# Dish ready to meet with PBS stations on HD



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

It's a 2-week-old story, but I didn't see it anywhere else here.

Broadcasting & Cable reports that Dish Network is ready to meet with (mostly) local PBS stations to talk about carrying their HD signals.

Much more here: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6538706.html


----------



## qsoundrich (Nov 7, 2007)

About time I get my HD PBS.


----------



## roachxp (Jun 29, 2007)

They really only have to add the Boston PBS HD, it's almost all their content in HD just mirror it national.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

This is just stupid. PBS gets miniscule ratings. Dish is commercial. The carriage issue is probably that the PBS stations are trying to strike a deal _to be paid_ for carriage.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

While I watch some things on PBS, with 4 Bay Area PBS stations carried in SD I rather they dump all but KQED 9 to make room for it in HD.


----------



## kstuart (Apr 25, 2002)

phrelin said:


> While I watch some things on PBS, with 4 Bay Area PBS stations carried in SD I rather they dump all but KQED 9 to make room for it in HD.


You have stumbled into the truth, but don't know it.

San Francisco is a good example.

In actuality, the SD locals for S.F. are on 110 and the HD locals for S.F. are on 119, so one does not affect the other (removing some SD local channels would not make more space).

But, where you are right on target is that _San Francisco DMA for FOUR PBS channels_.

Digital broadcasting allows each of them to have HD and/or have additional sub channels.

I don't know if all 4 S.F. PBS channels broadcast HD, but they might in the future, and PBS channels often broadcast sub channels.

So, Dish would undoubtedly like some limitation on what they will have to carry, because they have to carry it all across the nation (over 200 DMAs).

Will PBS allow Dish to pick one PBS HD channel per DMA ? Will PBS allow Dish to pick and choose which sub-channels to carry ?


----------



## prm1177 (Aug 21, 2007)

kstuart said:


> You have stumbled into the truth, but don't know it.
> 
> San Francisco is a good example.
> 
> ...


My recollection is that the FCC Digital channel spectrum provides enough bandwidth for one Full HD channel only, in addition to supplemental content. I don't think the bandwidth allocated would support all four channels to be broadcast in HD. In fact the 6 MHz bandwidth can usually only support one 20 Mbps MPEG-2 stream. I believe KQED is broadcasting HD lite and using the extra bandwidth for the other channels, but don't know for sure.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

The vast majority of stations broadcasting digital have at least one SD subchannel and many have two or more. Both of our local PBS stations are broadcasting one HD channel and 2 SD subchannels.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

TechnoCat said:


> This is just stupid. PBS gets miniscule ratings. Dish is commercial. The carriage issue is probably that the PBS stations are trying to strike a deal _to be paid_ for carriage.


If DISH is paying for CBS, NBC, ABC, & Fox... they should pay PBS, too. Just because PBS is a public, not-for-profit, broadcaster does not exclude them from asking to be reimbursed by DISH to rebroadcast their OTA content.

Granted, that payment should be commensurate with their ratings, but they deserve to be paid for the rights to their signal just the same.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd prefer that NO OTA broadcaster could charge for their signals.

The FCC granted them their space to serve the public ... not to hold their content ransom for cash or other consideration. The FCC requires that one feed on every digital TV station be freely available to the public. That channel should also be freely available to the public via cable and satellite.

In my opinion, of course.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

James Long said:


> I'd prefer that NO OTA broadcaster could charge for their signals.
> 
> The FCC granted them their space to serve the public ... not to hold their content ransom for cash or other consideration. The FCC requires that one feed on every digital TV station be freely available to the public. That channel should also be freely available to the public via cable and satellite.
> 
> In my opinion, of course.


Yet the moment the first potential subscriber uses the availability of that OTA content to persuade them to BUY the service, then it becomes an instance of the cable/sat. provider making a profit from that OTA feed.

That's where the rubber meets the road... even though what's in a potential subs mind is not tangible, it's reasonable to presume that OTA availability holds sway as a value-add to the service... and, as such, it's worthy of compensation.:grin:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And yet that viewer ... even via satellite ... is one more person watching the ads and supporting the station. It is all a trade off. How many eyes do you want to turn away because you have placed too big of a priority on selling your station to cable/satellite instead of just increasing ratings?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'd prefer that NO OTA broadcaster could charge for their signals.
> 
> The FCC granted them their space to serve the public ... not to hold their content ransom for cash or other consideration. The FCC requires that one feed on every digital TV station be freely available to the public. That channel should also be freely available to the public via cable and satellite.
> 
> In my opinion, of course.


I can't speak for all channels... but several years ago when this came up in my area with regards to local cable Time Warner... one of our local channels WRAL ran some spots describing the "discussion".

