# DirecTV and Dish Network may be forced to carry local channels in smallest markets



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

From bloomberg.com:
In an article dated 2/23/09,Bloomberg News reports that DirecTV and Dish Network may eventually be forced to carry the signals of local TV stations in even the smallest markets in the U.S.
The House Energy and Commerce Commission will be the first of three panels to hold hearings on terms for reauthorizing the legal structure for DBS companies.
These hearings were scheduled to begin today.
More info,including a brief response from DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer,can be viewed at the following link.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=ayQ_vo3nJImo


----------



## bluegras (Jan 31, 2008)

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179799-Retrans_Fights_Get_Hill_Airing.php

check this also out


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Somebody already posted this one... 
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=153192

If I were DirecTV or Dish... and Congress is dumb enough to do this... I would immediatly request a "bailout" to pay for all the new satelites this would require.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

bluegras said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179799-Retrans_Fights_Get_Hill_Airing.php
> 
> check this also out


Thanks for the link.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

It sure would be nice if congress required carriage and because of that the local channels would be required to provide the feeds for free. "Must carry" for all, we can only dream.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jclewter79 said:


> It sure would be nice if congress required carriage and because of that the local channels would be required to provide the feeds for free. "Must carry" for all, we can only dream.


That is the problem ... the current "carry one, carry all" law (within each market) is "offer carriage to all". If a station chooses "must carry" DISH/DirecTV has to find a slot for it. If a station chooses "consent to carry" DISH/DirecTV has to come to contract terms.

If "must carry" meant "must allow to be carry" I would favor a 100% carry by 2012 law. Give DISH/DirecTV time to get equipment in place without losing any of the current markets. I believe it COULD be done - but there needs to be a carrot (the ability to carry all locals) as well as the stick (the requirement to carry all locals).


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Another article:

http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2038621620090224

One thing that has ALWAYS confused me, why must DIRECTV/Dish *PAY* the local providers in order to be able to re-broadcast local stations? They are available free using a OTA, so why would the local stations be demanding money so they can be re-broadcast to customers in their own local market that they may not be able to reach with a OTA?

Oh well, lets see where this goes.


----------



## Eric5676 (Feb 21, 2009)

Good.

I'm in one of those small markets that can't get any locals or get the networks at all. I finally got waivers passed for Fox and ABC out of NY but because of some kind of red tape and legalism I can't get NBC or CBS in my area at all on DirecTV. Some of that has to do with this unfair monopoly my cable company has in the area.

It's dumb that I'm paying extra on my DirecTV bill for Fox and ABS out of NY simply because of the above stupidity. There's nothing fair about that. There's also no good reason for it IMO.

I live in Ohio. What good does a station out of NY do me and I have to pay extra for it after holding my breath for some damned waiver to go through? The whole thing doesn't make sense.

To show you how dumb it is: I know a friend of mine who basically owns an RV and lives about 10 minutes from me and he gets all the locals and everything just fine because there's some kind of RV exemption or something like that and it's all 100 percent legit.

So there's really no difficult undertaking here. It's all about red tape, legalism, and rubbish for the most part.

I should be able to watch whatever I want on any provider if I'm willing to pay for it.

I'm probably one of the last people on the planet that has DirecTV that hasn't upgraded to MPEG4 and the new dish and all that because I've been waiting and waiting and waiting and it just isn't going to happen.

Maybe now it will. It's way overdue.

The whole situation is mired down in unecessary red tape, legalism, and stupidity. It's a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

If the FCC really wants to make waves, they should finally make it where people can opt to pay for ONLY the channels they want and actually watch. That would be an incredibly pro consumer move for all people that use cable and satellite.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/02/10/directv-records-a-monster-q4-adds-461-000-new-net-subscribers/

http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=364395

^^ I'm not worried about these companies not making their profits or having any revenue problems, either. Dish has been in trouble for several years. Every few months or so we hear the rumblings about "Dish and DirecTV merging" and such. It's probably going to happen some day but in any event: I'm not shedding tears for DirecTV in any event especially since they just raised their prices again, cable company style.

