and not be classified as a rebroadcast is very questionable. Not by law, but by judgment. The majority ruled that copyrights do not apply to cablers. But do not forget the dissenting opinion:


MR. JUSTICE FORTAS said:


> The decision in Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle, must, the Court says today, "be understood as limited to its own facts." Ante, at 397, n. 18. In Buck, the Court, speaking unanimously through Mr. Justice Brandeis, held that a hotel which received a broadcast on a master radio set and piped the broadcast to all public and private rooms of the hotel had "performed" the material that had been broadcast. As I understand the case, the holding was that the use of mechanical equipment to extend a broadcast to a significantly wider public than the broadcast would otherwise enjoy constitutes a "performance" of the material originally broadcast. I believe this decision stands squarely in the path of the route which the majority today traverses. If a CATV system performs a function "little different from that served by the equipment generally furnished by a television viewer," and if that is to be the test, then it seems to me that a master radio set attached by wire to numerous other sets in various rooms of a hotel cannot be distinguished.


Copyright law applied to piping radio broadcasts throughout a hotel, but not to a master TV antenna.

The reason that copyrights did not apply was because the courts reversed themselves when it came to protecting copyrights when dealing with a nascent technology, namely CATV. The difference here is that every court but the Supreme Court felt that this was a copyright infringement. And even Justice Fortas, writing the dissenting opinion, felt that the majority on the court threw out prior case law:


> It removes from copyright law an interpretation which, though perhaps not altogether satisfactory as an analytical matter, has at least been settled for nearly 40 years; and it substitutes for that discarded interpretation a rule which I do not believe is an intelligible guide for the construction of the Copyright Act.


Note, this is *40 year old case law*, as the copyright laws weren't changed since 1909 (Fortnightly was settled in 1968).

So, what you have here is a Supreme Court, with a majority opinion, believing that CATV does not rebroadcast content, even though 40 years earlier, the Supreme Court felt that the rebroadcasting of radiio content was a copyright violation. You have an FCC that decided to regulate CATV, even though the FCC can only do regulate what Congress tells the FCC to regulate.

Congress was not involved. Therefore, there was no change in the 1909 Copyright Act, and there was no "law" that made changes to copyrights. My argument is correct.

rcoleman, one only needs to look at your last paragraph in your argument:


> Federal efforts to suppress competition from cable ended during the deregulation movement of the 1970s. The shackles were broken by a series of FCC and federal court decisions since 1972, and by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. *The importing of distant signals was allowed without limit and programming restrictions were lifted.*


Then why aren't cablers still importing distant signals? And why doesn't this apply to satellite? Could it be that the free market no longer lets cablers import distant signals?

I should think everyone can see that from the beginnings of CATV, that many legal issues were mishandled. However, as I have stated from the beginning, copyright law still never allowed retransmission. Congress never changed copyright law as it applied to television. Judgments from the courts and the unlawful regulation of CATV by the FCC caused copyright law to be invalidated when it came to rebroadcasting television. Even the last paragraph rcoleman posted does not involve Congress, save the Cable Communications Policy act of 1984. And that act does not revolve around *copyrights*.


----------



## waltinvt (Feb 9, 2004)

Some of you seem to know a lot about these regulations. Could you please comment on this:

There's talk that Dish has the nat HD feeds in testing on 129 & 61.4 and may make them available as soon as the FCC approves the Rainbow 1 deal.

Given Dish's comments right after the new legislation passed last December, I would almost think they expect the FCC to issue something about the "digital white areas" part of SHERVA too.

How is qualification likely to work given that these are HD (digital) DNS and not analog ? 

Will current subs getting analog dns automatically qualify for the digital dns?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> It is absurd to suggest, as others have done in this thread, that copyright laws have "always" protected over-the-air TV broadcasts from being imported to other areas. Copyright laws existed before broadcast technology even existed, so how could they have spelled out that retransmitting an OTA signal constituted a copyright violation?


Greg has covered much of what I was going to write and much more besides. I'll add a note that the 1909 revision of the US copyright law specifically addressed use of copyrighted material in performances. From section 6: "(A)daptations, arrangements, dramatizations ... of copyrighted works when produced with the consent of the proprietor of the copyright in such work ... shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright under the provisions of this Act."

To argue the other side of the question is to say that the first broadcast TV programs were unprotected by copyright. Given the popularity and expense of early TV sets, I would have expected to see lots of derivative versions available if these had been in the public domain. Are you suggesting that the earliest TV shows were public domain from the moment they aired?

If your point is that the federal government has made rules that protect broadcasters and content owners more than they protect viewers, I'm happy to agree. But for some of your other arguments, I have yet to be convinced.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

And at this time I'll submit my point:

To the broadcaster, this has always been about copyright law, and the misapplication of it. There weren't laws to change copyright law for broadcasts until the Cable Act of 1990, which forced retransmission consent and must-carry into the cable world.

Every other argument brought forth by rcoleman has been about the regulation of the cable industry. The problem is that the FCC overstepped its bounds in the 1960's, and regulated cable systems without any guidance from Congress.

Sure, the regulations have favored broadcasters. And rcoleman was nice enough to point this out in his arguments:


> The [FCC] saw clearly that enhanced consumer choice was detrimental to its own larger objectives in overseeing radio and television; reducing the "exclusivity" of a broadcast license concomitantly lessened the FCC's regulatory leverage via the licensing process. Cable became just one more of the FCC's heavily regulated industries.


The Supreme Court granted the cable community a de-facto license to redistribute programming. The broadcasters fought this everywhere they could. However, *copyright law* was never changed because of the broadcasters. Only the regulations at the FCC, and certain court judgments, gave broadcasters more control over their product after years and years of misapplication of laws at the time.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

News Junky said:


> Imagine if 99% of the newspapers got together and formed the National Association of Newspapers. They all united to ban the distant market subsciption by force of the LA Times, NY Times and Denver Post. Regardless of the law people would think censorship.


They might think that, but they'd be wrong. Those are private companies and they are more or less free to do what they want with the content they produce. If they don't want to sell it to someone out of town, that is there choice and they have the right to do so. Fortunately they realize they would be missing out on some revenue streams if they did so. And even though many newspapers are owned by the same company (which is not really the same analogy as television AFFILIATES), they probably do not feel that "importing" a large paper such as the ones mentioned would affect local paper sales in any significant fashion.



News Junky said:


> WXIA Atlanta and WTLV Jacksonville are the same company and same network. I wonder if they would permitt allowing their markets to see each other's stations and if it would even be legal?


I have no idea if they would want to allow this, but the law does more or less provide a waiver process in which for example the Atlanta station may waive their right to oppose the importation of the Jax signal into their market. Now, I don't know for sure if the waiver can be given for a SPECIFIC distant net such as that, but I don't know if that means it can't legally be done. It's probably not explicitly spelled out because it's not economically feasible (for sat co's anyway) to offer this type of tailored distant net service, so nobody is pushing for that. And yes, this is quite similar to the O & O case--the CBS O&O stations granted a blanket waiver for viewers in the O&O markets to receive the national CBS HD feed.

...Lance


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

carload said:


> To argue the other side of the question is to say that the first broadcast TV programs were unprotected by copyright. Given the popularity and expense of early TV sets, I would have expected to see lots of derivative versions available if these had been in the public domain. Are you suggesting that the earliest TV shows were public domain from the moment they aired?
> 
> If your point is that the federal government has made rules that protect broadcasters and content owners more than they protect viewers, I'm happy to agree. But for some of your other arguments, I have yet to be convinced.


It has nothing to with whether the programs are in the "public domain". It has to do with who can view programming that is broadcast over the air for free using the _*public airwaves*_. If you want to believe that this is about protecting copyrights, that the rules aren't being written by broadcast lobbyists, and that their purpose isn't to protect an antiquated business model from extinction, you are free to do so. Living in a fool's paradise is certainly your choice. When you find that you can no longer even record a program from TV because the broadcasters have enacted rules that prevent you from doing so, be sure to send them a thank-you note.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> And at this time I'll submit my point:
> 
> To the broadcaster, this has always been about copyright law, and the misapplication of it. There weren't laws to change copyright law for broadcasts until the Cable Act of 1990, which forced retransmission consent and must-carry into the cable world.
> 
> Every other argument brought forth by rcoleman has been about the regulation of the cable industry. The problem is that the FCC overstepped its bounds in the 1960's, and regulated cable systems without any guidance from Congress.


There you go again, Greg. To the broadcaster, it has always been about protecting an antiquated business model - a business model that is based on technology that was developed in the 1930s and 40s.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> The reason that copyrights did not apply was because the courts reversed themselves when it came to protecting copyrights when dealing with a nascent technology, namely CATV.


Which only confirms what I've been saying - that it was *not * a copyright issue at that time. If it *is * a copyright issue now, that means the laws have been changed to *make* it a copyright issue.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2005)

Another example of what I've been talking about regarding misuse of copyright laws - if the broadcasters get their way, it won't be legal to even record TV shows:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003997.php

But then again, how can anyone argue again protecting copyrights? As some of the other posters have pointed out, it's _their _ content, right?


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> But then again, how can anyone argue again protecting copyrights? As some of the other posters have pointed out, it's _their _ content, right?


That's right. As much as I would love to have access to everything for free, the creators of material, be it music, movies or TV shows, do deserve to get compensated for their effort, and no doubt they will fight hard to ensure they do so.

Why can't you see that somewhere in the middle is a compromise? It seems like you believe that you are entitled free access with no restrictions to anything you can technically get your hands on.

...Lance


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

TNGTony said:


> Without government intervension, the copyright issue would have been settled 50 years ago IN FAVOR OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS!





rcoleman111 said:


> You can believe that if you wish, but the facts say otherwise. ... The copyright laws have been modified repeatedly to tailor them to the interests of the broadcast industry.





rcoleman111 said:


> Go back and do the research yourself - the history of legislation and regulation in this area is long and complex. ... I've already cited some examples of the copyright laws being modified to tailor them to the media companies.





rcoleman111 said:


> It has nothing to with whether the programs are in the "public domain".


I want to boil down this argument, and it comes to the question: At the time they were broadcast, were the first TV programs copyrighted, or were they public domain?

If they were public domain, then they could have been freely retransmitted without the rightsholders' consent until laws and governmental agency rules prevented that.

If they were copyrighted, then it would have been unlawful to retransmit them without consent until some enabling rule-making or legislation established rules for doing so.

TNGTony said that the first TV programs were copyrighted. rcoleman111 asserted that TNGTony's statement was factually incorrect, but since then his citations have not shown or suggested that the first TV programs were not copyrighted (aka "public domain"). Now his latest message invalidates that previous assertion.

I can easily agree that the federal government has made laws and rules that favor the broadcast industry and rightsholders at the expense of viewers. I can easily agree that OTA broadcasters, who use the public airwaves and who should take the responsibility of serving the public, should be held to a higher standard of service than other businesses. Let's start from our areas of agreement and move forward.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Carload, I appreciate your attempt at mediation, but the very concept that the laws are more restrictive than the copyrights that are circumvented by current laws is rediculous.

Other than what is quoted by you and the other posters, I do not see not do I care to see the incorrect and morphing arguments of rcoleman11.

I go back to my original statement in response to his original statement:
"No permission was needed for retransmitting broadcast signals until the broadcasters started lobbying Congress for legislation to protect themselves from competition. It was only when newer technologies allowed broadcast signals to be transmitted over greater distances (i.e., to distant cities where there were TV stations) that the broadcasters started claiming it was a "copyright" issue."

My comment was "actually, the TV stations fought cable tooth and nail until congress passed laws that allowed specific exceptions to the copyright laws to allow cable companies to continue infringing on copyright owners' rights"

I continued that it was in 1949 when the first court cases were filed for copyright infringement by a cable station of a TV station signal.