The gyst of it was this...

WRAL was fine granting retransmission to Time Warner IF Time Warner gave it to their customers for free. WRAL's problem was that Time Warner was picking up WRAL's feed for free and then charging customers on the cable system for it. That's why WRAL, among others, threatened to pull their channel from cable if cable didn't pay for it.

Now... extrapolating this to other markets... I suspect that IF Dish, DirecTV, and cable gave locals for free and did not in any way bundle any "hidden" charge for it somewhere... then they would probably not have to pay retransmission fees. At least in my area, it was direct abuse of taking free OTA signal and charging cable customers to get it that drove the local channels to start negotiating for fees.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

So what you are saying is that rebroadcasters should not be compensated for their expenses for rebroadcasting the signal? The OTA stations get income from commercials, the only way for a rebroadcaster to offset expenses is to charge for them. In fact, the station could get extra income if the channel is rebroadcast because more people would see the commercials.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Considering the backhaul and uplink costs locals are not a profit center for satellite other than potential subscribers (especially former cable subscribers) EXPECT to have them available.

$5 per month doesn't cover much.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HobbyTalk said:


> So what you are saying is that rebroadcasters should not be compensated for their expenses for rebroadcasting the signal? The OTA stations get income from commercials, the only way for a rebroadcaster to offset expenses is to charge for them. In fact, the station could get extra income if the channel is rebroadcast because more people would see the commercials.


The OTA station owns all rights to its programming (aside from network programming of course) and as such has the right to give it away if it wants, prevent others from giving it away, charge for it through other outlets, etc.

Your argument also has just as much validity if you added that Time Warner, for example, gains more customers for its service by having the locals. Similarly, Dish and DirecTV can point to customers they have gained simply because of having LiL in those markets. So why should they get to not only charge for the locals but also profit from gaining the customer when the local gets no piece of that pie?

I'd be on a different pedestal if Dish, DirecTV, etc. wanted to give away locals for free... but they don't. They want to charge for them, and in the "olden days" companies were charging for rebroadcasting OTA locals without gaining permission to do so and without paying for them. When the OTA stations banded together to essentially protect their product, many of them were willing to allow free retransmission IF those companies would not charge customers for them... but cable companies in particular (I suspect satellite as well, but I was a cable customer at the time) balked and forced the hand of the local channels... and ultimately more customers would have dropped cable over lack of locals, so they agreed to paying for retransmission rights... which really is as it should be if they are retransmitting and reselling.

As an example... if company A is giving away samples at the grocery store, I cannot go into that store and take a tray of free samples and give them away myself without permission and I most certainly can't sell the free samples I obtained without similar permission and payment for what I sell. Even "free" things have a value and companies have to defend that value in order to maintain it.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I completely agree. And in this case, if a rebroadcaster does not want to pay for and carry that channel, they should not be forced to do so. In this case E* would actually be making less money on the locals because the price would be the same but they would have the added expense of uplinking and using a transponder that could be used for another income producing programming.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The original 'cable' system, CATV or often called community antenna TV systems, were simply a system where signals were received, amplified and delivered to viewers instead of viewers needing to install their own towers and antennas. They, like the free stations they carried, were there as a community service. In many ways local broadcasters should have been paying CATV to help distribute their signals and reach customers they normally would not have had. CATV not only helped the viewer get TV (any TV in many areas) but helped stretch the coverage of the stations.

Unfortunately equipment costs money ... someone had to pay for the tower, antennas, amplifiers and distribution system. That someone was normally the user ... subscribers who wanted to use the community antenna instead of installing their own.

Other than local broadcast channels CATV systems had no content. Some set up basic weather channels ... in the pre-computer days of the 70's that could be as simple as pointing a camera at a weather dial. (The town I lived in at the end of the 70's had a camera that would pan back and forth across many weather dials ... they had business cards and other advertisements between the dials to help support the station.)

Then someone got the bright idea to use satellite to bring other content into the system. "CATV" turned into cable ... with a few national satellite channels and some out of market "superstations" (by definition, a local station carried out of market via satellite). Payment for the service became more than just renting a common antenna ... cable providers were charging for that extra content they were delivering.

Then local broadcasters got a brilliant idea ... charge for their free TV signals. And the rest is pretty sad. It usually is when greed kicks in.

Now we have situations where stations can absolutely refuse to allow their signals to be carried via satellite or cable without a ransom being paid. To hell with the viewers ... the almighty dollar rules the day. It apparently doesn't matter that their OTA signals don't reach their entire market and they NEED cable and satellite to effectively cover the area ... they would rather have the cash (or other consideration).

