# DIRECTV Applauds House Passage of Satellite TV Bill



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

DIRECTV Applauds House Passage of Satellite TV Bill

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Dec 03, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV released the following statement today:

"On behalf of our more than 18 million subscribers, DIRECTV applauds the House of Representatives for passing HR. 3570, the Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act. We appreciate the hard work of the House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce committees who successfully struck a balance among the various industries affected by the bill. More importantly, HR. 3570 protects the interests of the viewing public." 

What is this new bill and what does it cover?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Full Press Release:



> *DIRECTV Applauds House Passage of Satellite TV Bill*
> 
> EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Dec 03, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- DIRECTV released the following statement today:
> 
> ...


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

HR3570: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10656

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/111/h/h3570eh.pdf​


----------



## thelucky1 (Feb 23, 2009)

Thanks for the information and quick response. You guys are the BEST!


----------



## betterdan (May 23, 2007)

So uhh what did this do and should we be excited or care?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

betterdan said:


> So uhh what did this do and should we be excited or care?


Here is the CRS summary:



> SUMMARY AS OF:
> 9/15/2009--Introduced.
> 
> Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act of 2009 - Requires a satellite carrier whose secondary transmissions are subject to statutory licensing to deposit a filing fee semiannually with the Register of Copyrights.
> ...


Read this if you really want all the info...it's the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report:

http://www.crs.gov/ReportPDF/R40624.pdf

Here is a news story on the bill/vote to better explain it:



> CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS - TECHONOLGY & COMMUNICATIONS
> Dec. 3, 2009 - 3:03 p.m.
> Satellite Television Bill Passes in House
> By Eugene Mulero, CQ Staff
> ...


Mod Edit (Tom Robertson): redacted the CQ article to protect their copyrights.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

SHVURA


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Nice! This is great news for folks...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

smiddy said:


> Nice! This is great news for folks...


Most folks for sure....suspect the Dish management people are not happy about the implications on their side.

A mandate on some new specific content delivery with no means (today) for them to do it - and it must be in place in 2011.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Most folks for sure....suspect the Dish management people are not happy about the implications on their side.
> 
> A mandate on some new specific content delivery with no means (today) for them to do it - and it must be in place in 2011.


Yep, I hadn't caught that, good catch! Even more interesting now, thanks to you!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

> The bill also would require satellite TV providers currently carrying "multicast" affiliates - which broadcast multiple signals on one channel - to continue carrying them. Within three years, satellite TV providers would be required to carry any multicast affiliate that is up and running.


This is interesting. Sounds like what this is saying is that by end of 2012 DirecTV and Dish will be required to carry subchannels, or at least the ones that are of "networks" such as in my market the CW is just a subchannel of CBS. And in some smaller markets Fox might be a subchannel of ABC or something. Right now DirecTV and Dish don't have to carry those but this sounds like they will be required to in the future.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

ok, maybe I am having huge brain fart but can someone SIMPLIFY how this will/might affect an end user such as myself.
thanks.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> ok, maybe I am having huge brain fart but can someone SIMPLIFY how this will/might affect an end user such as myself.
> thanks.


Today, it does nothing .. The Senate and Prez have to sign off on it and there will likely be changes before that is complete. As for after that? :shrug: I haven't read it yet and I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> This is interesting. Sounds like what this is saying is that by end of 2012 DirecTV and Dish will be required to carry subchannels, or at least the ones that are of "networks" such as in my market the CW is just a subchannel of CBS.


This provision needs a much more detailed explanation, but I'm guessing your interpretation is correct.

The key part is the ability to fill out a market with SV in situations where a network isn't represented in the DMA.

My local PBS (KOPB) is comprised of a HD feed, two SD feeds and what is essentially their FM radio broadcast with an SD digital picture "slideshow". I'm a little concerned that this subchannel might be considered a must carry along with any "intermittant" subchannels that might come and go.

There's also another station (KNMT) owned by Trinity Broadcasting Network that carries five religious feeds (TBN, Church Channel, JCTV, Enlace and Smile of a Child; all in SD) with apparently only one or two locally produced programs between them.