Look at the bills you all pay to DirecTV and really think about it. They'll be just fine.

I may really be showing my ignorance here but I have a hard time believing, especially with the shift to digital that's happening even in my podunk market, that it's really going to be this colossal undertaking for DirecTV and Dish to be able to finally just take care of everybody in their respective markets.



Draconis said:


> Another article:
> 
> http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2038621620090224
> 
> ...


This is an example of some of that needless red tape, legalism, and stupidity that I'm referring to that's long overdue to be plowed through and cleaned up.



James Long said:


> That is the problem ... the current "carry one, carry all" law (within each market) is "offer carriage to all". If a station chooses "must carry" DISH/DirecTV has to find a slot for it. If a station chooses "consent to carry" DISH/DirecTV has to come to contract terms.
> 
> If "must carry" meant "must allow to be carry" I would favor a 100% carry by 2012 law. Give DISH/DirecTV time to get equipment in place without losing any of the current markets. I believe it COULD be done - but there needs to be a carrot (the ability to carry all locals) as well as the stick (the requirement to carry all locals).


I don't think it's this difficult. Now when a guy in an RV 10 minutes from me can get a simple exemption for his RV and be able to watch anything he wants over DirecTV.

I think this talk from Dish and DirecTV about so called technological hurdles is stalling tactics and smokescreen for the most part. I just don't buy it given the kind of hardware and satellites they already use and with the overal move to digital even in my podunk market despite the delay by Congress.

I'm all for "must carry." I just don't think it's going to be that difficult, in the end. I also don't think it should be dragged out over several years to 2012 either. I really think it can happen fairly quickly and it should.

If you go by DirecTV's own numbers, they cover up to what? 88 percent of their user base now in terms of locals and such? Did I read that right off their site? I know it's a pretty high percentage. I think Dish is roughly at about the same level more or less.

I have a hard time believing the last 12 percent or whatever that small remainder is in the country is suddenly going to break everyones' backs.


----------



## Steve615 (Feb 5, 2006)

From pcmag.com & Reuters:
DirecTV,Dish want money to serve rural areas.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2341659,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121

Senior execs from both companies told lawmakers yesterday that they would be willing to extend local service to underserved and rural areas with the right incentives.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Draconis said:


> Another article:
> 
> http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2038621620090224
> 
> ...


There are two reasons, 1)the law opened the door for locals to charge for their signals. 2) the locals believe since Dish and Directv charge extra for providing these channels, they feel they should be getting part of that pie.

Even if the charge does not show on your bill, their is still a considerable cost of providing the local stations. It is unclear if Dish or Directv make any profit carrying the locals, but if there is any profit, requiring locals in the smallest markets will eat up those profits real fast.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Eric5676 said:


> I may really be showing my ignorance here but I have a hard time believing, especially with the shift to digital that's happening even in my podunk market, that it's really going to be this colossal undertaking for DirecTV and Dish to be able to finally just take care of everybody in their respective markets.


I think you must not understand satellite bandwidth and the current DBS frequency allocations very well. Do a search - there's lots of info on DBSTalk that explains the technological problems very well.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

This is stupid. What they SHOULD allow is for everyone to subscribe to the National Feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX if the subscriber wishes to. It's crazy that we all cannot subscribe to one Non Local Market if us Satellite Subcribers wanted to.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Msguy said:


> This is stupid. What they SHOULD allow is for everyone to subscribe to the National Feeds of ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX if the subscriber wishes to. It's crazy that we all cannot subscribe to one Non Local Market if us Satellite Subcribers wanted to.


You have to remember that it is the way it is because it is in your best interest to get your local news and weather.  It also protects the local stations territory.


----------



## Charise (Jan 25, 2004)

lwilli201 said:


> It also protects the local stations territory.