There was no law specific to this because IT WAS NEW. However, the copyright law applied. The current laws are LESS restrictive than the copyright law they supercede!

I'm done with this thread. rcoleman11 can now post 73 messages with continued misinformation if he wishes. But it is misinformation.

See ya
Tony


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

TNGTony said:


> I'm done with this thread.


Me too.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that copyrights did not apply was because the courts reversed themselves when it came to protecting copyrights when dealing with a nascent technology, namely CATV.
> ...


Sure it was.

First, just like the anti-trust exemption in baseball, *the courts* handed out what amounted to an exemption against the laws on the books. Although cable's "copyright issues" were settled by the Supreme Court in 1968, business _evolves_. The whole reason that legislation over the past 30 years has favored the broadcasters is that even though cable companies were making money, the most-viewed programming in the United States still belonged to the broadcasters. When studying for the Cable Act of 1990, a study was commissoned. *Two-thirds of cable subscribers expected their cable bill to be at least halved if broadcast channels were not on it.* Subscribers placed a value on the broadcast content, even though the Supreme Court, in 1968, did not. Congress leveled the playing field between the cable networks and the broadcasters by allowing the broadcasters to charge for carriage.

Second, the copyright exception granted by the Supreme Court applied to broadcasters and cable. It never applied to broadcasters and satellite. The only changes made to copyright law with respect to satellite were the SHVA, the SHVIA, and the SHVERA. Before that, *copyright law still made it illegal for satellite to carry local channels.* The changes in copyright law were definitely in favor of the satellite companies and the broadcasters.

Third, as you pointed out in an earlier post:


> CATV duplication of local programming via distant signals is unfair since broadcasters and CATV do not compete for programs on an equal footing; the FCC recommends "a reasonable measure of exclusivity".
> 
> Note that none of this is about copyrights - it's about protecting broadcasters from competition. Keep reading and you'll see how the issue of "copyrights" has come into play - it has been used as a justification for all sorts of oppressive regulations, as if copyright protection somehow trumps all other rights.


Tell me that syndex does not relate to copyrights in some fashion. The FCC implemented syndex as a way to protect the copyright license of a local station. The only reason this was done was because CATV was still nascent technology. As a matter of fact, without a date on this issue, I'd believe this action was done prior to the Fortnightly decision in 1968, which means copyright issues were still not settled.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2005)

lpickup said:


> Why can't you see that somewhere in the middle is a compromise? It seems like you believe that you are entitled free access with no restrictions to anything you can technically get your hands on.
> 
> ...Lance


If it's being broadcast over the *public airwaves * free-of-charge, then there is no reason anyone shouldn't be able to access it, other than to protect the broadcast industry's business model.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> Carload, I appreciate your attempt at mediation, but the very concept that the laws are more restrictive than the copyrights that are circumvented by current laws is rediculous.
> 
> I'm done with this thread. rcoleman11 can now post 73 messages with continued misinformation if he wishes. But it is misinformation.
> 
> ...


That's what you said a couple of weeks ago, when you stated you were putting me on your "ignore list". It's about as believable as anything else you've said. Why don't you bring up Broadcast.com again? After all, your posts seem to be based on the theory that if you make the same absurd statements enough times, a few people are bound to believe them.

I see you still can't spell, let alone compose coherent text in English. It's "ridiculous", not "rediculous", and it's a word that describes what you've been peddling. Run along now, Tony, and bother someone else.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

If you are able to access it YOURSELF, and all you were going to do was use it for personal use, I agree. But that's is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a third party accessing it and doing something with it that is earning them money. I believe it is entirely fair that there be some type of restrictions on this type of use.

...Lance


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Tell me that syndex does not relate to copyrights in some fashion. The FCC implemented syndex as a way to protect the copyright license of a local station.


You are making making my argument for me. Copyright was cited as a justification, but the Syndex rules were designed to protect broadcasters from the superstations. If a local station carried reruns of an old TV show, that same show could not appear in that market on the superstation, even though they had a contract that allowed them to show it. It was protection for local TV stations, pure and simple.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2005)

TNGTony said:


> I'm done with this thread.





carload said:


> Me too.


That's great news. Goodbye.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> If it's being broadcast over the public airwaves free-of-charge, then there is no reason anyone shouldn't be able to access it, other than to protect the broadcast industry's business model.


Hmm. I have access to Baltimore and DC local channels through antenna. I have no problem. Through DirecTV, I only have access to Baltimore local channels, with access to the DC networks later this year. No problem. However, I do have this problem...

If [name any musical performer] was to release an album on Tuesday, yet broadcast the whole album over radio on Sunday night, according to your access of programming, I should therefore be allowed to copy it, make CDs of it, and release it on Monday morning, for sale.

You are saying copyrights should be completely invalidated. Your arguments just fell through the floor, as your point just became any entity using the public airwaves should have their copyrights invalidated. When a third party is allowed to redistribute without permission, it is invalidating copyrights. And if DirecTV, Dish Network, or your local cable company is able to do so, then I want to distribute content without permission. I'd love to make money off of someone else's work.

Once again, in the world of satellite television, copyrights have always been the issue. Whether or not you wish to believe me, fine. I have proven my points, by countering your points, time and time again. Every argument you have brought up relates to regulations and judgments for cable television. For satellite, this has always been a copyright issue. Even if "protections" to the broadcast industry were removed on the satellite television business, doing so would remove network and local television stations from DirecTV and Dish Network. Those local channels are only there because of a law created to help spread local and network programming to the public.

And I have never said the regulations or laws do not protect the broadcast industry. Cablers and DBS companies have benefitted greatly from access to local and network programming. But even with your examples, once the FCC became involved with regulating CATV, the FCC did what it always does: promote localism.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> If [name any musical performer] was to release an album on Tuesday, yet broadcast the whole album over radio on Sunday night, according to your access of programming, I should therefore be allowed to copy it, make CDs of it, and release it on Monday morning, for sale.


No. But if for whatever reason it is prohibitively inconvenient for some people to travel to a retail music store it would show some consideration to the public if those people could download the album at .99 cents per song using the new legal Napster or iTunes. The end user by paying the .99 cents per song covers royalties and 3rd party distributor (Napster and iTunes) profits and everybody's happy. Under your example only those who can prove they have already purchased the CD can download an additional mp3 copy.

Every single argument against allowing for 2005 technology access to multiple-market local TV can be addressed by charging a reasonable subscription fee that fairly compensates all parties involved. The bottom line argument that's being made is "they don't want to". Personally, I don't think that's the real answer. Every business in America wants to expand its territory and make more money. I think its 1 thing: Face Saving. After the local TV industry has sunk bank into lobbying efforts, legal expenses, and getting congress and the Whitehouse under several administrations spanning decades and got everything they asked for they would look like complete fools to do an about face at this point even though I'm certain they would love to offer their DNS for a fee via satellite. Try visiting almost every local TV station's website and see the efforts and expense they go through to offer local content out of market.



> the FCC did what it always does: promote localism.


You have a point and a good one. I support localism, that why I am so committed to the possibilty of distant market television. I want to experience the local dynamic of other places. This can be easily reinforced by continuing to require stations to committ airtime to local public affairs programming or even increasing time required to offer local programming.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

lpickup said:


> I do see hope: pay-TV channels like HBO do produce some quality, popular series. But apparently the economics at this time are simply not favorable to a non-local OTA broadcast business model because otherwise I think I would be watching more series on networks such as USA, FX, etc. But no, the popular hits (CSI, 24, etc.) are all on network TV.


I don't remember who it was but a while back I heard an interview with someone from one of the networks saying that if a popular show like the Sopranos had aired on network tv with the ratings it got it would have been canceled.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

News Junky said:


> No.  But if for whatever reason it is prohibitively inconvenient for some people to travel to a retail music store it would show some consideration to the public if those people could download the album at .99 cents per song using the new legal Napster or iTunes.


You can do the same thing with TV. You just buy a DVD! You can buy it on the net and have it shipped to you within days of them becoming available.



> Every single argument against allowing for 2005 technology access to multiple-market local TV can be addressed by charging a reasonable subscription fee that fairly compensates all parties involved. The bottom line argument that's being made is "they don't want to".


That is the botton line and that is the real answer! They make more money on their product with this tight control! You can find the same thing with tangible goods all over the place! Certain brands of clothing are exclusively available ONLY at a certain department store. And no, you cannot legally be sold legally by a third party.

Coca-Cola has a distribution system with franchised distributors. These distributors have exclusive areas. If you have a business and you want to get the product from Coke, The product you buy must come from YOUR distributor. You cannot buy from another distributer. If a Distributor sells outside their area, they will lose their franchise.

There have been many audio equipment brands that were exclusive to a specific chain fo stores in different markets. If you wanted to buy a certain brand system, you had to go to that chain. Yes you could go to another city and buy at a different chain store, but right now you can go to another city and watch another TV channel! You can even record it and bring it back for your own use!

"Because that's the way we want it" is ALWAYS the reason. Just because we don't like the reason doesn't make it a bad one.

See ya
Tony


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> You can do the same thing with TV. You just buy a DVD! You can buy it on the net and have it shipped to you within days of them becoming available.


Thanks for the good information. However with the time sensitivity nature of instant communications, getting last months news or even yesterday's news is impractical to the end user. A more immediate solution such as a subscription to a distant market station or package of stations live feeds even if it only included local programming would be better and I'm certain even used if offered. Signals are already being transmitted regionally and nationally from several cities to provide local into local and national feeds to those who qualify so there's NO additional expense to the satellite service to unblock available channels on a network protecting schedule. Any incidental expenses that result from scheduling software or royalites can simply be passed on the the subcriber along with some addition mark up.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

From two of News Junky's posts:


> Any incidental expenses that result from scheduling software or royalites can simply be passed on the the subcriber along with some addition mark up.





> Every single argument against allowing for 2005 technology access to multiple-market local TV can be addressed by charging a reasonable subscription fee that fairly compensates all parties involved.


Reasonable to you and I would be $9 a month for all four networks from LA and NY (or name two of your cities here). Reasonable to the affiliates would be $9,000 a month for the same package, as your exclusive viewership has dollars attached to it.

And therein lies the problem. rcoleman wants a special copyright exemption, exactly like SCOTUS gave cablers in the Fortnightly case, and then removal of all regulations the FCC created over the years, and have that applied to satellite TV as well. It wouldn't be long before all regionalized sports programming moved off of OTA networks and onto cable networks, as they could no longer control the distribution of their product over-the-air. After all, if I could buy any affiliate I wanted, Sunday Ticket would be dead.

News Junky tries to point out a "reasonable subscription fee", but which party would determine a reasonable fee? That's the thing about copyrights. Ask the artist known as Prince about his "Black Album". He planned on releasing it in 1987, and pulled back all copies. So many copies came out that it was finally released in 1994.


----------



## lpickup (Jul 12, 2005)

kb7oeb said:


> I don't remember who it was but a while back I heard an interview with someone from one of the networks saying that if a popular show like the Sopranos had aired on network tv with the ratings it got it would have been canceled.


Maybe, but I don't think it's apples to apples. I think you have to look at the starting point of how many viewers a network has vs. HBO. I suspect it is several orders of magnitude higher. Now in the case of the HBO series, their motivation is to attract new subscribers with their exclusive series, and I think this has probably been a good marketing tool for them, and thus, successful for them, even though in terms of raw # of viewers it doesn't stack with a network series. Besides, HBO doesn't get paid by advertising rates set by ratings anyway.

Anyway, what I was talking about was some of the series on the more traditional channels like USA, SciFi, TLC--i.e. the ones that are supported by commercial advertising and for whom ratings are quite important. And I'm not saying they are competing with networks today--they clearly aren't, but I have noticed the quality of their series has improved significantly.

...Lance


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Reasonable to the affiliates would be $9,000 a month for the same package, as your exclusive viewership has dollars attached to it.