----------



## tronn (Jan 16, 2008)

im utterly confused. i have no clue wtf this mumbo jumbo means.

but having both satellite providers agreeing on something? smells like a guaranteed price increase

less than 1 year on my current directv sub and im leaving this all behind me.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Today, it does nothing .. The Senate and Prez have to sign off on it and there will likely be changes before that is complete. As for after that? :shrug: I haven't read it yet and I'm not a lawyer.


I just contacted my Congressman's office about it. It appears that it came up under suspension which I am told means they really could not change much. So orphin counties like me didnt get dick. I was told that the Senate is working on their end of it and have something in there about the Orphin counties though and it has to all be cleared up by the end of this month. So even though this is news it really dont mean anything at this point other then this is where the House stands. Big woop. Wake me when there is a conclusion.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tronn said:


> but having both satellite providers agreeing on something? smells like a guaranteed price increase
> 
> less than 1 year on my current directv sub and im leaving this all behind me.


They both agreed the overall concept was good....but the fine print is totally the opposite.

DirecTV is in much better shape for the provisions (especially with their 3rd high capacity satellite going up late this month)...Dish will be in a world of hurt (no new sat or capacity to deliver the extra channels until 2013 - but the law requires it to be in place late in 2011).

There are ways both can meet the requirements, but Dish has a rough route ahead of them. That's why they also stated in their response that they were "disappointed" in some aspects later on in their press releases.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Yep, what you said!


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

harsh said:


> This provision needs a much more detailed explanation, but I'm guessing your interpretation is correct.
> 
> The key part is the ability to fill out a market with SV in situations where a network isn't represented in the DMA.
> 
> ...


Now, all this is going off my memory, which has been a bit fuzzy at times lately (it's the "growing old" thing**) but I do believe that the PBS station is covered by the agreement between Directv and the APTS that allows for carriage of either the HD version of the channel or one subchannel. TBN's contract with DirecTV specifies that the national feed takes precedence over the local station. Since DiirectV carries TBN and the Church Channel, I would think that the local TBN station, even with locally produced programming, will not be carried by DirecTV.

(**See Here.)


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Dish will be in a world of hurt (no new sat or capacity to deliver the extra channels until 2013 - but the law requires it to be in place late in 2011).


If I had a dollar for every time someone said that Charlie was finished or he would be in a world of pain, I would be RICH:lol:
Charlie floats to the Top with more tenacity than a turd


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dreadlk said:


> If I had a dollar for every time someone said that Charlie was finished or he would be in a world of pain, I would be RICH:lol:
> Charlie floats to the Top with more tenacity than a turd


Not finished...just reaching down into his wallet in places that haven't seen the light of day in years.


----------



## bjlc (Aug 20, 2004)

what does this mean for people who are in border areas.. where I live.. in the Wisconsin/ Minnesota/ Iowa area.. we are stuck by artificial boarders with D*.. if I have cable, I can get fox from at least two different areas.. LaCrosse and Rochester, Minnesota.. and you say, why is that.. well Minnesotan's like the Vikings and the Twins.. and people from Wisconsin like the Packers and the Brewers.. and my local cable offers them both.. or at least one of the competitiors does.. 

does this bill allow, or suggest that "other locals "or significant locals will be served as part of the process? and available on Directv?


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

"The bill also would require satellite TV providers currently carrying 'multicast' affiliates — which broadcast multiple signals on one channel — to continue carrying them. Within three years, satellite TV providers would be required to carry any multicast affiliate that is up and running."

Call this a stupid question but: Does 'multicast' refer to the 'sub-channels'? As in/example: WSB-TV in Atlanta has their ABC feed (ch 2.1) and RTV (ch 2.2).... Is this saying that Dish and Direct would be required to carry both of those channels?


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

What is problematic for sat providers with carriage of sub channels of network affiliates is the possibility of signal degradation with 2 HD and possibly more sub channels on the same channel. You would see an increase in "poor PQ" complaints. The solution to this problem is hard wire/fiber to the station. This solution is more expensive than OTA grab of the signal.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

A lot of us are going to have multiple local weather channels.


----------



## TardisCaptain (Dec 5, 2009)

Ok some newbie questions on this to help me understand.