Of course, that's the main reason--because the cable companies cannot broadcast stations from farther away, and because the NAB is so strong through lobbying.


----------



## Eric5676 (Feb 21, 2009)

LameLefty said:


> I think you must not understand satellite bandwidth and the current DBS frequency allocations very well. Do a search - there's lots of info on DBSTalk that explains the technological problems very well.


I still think they can finish off the last 12 percent off of us in the country without it being the figurative end of the world for them.



Steve615 said:


> From pcmag.com & Reuters:
> DirecTV,Dish want money to serve rural areas.
> 
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...069TX1K0001121
> ...


They've already raised prices on everyone. DirecTV was one of the few so called "recession proof" companies that had a banner 4th quarter. Look at the links in my previous posts.

Again, it's not like any of this stuff is cheap to begin with.

There's only 12 percent or so of the country left that they need to take care of. I can't believe that last 12 percent is really that monumentally difficult and frankly I don't. I see a lot of excuses and feet dragging.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Ergen: SHVERA Reforms Could Lead To Universal Local-Into-Local By 2010

~Alan


----------



## Eric5676 (Feb 21, 2009)

Alan Gordon said:


> Ergen: SHVERA Reforms Could Lead To Universal Local-Into-Local By 2010
> 
> ~Alan


Excellent.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Eric5676 said:


> I still think they can finish off the last 12 percent off of us in the country without it being the figurative end of the world for them.
> 
> There's only 12 percent or so of the country left that they need to take care of. I can't believe that last 12 percent is really that monumentally difficult and frankly I don't. I see a lot of excuses and feet dragging.


Companies that pour money into low return ventures usually fail. If it was very lucrative to service the last 12 percent the cable companies would have been there a long time ago. It is not cost effective for sat or cable companies. No matter what happens, the requirements have to be equal between cable and satellite companies. They could also require OTA repeaters to service unserved areas. The NAB would really screem if they also had to adhear to a requirement that eveyone has OTA service.

ADD: How many that want sat service actually have good LOS. There is no LOS issues with cable, so to be fully serviced an area will still need cable.


----------



## Eric5676 (Feb 21, 2009)

lwilli201 said:


> Companies that pour money into low return ventures usually fail. If it was very lucrative to service the last 12 percent the cable companies would have been there a long time ago. It is not cost effective for sat or cable companies. No matter what happens, the requirements have to be equal between cable and satellite companies. They could also require OTA repeaters to service unserved areas. The NAB would really screem if they also had to adhear to a requirement that eveyone has OTA service.
> 
> ADD: How many that want sat service actually have good LOS. There is no LOS issues with cable, so to be fully serviced an area will still need cable.


These are all fair points. I just think that overall, the situation could be made better than it is now.


----------



## Nick79 (Sep 5, 2006)

If they want to put that into the law, should they at least find a way to pay the necessary increase in bandwidth in order to get all those channels in? If not, they should hold off on that part until they can get the financing needed to increase their bandwidth. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

Draconis said:


> One thing that has ALWAYS confused me, why must DIRECTV/Dish *PAY* the local providers in order to be able to re-broadcast local stations? They are available free using a OTA


If they're available free OTA, then it doesn't matter whether they're carried on satellite, does it? Everyone can already receive them.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Satellite and cable offer a useful service to customers by providing improved, simplified reception of broadcast stations...and charge you a fee. Local network affiliates are the most-watched stations on cable and satellite. Does it make sense that they would pay to carry little-watched specialty channels but get to carry the most-watched channels for free?

Running a TV station is not free. Stations must pay for network and syndicated programming, not to mention salaries and overhead. Why should someone be able to take that product for free and sell it to someone else?

If you don't want to pay for it, then you can always watch with your antenna.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve615 said:


> Senior execs from both companies told lawmakers yesterday that they would be willing to extend local service to underserved and rural areas with the right incentives.