Thanks to poorly written laws, we also have two separate and unequal set of rules for cable and satellite - favoring cable systems and forbidding satellite from carrying some channels that are required to be carried to the same household via cable (space permitting). Make sense?

The system is broken ... and other than going back 25-30 years and slapping some sense into the pioneers to make sure this would never happen I don't expect a change. "Ownership" of signals is too firmly built into the system.

But I'd still like it changed ... go back to the way it was where for a minimal 'cost' price of dropping a line to a house and maintaining it anyone could get local broadcast channels - with no local station extortion. The equivalent on satellite would be free carriage ... DISH would build locals into the price of their packages like DirecTV does (with a discount in uncarried markets) and offer a simple "no package" price that would cover the 'cost' involved in delivering those channels to non-package subscribers.

It won't happen ... but thanks for reading (if you did).

Back to PBS.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Your argument also has just as much validity if you added that Time Warner, for example, gains more customers for its service by having the locals. Similarly, Dish and DirecTV can point to customers they have gained simply because of having LiL in those markets. So why should they get to not only charge for the locals but also profit from gaining the customer when the local gets no piece of that pie?


wha....wha....what?  How in the world can you say the local is not getting a piece of that pie?! They get more potential eyeballs on their station through satellite because satellite delivers their signal to areas where the OTA signal might not reach well or at all. Since a tv station's whole business model depends on the number of eyeballs they can get watching them it seems to me that satellite is doing the tv stations a favor here. On top of that the tv station didn't have to pay for any of the infrastructure necessary to gain those extra eyeballs, what a deal! Sounds like to me satellite wins by gaining subscribers and the local station wins by getting more potential eyeballs giving the opportunity for higher ratings. Sounds like a win/win to me.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

tsmacro said:


> Since a tv station's whole business model depends on the number of eyeballs they can get watching them it seems to me that satellite is doing the tv stations a favor here.


That's what the business model used to be. Now the corporate business model increasingly includes target figures for retransmission fee income. Considering that OTA viewers are in the minority, that's not so surprising.

I share James Long's perspective that those who hold valuable, scarce OTA licenses should be more limited in what they can charge companies which merely retransmit those signals to local viewers. But that's not the way the game is played right now.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> While I watch some things on PBS, with 4 Bay Area PBS stations carried in SD I rather they dump all but KQED 9 to make room for it in HD.


Same here. All 4 stations basically carry the same content. Dish can't drop stations because of HD.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

FTA Michael said:


> That's what the business model used to be. Now the corporate business model increasingly includes target figures for retransmission fee income. Considering that OTA viewers are in the minority, that's not so surprising.
> 
> I share James Long's perspective that those who hold valuable, scarce OTA licenses should be more limited in what they can charge companies which merely retransmit those signals to local viewers. But that's not the way the game is played right now.


The tide may be turning, though. More and more carriage disputes are cropping up. And here in Austin, one of the smaller cable operators put their foot down and said "No" to NBC affiliate KXAN. They're a small operator in a market dominated by Time Warner. I wonder how they've done since they switched to the Killeen/Temple NBC affiliate.

And, of course, I lost track of my point... which is as long as the cable/satellite operators are willing to pony-up the $$$, then why should the OTA broadcasters stop holding their hands out.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

bartendress said:


> If DISH is paying for CBS, NBC, ABC, & Fox... they should pay PBS, too. Just because PBS is a public, not-for-profit, broadcaster does not exclude them from asking to be reimbursed by DISH to rebroadcast their OTA content.
> 
> Granted, that payment should be commensurate with their ratings, but they deserve to be paid for the rights to their signal just the same.


Please reread the whole thread. You ignored a very basic point...
PBS wants Dish to be *required *to carry them. And yet you suggest they should be able to extort also?

Or, put slowly and in tiny little bullet points...

PBS wants Dish forced to carry their station
PBS also presumably is insisting on being paid.
(Otherwise Dish probably simply would carry it, to up their HD "count")
So using your bizarre logic, PBS could chose a carriage fee out of line with the actual value to paying customers of the PBS station!
Or, just in case that set didn't work for you, let's try this...

Many Dish customers, me included, clamored for local networks in HD and happily pay a fee for them.
We aren't clamoring for PBS, at least to any significant degree
So why should our carrier (Dish) have to pay for something the vast majority of us aren't willing to pay for?
Make sense? Dish is not a public service nor are they your personal cash cow. They aren't using "public" airwaves like PBS is. Personally, I think PBS should be weaned of the public teat and allowed to sink, swim or adapt.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

With Cable TV and Satellite TV I see no need for PBS.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

If PBS wants DISH to be forced to carry their programming, then for free it should be.