1- Will the satellites have to pay to broadcast the digital sub-channels?

2- If 1 is yes, who do they pay? The network or the local station?

3- If they have to pay the local station, will this increase the number of digital sub-channels that the local stations will air?

3a- If they do pay for the local sub-channels, is there a limit? I understand that one station in the San Jose area has over 10 digital sub-channels. Most stations that I've seen are broadcasting 1-3 digital sub-channels.

4- Are the cable companies required to pay to air the local digital sub-channels as well?

IMHO I think that paying the local stations for the digital sub-channels will help keep local stations on the air by providing additional revenue streams. 

Thanks in advance


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bjlc said:


> what does this mean for people who are in border areas.. where I live.. in the Wisconsin/ Minnesota/ Iowa area.. we are stuck by artificial boarders with D*.. if I have cable, I can get fox from at least two different areas.. LaCrosse and Rochester, Minnesota.. and you say, why is that.. well Minnesotan's like the Vikings and the Twins.. and people from Wisconsin like the Packers and the Brewers.. and my local cable offers them both.. or at least one of the competitiors does..
> 
> does this bill allow, or suggest that "other locals "or significant locals will be served as part of the process? and available on Directv?


It means nothing yet as it has a ways to go before going into affect. As I understand it the Senate has this in their bill they are about to vote on but nothing is set in stone yet. It should be all finalized by the end of this month though and we will know what we can expect. So dont read to much into this just yet.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I have to admit I did not follow this one near as closely as I did the previous one.

What is the implication for those who are grandfathered in that receive Distant Digital Signals? Whether or not they receive local digital signals?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

kevinwmsn said:


> A lot of us are going to have multiple local weather channels.


I don't read that. It says "networks" and no local weather channels are part of a network. In my area, the CW is a sub-channel. The CW is a network. It's already carried by DTV here but this would require it for similar situations elsewhere.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan (May 18, 2004)

Ok...so this was passed and it's nice & all...

But what I want to see is true choice. Why should we be restricted to just local network broadcasts? Why not have the option to get networks or other locals from other areas? I know...the cable companies would wet themselves if D* & E* allowed me to receive network/other local feeds from New York or LA. 

Sorry for ranting...just would like to see other programming options.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Suffice it to say that carlsbad_bolt_fan's vision of ideal is probably not going to happen.

It doesn't impact cable as they can just as easily import feeds as D* and E* do. It is the local affiliates stand to lose their customers.

If you don't like what's available where you live, consider living somewhere that better suits your tastes.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Herdfan said:


> I have to admit I did not follow this one near as closely as I did the previous one.
> 
> What is the implication for those who are grandfathered in that receive Distant Digital Signals? Whether or not they receive local digital signals?


There is none yet as this has not passed all branches yet. From my understanding the Senate has a bill that says we can keep DNS feeds even if we get LIL after the fact. But that has to be passed and not just by the Senate. Basically so far this means nothing until its all passed and signed off by the President. Wait till closer to the end of this month and then we will know what is truly going to happen.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

harsh said:


> Suffice it to say that carlsbad_bolt_fan's vision of ideal is probably not going to happen.
> 
> It doesn't impact cable as they can just as easily import feeds as D* and E* do. It is the local affiliates stand to lose their customers.
> 
> *If you don't like what's available where you live, consider living somewhere that better suits your tastes*.


Or be like me and get DNS feeds from both coasts, use an antenna for your DMA's locals and hope it gets passed that you can get In State Out of DMA Locals as well. With a larger antenna I can get 2-4 DMA's as well as D* providing New York and LA DNS feeds. That should pretty much cover me.


----------



## Wapello County Iowa Resi (Dec 6, 2009)

I live in an area of southern Iowa in which 4 counties do not have local-into-local coverage on the satellite at this time. We are unable to receive adequate tv reception from an adjacent DMA because of the present law. Currently we must have an outside antenna with rotor to get ABC, FOX and PBS as each station is broadcasting from a different direction. We do not access to NBC or CBS as the new digital tv is not reaching our area. It would be nice to get the channels on satellite in order to watch the local news, weather and emergency information. It is my hope that the bill will be passed and signed with provisions for us to select adjacent DMA's in order to watch satisfactory television. Those that reside in cities are able to get the television channels on cable, but those of us that reside in the country are left without satisfactory tv coverage.
We should not have to move as mentioned in another post in order to get satisfactory tv.