Use your favorite Internet search engine and look up the Rural Electrification Administration.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jon Ellis said:


> Does it make sense that they would pay to carry little-watched specialty channels but get to carry the most-watched channels for free?


How many of those "little-watched specialty channels" are available free via OTA antenna?



Jon Ellis said:


> Running a TV station is not free. Stations must pay for network and syndicated programming, not to mention salaries and overhead.


Isn't that what advertising is for?



Jon Ellis said:


> Why should someone be able to take that product for free and sell it to someone else?


DirecTV charges what? $3.00 for LIL? HD-LIL is free?
Dish Network charges what? $5.99 for LIL? HD-LIL is free?

Tom Robertson recently brought up the excellent point about the costs associated with bringing a DMA's LIL and HD-LIL to their customers. The satcos may make money from the LIL by being competitive with the cablecos, but they're hardly making money from the prices they charge (particularly DirecTV), and the HD-LIL is provided free?!

Personally, I view the LIL fee the satcos charge to be more for the convience and reliability of signal, and not for the programming. If it was the programming, well I could get that for free with an antenna, now couldn't I?



Jon Ellis said:


> If you don't want to pay for it, then you can always watch with your antenna.


The problem with that though, is that if you don't have an antenna, you have to go to the store to BUY an antenna, and if you're like me, in my area, you REALLY need an outdoor antenna... which requires a pole and all the fees associated with it (guy wire, concrete, screws, etc). Where I live, you REALLY need a pre-amp as well. Of course, you need to go out and buy coax cable and run it (sometimes with other associated fees). Of course, if you have an OLDER TV without an analog tuner, you might ALREADY need a new digital tuner, and if not, you will soon. Sure, you might get a converter coupon to help pay for the converter, but you still need to pay part of the cost. Not to mention the power bill for the pre-amp and the possible DTV converter(s). Oh yeah, some people aren't very handy, so they pay someone to install their outdoor antenna.

I just made you a list of costs and fees associated with getting a FREE OTA signal, and you can go through it and see what companies/individuals are making money off of FREE OTA. Are broadcasters going to start asking for a cut there as well?

~Alan


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Jon Ellis said:


> If they're available free OTA, then it doesn't matter whether they're carried on satellite, does it? Everyone can already receive them.


Just because there is OTA and its free does not mean that everyone can get it. Some people dont seem to understand that there are people that even OTA wont work for. Its just a fact. There was a guy on here a few days ago trying to pull a stations through OTA from over 100 miles away. Thats not really very easy to do nor cost effective for one station. OTA is a good solution for alot of people but just like not all DMA's being available to satellite customers OTA is not available to everyone either depending on how far awy, fringe, airports, mountains, and many other factors so before you say everyone can recieve them let me stop you right there.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Jon Ellis said:


> If they're available free OTA, then it doesn't matter whether they're carried on satellite, does it? Everyone can already receive them.
> 
> Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Satellite and cable offer a useful service to customers by providing improved, simplified reception of broadcast stations...and charge you a fee. Local network affiliates are the most-watched stations on cable and satellite. Does it make sense that they would pay to carry little-watched specialty channels but get to carry the most-watched channels for free?
> 
> ...


I will tell you why. Because the airwaves that the locals use were GIVEN TO THEM FOR FREE. The US citizen owns the airwaves in my opinion. Running a TV station is not at all free but, we give them free airwaves to sell advertizements on. They need to figure on the ads for paying the bills not retrans payments.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

jclewter79 said:


> I will tell you why. Because the airwaves that the locals use were GIVEN TO THEM FOR FREE. The US citizen owns the airwaves in my opinion. Running a TV station is not at all free but, we give them free airwaves to sell advertizements on. They need to figure on the ads for paying the bills not retrans payments.


The "Given them for free" part is debatable because broadcast stations pay substantial amounts to the government in licensing fees each year.