Are you honestly saying my 4 major network affiliates each make $9,000.00 a month on my household? That would mean they collectively generate $36,000.00 every month per houshold in ad revenue, way more that I even make much less spend as a result of seeing ads on TV. If this is true TV advertising is the biggest ripoff in America! I hate to question your numbers but I have a hard time seeing that. Could you please show some sort of reference?



> After all, if I could buy any affiliate I wanted, Sunday Ticket would be dead.


You could use the same argument that Suday Ticket kills local blackouts but they figured out a way around that didn't they? I had Sunday Ticket a couple of seasons ago. My local team's coverage on the 700's Season Ticket block of channels was blocked (except for pregame stuuf). If I wanted to see my hometown game I could only see that particular game on the local affiliate. If someone subscribes to say the Chicago stations but lives in Orlando, Chicago Bears games would be blocked from the local station feed. Channels can be blocked and unblocked on a schedule.



> News Junky tries to point out a "reasonable subscription fee", but which party would determine a reasonable fee?


Determine the per capita revenue your local station generates in gross revevue. Require that amount from the subscriber who wants access to other cities. The local station wins because this is gross money they don't have to pay sales commissions on and the subcriber STILL remains part of the local audience and as such can be presented as part of the audience when selling ads. I'm permitted to have HBO and CNN but that doesn't mean I no longer watch my local stations.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Once again, in the world of satellite television, copyrights have always been the issue. Whether or not you wish to believe me, fine.


If you review the material I posted earlier regarding the history of regulation in this area, it is quite clear that it isn't about copyright. The early regulations had the stated purpose of protecting broadcasters, not copyrights. The rules that are in place now evolved from those regulations. You can keep chanting "copyrights have always been the issue" as long as you like, but it won't make it true.



Greg Bimson said:


> I have proven my points, by countering your points, time and time again.


Citing the dissenting (i.e., losing) opinion in a court case is not what most people would consider proving your point.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> If you review the material I posted earlier regarding the history of regulation in this area, it is quite clear that it isn't about copyright.


You are only looking at the history of *cable television*. And even in that sense, it is still about copyrights: the FCC protects a station that contracts for a copyrighted program from the importation of that same copyrighted program.

The FCC started regulation of cable *because it was a threat to their licensing of terrestrial stations.*


rcoleman111 said:


> Citing the dissenting (i.e., losing) opinion in a court case is not what most people would consider proving your point.


Really?


rcoleman111 said:


> If it's being broadcast over the public airwaves free-of-charge, then there is no reason anyone shouldn't be able to access it, other than to protect the broadcast industry's business model.


And the only industry allowed this, by an incorrect judgment from the Supreme Court, is cable television. SCOTUS ruled *in the 1920's* that it was copyright infringement to do rebroadcast radio over cable. SCOTUS then U-turned in 1968 on the Fortnightly case.

And once again, the faulty basis of argument is: if it is available free-of-charge, anyone should have access to it.

A) Everyone still has access to the primary transmission;
B) It is still copyrighted, and;
C) If someone wants to carry the transmission of such station on a different frequency, it is now a retransmission, and a duplication of the primary transmission. And if carrying such retransmission is beneficial to the subscribers and to the retransmitting party, compensation should be given.

Yet copyright law shouldn't apply.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

What if its not a retransmission and more like the original community antenna idea. Say the cable co picks up the local signal and puts it directly onto the wire.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

It's still a retransmission of the original. The only reason the "community antenna" idea worked is because of the Fortnightly decision in 1968:


MR. JUSTICE STEWART said:


> The function of CATV systems has little in common with the function of broadcasters. CATV systems do not in fact broadcast or rebroadcast.


Yet the Supreme Court ruled 40 years before that primary radio broadcasts retransmitted over a wire are rebroadcasts, and a violation of copyright law. This decision is the only reason cable companies do not need to follow copyright law. The Supreme Court exempted cable companies.

This is the exact error that gave Major League Baseball an anti-trust exemption.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

So, to reiterate:

*The only reason copyright protection does not apply to CATV is because the Supreme Court said so.* The disagreement with rcoleman111 is because he says broadcasters have had laws changed, when in fact the changes came from court rulings and the FCC. Neither the Supreme Court nor the FCC create law; the former decides how laws are applied and the latter regulates. Laws weren't created in favor of broadcasters. There were some policies that helped the broadcasters, but they weren't laws.

Court decisions went against broadcasters. The FCC, bound by serving both the public interest and its own licensing of terrestrial transmissions, decided to regulate cable, and help out the broadcasters. It still doesn't change the fact that *copyright laws do apply to the satellite companies.* One cannot state "look at the history" when satellite's history is only quite recent.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> You are only looking at the history of *cable television*.


The current rules were derived from the early regulation of cable TV, and the stated purpose of those rules was to protect broadcasters.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> The disagreement with rcoleman111 is because he says broadcasters have had laws changed, when in fact the changes came from court rulings and the FCC. Neither the Supreme Court nor the FCC create law; the former decides how laws are applied and the latter regulates. .


The FCC's authority to make regulations is based on federal law. The FCC, for that matter, is a _*creation* _ of federal law. The early FCC regulations that were used to hamstring the growth of cable TV were based on its interpretation of its authority under federal law - the Communications Act of 1934. The same holds true today - federal law (e.g., SHVERA) gives the FCC the power to make rules. Unless those rules are overturned in court (e.g., the recent ruling that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by mandating a "broadcast flag"), they are the law of the land. It really doesn't make any difference whether a rule is passed by the FCC or is specifically spelled out in a statute - it is still the law.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> You are saying copyrights should be completely invalidated.


Your arguments are getting more absurd with each post. Now you are claiming that allowing importation of distant stations would invalidate all copyright law.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> The early FCC regulations that were used to hamstring the growth of cable TV were based on its interpretation of its authority under federal law - the Communications Act of 1934. The same holds true today - federal law (e.g., SHVERA) gives the FCC the power to make rules.


First, keep in mind that the FCC for its first 32 years were under guidance of one two-term Republican president, and a Congress that believed bigger government is better. The government of the 1950's generated more red tape and rules than they were allowed. The regulation of cable is one of those places where the FCC overstepped its bounds. However, back then, there really was no place to address issues with the regulations. The FCC should have never regulated cable, and the Supreme Court should have never exempted copyright law for the CATV community. Nowadays, overstepping boundaries is quite hard to do.

There are some conditions where the FCC can spell out what rules need to be created, but the FCC's oversight on those rules must be granted by power of the law. One example would be significantly-viewed, where the FCC is responsible for publishing and updating the list of significantly-viewed stations. However, the FCC cannot overstep its boundaries, i.e., create rules where Congress did not charge them to do so, such as the broadcast flag...


> Unless those rules are overturned in court (e.g., the recent ruling that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by mandating a "broadcast flag"), they are the law of the land.


That's just like saying you aren't breaking the law until the charges are proven in a court of law. If you are driving 72 in a 55 mph zone, you know darn well you are breaking the law.

If a law is passed that is blatantly abridges the rights granted in the Constitution or its amendments, or a regulation is passed that is not in the authority of a given body, the law or regulation will be stricken from the books quickly.


> It really doesn't make any difference whether a rule is passed by the FCC or is specifically spelled out in a statute - it is still the law.


It is a regulation, if it was constructed by the FCC. And if the issue between two parties is an FCC regulation, the matter is ruled on by the FCC, before it ever goes to the courts.


> Your arguments are getting more absurd with each post. Now you are claiming that allowing importation of distant stations would invalidate all copyright law.


Re-read it. I never said all copyrights would be invalid.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Re-read it. I never said all copyrights would be invalid.





Greg Bimson said:


> You are saying copyrights should be completely invalidated.


OK, I've re-read it. It still looks the same to me. The rest of your post is just a restatement of your previous comments - that court decisions allowing retransmission of TV signals were "wrong". That's just your opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> OK, I've re-read it. It still looks the same to me. The rest of your post is just a restatement of your previous comments - that court decisions allowing retransmission of TV signals were "wrong". That's just your opinion, not a fact.


Ok. Let me restate, by adding two words:

You are saying copyrights *on broadcasts* should be completely invalidated. So, now give me an argument as to why, without bringing up "public interest" and "the people own the airwaves".

It is my opinion that court decisions allowing retransmission of TV signals on cable TV were "wrong". However, the basis for your argument is your opinion that broadcasted programming does not deserve copyright protection. Yet the Supreme Court ruled in the 1910's that rebroadcasted radio does deserve copyright protection, and satellite television has always had to follow copyright law. And I can name numerous examples, starting with the last two: satellite television fighting must-carry on the grounds it was unconstitutional (and it wasn't, because it was based on copyright law), and the wonderful people at iCraveTV.com, which lost in court due to copyright protection.

When it came to OTA broadcasts and cable, your argument is always "the history of broadcasters" and their ability to get laws changed. Yet the only basis for your case about retransmissions, copyrights and history is the relationship between OTA broadcasters and the cable industry. Every other issue about rebroadcasts is rooted in copyright law, yet you provide no example here.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> Ok. Let me restate, by adding two words:
> 
> You are saying copyrights *on broadcasts* should be completely invalidated. So, now give me an argument as to why, without bringing up "public interest" and "the people own the airwaves".
> 
> It is my opinion that court decisions allowing retransmission of TV signals on cable TV were "wrong".





Greg Bimson said:


> And I can name numerous examples, starting with the last two: satellite television fighting must-carry on the grounds it was unconstitutional (and it wasn't, because it was based on copyright law),


Your entire argument seems to be based on your opinion that court decisions were "wrong". Again, it is only your opinion, not a fact. The same can be said of your latest assertion that "every other issue about rebroadcasts is rooted in copyright law". The information I posted previously refutes that.

The same arguments you are trying to make could also have been made when legislation was passed in the early '70s to prohibit local blackouts of sold-out football games. The NFL owned the content, it was copyrighted, and the owners argued that they shouldn't be forced to let viewers in the local markets see the games. It would turn the game into a "studio event" and would mean the end of the NFL as we knew it. Passing that legislation, which was favorable to both broadcasters and viewers in NFL markets, didn't invalidate copyrights any more than allowing importation of distant TV stations would.

In addition to restating (in a slightly altered form) your absurd comment that allowing importation of distant signals would invalidate all copyrights, I see you are now also claiming that the forcing cable operators to carry local TV stations (the "must carry" legislation) is somehow tied to protecting copyrights. That is even more bizarre than some of your other arguments.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> Your entire argument seems to be based on your opinion that court decisions were "wrong". Again, it is only your opinion, not a fact. The same can be said of your latest assertion that "every other issue about rebroadcasts is rooted in copyright law". The information I posted previously refutes that.


No, it does not. Every single argument you have provided is only for copyrights as it applies to cable television.


> The same arguments you are trying to make could also have been made when legislation was passed in the early '70s to prohibit local blackouts of sold-out football games. The NFL owned the content, it was copyrighted, and the owners argued that they shouldn't be forced to let viewers in the local markets see the games. It would turn the game into a "studio event" and would mean the end of the NFL as we knew it. Passing that legislation, which was favorable to both broadcasters and viewers in NFL markets, didn't invalidate copyrights any more than allowing importation of distant TV stations would.


That is completely incorrect.

The law was created to balance the owners ability to sell tickets (the 72 hour blackout rule) and the fans to see the games. Once the games were sold out, the point was moot. That was one piece of legislation that made the NFL the behemoth it is today. And let's not forget, the NFL is a monopoly, so any argument about how they distribute their product with respect to any government intervention is moot. After all, government intervention was required to merge the NFL and the AFL in 1966.


> In addition to restating (in a slightly altered form) your absurd comment that allowing importation of distant signals would invalidate all copyrights, I see you are now also claiming that the forcing cable operators to carry local TV stations (the "must carry" legislation) is somehow tied to protecting copyrights. That is even more bizarre than some of your other arguments.