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Ok...so this was passed and it's nice & all...
> 
> But what I want to see is true choice. Why should we be restricted to just local network broadcasts? Why not have the option to get networks or other locals from other areas? I know...the cable companies would wet themselves if D* & E* allowed me to receive network/other local feeds from New York or LA.
> 
> Sorry for ranting...just would like to see other programming options.


While I agree with you 110%, I doubt that'll ever happen, thanks to the greedy SOBs at the NAB who are more concerned with revenue than with any sort of convenience or choice for end users. The closest you might get is to get a Canadian satellite system. Both of those systems not only provide true choice among multiple Canadian cities, but also provide both an Eastern and Pacific time zone choice of US signals.

Some of us are lucky enough to have (or be grandfathered for) NY/LA locals, but those folks among us are few.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Wapello County said:


> I live in an area of southern Iowa in which 4 counties do not have local-into-local coverage on the satellite at this time. We are unable to receive adequate tv reception from an adjacent DMA because of the present law. Currently we must have an outside antenna with rotor to get ABC, FOX and PBS as each station is broadcasting from a different direction. We do not access to NBC or CBS as the new digital tv is not reaching our area. It would be nice to get the channels on satellite in order to watch the local news, weather and emergency information. It is my hope that the bill will be passed and signed with provisions for us to select adjacent DMA's in order to watch satisfactory television. Those that reside in cities are able to get the television channels on cable, but those of us that reside in the country are left without satisfactory tv coverage.
> We should not have to move as mentioned in another post in order to get satisfactory tv.


Hang in there. I have high hopes that it will be addressed and this time around. It wont do what you were sayng though. You wont be able to choose which DMA you get. From all that I read what they are trying to do is get you In-State-Out-of-DMA locals. You would be able to get what they offer not what you want. Hopefully if you dont get all the major affiliates then you would qualify for the DNS feeds to get the remaining and keep an antenna as well. I wonder though if you used a 100+ mile antenna if you would get the other channels you seek via OTA.


----------



## Wapello County Iowa Resi (Dec 6, 2009)

The signals of the other DMA is already being beamed down and it would appear that they only need to make a change that permits me to receive the signal. Some individuals are currently getting the signals since they are using a fake address out of this DMA. If I live 15 miles to the West of North in different counties in the state I would qualify to get the signals legally. With the switch to digital it covers less area than the analog. The outside antenna will receive some of the broadcasts from adjacent DMA some of the time. It comes in clear and then it goes blank. The outside antenna must be used to receive the local tv stations and it is necessary top have rotor to change directions since all 3 broadcasts come from different directions. It is nearly impossible to find service people to install and maintain outside antennas in this area. With luck they might make the change for better tv reception for the citizens in our area.


----------



## gomezma1 (Mar 28, 2006)

If they start carrying the sub channels I guess I'll throw my digital converter box and antenna away.I guess the goverenment wasted money on the $40 coupons.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Most folks for sure....suspect the Dish management people are not happy about the implications on their side.
> 
> A mandate on some new specific content delivery with no means (today) for them to do it - and it must be in place in 2011.


No problem. 2011 isn't today and the means will be in place in plenty of time.

This is a deal that DISH has pushed for ... being able to serve markets with missing networks a full slate of programming from neighboring markets makes it cost effective to finish the list and give people via satellite what cable has been able to do under their separate and unequal rules.

Unless DISH suffers a serious problem launching the channels and I expect we'll be seeing 210 markets covered - with distants filling gaps - by the middle of next year.


----------



## Kithron (Jul 24, 2008)

Does this part of the bill apply to OTA low power stations?

"Extends through December 31, 2014 (under current law, December 31, 2009) the copyright liability moratorium allowing a subscriber who does not receive a signal of Grade A intensity of a local network broadcast station to receive signals of network stations affiliated with the same network, if that subscriber had satellite service terminated after July 11, 1998, and before October 31, 1999 or received such service on October 31, 1999."