But, you are 100% correct in that local stations should be able to thrive on advertising dollars alone--that is the basis for their existance as far as making money is concerned.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

In case you hadn't noticed, satellite/cable channels run plenty of advertising, too, AND charge higher per-subscriber fees than local broadcast stations. They also use the public airwaves to uplink and downlink their signal using FCC-regulated satellite facilities. And they do not make their programming available for free to people who don't want to pay.



Alan Gordon said:


> Personally, I view the LIL fee the satcos charge to be more for the convience and reliability of signal, and not for the programming. If it was the programming, well I could get that for free with an antenna, now couldn't I?


Well, if you truly had no desire to watch the programming, then it wouldn't matter whether it was convenient to receive it, would it?

And Joshjr, if you had read the second paragraph of my post before replying you would see that I was being sarcastic. I know very well that there are many people who can't get one or more major networks OTA. It's been that way since the beginning of TV, which is why cable was invented in the first place! The entire industry was built on the idea of taking someone's free product and charging someone else for it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jon Ellis said:


> In case you hadn't noticed, satellite/cable channels run plenty of advertising, too, AND charge higher per-subscriber fees than local broadcast stations. They also use the public airwaves to uplink and downlink their signal using FCC-regulated satellite facilities. *And they do not make their programming available for free to people who don't want to pay.*


*And apparently, the stations are quite jealous of that fact?*



Jon Ellis said:


> Well, if you truly had no desire to watch the programming, then it wouldn't matter whether it was convenient to receive it, would it?


Actually, yeah, somewhat, it would!

Back when I first started with DirecTV, I had DNS for all four networks... later five. When I lost two of the networks later because of local affiliates, I simply stopped watching NBC and FOX programming. We had a decent large-sized antenna on the house (until it got struck by lightning), but the PQ was pitiful compared to the PQ on DirecTV, so I didn't see NBC or FOX programming for SEVERAL YEARS! It wasn't until I got involved with HDTV that I put up another antenna, and I'm lucky enough that I receive strong OTA signals (unlike my years in dealing with analog reception).

Where I live, a good majority of the people I know have satellite, and prior to Dish Network providing LIL here, they simply did not watch network programming. Since Dish Network cannot provided ABC here, many still do not watch ABC programming.

I know someone who cannot receive our local FOX affiliate. I've told them they probably could if they got a decent sized antenna... but they don't want to have to put a bigger one on their house.

I know none of this matters to affiliates, since they get to count everyone in a DMA regardless of whether or not they actually VIEW the stations... but not everyone is going to go to a lot of trouble to view some channels.

~Alan


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Jon Ellis said:


> The entire industry was built on the idea of taking someone's free product and charging someone else for it.


Just as the broadcast TV industry was built on the idea of selling advertising and providing the programming free to viewers.


----------



## rtd2 (Oct 2, 2006)

I would benefit from this BUT if they are forced to carry these small locals (mine included (GPT/Biloxi) there needs to be some regulation in regards to the transmission fees these local staions are asking.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

The one way to solve this without huge expense to Dish or Directv is to allocate the existing HD spot beams to SD local transmissions for the smaller markets. 

Then explain to those markets why they lost their HD locals.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Put the 31 markets up in MPEG4 SD. And then explain to customers why they can't get out of market locals via satellite that they get via cable.

If Congress forces carriage of all markets they need to level the playing field between satellite and cable.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

James Long said:


> Put the 31 markets up in MPEG4 SD.


I can't comment on Dish Network too much, since I don't follow them QUITE as much as I used to... but DirecTV has the R22. I think DirecTV could get by with HD in most markets, and let the receiver downconvert the signals.



James Long said:


> If Congress forces carriage of all markets they need to level the playing field between satellite and cable.


Agreed!

~Alan


----------



## rnbmusicfan (Jul 19, 2005)

Nick79 said:


> If they want to put that into the law, should they at least find a way to pay the necessary increase in bandwidth in order to get all those channels in? If not, they should hold off on that part until they can get the financing needed to increase their bandwidth. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I would think setting and maintaining the uplink point of presences in each of these small markets would be the bigger (recurring) expense than the opportunity cost that the bandwidth these stations occupy.