Oh boy...

I didn't say cable and must-carry:


Greg Bimson said:


> And I can name numerous examples, starting with the last two: *satellite* television fighting must-carry on the grounds it was unconstitutional (and it wasn't, because it was based on copyright law)...


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2005)

"Oh boy" is right. There is no end to your dopey comments.



Greg Bimson said:


> Every single argument you have provided is only for copyrights as it applies to cable television.


There is no fundamental reason why satellite TV should be treated any different from cable. They are just different technologies that serve the same purpose - delivering TV programming. In fact, that was the rationale for applying the "must-carry" rules to satellite operators - that they should have to follow the same rules that apply to cable.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> That is completely incorrect.
> 
> The law was created to balance the owners ability to sell tickets (the 72 hour blackout rule) and the fans to see the games. Once the games were sold out, the point was moot. That was one piece of legislation that made the NFL the behemoth it is today. And let's not forget, the NFL is a monopoly, so any argument about how they distribute their product with respect to any government intervention is moot. After all, government intervention was required to merge the NFL and the AFL in 1966.


No, what I stated is correct. The NFL owners argued that it would turn the game into a "studio event", with teams playing in front of empty stadiums. They owned the content (it was also copyrighted) and they didn't feel they should be forced allow the games to be televised into the local markets. It's the same argument you've been making. The NFL owners were wrong and so are you.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

> "Oh boy" is right. There is no end to your dopey comments.


My dopey comments....


> There is no fundamental reason why satellite TV should be treated any different from cable.


Huh? For someone that claims to refute any mistake I may make, you just made a very large one.

Cable TV has been around for over 50 years. DBS has now existed for just over 10. The laws and the regulations that apply to cable would be different than laws or regulations that apply to satellite. All I need to do is point to the Fortnightly case, as cable TV was given an exemption on copyright for rebroadcasting local channels in 1968, while a law was needed to exempt satellite carriers for copyrights in 1999.


> No, what I stated is correct. The NFL owners argued that it would turn the game into a "studio event", with teams playing in front of empty stadiums. They owned the content (it was also copyrighted) and they didn't feel they should be forced allow the games to be televised into the local markets. It's the same argument you've been making. The NFL owners were wrong and so are you.


What teams play in empty stadiums and have their games broadcast on local TV? I am fairly certain that a blackout is required if the game isn't *sold out* 72 hours in advance of the start time. That renders a game being a "studio event" moot.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

The NFL requires a stadium be sold out 72 hours before the game. Sometimes if the network or local station thinks it is worth their while, they will "buy the house". Essentially the buy up all the remaining tickets then give them away to make the sell-out.

The rules for the other major sports differ.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Right, Tony. And ask long-suffering Raiders fans that don't get to see their team because they do not sell out. Raiders games aren't studio events, as they aren't even seen in their own market.

The owners wanted a restriction on in-market broadcasts if they don't sell out. The NFL did kick and scream about this all the way until the legislation finally passed. This legislation is part of what made the NFL the behemoth today. So did the legislation that allowed the AFL to merge with the NFL back in 1966. Congress got involved because they needed to address this newly-created monopoly on pro football. If your business is a monopoly, you will be regulated and scrutinzed by the government much more than if you are one of many. Hence the reason for Congress to involve themselves in the local market blackout rules.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2005)

Greg Bimson said:


> My dopey comments....Huh? For someone that claims to refute any mistake I may make, you just made a very large one.
> 
> Cable TV has been around for over 50 years. DBS has now existed for just over 10. The laws and the regulations that apply to cable would be different than laws or regulations that apply to satellite.


You keep pointing out that the regulations I cited in my earlier posts, which had the stated purpose of _protecting broadcasters from competition_, were only for cable TV, not satellite. There is a simple reason for that - *satellite TV didn't exist at the time*. The current rules were derived from those regulations. And those rules prohibit importation of programs that duplicate what local stations are carrying - those are the "network nonduplication" and "syndicated exclusivity" rules. Those rules are specifically designed to protect local TV stations from competition.

The history of satellite regulation is just as onerous as that of cable - i.e., the rules are stacked in favor of the broadcasters. Someone who lives in the boonies can get whatever distant stations are available, copyrights notwithstanding. It's only if you live in an area where those distant stations would compete with local TV stations that it becomes a problem.

I can't help but be amused by your comment about the NFL - that those copyright rules you keep citing as if they are sacred don't apply to the NFL because it's a "monopoly". That's exactly what copyright provides - a monopoly on a particular piece of work.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

I think we're closer to reaching an accord...


> You keep pointing out that the regulations I cited in my earlier posts, which had the stated purpose of _protecting broadcasters from competition_, were only for cable TV, not satellite. There is a simple reason for that - *satellite TV didn't exist at the time*. The current rules were derived from those regulations. And those rules prohibit importation of programs that duplicate what local stations are carrying - those are the "network nonduplication" and "syndicated exclusivity" rules. Those rules are specifically designed to protect local TV stations from competition.


Correct. The history of regulation and case law protected broadcasters with respect to cable television. Parts of that regulation did weasel its way into the satellite laws and regulations. Namely, syndex on superstations. However, the rest of the satellite laws did enable the delivery of local channels, albeit on a market-by-market basis. If that act can be considered "protectionist", so be it. With significantly-viewed around the corner, my area will have the networks from a neighboring market, specifically because I can get two sets of networks with a conventional antenna. These stations must compete for my eyeballs in the marketplace on DBS because they already do on both OTA and cable.

Congress isn't interested in creating a new marketplace to force competition between local and distant stations of the same network. They never have; if they had, the history of cable regulation would be much different.


> The history of satellite regulation is just as onerous as that of cable - i.e., the rules are stacked in favor of the broadcasters. Someone who lives in the boonies can get whatever distant stations are available, copyrights notwithstanding. It's only if you live in an area where those distant stations would compete with local TV stations that it becomes a problem.


Not anymore. The SHVERA now states any subscriber signing up for local channels via satellite cannot use the statutory license to get distant networks. There are a few exceptions. So this legislation applies to over 90 percent of the households in the US, making it extremely difficult to even receive distant networks.

By 2009, when the supposed analog shut-off date is enacted, most distant networks will go away. It will have been 10 years since DBS gained the ability to retransmit local channels, and the DBS companies will most likely have the infrastructure in place to retransmit all of those local channels in some kind of HD format. The most onerous legislation I fear is that the DBS companies will have to abide by multi-cast must-carry.


> I can't help but be amused by your comment about the NFL - that those copyright rules you keep citing as if they are sacred don't apply to the NFL because it's a "monopoly". That's exactly what copyright provides - a monopoly on a particular piece of work.


Two different issues at work here...

1) copyright provides the ability for an author/creator to profit off of their work. Just because Harry Potter is copyrighted does not make it a monopoly. It is a work in the sub-genres of fiction, fantasy and young adult. Harry Potter is not the only work that can be bought in those sub-genres.

2) The definition of a monopoly, from Investopedia.com:


> A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products.
> 
> For a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm.


Not one specific broadcaster meets this definition. Not many copyright creators meet this definition either. The NFL does, though. They gained that right when the lawmakers on Capitol Hill exempted the AFL and NFL in 1966 from Sherman Anti-Trust legislation. This action allowed the two leagues to become a monopoly. The pro leagues asked Congress for help to become a monopoly. Therefore, they will always be subject to government scrutiny.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

To be fair, football doesn't have the legally protected monopoly status that professional baseball has. (Not that baseball ever really deserved it, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.) Anyone with seriously deep pockets is welcome to start up a parallel league (USFL, XFL) or even some similar niche league (Arena FL, CFL's US expansion).

In a lot of cities, the local cable systems is only a de facto monopoly. The rules for those cities permit any company to string a parallel set of wires and compete, but the high cost and limited return discourage anyone from doing so. The NFL is that kind of monopoly; it has the stadia and the TV contracts and the name recognition, but you're welcome to start your own competing league.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

carload said:


> To be fair, football doesn't have the legally protected monopoly status that professional baseball has. (Not that baseball ever really deserved it, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)


Very true. The 1966 legislation did not exempt professional football from anti-trust laws; it simply allowed the two leagues to merge and create a monopoly. The anti-trust exemption given to baseball was actually through case law, as a judge (who later became Commissioner of Major League Baseball) ruled that baseball was exempt from anti-trust law.


> Anyone with seriously deep pockets is welcome to start up a parallel league (USFL, XFL) or even some similar niche league (Arena FL, CFL's US expansion).


Also true. However, the barriers to entry in this market are extremely high, in terms of dollars needed in order to compete.

It is no wonder that many of the monopolies over the past few decades have been under extreme regulation (local power companies, local cable companies, local telephone companies, etc.). There was an exhorbitant need by local and national authorities to make sure these companies did not abuse their power in the marketplace.


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this but I'm going to give it a shot.

I've been having problems with my local NBC affiliate (WSAZ) for the past two years. It first started out as electrical interference in October of 2003 (producing "sparkles" on the screen) and I complained to both WSAZ and Charter about it and they just kept blaming each other and it stayed like that until the summer Olympics of 2004. After the "sparkles" went away, it started having these rolling lines off and on all day long. I still complained about that and they continued to blame each other. I put up with that until this past October and decided to switch to DirecTV thinking that I would get a better picture from satellite. The day after I had it installed, I still had cable hooked up to one of the TVs and the "sparkles" were back and even WORSE on both Charter cable AND DirecTV. So, I contacted WSAZ about it figuring that was indeed THEIR fault since it was happening on both cable and satellite. They told me they'd tell DirecTV to fix it confused: ) but that was back in October and it's still happening. I've continued to call and write to WSAZ and DirecTV but it doesn't look like it's going to be fixed anytime soon. I end up talking to different people each time I contact them and nobody knows anything about anything, and I end up going in circles.

[I was going to provide screencaps of WSAZ and my other local channels to compare but I'm unable to post links until I make 5 posts... but believe me, the sparkles are HORRIBLE (covering the whole screen) and the rest of the picture is blurry!]

With some research, I found that I could get DirecTV to request a waiver on my behalf that says that I don't have to be a WSAZ viewer. I've asked DirecTV to do this for me (with examples of what I'm seeing on my end) and I'm getting generic responses such as "reset your receiver." Based on this information, do you think I should be able to get the NY NBC feed? Or at least WCMH (Columbus, Ohio NBC affiliate)? I mean, really, two years of this subpar picture quality with WSAZ and nobody listening to me... my patience is wearing VERY thin. I just want WSAZ off my lineup (preferably to drop off the face of the planet) and a suitable NBC affiliate in its place.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Probably not the best topic to be under but since there's love in the building I'll give my 2 cents.

We first have to figure out what's causing the problem. I assume Charter is your former cable company. Nobody is going to want to fix a problem that cuased by something they had nothing to do with. I've narrowed it down to 3 possibilities. Before I give you my humble opinon please answer the following questions:

1. Is the sparkle problem you have ONLY on WSAZ or do you see it on other channels?

2. Is the WSAZ problem on more than one TV in your home?

3. Can you see WSAZ directly over their air signal without needing cable TV or satellite in your home? If yes do you see the sparkle that way as well?

4. Do you know of anyone else that has the same problem with WSAZ?


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

1. It's only on WSAZ. The rest of the channels are fine.

2. On all 4 boxes in my house.

3. No. I've put my address in those forms to see what kind of signal you can get with antenna and it says it's grade B but I didn't have any kind of cable or satellite until I was 15... I had to use antenna and WSAZ did not look good at all. I live in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains so it's very hilly here. I haven't tried it lately though because I don't own an antenna.

4. My sister lives down the road from me and she still uses Charter... still has the sparkles and rolling lines problem. I don't know anyone else with DirecTV to know if they have the problem too.