Several of us clearly thought it was a carriage dispute, not a call for a mandate. Nothing in the article indicates PBS wants to be paid and, in this scenario, they should not be.

Oh... and thanks for not being snarky about setting the record straight.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

With analog stations _by definition_ PBS is a must carry and cannot claim consent to carry. Stations that choose must carry cannot demand payment.

I hope that carries over to digital. "Carry our signal _and_ pay" is not a good plan.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

James Long said:


> With analog stations _by definition_ PBS is a must carry and cannot claim consent to carry. Stations that choose must carry cannot demand payment.
> 
> I hope that carries over to digital. "Carry our signal _and_ pay" is not a good plan.


IAWTC

Shame on me for jumping in w/o going over the entire article... especially since I was rewarded with the visual of PBS 'suckling' on 'teat'.


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

Am I in the minority here because I enjoy PBS-HD programming and would love to have it on my Dish system?

History Detectives, Frontline, Nova all in HD are wonderful programs. Every kid growing up should watch Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and Sesame Street. Maybe then we could all get along a little better in this world!

PS> If PBS wants Must Carry, I don't think they should be paid.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It's even better OTA.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

The PBS stations in Denver tend to have ":beg a thons" at least a week out of every eight months of the year. They also have auctions at least one a year. National PBS has "beg a thons" threes weeks of two months of the year, which end up on the local stations. Based upon this, just over 16 weeks out of the year PBS or the local station is asking for contributions. In addition to their so call corporate sponsors.

What is ironic, during the "beg a thons" the stations mention that the programs you watch on PBS con only be provided by their viewer contributions. Yet, for nearly half the year the programs you are paying for are not even shown. In addition, PBS shows specials during their "beg a thons", which are interrupted for 15 minutes at a time to ask for pledges. The specials are never shown uninterrupted during their normal programming schedule.

As for programming, like the TV networks, PBS shows do not fill the hour or half-hour as they used to. Shows like "This Old House" run for 22 minutes, the same running time for a network or cable show. In the eight minute fill time, the stations spend at least a minute asking for contributions and advertising their programming. They also put in a corporate sponsor or two.

I abandoned PBS for the world of Discovery Networks, History, History International a National Geographic and Ovation. So, who needs PBS? The idea of paying extra for a service which spends nearly 50% of the time asking for money is not what I consider prudent. 

PBS has outlived its usefulness for what it was originally intended. Its mission was to provide educational and cultural programming; an American version of BBC1 & BBC2. It has morphed into a shadow of its original self and its quality has been surpassed by the cable networks. So, to be arrogant enough to ask consumers to pay for their digital signal (on cable or satellite) will only cause PBS to decline further and eventually put themselves out of business.


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

Well our Kansas City PBS station only broadcasts at 55,000 watts on RF 18, while every other UHF station in the market is nearly 1,000,000 watts so my reception is not that great. 

PBS 'begs' for more money because the government has cut nearly %50 of its funding. Should NPR be cut too as they beg for money as well? I'm all for a publicly funded American Network. I enjoy the BBC and I wish we had more access to CBC here in the states as well. I don't think we should all sell ourselves out to commercial broadcasters.

I do support our local PBS station... while it might not be Kansas City's KCPT (Personal Preference), I support Topeka's KTWU which serves the Kansas City market on cable.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

homeskillet said:


> Am I in the minority here because I enjoy PBS-HD programming and would love to have it on my Dish system?
> 
> History Detectives, Frontline, Nova all in HD are wonderful programs. Every kid growing up should watch Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and Sesame Street. Maybe then we could all get along a little better in this world!
> 
> PS> If PBS wants Must Carry, I don't think they should be paid.


You are not alone. PBS has great programming.

* Some oppose the fact that some of their funding is from our tax dollars,
* Some oppose the fact that they have to interrupt programming once in a while to solicit donations,
* Some just want someone else to pick up the tab and not be bothered,
* Some oppose their 'must carry' assertion with the cable/satellite providers.

While I see a public interest in PBS 'Must Carry', my conservative nature believes they should truly be made to negotiate carriage terms market-by-market.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

bartendress said:


> You are not alone. PBS has great programming.
> 
> * Some oppose the fact that some of their funding is from our tax dollars,
> * Some oppose the fact that they have to interrupt programming once in a while to solicit donations,
> ...


I have to agree w/ above statements. If it is with national then the locals will get screwed and not get a thing out of it.


----------



## kbuente (Mar 25, 2007)

I'm not interested in a national PBS feed in HD (or in SD) but I would love watching our local PBS, WTTW Ch 11, in HD on E*.