For example, Salisbury MD DMA is 2 stations (or 3 if you count the digital subchannel FOX). DirecTV can probably squeeze these channels on a spotbeam where DC or Baltimore stations. But the expense is DirecTV or Dish setting up a POP there. It would be more economical if those three stations ran a fiber to the nearest major market already carried, Baltimore or DC, just like how many must-carry stations do. WSAH 43 (broadcasts in Bridgeport CT) does for DirecTV's (fibers into the major city uplink--for NYC locals)

Also I know that Fios already services a great part of the Salisbury market area, along with Comcast. So, how many subs can DirecTV and Dish really gain by servicing this market? Those customers with sat can already easily get an OTA capable HD receiver. And given that its a 2 network market, the broadcast owners can ask for unreasonable retrans compensation as well. The expense exceeds the gain of uplinking and selling these channels.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

A few related stories:

NCTA, NAB: Change Not 'Compulsory'

APTS Extols Eshoo Bill

Ergen: Must-Carry Is Due for a 'Tweak'

New Version Of SHVERA Is Must-Pass Legislation: Boucher

SHVERA Reforms Could Lead To Universal Local-Into-Local Next Year: Ergen - I already posted something similar to this one.


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

I wish Direct and Dish would carry digital subchannels. Not having them could be a disadvantage vs. cable. Seriously.

In New York and Tampa, satellite does not carry any subchannels. 

Do you guys see satellite eventually offering digital subchannels?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

goldstar_media said:


> Do you guys see satellite eventually offering digital subchannels?


They already do ... and I expect the practice to grow as contracts are renegotiated with stations. ALL digital subchannels in a market isn't something I would expect, but there are a few carried and there will be more.

(FYI: I've had a digital subcarrier on my DISH subscription since my area's locals were added a few years ago - at the time it was a UPN station. DirecTV does not carry it.)


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Okay... I have to ask. They want to force satellite companys to carry all local channels, but what about the rural areas that the cable company won't run cable to because the population density isn't large enough to spend the money? Shouldn't the cable companys also be forced to carry locals via cable to these locations? Kind of the same thing, isn't it?

Why should the government force a company to lose money by spending more than it can make in a low population area?


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

Thanks for the reply. 

I know that the cable industry is bragging that they have an advantage over satellite b/c they already carry many digital subchannels in top markets while satellite doesn't. They hit this topic hard at The Cable Show in April.

In NY, Time Warner carries WPIX 11 subchannel 11.2 which is Spanish language network LATV. Dish and Direct don't have it. I use this as an example.

What stations do you know of whose subchannels are on Dish or Direct locals? Can you name a market?


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

What I meant to ask was:

When will we see Ch 11.2 in NY and Ch 9.2 Chicago available on satellite locals? I guess as soon as the digital conversion happens in June?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

goldstar_media said:


> What I meant to ask was:
> 
> When will we see Ch 11.2 in NY and Ch 9.2 Chicago available on satellite locals? I guess as soon as the digital conversion happens in June?


Unfortunately not. The digital conversion does not affect satellite rebroadcast (other than satellite companies needing to receive the ATSC digital signal instead of the NTSC analog signal for rebroadcast). Because of the original February 17th deadline DISH and DirecTV have already converted their receive sites over to DTV.

Digital conversion does NOT require satellite carriers to carry channels in HD or to carry subchannels. There are separate rules that require a phased in carriage of HD but (and this is important) it only requires 100% HD carriage in markets where any HD is carried. If no stations in a market are carried in HD there is no requirement to upgrade.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

goldstar_media said:


> Not having them could be a disadvantage vs. cable.


My area Comcast carries only the NBC weather channel. I'd see it as a disadvantage versus OTA except that with my receiver I get OTA.