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

kenglish said:


> More likely, those restrictions are to keep the stations operating and paying their bills.
> 
> However, if they could just NATIONALIZE the entire media and give us everything for FREE (well, at least just pay for it all through our taxes), it wouldn't matter if individual stations have any viewers or make any money.


Yeah...and we'd have the same TV quality as the BBC and CBC...

Nationalize the media? Ha! It's already biased enough...


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> 4. My sister lives down the road from me and she still uses Charter... still has the sparkles and rolling lines problem. I don't know anyone else with DirecTV to know if they have the problem too.


Wow.

A. I don't for sure but it sounds like your cable TV company is picking up the TV signal off of the air and due to either signal loss (distance issues) or more likely interference due to the terrian and that's the signal THEY get. The cable company then retransmitts that horrible signal to subscribers in your area and charges them for it. Here's the bizzare thing. You said with DirecTV its even worse. That would mean DirecTV is also pulling the signal off the air and there are problems with the signal feed as well OR DirecTV is simply subcribing to the same Charter cable service and uplinking that feed for satellite distribution.

B. Another possibility is there is another TV station (or even the same TV station) that broadcasts on that same cable channel (and then distributed via satellite). The 2 sources could be interfering with one another.

In either event if you ask me its not the fault of your local TV station. I'd say your cable service is at fault and answer A. is probably the problem. Especially since the problem is on all 4 of your boxes and on both cable and satellite as well as over at your sister's house on that channel. Again, DirecTV might be rebroadcasting a cable feed.

If it were me I'd try to push to get a waiver for distant market NBC access. Understand first of all that there is a strong culture in the industry that discourages letting consumers have access to the national network feeds. Long story made short, plan on getting nowhere fast and a long fight on your hands in getting distant market NBC. I think you also will get better co-operation from DISH Network than you will with DirecTV.

There is a short-cut. If you happen to own an RV and can provide proof of registration you can get all the local nbc, abc,fox and cbs TV stations in New York and Los Angeles with DirecTV and NY, LA, Atlanta and Denver with DISH Network but you won't be able to get any of your local stations. I'm not sure but you MIGHT be limited to just 2 receivers. Also with DISH you can get UPN and WB stations from several cities even without an RV and as many receivers as you want. DirecTv will not offer UPN or WB stations unless they are in your own locality.

If you really want to get WSAZ and not New York and Los Angeles NBC there is a way to get their attention but understand once you pursure that option their goal will be to not help you get NY or LA but only as a last resort. Here's how. Copy and print this thread starting at your question and the responses and send it along with a cover letter explaing you problem and detail the run around you've gotten from everybody to WSAZ's General Manager. Also, this is very important, request that your letter to him and this thread be placed in the WSAZ Public File and put the words *PUBLIC FILE *in bold letters. Depending on how dangerous you want to be you can send copies to your congressman, the FCC, DirecTV and the cable company. In all likelihood the problem will be corrected within 30 days or WSAZ will problably personally help you get New York's NBC. What will probably happen is the TV station will put heat on the cable company to fix the reception in your area at the highest levels. I don't know for sure but DirecTV might be breaking the rules themselves by redistributing a cable feed of trhe station, if that's in fact what they're doing. I'm not sure but that might be illegal but its one of those things nobody ever finds out about unless something unusual happens. In fact, just posting your problem here might get the problem fixed since the satellite services and maybe the NAB monitor these posts.

Again, don't know for sure but based on what you say my best guess is your cable company needs to fix the reception but even they are dealing with difficult terrain issues. Nothing indicates WSAZ has done something wrong.

Please let me know of your progress.

NJ


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Karrie said:


> I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this but I'm going to give it a shot.
> 
> I've been having problems with my local NBC affiliate (WSAZ) for the past two years. It first started out as electrical interference in October of 2003 (producing "sparkles" on the screen) and I complained to both WSAZ and Charter about it and they just kept blaming each other and it stayed like that until the summer Olympics of 2004. After the "sparkles" went away, it started having these rolling lines off and on all day long. I still complained about that and they continued to blame each other. I put up with that until this past October and decided to switch to DirecTV thinking that I would get a better picture from satellite. The day after I had it installed, I still had cable hooked up to one of the TVs and the "sparkles" were back and even WORSE on both Charter cable AND DirecTV. So, I contacted WSAZ about it figuring that was indeed THEIR fault since it was happening on both cable and satellite. They told me they'd tell DirecTV to fix it confused: ) but that was back in October and it's still happening. I've continued to call and write to WSAZ and DirecTV but it doesn't look like it's going to be fixed anytime soon. I end up talking to different people each time I contact them and nobody knows anything about anything, and I end up going in circles.


You might find this hard to believe, but the problems are most likely caused by the local power company!

Sparklies are almost always caused by line noise. It's very common for there to be multiple sources of line noise.

In your case, WSAZ is on channel 3. The lowest channels 2-6 are most likely to be bothered by line noise. I would guess that there is a bad connected on a power pole near the CATV headend as well as a second source of noise near the location that DirecTV uses to receive the signals and relay them to the satellite uplink. WSAZ is not really responsible, but if they were smart, they'd make sure that the problem was fixed.

If you are interested in figuring out the source of the problem yourself, drive by the CATV tower and listen on your car radio to a quiet frequency in the low part of the AM band, say between 530 and 610. If there is line noise, you will hear a loud buzz that is strongest when you are closest to the pole with the faulty connection.


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

News Junky said:


> In fact, just posting your problem here might get the problem fixed since the satellite services and maybe the NAB monitor these posts.
> 
> NJ


This is very odd. After all this time with the problem and me complaining to anyone I could get ahold of and it didn't help... but me posting this in the wee hours of the morning must have done something because there wasn't a single sparkle on WSAZ from 1pm until now. I just hope it stays like that and wasn't just a fluke/weird coincidence!

Thank you all for your input!


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Karrie said:


> This is very odd. After all this time with the problem and me complaining to anyone I could get ahold of and it didn't help... but me posting this in the wee hours of the morning must have done something because there wasn't a single sparkle on WSAZ from 1pm until now. I just hope it stays like that and wasn't just a fluke/weird coincidence!
> 
> Thank you all for your input!


To problemo Amiga! All I can say is WOW, that was quick! You Da Maam. Happy to have helped. Now don't go writing letters to congressmen and the FCC about this. They fixed the problem, okay .


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

They were back today, not as bad as before but they're still there *sigh*


----------



## Aaron Withrow (Dec 16, 2005)

I have removed E-mail addresses.... These are the facts..
Please read all of the e-mails.. I have nothing to hide..


Thank you for saying that you'll contact them on my behalf but I've been trying to get the message to them that there is a problem and nobody will listen to me and it just gets worse everyday. Yeah, I may be yelling and demanding but I've been dealing with this for TWO YEARS! So I don't know where you're getting this information that it's all directv's fault when I had these problems this long and I've only had DirecTV for 2 months. TWO YEARS I've trying to get someone to listen to me and admit there's a problem and I've gotten NOTHING out of it. Everybody wants to blame someone else. Charter was blaming WSAZ. WSAZ was blaming Charter. DirecTV blames WSAZ. WSAZ blames DirecTV. It's a neverending cycle that frustrates the hell out of me. I'm VERY UNHAPPY and have been this way for TWO YEARS. Nobody is giving a crap about me and other customers feel about this because they want to pretend there isn't a problem, blame it on someone else, or say they'll fix it but don't.

This is TWO YEARS of FRUSTRATION and I don't see an end to it coming anytime soon because nobody wants to fix it!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Aaron Withrow 
To: karrie
Cc: Don Ray ; Aaron Withrow 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Problems with WSAZ TV


Dear Karrie,
We are aware of the issue with Directv. DirecTv's Local station receive facility is located in Tayes Valley, WV.
To receive WSAZ's Off air signal from our transmitter they have to aim the receive antenna into a direct path of a High Voltage transmission line. Since Channel 3 is a low VHF channel and is more susceptible to electrical interference. This is why WOWK a High VHF channel and WPBY a High UHF channel are not affected. DirecTv was made aware of the problem this summer. In response, they installed signal processing equipment to help eliminate the interference. The Problem you are experiencing is only specific to DirecTv. Dish network's Local station Receive Facility is located in downtown Huntington Wv. I will again call Directv on your behalf as should you since you are their paying customer and are unhappy with the quality of signal they are providing to you. We have no way to monitor the signal that DirecTv Broadcasts. This is not the same problem that you describe with your cable service with Charter. Charter Cable receives WSAZ at their master head end via a fiber optic cable which is electrically immune to interference. Charter then transmits via fiber their signals to their sub head ends for home distribution. If your were having issues with charter cable you should have called their technical support line and asked that someone from charter come out to your residence and test the local cable drop. We can only monitor Charter Cable in Charleston , Wv.

In either case you or anyone you know that is having reception problems should first contact your signal provider then you can call the affiliate if you are not getting the results you are expecting. I am sure that blaming, demanding, yelling, and cursing will not get you the results you are expecting and I will also say that if you were receiving NBC EAST and NBC WEST on Dish network it was probably before they offered the Local Affiliates in the Charleston-Huntington Market. If it was after that then you were possibly grandfathered into the new SHVERA legislation or it was not a legal connection meaning that you were receiving Distant network signals but should have been receiving Local Market signals. At any rate all satellite providers are required to give you the Local affiliates if offered in that market.

I hope that DirecTv can address their issues in a timely manner so that you may enjoy receiving a cleaner feed of your local NBC affiliate.
If you would like to discuss this matter via phone I have included my numbers below.

Aaron J. Withrow, Chief Engineer
WSAZ - TV / WSAZ - DT

-----Original Message-----
From: Karrie 
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:30 PM
To: Emmis Investor Relations
Subject: Problems with WSAZ TV


I've called WSAZ a couple times over the past couple of weeks about electrical interference on the broadcast of WSAZ here in Middleport, Ohio. I keep being told that they'll contact DirecTV about it but it's not going away! I started off with Charter cable with the "sparkles" on the screen and that lasted for almost a year before getting fixed during the 2004 summer olympics. But after that got fixed, these scrolling lines started happening and that lasted until I got fed up and decided to switch to DirecTV thinking that it was that "cable stealing" thing happening and it was making my picture worse. But the day I started using DirecTV, I still had Charter cable hooked up to one TV and I noticed the sparkles were back on both Charter and DirecTV. It keeps getting worse.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ1-cable.jpg
This is what it looked like shortly before I switched from Charter cable to DirecTV.

And this is what I'm getting now that I'm on DirecTV. Keep in mind that this is ONLY HAPPENING ON WSAZ!
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ1.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ2.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ3.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ4.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ5.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ6.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ7.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ8.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ9.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ10.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ11.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ12.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ13.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ14.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ15.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ16.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ17.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ18.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ19.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ20.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ21.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ22.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ23.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ24.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ25.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/WSAZ/WSAZ26.jpg

Putting it mildly, the picture quality leaves a lot to be desired. I've emailed and called several times about this and I'm being ignored and it's not being fixed! PLEASE fix this!



Karrie 



-----Original Message-----
From: Karrie 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:07 PM
To: Don Ray
Subject: Re: Please fix WSAZ


This is what WSAZ looks like:
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/yuck1.jpg
img.photobucket.com/albums/v66/karrie/yuck2.jpg

Those specks (yes, THAT AMOUNT) is on the screen in different places every split second.


-----Original Message-----
From: Karrie 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:31 PM
To: Don Ray
Subject: Re: Please fix WSAZ


Are you anywhere close to getting this fixed? I'm getting REALLY PISSED OFF NOW. I will not put up with ANOTHER YEAR of horrible picture quality! It's worse than EVER today.

I went to DirecTV with my problem hoping that SOMEONE will know who to talk to or how to fix this and you know what they told me? To reboot my DirecTV box. I fail to see how that will fix the electrical interference problem that my sister is also experiencing with WSAZ down the street from me with her CABLE TV. This incompetence with WSAZ and DirecTV is almost laughable and I might laugh if I wasn't so pissed off.