Comcast has it and it is of superb quality compared to the HD local channels that E* does carry.

What is wrong with asking for financial support from viewers? They are NOT allowed to sell air time and receive money for commercials....so while ABC, for example, doesn't ask viewers for financial support, they do make you watch ads that generate millions of dollars.

I have noticed, however, that WTTW in HD carries somewhat different shows than it's SD counterpart? Am I accurate in that?


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

I've always had PBS in HD. Is this something different?


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Our local PBS station shows different programing on HD then their analog broadcast.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

homeskillet said:


> Am I in the minority here because I enjoy PBS-HD programming and would love to have it on my Dish system?


It sounds like it. With so many good alternatives, such as the History and Discovery channels for educational fun stuff, such as less biased news and commentary from other channels, and such as a wider variety of performance art on the premium channels, I don't think I've tuned into PBS once in the last five years.

And yet I was a regular subscriber (meaning "donor") in the 80s. When they were the unique source for Monty Python, Hitchhiker's Guide, Rough Guide (a travel show nobody remembers), early presentations of things like the first televised Cats! (ALW) and so on. But they aren't doing that kind of stuff now, and they certainly aren't competitive against the other capitalistic sources.

I don't mind if PBS is carried, but I wouldn't pay a buck a year for it.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> Our local PBS station shows different programing on HD then their analog broadcast.


PBS HD and PBS SD are seperate feeds with different programming, some is shared content, but not all.


----------



## ernste40 (Nov 10, 2005)

nmetro said:


> The PBS stations in Denver tend to have ":beg a thons" at least a week out of every eight months of the year. They also have auctions at least one a year. National PBS has "beg a thons" threes weeks of two months of the year, which end up on the local stations. Based upon this, just over 16 weeks out of the year PBS or the local station is asking for contributions. In addition to their so call corporate sponsors.
> 
> What is ironic, during the "beg a thons" the stations mention that the programs you watch on PBS con only be provided by their viewer contributions. Yet, for nearly half the year the programs you are paying for are not even shown. In addition, PBS shows specials during their "beg a thons", which are interrupted for 15 minutes at a time to ask for pledges. The specials are never shown uninterrupted during their normal programming schedule.
> 
> ...


PBS would be able to run like BBC if the government fully-funded it like the UK funds BBC. Of course, that hasn't happened and public broadcasters have been forced to rely on its viewers for funds and to this point the best way to still do that is fund drives. As for your assertation that 50% of the time is used for asking for money, that is blatantly false. PBS has three large fund drives per year. Two are one week and one is two weeks. Add that to one week of auction at some stations and maybe two extra weekends of pledge per year and you get the equivalent of 5 weeks of fundraising -- less than 10% of the year.

As to your Discovery and History assertation, if you are a fan of watching those services, great. But don't mistake them as a substitute for PBS. Take a look at their primetime listings tonight...

History -- 7 p.m. Modern Marvels : "The M-16"

A look at the M-16 assault rifle, including design stages and its use in the Vietnam War.

8 p.m. Modern Marvels : "Engineering Disasters 20"

Engineering disasters are recalled. Included: a 2005 explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas; the American Airlines flight 587 crash in 2001; &#8230;

9 p.m. Shockwave

Included: a helicopter crash; a flood rescue; a race-car crash; and the aftermath of Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii.

* TVPG (CC)

Discovery

7 p.m. How It's Made : "Steel, Apple Juice, Aircraft Landing Gear, Cosmetics"

Included: steel; apple juice; aircraft landing gear; cosmetics.

8 p.m. Quest for the Giant Squid

Chronicling a 1999 expedition in New Zealand waters in search of the giant squid, a predator that can grow to 60 feet and has never been seen alive. A&#8230;

9 p.m. 
Giant Squid: Caught on Camera

Chronicling the work of Japanese researchers who succeeded in taking the first photographs of a living giant squid as it struggled to free itself from&#8230;

PBS

7 p.m.

Local news and public affairs programing

7:30 p.m.

Washington Week With Gwen Ifill and National Journal

8 p.m.

Now on PBS

A news magazine series that offers diverse perspectives on the events, issues and ideas that shape the world and change lives.

8:30 p.m.

Bill Moyers' Journal

A look at why some farm subsidies go to people who don't farm. Also: food-bank shortages; Bread for the World president David Beckmann.

9:30 p.m.

Independent Lens : "Water Flowing Together"

"Water Flowing Together" profiles New York City ballet dancer Jock Soto as he prepares to retire from performing. The film includes footage of Soto ge&#8230;

These cable channels are definitely not a trade-off for PBS quality...


----------