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

Gotcha. So the only way satellite might pick up LATV which is 11.2 in NY and 9.2 in Chicago, is if Tribune convinces satellite that it's a quality station worthy of carriage.

How come LATV is carried by Time Warner and Comcast in every major market(NY, Chicago, Miami, Houston, San Antonio) but not on Dish or Direct anywhere?


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> If I were DirecTV or Dish... and Congress is dumb enough to do this... I would immediatly request a "bailout" to pay for all the new satelites this would require.


D* would not need any new satellites to carry all the locals they have had the capacity to carry over 1500 new locals for over a year when the put up the first of three new satellites in 2007 and 2008 and I know they have another one slated to be launched soon. Now Dish is another question.

I came a crossed this article today
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE5196V720090210

My question is if satellite companies have to operate under a carry one carry all rule for local stations, how do they getaway with not carrying all of them in a market? I know many markets that only have a few of the stations broadcast. I personally have been a D* subscriber since 1995 and in that time I have been told every year that locals will be coming soon but they never have, it is about time that the government actually forced them to carry that which they have promised us for years.


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

It's possible that the locals are not carried b/c they asked for money and didn't get it. It's also possible that they have a weak signal, in which case, Dish and Direct can complain to the FCC and not have to carry the signal. Under "Must Carry" a broadcaster is still responsible for providing a broadcast quality signal.

I bet that we'll see digital subchannels on Dish and Direct locals by summer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mtnsackett said:


> D* would not need any new satellites to carry all the locals they have had the capacity to carry over 1500 new locals for over a year when the put up the first of three new satellites in 2007 and 2008 and I know they have another one slated to be launched soon.


The end of September is the current window for the DIRECTV 12 launch. How much CONUS and LIL capacity it will add is up in the air remembering that there is already two Ka satellites in the slot that it is headed for.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

goldstar_media said:


> I bet that we'll see digital subchannels on Dish and Direct locals by summer.


I bet we don't see any until the whole DTV transition is complete and all the stations have figured out what they are going to do. If I were a DBS provider, I wouldn't negotiate for carriage based on speculation where the government has stuck its nose in.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

If congress passes this sort of regulation and forces E*/D* to carry locals in all markets, wouldn't this only be true for local stations that agreed to the standard must-carry rules? Meaning, if a local demanded payment for their signal, E/D* could still refuse to carry them.


----------



## Jon Ellis (Dec 28, 2003)

Yes, you are correct.


----------



## GaryPotter (Apr 12, 2008)

goldstar_media said:


> Gotcha. So the only way satellite might pick up LATV which is 11.2 in NY and 9.2 in Chicago, is if Tribune convinces satellite that it's a quality station worthy of carriage.
> 
> How come LATV is carried by Time Warner and Comcast in every major market(NY, Chicago, Miami, Houston, San Antonio) but not on Dish or Direct anywhere?


With a few exceptions, most subchannels are garbage. I can't blame satellite for not wanting to waste their bandwith on them. It would be another matter if the networks were to make digital channels have real programming and not just some weather and music stuff.


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

LATV is not garbage, and I'm sure Dish and Direct would love to have their affiliates, without being forced to carry other digital subs too. LATV has the ratings to prove it in LA where they are OTA.

And those who knock the weather format on digital subs don't see the big picture. The weather format would benefit Dish and Direct since they don't currently have local weather. Sadly, the weather multicast channels in NYC are all gone. 

Dems will play the race card to get digital subs carried by satellite anyway.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

goldstar_media said:


> And those who knock the weather format on digital subs don't see the big picture. The weather format would benefit Dish and Direct since they don't currently have local weather. Sadly, the weather multicast channels in NYC are all gone.


I get local weather on my DVR every morning through my Channel 100 link. [DISH] (red-Dish logo)-2-1. Most Dish receivers have that option. So subchannels are not 100% required.


----------



## goldstar_media (May 9, 2008)

Weather Plus on NBC's multicast channels was awesome. I can't believe Dish's local whatever you have is better.


----------