The past few weeks, I've tried to be patient and nice (I called a few times) about getting this fixed but my patience is gone. In my opinion, WSAZ should be fixing their problem or admitting that they suck and just go the hell away and let us have an NBC affiliate that doesn't have so many picture problems!



-----Original Message-----
From: Karrie 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:46 PM
To: Don Ray
Subject: Please fix WSAZ


I've called a couple times over the past couple of weeks about electrical interferance on the broadcast of WSAZ. I keep being told that they'll contact DirecTV about it but it's not going away! I started off with Charter cable with the "sparkles" on the screen and that lasted for almost a year before getting fixed during the 2004 summer olympics. But after that got fixed, these scrolling blacks lines started happening and that lasted until I got fed up and decided to switch to DirecTV thinking that it was that "cable stealing" thing happening and it was making my picture worse. But the day I started using DirecTV, I still had Charter cable hooked up to one TV and I noticed the sparkles were back on both Charter and DirecTV. It keeps getting worse.

Come to find out, I cannot just get NBC East or NBC West (which I had when I had Dish Network) on DirectTV because I have to use WSAZ. If you're going to prevent me from getting those channels because you bought the broadcast rights for this area, FIX YOUR STATION


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

So is this turning into some kind of mudslinging thing? It's been two years of crap on WSAZ, I think I have a right to be a little pissed off. Two years of WSAZ blaming Charter and Charter blaming WSAZ... and then two months of the same thing between WSAZ and DirecTV. I was stuck in the middle with the impression that nobody is listening to me or even cares that there's a problem. 

Mr. Winthrow, I have no respect for you or WSAZ anymore (not that I had much left after the past two years but it's even less now). This "I have nothing to hide" was really unnecessary. Instead of just trying to cover your ass (and really, I never brought your name up to begin with), you should be trying to work out the problem with DirecTV so that I don't have to complain to anyone who will listen anymore.

After yesterday's good reception, I was ready to send personal thank you letters to WSAZ and DirecTV for fixing the problem and "burying the hatchet" but I see that's not a good idea since it's still not fixed and you're acting is if this is some kind of personal war that we haved waged against each other. I just want a good reception of NBC, that's all I ask for.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Mr. Winthrow's explanation makes a lot of sense. He can't send a squad of WSAZ engineers to Tayes Valley to force DirecTV to move its receive facility.

Having said that, I'll really think he's completely in the right if he offers a waiver to allow you to receive distant NBC stations.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

The thing that gets me the most about your situation is the lack of interest in video quality the multi-channel providers have. IMHO its ridiculous that cable TV and satellite retransmit over the air signals at all. People are PAYING for the best possible quality for those channels and all they do in every case that I’m familiar with is turn on a TV receiver somewhere and retransmit the over the air broadcast. We should be getting line quality video feeds from the local stations if you ask me. Then satellite TV has the gall to advertise “perfect digital quality video”. That’s almost like a record company advertising “perfect CD quality audio” after making a recording of an AM radio transmission and then putting on a CD and describing it as “CD quality” just because the crapy sounding audio was eventually was transferred to CD. This is not just your service but ALL of them industry wide. Yours if just an extreme example. Thankfully digital TV will (should) fix that.

Anyway, off of my soapbox. Please understand Karrie, WSAZ has done absolutley nothing wrong. Suppose you subscribe to Newsweek Magazine and every week your magazine is 4 days late. The problem is with the post office, not Newsweek. If you buy some microwave popcorn and put it in the microwave and only half the bog pops, its not Orville Reddenbocker's fault; your microwave oven id defective. Your problem is in all likelihhod due to penny piching cheapness of your area's cable TV service and the people responsible for getting your local TV station's video to the satellite service. Now, WSAZ can help by going to the cable and satellite company on your behalf (and others in your area) or assisting you in getting out of market NBC access.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Karrie said:


> I was stuck in the middle with the impression that nobody is listening to me or even cares that there's a problem.


You can complain to the FCC about DirecTV. DirecTV put the LiL receive site in a compromised location. You can complain to the FCC about the power company. The power lines are the real problem. You can complain to the West Virginia State power authority. They can be sure that the power lines get cleaned up. You can complain to Ohio cable commission. They can make sure that Charter gets a good signal to all legal subscribers. Complaints to Emmis investor relations blames the wrong company for the problem.

Once you decide to buy your TV programming from CATV or DBS the quality of the product is their responsibility.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

carload said:


> Having said that, I'll really think he's completely in the right if he offers a waiver to allow you to receive distant NBC stations.


Have you considered the possibilty that a waiver is the goal, not the resolution of the problem?

Why is WSAZ getting all the complaints and nobody else?


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Tower Guy said:


> Have you considered the possibilty that a waiver is the goal, not the resolution of the problem?
> 
> Why is WSAZ getting all the complaints and nobody else?


The original post talked about complaints to Charter cable, and that the switch the DirecTV came after years of unresolved PQ problems. The sparklies appear to be real, since WSAZ agrees that there's a problem, it's just not their fault. Add it up, and the simplest explanation is the one given, the desire to see NBC with a decent picture.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

Directv should be able to pick up the digital ota signal. Even though cropping might be an issue it would still look better.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Just curious if anybody knows. How much money would it cost to put a fiber optic or some other method direct from master control from a local TV station across town to the cable company or satellite uplink? With digital TV on its way I know its a moot point, but I'm just wondering how utterly cheap they've been with their customers.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

News Junky said:


> How much money would it cost to put a fiber optic or some other method direct from master control from a local TV station across town to the cable company or satellite uplink?


FYI, Mapquest says that the distance from Huntington WV (home of WSAZ) to "Teays Valley" (really Scott Depot) WV is about 30-35 miles. That would be one long cable!

I put Teays Valley in quotes because some citations spell it that way but others (and Mr. Winthrow) spell it Tayes Valley. Mapquest doesn't recognize it as a municipality of record for its Zip Code, instead indicating Scott Depot. That town has Teays Valley Road as the main street running through it, so I think this is the place we're talking about.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

Teays Valley is what it ways on the exit ramp from I-64! I drive by there several times a year from Cincinnati to eastern NC! At least until WVA finally builds US 35 as the 4-lane highway it needs to be from the Ohio river to I 64!

See ya
Tony


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> Mapquest says that the distance from Huntington WV (home of WSAZ) to "Teays Valley" (really Scott Depot) WV is about 30-35 miles. That would be one long cable!


I agree, its a haul but consider this. For the over the air world MOST TV and radio stations in America have transmitter sites at different locations from their studios/master control. The way they get their programming from the TV station to the transmitter is via a "studio to transmitter link" or STL. This is usually a point-to-point microwave link however I know with radio T-1 lines are now starting to get used due to savings and efficiency. The radio station's audio is converted in real time to a high quality digital data stream and sent down the T-1 to the transmitter site where its turned back into analog audio and then broadcast over the air. I'm not sure but I wonder if TV can do the same. Regardless of the method, the highest quality line programming feed to sent to the transmitter from the TV station. TV stations make the investment to get the highest quality video from their stations to transmitters because it matters. Think about this: 80% of people in America watch TV via cable or satellite. Its just as important IMHO to keep the quality at its highest level since the vast majority of people watch TV via a subscription service. In fact, even more so because subscribers are paying for high quality. Sat/cable advertises to potential customers to use subscription TV because of superior video quality. Unlike OTA, the closed circuit nature of subscription TV there is the potential to bring perfect quality reception direct to the customer's television set. But cheapness wins out as satellite TV and cable just retransmit OTA signals.

Again, since digital OTA will be here soon its not an issue long term. As most know digital media even OTA remains perfect and free from analog type signal interference problems. I'm just pondering how cheap people are toward the people who send them money every month.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

To be fair, I don't know whether we've established that the cable interference was systemwide. It seems more likely to have been a neighborhood or even an individual line problem. I know that with any cable system, it's difficult to keep Channel 3 clean.

If the DirecTV story is true, that sounds like whoever D* hired to set up its receive station just messed up. Maybe D* could add a feeder antenna on the other side of those power lines and run an optic line to the receive station. In any case, D* doesn't sound very interested in curing the problem for this small DMA.


----------



## derwin0 (Jan 31, 2005)

carload said:


> That would be one long cable!


Not to mention paying "right of way" access on the poles to run the line. The electric companys don't let people put lines on their poles for free.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

derwin0 said:


> Not to mention paying "right of way" access on the poles to run the line. The electric companys don't let people put lines on their poles for free.


The going rate is $1 per pole. The Government set this rate when CATV was denied access to the poles by phone companies and power companies.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

There are other ways to get TV feeds from a TV master control room to the satellite or cable hub. NO TV station that I'm away of uses a cable TV type distribution system to get their video and audio to their transmitter. The pole thing is used to get cable to homes because thats the best way to get cable out to a zillion homes but if you're talking about point to point there are better, cheaper and cleaner (in terms of preserving picture quality) ways. 

For example, anybody ever wonder how the lil TV stations get on satellite? Local TV station programming from all over America is sent to an uplink farm somewhere each via a T-1 circut half way accross the country and once there shot into space. So if you're in Boston a local shop has been set up to pick up TV signals off the air with an OTA TV reciever. That signal is converted to compressed digital and the T-1 line places a call to Colorado or somewhere. From there its sent up to the bird and back down to Boston. How much extra effort and/or cost would it have been to have that circut orginate at the TV station and offer subscribers PERFECT clearity? Minimal to nothing. I can promise you its not $1 per pole. I'm conveinced the reason they don't is part of the same reason we don't get local programming from outside of our own DMAs. Because of the history of having an adversarial relationship surrounding bringing in network programming from outside of their markets, local TV and satellite sevices don't see each other as partners and don't have close working relationships that would bring the end subscriber the best level of programming from the local TV station. To quote Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Spruceman said:


> What the NAB wants is to pursue an economic model similar to that Mussolini had prescribed for Italy in the 1930s, and what was once tried in the USA in the '30s (Natl Industrial Recovery Act) but much of which was thrown out by the courts. If your local affiliate wants your eyes and ears, all it has to do is to DO ITS JOB using state of the practice equipment and procedures as an affiliate and provide good local programming during non-network hours -- e.g., a good 6 and 11 PM newscast, etc.


In some fairness to the locals, the resoucres available to give you "quality" programming -- both artistic and technical -- depend on market size. Since there are billions in available ad revenue in NYC, the NYC stations can afford the latest and greatest equipment and the top talent. Potential ad dollars in Huntsville, Alabama, and Waco, Texas, for example, are MUCH less. But the equipment costs the same. And talent usually goes where the money is.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

> In some fairness to the locals, the resoucres available to give you "quality" programming -- both artistic and technical -- depend on market size. Since there are billions in available ad revenue in NYC, the NYC stations can afford the latest and greatest equipment and the top talent. Potential ad dollars in Huntsville, Alabama, and Waco, Texas, for example, are MUCH less. But the equipment costs the same. And talent usually goes where the money is.


That's an excellent point but but there's one thing Huntsville and Waco local TV can do better no matter how much fancy equipment and drop dead gorgeous anchors New York TV has. Local news and public affairs programming from the Waco and Huntsville communities. In 2006 there's no reason technically for the Waco stations not to cover most of Texas to dbs customers and Huntsvellie to most of Alabama and Georgia. Absolutlely no additional infastruction would be needed thanks to the local into local feeds. The only expenses would be a switching system to block signals during network programming and working out subscription and royalty details. Half of the people who once lived in Huntsville probably live in Atlanta and Birmingham now. There IS a market for it.


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

Just an update on the WSAZ situation: my waiver was denied.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

Karrie said:


> Just an update on the WSAZ situation: my waiver was denied.


Your problem is caused by DirecTV, not WSAZ. You don't need a waiver, you need better service from the company that you have chosen to deliver WSAZ to you.