My local NBC in my area is low powered and has no subchannel yet and probely never has any plans of getting a subchannel either.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

bonscott87 said:


> This is interesting. Sounds like what this is saying is that by end of 2012 DirecTV and Dish will be required to carry subchannels, or at least the ones that are of "networks" such as in my market the CW is just a subchannel of CBS. And in some smaller markets Fox might be a subchannel of ABC or something. Right now DirecTV and Dish don't have to carry those but this sounds like they will be required to in the future.


For some time now, I have been hoping that DirecTV would offer an HD-DNS option for The CW... as well as a "Regional" HD version for those DMAs without a CW.

I imagine this would make that dream even harder to achieve.

~Alan


----------



## Jungle Jim (Mar 9, 2006)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Ok...so this was passed and it's nice & all...
> 
> But what I want to see is true choice. Why should we be restricted to just local network broadcasts? Why not have the option to get networks or other locals from other areas? I know...the cable companies would wet themselves if D* & E* allowed me to receive network/other local feeds from New York or LA.
> 
> Sorry for ranting...just would like to see other programming options.


One reason we aren't allowed to pick and choose our locals is that local stations rely on local advertising dollars. They have to be able to promise Bob's Furniture Store that everyone in that viewing area that wants to watch an ABC Network show will be watching it on their station.

While it's true that the total number of viewers might balance out with people picking and choosing, a significant number of local viewers would be swapped for viewers hundreds or thousands of miles away. Those people who are hundreds or thousands of miles away are not going to buy any furniture from Bob's Furniture Store, so Bob's isn't going to pay as much for ads. As a result, the local station then loses ad dollars.

The rule is in place to protect the ad revenues of local network affiliates, by making sure that the people viewing the channel are people local consumers of the products being advertised by local merchants.


----------



## HerntDawg (Oct 6, 2008)

gomezma1 said:


> If they start carrying the sub channels I guess I'll throw my digital converter box and antenna away.I guess the goverenment wasted money on the $40 coupons.


No, They just tried to make everyone happy....


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

FYI, I just got off the phone with my Senator's office and was told that SHVERA got extended for 2 months so they can work out the changes without the time crunch. So much for us all getting out DMA's locals or in state out of DMA locals anytime soon. I was really counting on this getting done by the end of the year so we would know what direction we were going in. Guess thats not going to happen.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

FYI the plan the my Senator was going for would allow significantly viewed stations but that wont help me unless the ruling is changed because I do not currently have any locals and in the past my understanding was that you had to already get your DMA's locals in order to get any significantly viewed channels. Sounds like I could get screwed in 2 months as well.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jungle Jim said:


> The rule is in place to protect the ad revenues of local network affiliates, by making sure that the people viewing the channel are people local consumers of the products being advertised by local merchants.


Thank goodness for DVRs... they allow me to bypass all those local ads!

~Alan


----------



## GirkMonster (Mar 20, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Today, it does nothing .. The Senate and Prez have to sign off on it and there will likely be changes before that is complete. As for after that? :shrug: I haven't read it yet and I'm not a lawyer.


I am a lawyer...and I have little desire to read this crap until it is law.


----------



## Luck255 (Mar 5, 2009)

carlsbad_bolt_fan said:


> Ok...so this was passed and it's nice & all...
> 
> But what I want to see is true choice. Why should we be restricted to just local network broadcasts? Why not have the option to get networks or other locals from other areas? I know...the cable companies would wet themselves if D* & E* allowed me to receive network/other local feeds from New York or LA.
> 
> Sorry for ranting...just would like to see other programming options.


But what about NFL ST? If you could just pick whatever markets you wanted there really wouldnt be much point in that package.


----------



## tronn (Jan 16, 2008)

tronn said:


> im utterly confused. i have no clue wtf this mumbo jumbo means.
> 
> *but having both satellite providers agreeing on something? smells like a guaranteed price increase*
> 
> less than 1 year on my current directv sub and im leaving this all behind me.


:lol:

totally called it


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

tronn said:


> :lol:
> 
> totally called it


Very good call. See if you can call it again this time next year to lol.


----------