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

Kerry,

Tower Guy is right but that doesn't fix the problem. The honest fact is you are almost powerless to do anything about getting NBC with decent quality. If I were you I'd send certified letters explaining your situation to:

NBC in New York
The WSAZ General Manager
The FCC in Washington, DC
Your Congressman
DirectTV

*Plan B.* If that doesn't work another option you have it to try to check if DISH Network has a better video quality for WASZ in your area. Before going through the motions to switch see if a neighbor who already has DISH is getting an acceptable picture. Warning: Both of them are probably retransmitting the WSAZ signal from an over the air transmission. A better way would be to bypass the OTA Channel 3 signal and get a direct feed from the station's master control room but unfortunately the satellite services and TV stations generally don't see the value in working together.

*Plan C.* buy a cheap, broken down RV from a junk yard. Get it registered in your name and with that registration DirecTV will give you the New York anf Los Angeles network stations, no waiver needed.


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

Maybe D: Upgrade to an HD box and pick up the over the air digital version.


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

Sorry to bump this thread up again. Just want to give an update to the situation. It's still happening.

I got around to making a video clip of what it looks like here.

I wanted to clarify something. A couple people have said that this is a DirecTV issue and isn't WSAZ's fault. When I still had cable TV, I had two local NBC affiliates: WSAZ and WTAP. WTAP would get their NBC programming from WSAZ and the "sparkles" were on WTAP as well except for when they did their own news show. WTAP would have a perfect picture for their news show.

I saw someone on another satellite forum say that they have "sparkles" issue on Dish with WSAZ so it seems that it's going to be a crappy picture no matter who I go through. And I cannot get OTA.

I have written to NBC (with no response yet) and the FCC (they told me they can't do anything unless the actual broadcaster reports it).


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Karrie said:


> Sorry to bump this thread up again. Just want to give an update to the situation. It's still happening.
> 
> I got around to making a video clip of what it looks like here.
> 
> ...


Its only 13 seconds long and there's no audio.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Plan B and Plan C are looking better all the time.

Or if you can get one of those big (6-foot) C-band dishes, you should be able to subscribe to an NBC affiliate.


----------



## Karrie (Dec 15, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> Its only 13 seconds long and there's no audio.


I don't have audio when I hook anything up to the computer. And I figured 13 seconds was enough. It looks just like that 13 seconds all of the time (except major holidays - around Thanksgiving and from Christmas until January 3 was clear), just the background changes


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Karrie said:


> I don't have audio when I hook anything up to the computer. And I figured 13 seconds was enough. It looks just like that 13 seconds all of the time (except major holidays - around Thanksgiving and from Christmas until January 3 was clear), just the background changes


OH! Ok, I see what you're trying to show us now, its the sparkles, right?


----------



## News Junky (Mar 16, 2005)

theratpatrol said:


> OH! Ok, I see what you're trying to show us now, its the sparkles, right?


OMG. That's what your "digital" satellite feed looks like? Incredible. Sadly there is nothing you can do about except move. I think you can pretty much expect to see your station look that way until DTV/HDTV is in place, last I heard 2009.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

What you are seeing is called "gap noise", if it is actually coming from a power line. Or, it could be from something like a neon sign.

Either way, the two "bands" of dots are due to the positive and negative-going portions of the AC voltage each exceeding a certain level, where they arc over some defect (a "gap") in an insulator. The fact that they move slowly upward on the screen means they are 60 Hz....i.e.: electric power. This is because the power is exactly 60 Hz, while American NTSC is 59.97 Hz....so, it takes about 20 seconds for the garbage to roll through the picture once.

Wherever the local "POP" (Point-of-Presence) that picks up the signal for D* is located (and, it might actually be at the Cable company head-end), they are getting "power-related interference". The station and the Cable company engineers, as well as the engineer from the "POP" provider, need to get together and have this fixed. The local Power company is required to assist, and will usually have the appropriate equipment, to locate the problem. If it is in their lines, they have to fix it. If it is a power customer (such as the case with neon signs, electric fences, motors, etc), the Power company can require the customer to fix the problem, or be disconnected. Of course, sometimes they fix it anyway, when they learn that they have a fire hazard, or the defective equipment is raising their power bill.


----------



## avediswolf (Apr 14, 2005)

Interesting...

I just stumbled upon this thread. 

WSAZ on Dish Network also has the "Spraklies" problem. It comes and goes on a regular basis.


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

avediswolf said:


> Interesting...
> 
> I just stumbled upon this thread.
> 
> WSAZ on Dish Network also has the "Spraklies" problem. It comes and goes on a regular basis.


In some markets Dish and DirecTV share a receiving facility. That mode halves the rent and the return fiber costs.


----------



## avediswolf (Apr 14, 2005)

Not sure of the accuracy, but from post #142 in an email from someone at WSAZ:

DirecTv's Local station receive facility is located in Tayes Valley, WV.
Dish network's Local station Receive Facility is located in downtown Huntington, WV.

I'm starting to think this needs it's own topic, since we're way off topic of the original thread. Kind Of.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Hi, I have found this forum via AVSforum, and the info here is GREAT.
I am planning a switch to Directv in the summer so I can get Sunday Ticket, but living in Lafayette In, I cannot get local Indy channels because of WLFI, but the whole county can get distant (NY, LA) feeds, accept for me apparently.

For some reason, every zip code in the county qualifies for distant ABC, NBC, Fox accept for 47909, which is a recently added code, why would ~6 city blocks be in a different DMA than the rest of the county? I am in the middle of town! Go 1 block east, I get is, 3 west got it, north a few hundred yards? Got it… but not here? (checked on Directv AND dishnetwork, same thing both places)

The odd part is that they claim that we get b-grade signals here, which is a load of ****…it would take a ~30 FT tower, 10 ft long antenna and an amp to do that! All of the other ZIPs in the county get everything accept CBS without sweat…do I have recourse? What should I do before/when getting the D* service to ensure that I get the distant locals?

Also, since I can’t get Indy locals, will the Indy DMA ST games be blocked in ST?


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

agreer said:


> Hi, I have found this forum via AVSforum, and the info here is GREAT.
> I am planning a switch to Directv in the summer so I can get Sunday Ticket, but living in Lafayette In, I cannot get local Indy channels because of WLFI, but the whole county can get distant (NY, LA) feeds, accept for me apparently.
> 
> For some reason, every zip code in the county qualifies for distant ABC, NBC, Fox accept for 47909, which is a recently added code, why would ~6 city blocks be in a different DMA than the rest of the county? I am in the middle of town! Go 1 block east, I get is, 3 west got it, north a few hundred yards? Got it&#8230; but not here? (checked on Directv AND dishnetwork, same thing both places)
> ...


You could always "move" six blocks away to one of those zip codes that do work. So that you have a different service address than billing address. I'm not sure about the black-out for ST though.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

The system probably got confused about the new Zip Code. If your work address qualifies, that might be the easiest spot to claim as your service address; just add an apartment number if necessary.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

carload said:


> The system probably got confused about the new Zip Code. If your work address qualifies, that might be the easiest spot to claim as your service address; just add an apartment number if necessary.


I know I could do that, but why shouldnt need to, I want to be honest here...it isnt like I am not rightfully entitled to the channels, it is just a glitch in the system...If I were gonna lie about my address, I would say that I lived in North Dakota or somewhere where I didnt have to worry about sports blackouts...I mean to make itworth my time and effort lying...

Hey, would a PObox in a qualifying code work for this? because that would not be dishonest at all


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

Careful how far you "move" away. You'll want to stay in the spotbeam, or you won't get any locals at all,:eek2:


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Local cable can offer CBS ABC NBC FOX from indy AND CBS from here in Lafayette, the Lafayette affiliate (wlfi) refuses to negotiate with D* and E*, they just will not budge and as a result we get locked out of not only the lafayette market, but indy too!! 

If I must go through it, what is the waiver proces like? who at the local station should I sent the bribe to to make sure I get what I want? Is it just WLFI that would sign the waiver, or do the indy affilates need to agree too?


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

agreer said:


> For some reason, every zip code in the county qualifies for distant ABC, NBC, Fox accept for 47909, which is a recently added code, why would ~6 city blocks be in a different DMA than the rest of the county? I am in the middle of town! Go 1 block east, I get is, 3 west got it, north a few hundred yards? Got it&#8230; but not here? (checked on Directv AND dishnetwork, same thing both places)


It sounds like the DirecTV database has not caught up with the new zip code. The database is maintained by Decisionmark.

http://www.decisionmark.com/companyinfo.aspx

The president of Decisionmark runs a blog;

http://blog.jackperry.com/pt/blog/

There's a link to post to him there.

DirecTV probably can't fix your problem until the database is correct.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Tower Guy said:


> It sounds like the DirecTV database has not caught up with the new zip code. The database is maintained by Decisionmark.
> 
> (cant repost links)
> 
> ...


Thank you SO much. This will be my first stop if the DTV people cant help...now I just need the next couple of months to get my other ducks in a row, getting a replacment for the $50/mo cable modem and waiting for the first of those oh-so-sweet DTV/NFL newby promo offers to start rolling in.

Cant wait for kickoff, and go packers! thanks all!


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

I love TitanTV, I love Jack Perry, but I've been after him for months to add meaningful program info for the Research Channel and the University of Washington Channel, both available on Dish. The listings just say the channel name, not the programming, which happens to be easy to find on those channels' web sites.

My point is that you shouldn't expect that a note to him to automatically get an oversight fixed. Since you have a legitimate right to the channels you can get down the street, I think you're okay to move your service address there. But do whatever works for you.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

carload said:


> I love TitanTV, I love Jack Perry, but I've been after him for months to add meaningful program info for the Research Channel and the University of Washington Channel, both available on Dish. The listings just say the channel name, not the programming, which happens to be easy to find on those channels' web sites.
> 
> My point is that you shouldn't expect that a note to him to automatically get an oversight fixed. Since you have a legitimate right to the channels you can get down the street, I think you're okay to move your service address there. But do whatever works for you.


Well, WTHR (nbc) says on their web site that they will sign waivers for everyone who asks, and that they have given permittion for any indiana county not in their DMA to recive them if they cant get any other NBC, so that looks hopfull, so just as long as I can get ABC and FOX indy to sign waivers, which shouldnt be too hard, as WTHR has a contact at the station that handles waivers, being in Tippicanoe Co I may just have a really easy time getting waivers signed and not having to fight the powers...will post results in May when I will have made my final desisions on what to do (antenna may be an option, gonna talk with neighbors that have E* to see if they have had luck that way)

Just so you all know, WLFI, CBS in West Lafayette is EVIL...Darn their refusal to do the dishes!


----------



## Tower Guy (Jul 27, 2005)

agreer said:


> Well, WTHR (nbc) says on their web site that they will sign waivers for everyone who asks, and that they have given permittion for any indiana county not in their DMA to recive them if they cant get any other NBC.


This is the post from the WTHR web site that pertains to waivers. There's a bit of doublespeak in there, but I don't see a promose to grant waivers within the Indianapolis market.

Satellite Owners

WTHR NBC Channel 13 is available via satellite on both DISH Network and DirecTV with NO PERMISSION OR 'WAIVER' NEEDED for subscribers in the following Indiana counties: Bartholomew, Benton, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Decatur, Delaware, Fayette, Fountain, Grant, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Henry, Howard, Johnson, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Owen, Putnam, Randolph, Rush, Shelby, Tipton and White. It is DISH Network and DirecTV policy to offer Indianapolis stations including WTHR NBC 13 only to subscribers who live in one Indiana counties listed above and all you need to do to receive WTHR NBC 13 is to order the "Indianapolis local station package" from your satellite provider. WTHR has offered permission to both DISH Network and DirecTV to provide service from WTHR NBC 13 to Central Indiana subscribers who live outside of the above counties. As of this time, both DISH and DirecTV have refused our offer of permission, so NBC service via satellite is not available to Central Indiana subscribers outside of these counties. If you do not live in one of the above listed counties and wish to receive NBC service via satellite, you should contact your satellite provider and ask that they accept our permission and provide you NBC service from WTHR NBC 13 Indianapolis, including the local news, sports, severe weather warnings and local school closing information that only your local NBC station, WTHR NBC 13, provides.

If you feel that you have reason to submit a request for a satellite 'waiver', the following information is provided:

Satellite 'waiver' requests are not handled by local TV stations.

The Law governing satellite home viewing, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA), requires that waiver requests only be submitted directly to the satellite company. So, you will have to send your waiver request directly to your satellite company. The following contact information is provided for you to use to submit your waiver request to your satellite company:

DISH Network Customer Service P.O. Box 33577 Northglenn, Colorado 80233
1-800-333-DISH (3474)

DirecTV Customer Service P.O Box 92600 Los Angeles, California 90009
1-800-DIRECTV (347-3288)

If your satellite company is not listed here, you will have to call your satellite company and ask for their address for satellite waiver requests.


----------



## mdgolf (Apr 14, 2006)

Wow. I'm a complete newbie to the forum, and I joined because I've been a E* subscriber for 8 years and am getting a little fed up with C.E.'s politics and ego. So, I wanted to start comparing services and do my research, just as you all have. This is an excellent forum with a great deal of tremendously helpful information. I look forward to my research and the help I'll hopefully receive in making my decision. 

However, I assume I'll get flamed a bit for following, but felt like everyone is so wrapped up in all the great programming available that they've lost sight of a basic fundamental of the business. Is everyone that posted in this thread in complete denial about why television in any form even exists? Do you really think it's for your entertainment? Do you really think the NAB cares about what programs you are watching? Not at all. The NAB cares about what signal you are using to watch them.

TV (in the form of OTA, Cable and Satellite) and it's programs exists ONLY as a vehicle for advertising, nothing more. The NAB protects a local station's DMA for the purpose of preserving the ears and eyeballs that those stations can reach with an advertising message. Local stations, whether owned and operated by a network or not, pay the FCC for a license to broadcast within a certain area or DMA. Yes, those licenses are granted "in the public interest", but that only means they must made available in the event of an emergency, set aside x-number of hours devoted to local (community) programming, like the local affairs programs that nobody actually watches. Interestingly, local news qualifies as well. A local station's local news broadcasts make up 1/3 to 1/2 of their available airtime to sell. Translation=1/3 to 1/2 of the station's revenue. That alone is enough to be the primary reason for the NAB's actions.

Waivers can be granted for a host of reasons, but essentially, it's the local station admitting that they can't reach that potential advertising opportunity with a grade B OTA signal within their DMA.

I know I'm a year late...but just wanted to throw in a reality check after reading some pretty heated debating about copyright laws etc...that really have very little to do with the NAB's stance.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

mdgolf said:


> However, I assume I'll get flamed a bit for following, but felt like everyone is so wrapped up in all the great programming available that they've lost sight of a basic fundamental of the business. Is everyone that posted in this thread in complete denial about why television in any form even exists? Do you really think it's for your entertainment? Do you really think the NAB cares about what programs you are watching? Not at all. The NAB cares about what signal you are using to watch them.


Then they must have failed business 101, I, THE CUSTOMER want to buy, and am willing to pay for, OOM OTAs, why? because of one po-dunk hick-ass 2-bit opperation called WLFI...my "DMA" has one CBS station, NO abc, NO NBC, NO FOX...Cable here, Insight, can offer Indy OTAs, and even a few Chicago OTAs (WGN OTA feed, WTTW pbs) which are both OTA, but I CAN NOT pay D* or E* any amount to do the SAME THING! Oh By the way, Insight provide HD from CBS Indy, WISH and NOT WLFI...

Furthermore, I would like a major network affiliate from Chicago, like WLS-TV, W*BS/C and K*BS/C from NY and LA and so on because if something is happening in Chicago, I would rather hear people like Ron Majers who know what the hell is going on than some "national feed face" like the NY based network anchors. Sorry to bring this up, but 9/11 was an example of this, A friend could pull in WABC over his satalite and the ABC Network feed was not NEARLY as dramatic or informative a picture of the situation in Manhatten...

These people WILL NOT TAKE MY MONEY!!!!!


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

One other thought: Why the hell can I buy the NY times, LA Times, SF Chron, chicago Trib and so on here in Lafayette, I can listen to KFI, WABC, and such on the net, but it will just kill OTA tv if I watch Chicago or LA stations? all of the channels pull from the networks, just like all of the papers pull from AP.


----------



## FLWingNut (Nov 19, 2005)

agreer said:


> One other thought: Why the hell can I buy the NY times, LA Times, SF Chron, chicago Trib and so on here in Lafayette, I can listen to KFI, WABC, and such on the net, but it will just kill OTA tv if I watch Chicago or LA stations? all of the channels pull from the networks, just like all of the papers pull from AP.


#1 Newspapers aren't regulated like TV. You don't need a license to start a newspaper. "Spectrum scarcity" means that TV and radio are regualted "in the public intertes." Any time the government can regulate anything, the door is opened for lobbyists and special interests to twist the system to their advantage.

#2 Newspapers aren't all national AP filler. Newspapers have entire sections of local news, sports, local coupons, and features that make each unique. You subscribe to the NY Times in, say, Toledo, because you're intertested in that newspaper's local NY-area coverage (which the Toldeo Blade may not cover), or features you can only get in the Times. On the other hand, nobody watches a local station JUST for the local news -- they want the network programming too. "24" looks the same on the FOX affiliate in Toledo as it does on the FOX station in NYC.

#3 It matters not that the all the channels pull from the networks. Your local doesn't care what channel you watch the program on -- as long as you watch ITS local spots:lol: The local sells spots based on eyeballs (ratings) and loses revenue if its viewers watch the same program on another market's affiliate. Whereas you can, and might very well, read the Toledo Blade AND the NY Times, you're not likely to watch "24" on both stations if you had access to them.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

agreer said:


> Then they must have failed business 101, I, THE CUSTOMER want to buy, and am willing to pay for, OOM OTAs, why? because of one po-dunk hick-ass 2-bit opperation called WLFI...my "DMA" has one CBS station, NO abc, NO NBC, NO FOX...Cable here, Insight, can offer Indy OTAs, and even a few Chicago OTAs (WGN OTA feed, WTTW pbs) which are both OTA, but I CAN NOT pay D* or E* any amount to do the SAME THING! Oh By the way, Insight provide HD from CBS Indy, WISH and NOT WLFI...
> 
> Furthermore, I would like a major network affiliate from Chicago, like WLS-TV, W*BS/C and K*BS/C from NY and LA and so on because if something is happening in Chicago, I would rather hear people like Ron Majers who know what the hell is going on than some "national feed face" like the NY based network anchors. Sorry to bring this up, but 9/11 was an example of this, A friend could pull in WABC over his satalite and the ABC Network feed was not NEARLY as dramatic or informative a picture of the situation in Manhatten...
> 
> These people WILL NOT TAKE MY MONEY!!!!!


They'd be more than happy to take your money, but the fcc won't allow it unfortunately. And of course the the fcc is heavily influenced by the elected officials in congress who are of course heavily influenced by the NAB and their lobbyist $$$. Unfortunately as much money as Dish and Direct make they still don't have nearly the $$$ backing them up as the NAB and their memebers. So the satellite companies end up on the short end of rules and regulations. So no it's not poor business practices they're suffering from in this case, it's just them playing their best within the rules they're bound by.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

FLWingNut said:


> .
> 
> #3 It matters not that the all the channels pull from the networks. Your local doesn't care what channel you watch the program on -- as long as you watch ITS local spots:lol: The local sells spots based on eyeballs (ratings) and loses revenue if its viewers watch the same program on another market's affiliate. Whereas you can, and might very well, read the Toledo Blade AND the NY Times, you're not likely to watch "24" on both stations if you had access to them.


True, but it is the local content that I want, I would love to be able to watch the local news from any city in the US. As to the AP being filler thing, the network feeds are basicly the same kind of filler. The toledo Blade and the NYT both want me to see thier unique ads wrapped around the latest world news story, which is AP copy, the same in both papers , just like the locals want their ads around the national filler.

I was thinking of writing my Congress Cridders, but I get the feeling that if I dont enclose the keys to a new Porche or something, it will be a waste of my time.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Welcome to the forum! Now, let me start flaming you. 


mdgolf said:


> TV (in the form of OTA, Cable and Satellite) and its programs exists ONLY as a vehicle for advertising, nothing more.


That's largely true as a practical matter, but that's not universal, and nothing says that it has to be that way. Some OTA stations are subsidized by universities or the public. Some cable/DBS channels are supported entirely by subscription fees.


mdgolf said:


> Yes, those licenses are granted "in the public interest", but that only means they must made available in the event of an emergency, set aside x-number of hours devoted to local (community) programming, like the local affairs programs that nobody actually watches.


The licenses don't even require that any more, leading to some network-only stations and OTA shopping channels.


mdgolf said:


> ...copyright laws etc...that really have very little to do with the NAB's stance.


Most of us have a good idea of the Why, but the copyright laws are a big part of the How. Also, the copyright laws benefit the program syndicators who can get in-market exclusivity for each market and make more than they would selling to a single national channel.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

agreer said:


> True, but it is the local content that I want, I would love to be able to watch the local news from any city in the US.


This is a practical impossibility for a DBS service. Having to send every market's programming to every other market would force them to serve up only a handful of markets worth of stations versus the 164 that they have now.

Satellite has a rather small area that it covers with each spotbeam; perhaps 500-800 miles in diameter. They would have to throw up numerous additional satellites to deliver everything everywhere.

Here's an old map of the Echostar 8 coverage pattern to illustrate:

http://ekb.dbstalk.com/pictures/echo8.gif


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

carload said:


> Also, the copyright laws benefit the program syndicators who can get in-market exclusivity for each market and make more than they would selling to a single national channel.


Let us not forget the concept RSNs and sports blackouts! These have less to do with copyright and more to do with filling arena seats.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

harsh said:


> Let us not forget the concept RSNs and sports blackouts! These have less to do with copyright and more to do with filling arena seats.


 Which I dont have a problem with, so long as they acctually put the game on TV when the tickets sell out, like the NFL and NBA (at least here) do...(tony George, Indy 500 and WRTV, I am looking at you)


----------



## mdgolf (Apr 14, 2006)

Only a couple of flesh wounds! ;-) I wish it was different too, don't get me wrong. But, it is what it is, and as far as business 101 it makes perfect sense. 

My post was really referencing the major broadcast networks, which is who the NAB supports. For the remainder, you have the CAB (I'll be attending both conventions in the next 3 weeks) to contend with, and the revenue models of those nets varies a great deal. For the most part they are sold by national reps or on a barter basis, and for local insertion by cable operators. Basically the reps are involved in the top 50 DMA's, 75 at most. Beyond that there isn't a lot of $$$.

BTW, Cable of course has local insertion positions for their inteconnects, presently E* does not have any vehicle for local insertions,I don't know about D* but I suspect the same. I promise you, they are trying to figure it out!

Honestly, your chances for variety increase in a small market, say DMA #80 and higher. I'm a little surprised that AGREER is not getting the Indy or Chicago feeds if you only have one local in your market.


----------



## agreer (Apr 7, 2006)

Rumor has it that we could get the NY/Chicago/LA locals for a while, but WLFI sued saying that it was undermining their DMA viewership and somehow won...Personally I think it is a coo between WLFI and Insight, Insight offers all of indys locals, and WLFI, that means I get 2 CBSs with insight...There is also a story floating around the area that when D* and E* approched WLFI about carriage, they wanted like double the price that any Indy affiliate got!


----------

